[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              THE PROPOSED RENEWABLE OXYGENATE REQUIREMENT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to state publicly how 
disappointed I am with a letter recently sent by my friend and 
colleague, Senator Bill Bradley, and a number of others to the 
Environmental Protection Agency attacking their proposed renewable 
oxygenate requirement. In attacking the requirement, the letter makes 
very erroneous assertions about the economic and environmental impacts 
of promoting renewable energy.
  As many of my colleagues know, the EPA proposal, issued last 
December, would require that 30 percent of the oxygenated fuel used to 
produce reformulated gasoline--which is used to reduce ozone 
pollution--shall be made from renewable resources. That is, 70 percent 
of the oxygenates could be nonrenewable.
  The commitment made by EPA came after a tremendous amount of 
consideration and discussion of the environmental and economic 
objectives that could be achieved through our energy policy, as we move 
forward to create a cleaner environment.
  As I reviewed the letter, I concluded that there must be a great deal 
of confusion surrounding the use of renewable fuels in reformulated 
gasoline. I am concerned that there will be those who are misled by the 
letter. There should be no mistake: This is just another in a long 
series of confrontations between domestically produced renewable fuel 
and our age-old dependence upon imported fossil fuels. There are 
differences of opinion, but there should be no difference on the facts.
  The letter sent to Administrator Browner states that ``EPA's attempt 
to choose the RFG `winner' is troubling * * *.''
  Madam President, this is not troubling at all. In fact it is long 
overdue. Allowing the market to decide winners and losers in this 
Nation's energy use has left us with the debilitating dependence upon 
imported fossil fuels.
  None of my colleagues who support the existing tax breaks for the oil 
and gas industry seem to find the market a particularly satisfactory 
judge of energy policy. I find it particularly ironic that at a time 
when imported oil prices are at historically low levels and many of my 
colleagues are actively discussing the need for additional tax 
incentives to boost the domestic oil and gas industry, the EPA 
renewable oxygen proposal, which will undoubtedly reduce oil imports, 
is under attack.
  EPA stated in its proposal that the renewable oxygen requirement will 
reduce foreign oil imports, create investment and jobs in America, 
reduce fossil energy use, and lower emissions of harmful greenhouse 
gases. These are assertions made by the EPA, based on a thorough 
analysis of the facts. They are not claims made by biased ethanol or 
renewable fuel advocates. EPA is the agency that is given the 
responsibility to make decisions on environmental issues of this kind 
for all of us, taking into account all the data and all the 
information.
  The consequences of the renewable oxygenate proposal noted by EPA 
strike me as objectives that the market has thus far failed to achieve, 
and which merit considerably more attention in formulating this 
Nation's energy policy.
  The Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC], a leading environmental 
organization, stated in its comments to EPA on the renewable oxygenate 
proposal:

       Petroleum consumption in the U.S. transportation sector is, 
     and will likely continue to be, at the root of compelling 
     environmental and economic concerns for the nation as a 
     whole. For these reasons, there is wide consensus that the 
     development of competitive, environmentally benign, domestic 
     renewable resources is desirable (some would say urgent) and 
     would yield significant societal benefits. It is also widely 
     recognized that policies specifically aimed at promoting 
     renewable technologies may be appropriate and necessary, 
     given that significant market barriers stand in the way of a 
     transition from our current, fossil fuel dominated energy 
     economy.

  That was the NRDC.
  The Senate letter to Administrator Browner argues against the 
proposal on two grounds: environmental impacts and the effect on the 
taxpayers. The concerns raised in the letter cannot stand up to close 
scrutiny.
  The very premise used by EPA to justify issuing this proposed 
regulation is the determination by EPA that the proposed rule will 
improve air quality and create domestic economic benefits.
  The State and local air pollution association cited in the Senate 
letter sent its own letter to Administrator Browner in January stating:

       The intent of the association's [January 14] testimony was 
     to raise several potential air pollution issues that we 
     believe warrant consideration, not to imply opposition to the 
     proposal * * * STAPPA is in no way opposed to the use of 
     ethanol or the extent of its role in the RFG program.

  So, let there be no mistake about it. The association clearly has 
argued in as unequivocal way as possible, that it does not oppose the 
use of ethanol or the extent of its role in the reformulated gasoline 
program.
  Contrary to the assertions made in the letter regarding the potential 
impact on taxpayers, the proposed rule will likely save American 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing the need for farm 
support payments. The Department of Agriculture has estimated those net 
savings to the taxpayer at over $500 million annually.
  I do not think anyone should be misled, Madam President. By reducing 
the costs of the farm program there will be a direct and positive 
effect on the budget--the same budget that we have debated in this 
Chamber for the last week. There is a big difference from the $340 
million in costs asserted in the letter and the $500 billion annually 
committed to deficit reduction that the General Accounting Office and 
the Department of Agriculture agree will result from this program.
  So, again, no one should be misled. When we look at the environmental 
consequences that will result from this renewable oxygenate 
requirement, and those associations who are reported to oppose this 
particular plan, when we look at the costs associated with implementing 
that plan, this year and every year hereafter--it becomes clear that 
the facts are on our side.
  I encourage my colleagues who signed this letter to reflect on the 
facts of this debate and reconsider their position with respect to the 
EPA proposal. The proposal means a great deal to the economic health, 
not only of the Midwest, but of the national as a whole. It represents 
a small, but significant step toward bringing domestic renewable fuels 
into the mainstream of American energy policy--a step which I welcome 
and will continue to support. I hope that a review of the record will 
lead my colleagues in this body to join me in working to achieve that 
objective.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________