[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 129 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5037-S5038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        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standard was fully repealed.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.

[[Page S5038]]

  

                          ____________________