[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1779-E1780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE ``RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD ELIMINATION ACT'' AND THE 
              ``RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD FLEXIBILITY ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB GOODLATTE

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 5, 2011

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is past time for us to have a serious 
conversation about the federal government's role in supporting ethanol. 
One of the big drivers of ethanol is an artificial market, created by 
the federal government. The Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, mandates that 
36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be in our nation's fuel supply. 
This mandate is being fulfilled by grain ethanol that comes from corn.
  The federal government's creation of an artificial market for the 
ethanol industry has quite frankly created a chain reaction that is 
hurting consumers. It is expected that this year about 40 percent of 
the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol production. With increasing 
food and feed stocks being diverted into fuel, we are seeing diminished 
supplies for livestock and food producers. This year livestock and 
poultry producers will use 1.1 billion fewer bushels of corn than they 
used in the 2004/2005 crop year, the last crop year before the RFS. 
This will be the first year ever that ethanol production has used more 
of our corn supplies than feeding livestock and poultry in the U.S.
  The RFS mandate has created a domino effect. Tightening supplies are 
driving up the price of corn. The higher cost for corn is passed on to 
livestock and food producers. In turn, consumers see that price 
reflected in the price of food on the grocery store shelves. In the 
debate over ethanol, the government is picking winners and losers and 
livestock and food producers, and the consumers of livestock and food 
products are the losers. As we confront the reality of the tightening 
corn supplies, there are real concerns about having enough corn 
supplies to satisfy the RFS and the needs of our food producers. We 
should not be in a position where we are choosing between fuel and 
food. That is why I am introducing two bills that would alter this 
artificially created government market.
  The first bill, the Renewable Fuel Standard Elimination Act is 
simple; it would eliminate the RFS and make ethanol compete in a free 
market. The government should not be creating a market to sustain an 
entire industry. While I believe that we should completely eliminate 
the RFS, I recognize that there may not yet be the political will in 
Congress to completely eliminate this mandate. And while there may not 
yet be the political will to eliminate this mandate we have to address 
the reality that we are being confronted with, tightening corn 
supplies, and our livestock producers, our food manufacturers, and our 
consumers need relief now.
  That is why I have joined with several colleagues in introducing 
legislation to reform the RFS. This reform will provide relief to our 
livestock and food producers and consumers of these products. This 
legislation, the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act will link the 
amount of ethanol required for the RFS to the amount of the U.S. corn 
supplies. This legislation would provide a mechanism that when the USDA 
reports that U.S. corn supplies are tight, based upon the ratio of corn 
stocks to expected use, there would be a corresponding reduction of 
corn ethanol made to the RFS. For example, if this policy was in place 
now, the legislation would trigger a 25 percent reduction in the RFS. 
This is a common sense solution to make sure that we have enough corn 
supplies to meet all of our demands.
  I am a strong supporter of renewable fuels, when they compete fairly 
in the marketplace but the current policy is unfair and is causing 
unintended and negative consequences for American consumers, livestock 
farmers, and food manufacturers. Congress created this artificial 
market that is distorting the food and feed market, and we must provide 
relief of its

[[Page E1780]]

unintended consequences. I urge the Congress to pass this legislation.

                          ____________________