S. Hrg. 110–156

FARM BILL POLICY PROPOSALS

RELATING TO FARM AND RURAL

ENERGY ISSUES AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

HEARING

øBEFORE THE¿

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 9, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

FARM BILL POLICY PROPOSALS RELATING TO FARM AND RURAL ENERGY ISSUES AND

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–054 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–156

FARM BILL POLICY PROPOSALS

RELATING TO FARM AND RURAL

ENERGY ISSUES AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 9, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

MARK HALVERSON, Majority Staff Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Minority Staff Director 

VERNIE HUBERT, Minority General Counsel 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Farm Bill Policy Proposals Relating to Farm and Rural Energy Issues and 

Rural Development .............................................................................................. 1

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 1

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia ......................................... 5

Panel I 

English. Hon. Glenn, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, Virginia .......................................................................................................... 3

Grabarski, Robert, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Arkdale, Wisconsin .................................................................................................................... 8

Matthews, Jimmy, Georgia Rural Water Association, Barnesville, Georgia ...... 6

Slack, Steve A., Director, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio .................................................. 10

Panel II 

Learner, Howard A., Executive Director, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Chicago, Illinois ............................................................................................. 35

Lynd, Lee R., Dartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, 

New Hampshire .................................................................................................... 31

Rich, Neil, President and Chief Executive Officer, Riksch Biofuels, 

Crawfordsville, Iowa ............................................................................................ 37

Ugarte, Daniel De La Torre, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee ............................................................. 33

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 50

Crapo, Hon. Thad ............................................................................................. 53

Grassley, Hon. Charles E. ................................................................................ 55

English. Hon. Glenn ......................................................................................... 59

Grabarski, Robert ............................................................................................. 69

Learner, Howard A. .......................................................................................... 76

Lynd, Lee R. ...................................................................................................... 91

Matthews, Jimmy ............................................................................................. 96

Rich, Neil ........................................................................................................... 104

Slack, Steve A. .................................................................................................. 107

Ugarte, Daniel De La Torre ............................................................................. 133

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Learner, Howard A.: 

‘‘An American Success Story, The Farm Bill’s Clean Energy Programs’’ .... 146

Matthews, Jimmy: 

‘‘USDA Source Water Protection Plan’’ ........................................................... 166

Page

IV

South Carolina Farm Bureau, prepared statement .............................................. 307

U.S. Telecom Association, prepared statement ..................................................... 308

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom: 

Written questions for Glenn English .............................................................. 314

Grassley, Hon. Charles E.: 

Written questions for Glenn English, Jimmy Matthews, Lee Lynd and 

Neil Rich ........................................................................................................ 316

Rich, Neil: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Charles E. Grassley .................... 318

English, Hon. Glenn: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 319

(1)

FARM BILL POLICY PROPOSALS 

RELATING TO FARM AND RURAL 

ENERGY ISSUES AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Lincoln, Stabenow, Nelson, Salazar, 

Brown, Casey, Klobuchar, Chambliss, Coleman, Thune, and Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman HARKIN. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will come to order. I got word that my Ranking 

Member said to go ahead and start without him. He will be here 

shortly. 

Today we hear additional testimony on two topics that are high 

on the opportunity side of the ledger for rural America: energy and 

rural development. One message has been consistently clear 

throughout the preparation for this farm bill, and that is, the new 

legislation must provide strong support for energy initiatives and 

for rural economic development. 

Of course, record gasoline prices are only one indicator that our 

Nation is facing critical energy challenges. We have long known of 

our vulnerability arising from our overdependence on oil. We now 

import over 60 percent of the oil we use, and the nations with the 

largest oil reserves and production capabilities are generally nations that are not especially friendly to us or they are politically 

unstable or a little bit of both. 

Our Nation’s agricultural sector has already demonstrated impressive biofuels production capabilities, and there is evidence it 

can do a lot more. Senator Lugar and I are just two of the believers. We introduced the Biofuel Security Act in January, calling for 

30 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2020 and 60 billion gallons 

by 2030. And I am pleased to see that a number of others, including President Bush and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, are calling for very similar targets. 

2

Now, if we achieve these levels of biofuels production, it will involve tens of millions of acres devoted to producing biomass feedstocks. This could mean some very significant shifts and changes 

in agriculture in America. I know there are some who fear that 

greater biofuels production will disrupt supplies or prices of other 

agricultural products, and certainly these concerns must be heeded 

and addressed. However, if we do the research and formulate the 

technology and market policies carefully, I think we can capitalize 

on this tremendous opportunity to produce energy in addition to 

supplies of food and feed and fiber. And, again, this will be beneficial to rural America, and it can provide a lot of rural economic 

growth and development and investment in rural America. 

Our first panel brings energy to the table alongside rural economic development. Economic development is much more than just 

a byproduct of rural energy production. It must be a priority that 

cuts across these two important farm titles. In particular, we must 

foster local and regional initiatives using available resources with 

the Federal Government serving as a partner and leader in driving 

these rural economic opportunities. 

On the second panel, we will speak about the future of biofuels, 

both the technology developments and the roles that cellulose is 

going to play in the future development. 

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was the 

first farm bill ever to include an Energy Title. We enacted that 

with strong bipartisan support. We will hear testimony today about 

energy achievements that resulted from that title. That will also 

help us frame a sound farm bill program and policy to help manage 

our energy systems in the future. 

Finally, I always like to hear from folks that are utilizing our 

programs in their farming and their businesses, so we were able 

to include a couple of witnesses today actively engaged in the energy business in rural America. 

I will at this point leave the record open for any opening statement that Senator Chambliss might have or any other Senators 

who arrive. 

We will turn to our witnesses on our panel one. We will just go 

down the line, and I will just recognize each here. We have the 

Honorable Glenn English, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Glenn served ten terms in the House as Representative 

from Oklahoma. We came together in the class of 1974 and served 

together there for a few years. I was there for five terms in the 

House before coming over here. So Glenn is an old friend, and we 

served together on the Ag Committee over in the House of Representatives. Mr. English will talk about the NRECA’s experiences 

and views on both energy and rural development programs and 

policies in the farm bill. 

For each of you, all your statements will be made a part of the 

record in their entirety. I am going to ask if you could sum up in, 

oh, 5 to 7 minutes, something like that, and then we can get into 

a discussion afterwards. 

So we will start with Mr. English, and we will just go down the 

line. Glenn, welcome back to the Committee again. 

3

STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN ENGLISH, NATIONAL RURAL 

ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much, and I appreciate it, Mr. 

Chairman. Let me also thank you very, very much for the great 

support that you provide rural development. In fact, this entire 

Committee has been very supportive of rural development, and I 

know that has certainly made a big difference. 

The first thing I want to bring to the attention of the Committee, 

Mr. Chairman, is really the impact that, of course, electric power 

has on all of rural development. We have a lot of new ethanol 

plants that are being developed across this country. They are energy intense and provide a lot of electric power. The other part of 

the reality that we are facing as far as the electric utility industry 

is concerned is we are out of capacity, so we are going to have to 

build a lot more capacity, particularly over the next decade. And 

this is going to be the most expensive generation that we have 

built in the history of this program, and we have already been telling the membership out there that they are going to see significant 

rate increases throughout the next few years. So this is something 

that is going to have an impact on all rural consumers. It is certainly going to have an impact as far as rural development is concerned. It is something that we are very concerned about, and part 

of what I want to talk to you today about is what the Congress can 

do to kind of help minimize this as we move forward. 

Certainly one of the prospects is making sure we have adequate 

financing. We are talking about some $42 billion that is going to 

be necessary over this next decade to deal with infrastructure problems, some upgrades, transmission and certainly generation capacity. If the Congress would be supportive of authorizing Farmer Mac 

to buy electric cooperative loans that would be another avenue of 

financing, another way in which we could help make sure we do 

have adequate financing out there. 

The REDLG program is one that certainly this Committee has 

been extremely supportive of, and we are deeply appreciative of 

that. Of course, we have used this as a means in which electric cooperatives can pay back their loans early. We take that money, and 

then we are able to loan that out to the community and help out 

on rural development. Mr. Chairman, I know you have been very 

supportive of this effort. 

What we would suggest is, as we move forward in the field of renewables, this may be one way that we can use some of the 

REDLG money to develop renewables. So it would be helpful if the 

Committee is willing to authorized REDLG funds to be used for renewables through electric cooperatives, doing this directly. 

Also, it would be helpful if the Committee would speak to some 

other Members of Congress, both in the House and Senate side, 

that seem to want to take some of the REDLG money and use it 

for other purposes. We have got $244 million, Mr. Chairman, that 

has been utilized for other programs, not rural development, and 

that would otherwise have been leveraged into over $1 billion 

worth of rural development projects out there. So this would be 

something that would be helpful as well, making sure that this 

4

REDLG money goes to REDLG projects and not to other projects 

in agriculture. 

And renewables in particular is something that I know has the 

attention of this Committee, and a lot of members of this Committee, I have spoken to several of you in the past, and you have 

spoken to me. I am a member of the 25x25 steering committee that 

has a goal of 25–percent renewables by the year 2025 for all energy, and we think that is a good objective. 

We have been trying to figure out now what can electric cooperatives do to advance this cause, and as you look at this, of course, 

most renewables are going to be produced in rural America. That 

is where it is going to come from; that is what it is all about. Many 

are looking at this as a rural development project. And we have got 

some of our generation and transmission cooperatives now that are 

looking at coming together and maybe forming a single generation 

transmission entity that would do nothing except produce renewables for this country, make a contribution. 

Now, we cannot do it all ourselves, obviously, but this would be 

a way in which you could have cooperatives all across this Nation. 

And we are in 47 States, and we are serving some 40 million consumers. It would be a way of those 40 million owners to come together and pool their resources and develop those renewable 

projects where it makes sense, when it makes sense, and where we 

can get the most productivity out of it. And also, of course, it would 

be a way in which we could expand this and move forward and 

make it available to the rest of the country. 

It would be a heck of a rural development project, Mr. Chairman. 

It would be a way in which rural America could make a major contribution, move power, renewable power from rural America into 

some of the urban areas that are being served, and would be a way 

in which all rural Americans could participate in this effort. And 

I think it would be a very big plus. 

Also, I dealing with suggest that this is a way in which those 

States that may not have an opportunity today to participate in renewables, it is just not feasible, does not make sense where they 

are from, this would be a way that they could also participate in 

this effort and make that kind of a contribution. 

The other thing that is extremely important, I would suggest, in 

order to move this renewable power into these urban areas, is that 

we need more transmission built. We are going to have to have 

transmission built from the areas where we establish this concentration of renewable energy and move it so it can be delivered 

to some of the major metropolitan areas in this country, export that 

power from rural America. 

One thing that would be very helpful in that manner would be 

some tax-exempt bonds. Now, what we would suggest is that if the 

Congress sees fit to move in that direction, tax-exempt bonds in 

building transmission should be made available to everybody. We 

are not just suggesting that it be done for electric cooperatives, but 

it should be for anybody who is willing to go out and build that 

transmission, and it should be dedicated to renewable energy, that 

transmission should. 

So I think that there are some ways in which that can enhance 

rural development. There are some ways in which we can make 

5

even greater contributions on the electric utility side as well as on 

the ethanol side, and I think this is a way, Mr. Chairman, which, 

quite frankly, we can do this in a manner that makes a lot of sense 

and do it in a most efficient manner possible. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. English can be found on page 59 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Glenn, and I will have 

some questions later on, after we finish the panel, on REDLG. Your 

statement sparked a lot of interest here. I read it last evening. I 

think there are a lot of things in it that command this Committee’s 

attention. But we will get into that later. 

I would yield now to my friend from Georgia, our Ranking Member, Senator Chambliss, for an opening statement and an introduction. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got 

an opening statement which I will submit for the record, but I just 

want to thank you again for holding a hearing on such an important issue as energy and rural development. You have been very 

diligent in covering a broad spectrum of subjects as we prepare to 

write this 2007 farm bill and provide a safety net for our farmers 

and ranchers across America, and at the same time we are addressing critical goals, such as conservation, energy security, nutrition, and rural development. And certainly this panel today as well 

as our next panel are going to provide some valuable information 

for us to deal with the issues involving water and energy as well 

as rural development. 

I particularly want to take the opportunity to introduce my longtime dear friend, Mr. Jimmy Matthews, from Barnesville, Georgia. 

Jimmy is Executive Director of the Georgia Rural Water Association, and Jimmy is Mr. Rural Water in Georgia and the Southeast. 

He has appeared before many congressional committees over the 

years. He is a man who is very focused and professional and is addressing an issue regarding the issue of rural water, and I am very 

pleased he is here today. 

I am also pleased to see my good friend, Glenn English. Glenn, 

obviously, in his capacity with our co-ops, represents an area that 

is extremely important to all of rural America. His constituency, as 

he says, covers 47 States, and that is pretty significant. 

As a rural co-op attorney for 24 years, I have a significant and 

particular parochial interest in co-op work, and I am very pleased 

that we have several members of Georgia co-ops who are here 

today: my former staffer, who now worked for the Georgia Electric 

Membership Corporation, Matt Sawhill; Randall Pugh is CEO of 

Jackson EMC; Mike Goodroe, CEO of Sawnee EMC; Ralph 

Brummelow, the Director at CFC; as well as Gary Miller, CEO of 

GreyStone Power. Gentlemen, we are pleased to have you all here 

today. 

I look forward to your testimony, and, Jimmy, welcome back to 

Washington and great to see you. 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you, sir. 

6

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF JIMMY MATTHEWS, GEORGIA RURAL WATER 

ASSOCIATION, BARNESVILLE, GEORGIA 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Good morning. I would first like to thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss, Ranking Member 

Chambliss for inviting me to testify today. I feel it is a great honor 

to be asked to represent the many communities in the Nation who 

depend on rural water systems to provide the most basic of needs. 

As Executive Director of the Georgia Rural Water Association, I 

hear from rural communities in need of assistance to bring water 

to their community on a daily basis. 

I speak to you today on behalf of the National Rural Water Association, known as NRWA. The NRWA is a nonprofit federation of 

State Rural Water Associations. Our mission is to provide support 

services to our State associations who have more than 26,000 water 

and wastewater systems as members. NRWA and its State associations are on the front lines every day ensuring water is safe and 

available each time someone in rural America turns on the tap. I 

would like to outline for you today several items which are of importance to NRWA and how we feel they can best be addressed in 

the upcoming farm bill. 

The first issue that I would like to discuss is the current USDA 

Water and Wastewater Grant and Loan Program. While this program continues to provide needed assistance, an ever-present backlog for the funding shows that the need far outstretches the funding availability. This Committee, and Chairman Harkin in particular, committed ample resources during the 2002 farm bill to address this backlog, and yet it remains and continues to grow. I 

would ask the example I referenced in my written testimony which 

outlines specific issues related to the backlog. 

NRWA understands the difficulties that face this Committee 

with drafting this upcoming farm bill, and we encourage you to 

find creative ways of addressing this backlog and ensuring its demise. As you know, the program is based on packaging together 

grants and loans to offer the best possible situation to rural communities in search of water infrastructure. We would encourage the 

Committee to take a serious look at mandating in statute a minimum level of grants in this program. This would give communities 

the ability to plan ahead and know exactly how much their package would be in hard dollars while giving them the ability to better 

know the level of loan they would be expected to assume. 

How can fewer dollars be made to work in a larger way to assist 

rural America? The answer may be as simple as letting some of the 

dollars under this farm bill work for you not just once, but for 

years to come. We feel this can be done through the enactment of 

a nongovernmental, nonprofit entity to make loans to rural communities, which could work in unison with the current program. The 

National Water Finance Assistance Corporation was established to 

do just that. By taking Federal seed money, the National Water Finance Assistance Corporation can match it four to one and make 

loans to rural communities in order to get the financing out the 

door quickly. This allows the same dollars to be spent on a revolving basis to eat away at the current backlog and help alleviate it 

7

not only over the life of this farm bill, but for years to come. We 

feel this concept represents some creative thinking without asking 

for a huge amount of additional dollars and a way to help solve the 

problem so it does not remain on the Committee’s plate for years 

to come. 

The next item I would like to address and discuss is the USDA 

Circuit Rider Program. In 49 states, circuit riders and wastewater 

technicians assist and train water system personnel in all areas of 

management, compliance, operations, and maintenance. They have 

also established themselves as first responders in times of need for 

systems throughout the country. This was evident in the aftermath 

of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Rural water circuit riders from all 

over the country descended on those States hit by these disasters 

and got systems up and running in a matter of days, delivering 

safe drinking water to those citizens left. I have attached a letter 

which illustrates the acts of these tireless workers to my written 

testimony and ask that it be included in the record. We ask the 

Committee for an expansion of the authorized levels for this program from the current level of $15 million annually to $25 million 

annually. 

The last item I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention 

is the Source Water Protection Program. This program administered by the Farm Service Agency, is the single most effective tool 

rural communities have in planning for the future of their water 

sources. By working with community leaders, farmers, ranchers, 

and other stakeholders, source water protection plans are developed to address the threats envisioned and the protections needed 

well in advance of these issues reaching critical stages. We have 

had great success in my home State of Georgia with this program, 

and I would like to submit a copy of a recently completed plan for 

the record, should any Senators like to see exactly what is accomplished by this program: an increase of authorization for this program to $20 million with a one-time mandatory appropriations of 

$10 million to ramp up activities which would address the current 

need. 

In conclusion, the USDA employees who administer the programs that I have discussed today are second to none. Their professionalism and dedication to rural America cannot be measured. 

They have a true love for rural communities and a desire to see 

them reach their greatest potential. Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Chambliss, members of the Committee, I thank you today for listening to my testimony, and more than that, I thank you for your 

deep care for rural America. Without the hard work of yourselves, 

your staff, and the other members of your body, none of these programs would be possible. And I would like to specifically thank 

Richard Bender and Todd Batta of Chairman Harkin’s staff and 

Dawn Stump and Matt Colley of Senator Chambliss’ staff for their 

time and consideration in reviewing each of the proposals that I 

have set forth today. 

Thank you again, and I would be happy to address any question 

you might have for me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matthews can be found on page 

96 in the appendix.] 

8

Chairman HARKIN. Mr. Matthews, thank you very much for your 

testimony and for recognizing the people who do the real work 

around here—our staff. Thank you for that. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Robert Grabarski, National Council of 

Farmer Cooperatives, from Arkdale, Wisconsin. Mr. Grabarski is a 

dairy farmer and a board member of CHS, a farmer-rancher-cooperative-owned Fortune 500 company. Bob will talk about CHS’ experiences with bioenergy production and marketing, as well as producing energy from livestock manure. 

Mr. Grabarski, welcome to the Committee. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GRABARSKI, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF 

FARMER COOPERATIVES, ARKDALE, WISCONSIN 

Mr. GRABARSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and thank you for your interest in developing rural renewable energy. Again, my name is Bob Grabarski. I am a dairy farmer and a member of the Board of Directors of CHS, the country’s 

largest farmer-owned cooperative. Today I am here representing 

the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the national trade 

association representing the nearly 3,000 farmer cooperatives 

across the Nation. 

Cooperatives help meet the food, feed, fuel, and fiber needs of 

consumers and help farmers to improve their income from the marketplace. A number of NCFC members, including CHS, refine and 

produce both conventional and renewable fuels. In the last few 

years, farmer cooperatives have made substantial commitments to 

rural America and bioenergy by investing in ethanol and biodiesel 

facilities and building additional terminal storage for renewable 

fuels in strategic locations. CHS has been in the renewable fuels 

business for nearly 30 years. We now market more than 500 million gallons of ethanol-blended fuels yearly. As an over–20–percent 

owner in the new U.S. bioenergy, CHS now also produces ethanol 

as well. 

CHS is also active in the biodiesel market, having sold—largely 

through our member cooperatives—the equivalent of 2 million gallons of biodiesel. On the whole, the renewable fuels boom has been 

very important for CHS as a cooperative and for our farmer owners. Working through our cooperative, thousands of farmer members have been able to participate in this growing industry, and 

rural communities have greatly benefited. 

Renewable energy and animal agriculture. With nearly 80 percent of all U.S. milk being marketed by cooperatives, NCFC has 

been investigating opportunities to provide animal agriculture a 

stake in the renewable fuels industry by maximizing the use of manure as a feedstock for renewable energy. 

In partnership with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, NCFC is working on the development of a template for 

the generation of electricity from manure. We hope to identify 

needed incentives and hope that Congress will support the generation of renewable energy from manure, much like you have supported the research incentives, infrastructure, and Federal policy 

which helped build the ethanol and biodiesel industries. 

Using just a fraction of the manure generated on this country’s 

swine and dairy operations would generate enough electricity to 

9

power the homes in Iowa’s capital of Des Moines for nearly 6–1/2 

years, or Atlanta for 3 years, or the homes in our Nation’s capital 

for 2 years. Applying this technology to all sizes of livestock operations would vastly increase the production of renewable electricity, could add millions of dollars annually to farm income, and 

could address expensive environmental management issues which 

include odor and wastewater concerns, and could help in managing 

greenhouse gas issues. 

To achieve this, policy and incentives must be in place, much like 

it has been for the ethanol and biodiesel industry. To drive the production and the market using manure as a feedstock and applying 

anaerobic digestion technology is clearly a win-win for U.S. agriculture and taxpayers alike. 

As Congress continues to provide leadership to the renewable 

fuels industry and as you prepare for the farm bill and other energy legislation, I would like to share our recommendations to continue the momentum. These include: 

Strengthen current Energy Title provisions to encourage development, production, and use of renewable energy from crops and livestock. In the case of livestock, this includes dedicating the needed 

resources in the form of research, incentives, grants, and loans to 

support efforts to drive the market and production of all forms of 

renewable energy, including electricity, from manure; 

Support an increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard beyond 

2012 and the goals of the 25x25 initiative, a movement working toward securing 25 percent of our energy from renewable by the year 

2025; 

Support more research into the development of cellulosic ethanol; 

Maintain and strengthen Federal procurement, loan, grant, and 

research and promotion programs; 

Maintain and strengthen energy-related research programs; and 

extend all the current renewable motor fuel tax incentives. 

In conclusion, farmer cooperatives are a vital player in this country’s quest for energy independence and in ensuring that producers 

are able to capitalize on expanded market opportunities. Ethanol, 

biodiesel, and manure conversion, along with conservation, are important tools in securing a more affordable and accessible domestic 

renewable energy supply. We appreciate the opportunity to share 

with the Committee ways in which agriculture and cooperatives are 

investing in renewable energy. We appreciate this Committee recognizing the contributions that the American farmers and ranchers 

are having in the renewable energy industry and look forward to 

working with you in the future. 

I will welcome any comments and questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grabarski can be found on page 

69 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Mr. Grabarski, thank you very much for a 

very thought-provoking statement. I hope that we will have a lot 

of questions on that area when we get to you. 

Mr. Steve Slack, Director of the Ohio Agricultural Research and 

Development Center at Ohio State University, is representing the 

new North Central Bio-economy Consortium. This is a group of 

State-level entities from 12 Midwestern States that have banded 

together to work toward the development of greater energy indeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:58 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35054.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
10

pendence, utilization of biomass feedstocks, and robust bioeconomies. Mr. Slack will talk about the group’s plans and how it relates 

to the Federal policies in the upcoming farm bill. 

Mr. Slack, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE A. SLACK, DIRECTOR, OHIO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, THE OHIO 

STATE UNIVERSITY, WOOSTER, OHIO 

Mr. SLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am here to talk today about the North Central Bio-economy Consortium. As indicated, this consortium is a 12–State collaborative effort between the commissioners, directors, and secretaries of the State Departments of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Services, and University Agricultural Experiment Stations. Together these three institutions from the States of Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have pledged to work 

together to guide our North Central region and the Nation to greater use of bio-based fuels, energy, and products. 

Each organization in the consortium has agreed to contribute 

funding to the operation of the consortium, and a private foundation—the Energy Foundation—has provided matching funding. The 

Great Plains Institute is partnering with the consortium to provide 

staffing and facilitation. The North Central Bio-economy Consortium has also recently agreed to collaborate with the Midwest Governor’s Association on policy review and development for a proposed Energy Summit to be held later this year. 

Although this effort currently focuses on one region in the United 

States, we believe that our efforts will benefit the entire Nation 

and may serve as a model for other regions. As we continue down 

the path toward greater energy independence from the use of biobased feedstocks to supplement limited supplies of fossil fuels, the 

consortium hopes to advance the general knowledge about processing technologies, crops, economics, and logistics that will be useful nationwide. 

As to the farm bill, we are very pleased to be asked for our input 

and would like to take this opportunity to share with the Committee what we see as three crucial priorities for the 2007 farm 

bill: first is in the area of bio-based product procurement; second 

would be regional feedstock demonstrations; and third would be 

local economic development. 

In addition, we have appendices, first from the 12 State Departments of Agriculture, which is part of the National Association of 

State Departments of Agriculture, whose President-elect is the 

North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson. That is 

appended as Attachment 2, and likewise, the land grant system 

through the National Association of State Universities and Land 

Grant Colleges, or NASULGC, has made several recommendations 

for Committee consideration. That is attached as Attachment 1. 

As to the bio-based product procurement, we would coordinate 

the development of a regional bio-based product procurement program for the North Central Region consistent with FB4P, a system 

under which Federal agencies must purchase designated bio-based 

11

products that are available and cost competitive with fossil-based 

equivalents. 

In this regard, we would urge the Committee to reauthorize Section 9002 of the 2002 farm bill dealing with the Federal procurement of bio-based products and to provide the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture with the resources it needs to support the development 

of a regional program. 

As to regional feedstock demonstrations, the next generation of 

the biofuels industry depends on the successful deployment of a variety of new biomass feedstocks and continual improvement of existing feedstocks. At the same time, significant questions exist regarding potential sources of biomass. 

The only way to answer these questions and to solve the problems are is with commercial-scale demonstrations for a variety of 

proposed biomass materials, which will reduce risk and will also 

improve efficiency of the process. And this is a process for which 

the North Central Region is well suited. There are projects by 

State that are also appended as Attachment 4 to the testimony. 

We welcome the opportunity to partner with public and private 

partners and with partners in other regions to assure that we learn 

as a Nation how to make the best use of resources producing energy and products from plants. 

Third, the local economic development. Developing a bio-economy 

is crucially important for energy security, but it is also important 

because it will improve the economies of our States, bring jobs to 

rural areas, revive our Nation’s manufacturing base, and improve 

the lives of individuals and our communities. This is essential to 

the missions of all consortium. As such, we would hope that the 

mechanisms are in place in the 2007 farm bill to assure that the 

benefits of the developing bio-economy can accrue to the local communities throughout our region. We anticipate that research conducted in our region can have value to the entire Nation and that 

our model will be useful for other regions of the U.S. as well. 

In conclusion, we would like to offer ourselves as a resource to 

this Committee as it drafts the 2007 farm bill. Given our geographic and institutional representation, we are uniquely situated 

to offer information and guidance about the developing bio-economy 

in the region where it is developing the fastest. 

Let me reiterate that although the consortium is a regional 

project, we welcome the opportunity to collaborate with other regions and hope that the lessons learned in our region are applicable around the country as our Nation continues down the current 

path toward greater use of bioenergy to support energy independence, local economic development, and environmental protection. 

Thank you for your commitment to the health and vibrancy of 

agriculture in this country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slack can be found on page 107 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Slack. We will 

begin a round of questioning now, 5–minute rounds. We will not 

hold too fast to that. 

I just have one basic question for all the witnesses. We are facing 

a very serious budget issue since we tried to write this year’s farm 

bill. We do not have the baseline that we had 5 years, 6 years ago. 

12

And yet I think we all understand that our energy situation is critical. And as you all pointed out, our agricultural sector offers one 

of the most important opportunities to improve our energy security 

and our energy economy, which also benefits rural development. 

Now, some energy actions are more appropriate for other committees. Obviously, we have an Energy Committee, and there is the 

Finance Committee, and Environment and Public Works. So there 

are a bunch of different committees that have different jurisdictions. Yet, there are a number of activities appropriate for consideration in this farm bill. 

So, again, some of it will be repeating what you have already 

said, but that is OK. Again, for the record, in your opinions, what 

are the two or three or four energy program priorities that you 

would see for this farm bill? Again, you might repeat some of the 

things you said earlier, but that is OK. That is fine. Drive it home. 

Glenn? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I recognize 

and understand and appreciate the problems that the Congress has 

with regard to budgets. I have been through that myself. But it 

does come down to a question of priorities, and I think we have got 

a couple of priorities here. 

One is the question of trying to reduce dependence on foreign energy. I think we all recognize that is a great goal. 

The second thing, obviously, are environmental issues. Climate 

change is getting to be a big issue that I know the Congress is very 

concerned with, is wrestling with, and how do we come to grips 

with that. 

And I think you have got to step back from some of the individual programs, and you are going to have to try to figure out, 

OK, how can we get at some of these big problems that we have 

got, and how do we do that with a very targeted approach, one of 

limited funds. True, you are not going to be able to fund everything. And so I guess to reduce it down, you are looking for the biggest bang for the buck, is what you are really coming down to. That 

is what this is all about. 

There are some items, I think, that do not cost money. We were 

suggesting, for instance, we are going to have big rate increases, 

huge rate increases for electric cooperatives all across the country. 

So is the rest of the electric utility industry, and this is going to, 

quite frankly, have a dampening impact as far as rural development is concerned because that is going to affect electric bills, all 

those new businesses we are trying to start out there. 

One thing you can do, I think, as I mentioned, is to open up 

Farmer Mac and let them buy loans from electric cooperatives, 

open up some different financing, give us a little more competition 

for funds. That really would not cost much in the way of money. 

I think the REDLG financing that already exists, that is money 

that electric cooperatives are paying into the program as we pay 

back those loans early, so that, you know, is another one that minimizes that. And that can be used, I think, for renewable energy; 

if you open it up and let cooperatives use that for renewable energy, that would be another way of doing it. And, quite frankly, you 

can talk to some of your colleagues and stop them from raiding the 

fund. That would be helpful, too. You know, if $244 million goes 

13

out of rural development and goes elsewhere—if we could hold onto 

that, that would be helpful. That is $1 billion plus that we could 

leverage that money to. That would not really cost a whole lot of 

money. 

The other thing I think we can get into is this question of really 

looking at how we can organize. The National Council of Farmer 

Cooperatives, we are talking about how we are working together on 

biomass that would have a positive impact as far as water quality 

is concerned, as far as livestock production is concerned. We can, 

I think, concentrate that in the right areas where it makes sense, 

where it is viable, and use that to generate electric power, to not 

only take care of our own needs but, as I said, to see out of rural 

America. That is another way in which I think we can address this. 

So I think there is much that can be done that is really not that 

costly, but it is going to call for us doing things a little differently 

than what we have done in the past. 

Chairman HARKIN. Good enough. 

Mr. Matthews, two or three things. 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir. First of all, we would hope that the 

Committee would not enhance other priorities at the expense of the 

current programs. Rural development must be in place to provide 

the infrastructure needed to provide this energy. But as Mr. 

English just said, you know, when power goes up in the cost of producing safe drinking water, it is going to have an effect on the 

power that it takes to produce the safe drinking water and also to 

treat the wastewater before we return it into the streams. So it is 

a double-edged sword. 

But I would submit to you that my friends back home at 

Oglethorpe Power, MEAG, and Georgia Power, the southern companies, sponsored a program with Georgia Rural Water on an energy and water conservation program that had some phenomenal 

numbers as to the power saved over a long period of time if we put 

these programs in place. So there is a system in place for leak detection in these water systems of the massive amount of water that 

we are losing through old infrastructure that needs to be replaced. 

Chairman HARKIN. That is true. 

Mr. Grabarski, two or three things most important to the farm 

bill, energy? 

Mr. GRABARSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. You mentioned some in your testimony. 

Mr. GRABARSKI. Yes, I did. Renewable energy developed in the 

country is not a cheap thing to do. To lessen our dependence on foreign oil, certainly that is a way to do that, but it does not come 

without a cost. As far as driving the costs out of some of these 

issues, I am not sure that can be done to any great extent. There 

certainly will be developing cost return on these through tax base, 

jobs, a number of other things. I think it will be a sustainable program, but it certainly needs to get some incentives to get started. 

Chairman HARKIN. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. Slack, again, a couple things, three things. 

Mr. SLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The items that I would 

re-emphasize, first of all, would be the reauthorization of procurement of bio-based products. 

Chairman HARKIN. The 9002 program. 

14

Mr. SLACK. Yes. The second item would be to put emphasis on 

biomass research and development. In particular, I mentioned the 

large-scale demonstration projects to increase efficiency and develop appropriate biomass materials. 

The third one would be the idea of bioenergy development grants 

which would help in the area of rural development. 

Chairman HARKIN. I would also like to ask if you have any suggestions, not right now but maybe the next round, if there are any 

changes in 9002 that you think we ought to be making. Thank you 

all very much. 

Now I will recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator 

Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. English, the Washington Post recently ran a front-page story 

on USDA, the overall scope and mission, and it implied that three 

of our co-ops in Georgia—Sawnee, Jackson, and GreyStone—should 

not be eligible for RUS financing because they are no longer rural. 

What is your reaction to that type comment? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, I did take note of the fact that that was a 

general attack on rural development, quite candidly. I was disappointed to see that in the Washington Post, but that is what it 

was. The items you mentioned were the very bottom on the second 

page, so I guess they were not attaching too much significance to 

it. 

The fact of the matter is that we have been blessed with some 

growth in some of the areas that are served by electric cooperatives. But those are still very rural areas. For instance, I do not 

know of a single electric cooperative in this country that has half 

the population, half the meters of, say, investor-owned utilities, 

and not anywhere close to what some of the municipals are. And 

anytime we have that kind of growth, it benefits those rural people 

in particular because we have such a huge amount of infrastructure across this country we have got to maintain. We have got 

about 42 percent of all the distribution infrastructure of the Nation 

and only 12 percent of the population. 

If you took the particular cooperatives that were mentioned in 

this case, there is not a single one of them that I am aware of that 

is half the size of what investor-owned utilities are, not even close 

to reaching what the municipals are. These are still rural areas. 

And we have been blessed with some growth, we have been blessed 

with some economic development, and this helps those rural folks 

in that district keep the rates down. 

Quite frankly, it does not make a whole lot of sense. I guess you 

could start looking at some of this stuff and say, well, the glass is 

half-full or half-empty. But I guarantee you that those rural folks 

in there are very pleased that this is benefiting them and benefiting—sharing that burden of paying for that infrastructure. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. And they did not mention the cost of service 

per mile anywhere in the article. 

Mr. ENGLISH. They did not anywhere in the article, no mention 

of cost per mile. And you have got such a small number of people. 

We have got on average seven people per mile to pay for 42 percent 

of this infrastructure out there. And investor-owned utilities have 

15

got 35 people, 35 persons per mile. And you get over to municipal, 

and it is 47 persons per mile. 

So when you start looking at 42 percent of the infrastructure, 

seven folks per mile paying for all this, you know, goodness sakes, 

I hope some more of these cities come out there and develop. We 

need all the help we can get. And when you look at the fact that 

on an average our rates are higher than the neighboring investment-owned utilities, you know, and this is all at a time we are 

trying to do something for rural development. 

And let us not forget one other point, and I think this is extremely important, and it gets overlooked, and it definitely was not 

in this article. That is, half of the electric cooperatives will have 

above average number of people who are living below the poverty 

line. So you have got some of the poorest people in this country living in these rural districts, and they are paying the highest rates 

already. You know, any help they can get, wherever it can come 

from, you know, that is great. Any help they can get in paying for 

this infrastructure, that is great. And anything we can do to develop rural America I think we ought to be doing that. 

So, you know, I think they ought to be just as happy as they 

could be for those folks that are living in those areas in which we 

have had some growth out that has been able to help those people 

living—the rural folks living in those areas pay for that infrastructure. Quite frankly, it gets me, it strikes me, it does not make any 

sense to me as to why they want to come kick around folks in rural 

America. And I do not know what this is all about. You know, it 

makes me wonder if this is not a deal, well, golly gee, it is a rural 

versus urban thing. You know, I want to take money away from 

rural folks to give it to urban folks. 

I know there is not as many votes out there in the rural areas 

as there are in the urban areas. But they make a major contribution to this country and make a major contribution to keep this 

country fed and make a major contribution to keep this country 

clothed, and we ought to recognize that from time to time. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I think it probably has more to do with welcome to the year we write the farm bill. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I think that is exactly right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Matthews, you mentioned that a $10 

million annual increase in the Circuit Rider Program would make 

it possible to provide an additional circuit rider in each State. How 

many circuit riders are currently supported nationwide? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir, Senator Chambliss, we have 120 circuit 

riders nationwide at this time through this program, and with additional support from some States that have some State circuit riders also. And the Circuit Rider Program began in 1980 with five 

circuit riders, and soon it expanded to 21 States. And in 1988, it 

was the first NRWA program to cover the contiguous 48 States at 

that time. Today it continues to run from coast to coast and covers 

both Alaska and Puerto Rico. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Salazar? 

16

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Harkin, and 

I want to just at the outset say thank you to you, Chairman Harkin, for coming out to the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado and to be a part of recognizing all these technological breakthroughs that are really putting energy at the forefront of our 

agenda. 

For me, in my State of Colorado, 2 years ago there was really not 

much at all going on with respect to renewable energy and that future. And I was just looking over some of the statistics. I think 

since the last 2 years that we have looked at rural America as a 

way of growing our way to energy independence, we now have an 

ethanol plant in Windsor at 40 million gallons, an ethanol plant in 

Sterling at 48 million gallons; we have one in the southeast part 

of Colorado with 3 million gallons; we have Sterling Ethanol planning one for 60 million gallons; we have Panda Energy for 100 million gallons; we have U.S. Bio in Fort Morgan at 100 million; we 

have done a lot with solar, and the list kind of goes on, biodiesel 

and a whole host of things. 

I say that only as an example that I think there is this revolution underway that you have all talked about in terms of how we 

deal with energy, I think driven both by the national security mandate that we need to address, the environmental security mandate, 

and economic security issues. And so I very much look forward to 

working with this Committee and with the other committees that 

I sit on with some of my colleagues on this Committee, the Finance 

Committee as well as the Energy Committee, to move this agenda 

forward. I think this may be the single most important opportunity 

that we have seen in rural America, perhaps in my lifetime, perhaps in the last century. 

Let me ask a question first to Glenn English. You are a supporter of the 25x25 resolution which Senator Grassley and I and 

other members of this Committee have been pushing for a long 

time. Can you comment on the importance of that initiative and 

what your involvement from the cooperative standpoint is and how 

we can be helpful in pushing that forward? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, I am the only from the electric utility industry on that steering committee and am very proud to be a part of 

it representing NRECA. There is no question that establishing the 

goal of 25–percent renewable by the year 2025 for all energy—this 

is all energy combined—we think makes a whole lot of sense. And, 

obviously, we have talked a little bit about reducing our dependence on foreign energy. That makes a whole lot of sense. 

From an economic development standpoint—and I will be honest 

with you, most folks on that steering committee, you know, have 

got a big eye toward that economic development aspect and what 

we can do for rural America. But we think it makes a whole lot 

of sense—if we do it right. 

They accompanied that resolution or that goal with an implementation plan. We felt it was not good enough to just say, well, 

we ought to have this goal, Congress, you ought to pass this, establish the goal. We have that all the time. I remember back years ago 

we used to pass resolutions about every other year about balancing 

the budget, and we all voted for it, and then we all, you know, 

would not necessarily hold to that. 

17

So we need to do a little more than that. We need an implementation plan, and that implementation plan is a very important part 

of that, and I think that would certainly be something that would 

not cost that much money if we started focusing on how we are 

going to do this stuff. And we need a partnership between Congress—and I know we are reaching out as far as this Committee 

is concerned and over in the House, and trying to develop a partnership. How do we get a plan that makes some sense? How do we 

get the most efficient use out of approaching this stuff? And how 

do we achieve this goal of 25–percent renewable by the year 2025? 

I hope every member on this Committee, if they have not signed 

on, I hope they will do it now. I have put in my commercial on that. 

Senator SALAZAR. Then let me ask you a question. This is a tremendously interesting panel. I think we could spend all day talking 

to each of you because all of you have so much information to share 

with us. I know there is a lot on the fuel side in terms of ethanol 

and cellulosic ethanol and the like. Let me come back on the electric side. 

If you were to name the one single thing—the one single thing—

that we could help the REAs with, what would that be as we move 

forward with these high aspirational goals that we have with respect to renewable energy? The one thing. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I can only name one? 

Senator SALAZAR. Just one thing. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, if I had to name one thing, the one thing that 

you need, obviously, to fully develop this, you need transmission. 

You need transmission. We have got to site these plants where it 

makes the most sense, and if we are talking about wind, the wind 

does not——

Senator SALAZAR. Let me push you on that. We need transmission. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Yes, sir. 

Senator SALAZAR. We all agree that that is one of the hindrances 

that we have in terms of wind and solar and other possibilities out 

in rural areas. What is your view in terms of what it is that we 

can do to help bring about that possibility? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, this is one that, unfortunately, costs a little 

money. But I think you have got to provide tax-exempt bonds to 

anyone who will build that transmission to link up those areas 

where we can maximize the production of renewable energy and be 

able to move that power into the urban areas. Quite frankly, that 

is what has got to go. 

Senator SALAZAR. So you would be supportive of tax-exempt 

bonds for that enhanced transmission capacity as well as other financial incentives to create that transmission——

Mr. ENGLISH. Indeed. I think it makes a whole lot of sense. 

Senator SALAZAR. That has got to be the key. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Yes, sir. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have some 

other questions if we get another round. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Salazar. 

Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to welcome Mr. Grabarski. CHS is headquartered in Minnesota, and as 

18

Senator Salazar was going through all the ethanol plants in Colorado, Senator Coleman and I just looked at each other and said, 

‘‘We have more.’’ And a lot of it is because of the good——

Senator SALAZAR. We are on your tail. We are going to catch up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But the good work that you have done out 

there. And I had a few questions as we look at these exciting possibilities for our State and the rest of the country with this energy 

revolution and the jobs we can bring to rural America. 

I guess first to you, Mr. English, as you talked about one of the 

issues of the transmission lines. One of the things I have heard 

from a lot of our rural business is the rail rates and how expensive 

they have become to ship. We have a bill out there—there are a 

number of bills to try to get some control over these rates. Have 

you encountered this issue? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Oh, my goodness, yes. The abuse is unbelievable. 

For 20 percent of the shippers, we are supposed to be protected 

under the Staggers Rail Act—Mr. Chairman, do you remember 

that, back in 1980, we passed that Staggers Rail Act? We put a 

provision in there to protect 20 percent of the shippers for which 

competition was not going to exist. He knew it was not going to 

exist and knew that these people could be abused under a monopoly. And that is exactly what has happened, and we have had year 

after year after year excuses as to why we got to abuse the captive 

shippers. And to give you some idea how bad that abuse is, where 

there is competition, it is my understanding you have got 6– to 8–

percent profit being made by the railroads. 

For those folks who fall into this category—and this is an awful 

lot of farmers who have got to ship. You have got people in the 

chemical industry, electric cooperatives, utility industry, wood 

products—go across the board. For those that fall under that category where there is even a single amount of no competition, a single amount, the profits that are being reaped off of that on the contracts that are being signed today are anywhere from 350 to 450 

percent. Now, that is abuse. That is a monopoly. 

Also, keep in mind that these folks are exempt from most of the 

antitrust laws. Only baseball and the railroads are exempt from 

antitrust laws. Now, tell me the sense of that. And on top of that, 

these guys are making profits, big money. I mean, they are the darlings of Wall Street. They are getting written up on Wall Street. 

That is who you have got to go and invest in, is the railroads. 

Well, guess why they are making those profits? They are ripping 

us off. There is no two ways about that. And it is wrong, and they 

no longer have that excuse. The railroads are making the money. 

They have got a profit now, and it is time to fulfill that legislation 

and making sure that we do indeed protect those people where 

there is no competition. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you. I think you will be a good 

witness at our hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Grabarski, I wanted to ask you just 

about—in your testimony you talk about some of the issues with 

ethanol. Obviously, on our Committee we are working hard to go 

to the next stage of ethanol, cellulosic ethanol. But you talk about 

19

ethanol being produced in the Midwest, yet a lot of it is blended 

in refineries on the coasts and the fear that foreign ethanol is going 

to come in on those areas. Could you talk a little bit about the obstacles you see to ethanol production across the country and how 

you think we can solve them with the infrastructure issues, with 

the pumps and things like that? 

Mr. GRABARSKI. Thank you, for the question. Absolutely, that is 

a huge issue. The infrastructure has to be addressed. Pipelines cannot be reversed. They are full coming into our area, and they cannot be turned around. 

Having said that, we need to develop an east-west pipeline. We 

need to figure out those railroads that say that they can handle the 

ethanol production. Our major problem is that we are producing it 

in the Midwest, and yet the people live on the coast. And so certainly we need that as a huge issue. We need to figure out how to 

move ethanol back to where the people live, primarily. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Have you thought about the infrastructure 

issue with the pumps and the fact that I think we have like a thousand of them nationally—306 are in Minnesota—what kind of incentives we can put in to promote that? 

Mr. GRABARSKI. Are you talking about the multi-grade type of 

pumps where——

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Any kind of pumps. We are just trying to 

get more E85 pumps around the country beyond the E10. 

Mr. GRABARSKI. All right. We have talked somewhat. There was 

an issue brought up at our last annual meeting, at the CHS annual 

meeting, and we talked about—I think that came out of South Dakota. They had brought a resolution forward. And their concern 

was that they wanted to be able to choose the amount of ethanol 

that they would put in a vehicle or a flex vehicle. Well, a huge 

issue seemed to be at the time how much ethanol or percent was 

left within the hose. 

Well, you know, if we go back to the old days when we grew up, 

we would empty the hose in a bucket and dump it in the tank. 

Well, I do not think that is going to work very well at this stage 

of the game. So certainly that would be an issue, how to make 

these pumps so they can blend that at the island. There has been 

some research done on that. I think that that could happen. There 

is no reason why we have to use E85 nationwide. E10 needs to be 

used nationwide. That would probably use up 14 billion gallons of 

ethanol production, and that is probably where we are going to 

peak out as far as getting it from the corn source. After that we 

have to figure out different sources, whether it is biomass, cellulosic, whatever. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, and we are going to be making 

some major efforts toward that goal, to move toward the biomass. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Grabarski, I want to thank you for your testimony and your 

thoughts regarding the production of biogas from anaerobic digesters. I share your interest in the potential that this anaerobic digestion system holds for biofuels production, the importance of diversiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:58 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35054.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
20

fying our national biofuels. That is why I introduced the Biogas 

Production Incentives Act, S. 1154. For my colleagues here, that is 

S. 1154. 

In your testimony, you discuss biogas production specifically for 

electricity generation, and I wanted to get your thoughts on the 

concept that is in my bill, which provides incentives, a production 

tax credit, for the production of biogas, similar production incentives for other biofuels. 

Understanding the problems with trying to get electricity production through transmission lines and onto the grid, it seemed to me 

that this could be considered a biofuel and that the Government 

should encourage that production and then allow the biogas to be 

used to power ethanol plants or electric generators, whichever the 

market wanted. 

What are your thoughts on this approach and what the market 

may require? And have you looked at the potential for production 

of biogas as a renewable fuel source rather than as renewable electricity generation? In other words, not specifically limited to electric generation, but all over as a renewable fuel as well. 

Mr. GRABARSKI. That is quite a question. What I am going to 

suggest is that I think it has merit, and our whole renewable energy business today and how we are going to actually approach it, 

I am not sure that we will end up with a home run. We may end 

up with a lot of singles. 

When we talked about methane gas, generating electricity, putting it on the grid, you know, I have talked to some of the people 

that are involved, and it is my understanding—and I think Mr. 

English could allude probably a little bit more accurately on this. 

But it is my understanding that that grid is built to go from the 

transmission out to the rural area. And so the lines may start out 

big and get smaller. 

So today, if we are putting methane digesters and generating 

electricity and trying to put them on the grid, that may not be conducive to the way the grid is built. Having said that——

Senator NELSON. Getting back to the transmission issues that 

you mentioned, Mr. English. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Yes. 

Mr. GRABARSKI. And having said that, quite possibly the answer 

lies in producing the gas and capturing the gas and taking it to 

production facilities. And if it is at ethanol production facilities or 

other facilities that generate renewable energy, I think that has 

merit. But somehow we have to get it from the farm. There is a 

huge amount out there, but we need to figure out a practical way, 

economic way, to put this into the system. 

Senator NELSON. I have a bill also that would capture the tax 

that we have—the tariff, the tax—on incoming ethanol so that we 

could use that for development, research and development. Would 

it be appropriate to look at what kind of research and development 

would be required to be able to cost effectively capture that biofuel 

and then find a way in which we can use it either for transmission 

or for other uses as well? Would that be an appropriate use for 

some of that tariff money? 

Mr. GRABARSKI. I am not sure that I have the qualifications to 

answer that. 

21

Senator NELSON. But could you use it? I mean, I guess, in other 

words, I am sure you could use it, but would it not be an appropriate use to try to find a way to cost-effectively move that fuel so 

that it has a commercial value? 

Mr. GRABARSKI. To me that sounds like a very good solution. 

Again, I am not sure I know the right answer to that. 

Senator NELSON. Does anybody else have a thought about that? 

I know you are—Mr. English? 

Mr. ENGLISH. I would have to give you a response for the record 

on that, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. OK. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I am not sure I feel comfortable with that response, either. 

Senator NELSON. All right. The first time I have had people not 

want to use the money, but that is——

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. This is a town where that is an odd—no, I am 

just kidding. But it seems to me that if we could find a way to 

move the biofuels from the stockyard, from wherever, I mean the 

feedlot or wherever it is, the hog confinement operation cost effectively, we do not waste the waste. As a matter of fact, that is what 

I have said about the bill. Let us just not waste the waste. Let us 

find a way to do it, and this would be one of the ways. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Grabarski. Thank 

you, Mr. English. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

our panelists today for their testimony. This is an important part 

of the farm bill, and I think the farm bill, we all know, as a production component of that, the Commodity Title is awfully important 

to the producers in South Dakota. But I think people look to the 

farm bill, too, as being more than just a Commodity Title. It is 

about the rural economy and what things we can do to improve the 

quality of life. Whether that is water, wastewater, infrastructure, 

power, broadband, all those sorts of things I think come into play 

in the farm bill, and so your testimony today with regard to some 

of those issues is important. 

We have one thing in South Dakota that we have more of than 

any other State here, and there is nothing that my colleagues from 

Colorado or Minnesota can do about that, and that is wind. They 

have more actual production, I think, but we actually have more 

wind. One of the problems is we have not figured out away—and, 

Mr. English, you touched——

Senator SALAZAR. Is that true among its politicians as well? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. It is definitely true in this room. But you 

touched on, Mr. English, I think, the real issue and that is transmission. I have introduced a bill that would extend the production 

tax credit to the year 2012 because I do not think there is enough 

certainty when it comes to investment in wind energy. Now, that 

is not something that your members benefit from because you are 

not-for-profits. But that bill also expands and lengthens the time 

for the clean renewable energy bond program that came out of the 

22

2005 energy bill. My understanding is that that is something that 

RECs have used rather extensively. 

You mentioned tax-exempt financing or bonding authority being 

the key issue when it comes to building transmission facilities. 

Does the CREPs program give you what you need to do that? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, we need, obviously, a huge expansion of the 

CREPs program to do that, or the production tax credit. The reason 

that we came up with the tax-exempt bonding approach is really 

that is something that opens it up to everybody. And the building 

of transmission, you know, we are not saying, well, only electric cooperatives should be able to do this or only investor-owned. That 

should be opened up, and we ought to encourage whoever is willing 

to come in and build that transmission that is desperately needed. 

Obviously, we are going to need help as far as siting is concerned. That is an issue as well. We also are getting some help 

from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission these days. We 

are delighted about that in that they are setting aside some of the 

existing transmission for renewable energy—you know, whether 

there is enough or not. 

We have also got problems with regard to the existing transmission that will also play into this in that, quite frankly, you have 

got some road blocks out there, you have got some little difficulties, 

and it plays into some people’s advantage competitively. 

Well, we have got to open up this system so that we can move 

this power, and that is basically what it comes down to. And I 

think that we have just got to focus on getting the infrastructure 

right if we want to go in and be serious about doing renewables. 

If you do not do that, all you are doing with renewable energy, it 

becomes a very localized affairs, and it is really not benefiting the 

country. 

So, you know, we are interested in economic development on this 

rural development hearing, and if we are going to do that, then we 

have got to have ways—and that is what we are encouraging, is 

giving ways for electric cooperatives in all parts of the country, 

whether they are situated in an area that is conducive to producing 

wind energy or not—and a lot of areas are not. Let them invest in 

South Dakota in an industry that would allow us to develop these 

renewables and be able to move that power outside of those regions 

and into Chicago and other large cities around the country. That 

becomes an economic development project for rural America. That 

I think makes a lot of sense, and it does something for the country, 

the same thing we are trying to do with regard to ethanol. 

Senator THUNE. I think we need a national approach to this 

when we look at the grid, and you are right, I mean, a lot of the 

energy that is developed today is localized because of some of the 

issues you mentioned. We have this pancake at the South Dakota 

border that basically doubles the rate to get the power into Minnesota, and I think we have got to come up with, working with the 

regulatory authorities, with FERC and with WAPA and others, to 

get some of these barriers out of the way. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Could I add one other thing, Senator? 

Senator THUNE. Yes. 

Mr. ENGLISH. There is another thing that needs to be understood. In looking at this, as I mentioned earlier, our rates are going 

23

to go up like gangbusters. We are going to have substantial rate 

increases over the next few years just because we are out of this 

capacity and it is going to be extremely expensive. Renewables can 

also be very expensive, and we are still just in the beginning of this 

new industry, some of the technology in some of these areas. We 

are working with regard to the whole biomass trying to develop 

how do you put together this infrastructure. Cost-wise, this energy 

has to be competitive if it is going to work, and so, you know, we 

have got to focus on how do we do this thing right. 

We have got 40 million people out there that are members of 

electric cooperatives. All 40 million of those folks should have an 

opportunity to invest in this kind of an effort, and that is what we 

hope the Congress will do. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. One other quick question, if I might, 

Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Grabarski. In looking at the whole ethanol 

corn base, transitioning to cellulosic, and what are the things that 

we need to be doing to get the incentives out there to develop that 

industry further, there are several things, and Senator Salazar and 

I have a piece of legislation we have been working on to try and 

get more pumps installed, E85 pumps installed around the country, 

because I think that is a big issue. And the oil companies have got 

a stranglehold on a lot of these small convenience stores and fuel 

retailers that keep them from installing these pumps, and it is expensive to do that. So we think that is an important part of the 

infrastructure. 

But in terms of the overall big picture policy, increasing the RFS, 

going from E10 to E20, which of those things makes the most sense 

in terms of this Committee or the Energy Committee or other committees that are going to be dealing with this issue? I am a big believer that we need to go from E10 to E20. The car manufacturers 

are pushing back against that. And if we increase the RFS beyond 

2012, what should we increase it to? 

Mr. GRABARSKI. If there is a priority, I would guess that it would 

be to increase it from E10 to the next level. That may not be E20. 

It may be E15; it may be E20. I do not know. 

As far as the E85 throughout the Nation, up until this point the 

market has not driven the E85 pump to any great degree because 

ethanol has been somewhat expensive. So the blend, when the market drives the E85, it is a wonderful opportunity. Car manufacturers are responding. They are getting more flex-fuel vehicles out 

there. But at our local co-op, when we decided to try and put in 

an E85 pump, we mentioned that there was probably about six cars 

in the county that could actually use that. It is a small county. 

Since that time, some of the car manufacturers have responded. 

We have a General Motors dealer, and he has got in almost exclusively, when he can, flex vehicles. And at this point in time, we 

have put in an E85 pump. I think the market has to drive that to 

a certain degree. 

So, having said that, I would suggest that the E10’s, the E15s 

would probably be more practical at this point in time to drive the 

usage of ethanol across the Nation. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Senator Coleman? 

24

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just reflecting on the questions of my colleagues from Colorado 

and South Dakota and Minnesota, we take great pride on what we 

have done. I think we have 16 ethanol operations. Now we are 

going to double our renewable fuel capacity I think in the next 5 

to 10 years. We pride ourselves on being the Saudi Arabia of wind. 

Xcel Energy is our largest utility in the State. They have got a 

30x25 mandate, and they are—SNC the other day, it is going to 

beat it by wind. By saying all that—and I associate myself with the 

comments of my colleague from South Dakota—we cannot do it 

without a tax credit, and we cannot do it without infrastructure. 

And as a former mayor, an urban mayor, I get infrastructure. It 

is very critical. 

Now, Mr. English, you made the comment about any help we can 

get to pay for infrastructure. Senator Pryor and I have been working for the past couple of years on what we call ‘‘World Renaissance.’’ The idea is that at this point we are looking at $400 million 

in tax credit bonds, similar to the CREPs, renewable energy bonds. 

What you get from this would be leveraged Federal dollars, electric 

co-ops, interest-free loans. 

So my question, just on that—and, again, I would much rather 

they be grants, try to get the money out there. But can interestfree loans, would that be a valuable source of dollars for the infrastructure that we need? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Indeed, it would, Senator. We would love to see 

that program funded more. Of course, that is what we are all 

struggling with, is getting the funding for it. But we think that is 

a good concept, a good idea, and we appreciate it. We sure do. 

Senator COLEMAN. We will continue to push and work on that. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. 

Senator COLEMAN. Now, Mr. Slack, one of the challenges that we 

all face as we embrace renewables, we do see some of the pressure 

now from our livestock people. I think Minnesota is the largest turkey producer in the Nation, and so we are seeing some of that pressure. 

I have gone to our folks over at Minnesota’s AURI, our agricultural research folks, and asked them to help us on this issue. They 

have come back. We are looking at, you know, what can we do with 

DDGs to increase protein content. 

They have come back and developed a report, and they talk 

about—this may be getting hyper-technical, but I just want to get 

a sense of whether we all think we are moving in the right direction. They are showing a near-term promise in crude glycerine in 

terms of kind of looking at some way to ease the tension between 

livestock folks and the ethanol folks. Can you give me a little perspective on either work that you are doing on this? Or do you think 

our AURI folks are looking in the right direction? 

Mr. SLACK. Senator, thank you very much for the question. Indeed, as we look at changes in the food supply for our livestock industries, we are seeing a lot of these kinds of questions come up, 

and certainly the dry distiller grain question is an important issue 

in Ohio, just as it is in Minnesota. We are looking at a number of 

issues. One is just simply looking at the nutritive quality that 

comes out of it as a byproduct and ask the question: Do we have 

25

to add things back to get a balanced feedstock? How does that vary 

with monogastrics versus other animals and so forth? 

So it is a complex issue in part because, as you look from plant 

to plant, the quality of the byproduct that comes out is not uniform. It is going to vary. We have to have some testing methodology to make that uniform. 

That being said, you mentioned glycerine, and glycerine, of 

course, is one of the major byproducts that we are seeing come out. 

And to the degree that we can utilize that in our systems, then 

that is going to be an offset that will be useful. 

So I think that they are right on, and, again, this is one of the 

reasons that we do try to communicate across States because we 

do have a vested interest in assuring that information. 

Senator COLEMAN. I mean, I hope we could work together. They 

are looking at things like crude glycerine as a feed adjunct for turkey diets, crude glycerine as a feed adjunct for lactating cows, et 

cetera. So I would hope that kind of a Nation we would look at 

this, because there is great opportunity, but there are challenges. 

And certainly, Mr. Matthews, your folks are going to be involved. 

We talk about energy and ethanol. Water is a huge issue. In southwest Minnesota, we have some big issues with that, so we want to 

promote the renewables, but we have got to deal with some of the 

issues, including water. 

I do not have a question. I just want to say thank you for what 

you do. People forget about what rural water does, and without the 

technical assistance that they are getting, you know, they would 

have some real—I mean, they have real issues, but you do serve 

an important function. I just want to say thanks for that. 

The last question in the time I have is for you, Mr. Grabarski, 

and that is, we are talking about—there is a lot of discussion about 

what we can do with anaerobic digestion, that we have a nice operation around the Princeton, Minnesota, area. But there was a 2002 

Sense of Agriculture. According to that, in Minnesota 96 percent of 

our dairies are 200 cows are less, and I understand most experts 

believe that you need approximately 500 cows in order to make a 

viable anaerobic digester operation. 

What can we do in Congress to make this technically affordable 

for smaller operations? It is Minnesota, it is Wisconsin, it is, you 

know, throughout the Nation. We are just not at that capacity. Can 

we do things to make that option available to those with smaller 

operations? 

Mr. GRABARSKI. Thank you, Senator. I believe that that could 

happen. It has to happen on more of a wide scale, though, for a 

smaller operation. If we can build some efficiencies into that production where, again, it does not become part of a generating plant 

unless it is self-sustaining or self-sufficient; otherwise, we need to 

figure out a way to capture that gas and actually make the gas the 

product that we sell. And that does not come without a cost. 

Somehow, as we build these units—and there are companies that 

will do this, probably with some grants and some investment programs that could make these on a smaller scale and make them 

more applicable to a smaller family type farm, whether it be 100 

or 200 cows versus that 500 to 700 or more. 

26

Senator COLEMAN. I hope we can add focus to this issue and put 

some resources into developing a solution. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

I have just been informed that we have four stacked votes at 

11:30, so there is no way that we are going to do that and come 

back. So we have to finish the next panel before 11:30, so I am 

really going to have to ask Senators to keep it to 5 minutes. I hate 

to say it, but we do have these stacked votes at 11:30. 

Next is Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will certainly do 

that. 

Glenn, nice to see you. Welcome. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you for the good work you do at Rural 

Electrics. 

Dr. Slack, thank you for joining us and thank you for the work 

you do with alternative energy and rural development at the Wooster Ag Center. Thank you very much for that. It has a proud history, as you know. 

Talk to us, if you would, about the bioproducts incubator and 

how you are doing the sort of partnership with small companies 

and larger companies. And where does that put Ohio’s niche, if you 

will, in where we go with that? 

Mr. SLACK. Thank you, Senator Brown, for the question. There 

are two things that I think about when you ask that question. The 

first one is going back to some of the issues having to do with byproducts we put together through actually funding from the State, 

through the Third Frontier Initiative that you would be aware of. 

Looking to the future is an Ohio Bioproducts Innovation Center, 

and what that really does is it brings the university together along 

with the commodity groups, in this case particularly the Soybean 

Council, and then Battelle, which is a large grant-driven operation 

in Ohio as well, along with the various companies in the State and 

brings them together around the table to look at how we can utilize 

byproducts coming out of the biofuels industry. In part, that is 

driven because, as you know, we have almost 3,000 biopolymer 

companies in the State of Ohio. So these things come together quite 

nicely in a State like we have in Ohio. 

The other thing I would mention a little bit—and I think it goes 

back to the last question of efficiency—is that we have tried to get 

at that by looking at building an anaerobic digesting system that 

is really scalable. The tendency is to go large on a lot of these 

things for all the reasons that all of the other panelists have talked 

about. But the other issue is the one that Senator Coleman has 

brought up, and that is, how do you go smaller? And if you really 

think about an anaerobic digester, it is a mechanical cow. And 

what we have to do is find a way to be as efficient as the cow is, 

but under our terms. 

And so what we have tried to really do is look at modeling that 

system in terms of what we can do in terms of waste systems, particularly utilizing waste out of animal systems. We have a very big 

food-processing industry, as you are aware, in the State, using 

waste streams out of that, and then modeling that system to not 

27

only produce methane but then conversion of that methane, in particular using the fuel cell technology, into electricity—the idea 

being that conceptually this would be a good on-farm use for small 

units. 

It is clearly at the development stage, but I agree we have to 

really do things that make things efficient on the small scale as 

well as the large scale to make this really usable across our rural 

communities. 

Senator BROWN. Thanks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Senator Lincoln? 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate your leadership here and bringing us together on rural development. 

Just to kind of tie that, I guess to take that one more step, so 

in terms of smaller operations and the ability to use the digesters 

in a smaller operation, it is really the issue of an economy of scale. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. SLACK. It is both an economy of scale, but it is also—the 

issue of scalability even goes to the fact of keeping those digesters 

operable. In other words, the smaller you go with the unit, the 

more sensitive it is to changes. For example, if it goes acidic, you 

have got a problem. And so how you balance that and as you 

change feedstocks within that digester, how do you keep it sustainable? 

Senator LINCOLN. All right. But having a big enough economy of 

scale so that it is obviously making sense or profitable would be important, along with those other issues. 

Mr. SLACK. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Grabarski, I know that you mentioned—

a lot of the digesters has been discussed in regard to dairy operations. I have got a good dairy industry in my State, but I have 

got a huge poultry production. I do not know if you all have talked 

about whether that technology transfers and what opportunity 

might exist through the poultry industry. 

Mr. GRABARSKI. The difference between poultry waste and largeanimal waste is entirely different. For the poultry, it is much drier. 

You do not have the solution that you would need in order to generate the digester. So my guess is that that is not applicable in the 

poultry industry. That would have to be something different, and 

I do not know what that is. But I do not believe a methane digester 

would work. 

Senator LINCOLN. OK. Mr. Matthews, thank you for your testimony. You touch on a variety of ways, I think, that the Committee 

could help address the issues facing rural water systems, and those 

of us that have lived in rural America understand that there still 

are people out there who need access to good, healthy rural water 

systems and good, healthy water. 

I never will forget at one of our dedications, a woman came up 

to me and she said, ‘‘Honey, I have had colored sheets long before 

colored sheets was popular.’’ She said, ‘‘I am just so glad to have 

some nice white sheets now with our rural water system in place.’’

28

Maybe you might elaborate a little more specifically on the challenges for communities and rural Americans and what they deal 

with in terms of their water supply, or maybe the lack thereof in 

terms of what water is actually out there. 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Well, of course, we are experiencing in Georgia, 

anyway, and some other Southern States, a severe drought right 

now. 

Senator LINCOLN. Right. 

Mr. MATTHEWS. As you saw this morning on the news, Lake 

Okeechobee is at its lowest levels since they have been keeping 

records, and that is having a tremendous effect on the Everglades 

and the ecosystem and that kind of thing. Well, we are suffering 

with the same thing at home in Georgia. And, again, the bottom 

line is sometimes money will solve the problem, but where we cannot get reservoirs to have an adequate rural water supply from surface water, then there is a lot of well exploration that is going on, 

even in the metro areas there in Atlanta now, to simply supplement golf course needs, things like that for recreation. Lake Lanier 

seems to be holding, I think. My friends from Georgia tell me that 

Lake Lanier is doing a little bit better than it has in the past because of better management, but it is dropping some, of course. 

I asked a friend one time, I said, ‘‘Do you think it is going to 

rain?’’ And he says, ‘‘It always has.’’

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MATTHEWS. So I guess we can just pray for rain to replenish 

our surface water. And, of course, as you know, when the drought 

gets severe, it affects the groundwater table too. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, that is certainly a big issue for us, and 

we have got a lot of ground of surface water, but we also are seeing 

an added pressure on our aquifers, and making sure that there is 

a good balance there is critically important because we have certainly known that one feeds on the other. There is no doubt that 

our aquifers can help feed surface water, but surface water definitely replenishes in those aquifers. So getting a balance is critically important and making sure those resources are there. There 

are also opportunities that we are exploring in terms of recirculation of the water and other ways that we can help conserve. 

Mr. MATTHEWS. And I know the Water Conservation Program 

that you have in your State through your Arkansas Rural Water 

Association, they have a greater Water Conservation Program 

there, as does Minnesota and others. But we worked with 

Oglethorpe Power back home, and Oglethorpe is our largest corporate booster in terms of providing funds for us to do energy conservation work, because they realize the more water that is 

pumped and leaked, it is just costing electricity and electrical 

power. So water conservation is going to be more key in the future 

than ever. 

Senator LINCOLN. Right. Well, we appreciate it, and we appreciate our folks with Rural Water. They do a great job. Thank you. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln. 

Senator Stabenow, and I have just been informed that the votes 

have been moved from 11:30 to 11:50. But, still, I would appreciate—we have another panel to go through. Thank you very much. 

29

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have 

many questions. I will only ask one in the interest of time. But I 

do want to state first that USDA Rural Development has been so 

critical, I know, in Michigan and all of our rural areas in the Upper 

Peninsula. It has made the difference in communities in terms of 

many infrastructure issues, quality-of-life issues. And so now as we 

look at energy, we have so many opportunities to be able to build 

on that. 

Mr. Slack, you mentioned in your testimony the possibility of cellulosic demonstration projects in places like Michigan, plants that 

may be able to use wood or forest products as feedstock. And I wonder if you could speak a little bit more about that. We do not hear 

about forestry products as much, as we talk about ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and I wonder if you might talk about how this type 

of ethanol could change the economies in rural communities that 

have a lot of forest resources, like we have in the Upper Peninsula. 

Mr. SLACK. Thank you very much for that question, and actually 

you mentioned USDA and Department of Energy, and I was remiss 

in my earlier comments, too, on our pilot plant operation that we 

have had investment from USDA and DOE, and certainly working 

together with them has been very important. 

I think as we move forward, as you are pointing out, and we 

start transitioning into the cellulosics, it is going to be important 

to bring the technology at all levels together on that. We certainly 

have as a major resource in the country utilization of our forests 

and managing those. Now, it is not going to be an easy situation. 

Part of that is the technology in moving, you know, into bioprocessing of the cellulosics, but some of it also comes back to the same 

issues that we deal with when we deal with our prime agricultural 

crops. You are going to have to manage those forests. You are going 

to have to handle things in an environmentally positive manner. 

So all these things will go hand in hand, but the reality is for 

us to really utilize the vast potential of biomass as part of our solution. The forests are going to have to be a core part of that process. 

Mr. SLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. You are yielding back all that time? 

Senator STABENOW. I am yield back to my Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. My goodness. Thank you very much. 

Well, since we have had a little back-up, I did have one last 

question I wanted to ask Mr. English. I did not think I was going 

to have a chance to ask it, but I have the time back. 

This is sort of a little bit different, but along the lines of what 

Senator Chambliss asked earlier about this Washington Post article that came out, dated April 30th. It reports on the financial condition of the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation, referred to as ‘‘CFC.’’ The article suggests that CFC is having 

financial difficulties and indicates that its equity has opped by 

some 23 percent in the 6 months preceding November 30th of last 

year. 

Three bond rating agencies continue to rate CFC highly but one. 

Egan-Jones Ratings has sharply downgraded CFC bonds. 

Now, Egan-Jones, I do not know anything about them except 

they tout themselves because they were the ones that gave the 

alarm on Enron and WorldCom and a few other things like that. 

30

So they kind of think of themselves as the canary in the coal mine, 

I guess. 

Have you examined this matter? And if so, is there any merit to 

the Egan-Jones analysis? And what are the principal facts and arguments that you might make to counter their analysis on the merits? And what has been the effect of the article on capital markets? 

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I have got to say that I read that 

article as well. CFC is a sister organization. They are not a part 

of NRECA. 

Chairman HARKIN. Right. 

Mr. ENGLISH. So it would probably be better if they speak for 

themselves. But I would just say this: that the SEC, as you point 

out, of all the rating agencies they have that they recognize, I think 

C is an A-plus or better. That is about the best in the industry. I 

do not know who these other folks are, to be honest about it, and 

I guess from what I understand, they are not recognized by the 

SEC. I do not know what their objective is, and like you, I read 

with interest that this individual holds as his credentials that he 

was one of the first to warn about Enron. But to be honest about 

it, anybody that met Jeff Skilling I think could have made that prediction. I do not know what kind of dealings this fellow had, and 

I do not know his financial background, and I am certainly no financial expert. But I was kind of puzzled by the whole article, and 

I think Senator Chambliss had it right. This just seems to kind of 

be a series during farm bill time, that we just kind of come up, it 

is anti-rural, anti-farm, and this one did not make any sense. I 

would just be honest with you. It just flat did not make any sense. 

Chairman HARKIN. It sounds like it revolves around one individual that came up——

Mr. ENGLISH. I think it might. I do not know. 

Chairman HARKIN. His businesses seemed to come up a cropper, 

and——

Mr. ENGLISH. They also make telephone loans as well as making 

loans to electric wire——

Chairman HARKIN. Now, if they could——

Mr. ENGLISH. There was a loan that was made, and evidently it 

has gone into bankruptcy, and this fellow is taking it kind of personal. I do not know what is going on. But as I said, I probably 

should not be speaking on any of it, other than just make the observation that the SEC, the people they think have the expertise 

and knowledge about this business, they give them A-plus or better, which I think some of the best if not the best in the industry, 

and that is all I think we can hang our hat on. And this other fellow maybe does not know anything about co-ops. I do not know 

what is going on with it, but I do not know anything about it, have 

not run into anybody that knows anything about it. So it is a 

strange story, I will have to agree. It is just a strange story. 

Chairman HARKIN. Strange, because in the 2002 farm bill, as you 

know, we did provide some more authority for them to get low-interest lending. 

Mr. ENGLISH. That is right. 

Chairman HARKIN. For a good purpose. And so obviously when 

these stories come out, we wonder if they are doing the right thing. 

31

And all we can do is basically rely upon similar agencies to tell us 

what is going on. 

Mr. ENGLISH. That is true. 

Chairman HARKIN. And as you say, most of them give them a 

very high rating. I just wanted to get your further thoughts on 

that. 

Mr. ENGLISH. Well, I appreciate it, and as I said, all I could figure out is the SEC probably knows better than anybody else as to 

who is credible and who is not. 

Chairman HARKIN. Sure hope so. 

Thank you all very much for your testimony, and thank you for 

coming, and now we will shift to our second panel. 

We welcome our second panel to today’s hearing, and as before, 

all your statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety. And I will ask you to keep your comments to 5 minutes or 

so and just highlight the basic thrust of your testimony. 

First we will recognize Dr. Lee Lynd, Dartmouth College, Thayer 

School of Engineering, in Hanover, New Hampshire. Mr. Lynd is 

a pioneer in the research and development of cellulosic biofuels. He 

will talk about the status and outlook for cellulosic ethanol technology and the potential role that biofuels can be expected to play 

in the future. 

I read your testimony over last night, and it was very enlightening and encouraging, Dr. Lynd. So welcome to the Committee, 

and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LEE R. LYND, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, THAYER 

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. LYND. Good morning, Senator. Good to see you again, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Chambliss, for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. 

Among various forms of plant biomass, cellulosic biomass—including perennial grasses, woody crops, winter cover crops, and 

various residues from the agricultural and forest industries—have 

the greatest potential for energy production and will be the focus 

of my remarks. I will address two topics today: the potential of cellulosic biofuels, and strategic observations and recommendations on 

policies impacting biofuels. 

At the representative price of $50 per metric ton, cellulosic biomass costs $3 a gigajoule, which is equal to oil at $17 a barrel. The 

immediate factor impeding the emergence of an industry converting 

cellulosic biomass into liquid fuels on a large scale is the high cost 

of processing rather than the cost and availability of feedstock. 

Large reductions in processing costs are clearly possible and indeed 

likely given a sufficiently large and well-targeted effort. Production 

of ethanol and other fuels from cellulosic biomass can reasonably 

be expected to be cost-competitive with fuels from oil at $30 a barrel once cellulose conversion technology is mature. The central 

issue to be addressed is improving technologies to overcome the recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass—that is, converting cellulosic biomass into reactive intermediates such as sugars. 

I know of no informed difference of opinion with respect to the 

proposition that the fossil fuel displacement ratio is decidedly faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:58 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35054.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
32

vorable for production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass in a welldesigned process representative of anticipated industrial practice. 

I note that there are many indications that construction will 

begin within the coming year on multiple industrial facilities producing cellulosic ethanol on an unprecedented scale. 

Looking beyond industry emergence to large-scale application, 

the second central challenge implicit in developing a large-scale 

biofuels industry is sustainable production of cellulosic biomass 

using a feasible amount of land. Projected future increases in biomass production per unit land and fuel production per unit biomass 

could together result in a roughly tenfold increase in land fuel yield 

compared to today, enabling scenarios in which biofuels play a very 

large energy supply role. 

How large? I offer the following examples of what could be 

achieved based on expected results of ongoing analyses I am involved in with others: 

No. 1, cellulosic biofuels could conceivably provide for the entire 

current U.S. vehicular mobility requirement using little or no land 

beyond that now devoted to agriculture, with little or no decrease 

in food and feed production, and with substantially increased farm 

income and profitability, decreased crop payments, net removal of 

greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and improved soil fertility 

and other environmental metrics compared to the status quo. 

No. 2, biofuels could be a substantial part of broader strategies 

leading to approximately zero net greenhouse gas emissions from 

U.S. transportation and utility sectors. Measures to realize these 

outcomes are described in my written testimony. Although the 

changes are large, so are the benefits and so is the cost of not rising to the energy challenges we face. 

In a policy dimension, there is an unprecedented opportunity to 

align farm, energy, and environmental agendas in a way that vastly broadens support for biofuels. However, biofuel and farm advocates will have to earn this support by meaningfully incorporating 

energy and environmental objectives into policies aimed at fostering the development and expansion of biofuels industries. If we 

do this right, we can dramatically and, indeed, historically improve 

the outlook for rural America while also addressing pressing energy security and climate issues. If we do not do it right, the current wave of enthusiasm will pass us by and will likely be difficult 

to rekindle. 

Advocates for biomass energy and farm interests need to focus 

our attention, as well as that of the media and our skeptics, on 

farm-based options that have potential to make a contribution on 

a scale large enough to have a meaningful impact on energy security and sustainability. 

Congress should avoid overincentivizing corn ethanol production 

to the point that the costs are perceived as outweighing the benefits and we risk a backlash that will, again, likely negatively impact all biofuels. 

Realizing the clear potential for environmental benefits from 

biofuels will be fostered by rigorous evaluation and exploration of 

alternative production and management practices, crops and cropping systems responsive to local circumstances, and policies that 

reward environmentally desirable outcomes. 

33

Policies aimed at increasing fuel production from sources other 

than petroleum must not increase greenhouse gas emissions and 

should recognize the value of emission reductions. 

There are strong public benefits from increasing energy efficiency, and correspondingly large public costs for failing to do so. 

Recent proposals by the President and others to increase CAFE 

standards and/or adopt market-driven ‘‘feebate’’ mechanisms are 

encouraging signs that these realities are at last being recognized. 

Following through on these proposals by enacting aggressive measures to increase energy utilization efficiency in transportation as 

well as other energy sectors should be a very high priority. 

Briefly, Congress and agencies need to adjust policy formulation 

in response to the new reality of a private sector that is now active 

in investing in biofuels and other alternative energy technologies. 

And, finally, I note that the collective genius of the United States 

research community has in the past been engaged in the biomass 

energy field to a profoundly limited extent, and particularly in 

America’s universities. The three large bioenergy centers solicited 

by the DOE Office of Science will be significant steps forward and 

should be fully funded. Providing broadly accessible opportunities 

for investigators and institutions not part of those centers would 

further increase the engagement of the research community and 

should be a priority. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynd can be found on page 91 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Lynd. 

Now we will turn to Dr. Ugarte, who is an ag economist at the 

University of Tennessee, part of a team that has been conducting 

research and economic analyses of biomass and bioenergy potential 

that focus on the agricultural and economic implications of the 

25x25 resolution. 

Dr. Ugarte, welcome again to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL DE LA TORRE UGARTE, AGRICULTURAL POLICY ANALYSIS CENTER, THE UNIVERSITY OF 

TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE 

Mr. UGARTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 

Chambliss. First of all, I am here not in representation of 25x25, 

but just in our condition of making the analysis for them. 

The 25x25 goal implies basically by the year 2025 the production 

of 86 billion gallons of ethanol—ten times what we expect to 

produce this year—and 1.1 billion gallons of biodiesel, and about 

962 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, roughly 16 percent of our 

electricity needs. 

Now, how can this be accomplished within the agricultural sector 

and the forestry sector? First of all, to achieve these goals, we have 

to incorporate a broader set of feedstocks, and here the celluloseto-ethanol path is key. 

Second, we not only have to look at transportation fuels but also, 

as the goal has stated, look at electricity and other sources of energy and energy services. 

One thing that we have to take into account—and we already 

have experienced that—is that the rate of growth and the corVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:58 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35054.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
34

responding incentives in achieving these goals have to be consistent 

with the technology development and the availability of the feedstock at the time. And that is one of the reasons that we have faced 

in these last 2 years, especially last year, a run-up in corn prices 

of about $4. 

To achieve these goals, definitely there will be a significant level 

of changes in land use. What we would expect to see is a graduate 

decrease in the land planted to soybeans, wheat, and corn—soybeans by about 20 million acres, wheat by 9 million acres, and corn 

3 million acres. We do not expect these changes to happen in the 

heart of the Corn Belt or in the Midwest. What we expect these 

changes is to happen in the areas that are marginal for this growth 

of these crops, basically in the Southeast of the U.S. 

At the same time, the analysis implied the introduction of a new 

energy crop like switchgrass for about 100 million acres by the year 

2025. How can this be achieved? Well, one, by the shifting of the 

crops that I just mentioned, and second, by an increasing intensity 

and management of the cropland in pasture, cropland in hay, and 

the land in grasslands. Increasing the management and the intensity of those arable lands will significantly release and allow for the 

transition of that acreage toward switchgrass. 

Taking into account this broad set of feedstocks and the objectives, we do not expect to see huge impacts in prices. Moreover, 

what we expect to see is about 35–percent price increases based on 

the 2006 USDA baseline, well below what we see today and well 

within the range of prices that we have seen within the last 10 or 

15 years. 

Net farm income is expected to grow for the whole period for about $100 billion, $37 by 2025. Government payments could be reduced by keeping the legislation in 2006 but up to $100 billion to 

the year 2025, all depending what we do with the direct payments, 

and all these benefits will be totally distributed across the Nation. 

We are not focusing only on the Midwest strategy but on a nationwide strategy of feedstock production and energy conversion. 

In terms of economic activity and impact to the rural communities, we will expect to see a new industry that is able to generate 

$700 billion in new output and will employ roughly 5.2 million new 

jobs. 

These opportunities, of course, do not come with any challenges. 

Some of the challenges that are underlining this strategy is the immediacy of having to bring a cellulose-to-ethanol path. Our assumption in this example was that a cellulose-to-ethanol path 

would start to make contributions by the year 2012. We have to 

continue investing in agricultural research, not only in traditional 

crops but also in dedicated energy crops. We have to define public 

incentives that ensure environmental sustainability and enhance 

benefits to rural communities. We also will have to look at the agribusiness sector that is able to generate the inputs and the knowledge to plant these 100 million acres of switchgrass. 

We have to disseminate this information through the extension 

service to farmers, and at the same time provide the means to 

solve key issues in the supply of feedstock to biorefineries, including pre-treatment, transportation, storage, and handling of those 

feedstocks. The achieving of this goal also implies the construction 

35

of between 700 and 1,200 biorefineries, which is not an easy task 

for this whole period. And, finally, we have to define what will be 

the role of trade. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ugarte can be found on page 133 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Dr. Ugarte, thank you very much for your 

statement. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Howard Learner, Executive Director of 

the Environmental Law and Policy Center. He was actively engaged in promoting an Energy Title in the farm bill in 2002 and 

its implementation since then. Mr. Learner will talk experiences 

with the Energy Title programs and policies and recommendations 

for this year’s farm bill. 

Mr. Learner, welcome again to the Committee and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD A. LEARNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. LEARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to commend you, Senator Harkin, and Senator Lugar for your vision in 

the 2002 farm bill and the rest of the Committee that created the 

new Energy Title that has proven to be a success. When it comes 

to developing new clean energy in rural communities, it is a winwin-win. It is good for farmers, good for rural economic development, good for the environment, as well as helping to enhance our 

national energy security. In the parlance of the trade, ‘‘You have 

done well,’’ and we are very pleased to have worked with all of you 

to accomplish this. 

I will focus my comments this morning on one very important 

successful part of what the Committee did in 2002. That is the Section 9006 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Improvement 

Program. That has been the cornerstone of the farm bill’s success. 

It is a program that has been a winner. Senator Harkin, you asked 

earlier about priorities, and to use Senator Salazar’s language a 

couple minutes ago, the single most important clean energy improvement that this Committee and Congress can consider in this 

farm bill is to increase from $23 million a year to at least $250 million a year the Section 9006 program. It has been successful, it has 

worked, it is a winner. 

So why is such a major increase justified at a time in which the 

budget is tight? We all know that. We are not insensitive to it. The 

reason is this is an example of investing and reinvesting in a proven winner, and whether it is Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway 

or Google, all of us wish we had invested in something that was 

a winner. This is a winner whether it is investing your personal 

assets, a pension fund, or public policy investments to achieve a big 

bang for the buck. You know, this is a program that has been a 

winner. You have recognized this, and the Committee has recognized it. 

Mr. Chair, you and other members on a bipartisan basis sponsored Senate bill 3890, the Renewable Energy for America Act, last 

year. That would increase the funding to $250 million annually. 

36

Last week, Representatives Herseth, Sandlin, and Fortenberry over 

in the House introduced House bill 2154, which would likewise increase the program funding to $250 million per year. 

The 25x25 Action Plan that former Representative English 

talked about and I know you are all familiar with came out with 

its recommendations. It recommended that the Section 9006 program be increased to $250 million a year because it works, and 

that is a recommendation from utilities, from rural electric co-ops, 

from environmental groups, from farm groups, from commodity 

groups. You know the broad coalition behind 25x25. And we are 

also informed that that the National Commission on Energy Policy, 

the so-called Dole-Daschle Commission, which is coming out with 

its report later this month, we are told they will be recommending 

$500 million per year for the Section 9006 program. That is not 

final. I am not advancing their report. But I have been told that 

we can inform the Committee of that. 

The reason for all of this is because Section 9006 is regarded as 

a proven success. Since 2003, farmers, ranchers, and rural small 

businesses have used over $115 million for more than 800 wind 

power, anaerobic digester, biofuels, energy efficiency projects in 42 

States around the country. It has leveraged nearly $1 billion of investment. 

Unfortunately, the program is a victim of its own popularity and 

success. Applications for this program have exceeded the amount of 

funding by more than 3 to 1. We have gotten reports upon reports 

of farmers, small family farmers, mid-sized farmers and ranchers, 

who have good projects, cannot get funding. They have a reasonable application. And they have said to USDA and they have said 

to the 25x25s and everyone else, ‘‘This is a program that works. We 

need it to work for us. Can you put more funding into it?’’ So what would you get? If this program went up to $250 million 

a year, we believe at that funding level it could produce annually 

more than $1,000 megawatts of wind power, more than 5 billion 

gallons of biofuels, tens of millions of dollars in annual energy savings, more than 10 million tons reductions in carbon dioxide. That 

is an enormous payoff, and we can provide the numbers behind 

that if you and your staff would like us to do so. 

I will very briefly mention the Section 9005 program that you 

also created in 2002. For 5 years, it has gone without funding. It 

is important—energy audits and renewable energy assessments for 

farmers and ranchers. This would be a good time to put some funding into that program to get it going. 

Rural America is the source of much of our Nation’s renewable 

energy potential. You have heard that from all the witnesses today. 

It cuts across State lines. We think this is the time to reinvest in 

the programs that are working very well and can work even better 

for the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today. We would be 

pleased, like others, to answer any questions that you may have for 

us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Learner can be found on page 76 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Learner. These potentials 

you mentioned, was that based on $500 million or $250 million? 

37

Mr. LEARNER. 250. Simply put, if it were $500 million, it would 

be about 2,200 megawatts of wind power. The rest of the numbers 

double up. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Learner. 

Mr. LEARNER. You are welcome. 

Chairman HARKIN. Now we turn to Neil Rich, President and 

CEO of the Riksch Biofuels in Crawfordsville, Iowa. Prior to founding this company in April 2005, Neil was Vice President of Rich 

Pumping, LLC, a custom fertilizer application business servicing 

all of southeast Iowa. Neil began doing research on biodiesel in late 

2003, a year later had successfully created a small-scale biodiesel 

reactor, and was running the fuel in his business and all his personal vehicles. Very interesting. 

Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Rich. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL RICH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RIKSCH BIOFUELS, CRAWFORDSVILLE, IOWA 

Mr. RICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Chambliss, and any other members of the Committee that may join 

us later on. I would like to thank you for the opportunity this 

morning to appear before you on the importance of the biodiesel industry to rural development and the importance of including our 

proposed Biodiesel Incentive Program in the 2007 farm bill. 

My name is Neil Rich. I am the President and CEO of Riksch 

BioFuels. We are a 10–million-gallon biodiesel facility which started production in December of 2006. We were able to create 14 highquality jobs in a small community in southeast Iowa, which in the 

past decade and a half has seen little to no positive job growth. Our 

project was funded by private investment from local producers and 

local ag businessmen, along with, to echo Mr. Learner, the 9006 

program that was in the 2002 farm bill. We were the first recipient 

of both the grant and the loan guarantee program. We are pleased 

with that. I can only hope to sit here this morning and have biodiesel be a significant part of the 2007 farm bill. It is very important. 

In order to take advantage of the many benefits of biodiesel and 

ensure a domestic production industry, the National Biodiesel 

Board and the American Soybean Association are supporting authorization of a Biodiesel Incentive Program in the farm bill. This 

program would operate similarly to the CCC Bioenergy Program, 

which has worked well in encouraging expanded biodiesel production in recent years. Our industry very much appreciates your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in championing authorization of the Bioenergy Program in the 2002 farm bill. 

It is important to understand that every renewable fuel program 

worldwide is supported through government funding. Moreover, a 

number of countries subsidize biodiesel production or offer incentives to encourage exports. For example, Argentina has an incentive worth 43 cents per gallon for Argentine soybean processors to 

convert soybean oil into biodiesel for export. Just last week, a shipment of 1.2 million gallons of Argentine biodiesel exports to the 

U.S. was announced in the trade press. U.S. biodiesel producers 

need an incentive that offsets this subsidy in order to compete in 

our own market. 

38

In addition to competing with subsidized imports, the U.S. biodiesel industry is struggling to establish itself at a time of extremely volatile energy markets, and to assist with this, the newly 

created volumetric biodiesel fuel tax credit, which must be extended, enables the domestic biodiesel to compete when prices for 

soybean oil and petroleum diesel reflect their traditional relationship. Although recent petroleum prices have reached historic highs, 

they are subject to rapid changes as a result of the foreign policy 

decisions as well as other economics. Although the price of soybean 

oil has climbed to well over 30 cents per pound, the markets anticipate a possible loss of up to 8 million U.S. soybean acres to corn 

in 2007. A safety net is needed for biodiesel to offset these uncertainties, which discourage investment for future biodiesel production. 

To provide this protection to the domestic industry, we are requesting authorization for the Biodiesel Incentive Program. Similar 

to the CCC Bioenergy Program, the reimbursement would be established at a level that would offset the foreign subsidy. At the current price of soybean oil of 30 cents per pound, and with 7.5 pounds 

per gallon going into biodiesel, the amount of the reimbursement 

would be set at 43 cents per gallon of biodiesel produced. 

Based on the U.S. projections of 250 to 300 million gallons in 

2007, if the incentive was paid on every gallon produced, the cost 

of the reimbursement this year would be between $107 and $129 

million. By comparison, in the 2002 farm bill the authorization 

funding of $150 million per year was created. Separately, it is necessary to continue funding the USDA’s Biodiesel Fuel Education 

Program at a level of $2 million per year. Already the program has 

achieved substantial results in improving consumer awareness, but 

it must be continued if we plan to educate consumers about biodiesel. 

The testimony has been distributed to you previous to this meeting this morning. The environmental benefits of blending biodiesel 

with petroleum fuel are unmistakable. The value of being more energy independent can also not be argued. However, the total value 

added to agriculture is one that comes up for debate, and it is not 

if or when, it is just how much. 

The USDA stated 50 million gallons of biodiesel will add to the 

prices of soybeans by 1 percent, and biodiesel has and will continue 

to have a positive impact on agriculture and specifically rural development. Our plant, with the help of programs like the one proposed today, will have a great effect on the local economy in southeast Iowa and many others like it. Biodiesel is creating a new economic vitality, bringing new jobs and infusing many rural communities with new consumer activity. 

I urge you today to not let biodiesel be left behind. The biodiesel 

industry is emerging at a very rapid pace, as you all know, and 

this program would spur the continued development of new companies and allow those companies such as mine that are in production to develop technologies to make ourselves more efficient. 

I urge you to continue your support in this farm bill to advance 

and promote an industry that increases energy independence, improves our environment, benefits farmers, and benefits rural economic development. 

39

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rich can be found on page 104 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you all very much for just great statements, and also for your written testimony. They contained a lot 

of really good, vital information. 

I think there is a general understanding, an agreement, an interest among this Committee and I think on the House side also for 

moving ahead very aggressively in cellulose and also in biodiesel. 

On the cellulose side, though, we are trying to grapple with how 

we do that. What are the policies that we need to put in place? 

I have often likened it to the fact, Dr. Lynd, that we have a 

chicken-and-egg situation. Now, some of your testimony refutes 

what I am about to say, and we will get into that. But it has sort 

of been like it is hard to get private investment in cellulose now 

because the private investors, the equity investors, say, well, where 

is the feedstock? And you go to the farmers to raise the cellulose 

material, and they say, well, where is the market? So you have 

kind of got two things there, and it seems to me you have got to 

bring both along. You have got to build the plants at the same time 

that you get farmers to start converting and doing and growing energy crops. 

I wonder if you could comment on that. Is that a decent analysis, 

a good analysis? Or is there plenty of equity money out there to 

build the plants now regardless of where the feedsdtock comes 

from? 

Mr. LYND. Good questions. My sense is that, you know, when 

things are not moving as fast as people would like them to, it is 

perhaps convenient to look to chicken-and-egg explanations. My 

personal view is that the conversion technology has been the limiting factor, and I think as the conversion technology appears in 

the short term, feedstocks will not be limiting. 

Now, in the longer term—in other words, there is a lot of locations in this country where I think the feedstock will rapidly materialize. That is for getting started. For growing a big industry, feedstock issues are vitally important, and they need some lead time 

to solve them. 

Chairman HARKIN. Might I interrupt you there? Growing feedstocks is one thing. Farmers are used to growing wheat or corn or 

beans or cotton or rice or whatever. Or maybe they have pasture 

land; they are grazing cattle on pasture land. So it takes a while 

to shift. I mean, you do not know what that income is going to be. 

Plus, don’t you have to have a plant within a certain mile radius? 

You cannot transport that stuff 100 or 200 miles? 

Mr. LYND. Yes, but there are sources of cellulosic biomass that 

are accumulating right now—mountains of gas in Louisiana, for example, waste paper sludge, paper mills, things of that kind. So the 

fact that those are not—if those were being converted and we were 

stuck at the transition point of going to actual grown feedstocks, 

then I think that would support your argument. But the fact that 

you have got accumulating cellulosic biomass produced 365 days a 

year and those are not being converted suggests to me that it has 

been the conversion technology which has not been ready to run. 

I do not think it has been limitations of feedstock. 

40

Now, again——

Chairman HARKIN. So the private equity is not coming in because the conversion is just too expensive. 

Mr. LYND. Yes, but, you know, a huge tipping point happened. 

I mean, prior to about 18 months ago, the venture capital community looked at this or any equity investor looked at this, and it was 

like, gee, it depends on the weather, the price of the oil, and governmental regulations, too many unknowns for me, I will go invest 

in cell phones or software or what have you. 

And so I think that as long as people looked at this with a 

project finance model, it looked pretty grim, and lots of people have 

recited all the reasons that cannot happen. At this point, though, 

private equity is being placed in these companies, and it is because 

people are looking at it with a venture finance model because fundamentally they are convinced that this is the way the world wants 

to go. 

So I think the train is moving. That is not to say there cannot 

be things done to accelerate it. I think the notion of having incentives indexed to the price of oil is a tremendously good idea. I think 

ways to leverage private investment for first-of-a-kind technology 

that has compounding risks is also a great idea, and there are 

things that need to be done on the research side. So there are 

things to do, but it is very different than it was 2 years ago when 

if the Government did not push the ball, it was not going to happen. 

Chairman HARKIN. You mentioned a tenfold increase in fuel per 

acre. 

Mr. LYND. Yes. 

Chairman HARKIN. I want to know more about that. What is 

your baseline? What land productivity do you project in dry tons 

per acre? And what conversion yields do you project in gallons per 

dry ton to get to that figure? 

Mr. LYND. Well, in round numbers, many project that within 10 

to 20 years we can produce 15 dry tons per acre per year of cellulosic biomass across a broad range of sites, and if you combine 

ethanol with other——

Chairman HARKIN. As an average? 

Mr. LYND. As an average, yes, that is exactly right. And if you 

combine ethanol with fuels that can be co-produced with it, which 

include diesel fuels from cellulosic biomass, you can get between 

105 and 110 gallons per dry ton. 

In round numbers, the calculation is pretty simple. Most people 

make current cellulosic biomass—5 tons per acre per year is the 

typical number. That is about threefold lower than the number I 

mentioned. And there are certainly some studies by the DOE and 

others that point to current technology being about 35 gallons per 

ton, so that is threefold less than 100, 3 times 3 is 10, round number, broad brush. So there is no great mystery to the numbers. 

Chairman HARKIN. But you are talking about 105 to 110 gallons 

per dry ton. 

Mr. LYND. Correct. 

Chairman HARKIN. That is a threefold——

Mr. LYND. Correct, threefold on conversion, threefold on per acre 

production. 

41

Chairman HARKIN. Well, how convinced are you that we can get 

there? I mean, how long a period of time? 

Mr. LYND. It depends how much and how smart we invest, but 

I am pretty sure we can get there. 

Chairman HARKIN. My time is running out. Just one follow-up on 

that. So should we be thinking in this ag bill about putting more 

in research on this end in terms of conversion? And I have heard 

the others, enzymatic conversion, yet there is a heat process. Which 

is the best? 

Mr. LYND. Two questions. No. 1, again, we are very underinvested in research in this area worldwide, frankly, and particularly on the more fundamental side that provides the support for 

the applied work. Research in this field has been acting as if it has 

been 2 years away for 20 years. We are just not engaging, as I said, 

the collective genius. So there does need to be more there. 

The second part of your question—remind me, please. You asked 

about should we be spending more on research, but there was another point. 

Chairman HARKIN. Yes. I have been told there are basically two 

processes. One is an enzymatic process, the other is a heat process. 

Mr. LYND. Yes. The short answer is everybody looks at that as 

an either/or, and I am pretty sure it will be an ‘‘and,’’ and the reason is that current biological conversion uses a sufficient quantity 

of the energy in the biomass that will never be converted to ethanol, at least—will never be fermented to ethanol, anyway, the 

lignin in the residues. Most of that is necessary to make the biological processing happen. However, as the biological processing 

improves, which it surely can, most of that energy is then available 

for the thermal process and with greatly resulting economies and 

efficiencies. 

So my sense is in the near term these are competitors, but in the 

long term they complement each other. And, therefore, it is worth 

learning about both pieces, and then eventually integrating them 

very much to the benefit of the country and the technology. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Chambliss? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Dr. Lynd, we are pretty excited down our 

way with respect to cellulosic production. We have got a $250 million investment that has already been announced in Soperton, 

Georgia, where we are going to be using pine trees, which I am 

sure you are familiar with the process, may be familiar with that 

plant. This is an area that we in the Southeast have an awful lot 

of resources for as compared to the grain feeds that we do not have 

a lot of. 

Given our limited resources and budgetary constraints, what is 

the single most important thing we can do in the farm bill to promote the cellulosic ethanol industry? 

Mr. LYND. I do not know if it is exactly the farm bill, but I think 

probably the single biggest thing that could be done is to appropriate what has been authorized. There is an awful lot of—and 

what is being discussed as being authorized. There is an awful lot 

of good ideas out there, and there are some pretty—there are some 

trails of tears in the history of some of this legislation in the past 

42

in terms of where it was intended to go and where it ended up 

going. So that would be one issue. 

But I think, you know, on the—I think the simple answer is the 

farm bill needs to have aggressive R&D, and particularly targeting 

R&D that the private sector is not likely to do. And there is a lot 

of work on feedstocks that comes into that category, and I think it 

needs incentives in the form of cost-sharing capital. But, again, this 

notion of indexing price supports to the price of oil gives incredible 

robustness, avoids spending dollars in an unnecessary way, and 

will really accelerate this industry. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Is technology in the cellulosic end of ethanol 

production moving at as fast a pace as technology on the grain feed 

side? 

Mr. LYND. Well, arguably, it is moving faster, and the reason is 

the technology on the grain feed side is reasonably mature. We are 

to the point that additional benefits are small. In cellulosics, there 

are still large steps that can be taken. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Right. 

Mr. LEARNER. Senator, if I might respond very briefly? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Sure. 

Mr. LEARNER. You asked some of the things that could be done 

in the context of the farm bill. Section 9003 of the farm bill that 

passed in 2002 has a set of provisions for biorefineries. With regard 

to one of the comments that the Chair made a moment ago, whether it is the Southeast or the Midwest, you could link funding under 

Section 9003 to an area where there are feedstocks locally available. So, therefore, when USDA decides which proposal from a biorefinery using cellulosic ethanol to fund, one of the criteria is: Are 

there feedstocks locally available? That gives the refinery proponent some skin in the game in terms of going to the local farm 

organizations and the local farmers, saying if you can work it out 

over here, I may be able to get some support from USDA to put 

a biorefinery right near you. And it creates that sort of cooperative 

arrangement that gets you around the chicken and egg, whether it 

is the Southeast or the Midwest that the Chair was talking about. 

You take the 9003 program, which is already authorized, and put 

that selection criteria in there. Then you pull the two together, the 

chicken-and-egg problem. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Dr. Ugarte, the impacts of higher feed prices 

are significant, obviously largely concentrated in the swine and 

poultry sector right now. Your testimony indicates that the model 

cannot fully capture the effects of the high degree of vertical integration in these sectors. 

Could you expand on that a little bit? And is one of the net results of our biofuels policy to promote concentration in the livestock 

sector? 

Mr. UGARTE. Well, that is one of the challenges that we face, especially in the poultry and hog industry, in which, to make it simple, we only have between two and three producers—Smithville, on 

the one hand, and on the other hand, we have Tyson and Perdue. 

So it is very difficult to see how are they going to react. I mean, 

they have a significant market power to really absorb and transfer 

the whole cost of the additional feedstock into the consumer. So in 

terms of the adjustment, they are in a much better position than 

43

the cattle industry, although at the same time the hog and poultry 

industries are mostly affected because, being monogastric animals, 

they cannot take full advantage of the dry grains. 

Now, whether or not it is going to increase concentration, I think 

you can find two arguments. One of those is that by increasing the 

cost of the feedgrains, what you are going to try to promote is concentration away from the feedlots, meaning trying to have the animals, especially in the cattle sector, spend much more time on the 

farm or in pasture, which is what we used to do 15 or 20 years ago. 

So, in that sense, that will contribute to move away from the concentration in feedlots. 

In the case of the poultry and hogs, it cannot be any more concentrated anymore. So, in that sense, I do not think that the damage—the possibility for damage is there. Again, the reverse impact 

could start happening because now with this new demand for energy, the prices of corn and other feedgrains are going to be at the 

higher level and then are going to return to the farmer the ability 

to compete with the large integrations. 

So I think that it opens the opportunity for reducing pressure or 

integration and maybe to bring back profitability for farmer-grown 

poultry, hogs, and livestock. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Learner, I agree the Section 9006 program is very successful. There is a demonstrated need for more resources, obviously, for this in the farm bill if we can find the 

money. However, the approach you advocate is somewhat different 

than that put forth by the administration in its recent farm bill 

proposals. 

Should the program continue to focus on small-scale projects? 

And given the limited budgetary resources, are loan guarantees 

and larger production platforms better vehicles to increase production of renewable energy in rural America? 

Mr. LEARNER. Senator, this program was designed in 2002 to be 

aimed principally at small and medium-sized farmers, ranchers, 

and rural small businesses. We do not object to some of the funds 

being used for loan guarantees as a way of leveraging larger 

projects. But the majority of the funds in this program should go 

for grants, for some of the reasons that Senator Coleman talked 

about before in terms of who you reach through the program. So 

it is not an either/or; it is a both/and. But the majority of the program funds should be used for grants, and on that we respectfully 

disagree with the USDA suggestion that it all move into loan guarantees and the grant program go over to Section 9010. 

Section 9006, is a proven winner, and Congres should put more 

resources into it. Most of the funds should go to grants; some can 

be used for loan guarantees. They both have value. They reach out 

to different types farmers. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Rich, I do think it is very important we 

continue to support the biodiesel industry and obviously domestic 

production, and we look forward to dialoguing with you. And your 

situation is unique in some ways, but in Georgia, actually, we have 

got a comparable situation to yours where a small producer of biodiesel arose out of a somewhat average sod production farm. And 

it is kind of interesting to see innovative and creative folks like you 

develop this industry. 

44

You mentioned in your testimony the projected decrease in 2007 

soybean acres and the increase in price of soybean oil. What constraints will declining acreage and increasing prices of vegetable oil 

have on our ability to grow the biodiesel production in the future? 

Mr. RICH. The feedstock availability to biodiesel is definitely finite. The biodiesel industry is aware of that. The potential decrease 

in soybean acres will have to be picked up by alternative feedstocks 

that are out there, and the biodiesel manufacturers will have to 

adapt to those changes. Some of them are able to, and some of 

them are not able to. 

At this point, where the biodiesel industry is, there is feedstock 

out there and it is available. The potential acreage shift, I guess 

we will see how everything plays out, but at this point the rising 

cost of soybean oil and the somewhat level price of diesel fuel is 

just not enough to sustain the biodiesel industry the way it is 

today, let alone have it expand. So there needs to be something else 

additionally done. 

When we got our project off the ground, the CCC Bioenergy Program was alive and well and funded. And when we came into production, it was no longer. So something needs to happen for these 

companies to survive, in order to be more efficient down the road, 

and we can only be more efficient if we are able to survive during 

these somewhat high prices. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, I thank all of you for your testimony. 

Obviously, we can sense the energy that each of you feel relative 

to this issue, and it is a fascinating and fast-developing segment 

of our agriculture economy that I think has a huge potential for 

farmers all across America. Historically in the Southeast, obviously, ethanol has not been a major factor from a production use 

standpoint. But today we are seeing ethanol plants under construction as well as biodiesel plants, and I think with folks like you giving your ideas to us certainly moves us in the direction of wanting 

to make sure that we make the right decisions so we expand this 

fast-growing segment of our agricultural economy. 

So thank you very much for your input. 

Mr. RICH. Thank you. 

Chairman HARKIN. I join with Senator Chambliss in just sort of, 

I think, repeating for emphasis’ sake that I think energy—biodiesel, ethanol, cellulose—is going to be a big part of this farm bill. 

I mean, people are asking us to do something and to move the ball 

forward. 

Again, you have added a great deal to our thought processes, and 

we need your continued input in this as we move ahead. But we 

see cellulose ethanol basically as something that is nationwide. 

Corn ethanol is obviously based in the upper Midwest where we 

grow a lot of corn, obviously, but cellulose can be anywhere, and 

especially in the Southeast where they have a lot of timber. We 

had that wonderful guy that you brought up, Saxby, from Georgia 

Tech, I think, who testified about the wood pulp industry down 

there that used to feed the paper industry. But the paper industry 

is no longer around, I guess. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. It moved to Southeast Asia. 

Chairman HARKIN. It moved someplace. But he said that just 

from that small segment alone—I remember the figure. He said 4 

45

billion gallons a year of cellulosic ethanol. So, see, we have to be 

thinking about how we start moving ahead in that area, too. I 

think a lot of people have thought about cellulose—well, maybe it 

is just—you know, people think about their own different areas and 

stuff. I think in the Midwest we think about celluloses, the corn 

stover and wheat straw and that kind of thing, switchgrass obviously. But the whole wood pulp industry, the whole wood industry 

in this country, and when we think about the millions of acres of 

private forests, private forestland in this country that could be 

used to provide cellulosic ethanol. 

Now, when you say that—I have said that once and someone accused me of wanting to cut down all the timber in this country, and 

that is not what I am saying. But well managed, this could be very 

productive. And as you know, as you grow those trees, they do a 

wonderful thing. They take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. 

So it is no net greenhouse gas thing. 

So we have just got to think about how we use this bill, and Section 9000 of Title IX is there. Mr. Learner, I asked for your continued input that, suggestions on how we use that title, Mr. Lynd 

also, Dr. Lynd. Look at that title. What can we do in there that 

may really push us forward in cellulose ethanol and in biodiesel? 

We have just hardly scratched the surface in biodiesel in this 

country, and most people think it comes only from soybeans, but 

there is a lot of other oils that can be grown in a lot of different 

parts of this country, plus the fact that we have something called 

renewable biodiesel now—or, no, that is the wrong phrase. Renewable diesel. And there is some contention about that right now from 

the biodiesel people, renewable diesel being where they are taking 

animal fats left over. I think Tyson’s Foods just made a big contract with an oil company to do that, to provide that kind of renewable diesel. 

Do you know much about that, Mr. Rich? And do you have any 

thoughts on that? I just ask openly. I do not know if you looked 

into that at all. 

Mr. RICH. I do have some comments on it, and I would like to 

talk about them off the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Oh, well, all right. That is fine. 

Mr. RICH. The environmental benefits and some other things are 

not there, as they are with biodiesel. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, we would like to know more about that. 

I have got to tell you, my reaction is always, well, there is room 

for everybody here. And if it is something that replaces imported 

petroleum, it is cleaner burning, it is renewable, what is wrong 

with that? It all sounds good to me. So if you have got some other 

thoughts, I would like to know about it. 

But we also need data on the conversions. Dr. Lynd, you mentioned that. Dr. Ugarte, you are an expert in that area. Because 

a lot of people are going to get concerned about how fast we are 

moving on this. Well, I do not think we are moving fast enough. 

What I would like to know is what can we go, what can Senator 

Chambliss and I do in this farm bill so that at the end of 5 years, 

we have really pushed this country ahead in cellulose where it is 

providing income to rural America, where it is not degrading the 

46

environment but conserving crops, where we build transportation 

systems to get this fuel from one part of the country to the other. 

Now, a lot of that is not in our jurisdiction, but there is a lot we 

can do here to incentivize farmers to move in that direction. They 

are not all going to move next year. But if we can start getting 

them moving in the next 5 years and to think about how they 

might grow wood for this fast-growing—poplars or pines or whatever, and how we grow switchgrass, which is almost—the more I 

read about it, it is almost becoming like a miracle crop in that 

there are more Btus per pound in switchgrass than there is a 

pound of coal, I am told. There is also protein in switchgrass. If you 

can extract the protein, then you have got all that left over. Plus 

it is a perennial. You do not have to fertilize it very much every 

year. So there is a lot that can be done on conservation ground that 

could be an energy reserve situation in this country. 

We just need your best thoughts. You are the best thinkers on 

this, and look at Section 9000, tell us what we need to do there, 

if we need to add something. Maybe we need to add something. But 

how do we move that ball down the field. 

Now, R&D, yes, we are going to have to put in more money in 

R&D. I do not know exactly sitting here today right not to tell you 

exactly what the R&D is. But I know what we have got to do in 

terms of investigating and doing research in the conversion process 

and how it becomes more efficient. And you are the first one I have 

heard say, Dr. Lynd, that it is an ‘‘and’’ between the thermal process and the other one. I have always thought it was either/or, but 

maybe you are right. Maybe there is an ‘‘and’’ to it. This is enlightening to me to learn this. 

So these are the things that we are thinking about, and I think 

this is going to be the major part, as I have said before, of the farm 

bill. And it is going to have a lot of impact on rural economic development. 

One last thing I would just say before I close, I do not know who 

mentioned it here—let me think. Was it Dr. Lynd, maybe, or Dr. 

Ugarte—who talked about pegging the incentives to the price of oil. 

I assume you mean in an inverse relation type. 

Mr. LYND. That is right. The highest the price of oil, the lower 

the incentive. 

Chairman HARKIN. That is right. So that way they could not pull 

the rug out from underneath us, so to speak. 

Mr. LYND. Yes. 

Chairman HARKIN. I would like to see some figures on that, too. 

Mr. LYND. Well, we obviously have a lot we can communicate 

about. One of the interesting things is if biofuel production ever did 

hypothetically drive oil prices down, that would be one of the greatest macroeconomic benefits seen in history. So sort of incentivizing 

things so the industry does not have to hedge against that possibility is a really good idea. It helps biofuels and, to the extent that 

the incentivization happens, then everybody wins economically. So 

I would be happy to communicate with you on that, as well as 

many of the other issues you raised. 

Chairman HARKIN. OK. So look at Section 9000. Tell us what we 

have got to do. Mr. Learner, you have been a leader in that area 

looking ahead. You mentioned 9003. 

47

We have got to go. I have 4 minutes left on the vote. I could continue this discussion for another hour. 

Thank you all very much. The Committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X

MAY 9, 2007

50


35054.001
51


35054.002
52


35054.003
53


35054.004
54


35054.005
55


35054.006
56


35054.007
57


35054.008
58


35054.009
59


35054.010
60


35054.011
61


35054.012
62


35054.013
63


35054.014
64


35054.015
65


35054.016
66


35054.017
67


35054.018
68


35054.019
69


35054.020
70


35054.021
71


35054.022
72


35054.023
73


35054.024
74


35054.025
75


35054.026
76


35054.027
77


35054.028
78


35054.029
79


35054.030
80


35054.031
81


35054.032
82


35054.033
83


35054.034
84


35054.035
85


35054.036
86


35054.037
87


35054.038
88


35054.039
89


35054.040
90


35054.041
91


35054.042
92


35054.043
93


35054.044
94


35054.045
95


35054.046
96


35054.047
97


35054.048
98


35054.049
99


35054.050
100


35054.051
101


35054.052
102


35054.053
103


35054.054
104


35054.055
105


35054.056
106


35054.057
107


35054.058
108


35054.059
109


35054.060
110


35054.061
111


35054.062
112


35054.063
113


35054.064
114


35054.065
115


35054.066
116


35054.067
117


35054.068
118


35054.069
119


35054.070
120


35054.071
121


35054.072
122


35054.073
123


35054.074
124


35054.075
125


35054.076
126


35054.077
127


35054.078
128


35054.079
129


35054.080
130


35054.081
131


35054.082
132


35054.083
133


35054.084
134


35054.085
135


35054.086
136


35054.087
137


35054.088
138


35054.089
139


35054.090
140


35054.091
141


35054.092
142


35054.093
143


35054.094
144


35054.095
(145)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MAY 9, 2007

146


35054.096
147


35054.097
148


35054.098
149


35054.099
150


35054.100
151


35054.101
152


35054.102
153


35054.103
154


35054.104
155


35054.105
156


35054.106
157


35054.107
158


35054.108
159


35054.109
160


35054.110
161


35054.111
162


35054.112
163


35054.113
164


35054.114
165


35054.115
166


35054.116
167


35054.117
168


35054.118
169


35054.119
170


35054.120
171


35054.121
172


35054.122
173


35054.123
174


35054.124
175


35054.125
176


35054.126
177


35054.127
178


35054.128
179


35054.129
180


35054.130
181


35054.131
182


35054.132
183


35054.133
184


35054.134
185


35054.135
186


35054.136
187


35054.137
188


35054.138
189


35054.139
190


35054.140
191


35054.141
192


35054.142
193


35054.143
194


35054.144
195


35054.145
196


35054.146
197


35054.147
198


35054.148
199


35054.149
200


35054.150
201


35054.151
202


35054.152
203


35054.153
204


35054.154
205


35054.155
206


35054.156
207


35054.157
208


35054.158
209


35054.159
210


35054.160
211


35054.161
212


35054.162
213


35054.163
214


35054.164
215


35054.165
216


35054.166
217


35054.167
218


35054.168
219


35054.169
220


35054.170
221


35054.171
222


35054.172
223


35054.173
224


35054.174
225


35054.175
226


35054.176
227


35054.177
228


35054.178
229


35054.179
230


35054.180
231


35054.181
232


35054.182
233


35054.183
234


35054.184
235


35054.185
236


35054.186
237


35054.187
238


35054.188
239


35054.189
240


35054.190
241


35054.191
242


35054.192
243


35054.193
244


35054.194
245


35054.195
246


35054.196
247


35054.197
248


35054.198
249


35054.199
250


35054.200
251


35054.201
252


35054.202
253


35054.203
254


35054.204
255


35054.205
256


35054.206
257


35054.207
258


35054.208
259


35054.209
260


35054.210
261


35054.211
262


35054.212
263


35054.213
264


35054.214
265


35054.215
266


35054.216
267


35054.217
268


35054.218
269


35054.219
270


35054.220
271


35054.221
272


35054.222
273


35054.223
274


35054.224
275


35054.225
276


35054.226
277


35054.227
278


35054.228
279


35054.229
280


35054.230
281


35054.231
282


35054.232
283


35054.233
284


35054.234
285


35054.235
286


35054.236
287


35054.237
288


35054.238
289


35054.239
290


35054.240
291


35054.241
292


35054.242
293


35054.243
294


35054.244
295


35054.245
296


35054.246
297


35054.247
298


35054.248
299


35054.249
300


35054.250
301


35054.251
302


35054.252
303


35054.253
304


35054.254
305


35054.255
306


35054.256
307


35054.257
308


35054.258
309


35054.259
310


35054.260
311


35054.261
312


35054.262
(313)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

MAY 9, 2007

314


35054.263
315


35054.264
316


35054.265
317


35054.266
318


35054.267
319


35054.270
320


35054.271
321


35054.272
322


35054.273
323


35054.274