James Lankford

How do we help lift people off the list?

Typically, a city would go in and just abandon that property, would declare it abandoned and would clear the property.

Hopefully in the days ahead we can get some good consistency on numbers and costs.

Mr. Rusco, your report is very thorough. I appreciate that.

The only thing worse than a RIN is fake RIN, and that is what takes it away.

It is so much simpler if we just do away with the mandate entirely. That just fixes that entirely on both sides.

I am exceptionally skeptical that any industry could have a $200 million cost... and that would not be then passed on to the consumer in some ways.

Help us understand the decision for the denial at this point, and to just say no, we are going to deny this.

One of the main goals of the RFS was to get us off any imported energy sources.

Mr. Rusco, give us a guess. For the cellulosic, you talk about the multiple generations to be able to move.

That is your story and you are sticking to it.

I would tell you, looking back on it, 10 years later, we obviously have seen great progress in corn-based ethanol.

If that would the primary fuel out there, then my folks in Oklahoma could not drive their 1978 Silverado Chevy pickup, because they would not have a good fuel option for that as well, and that is the other challenge that is in this.

According to CBO, if the RFS was repealed or if its future mandates were kept at previously proposed 2014 levels, corn-based ethanol production would remain at 13 billion gallons and American consumers would have lower gas prices.

The one thing that I heard over and over again was, one of the reasons that we are not seeing the gain in ethanol is because the price of gasoline is too cheap.

So if I remember correctly, and again, it is off the top of my head, about eight million additional acres are now corn that used to not be corn.

We are not seeing a reduction in greenhouse gases and we will not see that in the foreseeable future unless there is a very significant change in the advanced fuel and cellulosic.

The innovation we want to be able to maintain. Obviously that is part of where we are. We always want to be able to innovate in energy.

Some of this has been a redefinition of what is included in cellulosic and what is included in advanced fuels.

The statute itself does not work with the gallons requirement, based on the gallons that we are using.

I encourage you to continue supporting the RFS. Let us look at ways we can further research and development in this industry.

I am all for an open process on it. It is a complicated, difficult issue.

If we create further uncertainty about the future of the RFS and our commitment to biofuels, it will only serve to slow our research and investment down.

It is certainly not time to hit the panic button and pull the rug out from under this burgeoning industry.

It has spurred investment in domestic energy production. It has helped grow our economy throughout the Midwest.