The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S5037-S5038 on July 22.
The Department is primarily focused on food nutrition, with assistance programs making up 80 percent of its budget. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, said the Department implements too many regulations and restrictions and impedes the economy.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, many bills get introduced in the Senate and don't seem to go anyplace. The reason is that they are meant to be simply messaging documents, making a statement, telling people what you believe, not necessarily with the motive of passing a piece of legislation.
Now, I usually do not care to comment on these bills. It is simply not worth the time. But when I see the combination of false information spread in messaging bills that could negatively impact my State, I must set the record straight, and that is why I am here.
Several colleagues just introduced a bill to repeal the renewable fuel standard. I have been a proud advocate for renewable energy. Iowa is the leader in both wind and renewable fuels. When it comes to the renewable fuel standard, it is hard to argue that there has ever been a more successful clean-fuel policy implemented across the world. Between 2008 and 2020, the use of biofuels under the renewable fuel standard resulted in a savings of 980 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of removing over 200 million cars from the road for 1 year. The renewable fuel standard makes gasoline more affordable. It generates good-paying jobs. It reduces oil imports and reduces our country's greenhouse gas emissions.
The messaging coming from the bill rehashes the same talking points about ethanol that Big Oil has trotted out for the past decades. So, once again, Big Oil raises its ugly head.
Of course, Big Oil's talking points have been completely debunked by the latest science and even our nonpartisan research from the Congressional Budget Office. And Congress depends a great deal upon the research done by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group of professional people that study things a long time before they release their information.
Now, my pro-oil colleagues say that the renewable fuel standard causes food and feed prices to rise. However, in 2014, the CBO looked at this issue and the impact on food prices if the renewable fuel standard was fully repealed. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that American food prices would be just one-quarter of 1 percent higher if the renewable fuel standard was kept in place versus a total repeal. Out of a $100 grocery bill, the impact is no more than a quarter. But when you consider that there is a savings of $5 every time you fill up your gas tank due to the renewable fuel standard, consumers save money overall with the renewable fuel standard in place.
My colleagues who introduced this messaging legislation also claimed, falsely, that corn ethanol achieves little to no reduction in greenhouse gases. Now, this must be the most ridiculous assertion made against ethanol. I would like to invite my colleagues to visit Iowa to see how far ethanol has come in reducing emissions.
The most recent research from Harvard shows that corn ethanol greenhouse gas emissions are 46 percent lower than gasoline. Research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found the reduction in CO2 could reach 71 percent by next year if farmers follow best practices.
At a time when the Nation is working to reduce fossil fuel consumption and protect our environment, why would my colleagues introduce a bill that would increase our dependence upon foreign oil and, at the same time, increase greenhouse gas emissions? And some of these people on this bill have the most pure environmental record in the U.S. Senate.
Renewable fuels like ethanol have a 40-year track record of making fuel more affordable and vehicles more efficient. To limit this consumer choice at the pump is completely irresponsible. Attempts to limit consumer choice, which are driven by big oil interests, must be defeated.
The United States should continue to build on the progress of the renewable fuel standard and bring policy to the table that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and brings jobs to rural America.
Let me end with a history of the RFS because this legislation is a story of irony if you consider how we got to the renewable fuel standard in the first place. You see, Big Oil wanted it. Why did they want it? Well, a lot of States where they had smog had what we call the oxygenate requirement. It was required in the Clean Air Acts that Congress has passed over the decades. In order to meet that standard, Big Oil would add what they call MTBE, a product made out of petroleum that they added to their gasoline to meet the oxygenate standards, to reduce smog.
After a long period of time, people realized that the MTBE was poisoning groundwater in California--maybe other places as well, but I remember mostly the conflict being in California--and they were being sued. So by 2005, Big Oil decided they didn't want to be sued, and what could they do to get out of it? Well, the RFS was the answer.
I was chairman of the Finance Committee at the time. They came to us with the ideas of the RFS, and it fit into a lot of things that we from agricultural interests were trying to accomplish as well. So the renewable fuel standard was written in cooperation with Big Oil--the first time in three decades that Big Oil had any interest in working with ethanol industry. Then, what, after 3 or 4 years of working with us, they have been attacking the RFS since then.
This piece of legislation I am speaking about today is just one more example of Big Oil trying to attack ethanol. And I gave all the facts about ethanol being good for the consumer, good for the environment, and good for less reliance on foreign countries for our energy sources. In fact, everything about ethanol is good, good, good.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
