The US Congress passed an energy bill which set a 36 billion gallon goal for biofuels of which 22 billion gallons would come from non-food feedstocks, leaving a 3 billion gallon increase from the 'then' 8 billion gallon per year production. The 10 percent blend of alcohols with gasoline supplant the higher-cost octane-enhancing aromatics (toluene, zylene, benzene) which are carcinogenic. USDA and other technical organizations have stated there is a positive energy balance to corn-based ethanol. But more importantly the USA has a 2 trillion pound annual farm waste problem and human waste adds another 8 million tons of sewage waste per year. Manure from a dairy milking 200 cows produces as much nitrogen as is in the sewage from a community of 5,000-10,000 people, and annual litter from a typical broiler house of 22,000 birds contains as much phosphorus as is in the sewage from a community of 6,000 people. A 2008 report by scientists from the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University stated using vacant lands for energy crops, instead of converting existing croplands or clearing new land, avoids competition with food production and preserves carbon-storing forests needed to mitigate climate change where sustainable bioenergy is can satisfy 10% of the demand in the energy-intensive economies of North America, Europe and Asia. Intelligently using contaminated grains and forest wastes, which are the main cause of forest fires, manures and sewage, and energy crops on non-food producing lands in a sustainable and smart way to produce domestic fuels. Adding electric and higher-performing hybrid vehicles, mass transportation, bicycling and walkable communities along with sustainable biofuels could offset all US imports with increase in US oil production.

(These comments were submitted by Howard A. Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.)

The Senate Agriculture Committee wisely redirected funding to the Farm Bill’s Energy Title, which has strong bipartisan support. These clean energy programs provide a new source of income for farmers and rural small businesses, create rural jobs and enhance economic development, and produce environmental quality benefits for everyone.

The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), in particular, is a success story. It crosses agricultural sectors and provides value in every state. REAP's competitive cost-share grants have helped support a broad range of 8,000 wind, solar, biogas and energy efficiency projects in rural communities. Since the 2008 Farm Bill, REAP grants have leveraged more than $1 billion in private investments, creating jobs during a historic economic crisis.

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) spurs new opportunities for growing sustainable biomass crops. BCAP provides cost-sharing and risk-sharing for innovative farmers who plant sustainable “energy crops” such as perennial grasses. There’s a future for these energy crops that reduce erosion, improve water quality, promote conservation and expand agricultural opportunities.

Under the 2008 Farm Bill, REAP did not include corn ethanol. While USDA recently added ethanol blender pumps to REAP, only 8 percent of 2011 program funds were used for this purpose. By contrast, 38 percent of program funds were directed to energy efficiency programs and 25 percent for solar energy systems on farms and rural small businesses. These programs cut energy costs for farmers, create jobs, reduce pollution and help rural electric co-ops.

Since 2002, Farm Bill clean energy programs have enjoyed bipartisan support because they are achieving success in promoting homegrown, clean energy in rural America. Renewing core Energy Title programs with sufficient funding attracts private investment, creates jobs and increases clean energy production. This achieves the goals of agriculture, investors and environmentalists, and it enhances economic stability in rural communities.

If biofuels are to become an effective instrument for energy and environmental improvement, more effort should be focused on creating the scientific and technological breakthroughs necessary to allow advanced biofuels to compete.

Today policy to expand domestic liquid biofuels has three underlying goals:

1. Lessen dependence on foreign oil

2. Increase rural incomes

3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Current policy, dominated by the expanded production and use of corn-based ethanol, has a modest effect on the first goal, a substantive effect on the second, and virtually no effect on the third.

Biofuels do directly reduce imports of petroleum. For every gallon of ethanol produced, there is displacement of gasoline use—though less than 1:1, given different energy content per gallon. And some displacement does seem to be occurring. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports most recent growth in United States consumption of motor fuels was met by increased use of diesel and biofuels. There are mitigating factors, however.

Biofuel (ethanol) is but a small part of the domestic use fuel mix accounting for roughly 6 percent of overall use in 2011, and thus has limited leverage over imports. This leverage grows if biofuel’s share of the mix grwos, as is scheduled under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) leading up to 2022. Second, there are complex market feedback effects that can counter the direct effects of gasoline displacement. A recent study by economists at the University of Missouri published in the journal Energy Policy shows ethanol subsidies, such as the recently expired Volumteric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) tax credits, can actually reduce gas prices and cause an offsetting increase in consumption, much like the well-known rebound effect with fuel efficiency standards. This weakens the displacement of gasoline and oil imports.

To its credit, expanded use of corn-based ethanol has boosted the income of corn producers—approximately 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop is now used in ethanol production. Corn prices have roughly doubled since 2007, when the ethanol expansion took off. Other contributing factors to this boost exist as well; including higher energy input costs and increased global demand. Most economic studies attribute some, though not all, of the price rise to ethanol mandates. Other crop prices have risen too. This is due, in part, to growers switching crops—soybean to corn for example—to meet the expanded demand for the latter and placing price pressure on the former. Livestock producers, food processors, and consumers face higher input costs and thus bear some burden from this expansion. So the distributional effects within agricultural markets are considerable.

The greenhouse gas effects of biofuels are controversial, especially with corn-based ethanol. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the RFS2 indicated a small reduction in GHG emissions from corn-based ethanol use and larger reductions from advanced varieties such as cellulosic ethanol. Subsequent research, including our own (http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/climate/policydesign/net-global-effects-of-alternative-u.s.-biofuel-mandates) , suggests more modest greenhouse gas effects from ethanol, even a greenhouse gas increase in some cases. The big uncertain factor in all this is how much of the emissions effect from ethanol expansion is due to indirect land use change (ILUC), including that in other countries who convert land (and generate emissions) to meet the additional demands for biofuel feedstock. The range of ILUC estimates is wide and very sensitive to assumptions about the extent of the market and the characteristics of the land being affected.

Considering all these factors, success of biofuel policy in the U.S. is a mixed bag. It has helped raise the income of certain farmers, but put price pressure on others. In addition, it has had a modest effect on oil imports, and been nearly a wash when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases.

For biofuels to succeed, beyond merely raising the incomes of certain producers, may depend on the penetration of advanced biofuels that do not draw from the food supply. These biofuels would not require large amounts of land to produce, and have a sufficiently higher energy content. This is recognized in policies such as the RFS2, which requires a majority of the fuels mandate to come from cellulosic and other advanced biofuels in the future. But progress in this area is slow and more research and development focused on making these advanced biofuels contend in the marketplace is needed.

Biofuels play an important role in U.S. energy policy, a role that is poised to grow. Continued geopolitical uncertainties and future growth in demand for transportation fuels reinforce the need to create alternative, sustainable sources of liquid fuel. DuPont believes that if we are to truly have an “all of the above” approach to energy, we have to address a variety of transportation fuel options. We recognize that oil will continue to be important source of fuel, and recent discoveries of terrestrial “shale oil” deposits is promising, but it is ultimately a finite resources. This is why it is in the best interest of the country to encourage the development of a vibrant, renewable biofuels sector along with expanded domestic oil production. Both domestic oil and domestic biofuels enhance America’s energy security and reduce the influence of offshore oil suppliers.

Let’s look at what’s already been accomplished and what remains to be done. Today, America’s ethanol industry represents the largest alternative, renewable fuel source in the world. Last year it helped reduce imported oil by 485 million barrels – saving almost $50 billion dollars. That means jobs too. The Renewable Fuels Association calculates over 90,000 US jobs directly related to producing those domestic fuels. We are already producing almost 15 billion gallons of biofuels in the US, with advanced biofuels poised to add to the mix. We are seeing more alternative fuels infrastructure – and we need to expand it further.

The next wave of major growth currently underway in the biofuels industry is advanced technologies, including cellulosic ethanol and biobutanol. The agriculture community will remain an essential partner in bringing about these advanced biofuels – delivering the biomass needed to fuel the biorefineries by companies like DuPont and other major players. Dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass, along with agricultural and forestry residues, provide an exciting new opportunity for agriculture to contribute further to domestic energy and fuel production.

Private investments in the ethanol industry already contribute more than $33 billion in crop revenue to U.S. farmers, (according to Feb. 2012 report produced by Environmental Economics for the Renewable Fuels Association, “Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States”).

What is needed from policy makers is simple. Consistency – do no harm to the RFS. Policy uncertainty creates market uncertainty that would chill the significant private investment that will occur over the next twenty-four months in these new facilities – investments in the billions of dollars about to be made by companies confident in their technologies. The RFS is effective. It is spurring this private investment. And it should not be tampered with as the industry is putting steel in the ground for our first biorefinieries.

As the Senate Agriculture Committee awaits floor action for farm legislation, it is crucial to remember where we’ve been, why we’ve been so successful already and where we are going – as an industry and as a country. Policies that support farmers as they partner with industry to bring forth the next wave of innovation in biofuels makes good sense for the economy and good sense for the country, getting us closer to our ultimate goals of energy independence and job creation. We applaud the robust energy title in the Senate farm bill. It is an important element in creating the feedstock supply chain that will both expand opportunities for farmers and facilitate the scale up of advanced biofuels.

Any meaningful effort to harness bioenergy should include the organic building blocks for the world's current crude oil reserves: algae. That's right -- ancient algae blooms that decayed millions of years ago are the origins of our oil deposits. So it seems only appropriate that the cultivation of algae as an agricultural commodity should be part of the solution in creating a domestic, secure, and sustainable source of drop-in fuel. The nexus between algae, bioenergy, and agriculture is being recognized. For instance, two states (Ohio and Arizona) have recently designated "algaculture" as agriculture. The energy title to the Farm Bill up for reauthorization also provides a clear policy link between agriculture, biofuels, and energy -- and algae should be expressly included. The "growing" algae industry represented by the Algal Biomass Organization believes the Farm Bill energy programs will be essential to the long-term viability of biofuels, especially in terms of "cultivating" additional private-sector investment. Algae could be the source of new agriculture for rural America. Algae only needs copious sun, a favorable climate, nutrients like CO2, and water, which need not be fresh or drinkable. In fact, algae prefers brackish or even waste water. So vast tracks of non-arable land near brackish water aquifers (or even sea water) would be prefect for algae. There's no competition for productive farm land or potable water by growing algae. Think of the agri-industry that could be spawned by scores of square miles of deserts in the Southwest being turned into algae ponds. These ponds could be producing over 5,000 gallons per acre per year of sweet crude oil -- the very same crude we currently drill out of the ground that was once decaying algae eons ago. Now that's how we use agricultural resources to help solve our energy problem. K&L Gates represents the Algal Biomass Organization.

(These comments were submitted by Mark M. Palmer, senior director at Van Ness Feldman.)

As our nation’s energy needs continue increasing, Congress has the opportunity to legislate meaningful policies through the 2012 Farm Bill to help pave the way toward energy independence. Currently, Congress is considering the 2012 Farm Bill, and it should take a closer look at increasing Energy Title funding. As our addiction to foreign sources of petroleum increases, we need more NOT less of a commitment to sustain our current biofuels industry, but also continue growing it by ushering in second, third, and forth generation biofuels.

In 2002, Congress passed sweeping farm legislation that included the first ever Energy Title. Programs in that legislation included federal dollars for Research and Development; project financing through grants and loan guarantees; feedstock development; and education. These programs were designed to put the first generation biofuels industry on firm footing, and it achieved that feat where today we have approximately 16 billion gallons in biofuel production in corn based ethanol, and biodiesel combined.

When you look back at past Farm Bill spending, specifically the Energy Title, there is an upward spending trend. In 2008 Congress did it again, when they built on the 2002 Farm Bill and committed more resources to energy related programs, by expanding the Energy Title’s reach which diversified feedstocks and fuels. These programs have poured the foundation for commercialization of fuels like ethanol derived from cellulose, where very soon we will see actual production and thus the fuel’s eligibility under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program.

Congress this summer will have an opportunity to further develop the building blocks of the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills with respect to the Energy Title. The 2012 Farm Bill must continue the programs that have brought us this far, while at the same time, expand programs that will facilitate the commercialization of third and fourth generation biofuels. Right now, our country possesses technology that can take biomass and other agriculture feedstocks, and transform them into hydro-carbons essentially creating gasoline and diesel fuel derived from crops, not crude from unstable parts of the world.

These so called “drop in fuels” can be produced in the U.S., but to achieve full scale commercialization; they need the 2012 Farm Bill to include a regime of programs to ensure we move forward toward energy independence.

The bottom line is that we need more NOT less Energy Title funding in the 2012 Farm Bill!

Corn-derived ethanol has been heralded as the magic potion that can drive us to the promised land of energy freedom while at the same time slowing global warming and helping America's farmers. To those ends, and to appease rural voters, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack wants petroleum companies to increase the amount of ethanol blended with gasoline above the currently mandated level of 10 percent. This is not a surprising request, considering the industry's facilities are 20 percent idle, several large ethanol refiners have filed for bankruptcy, and the 46 cents per gallon tax credit has expired.

Part of the industry's problems can be attributed to the Great Recession and its aftermath, which have reduced the demand for gasoline. To make matters worse, the cost of refining ethanol has recently increased because of jumps in corn prices. What’s more, some ethanol producers are locked into high cost, long-term contracts.

Like most alternative fuel sources, the potential contribution of ethanol has been oversold. It has been estimated that converting the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol would yield energy equal to a mere 12 percent of our gasoline consumption. What's more, displacing gasoline with ethanol would require a huge diversion of increasingly scarce water resources. As a rule of thumb, it takes 1000 tons of water to grow one ton of grain. Thus, to grow enough corn to yield one gasoline-gallon-equivalent of ethanol requires about 2700 gallons of water. In addition, the refining process itself consumes between three and six gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol produced.

Equally troubling is the impact of ethanol production on food and feed costs. About 20 percent of the corn planted in the U.S. is used to produce ethanol. Since most of the rest is used as animal feed, the prices of beef, milk, poultry and pork are all affected by the cost of corn. Finally, a 2009 study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol is minimal and may actually be negative since making ethanol requires new land from clearing forests and grasslands that would otherwise sequester carbon emissions.

Though ethanol has a role to play in energy diversification, hiking the percentage of ethanol blend in gasoline, whether by persuasion or mandate, is a “pig in a poke.” Public officials like Secretary Vilsack should acknowledge that gasoline, diesel and natural gas will remain the principal transportation fuels for the foreseeable future.

In a world where facts mattered, the funding for the rural energy program—an ethanol subsidy—would be zero. But Congress and the White House don’t live in that world. It also validates H.L. Mencken’s observation that for every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

Ethanol qualifies as the King of Boondoggles for a number of reasons including the fact that it is not needed, at least not in significant amounts, to meet air quality standards; it does not significantly reduce oil imports; and it increases greenhouse gas emissions and food prices, to name a few. The government has already taken hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers, motorists, and food purchasers to enrich corn growers and ethanol producers. It is legalized robbery, plain and simple.

Last year, Ken Glozer published Corn Ethanol: Who Pays? Who Benefits?—a thorough critique of the ethanol program. It convincingly demonstrates, as has the CBO, that taxpayers are propping up failed companies and that the persistent claims of benefits from ethanol use are nothing more than hucksterism.

In 2007, Congress in its wisdom passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandated that by 2022 fuel manufacturers would have to consume 36 billion gallons of ethanol—15 billion corn based and 21 billion cellulosic. At that time, corn prices ranged between $150 and $180 per metric ton. Today, the price is $275—representing a 60% increase. This increase has a direct impact on the price of beef as well as the prices of products made from corn and soybeans (because soybean acreage is being used to grow corn). Since we are a major exporter of corn and corn-based products, the Congressionally induced higher price of corn has a serious negative impact on consumers in developing countries who are already victims of extreme poverty.

Within two years of the energy policy act being passed, gasoline consumption plateaued which should have put a lid on ethanol use. But the law mandates that more be manufactured and used. So EPA has been floating the idea of increasing the percentage in gasoline from 10% to 15% E-15. Further, since some ethanol is supposed to be cellulosic, EPA is fining refiners who are not blending a product that they can’t buy because it doesn’t exist. If that is not the height of folly, what is?

Secretary Vilsack’s call for more ethanol in gasoline under the banner of reducing imports and boosting job creation is shameless. What he is really doing is promoting the interests of his home state at the expense of sound energy policy.

Increasing the ethanol content of gasoline is not simple and straightforward. Cars made before 2001 can’t use it and not all post-2001 vehicles can because some manufacturers warranties limit ethanol content to 10%. Only Flexible Fuel vehicles can safely use higher percentages. But the problems are not just with vehicles. Off road vehicles, motor cycles, and gasoline powered equipment can’t use it either. A Congressional study concluded that billions of dollars would have to be spent to upgrade the rail, barge, and retail infrastructure to meet near term bio-fuel requirements. From where will that money come? It will be from higher prices or from taxpayer dollars or more deficit spending.

Wasting more money on corn based ethanol will further entrench ethanol interests making it harder to transition to cellulosic bio-fuels. Even though Congress has mandated that 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol be manufactured by 2022, the technology still has to be developed and made commercially viable. Since waste is what the Federal Government does, a better use of the $800 million would be cellulosic R&D. As it is, forcing more corn based ethanol into the fuel system is like mandating that conventional telephones have to be purchased instead of smart phones. It is time to move on and let technology and market forces drive the fuel of the future.

The agricultural community has been at the federal trough for 80 years. The time has come for it to stand on its own and excel in feeding the world instead of picking taxpayer pockets to support a product that is pure waste. Wasteful subsidy programs of the past have no place in an economy that is trying to regain its bearings and compete in a global economy. We need policies that promote 4% economic growth and less that 6% unemployment, not policies that maintain dependency on government spending.

Although there is no prospect that the world is going to run out of oil or oil based products, $70-80 crude oil costs create an adequate economic incentive to develop bio-fuel technologies. Investing in the future with research and development dollars would represent a responsible course of federal action. The route proposed by Secretary Vilsack keeps us on the road of fiscal irresponsibility that enriches the favored.

Biofuels will undoubtedly play a major role in the future of energy and an American economic recovery. Ethanol serves as a critical component to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, create new, well-paying jobs, while also improving our air quality as well as providing consumers savings at the pump.

American agriculture is one of the major contributors to the solution to our current energy problems. With gas at roughly $4.00 a gallon, and a continual reliance on OPEC, the House of Saud and Hugo Chavez’s dictatorial regime in Venezuela, inaction is not an option. Currently, we are spending approximately one billion dollars a day on foreign oil. That is one billion American dollars funding the economies of the turbulent Middle East and other hostile nations, as well as OPEC. Isn’t it time we start investing in energy security right here at home, focusing on the future of America? Just a fraction of that exported money would help reinvigorate rural communities, create jobs and provide a substantial step in the direction of energy security and independence.

It is important to note that as technology and innovation moves forward, so do the advances in the arena of biofuels, and in particular, ethanol. Agriculture has played a particularly important role in the first generation of ethanol production, but it is also important to keep in mind that corn use as a feedstock represents only three percent of world grain production used in the production of ethanol. But even at that minimal level, ethanol has not only met, but exceeded expectations, providing 10 percent of the nation’s fuel supply, with the surplus capacity to increase to 15 percent.

The legislation recently approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee, and in particular, the energy title of the farm bill focuses on the next generation of biofuels and biofuel feedstocks, such as algae and cellulosic. Indeed, there is a bright future ahead for ethanol, and major breakthroughs are right around the corner.

Another way to think of this is that the Senate Agriculture Committee has allocated one quarter of one percent to biofuels research and development, of the $360 billion we spend annually on foreign oil. That is 0.22 percent! If anything, the Senate Agriculture Committee should be commended for their bipartisan commitment to American energy security.

America is known for its innovative spirit and ability to solve complex problems. The Renewable Fuel Standard is the only significant energy policy created within the last 40 years, and we are only five years into a 15 year energy plan. Now is not the time to stay complacent under the boot of oppression from foreign oil. It is the time to harness that competitive spirit and ingenuity of Americans, to move forward toward a comprehensive energy policy that will reinvest in America and take that giant step away from the unreliable and hostile sources of foreign oil.

With oil prices hovering around $4 per gallon and oil profits soaring, it’s hardly surprising that petroleum refiners are criticizing domestically produced renewable fuels and pushing to maintain the status quo. It’s also not surprising that the American public disagrees with them. According to a recent Gallup poll, roughly two-thirds of Americans – including majorities of Democrats and Republicans – support continued incentives for developing American-made alternative fuels such as biodiesel.

The American public understands that we need diversity in our energy supplies and that continuing to rely solely on petroleum puts us at the mercy of global oil markets driven by OPEC that spike year after year with devastating consequences for our economy and, potentially, our national security. In fact, the transportation fuel market is not a free market at all because it is dominated by petroleum, a global commodity with a price determined by international markets based on factors that have little to do with supply and demand. For evidence, look no further than the fact that U.S. gasoline prices are as high as ever even as our nation is in the middle of an oil boom.

Americans also understand that every successful U.S. energy sector up to now, from nuclear plants to deep-sea oil drilling, has been helped in its early years by federal support. In some cases, that continues today. The oil industry, for example, enjoys some $4 billion in federal incentives aimed at stimulating domestic production.

By the same rationale, the U.S. biodiesel industry has in recent years received grants and loans through the Farm Bill, along with a tax incentive, aimed at developing an EPA-designated Advanced Biofuel that last year displaced more than a billion gallons of petroleum diesel and that could play a lead role in diversifying our energy economy in the future. Biodiesel already is made with a diverse mix of resources from recycled cooking oil to animal fats to secondary-use agricultural oils, and significant strides are being made in developing additional feedstocks such as algae and camelina. Federal support is helping stimulate that development, and it could pay huge dividends in the future.

Yes, biodiesel and other advanced biofuels are currently more expensive to produce than most fossil fuels. But with time, improved scale and new technology, biodiesel will become increasingly cost-competitive. The simple retail comparison also fails miserably in accounting for the true costs of our oil dependence. Biodiesel doesn’t require military bases in far-off lands to protect oil interests or risk disastrous oil spills in sensitive ecosystems. Biodiesel significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming and that could wreak economic havoc in coming years. (Since 2005, biodiesel has reduced lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 48.3 billion pounds, the equivalent of removing 4.25 million passenger vehicles from America’s roadways.) And biodiesel reduces harmful tailpipe pollution that has significant and costly health consequences.

These policy implications explain why Congress, with overwhelming bipartisan support, passed the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that requires a minimum amount of renewable fuels to be blended into the fuel supply.

Together, these federal policies are working as Congress intended to stimulate the development of renewable fuels, and along the way, they’re creating tens of thousands of jobs across the country. The U.S. biodiesel industry is proud to have exceeded its RFS volume requirement last year. Even in a weak economy, our industry produced a record of nearly 1.1 billion gallons of clean, renewable fuel, supporting more than 39,000 jobs across the country while generating at least $628 million in federal, state and local tax revenues, according to a recent economic study.

Ending our singular dependence on oil will not be easy, and it will not take place overnight. But it is happening, and now is not the time to hesitate or change course.

Opponents of biofuels want to characterize the Farm Bill as solely supporting conventional biofuels. In reality, the energy title programs are vital to advanced biofuels and are revitalizing rural America, fueling economic growth and job creation where we need it most. Ongoing funding for these programs have and will continue to provide the highest return on taxpayer dollars and ensure the future of emerging energy and renewable chemical markets.

The Farm Bill enacted 10 years ago in 2002 was the first to contain an energy title. But most of the programs being reauthorized only came into being in 2008. And it wasn’t until late 2010 and early 2011 that final rules for these programs were published.

Still, in the relatively short time span since the finalization of rules, these programs have helped renewable energy companies unlock private capital for construction of advanced biorefineries, something that has been extraordinarily difficult during the recent economic downturn. They have also helped farmers in over 150 counties across 10 states begin to put more than 150,000 acres of underutilized farmland into production of next generation energy crops. The programs have further ignited an explosion of innovation and early commercialization of renewable chemicals here in the United States. Overall, the programs have demonstrated a high rate of success.

The Biobased Markets Program, first enacted in 2002, has been tremendously successful in supporting the emergence of a new market for agriculture-based or biobased products. The first six categories of products eligible for this program were designated in March 2006, following a lengthy rulemaking process. By 2007, a U.S. International Trade Commission survey of the industry identified 5,700 workers at 159 companies manufacturing these products. Today, there are 64 categories of biobased products eligible for the program. And a recent Iowa State survey of the industry has identified more than 100,000 workers making or selling these products.

The Biorefinery Assistance Program can show a similar record of success. While it is rooted in the 2002 Farm Bill’s grant program, the program only began to work with private companies in late 2009. The first advanced biofuel biorefineries successfully secured private financing in late 2011, with the backing of this program. INEOS New Planet Energy is under construction in Florida and will begin commercial production of cellulosic biofuel this summer.

The Farm Bill’s energy title programs have provided a strong return for American taxpayers and have produced demonstrated results. The first large-scale renewable chemical company in the United States, NatureWorks LLC in Nebraska, in 2009 doubled capacity in order to meet demand for its renewable, biodegradable product. Similarly, another early renewable chemical company, DuPont Tate & Lyle Bioproducts in Tennessee, recently expanded production to meet rising demand. Myriant is working to complete a large scale biorefinery in Louisiana to produce renewable chemicals. And many other renewable chemical companies are looking to locate new construction here in the United States, if the policy environment is right.

New markets for agricultural products are emerging, creating new opportunities for U.S. companies and skilled workers. The programs are also providing environmental benefits, because renewable energy and chemicals are cleaner, safer and healthier. Congress should continue to provide significant funding for the farm bill energy title so we can continue to foster American innovation. With the progress that has been made and with more companies ready to build biobased manufacturing facilities, these forward-looking, high-return programs are a much-needed part of the Farm Bill.

America needs and is developing a reliable, sustainable, fuel supply. If we are able to produce more of it here at home – rather than relying on foreign oil – we’ll generate good, middle-class jobs and strengthen our economy in the long run. That is why USDA and the Obama administration are working with private industry to pursue an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy to promote American-produced renewable energy coupled with oil production.

Today, biofuels are being developed using not just corn, but corn stover, soybeans, switchgrass, wood, camelina, energy cane, municipal solid waste, yellow oils, algae, and a host of other non-food feedstocks growing across the country.

In fact, USDA set up virtual research consortia across this nation to help further the use of a variety of feedstocks to produce fuel. This is giving American businesses opportunities to expand, giving farmers ways to be part of the energy solution, and giving American consumers the choice to buy domestically produced, homegrown energy. Today, these choices are already providing Americans with cheaper gas at the pump because it is mixed with ethanol.

But it is not just biofuels that will help rebuild our nation’s manufacturing sector. The bio-chemical industry also has the potential to be an important driver of American economic growth and rural jobs in the years to come. Just as oil companies use petroleum to produce chemicals and other products, we can use materials grown in America to produce chemicals, construction materials, and even cleaning products to use in your home. This industry employs 100,000 Americans today and is expanding the important intersection of agriculture and manufacturing.

Additionally, we are working with other federal departments and the military to develop sources of aviation and transportation biofuels that will reduce the length of supply lines in times of conflict and also reduce reliance on politically questionable sources of crude. To learn more about USDA’s support for sustainable renewable energy and how you can participate click here.

This Administration has helped bring our nation’s reliance on foreign oil to a 13-year low, with domestic oil and gas production that has increased each year since 2009. And we are also tackling the long-term problem of building an American energy economy that will make sure that families don’t fall victim to skyrocketing gas prices over the long term while creating jobs to strengthen the middle class.

An all-of-the-above US energy policy should include encouraging the development, production and use of American biofuels. As approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee, $800 million for rural energy programs, including loan guarantees and research and development incentives for biofuels, is a good start. But the nation needs a broader, bolder approach – a government-wide commitment to developing alternative fuel technologies and increasing the availability of clean-burning, American-made biofuels.

Public policies should help emerging energy sources to develop and grow, not forever subsidize established industries. That is why the American biofuels industry willingly agreed to the expiration of the tax credit for ethanol blenders (the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit) at the end of last year. But, in spite of having benefited from a century of subsidies, the oil industry continues to enjoy federal tax breaks and other advantages totaling from $3.6 to $4.5 billion a year. Unlike the oil industry, the biofuels industry believes that tax incentives should be targeted to new technologies, such as the development of non-grain-based (cellulosic) ethanol.

Instead of subsidizing mature industries, let’s invest in advanced biofuels, the infrastructure that these alternative fuels require, and the wider range of choices that consumers deserve and demand. An all-of-the-above energy strategy should give fuel suppliers the option of blending up to 15 percent ethanol per gallon – E15 – for sale to vehicles approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And Congress should offer incentives such as the Open Fuel Standard Act for flexible fuel vehicles designed to run on gasoline or any blend of up to 85% ethanol – E85.

Promoting American biofuels is good for the economy, good for the environment, good for rural America and good for national security. Last year alone, American ethanol production helped create 90,200 direct jobs, while supporting at least 400,000 jobs throughout the nation, especially in rural America, where the industry also provides a stable market for farmers’ products. Meanwhile, in 2011, booming ethanol production reduced the nation’s need for imported oil by 485 million barrels, helping the US say “no thank you” to unfriendly or unstable regimes from Venezuela and Iran to the turbulent Middle East. Moreover, on the environmental front, ethanol use reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48 to 59 percent, compared to gasoline.

Just as President Kennedy urged the nation to put an astronaut on the moon by the end of the 1960’s, Americans should continue to challenges ourselves to increase the scale and scope of our production and use of renewable fuels. That is why it is so important to continue to set a national goal – the Renewable Fuel Standard -- requiring that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel, including 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, be blended into transportation fuel by 2022. Let’s keep America moving with fuels that produce jobs, protect our natural environment and promote our energy security.

How do you get Americans to pay for something they don’t really want in the first place? Most of the time – as in the case of New Coke, Harley Davidson Perfume, and the U.S. Football League – the answer is simple: you can’t.

But where the Edsel failed, corn ethanol has somehow succeeded. Despite its drawbacks (which are legion – a point we’ll get to later), more than 13 billion gallons of corn ethanol were sold in the United States last year.

How did it happen? Corn ethanol has outlived Pepsi AM and the Betamax because its backers hit upon a three-part recipe for success: a huge dose of federal subsidies mixed with high gas prices and untethered rhetoric.

For decades, ethanol producers have promised that their product will revitalize America’s farming communities, end our dependence on foreign fuel, save the environment, and lower gas prices. Presumably a product that good would sell itself, but the federal government rigged the market anyway by creating the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), and a host of other measures worth billions of dollars each year to the biofuels industry. The RFS mandates a nine-fold increase in the amount of biofuels used in the US (from four billion gallons in 2006 to 36 billion gallons by 2022), while the VEETC gave away tax breaks to companies that add ethanol to gasoline (even though Americans were already required by the RFS to consume that ethanol).

Mercifully, the VEETC expired at the end of 2011, but the ethanol lobby quickly fixed its sights on a new target. In order to produce, distribute, and sell the rapidly growing volume of ethanol mandated by the RFS each year, the biofuels industry needs to develop a new, ethanol-specific infrastructure. And, true to form, it would prefer that the government pay for it. In particular, the industry now wants funding to install ethanol-friendly blender pumps at gas stations around the country.

Cue Congress. In late April, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a Farm Bill that included $800 million for energy-related programs. The largest component of the proposed package is $241 million for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which previously helped farmers improve their energy efficiency, install solar panels, and conduct energy audits. This year, thanks to aggressive lobbying by the ethanol gang, REAP has a new function. In late 2011 – just before VEETC finally expired – the Department of Agriculture began approving the use of REAP funds to defray the cost of blender pumps. USDA’s decision to repurpose REAP was endorsed by key members of Congress during the recent discussions around reauthorization of the Farm Bill.

Why are policymakers so invested in ensuring the success of corn ethanol? According to U.S. EPA’s own 2011 Triennial Report, continued production of corn ethanol will have significant negative consequences for air and water quality, soil conservation, and habitat preservation. EPA data also show that the corn ethanol being sold in 2012 emits more greenhouse gas over its lifecycle than gasoline. In 2009, Clean Air Task Force analyzed EPA’s data and found that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from the additional corn ethanol produced pursuant to the RFS will exceed those from gasoline until 2054.

Meanwhile, for all the flag-draped rhetoric coming from its backers, corn ethanol simply cannot provide energy independence. Already, more than forty percent of corn grown in the United States is turned into ethanol. If all of the corn grown in the United States in 2011 had been used to make ethanol, it would have offset national gasoline consumption by just 18 percent.

Finally, the ethanol lobby’s contention that corn ethanol is dramatically reducing the price of gas is wrong. The study they cite depends on a mix of mistaken and unrealistic assumptions about petroleum refiners’ ability to react to supply disruptions. Moreover, their claim conveniently ignores a fact that’s critically important to consumers: a gallon of ethanol provides only two-thirds as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. Once these factors are taken into account, it becomes clear that the price reductions being trumpeted by industry fall somewhere between negligible to nonexistent.

These flaws and others are catalogued in a letter recently circulated by a bipartisan group of Congressmen. From their perspective, the RFS is a “broken policy” that damages the economy, pushes up food prices, and degrades natural resources. Using REAP funds to underwrite blender pumps will only exacerbate these problems. If Congress and the Administration are going to continue to require Americans to buy corn ethanol, the least they could do is ask the ethanol companies to pay the freight.

Iowa is the largest corn producer in the United States, so it’s understandable that Iowa politicians of both parties have a long record of supporting the biofuels industry that is so important to their state’s economy and that has sharply driven up corn prices. Former Iowa Governor and current Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has continued this tradition.

But what’s good for corn growers and the biofuels industry isn’t necessarily in the best interests of our nation as a whole and American consumers.

Secretary Vilsack’s latest advocacy initiative for ethanol took place Thursday, when an Agriculture Department news release said he spoke in North Carolina and “called on petroleum companies to help increase the percentage of ethanol in America’s gas tanks in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil, boost job creation and promote development of renewable energy from farm-produced feedstocks.”

But in reality, the strong support that Secretary Vilsack, President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency have shown for biofuels is more about serving the needs of special interests than America’s national interest.

The biofuels industry exists only because it has been supported by billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for decades and because government mandates require that biofuels be used in transportation fuels.

In contrast, energy from oil and natural gas is produced without a dime of federal subsidies. Oil and gas producers and fuel and petrochemical manufacturers support more than 9 million American jobs and pay more than $31 billion a year in federal taxes. These American companies could vastly increase production if the federal government reduced costly overregulation and opened up more federal lands and waters to oil and gas exploration and drilling.

While the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers opposes subsidies and mandates, nearly all the gasoline our members manufacture in the United States is blended with 10 percent corn ethanol (known as E10) today to comply with the federal mandate.

But now the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking go even further and wants to boost the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline to 15 percent (E15) for cars and light trucks manufactured since 2001.

We and many other groups believe that further testing is needed to evaluate existing data and engineering judgments suggesting that E15 may lead to a significant increase in emissions of environmental pollutants from some engines, damage car and non-road engines, and pose a safety hazard to people operating gasoline-powered equipment.

This is why automobile manufacturers do not warrantee their vehicles if owners use gasoline containing more than 10 percent ethanol – meaning that consumers will get stuck paying for repairs normally covered under their warranties.

The federal Renewable Fuel Standard requires refiners to dramatically increase the amount of ethanol and other renewable fuels blended in U.S. transportation fuels. The law requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be blended into transportation fuels each year by 2022 – almost triple the 13.7 billion gallons used in 2011.

In fact, if the RFS and federal corporate average fuel economy standards are fully achieved, refiners are facing the prospect of blending about 40 percent ethanol per gallon of fuel, presenting significant new technical and marketplace challenges associated with simply being able to comply with the law.

And despite the “clean and green” label their supporters claim for them, ethanol and biodiesel are hydrocarbons – they are not carbon-free.

Biofuels are often perceived as carbon-neutral because the carbon dioxide released when they are combusted is recycled as new plants are grown. However, many scientists are concerned that the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from biofuels production and associated agricultural practices could effectively negate or even reverse any reduction in emissions that could be achieved by significantly expanding the use of biofuels as a transportation fuel.

The underlying problem with the RFS is that it is based on ideology and political science rather than reality and real science. It is founded on the false premise that government mandates that tell Americans what to buy are better than allowing American consumers to make their own choices in the free market.

Government mandates and regulations calling for big increases in the annual production of biofuels in the United States are simply unwise, unrealistic and impractical. Instead of telling refineries how much biofuels to use in predetermined volumes, our government should allow consumer choice and the free market to determine the mix of energy sources to best meet our nation’s needs.