[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]

 
                       EPA'S RENEWABLES PROPOSAL

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the effort by some in the Senate to 
derail the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] proposed rule for a 
renewable oxygenate requirement is a mistake. Unfortunately their 
letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner calling for withdrawal of the 
renewable requirement proposal will not help lead us to better 
environmental policy.
  The EPA's renewables proposal is the direction we need to go as a 
country. The rule is completely in tune with the intentions of the 
Clean Air Act, and it would represent an historic marriage between 
clean air policy and renewable energy progress.
  The EPA worked very hard and carefully to craft a rule that will 
improve the quality of our air while also promoting energy security 
goals and benefitting our domestic rural economy. The comments the EPA 
has received during its rulemaking process--and the oil industry has 
had every opportunity to participate fully--may lead to minor 
modifications to improve the rule. But it is basically sound, and it 
should be finalized in close to its current form.
  Last month Dick Wilson, who is Director of EPA's Office of Mobile 
Sources and is the EPA official most responsible for this rule, visited 
Marshall, MN. He was accompanied by John McClelland, an energy 
economist from USDA. We held a public forum there, and over 500 farmers 
and rural residents turned out; 500 farmers gave the EPA a standing 
ovation at that meeting, and I believe that may have been as historic 
as this new rule; 500 farmers who gave a standing ovation to 
``bureaucrats'' from Washington, DC.
  The feeling in Marshall was due to the fact that this administration 
is acknowledging, through this rule, that ethanol represents what rural 
America needs to do; that is, utilize our own domestic, renewable 
resources in a way that supports farm income, creates rural jobs, and 
yes, protects the environment. In Marshall we have a very successful 
farmer-cooperative ethanol processing facility, one of several already 
operating in our State. The day after our Marshall event, I attended a 
groundbreaking for yet another farmer-cooperative ethanol plant in 
Winthrop, MN.
  I am telling you something, Madam President. I have not been at a 
farm gathering for half a decade where I have seen as much hope for 
people that there can be a market for this clean fuel; that would be 
good for agriculture, good for rural communities, and good for jobs. 
This is not just an economic issue for people in rural America. They 
are looking for a signal from Government that they are not out of sight 
and out of mind, and that they are going to get a fair shake.
  This is the effect this rule is already having in the rural Midwest. 
It is giving hope to farmers in rural communities, and they are 
investing their own savings, their own savings, in this hope, in the 
hope of sustainable economic development which ethanol represents.
  This rule is about more than what portion of reformulated gasoline 
might be made of ethanol when the RFG program goes into effect next 
year. This rule has become a symbol for whether or not the Government 
will be attentive to the rural people in our country, to the concerns 
and circumstances of the lives of rural people in America. Rural 
America is helping itself, and it is only asking that the Federal 
Government take rational steps to coordinate environmental--we have 
worked hard with environmentalists--and energy progress with 
sustainable economic development.
  Key statements in the Wallop-Bradley letter are mistaken.
  The letter claims that a renewable requirement would add 
unnecessarily to clean-fuel and taxpayer costs. But new USDA analysis 
concludes there would be ``no additional cost'' associated with 
blending ethanol into reformulated gasoline. Several Government studies 
have shown ultimate savings to taxpayers from incentives for ethanol 
production. This is due to the farm price and job creating consequences 
of producing our energy domestically.
  Worse is the letter's claim of the absence of environmental benefits 
from using ethanol--I say this as a strong environmentalist--and a 
vague warning of possible adverse environmental effects. No evidence is 
presented for such claims. Again, new USDA analysis conducted 
specifically for that Department's comment on this proposed rule 
demonstrates striking energy-efficiency advantages for ethanol, 
especially when compared to gasoline refined from petroleum and 
methanol from natural gas. Combined with its known clean-burning 
properties, this makes ethanol our premier clean fuel.
  I note that most signatories to the Wallop-Bradley letter represent 
big oil-producing, big-oil refining, and big oil-import-harbor States. 
A quick look at the League of Conservation Voters scorecard shows that 
they had an average environmental voting record of about 48 out of 100 
last year--with a letter that professes all these environmental 
concerns. Because of the letter's errors, I do not believe contributes 
to good clean-air policy.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________