[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]

 
                            RENEWABLE FUELS

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of my friend and colleague from South Dakota. I know the 
Senator from Montana has been seeking the floor. I will be as brief as 
possible.
  Madam President, we have had a long-time debate on this issue of 
cleaning up the environment, cutting oil imports and encouraging 
domestic production of clean, renewable fuels. It has been an ongoing 
debate here in the Congress for a number of years.
  I thought we had resolved this issue in the Clean Air Act of 1990, 
when we put a provision into the bill that required that oxygenated 
fuels would be used to help clean up the air in this country.
  The Senator from South Dakota was the sponsor of that amendment, 
which I cosponsored. It was supported here, overwhelmingly--69 Senators 
voted in favor of adding oxygenated fuels in reformulated gasoline. It 
was supported in the House. It is now part of the law.
  That provision had two effects: First to help clean up the air, and 
to help promote a domestic renewable fuel industry. At that time 
Congress anticipated that ethanol would play a role.
  Since that time the oil companies just have not let up. They have 
been trying to subvert this intent of Congress ever since. But we also 
had some efforts by the Bush administration with regard to reformulated 
gasoline that were not quite clear.
  Last fall the Clinton administration, I thought, finally put this 
issue to bed when they issued a proposed rule in December that would 
mandate that at least 30 percent of oxygenated fuels must be from 
renewables. That comment period closed on February 14 of this year. We 
thought it was over and done with, that EPA would then issue that rule 
that would provide that at least 30 percent of those oxygenated fuels 
would be from renewables.
  Then we get hit with this letter yesterday, sent by my colleague from 
New Jersey, Senator Bradley, to the Administrator of EPA, Ms. Browner, 
asking that they not implement the rule.
  First of all, the comment period closed on February 14. I submit if 
Senator Bradley and others did not like the proposed rule, they should 
have put their comments in before the end of the comment period. 
Everyone knew what the comment period was. So I see this as an effort 
to torpedo what has already been agreed upon in all sectors.
  But beyond that, the letter of Senator Bradley contains egregious 
errors of fact, as the Senator from South Dakota pointed out. I would 
like to address those factual errors.
  First of all, studies have shown--and no one disagrees with this--
that ethanol cuts carbon monoxide by at least 20 to 25 percent. 
Everyone agrees with that. That is not even in contention. And yet the 
Bradley letter says that this mandate of EPA would increase carbon 
monoxide. I am sorry, Senator Bradley, but that is just the opposite of 
what the facts are. No one would dispute the fact that ethanol 
decreases carbon monoxide. Yet, in his letter, the Senator says ethanol 
increases carbon monoxide.
  Second, Senator Bradley says ethanol increases greenhouse gas 
emissions; that is, CO2. That is not true. According to the latest 
Department of Agriculture estimates, ethanol decreases carbon monoxide, 
the main greenhouse gas, by 27.5 percent. Again, indisputable. These 
are facts. Again, Senator Bradley states just the opposite in his 
letter.
  Finally, Senator Bradley says ethanol increases ``volatile 
organic''--I assume he means volatile organic compounds. Again, that 
may have been true under the previous Bush administration proposal but 
not under the Clinton administration proposal. The Clinton 
administration's proposed rule says we will use ETBE, which is an ether 
of ethanol, during the summer months. What that means is that we will 
cut down on volatile organic compounds because the ethanol ether, ETBE, 
has a Reid vapor pressure of 4 psi. Gasoline has an RVP of about 12 
psi. MTB has a Reid vapor pressure of 8 psi. You can see, using ETBE in 
the summer, we cut down on the emissions of volatile organic compounds.
  So, on the facts, the letter sent by my colleague, Senator Bradley, 
is just absolutely, totally wrong, and yet states that ethanol 
increases pollutants and greenhouse gases as though these were facts. 
That is not so at all.
  Senator Daschle has responded on the claim that the EPA rule would be 
a drain on the Treasury. Senator Bradley says in his letter:

       Under the EPA mandate, this industry--

  I assume meaning the ethanol industry--

     will drain the U.S. Treasury and Highway Trust Funds of an 
     additional $340 million annually.

  Not so, absolutely not so. The fact is that under the proposed EPA 
rule, the actual tax subsidy would cost $180 million a year, not $340 
million. That is just the actual subsidy. As Senator Daschle pointed 
out, corn deficiency payments by the Government would be reduced by 
$580 million a year in 1998 and by $740 million a year by the year 
2000. The net savings to U.S. taxpayers: $500 million a year. Of 
course, Senator Bradley does not point that out in his letter.
  Lastly, I think Senator Bradley in his letter tries to imply that the 
use of ethanol and its ethers are not supported in the fuel industry.
  Madam President, here is a copy of a magazine called Fuel 
Formulation, the January-February 1994 issue. Right here on the inside 
cover it states: ``ETBE, the Right Road to Reformulated Gasoline.''
  This is an ad put out by ARCO Chemical, a gasoline refiner, saying 
ETBE has higher octane, and it has lower Reid vapor pressure so they 
can use it in the summer months.
  So progressive-minded oil companies are looking at ethanol and its 
ethers as a formulation to use in the renewable fuels gasoline program.
  I thank the Senator from Montana for allowing me to follow on the 
heels of the remarks made by Senator Daschle. This letter by Senator 
Bradley simply is an effort to torpedo the fine work that has been done 
by the Clinton administration, by the EPA, and by others to do two 
things: Clean up our environment and, secondly, provide for a domestic 
renewable fuels industry. The EPA proposed rule will do that, and it 
will do it in the best interest of the environment; it will cut down on 
the cost to taxpayers of farm subsidies; and it will put us on the path 
of increasing a domestic renewable fuels industry in this country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus, pertaining to the introduction of S. 1887 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________