A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to waive the lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements for renewable fuel production, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a lingering issue that could have serious detrimental effects on our nation's ethanol industry.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increased the renewable fuels standard--commonly known as the RFS--to 36 billion gallons annually of ethanol and other biofuels by 2022.

I support the RFS . . . Always have. The RFS simply means more domestic energy production, less imported oil from unfriendly nations, and more jobs in rural America--both on and off the farm.

The 2007 law requires EPA to come up with new rules to determine greenhouse gas emissions throughout the lifecycle of renewable fuels. Simply put, EPA must calculate how much greenhouse gas is emitted from the time the seed is produced to the time drivers use the fuel in their cars, with every step in between. These steps include production, transportation, distribution, and blending, just to name a few.

Under the 2007 law, renewable fuels must emit anywhere from 20-60 percent fewer greenhouse gases than petroleum.

Unfortunately, when calculating lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, EPA has included theoretical indirect land use changes.

As the theory goes, increased production of biofuels leads to more grain being used for biofuels and less being exported to foreign markets. Allegedly, this decrease in exports means additional grain production is required in other parts of the world, creating increased cultivation in those areas. Proponents of this way of thinking say forests in other parts of the world are being converted to crops to substitute for the missing U.S. grain.

However, that is all it is, an unsubstantiated theory, an argument that just doesn't hold water. Pure bunk.

As an example, in 2004, over 10,000 square miles of the Amazon was deforested. In 2008--the peak year for ethanol production to date--that number dropped to under 5,000 square miles. How is that possible?

Due to significant technological advances and ever-increasing efficiency, the American farmer continues to meet the demand for food, feed, and biofuel. For instance, in 1980, the average corn yield per acre in this country was 91 bushels. Last year, it was 153.9 bushels--a 70-percent increase in productivity.

In fact, this spring, American farmers will use almost exactly the same amount of acres for corn production as they did 30 years ago-- about 85 million acres. Yet the productivity advances mean we will likely harvest roughly 6 billion bushels more corn on the exact same amount of land.

The soybean industry can tell a similar story. In 1980, American farmers produced just under 1.8 billion total bushels of soybeans on 69.5 million acres. In 2007--almost 30 years later--they produced almost 2.7 billion bushels on 64.7 million acres. That is a production increase of nearly a billion bushels, on 5 million fewer acres.

So the facts seem clear. Even as the production of biofuels increases, deforestation rates have been cut in half just in the last 5 years.

Clearly, no reliable or accepted model for measuring indirect land use change exists. Projection models for indirect land use are based on assumptions about how landowners made choices about what to do with their land. And unless the EPA has recently hired mind-readers, they might as well be playing pin the tail on the donkey.

Calculating emissions from indirect land use changes is such an inexact science; it is really no science at all. There is literally no way to know if what you come up with is accurate.

Our farmers and ethanol producers should not be held responsible for land use decisions made half way around the world, especially when they are based on untested and unreliable assumptions.

Just last year, the President's own Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar-- then a sitting U.S. Senator--signed a letter to EPA stating that EPA's calculations pertaining to indirect land use are based on ``incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions.''

For all these reasons, today I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting a 120-day extension of the deadline for the public comment period on the RFS. EPA needs adequate time to hear from impacted industries and organizations about the potentially devastating effects of these untested, unreliable indirect land use calculations. I hope the EPA will give serious consideration to my request.

Additionally, I am cosponsoring S. 943 and S. 1148, both bills that would remove indirect land use assumptions from the renewable fuel standard. Doing so does not in any way impact emissions reductions requirements. The requirements remain intact and the same goals can be reached. These bills will simply remove a very untested, incomplete, assumption-based factor from the equation.

And while the environmental benefits of ethanol have been well- documented, the RFS was enacted to increase our energy security and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, over 60 percent of our oil is imported from other countries. Much of it comes from countries that, put very simply, don't like us very much. We have to take steps to become less reliant on these nations for our energy needs and more reliant on ourselves, and the RFS does that.

For example, the production and use of 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 displaced the need for over 320 million barrels of oil. This is the equivalent of eliminating oil imports from Venezuela for 10 months. Put another way, it represents the equivalent of 33 days' worth of oil imports. Those are not insignificant numbers.

An expanded ethanol industry has yielded another very important result: rural economic development. Using my home state of Nebraska as an example, ethanol has clearly benefitted many rural communities.

Almost 10 years ago, as Governor of Nebraska, I supported several initiatives to incentivize what was then a relatively small ethanol industry. Well, today Nebraska is the Nation's second largest ethanol producer.

Nebraska currently has 20 operational ethanol plants, with a combined production capacity of over 1.3 billion gallons of ethanol each year. These plants represent more than $1.4 billion in capital investment and provide direct employment for roughly 1,000 Nebraskans.

Energy security, economic development, environmental improvement, these issues are all connected. And ethanol and our Nation's farmers have contributed to each in a positive way.

As elected officials we should support the biofuels industry, not undermine it. Basing our energy policy on some unsubstantiated theory regarding indirect land use is the wrong approach.

With the passage of the RFS, Congress asked farmers and biofuel producers to significantly expand and increase their production levels. Let's not pull the rug out from under them with unwise policies.

I am proud to cosponsor S. 943 and S. 1148 and encourage my colleagues to do the same.