[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                       VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 4624, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4624) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations and offices for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1995, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Bumpers amendment No. 2444, to reduce funding for the 
     implementation of the space station program for the purpose 
     of terminating the program.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is the Bumpers 
amendment No. 2444, on which there remains 1 hour 45 minutes.
  The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] controls 30 minutes; the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] shall control 60 minutes; and the 
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] shall control 15 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask the time to be charged equally to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, last night, I pointed out, and would like 
to do so again, the cost of the space station. As I said last night, 
the cost is not just $2.1 billion for 1995. It is going to be $2.1 
billion for about 2 or 3 more years, and then it goes up to almost $4 
billion a year. And when it is all said and done, it is going to be, 
according to NASA, $70.8 billion. But that was last week, Mr. 
President.
  Now this week we find that NASA failed to include $1.5 billion for 
civil service costs. That is almost like buying an automobile and 
looking under the hood and finding it did not have an engine. Can you 
imagine NASA giving the U.S. Congress these figures, and we find that 
they omitted $1.5 billion for civil service costs, which you think 
would be one of the first things they would have thought of?
  I said last night I would be reluctant to ride on the space station 
designed and built by somebody who forgot $1.5 billion. But now I find 
that we have to add another $1.8 billion. So now the cost is $72.3 
billion. And then you add the $1.8 billion that I am getting ready to 
tell you about, and you come up to $74.1 billion. The cost has gone up 
$3.3 billion in the past week.
  What is this $1.8 billion? It is what GAO announced the day before 
yesterday; the cost of bringing the Russians into the plan. We were 
going to give the Russians $400 million so they could do a part of the 
contract of building of this space station. And do you remember how the 
Clinton administration said that by bringing Russia into this it could 
save $2 billion?.
  The day before yesterday we find out it not only does it not save $2 
billion, it is going to cost an additional $2 billion. Now we are up to 
$74.1 billion. There is no end to the costs of this project. I see the 
Senator from Iowa on the floor, Senator Grassley. I voted for the Exon-
Grassley amendment last year to cut $26 billion out of discretionary 
spending because I thought we could and should do it. And when we went 
to conference with the House, that cut was reduced to $13 billion. That 
means for the years 1995 through 1999, we have to find $13 billion in 
spending cuts in order to come into compliance with the amendment of 
the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. President, as chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee this year I agonized over how we were going to cut almost 
$1 billion for 1995, from $14 billion for 1994 to some $13 billion for 
1995.
  Agriculture appropriations took a $1 billion cut so that some of the 
other programs, like the space station, could be funded. But that is 
peanuts compared to what we are going to do next. We have to find $5.4 
billion to cut next year.
  Do you know where to find it? Eighty percent of it can be found by 
torpedoing the biggest waste of money we have ever embarked on: $10.4 
billion dollars of it can be found by voting ``aye'' on the Bumpers 
amendment this morning.
  Do you know what is tragic? We will not do it. I said last night the 
thing I enjoyed about being a trial lawyer was knowing that when I had 
12 good and true faithful jurors in front of me and started to argue a 
lawsuit, I had as good a chance as my opponent of winning. We started 
out even, and the best man usually won. Sometimes I thought there was a 
miscarriage of justice, especially when I lost, but I knew those 12 
jurors were at the mercy of me and the other lawyers. All they knew 
about the case was what we were able to deduce from the witnesses and 
what we told them in our final summation.
  Here in the U.S. Senate, you can rail all you want to about anything, 
but if the lobbyists and the people who pass out the jobs to the 
various States get to them first their minds are closed. This debate is 
utterly meaningless, except for the satisfaction a few of us get out of 
making the point.
  The space station does create 14,000 jobs, and they only cost 
$160,000 a piece. When I was Governor of my State, if I had said to 
General Motors, ``I will give you $160,000 for every job you create in 
my State,'' I promise you, the whole General Motors operation would be 
in Arkansas today.
  Think about it, $160,000 per job, and yet that is one of the reasons 
people will vote against this amendment.
  I want you to look at this chart. I do not intend to denigrate my 
colleagues, but I have to make this point.
  Everybody wants to balance the budget. Everybody wants to go home and 
tell their constituents what fiscal conservatives they are and make 
them come to their feet and applaud. But look at this. Sixty-three 
Senators in the U.S. Senate voted last year to amend our precious 
Constitution to provide for a balanced budget amendment. Forty-three of 
those sixty-three who said we want to stop all this spending and 
balance the budget, voted against this amendment last year, and I 
expect those 43 Senators will do the same thing again this year.
  As I said, everybody loves fiscal responsibility, but they love 
spending just a bit more.
  Mr. President, where are we going to find the $5.4 billion that we 
have to cut next year? All the chairmen of the Subcommittees on 
Appropriations are going to have to grapple with that. Unfortunately, 
Senators are not thinking about it, but next year they are going to be 
squealing like a pig under a gate when they have to face the reality of 
a $5.4 billion cut.
  You can get it out of veterans programs. That will be very popular 
back home with the veterans. You go home and tell the veterans, ``I am 
really sorry we had to shut down 100 beds in your hospital, but we had 
this little thing we call the space station that we had to fund. Sorry 
about that.''
  You can take it from crime prevention. We just put $30 billion in the 
crime bill for prevention. We have not agreed to the conference report 
yet. The Senator from Texas says it is a bad bill, that it is not tough 
enough. I am not sure we can get an agreement to take $30 billion from 
crime prevention.
  You can take it out of education, the lack of which is at the root of 
most of the crime problems in this country. Lack of education and 
poverty are the primary crime breeders. Take it out of education. Maybe 
we can raise the crime rate a bit higher. Take it out of education 
because we have to put this space station in orbit and leave it up 
there for 10 years--for God knows what. Nobody can tell you why we are 
doing this. To grow crystals? That does not even pass the giggle test. 
Every physicist in this country will tell you that you can grow better 
crystals on Earth than you can in space. The Russians have tried it. We 
have tried it. What is the point in growing crystals in space when we 
can grow them on Earth?
  The Russians, Mr. President, have had seven space stations. Think 
about that. The Mir that is up there right now is the seventh space 
station they have built since 1971. Why don't we just buy it? I said 
last year that we could get it for a year's supply of TV dinners. I am 
sure they would love to get rid of it. If we think we just have to do 
something in space, buy the Mir.
  The proponents of this say we are going to cure cancer with the space 
station. The American Cancer Society is adamantly opposed to the space 
station for the very sensible reason that they know they need the money 
for cancer research here on Earth.
  Take it out of defense. It has a budget of $250 billion to $280 
billion and everyone says that is just bare bones and that you cannot 
cut anything else out of defense.
  And, Mr. President, next Tuesday, we are getting ready to take up the 
debate on health care, and the reason we cannot have so-called 
universal coverage is because nobody knows how to pay for it. Think of 
it; we are embarking on a $74 billion project which, when added to the 
deficit plus 7 percent interest for the next 35 years, increases to a 
total of $156 billion. And then we say to the American people that we 
cannot pass a health care bill that provides universal coverage because 
we cannot afford it.
  I have been in the Senate 20 years, and it has always been a matter 
of priorities. The reason we have almost a $5 trillion debt is because 
our priorities have been skewed.
  The things that we have started to prove to the world that we were 
superior to the Soviet Union no longer have any merit. If we wanted to 
be a big, macho he-man back when the Soviet Union was riding high so we 
could prove we were smarter and better and richer than they were, that 
was fine. But that is over. The only reason in God's world we are 
putting this thing up there is because the Russians had one back when 
they were the Soviet Union, and on that evening in January 1984 the 
President said: ``We are going to put this space station up; we are 
going to do it in 10 years; and we are going to do it for $8 billion.''
  Think of the promise and think of the result. Today, we have spent 
over $13 billion, and we just now have a design. I have never known of 
an issue in the Senate where the promise and the result presented as 
wide a chasm as this one.
  Let me repeat something I said last night. We will allow each 
astronaut 9.2 liters of water per day. There are going to be six of 
them on board the space station. At that rate, 9.2 liters per day, each 
astronaut will consume about $320,000 worth of water per day. I said 
last night that as soon as this debate is over I am going to suggest to 
Mountain Valley Water down in Hot Springs, AR, to bid on the water 
contract for the space station. They make by far the finest bottled 
water in America, so they should bid on that contract.
  We are planning to spend $12,880 per pound for every pound of water 
we ship to the astronauts so they can survive. Think of that. And then 
total that up for a year. Just providing water to the astronauts is 
going to cost almost $500 million a year.
  Mr. President, if you took this money that we are getting ready to 
blow on this thing and you went into the poor areas of America and you 
picked out the poorest children who had any promise and said, ``Child, 
here is a free education for you,'' do you think this country would be 
better off? Or do you think we would be better off if we put six people 
in space to look at each other for 10 years and grow crystals, which 
you can grow on the ground, and spend $.5 billion a year getting water 
up to them? Do you want to see the crime rate go down? Do something 
about poverty. Do something about education. Do not spend $160,000 on a 
job.
  If nothing else impresses my colleagues, I hope this will. This space 
station costs 14 times its weight in gold.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 9:30 having arrived, the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], is 
recognized to speak for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank you for my recognition.
  I want to apologize to the dear chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee. Yesterday, I was in Whitewater hearings. In fact, I was 
in those hearings until about 2 o'clock this morning. And since my 
children, at least during the week, grew up in Washington, DC, I always 
told them nothing good has ever happened on this planet after 11 
o'clock at night. I wish I had taken the advice that I have given, what 
were then my teenage--one still is--children and gone home and gone to 
bed at 11 o'clock last night because in reality, even at that important 
hearing, the later it got the more chaotic it became.
  This could well be the last appropriations bill that I work on as a 
ranking member of this subcommittee because as people leave the Senate, 
we all change chairs and we often end up on other subcommittees. But I 
just want to say one thing about the distinguished chairman of this 
subcommittee. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and they 
established the Senate, it seems to me that Barbara Mikulski has to be 
one of the people they had in mind.
  Senator Mikulski and I have known each other for many years. We were 
members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee together. We have 
disagreed on thousands of issues, but the distinguished chairman of 
this subcommittee is smart and sincere, and in the service of the 
greatest Republic in the history of the world, those are clearly the 
most important characteristics anybody can have. It is said that people 
often say bad things about each other but go to the grave with good 
thoughts on their minds.

  I just want to say I have the highest regard for the distinguished 
chairman of this subcommittee. She is a great Senator. I think that she 
is a tremendous spokeswoman for her State, its interests, and for her 
view of what America ought to be.
  I am proud of this bill in a lot of ways. This is a tougher budget. 
We were given an allocation of money far below the level that the 
President requested in his budget. One of my frustrations is that the 
President writes his budget. He puts all this money in, but the money 
is not really there, and we end up having to make the hard decisions 
often without much direction from the White House. That is not a 
partisan matter. That almost always ends up being the case.
  If I were writing this bill by myself, I do not think I need to say 
to anybody that I would have had the priorities different than those in 
the bill before us. But I want to say that the distinguished chairman 
has made me a partner in this process. Given the fact that we are 
coming at many of these programs from a different perspective, I think 
we have worked out a reasonable and fair compromise. I support this 
compromise.
  The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has spoken with great passion 
this morning about killing the space station. I just want to make two 
important--that is, I think they are important--comments about his 
proposal.
  No. 1, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas kills 
the space station. But every penny that we would save by killing the 
space station is then available to be spent on something else. So, we 
are not talking about deficit reduction. Now let me make a bold 
statement. The Senator from Arkansas would have a tough time writing a 
budget amendment truly cutting Government spending and lowering the 
amount we spend that I could not support. In fact, I have offered such 
proposals, and I take a backseat to no one on this planet in terms of 
my commitment to cut Government spending. If someone wants to offer an 
amendment cutting Government spending, and then force us to fight it 
out as to how we spend the remaining money, I am sure somebody could 
perhaps craft an amendment that I would not vote for. But I do not 
believe the Senator from Arkansas could or would. My guess is nobody 
else could or would either.
  I believe the Federal Government is too big. I have talked on many 
occasions about using my Dicky Flatt test looking at every program of 
the Government, thinking of some honest to God, flesh-and-blood working 
person like Dicky Flatt, and asking, ``Will the benefits to be derived 
from spending money on this program be worth taking the money away from 
a working person in my State?'' Dicky Flatt is a printer in my former 
congressional district. I believe if we used the Dicky Flatt test, the 
Federal Government over a 5-year period could cut relative Government 
spending by a third. That is a well-known view that I have. When we 
have been dealing with real spending cuts, I have voted that way.
  But we are not talking about cutting spending here today. We are 
talking about priorities. It is very important that people understand 
that.
  Given that we are going to spend $l.5 trillion this year at the 
Federal level in a budget that I voted against because I thought it was 
too much money--given that we are going to spend that money--should we 
build the space station, or should we kill it and spend that money on 
social programs?
  Let me remind my colleagues that about 25 years ago we spent 5 
percent of the Federal budget on nondefense research and development in 
technology; 5 percent, 1 nickel out of every dollar we spent in the 
Federal budget 25 years ago, we spent as an investment in the future in 
new science, new technology, new know-how--investing not in the next 
election, but investing in the next generation in technology and 
science to make America richer, freer, and happy. No nation in history 
has ever benefited more from science than the United States of America.
  What has happened 25 years later? Twenty-five years later, we are 
spending less than 2 percent of the Federal budget on civilian science 
and technology, down from 5 percent. We are not spending less money in 
the total budget. We are spending a lot more money overall. But the 
point is we are investing the money we are spending in the next 
election and not the next generation. We are spending it on programs 
with big political constituencies where the expenditure is going to 
trigger their response in each November election.
  We are not spending the money in areas that will yield a big return 
to our children and our grandchildren. We have already cut the cost of 
the space station. We have redesigned the space station. We have 
brought the Russians into the space station. We have an international 
agreement with other nations on the space station. As a result of 
Russian involvement, we are going to spend less and we are going to get 
more.
  The real question before the Senate is, ``Are we going to go forward 
and preserve the 2 percent of the budget that is our seed corn in 
investing in the future of America in science and technology, pure 
research, and in this case, in the space program, an overall 
undertaking that no one would argue that the private sector alone, 
individual firms acting on their own programs could ever do?'' I say 
the answer to that is yes. I say at a time when we have eaten our seed 
corn, when we have invested in the next election consistently and not 
the next generation, the last thing we need to be doing is killing the 
space station to fund another social program.
  We have been debating the space station now for a decade. We have 
been revising. We have been reengineering. The clock has been running. 
The cash register has been ringing. The House has finally decided in a 
decisive vote to go ahead and build the space station.
  I want to ask my colleagues to listen to the debate today, to be 
respectful of people who disagree with their views, hear them out, but 
when we decide to vote, let us settle this issue today once and for 
all.
  Let us have a decisive victory for the space station today and from 
this point on move forward with the design that we have, the design we 
paid for, the design that we have developed on an international basis, 
the design that is a commitment through international obligations we 
have made to the Japanese, to the Europeans, to the Russians, and to 
the Canadians. Let us go ahead and stop talking and start building.
  I want to ask my colleagues, look at this amendment and ask yourself, 
``Should we be killing what is left of American science in order to 
allow more spending on other programs that we are already spending 
money on?'' I think the answer to that question is clearly no.
  So I want to say to my colleagues, do not just join me in rejecting 
this amendment, let us reject it by such overwhelming numbers that we 
do not have this debate next year. Let us go ahead and build the space 
station. Let us end the debate and get on with the work. We have a good 
design. We have a good program. I think the time has come to stop 
debating and to start building. That is what this bill is about.
  So I urge my colleagues, look at this amendment. Take note of the 
fact that not one penny saved by this amendment is going to go to 
deficit reduction. We are not lowering the spending caps that we have 
in the budget. We are not saying if you do not spend the money on the 
space station, you have to apply it to the deficit. Nobody believes 
that would happen under this amendment. There is certainly no 
requirement that it happen. This is about priorities. This is the 
future of America, the future of our children versus the same old past 
political process which has so often served the Nation and its people 
so poorly.
  So I do not doubt our dear colleague from Arkansas is totally sincere 
on this amendment. I know he believes everything he is saying. I know 
he believes what he is saying is right. I believe it is wrong. That is 
why we have debates here.
  To conclude, I want to thank the distinguished chairman again. I am 
going to yield the rest of my time to my colleague from Texas.
  Today, let us not just defeat this amendment. Let us end this debate. 
Today, let us achieve such a decisive victory on the space station that 
we will stop debating and start building. That is our duty, I believe, 
not only to those who have invested their lives in developing the 
greatest space program in history but also to those future generations 
that will benefit from the science and technology that will come from 
it. That is what we can do today.

  I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Texas has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Mikulski 
for her leadership in this area. No one could do a better job of making 
the case for the importance of this great project than Senator Mikulski 
has done. And the ranking member, the senior Senator from Texas, has 
made a great statement talking about the priorities of this country. 
That is where I want to end our part of this debate.
  The Senator from Arkansas has talked about the budget, and he is 
absolutely right that we have to find the places to cut the budget. But 
we are never going to make real progress in this country toward 
eliminating the deficit until we look at the entire budget, as a whole, 
and decide what our priorities are.
  Mr. President, any company, any business, and certainly Government, 
should look for the long view, which means we have to set out all of 
the priorities, where this country is going, what we want to do in the 
future, and have a long-term vision for where this country is going to 
put its resources. Any corporation or business, and hopefully 
Government, says we set aside this much for the future, we set aside 
this much for today, we set aside this much for the needy people in our 
society, this much for emergencies, and that is the way you plan. That 
is what planning is.
  Any entity that is looking to the future must set aside some amount 
to make sure that we have seed corn, that we do the research that 
produces the new technologies that creates the new industries that will 
give jobs for the future. We will not have jobs in the future if we 
continue to have a stagnant base. And we will never have jobs for the 
future if we do not continue to grow and expand our horizons and create 
knew technology.
  Mr. President, when President Kennedy decided we would take off into 
space, he did not tell us everything we would get. He did not say that 
we are going to have laser surgery, so that people who used to take 2 
weeks to recover from surgery now walk out of the doctor's office in 4 
hours. He did not say that because we could never have dreamed that 
that would be so. He did not say that people would have hearing aids in 
their ears instead of a big battery in their pocket, because he did not 
know that is what would come out of space research. He did not say we 
would have velcro closings on coats and shoes so that people with 
arthritis could be self-sufficient, and children that are 3 years old 
could put on their own shoes, because he did not know that is what 
would happen. But that is why you have research and technology. It is 
to build for the future.
  We cannot dream of all of the things that we will have if we continue 
our quest and we continue our research. We used to spend 5 percent of 
our Federal budget on research and technology because we had the 
commitment for the future. Today, we are down to 1.7 percent of our 
budget. So I think it is quite consistent. And I say to my colleague 
from Arkansas that it is entirely consistent to be a budget cutter--
which I am--and to say that I want to cut the budget and have a 
balanced budget amendment, without taking the first priority, which is 
research and technology--which is thinking for the future--and cutting 
that first. Of course, you do not do that.
  Mr. President, I know my time is up and I thank you for giving me 
this time. This is not the time to sit back and be stagnant. We must 
look to the future. That is the American spirit. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl].
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President I rise today in opposition to the $1.9 
billion in funding for the space station provided in this bill. I want 
to commend Senator Bumpers for taking on this battle every year. I 
truly hope this is the year we finally win.
  Mr. President, the space station is a project that does not do what 
it is supposed to do, and it does not do it at a very high price. We 
have all heard of getting something for nothing. But in this case what 
we are getting is nothing for something. That something has a price tag 
that could reach $156 billion over the next 35 years.
  To justify this cost, the space station would have to do great things 
for our country. But it does not, Mr. President. In fact, the space 
station is best described by what it will not do.
  For example, the space station will not, as some proponents claim, be 
a commercially viable, state-of-the-art manufacturing facility able to 
make crystals for high-tech American companies. It would cost a 
business $12,880 to ship 1 pound of payload to the station. At that 
cost, making crystals in space is, in the words of one semiconductor 
company CEO, ``an absurd business proposition.''
  Nor will the space station bring us closer to understanding other 
planets and systems in space. As a representative of the American 
Physical Society testified, unmanned spacecraft have already gone to 
Venus, Mars, and even the Sun--voyages that no manned space station 
envisioned today could make.
  Finally, the space station is not, as some have argued, a good way to 
encourage Russian scientists to put their talents toward peaceful 
means. GAO has recently reported that NASA severely underestimates the 
cost and overestimates the benefits of cooperation with the Russians on 
the station. The space station cannot be justified as necessary foreign 
policy.
  So if it is not commercial policy, space policy, or foreign policy, 
then what is the space station? What justifies the $11.9 billion 
already spent on the project without the production of even 1 pound of 
finished hardware? Where did the money go? And where will it go if we 
continue to appropriate a couple billion dollars every year?
  Mr. President, in these last few weeks, we have all savored the 
memories of the first Moon landing and the courage of the men and women 
who worked and flew in this country's manned space program. We in this 
body are fortunate to serve with one of the true heroes of that time, 
Senator John Glenn. But we do not dishonor the memory of these great 
feats by arguing against a program that has none of the vision or 
public support that our earlier manned space flights did.
  Mr. President, these are very difficult financial times for our 
Government and our country. We are in the process of bringing down our 
deficit, after years and years of struggling with it unsuccessfully. 
Now, for the first time in 30 or 40 years, we are going to have three 
consecutive years of deficit reduction. We have worked awfully hard and 
struggled to achieve this deficit reduction.
  So, if we are going to spend billions of dollars on this space 
station, to me, it is an indication that our zeal and our fervor about 
reducing our deficit has been waylaid. We also have numberless unmet 
needs in our country, programs that need to be funded if we are going 
to develop our country in ways that truly benefit the people, the men 
and women who live here, and our children, who are struggling to grow 
up in a society that provides for their welfare. So we should not 
pursue our dream of traveling to the stars at the expense of the very 
real needs of people who live in this country.
  Mr. President, the space station costs too much and it does too 
little. So we ought to kill it before it uses any more of our scarce 
resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bumpers amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the 
Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida [Mr. 
Graham] is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the floor manager 
of the bill for affording me the opportunity to make a few remarks in 
support of the space station.
  I would like to pick up on the statements just made by our good 
friend and colleague from Wisconsin relative to the fact we are 
sacrificing current needs in order to make this investment in the space 
station.
  Mr. President, that is always the choice that faces mankind. When 
Christopher Columbus approached Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, 
there were needs in Spain at that time that had to be foregone in order 
to finance that expedition. When Justin Morrill proposed the land-grant 
college system in the 1860's, there were tremendous needs in this 
country in the aftermath of the Civil War that had to be foregone in 
order to make that investment in basic research. Those and many other 
examples illustrate the fact that by making those types of commitments 
to the future we not only meet mankind's inevitable quest to explore 
the boundaries of knowledge but we also add to the prosperity and 
wealth of that and future generations.
  So it is with the space station. No one can tell you today anymore 
than they could have told those who made the decisions relative to 
exploration of the New World or those who made the investment to expand 
the frontiers of American agriculture and engineering what would be the 
precise end results of those initiatives. No one can tell you what will 
be the precise end results of our investment in the space station.
  I will just suggest three things that I believe will occur. One, in 
the very short term we will continue what has already been a hallmark 
of our space program, and that is contributions to the well-being of 
America and the world. The results in the life sciences, in the 
extension of life, the ability to explore new approaches to the 
maintenance of health and mankind have been immediate results of the 
space program.
  Second, we continued to keep America on the forefront of high-
technology activities. It is not unrelated that we have made this 
enormous investment in the space program and have had, as one of our 
most significant areas of international competitiveness, the aerospace 
industry.
  Third, today we have the opportunity to cement a new relationship not 
only with our traditional allies but with our former adversaries in the 
former Soviet Union through exploration of space, taking advantage of 
Russia's experience in space, particularly long-duration flights. With 
our technologies we have the opportunity to accelerate the pace of 
exploration as well as accelerate the pace of a new friendship with our 
former adversaries.
  Mr. President, I believe those are compelling reasons why this 
investment warrants our continued support.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment before us, which would 
terminate this important part of America's quest for a better future.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas has 34 
minutes 35 seconds remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland has 10 
minutes 11 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida has always been 
a great champion of the space station, and in all fairness I have to 
say if I were going to get back a lot more money in my State than it 
was going to cost, I might be for it, too. In the interest of candor I 
say that.
  Three States--Alabama, California, and Texas--are big winners. I 
thought Maryland was. Maryland is a big loser in this. It is going to 
cost them much, much more than they will get back.
  But I want to say as an example, even if I lived in Texas----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the Senator's methodology on this about how you 
win or how you lose? Does he take the gross national revenues of the 
Nation and divide on this or the total cost of the space station?
  Maryland is a big winner in the space program because of Goddard, the 
Space Institute, the Hubble mission to planet Earth.
  In talking about being a big loser in space, what is the methodology?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The figures I use deal only with the space station, not 
the rest of the NASA budget. We are talking about $2.1 billion of it. 
As I understand it, NASA's budget is about $14 billion next year.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the methodology as to how it affects the 
States?
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is not mine. NASA is the one that gave us the figures 
on how much each State gets in contracts.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I know they do not make a mistake, even though they 
forgot $1.5 billion in civil service costs in these figures. I am 
willing to accept the figures.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I have a comment on what the Senator says is forgotten.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the State of Arkansas is going to pony up 
$667 million in taxes for this space station. I am not going to go home 
and ask my constituents if they want to be taxed $667 million to put 
this turkey in orbit for 10 years? I can tell you the vote would be at 
least 95 to 5.
  I do not care what State you are from. Do you think I would go to 
South Carolina and say, ``I am going to ask you folks to give $1 
billion for the space station?'' They would run you out of the State.
  Even if I lived in California where they cannot balance the budget 
but where they do indeed get a big benefit out of the space station, I 
would hate to run for Governor out there and say, ``I am a strong 
supporter for the space station even though it is going to cost the 
people of this State $8.5 billion.'' I guarantee, if you took a vote on 
it in California, it would be soundly defeated, even though California 
is one of the big beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, when you look at this chart--and I hope all of my 
colleagues when they walk in will look at this and see what it is going 
to cost each of their States to build this thing--you may have second 
thoughts.
  I have been waiting for the argument the Senator from Texas made, 
essentially the argument that if you do not spend it on space, you are 
just going to waste it.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the most important 
points I have tried to make is that the savings from my amendment would 
go straight on the deficit, because we have to cut $5.4 billion just 
next year in order to come into compliance with the Exon-Grassley 
amendment.
  So, yes, we have to cut $13 billion over the next 5 years in 
discretionary spending in order to get the deficit down to what we 
promised. If we do not take it out of the space station, we are going 
to end up taking it out of the other things I mentioned earlier--
education, crime prevention, veterans, et cetera.
  I am saying the space station is the best place to get 80 percent of 
what we have to cut over the next 5 years.
  Last year, opponents said if we do not spend it on the space station, 
we would just squander it on something else. I was ready for that 
argument because I put a provision in the amendment that the savings 
could only go on the deficit.
  All I am saying is that if we do not want to take it out of 
education, veterans' affairs, crime prevention, research at NIH, and 
all the other things around here, then vote for my amendment. It 
provides almost 80 percent of what we will have to cut next year under 
Exon-Grassley.
  Mr. President, Senators will argue that they are for cutting spending 
by this amount or that amount, and so on. I did a study last year and 
looked at 20 specific spending cuts proposed on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate.
  Do you know who had the highest percentage of voting to cut spending 
of anybody in the U.S. Senate? My good friend, Senator Kohl, from 
Wisconsin. And right behind him was his colleague, Russ Feingold. Some 
of the deficit hawks who vote for balanced budget amendments and 
everything else they can think of so they can go home and make these 
big pronouncements about what fiscal conservatives they are invariably 
voted against almost every one of those spending cuts.
  So what do they say? They say they vote to cut entitlements. It is 
easy to hide behind the word ``entitlement.'' You do not even hear 
anyone say Social Security. You do not even hear anyone say Medicaid. 
You do not hear anyone say veterans' pensions. You do not hear anyone 
say Federal employees' pensions. They call it entitlements because 99.9 
percent of the people out in the country have no idea what that means. 
If they have any idea at all, they think it refers to those ``shiftless 
welfare people" getting money. But entitlements around here means 
Social Security; it means Medicaid; it means pensions; it means school 
lunches.
  So you just go ahead and vote for the space station and everything 
else you can think of to vote for, and go home and say, ``Oh, its those 
entitlements that are causing the deficit to go up.''
  I sit on the Subcommittee on Appropriations dealing with the budget 
of the National Institutes of Health, around $10 billion a year. Every 
year the National Institutes of Health comes in and tells us that they 
are only able to fund about 27 percent of the valid, meritorious 
applications they get for research. A few years ago they were able to 
fund 35 percent of them, and now they can only fund about 27 percent.
  Do you know why the American Cancer Society opposes this space 
station? Because they know that if you put this money to real, honest-
to-goodness research on cancer at the National Institutes of Health and 
the university medical schools of this country, you might find a cure 
for cancer. You are not going to find it up there in a microgravity 
atmosphere.
  We have been up there 30 years. What have they been doing in those 30 
years? It costs a half-billion to a billion every time the shuttle goes 
up. They could not even keep newts alive the last trip. They died.
  Why are we spending over $70 billion to float somebody in space when 
we have been up there for 30 years and no cancer cure, no crystals 
grown, no nothing? ``Well, that is the shuttle. If we could just do it 
on the space station, it would be different.''
  Do you know what the Russians have to show for having a space station 
up for 20 years? Zip, zero, zap, nothing. They made a big to-do about a 
flu vaccine that they developed, until they found out they could make 
it better and cheaper on Earth.
  Mr. President, I take great pride--and the President should take 
great pride--in the fact that the deficit in this country is declining 
dramatically.
  Last year, as David Broder pointed out in a really good article this 
morning in the Washington Post--which I recommend to everybody--when we 
passed the Budget Reconciliation Act, we had a tax increase for the 
richest 1.2 percent of the people in this country. All over the country 
we heard wails and yells about how this was going to destroy our 
economy, small businesses were going to drop by the thousands, and we 
were raising taxes on the poorest of the poor.
  I have been waiting for somebody to write the story that David Broder 
wrote this morning.
  We are so consumed with Whitewater and hate and suspicion, nobody has 
focused on anything around here that is good.
  And I will tell you what is good: The inflation rate. Do you know 
what else is good? Jobs. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates 
in recent years. The gross domestic product is holding between 3 and 4 
percent, and people are working and they are buying homes. And, best of 
all, the deficit, which was projected in June of 1993 to be $305 
billion this year, is continuing down. Just last week the Congressional 
Budget Office said it is going to be $200 billion this year, $105 
billion less than the prognostication of a year and a half ago.
  I have told many of my colleagues in caucus that, if I were up for 
reelection this year, I would not wait for my opponent to bring up the 
vote on the budget resolution this last year. I would bring it up 
myself. I would point to every one of those things, jobs, the deficit, 
et cetera, and I would point to the fact that, only 1.2 percent of the 
people in this country are paying more taxes, except for the gasoline 
tax increase of 4 cents a gallon.
  I was doing an interview the other day on what effect religion has in 
politics. That is a touchy subject, and goes right into ``fools walk in 
where angels fear to tread.''
  I was taught as a Methodist Sunday school boy that love is the most 
powerful emotion of all, much more powerful than hate. I have had to 
change my mind. You know, we all, if we pay attention, do get a little 
wiser as we grow older.
  I am not sure I believe love is more powerful than hate. Hate is so 
easy to stimulate. It is so easy, as Hitler demonstrated, to point to 
this one and that one and the other one as the cause of all our 
problems.
  My son-in-law, a very perceptive young man said he disagreed. He 
thought fear was the greatest emotion of all. And I had to reluctantly 
agree. I believe that most people in America wake up every morning in 
fear of something. Sometimes they are deep-seated fears, sometimes they 
are just nagging, and perhaps there are some lucky people who do not 
really have much fear of anything.
  I fear for my country. I fear for my country because socially and 
culturally we have been in decline. And the reason is not because 
people have suddenly gotten meaner or suddenly gotten less caring or 
indifferent about their fellow man. It is because our Government has 
misspent its money.
  The Senator from Texas mentioned social programs as though they were 
about as foul words as he could use. I favor social programs. I favor 
educating poor children; I favor health care for poor people; I favor 
health care that cannot be taken away from people like my daughter who 
has a preexisting condition. I hope everyone is assured of that type of 
coverage before I die.
  I favor school lunches; I favor seniors' centers where they get a 
meal, where they can visit with each other; I favor Meals on Wheels; I 
favor everything that helps a youngster lift himself out of poverty. 
Jack Kennedy's words have never been improved upon: ``A rising tide 
lifts all ships.''
  But when you spend $74 billion, as the very perspicacious Senator 
from Wisconsin said, you are getting nothing for something.
  Mr. President, I would remind my colleagues that we spent a lot of 
money going to the Moon, but we have not gone back. Nothing there. And 
I can tell you that the wisest people who study space will tell you 
that the purpose of this space station is not to grow crystals or to 
cure cancer. It is to see how long we can leave men in space so we can 
determine whether we want to go to Mars or not. That is what this is 
all about. And if we had a $5 trillion surplus instead of a $5 trillion 
debt, I would be for going to Mars, too.
  Mr. President, I do not want to use up all of my time. I have two or 
three other people who wish to speak, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Arkansas have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 15 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time do the opponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 10 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. And Senator Metzenbaum has 15 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 13\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to make two points--if I may have 
the Presiding Officer's attention--I am going to make 2 points and then 
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  First, the Senator from Arkansas wants to talk about what civil 
service costs are forgotten, in terms of adding their costs. The civil 
service costs are not charged against total costs of any other Federal 
procurement.
  Let me tell you how this works. For example, when we build an 
aircraft carrier, we do not estimate the cost of sailors to operate it 
for 30 years. When we build a new agricultural lab for catfish 
fertility in Arkansas, we do not add the cost of USDA staff to run it 
for 30 years, as part of the lab cost to build.
  However, NASA has included operation costs of its space station in 
the estimate of the total space station cost at this chairman's request 
so we would have a picture of what the life-cycle cost is. They did not 
forget it. It is never done on any Federal project.
  The fact that NASA does not charge off civil service costs of 
operating and maintenance as part of its space station estimates is not 
unique. If you want to force NASA to include civil service costs for 
space station operation and maintenance in the future, then I will 
offer an amendment that we make it a requirement for every procurement 
or construction project. That means for every VA hospital that is 
built, I will want to know its staffing and operation and maintenance 
for the next 30 years. For every laboratory we build, I will want to 
know its operation and maintenance for the next 30 years, as its cost; 
and for every aircraft carrier and every airplane that is built. Then 
we will make that standard operating procedure.
  There is much to be debated in an honorable way about the space 
station. But I will not let NASA be ridiculed as if they forgot to add 
something in its civil service costs. No. 2, I do not want NASA to be 
held to a different standard of accounting, different than any other 
Federal procurement facility or construction project. So I want to set 
that record clear.
  The other record I want to set clear is this chart, this odd little 
chart about space station winners and losers. NASA did not make up this 
chart that is going to be distributed. I want to put everybody who is 
going to vote on red alert when they come over and get this piece of 
paper about winners and losers. Whoever made up this unsigned chart in 
terms of its methodology--there is no signature to this. No one knows 
where the methodology came from. I do not even know who made this chart 
up. But NASA did identify what the contracts were.
  But this whole thing about paid-in taxes. The Presiding Officer knows 
that when people pay their taxes they do not earmark for special 
projects, whether it is soybeans in an agricultural State or whether it 
is the National Institutes of Health in my State. So when we talk about 
paid-in taxes, this is some convoluted formula that is as specious as 
so many other things we get about who pays taxes and who wins and 
loses.
  There is no rationale to the methodology used in this statement. When 
you ask who are the winners and losers, the question is: Is America in 
the 21st century going to be a winner, or is America in the 21st 
century going to be a loser? That is why I advocate the space station, 
because I want us to be winners in this battle for America's future.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of points here. 
When we start talking about research and development, reaching into the 
unknown--when we start talking about the incalculable payoffs in 
health, ecology, technology, competitiveness, and world relations, we 
talk about infrastructure--do we pull back and cease to 
grow; or do we dream and go into the unknown, as all Americans have 
been known to do?
  I think it is Government's role to provide the infrastructure for all 
of these magnificent things that this society enjoys. Just produce the 
infrastructure. Then let everybody else sort of take over and do their 
own thing.
  Montana is not one of those States that is actively engaged in 
building the space station. Nor do we derive a lot from it. But I will 
tell you this, I think that the young people of Montana do have a 
vested interest in these kinds of challenges.
  I disagree with the argument we cannot afford the space station.
  The list of benefits from the space station is a long one:
  Establishing an international space laboratory for the advancement of 
a wide range of scientific and technical research;
  Developing new and improved products like solar powered electric 
generators, high-density batteries, energy saving air conditioners, 
water purification systems like those in use in Rwanda to save lives, 
environmentally safe sewage treatments, radiation-blocking sunglasses, 
ultrasound scanners, and vital body functions monitors used in 
hospitals and medical clinics throughout Montana;
  Challenging students from grade school to graduate school to expand 
the frontiers of new learning into space;
  Building new bridges between nations for peace and mutual prosperity.
  It is very clear that the investment in the space station by our 
Nation's taxpayers is truly small when compared to the incalculable 
payoffs in health, ecology, technology, competitiveness, and world 
relations.
  As a Senator from a State with little direct involvement in the 
actual construction of the space station this is a tough vote. But in 
this job there is no maybe, just yes or no. When I look at this issue, 
even with the tough budget constraints under which we are now 
operating, I see the benefits to Montanans and our Nation clearly 
outweigh the costs.
  While my State may not be participating in the construction of the 
space station that does not mean Montana is not involved in its 
mission. Researchers at Montana State University are currently working 
on a biofilm laboratory with increased resistance to film buildup over 
long periods of time in space and vibration isolation devices for a 
higher level of microgravity for experiments in space. A small company 
in Bozeman is working on ways to incorporate machined plastic parts 
into the station to reduce its weight which allows the space station to 
achieve and maintain a higher elevation. A physical therapist in Deer 
Lodge is developing an all directional isometric exerciser to help 
maintain muscle and monitor physical conditions of the people living in 
space.
  I want to close with a quote from a letter I received from a veteran 
from Charlo, MT, Comdr. Ralph F. Stockstad, USN, ret., in support of 
the space station.

       A vote for the space station is a vote for the future of 
     this great nation--a vote to continue America's economic, 
     scientific and technological leadership in an increasingly 
     competitive global economy.

  I could not agree more.
  Let us continue to grow. Let us not pull back. I vote for some social 
programs but I also vote for those activities that provide 
opportunities and provide an economy so folks can take care of 
themselves.
  This is one of those kinds of projects.
  I appreciate the time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The manager of the bill would like to ask how much time 
do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I was trying to save some time for my chief cosponsor, 
Senator Warner. I see my colleague here now.
  Mr. President, I yield my colleague from Virginia 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend. I once 
again commend him for the leadership he has shown on this issue.
  I fully support this endeavor. Both of us, on many occasions, have 
just sat and pondered the future of this country if we continued to 
have such enormous expenditures accompanied by or coupled with the 
uncertainty of returns to meet the ever-growing needs of the people of 
our Nation, be it our health, our education, transportation, or the 
like.
  Certainly, we want to maintain a cutting edge in technology. It is 
essential to do it in the areas of national defense and medicine. And 
we have a very viable and active space program under way at this very 
moment. But this has so many uncertainties attached to it, balanced 
against the certainty of the many needs that face this Nation, that it 
calls for the courage of all Members of the U.S. Senate to ask 
themselves, is this essential? Because we know this country is headed 
into a most uncertain future with respect to its fiscal stability.
  In many ways, fiscal instability is far more dangerous than any 
threat beyond our shores because it can undermine the very foundation 
on which this great Nation rests.

  Last year, after many attempts by myself and many others, the 
Congress finally mustered the courage to vote to end the funding for 
the superconducting super collider project, and America has survived in 
terms of the impact--and it was a hardship on many employed in that 
project--but we survived, and those funds now have gone into the 
mainstream of the higher priority needs of this Nation.
  Now this year, Mr. President, I hope that Congress can come to grips 
with this issue. I see the distinguished manager here, the Senator from 
Maryland, if I might just address a brief question. We had a short 
colloquy last night and I made reference to this debate last year, at 
which time this Senator, and I believe others, gained the impression 
that the system of checks and balances we put on the authorization last 
year required a further examination by the subcommittee that dealt 
specifically with this program.
  I commend my good friend from Maryland. Last year, she indicated to 
the Senate that we would follow certain procedures. In the course of 
the evening last night, I think she was very candid. I asked the 
Senator from Maryland and she indicated to me there were reasons why 
those checks and balances were not fully met as represented to the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland clarify that?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, and, of course, I remember the spirited debate we 
had last year with the Senator from Virginia. We kept our fence until 
June 30 and incorporated many of the questions we had about lifting the 
fence in our regular appropriations hearing. We still did not lift the 
fence, though, until after the House vote in June. Then because of the 
questions that had been answered in our regular hearing process and 
then through the House vote, we felt that we could just move away and 
not have a special hearing, though we reserved the right to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in my recollection, and I in no way am 
trying to indicate criticism to my good friend from Maryland, but it 
was represented to this Chamber that we would have a certain hearing 
and my recollection was the February-March timeframe when a second 
major portion of the funding that was authorized was to fall due; am I 
not correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is right. Originally, we were going to lift the 
fence in March, but we did not lift the fence in March. We lifted it in 
June and incorporated many of the questions that we had about the space 
station in our regular hearing process.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland. I have complete confidence in the manner in which she has 
conducted----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say this to the Senator from Virginia--and I thank 
him for his courtesy--if we win today and defeat the Bumpers amendment, 
if the Senator has questions for NASA that he wishes to explore and if 
there is any foot dragging of someone, I will join with the Senator in 
a letter to get him the answers that he has a right as a Senator to 
pursue.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. President, since the last Congress, I have endeavored to work 
with other Senators to terminate funding for the space station. I 
cosponsored legislation to terminate the funding last year in response 
to President Clinton's request for further cuts in Federal spending.
  Last year, the Congress finally voted to end the funding appropriated 
to build the superconducting super collider project.
  This year, Mr. President, the Congress must finally vote to end the 
funding appropriated for the space station.
  The Congress is confronted with an enormous, costly, and, to date, an 
unmanageable program at a time when the Congress must be prioritizing 
the numerous programs in the Federal budget and eliminating spending 
where necessary.
  Mr. President, voting to eliminate the funding for this project is 
not an easy decision for me because elements of this project are being 
performed by Virginians. If we are successful, it will result in a 
direct loss of jobs in my State.
  Last year, my concern regarding cost increases, questionable value, 
and schedule delays of this project prompted me to request that the 
Government Accounting Office [GAO] prepare a detailed analysis of the 
project, specifically the direct national security benefits, if any, 
that might be derived from the project. In a nutshell, the space 
station will not enhance our national security requirements and the 
Department of Defense has virtually no use for the space station.
  Mr. President, we cannot be No. 1 in everything, not when confronted 
with our staggering debt and burgeoning Federal deficit.
  The space station is not a project; it is a black hole in the Federal 
budget. NASA informed the House of Representatives Science Committee in 
March 1994 that it will cost $70.8 billion to build, launch, and 
operate the station. This is 887 percent more than the $8 billion 
original sticker price presented to Congress in 1984. Since then, 
American taxpayers have spent $11 billion and have received only 
pictures and diagrams of a project in the planning stages.
  Even by the most cautious and conservative estimate, using U.S. 
Government figures from NASA, the U.S. Congressional Research Service, 
and the U.S. General Accounting Office, it is clear that the total cost 
of NASA's current space station design will exceed $70 billion.
  If we look at the spending on the space station since 1985-1993, this 
adds up to about $11.2 billion: construction of the station from 1994-
2002 will add up to about $17.4 billion; the operation of the station 
for 10 years will be about $13 billion; the launch of the station will 
add another $32 billion; payments to Russia will be about another $1 
billion. The total of these figures does not even include any salary 
costs of the many NASA employees who will work on the station over two 
decades. If we add these figures, we will reach a total of over $75 
billion for this project.
  Mr. President, I along with my colleagues who are cosponsors of this 
amendment are convinced that the space station would provide few 
benefits to national security, economic competitiveness, and the well-
being of our people.
  However, proceeding with this project will certainly mean further 
cuts in domestic programs to cover the costs of this project. The 
funding for this project will continue to have a great impact upon many 
other programs in the Federal budget which are in danger of further 
reductions in funding.
  Mr. President, it is time Congress ends the debate on whether to fund 
the space station and begin to use these funds to meet the challenges 
confronting American taxpayers on Earth.
  Mr. President, I just want to express my concern, once again, about 
the cost increases, the questionable value and schedule delays as 
relates to this project. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has 
addressed more specifically those problems. But, again, we are 
confronted with enormous uncertainties as relates to this program, and 
we are faced with certainties at home.
  I hope, given that choice, that this body will decide in favor of the 
pressing needs which we know so well at home, as opposed to the 
speculative returns that this project may some day, long after most of 
us in this Chamber have gone on to other, let us say, greener pastures, 
long after that will we ever know the outcome of this project.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the 
debate between myself and the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], 
which occurred last year on this subject.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 908

  (Purpose: To require the approval of Congress of the expenditure of 
                      certain space station funds)

       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I send an amendment to the 
     desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
       The Presiding Officer. Does the Senator intend to amend the 
     first committee amendment?
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the 
     pending amendment be set aside and we proceed to the 
     amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
       The Presiding Officer. Without objection the committee 
     amendments are set aside.
       The clerk will report.
       The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       ``The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 908,
       ``On page 60, line 9, after `1994' insert the following: `, 
     and any funds above such $1,000,000,000 may only be obligated 
     with the approval of Congress.'''
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I send to the desk an 
     amendment in the nature of a second degree.
       The Presiding Officer. The Senator does not have a right to 
     offer an amendment to his amendment at this time.
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on 
     the first amendment.
       Mr. Gramm. On your amendment you ask for the yeas and nays?
       Mr. Warner. The amendment that is at the desk. I ask for 
     the yeas and nays.
       Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
       The Presiding Officer. Is there a sufficient second?
       There is a sufficient second.
       The yeas and nays were ordered.
       Mr. Warner. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers.
       Madam President, I spoke to this amendment earlier. I do 
     not wish to prolong unduly the debate which has been a very 
     good one--I said that earlier--on the space station. My 
     concern is that the committee report on Calendar No. 194, 
     page 145, reads as follows:
       ``Bill language has been included to allocate these funds 
     accordingly. In addition, the committee has included language 
     that limits NASA from obligating more than $1 billion prior 
     to January 31, 1994, for the space station program. This will 
     enable the committee to assess the final design configuration 
     of the station before agreeing to release the remaining funds 
     appropriated in fiscal year 1994.''
       Madam President, this amendment is a very simple one. It 
     states that rather than the committee making this assessment 
     at some point in time prior to January 31, 1994, that the 
     Senate as a whole, that the House as a whole, that the 
     Congress as a body shall determine whether or not future 
     authorized dollars by the previous amendment should be 
     appropriated to this program. That is all.
       I say to my distinguished colleague from Texas, who 
     possibly has in mind a second-degree amendment, I shall 
     repeatedly bring forth one amendment after another until I 
     get an up-or-down vote on this question, because in the 
     judgment of this Senator, I think this program should be 
     reviewed very intensely by the Senate. It will be my hope we 
     continue oversight on a continuous basis because here in the 
     course of the debate on the space station we have learned 
     facts that I find astonishing, that I find unacceptable, in 
     terms of timely action by this body.
       We do not have, in my judgment, before us at this time such 
     firm cost estimates for the completion of this program to 
     justify action by this body. Nevertheless, the body did take 
     action.
       It is interesting, if you look at a breakout of the votes 
     here, there are 36 Republicans who voted for the program and 
     23 Democrats. That is a heavy responsibility. This program 
     now has a very close identity with the Republican Party. This 
     party deliberately delivered the margin of vote to assure the 
     program go forward as directed by the committee. I say that 
     with no disrespect to anyone. A fair battle was fought on the 
     amendment. It is over. It is behind us. But I think it is 
     incumbent upon us to engage this body in such further 
     deliberation as necessary to have one single dollar in 
     addition to the $1 billion, and that roughly is $900 million, 
     almost another $1 billion--before $1 of that sum is released. 
     I think it merits the deliberation of this body, its careful 
     attention, and I would anticipate another record vote.
       In that way we have fulfilled our responsibility, our 
     continuing responsibility, toward this program and toward the 
     heavy burden we are casting on the taxpayers to continue.
       I yield the floor.
       The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Ohio.
       Mr. Glenn. Madam President, I am not sure I understand.
       Is this a procedure where we would have to have another 
     affirmative vote in the Senate before any of that money could 
     be spent even though the report was made back?
       Let me just give an example. On the Armed Services 
     Committee we fence things and put hurdles in, objectives to 
     be met all the time. We have done that. We did it on B-2. We 
     have done it on several different programs. But the idea on 
     that was not to bring it back for a second vote in the 
     Senate. The idea every time there was to make sure the 
     administration was reporting everything to the committee 
     because we had been misled a few times, reporting everything 
     to the committee and have to report it.
       Then, at that point, Members who were either for or opposed 
     to whatever the issue is have a full right to come to the 
     floor, put in legislation, try to alter that. But I would say 
     to my friend from Virginia, if we are to start on 
     appropriations bills and say because we do not like a certain 
     procedure and because we happen to lose a vote on the floor 
     we are then going to come back and require a second vote 
     before anything is released, that is just legislative WPA in 
     the Senate.
       The Senate has expressed its vote. It was 59 to 40. Accept 
     it. Why would we have to bring it back again and have another 
     vote on it? I am all for having the report made back here and 
     then if there is objection to the way things are going or it 
     does not come out the way we hoped, we always can bring it 
     back and legislation can be submitted to undo what is being 
     done. But I think we are treading down a path here of just 
     making a lot of excess work for ourselves if every time we 
     have some objection to a thing that passes here on the floor 
     on an appropriations bill, we require a second vote on it. So 
     I would have to oppose it, regretfully.
       Mr. Warner. I respect my good friend from Ohio. He served 
     with me for many years on the committee. But I ask him to 
     review the language. Where did he see here the word 
     ``report"? Where is the fencing report we carefully put in 
     the Armed Services Committee? Will my colleague kindly read 
     the language? Or I will read it for him.
       Mr. Glenn. If the Senator will yield for a comment, I have 
     not actually read the language. Maybe it does not require a 
     report. But, certainly, I can guarantee the Senator from 
     Virginia, the Senator from Arkansas, and others are going to 
     be following the progress of the planning for the spending of 
     that money very, very carefully, as they should. Then if 
     there is objection----
       Mr. Warner. I do not know how I follow it, to be honest. 
     There is no obligation for them to report that I see here. 
     There is a report inferred, I might say in all fairness. The 
     sentence simply says ``This will enable the committee to 
     assess the final design configuration.''
       That implies some further evidence will be coming before 
     the committee. But I draw to my colleague's attention, 
     January 31, 1994--the Senate meets for a very few days in 
     January and, hopefully, for a very few days in December. It 
     could be the outcome of this is decided by one or two 
     Senators on behalf of the entire body involving $900 million.
       I say to my good friend, I am not prepared to yield that 
     discretion, primarily because of the inadequacy of the facts 
     that were presented to this body in support of the amendment 
     that was just acted on.
       Ms. Mikulski. Will the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
     yield?
       If the distinguished Senator will yield the floor to me, 
     recognizing his right to reclaim the floor?


                 Amendment No. 909 to Amendment No. 908

  (Purpose: To require the approval of Congress of the expenditure of 
                      certain space station funds)

       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I will be happy to yield, but 
     before doing so, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
     its immediate consideration.
       The Presiding Officer. The clerk will report.
       The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       ``The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 909 to amendment No. 908.
       ``Strike all after the first clause and add: `any funds 
     above such $1,000,000,100 may only be obligated with the 
     approval of Congress.'.''
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank 
     the distinguished managers.
       I yield the floor.
       Ms. Mikulski. Madam President, I recognize what the Senator 
     from Virginia is trying to achieve. He wants to ensure fiscal 
     accountability and that the redesign of the space station, an 
     American-led space station with Russian participation, is 
     adequate to the three criteria that the ranking minority 
     member and I have articulated: That it do significant 
     science; that it be fiscally achievable; and that it meet the 
     needs and the criteria of our international participating 
     partners. That is not unreasonable.
       What I do not want, Madam President, is to bind the hands 
     of this committee, subject to another vote on the space 
     station, without going through the regular appropriations 
     process. However, what I am prepared to do is, we anticipate 
     that this report will be done by Thanksgiving; and I will 
     assure the Senator that we will not unfence until we have had 
     a hearing exactly on the nature, the content, and the fiscal 
     aspects of this new design. Then, at that time, we can decide 
     if it is so significantly different from what we think we 
     have agreed to tonight, that we might have to return to the 
     body.
       I would not want to bind us to a vote, but I am prepared to 
     agree to a hearing because I think that the questions the 
     Senator from Virginia has would be the same questions I would 
     have in order to be able to listen to what the design is. But 
     I really encourage the Senator from Virginia to not have us 
     come back to do a second vote when the normal appropriations 
     process is done except on one item.
       I am ready to agree to a hearing. Would that satisfy the 
     Senator from Virginia?
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I thank the manager, the 
     distinguished Senator from Maryland.
       I regret to say that I would not find that an acceptable 
     substitute for the goals of the Senator from Virginia, as 
     manifested by the amendment at the desk. I say that with 
     great respect.
       Ms. Mikulski. I understand that.
       Mr. Gramm addressed the Chair.
       The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Texas.
       Mr. Gramm. Madam President, one of the things that we do to 
     try to see that the will of the Congress and the intent of 
     the law is carried out is to set up a fencing mechanism so 
     that those who are implementing the law have to come back to 
     those of us who write the law and show that, in fact, they 
     have carried out the intent of Congress.
       What the distinguished Senator from Virginia has done is 
     sought to magnify a fence that we were trying to use to 
     achieve the purposes that he is supportive of, and now he 
     would like us to have to come back to Congress and bring a 
     bill to the floor of the Senate, which could be filibustered. 
     We could technically have to get a supermajority in order to 
     move ahead with a project that 59 Members of the Senate have 
     just voted in favor of.
       Also, this amendment, if adopted, would set what I believe 
     is a very bad precedent because it would either force 
     committees to stop fencing money--and therefore we would lose 
     our ability to have effective oversight--or we would have to 
     subject ourselves to the potential of having multiple votes 
     on basically the same issue.
       So I think, again, this is a case--and I made the point 
     when we had the previous debate, and I do not intend to 
     repeat all those speeches tonight--but this is a case where 
     the distinguished chairman and I have tried to exercise 
     oversight; we have tried to hold NASA accountable. The 
     mechanisms we have used, which are conventional mechanisms, 
     in fact, are used routinely by the Armed Services Committee, 
     on which the distinguished Senator from Virginia serves as 
     the senior Republican. What we are trying to do here is 
     simply to exercise oversight. I am afraid if we accepted this 
     amendment, we would be forced to come back and vote on the 
     whole issue again.
       I think the Senate has spoken on this subject. I have no 
     doubt that they will speak again with a very clear voice, 
     perhaps with a larger margin, because now we are talking 
     about really attacking the mechanism which the Congress has 
     used to do its work. And so I do not see that we are going to 
     serve any purpose at 7:30 tonight by debating the whole space 
     station again.
       The distinguished Senator from Virginia very ably, with 
     great passion and skill, made his case. We had a vote on it. 
     His position did not carry. He is certainly within his right 
     to offer this amendment, but I think that this amendment 
     disrupts what we are trying to do. I think that it 
     discourages the kind of oversight that we all agreed that 
     this project needs.
       Therefore, I am opposed to this amendment, and I hope that 
     it will be rejected.
       I yield the floor.
       Mr. Warner addressed the Chair.
       The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Virginia.
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, if I may make a brief reply to 
     my colleague from Texas. During the course of this debate on 
     the amendment, which has now encompassed 2 days, we have had 
     a most astonishing development in the world. The Senator from 
     Arkansas read from the initial reports regarding some 
     developments in Russia which I find are germane to the 
     consideration of this amendment.
       I am not going to go back into it, but essentially:
       ``Boris Yeltsin, the President, moved to take complete 
     control of Russia--''
       Complete control of Russia. That is control of this 
     program. That is control of this program; one man----
     ``in a constitutional coup on Tuesday, ousting the hardline 
     Congress and announcing elections for a new Parliament in 
     December.''
       One of the more dramatic chapters of this debate is one 
     when we were advised in S-407 that there would be a 
     briefing-- regrettably, only five or six Senators showed up, 
     of which I was one, because I felt duty bound--a briefing 
     about how the space program was an integral part of an 
     overall approach by this administration. I commend the 
     President for this overall approach, and I am going to 
     support him. It is an approach whereby we would involve 
     Russia in this program. The sum of $100 million was 
     mentioned.
       Madam President, that is just in the brief period of less 
     than 48 hours when the Senate has been dealing with this 
     amendment. I ask my colleagues, I do not know what this 
     report portends for the future of Russian participation in 
     the space station. But I guarantee, Madam President, this 
     Senator wants to know before another dollar is released under 
     the proposed fence. That is why I ask this body to reconvene.
       Is it too much to ask this body to spend an hour or two in 
     debate on $900 million? Is that asking too much? This fence 
     delegates to perhaps one or two Senators the responsibility 
     for close to a billion dollars. I say this to my good friend 
     from Texas. He might well be the Senator on this side to make 
     that decision, and he has fought hard for this amendment. He 
     won. He delivered 34 Republican votes. That is a mark of 
     pride.
       But I am reminded of my old history professor, I say to my 
     good friend, the senior Senator from Texas. The year was 
     1946. I came back after a brief tour in the U.S. Navy, 
     matriculated in my father's old school, Washington and Lee 
     University.
       The history professor was named Bean, Dr. Bean. He was in 
     his seventies, and he was recognized not only in Virginia, 
     but throughout the Nation, as the foremost expert on that 
     tragic chapter of history from roughly 1860 to 1865. He had a 
     book on his desk, and all students as they walked in, were 
     required to touch the book and then take their seats. I say 
     to my distinguished colleague from Alabama, my contemporary 
     in life, every student touched that book. The title of that 
     book, a book written by one of Robert E. Lee's aides-de-camp, 
     a man who had traveled with Lee through the various campaigns 
     and had taken an opportunity after that tragic chapter to sit 
     down and write a book, I say to my distinguished friend from 
     Texas, was ``The Unbiased History of the Civil War, From the 
     Southern Point of View.''
       Somehow, I feel the senior Senator from Texas might not 
     apply the objectivity, the depth of analysis, and reasoning 
     that might be required to obligate this body, the U.S. 
     Senate, to $900 million.
       I yield the floor.
       Ms. Mikulski. Madam President, I think there has been said 
     all there is to say on this amendment. I believe we are at an 
     impasse on this, and in a few seconds I will be making a 
     motion which I hope will bring this debate to a close and we 
     can begin to start the debate on ASRM.
       I know that when we initially talked about the amendment of 
     the Senator from Virginia it was going to take 15 minutes. It 
     has now taken longer than we anticipated. I believe, whatever 
     the arguments, we would only be repeating ourselves. I truly 
     respect the Senator from Virginia and what he is attempting 
     to do. But, Madam President, I now must move to table Senator 
     Warner's amendment No. 908, and I ask unanimous consent that 
     the vote on the motion to table occur at 8 p.m.; further, 
     that the amendment be laid aside so that Senator Bumpers may 
     now offer the ASRM amendment.
       The Presiding Officer. Is there objection?
       Mr. Heflin. I would just like to ask unanimous consent. It 
     will take 15 seconds.
       Ms. Mikulski. Could we get this agreement first?
       The Presiding Officer. Is there objection to the agreement?
       Mr. Bumpers. Reserving the right to object, would the 
     distinguished Senator restate the request?
       Ms. Mikulski. I move to table the Warner amendment No. 908 
     and ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to 
     table occur at 8 p.m.; further, that the amendment be laid 
     aside so that Senator Bumpers may now offer his ASRM 
     amendment and that we may proceed on the discussion on ASRM.
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, reserving the right to object, 
     I wonder if the distinguished managers of the bill might 
     consider not only laying aside the vote but having the vote 
     occur at some time which would be most convenient to the 
     majority of Senators. It may well be that the distinguished 
     Senator from Arkansas will require a vote later this evening 
     and that the votes could be put back to back. I speak only to 
     accommodate the Senate.
       Ms. Mikulski. I insist upon my original unanimous consent 
     request.
       The Presiding Officer. Is there an objection? Without 
     objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and a half minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time does the opponent have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want first to correct something, or at 
least explain something I said earlier when I said I feared for my 
country. I do, because of the things I mentioned--the cultural and 
social decline, the crime rate, a whole host of things.
  But I am also very hopeful--hope springs eternal--and I am always 
hoping that the U.S. Congress, which has a whopping 15 percent approval 
rating among the people of this country, will give the country just 
cause to raise that percentage. The people of the country who distrust 
Congress so much do so for the wrong reasons. It is too bad the 
American people cannot hear this debate.
  They know that things are not going well and they know that things 
are not going well in their lives, and they do not see Congress as 
doing very much that is relevant to their concerns.
  It is true Government cannot solve every problem, but I tell you what 
Government can do. It can provide health care, it can provide home 
health care, it can provide a nursing home for Aunt Lucy and the 
elderly people who cannot afford long-term health care. Those are 
Government functions that I strongly champion.
  But I suppose my greatest fear about the future of the country is the 
deficit and the continuing fiscal irresponsibility of the U.S. 
Congress. Here is a golden opportunity to save over $10 billion with 
virtually no adverse effect, and lower the deficit, but because some 
States will see increased jobs with the space station we cannot realize 
that savings. In my State of Arkansas, we have to tax ourselves $667 
million to pay for our share of the space station. I can tell you if 
the people of Arkansas knew they were going to have to pony up $667 
million, they would kiss that sucker goodbye so fast it would make your 
head spin.
  I can tell you that if the people of Virginia knew they were going to 
have to pony up almost $2 billion, they could not wait to get rid of 
this thing.
  And if you are out there waiting for a cancer cure, do not wait until 
the space station is in orbit. We have been doing experiments on 
shuttles and the Space Station Mir for 30 years, and for what? I invite 
you to tell me one achievement that has improved people's health. Go 
home and tell your constituents that each astronaut on this station for 
10 long years is going to consume $319,000 worth of water a day. Tell 
them it is going to cost them $400 million-plus a year just to take 
water to the astronauts. And tell them almost every physicist in this 
country says this is an utter waste of money if we are planning to grow 
crystals. And the American Cancer Society says, it is an utter waste of 
money if you are looking for a cancer cure.
  The Senator from Maryland asked me earlier where my figures came 
from. As I said, the contract cost for 1994 came from NASA. And the 
other figures are based on population. The truth of the matter is, 
instead of California only having to pony up $8 billion --my guess is 
their average per capita tax rate is much higher than it is in 
Arkansas--they are probably going to pony up about $10 billion. And now 
the Vice President, who has lobbied virtually every Senator in this 
body, says it is important to get these Russian scientists involved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to 
wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Vice President said by getting Russia involved it 
will save $2 billion. And the General Accounting Office said it will 
not save $2 billion; it will cost NASA an additional $2 billion. Think 
of that.
  To the distinguished floor manager, who is always so courteous and 
gracious in these debates, I do want to say it was NASA who told CRS: 
``We did in fact inadvertently forget civil service cost and we 
apologize.''
  Mr. President, if I were to win this debate it would be the biggest 
miracle ever to occur in the Senate, but I invite all of my colleagues 
to remember that great novel ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' when Atticus 
Finch, defending a black man falsely accused of rape, looked at the 
jury and closed his statement by saying, ``For God's sake, do your 
duty.'' I issue that same admonition to my colleagues.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers 
amendment to terminate funding for the space station.
  Mr. President, as a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, 
which funds NASA's programs, I have closely reviewed the progress of 
the space station and its funding levels since it was first proposed by 
President Reagan in 1984.
  At that time, NASA estimated that the total cost of the space station 
would be $8 billion. Unfortunately, that estimate was not even close.
  As of fiscal year 1994, we have already spent approximately $11 
billion on the space station and look where we are--still on the 
drawing boards.
  Since we have no real space station, no one really knows its cost. 
The estimates show us that it will at least cost $30 billion to 
construct and approximately may cost over $100 billion over the 
lifetime of the project.
  Mr. President, some of the opponents of the Bumpers amendment will 
say that we should not cancel the space station because we have just 
entered into an agreement with the Russians to jointly build the space 
station. I would say that we need to be honest with the Russians. We 
cannot afford to build the space station and we should not delude them. 
Frankly, I am not sure they can afford it either.
  Furthermore, we should not make the space station the centerpiece of 
our foreign policy toward Russia and the Republics. I have supported 
aid to Russia and the Republics in the past but I do not think we 
should expand it to include the space station.
  Also, we should not be linking the future of a multibillion dollar 
project to the political or economic stability of Russia. We have all 
witnessed the decline of the Russian economy and the struggles of the 
Yeltsin government to implement political and free market reform.
  Also, I would note that the Russian launch facility is located in 
Kazakstan and it is deteriorating. Are we certain that this facility 
will be in friendly hands in the next few years? Are we sure that they 
will have the money to maintain this launch facility?
  Mr. President, when the space station was first conceived, it was 
argued that it would enhance our national security and help us conduct 
research in materials science and life science research.
  Yet since the 1991 restructuring of the space station, the Space 
Studies Board and the National Research Council have seriously 
questioned whether the materials and life science research could 
actually be done effectively.
  Some still argue that there will be biomedical spinoffs resulting 
from the tests conducted in the weightlessness of the space station. 
But at what cost?
  The space station will cost us over $30 billion for construction 
before we conduct one biomedical experiment and may cost over $100 
billion over the lifetime of the project. To put this into perspective, 
the National Institutes of Health, the world's premier biomedical 
research agency, receives a total of $11 billion per year. I say to my 
colleagues that if we are concerned about investing in biomedical 
research, we should put more into the NIH, where it probably would do a 
lot more good.
  Mr. President, the space station is a project without a mission that 
has taken on a life of its own. It adds nothing to the future economic 
vitality of our Nation. It doesn't contribute to solving our underlying 
disinvestment in our people and infrastructure, or our technology. And 
we just can't afford it.
  Mr. President, I want to give credit to President Clinton for his 
initial action on the space station. On February 18, 1993, the 
President asked NASA to come up with a more cost-effective, redesigned 
space station. He wanted NASA to present him with redesign options that 
would cost between $5 and $9 billion over the next 5 years.
  After 4 months, NASA came to the conclusion that the space station 
could not be built for less than $10.5 billion over the next 5 years. 
And, this so-called redesign is still untested and may be technically 
infeasible. It certainly will obviate most, if not all, of the original 
goals of the program.
  Mr. President, there is one option available to us to hold the 
project below $9 billion over the next 5 years. That option is to 
terminate the space station. It is clear that there is no way to get 
the cost of this project under control no matter how hard NASA tries to 
redesign the project.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the space station. 
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the lunar landing of the Apollo 
11. In 1969, the United States was torn apart by urban unrest, the 
Vietnam war, and a host of social problems. However, that year, the 
exploits of Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins helped 
pull our Nation together and, to this day, their achievement represents 
the high point of the U.S. space program. Mr. President, we now have 
the opportunity for an equally remarkable achievement--the construction 
of an international space station.
  We are forced to make some difficult choices among competing national 
priorities within tough appropriations caps. Unquestionably, the 
decision to fund a space station is one of those tough choices, but I 
believe it is the right choice for many reasons.
  The space station, and missions like it, are the reason we have a 
NASA. NASA was never intended to be a typical Government agency. When 
we think of NASA, we think of pushing American imagination, talent, and 
resources to the breaking point to accomplish truly remarkable feats. 
We think of historic milestones like Alan Shepard's manned suborbital 
flight, John Glenn's orbital flight, and Neil Armstrong's walk on the 
Moon. At every point in its history, NASA has been in pursuit of at 
least one bold challenge that has driven and defined our space program. 
For the next decade, that challenge is the building of a space station.
  Once completed, the space station will provide a huge orbital 
laboratory in which the United States and other nations can conduct 
important microgravity research. The space station will also provide 
scientists with information about humans' ability to live and work in 
space. The data and experience gained from space station will be 
critical for any future human missions to the Moon or Mars. I am 
especially proud that a firm headquartered in my State--McDonnell 
Douglas--has the task of constructing the massive framework for this 
international laboratory.
  Mr. President, if past missions are any indication, space station 
research will lead to new drugs, cures for diseases, advanced 
materials, and breakthroughs in electronics, engineering, and 
aeronautics. These spinoffs hold the promise of both enhancing the 
quality of our lives and stimulating U.S. competitiveness. NASA has 
estimated that, for every dollar invested in past space missions, the 
U.S. economy has gained $2 in the form of successful private sector 
spinoffs like pacemakers, communications satellites, and 
microelectronics. If that holds true for the space station, we can 
expect enormous long-term benefits from the $30 billion program.

  Mr. President, it is important to remember that the space station is 
an international space mission and that our foreign partners have 
contributed enormous time, efforts, and money to this project. For 
instance, Canada is at work on a robotic arm for the space station, and 
the European Space Agency and Japan are each contributing a laboratory 
module. So far, our foreign partners have spent about $4 billion of 
their parts of the project. This massive investment will be wasted if 
we abandon the space station now. Large space projects are becoming too 
complicated and costly for any one nation to undertake. If the United 
States does not honor its commitments to its foreign partners on 
programs like space station, they will not join with us in any future 
international projects.
  Mr. President, last year marked an historic milestone in the program. 
The former Soviet Union--our old cold war rival--joined the family of 
space station partners. The Russians bring 13 years of experience in 
building and flying space stations. Since 1986, the Russians have had 
eight space stations. Their current one, Mir, has been in orbit since 
1986. Despite recent political and economic troubles in the country, 
Russia's space program has continued at full speed. Last year, for 
example, Russia launched 49 spacecraft, with only one failure. By 
contrast, the U.S. launched 29 spacecraft with 3 failures.
  The Russian involvement is one of the main reasons that this latest 
space station design improves on the previous plan in almost every 
respect. It reduces space station costs by $2 billion through the 
completion of its assembly, increases the crew size from four to six, 
speeds up the assembly schedule, and permits earlier, and greater, 
research opportunities.
  Under current plans, NASA is examining ways of incorporating numerous 
elements of the Russian space station, including its crew rescue 
vehicle, its propulsion and navigation systems, and its docking 
system--to link their shuttle with the space station. These 
contributions should help the program by eliminating the need for time-
consuming research and development in these areas. In addition, the 
Russians will launch much of the space station hardware, including 
Russian-built elements, on their own rockets.
  Beyond the direct benefits to the space station, Russian 
participation also advances important U.S. foreign policy interests. 
Under the United States-Russia space pact, the United States will pay 
Russia $400 million over the next 4 years to support wide-ranging 
cooperative activities including shuttle visits to Mir and cosmonaut 
trips on the shuttle. This cash infusion should help provide some 
stability for the Russian economy as it moves toward a market economy.
  Equally important, the inclusion of Russia in the space station 
program will lessen the incentive for Russian scientists to sell their 
space and missile technology indiscriminately around the world. 
Significantly, shortly after the United States-Russian space pact 
negotiations began, the Russians canceled their controversial proposal 
to sell missile technology to India.
  The space station is also critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in 
aerospace. To cancel the space station would undermine that leadership. 
Aerospace is one of the few industries in which the United States 
enjoys a trade surplus--over $31 billion in 1992. Just as important, 
the aerospace industry employs over 2 million Americans. Cancellation 
would mean the layoff of the 40,000 workers in 37 States who work on 
the space station. It would also mean a tremendous economic loss to the 
communities and small companies that depend on the business of those 
space station workers.
  We cannot afford to lose the space station workers. They are the 
foundation of the U.S. technology base and are critical to our national 
security and U.S. competitiveness. Preserving a highly skilled work 
force is particularly important now that the defense industry is making 
dramatic cutbacks. Moreover, it has been predicted that the United 
States will face a severe scientific personnel shortage in the next 
decade. If we continue the space station, we not only maintain its 
skilled work force, but we also kindle interest among our young people 
in math and science careers. Many of today's scientists and engineers 
picked their profession, inspired by the exploits of NASA astronauts. 
The space station holds the promise of similarly exciting our young 
about pursuing work in science and technology.
  Finally, Mr. President, the public wants the space station. According 
to an independent study conducted in May by the Yankelovich Partners--a 
leading research firm--68 percent of the public supports the space 
station. This is up 5 percent from last year, indicating that public 
approval is going up, not down. Also, to those who view the Russian 
participation in a negative light, I point out that the Yankelovich 
study also indicates that 57 percent of the public believes the United 
States should build this space station jointly with Russia and other 
countries. The House of Representatives' approval of the space station 
in June--by an overwhelming 123-vote margin in contrast to the 1-vote 
margin the previous year--only further confirms the strong and growing 
public support for the program.
  Mr. President, now is not the time to turn back. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for space station. A vote for the space station is a vote for 
our space program, our economy, and our future.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the pending 
Bumpers amendment and rise today to urge my colleagues to support this 
effort to terminate funding for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration [NASA] Space Station Program.
  The issue here comes down to the extent to which this space station 
and the benefits it might or might not provide measure up against the 
other pressing priorities among which we are required to choose in the 
name of the American taxpayer.
  When you balance the space station's potential benefits against the 
current reality of the priorities we need to fund in this country, 
eliminating the space station is not a hard choice, it is the only 
choice. It is not a pleasant choice, but it is the only choice.
  We have already spent $11.9 billion on the space station and, perhaps 
not surprisingly, have seen few tangible results to date. In 1984, NASA 
justified the space station based on eight potential uses. Now only one 
of these assignments remains. The space station will be used as a 
research laboratory. However, according to most experts, the space 
station's value as a science laboratory is dubious. The costs for 
performing scientific research in space simply outweigh the potential 
benefits. It will cost $12,880 to ship one pound of payload to the 
space station, according to NASA. In addition, its research potential 
is restricted by its small crew size, limited number of test racks for 
experiments, and limited power. According to the Space Sciences board 
of the National Research Council, ``continued development of Space 
Station Freedom * * * cannot be supported on scientific grounds.''
  All of us have lived with the extraordinary contributions of the 
space effort and of our astronauts. But when you balance what this 
space station offers, against the needs that we have here and now, I do 
not believe we can justify enormous funding level it receives now and 
will require in the future. Proponents say the space station will cost 
$17.4 billion. However, this price excludes costs prior to 1994, 
projected 10-year operating costs, and approximately 90 shuttle flights 
to carry necessary construction materials into space. Also, it does not 
include funds to service and maintain the space station nor civil 
service costs.
  The real cost, using NASA's own statistics, will be $72.3 billion. I 
believe the time has come to exercise greater fiscal responsibility and 
terminate funding for the space station immediately in order to reduce 
the $200 billion Federal deficit. By doing so, we would not only save 
$1.6 billion next year, but some $165 billion--including interest--over 
the next 35 years.

  Many of my colleagues support the space station because of the jobs 
it creates for the American people. Certainly, creating jobs should be 
a high national priority, but the space station is not the way to 
accomplish it, for several reasons. First, it is a grossly inefficient 
jobs program costing approximately $161,400 per job. Second, it is an 
unfair jobs program, benefitting only a handful of States but asking 
all to pay for it. In 1994, 44 States are net losers, paying more in 
taxes than they receive in contracts. In my home State of 
Massachusetts, we paid $50.7 million in taxes but only received $1.2 
million in contracts, leaving us with a net loss of $49.5 million.
  But the fact that the program is grossly inefficient and unfair as a 
jobs program is not the only problem. Not only does the security of the 
American citizen suffer when we fund projects like this, but other 
scientific research about which I care deeply also suffers. As a member 
of the Commerce Committee, I have fought alongside the chairman to fund 
many scientific programs. At times we have had to borrow, pray, and 
steal from other programs to do so, and in the end we often wind up 
shortchanging most of these programs. Allowing this extraordinary large 
science program to receive funding at the expense of these other so-
called ``small science''--but often more valuable--scientific programs 
is unacceptable.
  The enormous level of funding consumed by the station is crowding out 
much smaller appropriations for satellites and unmanned space probes, 
which most experts consider more cost-effective than manned missions. 
Space research has received enormous funding at the expense of 
environmental research and other important projects that promise to 
improve the lives of our citizens or enhance our security more 
completely. Years ago, NASA announced Mission to Planet Earth, a 
program that would launch satellites to monitor the Earth's atmosphere. 
However, because of lack of funding, initiation of this effort is not 
scheduled until 1998.
  As you are aware, the building of the space station has become a 
joint effort between the United States and Russia. Many of my 
colleagues view this as an incredible accomplishment in light of the 
recently ended cold war. We all want to see continued progress in 
United States-Russian relations. However, we should be encouraging 
Russia to house and feed its people, provide jobs, and above all care 
for its deteriorating nuclear powerplants, and dismantle its nuclear 
missiles and warheads. Asking Russia to commit its resources to an 
uncertain and risky space station instead of encouraging it to these 
important matters is unwise.
  We must really stand back and ask the question: Are we still a 
Congress that in the name of the American people can pretend to be 
responsible about the deficit and the budget while we continue to fund 
things because we would like to do so rather than because they are 
really vital to our national quality of life and our ability to hold 
together the fabric of our communities? We need to decide for America 
what we need to spend money on rather than what we would like to spend 
money on.
  People may argue that we have lost our vision if we terminate the 
space station. We still have vision. But the vision is to restore the 
American dream to our citizens, to restore their sense of safety on the 
streets, to invest in technology that will increase our competitiveness 
and the quality of jobs, to invest in the research that will cure our 
deadly diseases, and to restore our communities to the condition where 
children can learn and dream.
  Will terminating this program hurt in California? Will it hurt in 
Texas? Will the loss of $1.2 million dollars hurt in Massachusetts? 
Yes, it will hurt. But if we measure that loss against the pain that 
people across the country are feeling because we are not willing to 
address our fundamental needs as a Nation, it pales in comparison.
  It is time to decide. That is what this is about, and I think the 
American people are watching impatiently to see whether the U.S. 
Congress can actually do something for once--whether we can really 
deliver some spending reductions and make some of the choices we ought 
to make for our future.
  I commend the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his tenacious 
leadership on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to 
terminate the space station.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the space 
station and to talk about where America's space program is headed 25 
years after we landed on the Moon.
  ``Houston, tranquility base. The Eagle has landed.'' Those were the 
first words spoken when the Apollo 11 lunar module landed on the Moon 
in 1969.
  I remember that day well. The world watched in awe as Neil Armstrong 
stepped onto the Moon's surface and uttered: ``That's one small step 
for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' I was filled with wonder and 
pride.
  The technological might of the United States, the great will of the 
American people, and the courage of our space pioneers combined to 
produce one of the greatest moments in recent history.
  That was more than a quarter of a century ago. Since then, there have 
been several other Apollo missions which sent astronauts to the Moon. 
Then Skylab--the first U.S. space station--was launched in the early 
1970's. Currently, the space shuttle program is underway, and has been 
very successful despite the tragic Challenger accident in 1984.
  With each mission, we learn more and more about life sciences, 
materials sciences, earth sciences, engineering research and 
technology, and commercial development. And with each new mission we 
explore the unknown and make discoveries that ultimately help to 
improve life here on Earth.
  The cold war race to the Moon required great advances in engineering 
and technology, advances that continue to fuel our economy and improve 
our way of life. For example, the cool suit developed for the Apollo 
program is now helping to improve the quality of life for multiple 
sclerosis patients.
  Under the space shuttle program we have grown crystals in a 
weightless environment, which has helped advance research into cancer, 
diabetes, emphysema, parasitic infections, and immune system disorders. 
These scientific developments are far superior to any we have reached 
by growing crystals on Earth.
  Although productive, the 1- or 2-week space shuttle missions are 
limited by the short amount of time in which experiments are conducted. 
Astronauts are simply not in space long enough to carry out long-
duration research in a microgravity environment, to make real-time 
changes to experiments and to do much-needed trial-and-error work.

  That is why the United States must continue its exploration in space 
with the next logical step--a permanently staffed space station.
  The international space station, a post-cold-war cooperative alliance 
that includes the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan, and Europe, 
will lead the world toward great advances in space exploration. It will 
be an orbiting laboratory that will conduct a wide range of scientific 
and technical research.
  As many of my colleagues know, when President Clinton took office, he 
ordered a comprehensive redesign of the original space station Freedom.
  After months of hard work by NASA officials, negotiations with our 
international partners, and review by an expert team headed by MIT 
President Charles Vest, space station Freedom was redesigned into the 
international space station Alpha, and Russia was added as a new 
partner.
  The result: Nearly $20 billion in total savings by the year 2012--
taking into account 10 years of operations after the space station has 
been completed. All using 75 percent of the hardware originally 
designed for space station Freedom.
  In addition, the capabilities of the space station will be expanded. 
The size of the crew will be increased from four astronauts to six. The 
number of pressurized modules--where astronauts live and work--will be 
increased from 6 to 10. Power will expand from 56 kilowatts to 110 
kilowatts. And the ability to observe the Earth from space will be 
greatly improved.
  In a recent letter to the White House, Charles Vest, who headed the 
President's advisory committee on the redsign of the space station, 
said: ``This program has progressed to an extent that greatly exceeded 
my expectations.'' He continued his praise, emphasing the space 
station's improved research capability.
  So in many regards, the redesigned international space station will 
be even better than the original space station Freedom. Many 
capabilities have increased, costs have decreased, the schedule has 
remained relatively the same, and international cooperation has been 
expanded.
  I understand that the General Accounting Office [GAO] has raised 
questions about the cost of Russian participation. But, I find some of 
GAO's conclusions--which include costs that are not directly tied to 
the space station program--questionable. For example, GAO states that 
$746 million from two space shuttle flights should be scored against 
the savings from Russian participation.

  But NASA will fly eight shuttle flights per year regardless of 
whether the space station program goes forward. Even if you score the 
two shuttle flights against the savings from Russian participation, 
marginal costs for each shuttle mission are estimated at only $40 
million. However, GAO uses the average shuttle cost of $320 million per 
mission. I do not think GAO's math adds up.
  NASA Administrator Dan Goldin Also disagrees with GAO's conclusions. 
He states that Russian participation will ``save hundreds of millions, 
if not billions of dollars. For the American taxpayer, it's a win-win 
situation. More space station for less cost.''
  Let me now review the international space station by component and 
which country is contributing the various parts to the program.


                                science

  Europe, Japan, Russia, and the United States will all have 
pressurized laboratory modules on board.
  There will be plenty of room and lab racks for microgravity 
experiments. And 110 kilowatts of electrical power will be supplied by 
United States and Russian solar arrays.


                                  crew

  The U.S.-built habitation module will carry six permanent crew 
members.
  Russia will provide the Soyuz spacecraft to serve as the assured crew 
return vehicle, or ``lifeboat,'' in the event of an emergency.


                                support

  Service elements will include Russian life-support modules, a 
Canadian crane that operates in space, and a Russian-built, United 
States-owned propulsion unit.
  Structural elements include a United States-made truss and a joint 
United States/Russian airlock.
  There will be 18 American, 12 Russian, 2 European, 1 Japanese, and 
2 joint rocket launches to carry equipment to assemble the space 
station.


                              utilization

  The space station will orbit at a 51.6 degree inclination--allowing 
for 85 percent Earth observing coverage.
  Mission control will be located at Houston, with Kaliningrad in 
Russia serving as the backup.
  Astronauts will be able to stay aboard the space station for 6-month 
periods.
  The newly redesigned international space station is an investment in 
the future. An investment in science and technology. An investment in 
international cooperation and peace. An investment in American jobs and 
know-how. An investment which takes the next logical step in human 
space exploration.
  With a permanently human tended space station orbiting above earth, 
astronauts will have a laboratory to conduct experiments and do 
research on a wide variety of subjects They will be able to conduct 
long-duration microgravity investigations, which will allow scientists 
to look deeper into the mechanics of cell functions, combustion, liquid 
behavior, crystallization, and electromagnetic.
  How will this research better life here on Earth? What applications 
does space research have on the lives of average Americans? Well, here 
are some specific examples of how research on the space station will 
benefit people in the United States and around the world:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Topic                                            Applications on earth                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   BIOTECHOLOGY                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
Tissue Culture Studies............................  Knowledge of normal and cancerous tissue development. Key to
                                                     finding treatments and cures to diseases.                  
Protein Crystal Growth............................  Designing of pharmaceuticals which block proteins. Possible 
                                                     target: HIV virus.                                         
                                                                                                                
                    COMBUSTION                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Droplet/Pool Burning..............................  Improved understanding of fire propagation for improved fire
                                                     safety.                                                    
                                                                                                                
                   FLUID PHYSICS                                                                                
                                                                                                                
Interface Dynamics................................  Improved industrial films and coatings, oil spill recovery  
                                                     techniques, tracking of ground water contaminants, and     
                                                     processing of semiconductor crystals.                      
Cloud Formation Microphysics......................  Useful to meteorologists for improved weather predictions.  
                                                                                                                
               GLASSES AND CERAMICS                                                                             
                                                                                                                
Fiber Reinforced Components.......................  More effective pyroelectric devices for disasters and crime 
                                                     prevention, environmental control, and life saving.        
                                                                                                                
               ELECTRONIC MATERIALS                                                                             
                                                                                                                
Vapor Phase Crystal Growth........................  Much higher efficiency and density opto-electronics for the 
                                                     communications industry.                                   
Epitaxy Liquid Phase Molecular Beam Vapor Phase...  High-speed switching devices and high-density memory, making
                                                     smaller, more affordable supercomputers possible.          
                                                                                                                
                 METALS AND ALLOYS                                                                              
                                                                                                                
Casting Processes.................................  Increased ability to produce defect-free casting for        
                                                     industries relying on high-performance arts such as        
                                                     airplanes, bridges, buildings, nuclear plants, and         
                                                     electronics.                                               
                                                                                                                
              POLYMERS AND CHEMISTRY                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Biomaterial Polymer Encapsulation.................  Development of new technology for long-term storage of      
                                                     hormones used by the medical industry.                     
Polymerization Phenomena..........................  Better performance of products in the automotive tire and   
                                                     plastic polymer industries through the understanding of    
                                                     ``weak forces.''                                           
                                                                                                                
           LIFE AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES                                                                         
                                                                                                                
Controlled Ecological Life Support................  Better waste management and disposal. Recycling of gaseous  
                                                     and liquid consumables. Food plant experiments to increase 
                                                     yield and shorten growth period without pesticides.        
Environmental Health..............................  Improved air and water quality sensors, analyzers, and      
                                                     filtering devices. Automated microbiology system enhances  
                                                     identification of bacteria population.                     
                                                                                                                
  ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT                                                               
                                                                                                                
Human Support.....................................  Enhanced designs for firefighting suits, toxic waste cleanup
                                                     suits, deep sea divers equipment. Cooling systems for      
                                                     physically impaired persons.                               
Spacecraft Materials/Environmental Effects........  Lightweight oxygen tanks; high-strength, corrosion-resistant
                                                     pipes; long-life self-healing paints; solar cells for home 
                                                     power generation.                                          
                                                                                                                
              COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Remote Sensing....................................  Agricultural crop monitoring, forest mensuration,           
                                                     environmental assessment, land use planning, storm surge   
                                                     level forecasting, erosion effects prediction, ocean       
                                                     currents tracking, oil field location, digital mapping.    
                                                                                                                
               OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Oceanic Research..................................  Monitoring of sea surface temperature, wind speed and sea   
                                                     roughness, ocean currents, sea life, ice coverage, etc.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Scientific research and experiments like those listed above have real 
life applications here on earth. Space-based research has led to a 
variety of innovations and technological advances that have, and 
continue to help people every day. Among them:
  Long-distance telephone networks;
  International TV broadcasts;
  Car chassis and brake designs;
  Heart monitors for ambulances;
  Structural designs for bridges;
  Laser surgery in hospitals;
  Programmable pacemakers;
  Navigational systems for airplanes; and
  Long-range weather forecasting.
  It is clear that an investment in space creates enormous benefits for 
people here on Earth. In fact, a Midwest Research Institute study in 
1988 shows that each dollar invested in space programs yields up to $9 
in new products, technologies, and processes here at home.
  In addition to the enormous benefits to science, medical research, 
and technology, the space station also maintains U.S. leadership in 
space and enhances global competitiveness. As Vice President Gore said, 
``the aerospace industry is our last surviving jewel,'' accounting for 
10 percent of all U.S. exports in 1990 alone.
  The space station will also help inspire our children, foster the 
next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and 
satisfies our ancient need to explore and achieve.
  The space station is a powerful symbol of U.S. leadership in a 
changing world, and it represents an international commitment. Our 
original international partners--Japan, Canada, and Europe--have 
already committed $9 billion to the space station program, and are 
counting on America's continued leadership in space.
  The space station has also become a tool in international diplomacy 
in the post-cold war world. Who would have thought just 5 year ago that 
the United States and Russia would be cooperating in such a venture?
  By asking Russia to join the international space station team, the 
United States can channel the Russian aerospace industry into 
nonmilitary pursuits. That will reduce the risk of nuclear 
proliferation as well as slow traffic in high-technology weaponry to 
developing nations. In addition, an international space station will 
use existing Russian space technology, capability, expertise, and 
hardware to build a better space station for less money.
  I have had some concerns about Russian involvement in the program--
specifically with regard to whether Russia's involvement enhances space 
station capabilities or, rather, enables it to exist. I strongly 
believe that Russia's involvement in the program should enhance the 
space station--America is not, nor should it be, dependent on Russia 
for the space station to exist.
  I am pleased with NASA's actions to ensure that the United States 
retains primary control of the international space station. NASA will 
buy the FGB propulsion module from Russia, so it will be United States 
owned and operated. In addition, NASA is altering the assembly sequence 
to ensure that the space station is not dependent on Russian hardware 
to function. And, the space station will be controlled from the Johnson 
Space Center in Houston, with a Russian site serving only as a backup.

  In addition to the scientific and diplomatic benefits that the 
international space station offers, it is also an important source of 
high-quality, high-skilled aerospace jobs in the wake of defense 
downsizing. The space station program is defense conversion at its 
best. It will help create new jobs for our former defense workers, who 
helped the United States win the cold war in the first place.
  More than 10,000 direct jobs rely on the space station program, 4,000 
of them in my home State of California. And indirectly, 45,000 jobs 
nationwide have been created because of space station-related 
activities. At a time when the country--and California in particular--
is just starting to recover from the recession, the space station is an 
important source of economic activity.
  For all the reasons I stated above--scientific benefits, medical 
research, U.S. leadership in space, global competitiveness, post-cold-
war international relations, inspiration of future generations, 
economic spinoffs, and American jobs--I strongly support the 
international space station.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bumpers amendment and support the 
next logical step of the U.S. space program: the international space 
station.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for 
continued funding for space station Alpha.
  It seems fitting that as the country has taken time to fondly 
remember the 25th anniversary of Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong's first 
steps on the Moon, that we are once again deliberating whether as a 
nation, we have the foresight and fortitude to make this investment in 
our future.
  I believe a manned space station is the next logical step for NASA; 
America simply cannot afford to bypass this tremendous opportunity. I 
commend NASA for restructuring the space station to reduce its cost, 
and for reaching out to include our friends abroad. For the first time 
in history a multitude of nations will be working hand-in-hand in space 
exploration.
  The restructured space station offers the United States and our 
allies an unparalleled ability to gain a better understanding of the 
universe around us. At the same time, a permanently manned station will 
enable us to conduct long-term experimentation to help develop 
solutions to many pressing environmental and biomedical problems.
  The distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has been a 
champion of the space station. She and I may have differing views on 
many policy issues, but the space station is not one of them. On May 
30, she wrote, ``The death of the space station would be a national 
tragedy.'' I couldn't agree more.
  Several weeks ago the House sent a clear message to the American 
people and to our international partners that the Federal Government is 
committed to the space station. If NASA is to do its job, explore 
space, then we must stop haggling back and forth about this issue year 
after year. The Senate must send a strong statement which once and for 
all will put an end to the yearly debate about building a space 
station. We owe it to our posterity to explore the universe to the 
fullest extent possible. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Bumpers amendment and to support continued funding for 
space station Alpha.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I strongly support the Bumpers-Warner 
amendment to terminate funding for the space station. This program is a 
black hole in the Federal budget we simply cannot afford. In light of 
many other more compelling obligations, this program is neither cost-
effective research, nor a wise investment in terms of our partnership 
with the Russians.
  In 1984, NASA estimated the space station would cost $8 billion. To 
date, we have spent closer to $11 billion, with a revised price tag 
from NASA of $17.4 billion to complete construction. Once built, we 
will face a whole new set of obligations associated with the 
maintenance and operation of space station alpha. Where will it end?
  Our national debt is rapidly approaching $5 trillion. If uncontrolled 
Federal spending continues, our debt will increase by an additional $1 
trillion by the year 2000. We are mortgaging future generations with 
this profligate spending. A recent article by Laurence Kotlikoff and 
Jagadeesh Gokhale, which appeared in Public Interest, drives home this 
point. To finance today's borrowing, the authors conclude, Americans 
born at the turn of this century will have paid just over a fifth of 
their lifetime earnings to the government--while those born after 2000 
will have to forfeit closer to half of their overall earnings.

  Most research planned for the space station--especially the life 
sciences--could be done cheaper elsewhere. In 1993, the presidents of 
10 scientific societies said in a joint statement that the space 
station is a:

       * * * multibillion project of little scientific or 
     technical merit that threatens valuable space-related 
     projects and drains the scientific vitality of participating 
     nations.

  Finally, Mr. President, Russia simply is not a reliable partner for a 
long-term investment of this magnitude. It is impossible to insure 
stable United States-Russian relations for the decades it will take to 
complete this project. The space station partnership is not necessary 
to advance our foreign policy interests. Ample cooperative research 
among our two nations already exists in the areas of weapons 
dismantlement and nuclear reactor safety. Moreover, the current plan 
directly contradicts the United States goal of encouraging more 
privatization in Russia.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Bumpers-
Warner amendment to terminate space station Alpha and to stop this 
wasteful spending.


         international space station an important step forward

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have wrestled with the question of whether 
to continue funding of the international space station. After careful 
reflection and review, I decided to support funding. It was a difficult 
choice and I cannot fault the sincerity of either side of the debate.
  I voted against the station last year, when it was largely a wing and 
a prayer, but this year the station has come light years both in terms 
of its design and its mission. In addition, I found myself strongly 
influenced by the foreign policy implications if we were to eliminate 
funding.
  NASA now faces the challenge of living up to its promise--building 
the station within budget and on schedule. If it succeeds, the Nation 
and the world will be able to point with pride at a highly visible 
example of U.S. leadership and international cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have a rousing and rhetorical speech 
that I could use to wrap up once again this historic debate on the 
space station. However, I believe that this is not the time for lyrical 
words or high sounding rhetoric. It is time to talk reality, and 
therefore I am going to make a very factual statement and bring to the 
attention of the American people what I believe they need to know as 
they watch us vote on this amendment.
  The total cost to the American taxpayer is not $71 billion, as some 
people would say. There is $10.1 billion already spent, $17.4 billion 
for assembly completion and $13 billion for 10 years of operation. The 
total cost to the Americans will be $40 billion from the year 1984 to 
the year 2002.
  I also want to bring to people's attention that the space station is 
now capped at $2.1 billion annually. This is one-seventh of 1 percent 
of the total Federal budget, or $9 per year per taxpayer--9 bucks to 
take us into the future. The total cost is capped at $17.4 billion 
between now and the year 2002 when it is completely assembled.
  Now, let us talk about these new designs that everybody says is just 
one more cost overrun. During these new designs, we used 75 percent of 
space station Freedom elements that we spent nearly $11 billion to 
develop. We have got cost savings over space station Freedom. It is 
going to cost us less to assemble, and we are going to have fewer civil 
servants and fewer managers. Freedom was going to have 24 civil 
servants and now we will have less than that.
  Let us talk about the wasted effort. What have we got to show for the 
$11 billion we already spent besides paper and viewgraphs and arguments 
that make this seem like a technofolly.
  Well, as I said, 75 percent of the design for space station Freedom 
will be used in the international space station Alpha; 25,000 pounds of 
flight-quality hardware for the space station is built and it is in its 
final qualifications stages; a mission control facility at Johnson 
Space Center.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Everybody says we are starving science and research. 
Let me just tell you about space science. It is up 69 percent in my 
bill. Aeronautics is up 42 percent. And space technology and transfer 
is up 14 percent.
  Well, let us look at other scientific research in this appropriations 
bill. This chairman has funded $16.2 billion for VA medical care, $7.5 
billion for EPA. We have increased the funding for the National Science 
Foundation to $3.5 billion. We are not starving science. We are not 
starving VA medical care. We are not starving the types of research and 
regulatory activity to clean up America's environment. The only thing 
that is being starved in this debate is imagination, the imagination 
and fortitude to take us into the 21st century.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the time between now 
and 10:45.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  It seems that every year we come down to debating this issue. And, of 
course, each year it takes on a new look. Last year, the space station 
was a key tool in the President's foreign policy agenda. The year 
before, building the space station helped promote high-tech jobs. Maybe 
next year the proponents will argue that building the space station 
will lead to lower taxes. There is an ingenious suggestion made each 
year as to why we need the space station.
  Frankly, nothing would surprise me in the efforts to preserve the 
space station. This project has taken on so many faces it is hard to 
keep track of what we are all talking about. In fact, until last year, 
we did not even have a picture of the space station. But that did not 
stop us from spending $8 million--$8 million, yes, $8 million--a day, 
an incredible amount of money. That is what we spent last year on the 
space station. That money could go to so many worthwhile projects in 
this country. It could go to help kids. It could go to prevent crime. 
It could go to reducing the deficit.
  But, no, we spent it on the space station. We hand over money to this 
program hand over fist, and for what reason? Because of a promise. 
Well, what that promise is I am not quite sure. Is it a promise to 
spend more money? You bet. Is it a promise to make technological 
advances? Well, maybe. Every year we keep hearing about spinoffs, what 
the space station will do in spinoffs, how building the space station 
will lead to technological advances that we could never imagine.
  In fact, this year the folks down in NASA sent up this booklet on 
spinoffs. According to the folks at NASA, thousands of necessary items 
have been developed because of space exploration. Now, let us just take 
a look at some of those that have been developed by reason of space 
exploration as indicated in the book: Hair styling appliances. Oh, that 
is very important. Jewelry design, particularly significant for the 
American family. Self-adjusting sunglasses. We know that we need 
something like that. That is worth $8 million a day. The dust buster. 
Not a bad little implement. It works pretty well. But I am not sure it 
is worth all that money in order to achieve it. Oh, and then one more 
--the sports bra. Yes, the folks at NASA claim that a brassiere for 
athletically active women would not have been developed if we had not 
spent billions on space exploration.
  Thanks so much for this program. What wonderful spinoffs we have had 
from the space station. Of course, the list goes on and on. But I want 
to highlight one last item that without space exploration would not 
have been developed. Do you know what they say? Wood burning heaters. 
Isn't that magnificent? Wood burning heaters were developed as a 
spinoff of the space station.
  I thought we were using wood burning heaters to warm our homes going 
back to the early days of this country, and other countries as well. 
The next thing we will hear about from NASA is that Henry Ford was an 
engineer for them and without space exploration there would have been 
no Model T. They did not actually say that, but some of the claims they 
make are so absurd that maybe they will come up with that one as well.
  I recognize that there have been some significant advances made as a 
result of space exploration. But we have to keep those advances in 
perspective. When we are contemplating expenditure of upwards of $75 
billion--that is with a ``b,'' $75 billion--not only do we need to keep 
these advances in perspective, but we need to evaluate our priorities, 
especially when we have limited resources.
  We could do a lot, a whole lot, with $75 billion. We could make a 
tremendous investment in children's nutrition programs. According to 
some studies, for every $1 invested in the WIC Program, $3 are saved in 
health care costs. It is difficult to fathom saving $225 billion in 
health care costs for children. But that is the type of money about 
which we are speaking. If we spent the money on school lunches, we 
could provide 40 trillion free school lunches for kids. Put another 
way, we could provide a free school lunch for 14 million kids every day 
of the school year for every year until their graduation from high 
school.
  Of course, we could spend the money on other projects as well. For 
example, for $75 billion we could clean up every single site on the 
Superfund national priorities list. With $75 billion we could fix every 
bridge in need of repair in our highway system--every single bridge in 
the entire country. Relying on figures from the 1990 census, we could 
buy every homeless person a $100,000 home with the $75 billion saved if 
the space station is killed.
  However, having said that, let me be clear. I am not against having a 
space program. I believe it serves a purpose. But when you can only 
afford a Chevrolet, you have no business making a downpayment on a 
Cadillac. The space program has achieved many things for this country 
of which all of us are very proud, not the least of which is the famous 
trip around the globe made by my colleague from Ohio. It seems like 
every year we just put more and more money down on a project that we 
simply cannot afford. It is time that we recognize the limits of our 
resources and cut our losses.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Arkansas. I particularly address myself to those Members of this 
body who consider themselves conservatives. If you are a conservative 
and you continue to spend billions of dollars on this wasteful program, 
I think you have to go home tonight, look yourself in the mirror, and 
say, ``How could I continue wasting all those dollars on the space 
program when all the time I have been in the Senate I have been trying 
to cut programs having to do with nutrition, having to do with feeding 
of kids, having to do with education, having to do with the cleaning up 
of the environment?'' If you are a conservative, your vote on this 
amendment has to be ``yea.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters 
supporting the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Council of Engineers and


                                     Scientists Organizations,

                                      Seattle, WA, August 2, 1994.
       Dear Senator, Thank you for all of your help to support the 
     union members over the years. Attached are letters some of 
     support from members of our national workforce coalition. 
     Please enter these letters into the Record on the space 
     station debate. We have worked hard in support of this 
     program and it would be a morale boost for our members to 
     know that their voices are actually being heard in the 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Harold J. Ammond,
                                             Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                          Council of Engineers and


                                     Scientists Organizations,

                                       Seattle, WA, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller, We met yesterday at the I.U.E. 
     convention and took a photo for our newsletter. Here is a 
     copy of the letter that we sent to Senator Mikulski and all 
     other members of the Senate. As the letter states, we are a 
     national coalition of unions in twenty states fighting to 
     save the space station.
       I understand that you have already received a letter from 
     Mr. Joseph (Slugs) Smarrella, Treasurer of Local 1190 of the 
     United Steelworkers of America (see copy attached). Mr. 
     Smarrella is a spokesman for a coalition of unions 
     representing steel and aluminum workers in the Midwest who 
     have stake in the space station program.
       We would really appreciate your referencing both our 
     letters in the floor debate over the space station. We will 
     use the photos and the floor statements in our newsletters.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Harold J. Ammond,
                                             Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                          Council of Engineers and


                                     Scientists Organizations,

                                                    July 18, 1994.
     Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Mikulski: My name is Harold Ammond, I am 
     the legislative director for the Council of Engineers and 
     Scientists Organization (CESO). I represent a national 
     coalition of scientists, engineers and production unions in 
     more than 20 states. The unions building the space station 
     want to thank you for your support during the subcommittee 
     deliberations. We realize that you had a tough job balancing 
     the needs of all the different constituencies under the 
     jurisdiction of your subcommittee. You have taken care of the 
     social constituencies especially those in need of low income 
     housing. However, you have also protected the nation's future 
     by making the investment needed to preserve the industrial 
     base and the jobs of tomorrow. Our aerospace workforce 
     coalition strongly supports your bill and have advised our 
     members accordingly.
       Over the years we have testified before House and Senate 
     committees on aerospace issues. We have also testified before 
     special blue ribbon panels such as the Augustine Commission. 
     This year it was too late to testify before your 
     subcommittee. Therefore, we are submitting this letter as 
     written testimony so that senators might understand the 
     impact of their decision on funding the space station on the 
     engineering community and the aerospace production workforce.
       In the 1960s, President Kennedy's revolutionary call 
     instilled in us the drive to become the leader in space 
     exploration. His space program generated the university 
     courses in math, science, and electronics that attracted our 
     young engineers and scientists. A whole generation of space-
     age technology was born that produced the manufacturing jobs 
     of today's aerospace industry. At that time, the nation's 
     commitment to NASA made our space program the envy of the 
     world.
       However, much has changed. NASA's budget today is almost 
     half of what it was in the late 1960s. From our perspective, 
     this lack of commitment created instability and serious 
     morale problems throughout the aerospace workforce. The 
     countless changes, downsizing, and rescoping of the space 
     station have created chaos in both the program and its 
     workforce. Today's young people are increasingly discouraged 
     from seeking careers in engineering because the nation 
     appears uncommitted to a viable space program.
       When President Clinton came into office, he assigned 
     Administrator Goldin with the task of redesigning the space 
     station. The new design had to meet the needs of the 
     scientific and research community and still fit within a very 
     tight presidential budget. So that the aerospace workforce 
     would be part of the redesigning process, Administrator 
     Goldin met with workers across the country to obtain their 
     input. He took the best elements of the old program and 
     fashioned a new space station that is more capable, less 
     expensive, and includes Russian participation. The unions in 
     our coalition support Russian participation as it is a vital 
     part of the President's foreign policy.
       Some people mistakenly believe that the space station is 
     chiefly a high-tech program employing only the nation's 
     white-collar workers. In fact, the space station employs 
     thousands of production workers in the basic industries who 
     provide the specialty steel and aluminum materials for the 
     program. With the disappearance of the defense industry, 
     America's industrial base is now threatened. The space 
     program offers a limited opportunity to reinvigorate the 
     industrial base. Some of the members of our workforce 
     coalition represent the steel, aluminum and other basic 
     industries that provide the materials for the space program. 
     Given the President's commitment to defense conversion, the 
     space program offers a logical alternative for re-employing 
     our skilled aerospace workforce as well as workers in the 
     basic industries.
       The entire nation will benefit from completing the space 
     station. The space station will once again challenge our 
     young people to make the sacrifices, pursue the advanced 
     degrees, and become contributors to the general well-being of 
     the country. It must also be remembered that the final 
     product will include manufacturing jobs that are so important 
     to employing America's production workforce. Surely a 
     Congress that supports education and training must see that 
     the space station represents an investment in research and 
     technology that will create tomorrow's jobs and keep our 
     country competitive in the global environment.
       Two years ago in a speech on the Senate floor, you 
     challenged the Senate to live up to the 500th Anniversary of 
     the Columbus Voyage to the New World. The Senate vote this 
     week comes on the 25th anniversary of landing on the moon. It 
     is the proper time to support the president and get on with 
     the program.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Harold J. Ammond,
                                             Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                   United Steelworkers of America,


                                         Local Union No. 3911,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 19, 1994.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: As President of the United 
     Steelworkers of America Local 3911, I am writing to ask you 
     to support the space station. The space program means a lot 
     to our members. We know that when the Senate Appropriations 
     bill comes to the floor, there may be an attempt to kill the 
     space station. That is why we are writing to you.
       Our local represents production workers at Reynolds 
     Aluminum in McCook, Illinois where our members are producing 
     the aluminum skins used to build the new aluminum-lithium 
     tank for the space shuttle. With the reduced weight of this 
     tank, the shuttle can carry heavier payloads needed to build 
     and service the space station. The new design of the space 
     station requires a more efficient shuttle system to launch 
     the station.
       When people think of the space station they think of Texas 
     and California. The fact is that the materials for the 
     station are made in the Midwest by steel and aluminum 
     workers. If the President doesn't get his budget for the 
     space station, where will we go for jobs? The space program 
     provides hope for unions in the basic industries who want to 
     be a part of what could be this nation's industrial future.
       Senator, as a member of the Northeast-Midwest Senate 
     Coalition, surely you can see the job implications the space 
     station program holds for the steelworkers in our region. We 
     have lost almost 50% of our members in the past year. Our 
     company has made investments in new mills so that we could be 
     part of the space program. Our industry has a chance at 
     revival through the space program. If the space station goes, 
     the shuttle goes. If the shuttle goes, jobs for the 
     steelworkers go. We urge you to vote against any attempt to 
     kill the space station, and our future. We need your help.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Fred Redmond,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                     United Steelworkers of America,              


     District 23, Local Union No. 1190,           AFL-CIO-CLC,

                                  Steubenville, OH, July 19, 1994.
     Hon. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: I am writing as a member of a 
     national workforce coalition. The member unions in the 
     coalition are fighting to preserve the industrial base in 
     this country. I'm writing today to get your help to fund the 
     space station because steel and aluminum workers have an 
     interest in this program. Our industries supply the specialty 
     steel and aluminum alloy metals used in the space program. 
     It's important for members of the Steel Caucus to know how 
     important the space station and shuttle programs are to the 
     tri-state region. Right now, the ferrous and non-ferrous 
     metal industries that employ steelworkers throughout the 
     Midwest contribute to aerospace products. If commercial space 
     programs like the space station are continued, we have a 
     chance to reinvigorate the steel and aluminum industries in 
     the country.
       People don't realize that the space program relies on the 
     basic industries for materials. These materials aren't made 
     in California and Texas where everybody thinks the space 
     program is. They're made in the Midwest. Our brother 
     steelworkers of Reynolds Aluminum in Illinois make the 
     aluminum skins for the new lightweight shuttle tank that's 
     assembled by our UAW brothers all the way down in Louisiana. 
     So we're all connected.
       If the space station is not given full funding, the 
     cutbacks will go all the way through our members here in the 
     Midwest. If the program continues and is expanded, steel and 
     aluminum companies in the Midwest will make the investments 
     needed for space exploration. This would give our members the 
     opportunity to become more involved in the new technologies 
     that will produce the new jobs. We think this message ought 
     to be given to all the members in the Steel Caucus.
       You have always been a champion of the steel and aluminum 
     workers in the tri-state region. We know that you have been a 
     strong supporter of the space program, especially the space 
     station. We want you to know that the workers in the basic 
     industries in our region are counting on you. We hope that 
     you will take the lead in getting other members of the Steel 
     Caucus to understand the importance of the space station to 
     the basic industries in the Midwest.
           Sincerely,

                                             Joseph Smarrella,

                                  Chairman, Ohio Valley Grassroots
                                    Coalition of Unions Treasurer.
                                  ____

                                                              UAW,


                                                   Local 1921,

                                   New Orleans, LA, July 19, 1994.
     Hon. John B. Breaux,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Breaux: The members of UAW Local 1921 need 
     your help to support the space station, We understand that 
     several senators are going to offer an amendment to terminate 
     the program. We are part of a national workforce coalition of 
     local unions formed to save the space station. We have joined 
     with our union brothers and sisters in the basic industries 
     who supply the materials for the space programs.
       Here in New Orleans, Louisiana, we represent the workers at 
     Martin Marietta who build the external fuel tank for the 
     space shuttle. The aluminum alloys for this tank are produced 
     in the Midwest. Steelworkers in Ohio, West Virginia, 
     Pennsylvania and Illinois are very concerned about the future 
     of the space program because they are producing the special 
     metals that are used in the space program. This is important 
     because the number of ferrous and non-ferrous metal workers 
     has been steadily declining. The years of illegal dumping and 
     trade policies favoring foreign steel producers have all but 
     destroyed America's basic industries.
       The United Steelworkers of America once had a membership of 
     over 1,300,000 workers. Today they have less than 300,000. 
     The UAW once had a membership of over 1.5 million workers. 
     Today we have less than 800,000. NASA has awarded a contract 
     for research and development of a new aluminum/lithium alloy 
     to be used in the construction of new fuel tanks. The future 
     for the steelworkers lies in the development and production 
     of these new materials and specialty steels that are used in 
     the space program. The future of UAW members in our local is 
     linked to the production of this new tank. If the space 
     station is cancelled, there will be no need for the shuttle 
     and no need for the tank.
       Here in Louisiana, we are trying to develop an industrial 
     base that will support good-paying aerospace jobs for our 
     members. With the decline of the defense industry at the 
     close of the Cold War, employment in the aerospace industry 
     has fallen at an alarming rate. Our future depends upon this 
     program. We ask you to oppose any amendment that would 
     terminate the space station.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doug Burrell,
                                                        President.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the Space Station Program has been 
plagued since it was unveiled by President Reagan. In 1984, NASA 
estimated the cost would be about $8 billion and would be completed by 
1992.
  Today it is past overdue and the costs are out of control. Today's 
NASA reestimate, if you can rely on these ever-changing figures, 
exceeds $75 billion. In truth, NASA has no true estimate of costs at 
all. In light of the recently announced United States-Russia 
collaboration, no one knows what this program is supposed to 
accomplish. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. This program 
sets a new standard for premature action.
  GAO projects the costs could exceed $40 billion to build--and the 
lifetime costs a staggering $118 billion. This cost is unthinkable 
given the myriad of unmet needs domestically: Homeless people sleep on 
the Capitol grounds; veterans are turned away from VA medical centers 
and cemeteries; and the deficit mushrooms.
  President Reagan put the space station on the national credit card. 
President Bush put the space station on the national credit card. And, 
my friends, the time has come to pay the bills. We are well over $14 
billion in the hole on this program and the financial bleeding has not 
stopped. This year's request is for $2.1 billion and over $2.1 billion 
for each of the next 4 years.
  Mr. President, there is something very wrong with our priorities. The 
budget cutting is not over, and funding this new space station Alpha--
or international space station as it has been cynically renamed to 
improve its chances for funding--will force us to cut another $13 
billion over the next 4 years.
  Mr. President, I am the senior Democrat on the Veterans' Committee 
and my colleagues and I on the committee have been forced to deal with 
the consequences of the decision to pursue this white elephant in 
space. I even offered an amendment in 1987 to delay the space station 
in order to protect veterans health care. I barely escaped the Chamber 
with my life and managed to get a mere 12 votes.
  Mr. President, I said at that time we could not afford this ill-
defined program. I said that veterans health care and other programs 
would suffer if we did not get control of this program. Well, everyone 
hates to hear it, but I cannot resist saying, ``I told you so,'' when 
the truth hurts so much.
  Sadly, it is the veteran and his survivors who have been paying the 
biggest price to date. Today, every widow who cared for a service-
connected severely disabled veteran cannot get remarried for the rest 
of her life without losing her CHAMPUS-VA health insurance and 
survivor's benefits. That is unfair; if you are the survivor, to keep 
yourself from losing conceivably the only lifeline left between poverty 
and desperation, you must remain alone in the time following the most 
tragic loss one can experience: that of a loved one.
  This is only one example; there are many more tough budget decisions 
which have been made to reduce the deficit. But the question should not 
be how many more, but what exactly will happen in the future to 
benefits like these if we continue to pursue this pig-eared elephant in 
space that will be worth its weight in gold? I am loathe to say that 
they will disappear all together because of the $75 billion we will 
have to spend on a space station, a space station that most likely will 
not be completed before the veterans and families and others it denies 
adequate benefits die.
  In sum, Mr. President, it is time we get our financial house in order 
on Earth together before we embark upon this great adventure to new 
worlds. I believe in dreams, but I am not a daydreamer. This program 
does not make sense and we cannot afford it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Baucus
     Boren
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
  So, the amendment (No. 2444) was rejected.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Committee Amendment on Page 70, Line 6

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the underlying 
committee amendment on page 70, line 6, is now pending before the 
Senate.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
underlying committee amendment on page 70, line 6, be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendment on page 70, line 6, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.


                           Amendment No. 2445

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning authorization 
       for the deployment of United States Armed Forces in Haiti)

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Gregg, and Senator Helms.
  The clerk will report the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Kansas.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] for himself, Mr. Gregg, 
     and Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 2445.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:


          LEGAL EFFECT OF SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON HAITI

       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Senate that United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 940 of July 31, 1994, does not 
     constitute authorization for the deployment of United States 
     Armed Forces in Haiti under the Constitution of the United 
     States or pursuant to the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 
     93-148).


                  First Committee Amendment on Page 3

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
committee amendment will be set aside for the consideration of the Dole 
amendment. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of 
all, the Senate is not in order. I would appreciate it if Senators 
would sit down so I could clarify with the minority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the pending business now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Maryland 
the business is the first committee amendment on page 3. That is the 
business pending before the Senate.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the status of the amendment just offered by the 
minority leader?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas offers an amendment 
that purports to be an insert to the bill, so it will take unanimous 
consent to set aside the pending amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we want to accommodate the minority 
leader. I suggest the absence of a quorum so we can clarify how best to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now propound a unanimous-consent 
request that there be a time limit of 2 hours, divided between Senator 
Dole or his designee and Senator Dodd or his designee, on the Haiti 
amendment, with 40 minutes for Senator Dodd and 80 minutes for Senator 
Dole; that no amendments be in order to his amendment; and that upon 
the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate, without any 
intervening action or debate, vote on Senator Gregg's amendment, with 
the yeas and nays being ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I ask for a specified time of 10 
minutes for myself?
  I understand I have been yielded 10 minutes, so that is satisfactory.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I wonder if we could amend that request 
by allowing that I be recognized to offer the ethanol amendment 
immediately after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland so modify her 
request?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I so modify that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request, as modified?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would ask that the Senator from Vermont, who is chairman 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, be recognized at some point in 
this for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. During what?
  Mr. LEAHY. During debate.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. On what?
  Mr. LEAHY. On the ethanol amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We are not propounding a unanimous-consent request on 
ethanol. There is no unanimous-consent request on ethanol.
  Mr. LEAHY. I was misinformed.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, would the Chair repeat again what the 
unanimous-consent request is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would ask the Senator from Maryland to 
repeat the unanimous-consent request.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Iowa that I am 
asking unanimous consent, on the Haiti amendment, that there be a time 
limitation of 2 hours, divided between Senator Dole or his designee and 
Senator Dodd or his designee, with 40 minutes for Senator Dodd and 80 
minutes for Senator Dole; that no amendments be in order to his 
amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate, 
without any intervening action or debate, vote on Senator Gregg's 
amendment; and that upon the conclusion of that vote, then the Senator 
from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] be recognized with no time limit on the 
ethanol issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate is simple. 
It states that U.N. authorization does not substitute for the U.S. 
Constitution or for U.S. law on the question of war powers. The entire 
world knows that the United Nations authorized an invasion of Haiti. 
The world should also know that the Congress has not authorized an 
invasion. President Clinton sought the approval of the members of the 
United Nations Security Council, but has rejected bipartisan calls for 
congressional authorization.
  While the administration was seeking the support of the United 
Nations, it would not even share copies of the draft resolution with 
the Congress. This is in stark contrast to President Bush in 1991 who 
came to Congress, and emerged with a stronger policy.
  Why should the opinion of Nigeria matter more than the views of 
Congress? Nigeria is currently under sanction for narcotics 
trafficking, and has overturned the results of democratic elections. 
Some of the countries whose support we sought--in the name of restoring 
democracy to Haiti--have never even held democratic elections, yet we 
go up and ask for their consent to intervene in Haiti. Why do we need 
the permission of these countries to act in our hemisphere?

  There is another troubling issue at stake: What did the U.S. have to 
give up to get U.N. approval? Published reports cite a deal with 
Russia: In exchange for United States support for Russian actions in 
Georgia, Russia allowed the Haiti resolution to proceed. That is a bad 
deal for Georgia, and that is a bad deal for the United States.
  Many newspapers have raised serious questions about the 
administration's latest move toward military intervention. USA Today 
said the ``case has not been made convincingly--not to Congress, not to 
U.S. voters.'' The editorial criticized each and every element of what 
they termed ``Clinton's flimsy invasion rationale.''
  The Washington Post pointed out, ``It is a stretch and then some to 
say that the junta's internal cruelties imperil international peace and 
security--the U.N. charter's test for armed intervention.'' The Post 
concludes by stating the administration ``should not drift into a 
position where it feels compelled to invade because it cannot think of 
anything else to do.''
  The New York Times said, ``An invasion of Haiti would be a big 
mistake.'' The Times went on to say, ``presumably, the Clinton 
administration will heed its constitutional duty and seek previous 
congressional approval which it may not get.'' That is the issue 
addressed in this amendment.

  The Senate has twice gone on record with overwhelming votes in 
support of prior congressional approval before an invasion of Haiti. As 
I have said before, this is not an emergency like Panama and Grenada. 
There is plenty of time to seek congressional approval. And there 
should be no mistake--the United Nations action on Sunday does not give 
the President legal authority to invade Haiti.
  One of the premier experts on separation of powers issues, Louis 
Fisher of the Congressional Research Service, recently analyzed the 
role of United Nations authorization in congressional war powers. He 
concluded:

       The history of the United Nations makes it very clear that 
     all parties in the legislative and executive branches 
     understood that the decision to use military force through 
     the U.N. required prior approval from both Houses of 
     Congress.

  That is the issue: Prior approval of Congress. Let's quit the 
overheated rhetoric and test the policy in Congress. Let's have a full 
debate over American interests in Haiti. In 1915, President Wilson 
invaded Haiti without authorization from Congress. The U.S. occupation 
became an issue of great domestic controversy. Resolutions requiring 
U.S. withdrawal were considered by the Congress. In 1929, for example, 
Senator William H. King, Democrat from Utah, introduced Senate 
Resolution 158, providing for a withdrawal of U.S. forces. As Senator 
King said at the time, ``I have recited by way of preamble, some of the 
ugly facts attending the conquest and control of Haiti.'' The last U.S. 
invasion and occupation was not the high point of our country's 
history.

  I do not believe this administration wants a prolonged occupation of 
Haiti as happened earlier this century. I do not think this 
administration wants divisive debate over the occupation of Haiti as 
happened earlier this century. I do not think the administration wants 
to face the 1994 equivalent of Senate Resolution 158, which I just 
referred to.

  So I suggest we have time. There is no emergency there now. If the 
President wants to seek authorization, now would be the time to come to 
Congress and ask for it. I hope he will do that tonight in his press 
conference.
  There will be a press conference. It will be a good time for the 
President to suggest that maybe, if he has such a plan to intervene in 
Haiti, that he will come to Congress. I hope this amendment will be 
adopted by unanimous vote. I do not know anyone who would oppose it. It 
is not critical. It just states a policy that I think we should follow.
  I think there are other amendments. Maybe Senator Specter will 
discuss an amendment that he has in mind which may come to fruition if 
we fail in our efforts to persuade the President to come to us and ask 
for authorization.
  I ask unanimous consent the editorials I referred to be made a part 
of the Record, as well as the study by Mr. Fisher.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 3, 1994]

                           Invasion Countdown

       The American government is conducting a shadow play 
     intended to make an invasion of Haiti unnecessary by making 
     it seem inevitable. This is the meaning of the attack 
     authorization that the United States extracted from the 
     United Nations over the weekend. The invasion countdown 
     doesn't mean American troops are all set to go in and throw 
     out the junta that ousted Haiti's elected president, Jean-
     Bertrand Aristide. It is the latest tightening of the screw 
     in an effort to force the junta to step down without a fight.
       If it works as planned, the Clinton administration will be 
     able to claim a foreign-policy success. But regardless of the 
     result in Haiti, a price will have to be paid. It is a 
     stretch and then some to say that the junta's internal 
     cruelties imperil international ``peace and security''--the 
     U.N. Charter's test for armed intervention. A question of 
     consistency arises when it comes to applying a similar 
     standard to friendly authoritarian countries, like some of 
     those that voted to back the United States in Haiti. A 
     precedent is being set that would allow, say, Russia, to seek 
     a similar license in policing what it calls its near abroad.
       Nor does the international authorization translate easily 
     into the approval that President Clinton is going to need at 
     home. The prime factor pushing the administration to do 
     something, the specter of Haitian boat people flooding into 
     Florida, rises and falls with the daily traffic--currently 
     very low. Popular enthusiasm for Haitian democracy and 
     compassion for Haitian suffering must vie with the widespread 
     apprehension--which we share--that an invasion of Haiti would 
     be a colonial solution: It would likely saddle the United 
     States with lone responsibility in a virtually limitless 
     swamp of occupation.
       At this late point, many politicians find it awkward to be 
     an invasion skeptic. A seemingly irreversible commitment of 
     presidential prestige has been made: How can Bill Clinton 
     climb down now? Nothing else is ``on.'' The thugs in Haiti, 
     moreover, are quick to take comfort from utterances made in 
     the context of American debate. Most skeptics, we guess, 
     would join the general relief if the junta in Port-au-Prince 
     thought better of its initial defiance of the U.N. resolution 
     and stepped down. But this does not absolve the 
     administration from continuing to seek a political solution. 
     It should not drift into a position where it feels compelled 
     to invade because it can't think of anything else to do.
                                  ____


                   [From the USA Today, Aug. 2, 1994]

               U.N.'s Vote Doesn't Justify Haiti Invasion

       Our view: The Clinton administration has failed to make a 
     convincing case for an invasion.
  Piece by piece, the Clinton administration's strategy for invading 
Haiti appears to be falling into place. The latest: the U.N.
       The Security Council voted unanimously Sunday to endorse an 
     invasion, putting an international imprimatur on the plan.
       That's nice. It's better than invading in defiance of the 
     U.N. But even with the U.N.'s fig leaf of approval, a U.S. 
     invasion of Haiti remains a lousy idea for a whole raft of 
     reasons.
       President Clinton can package the mission in Haiti as a 
     liberation, or an intervention or a restoration of democracy. 
     He can even tout it as a multinational adventure by tossing 
     in a few soldiers from Barbados or the Bahamas. But thousands 
     of U.S. combat troops should not be storming the beaches of 
     any country--with some certain to die--unless the need is 
     overwhelming.
       That case has not been made convincingly--not to Congress, 
     not to U.S. voters.
       A look at Clinton's flimsy invasion rationale makes that 
     point:
       It's in our back yard. Yes, and so are dozens of other 
     Latin American nations with varying degrees of political and 
     economic problems. We can't invade them all.
       Haiti and Cuba are the only non-democracies in the Western 
     Hemisphere. Does that mean we should invade Cuba next?
       Haiti is a drug shipment point. True, but Colombia, Peru, 
     Ecuador and other Latin American nations have more lethal 
     connections to drug cartels.
       Several thousand U.S. citizens live or work there and many 
     Haitians reside here. Also true, but the same can be said of 
     scores of other countries in and out of this hemisphere. And 
     so far, those in Haiti don't appear to be in any great 
     danger.
       Haitians left poor and desperate under the military junta 
     could flood the USA. Kicking out the varmints now running 
     Haiti will not resolve the economic woes of the hemisphere's 
     poorest country. Aside from that reality, massive illegal 
     immigration never justifies military assaults on another 
     nation; otherwise U.S. troops should have been sent to Mexico 
     decades ago.
       Clinton, however, has apparently decided he can pull off 
     what no one else has been able to do in Haiti in almost 200 
     years of independence--impose democracy.
       The last time U.S. troops tried--in 1915--they left in 
     failure 19 years later.
       This time, the administration says U.S. troops would be 
     needed as part--probably half--of an international 
     peacekeeping force for months, perhaps years.
       Yes, Haiti has problems. But they are far from unique and 
     make no case for war.
       Clinton has no business setting the USA up as the 911 
     operator for every nation in turmoil.
                                  ____


                       [From the New York Times]

                     A U.N. License To Invade Haiti

       If it persuades Haiti's military leaders to leave on their 
     own, then Sunday's U.N. Security Council resolution 
     authorizing a U.S.-led invasion will have done some good. The 
     resolution contains no deadline, and the Clinton 
     Administration has no plans for an imminent military strike.
       Perhaps only the treat of force will convince Haiti's top 
     soldiers they should depart. They viscerally oppose the 
     social and economic changes they believe President Jean-
     Bertrand Aristide would make if he returns. And they are 
     reportedly profiting handsomely from the status quo.
       But the threat to use force implies a willingness actually 
     to use it if the military leaders hold fast, and an invasion 
     of Haiti under present circumstances would be a big mistake. 
     Meanwhile, the Administration's strained interpretation of 
     the U.N. Charter to classify the Haitian situation as a 
     threat to regional peace and security damages the U.N.'s 
     legitimacy and invites trouble.
       The resolution, orchestrated by Washington, envisions 
     several countries taking part in any invasion, but the 
     operation would remain under direct U.S. military and 
     political control. Presumably, the Clinton Administration 
     will heed its constitutional duty and seek previous 
     Congressional approval, which it may not get. But even a 
     properly authorized invasion would add to the long string of 
     dubious U.S. military interventions in the Caribbean basin 
     during the past century, including a 19-year occupation of 
     Haiti itself.
       Some of these actions had nobler ends than others. But very 
     few did any lasting good and each poisoned U.S. relations 
     with the rest of the hemisphere. Significantly, one of the 
     two Latin American members of the Security Council, Brazil, 
     abstained Sunday, while the non-members Mexico, Uruguay, 
     Venezuela and Cuba all spoke out against an invasion. The 
     other Latin member, Argentina, voted yes.
       Even though President Aristide implicitly endorsed the 
     resolution, an invasion could weaken his domestic legitimacy 
     while diminishing Haiti's sovereignty. And despite plans 
     to quickly hand off peacekeeping authority to a more 
     broadly based U.N. force, an invasion would saddle the 
     U.S. with political responsibility for controlling the 
     violent vendettas that might erupt once the present 
     repressive structure is disarmed.
       To justify the use of U.N. force, Washington recklessly 
     stretched the boundaries of what constitutes a threat to 
     international peace and security under Chapter Seven of the 
     U.N. Charter. Gen. Raoul Cedars's violation of the pledges he 
     made in the Governors Island agreements last year is 
     legitimately an international issue. So is the tide of 
     refugees and systematic violation of human rights. But none 
     of these issues now rise to the threshold necessary to 
     justify invasion. On many of the same grounds, Cuban emigres 
     might well lobby the Clinton Administration to seek U.N. 
     authorization for invading Cuba.
       Having taken its lumps trying to be a world police force, 
     the U.N. has now fallen into the unhealthy habit of licensing 
     great-power spheres of influence. In recent weeks the 
     Security Council has commissioned France to send troops to 
     Rwanda and endorsed Russia's ``peacekeepers'' in Georgia. Now 
     the U.S. is authorized to lead an invasion of Haiti. Such 
     crude power politics damages the U.N.'s standing as an 
     organization valuing the sovereignty of all its member 
     states.
       Licensing big-power armies was justified in cases like the 
     Persian Gulf war and the Korean War where the necessary level 
     of force could only be supplied by major military powers. But 
     it is surely not justified in Haiti, with a 7,000-man regular 
     army and a comparable number of lightly armed paramilitary 
     troops.
       The Clinton Administration, under attack from critics on 
     the left and right for alleged timidity in deploying U.S. 
     military power, now reveals a dangerously low threshold for 
     using force in Haiti.
                                  ____

                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                      The Library of Congress,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 1994.
     Senator Robert Dole,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: UN Security Council Resolution 940 of 
     July 31, 1994, authorizing military action against Haiti, 
     raises the same issue that this country faced in 1950 when 
     President Truman relied on a Security Council resolution to 
     take military action against North Korea. The fundamental 
     question: Is a Security Council resolution a legal substitute 
     for explicit congressional approval?
       In a paper to be presented next month at the American 
     Political Science Association annual meeting, I conclude that 
     Truman's action violated the Constitution and violated the UN 
     Participation Act, which calls for congressional approval by 
     bill or joint resolution. The UN Charter, entered into by a 
     President and the Senate, was never a means of eliminating 
     the constitutional role of the House of Representatives. In 
     short, UN resolutions are not an appropriate or legal 
     mechanism for circumventing Congress.
       If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 
     707-8676.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Louis Fisher,
                        Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers.
                                  ____


          The Korean War: On What Legal Basis Did Truman Act?

       In June 1950, President Harry Truman ordered U.S. troops to 
     Korea without first requesting congressional authority. For 
     legal footing he cited resolutions passed by the United 
     Nations Security Council, a beguiling but spurious source of 
     authority. In 1990 the Bush administration tried the same 
     tactic, relying on the Korean War as an acceptable precedent 
     for taking offensive action against Iraq, again without 
     seeking congressional approval. Like Truman, Bush claimed 
     that UN resolutions were a sufficient base of authority. In 
     Bosnia, President Clinton has relied on UN resolutions and 
     NATO agreements as sufficient authority to use military force 
     without first seeking congressional approval.
       UN machinery is not a legal substitute for congressional 
     action. If that were possible, the President and the Senate, 
     through treaty action, could strip from the House of 
     Representatives its constitutional role in deciding questions 
     of war. Following that same logic, the President and the 
     Senate, through the treaty process, could rely on the UN to 
     determine trade and tariff matters, again bypassing the 
     prerogatives of the House of Representatives. The history of 
     the United Nations makes it very clear that all parties in 
     the legislative and executive branches understood that the 
     decision to use military force through the UN required prior 
     approval from both Houses of Congress.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I designate the remainder of our time to 
Senator Gregg. He can yield time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Specter is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Republican leader. But I am concerned, as Senator Dole stated in his 
closing comments, that it does not go far enough or is not sufficiently 
explicit to assert the constitutional authority of Congress that the 
President not engage in war in Haiti without prior congressional 
approval, as is mandated by article I, section 8, of the U.S. 
Constitution which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
  Call it what you may, as a matter of semantics, if the President of 
the United States orders an invasion of Haiti by United States military 
troops, that is a war. There is absolutely no justification in the 
sequence of events which have arisen, where there is no emergency, for 
the President to exercise his authority as Commander in Chief to invade 
Haiti.
  From time to time we have discussed on the floor of this Senate a 
number of amendments. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] has 
offered amendments. Senator Mitchell has offered amendments. They are 
sense-of-the-Senate amendments, and I am concerned they do not go far 
enough.
  On Monday of this week I discussed with the majority leader the issue 
as to whether there was an expectation that there would be a request 
for authorization by the Congress for the use of force in Haiti, which 
would be equivalent to what was done in Iraq back in 1991, and the 
majority leader said at that time that he had no plan to do so. I have 
discussed with both the majority leader and the Republican leader my 
intention to offer such a resolution so there could be a clear-cut 
decision, yes or no, on whether the Senate of the United States is 
prepared to authorize the use of force. Under the Constitution the 
concurrence of the Senate is indispensable. Only the Congress can 
declare war, and an invasion is an act of war.
  Regretfully, we have seen that the United States has been involved in 
wars without a declaration of war as required by the Constitution. 
There is no doubt that the Korean conflict--the Korean war--was in fact 
a war. That is a subject about which I have questioned a number of 
Supreme Court nominees in order to try to bring to the fore this very 
serious constitutional issue. And until Judge Breyer was willing to 
categorically answer the question on Korea during his recent 
confirmation hearings--that the incident in Korea was in fact a war--no 
other nominee was willing to address that subject.
  Judge Breyer said it in very candid terms, that the Korean war was in 
fact a war. And, where you have an invasion by U.S. military troops, 
that is in fact a war. Were the founders of the Constitution supposed 
to talk about police actions or about invasions? They made it very 
plain. If war is to be declared, it is the responsibility of the 
Congress to do so.
  We have learned through the bitter experience of Vietnam that this 
country cannot sustain a war without public support. And as the 
Constitution mandates, the best indication of public support is when 
the Congress of the United States declares war. Now we have the 
President of the United States going to the United Nations and working 
very hard in the United Nations to get United Nations authorization for 
the use of force in Haiti and setting up the responsibility of the 
United States to undertake the making of that war.
  It is amazing to me that President Clinton goes to the United Nations 
for authorization to have a war in Haiti instead of coming to the 
Congress of the United States for authority, as is required by the 
Constitution.
  President Clinton has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United 
States. He is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and 
under the Constitution, President Clinton has responsibilities to the 
United States of America. He does not have those responsibilities to 
the United Nations.
  It is a source of amazement as to why we do not confront this issue 
directly, why the President does not come to the Congress in advance. 
The only explanation for that is that he does not want to take a risk 
of having an adverse determination by the Congress which he would have 
to follow.
  Mr. President, I suggest to President Clinton that, whether or not he 
comes to the Congress and whether or not there is a binding 
determination by the Congress, it would be unconstitutional for him 
under these circumstances to initiate an invasion in Haiti.
  The amendment, which Senator Dole offered, I think, answers itself on 
its face. The resolution says that:

       It is the sense of the Senate that United States Security 
     Council Resolution 940 does not constitute authorization for 
     deployment of United States Armed Forces in Haiti under the 
     Constitution of the United States or pursuant to the war 
     powers resolution.

  But I think it is incumbent on the Congress that our declaration and 
our instruction to the President be unequivocal so that there is no 
doubt that he does not have the authority to invade Haiti and to engage 
the United States in war.
  I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I look forward to a 
further statement which will be even more unequivocal that President 
Clinton does not have the authority to engage the United States in war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I would like to congratulate my 
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, for his persistence on 
this issue, as well as Senator Dole. I ask unanimous consent to be 
added as a cosponsor to this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, a matter of the highest importance, in my 
opinion, is the Clinton administration's not undertaking an invasion of 
Haiti without first addressing the question, Under whose authority are 
we invading? The authority of the United States? Or the authority of 
the United Nations? That is the question raised by this amendment.
  Article I, as Senator Specter alluded to, of the U.S. Constitution 
gives Congress the sole authority to declare war, but the Clinton 
administration has not been clear as to what authority they intend to 
exercise. Do they need a declaration of war to invade Haiti? Do they 
intend to ask for a declaration of war, even authorization from 
Congress of the type President Bush received for the Persian Gulf war? 
We do not know. They have not said. Maybe they have not even thought 
about it.
  The Dole-Gregg amendment also mentioned the War Powers Act of 1973. 
This is a very controversial piece of legislation. Many Senators doubt 
its constitutionality, and every administration has questioned its 
validity. So what about the Clinton administration? Do they consider 
the War Powers Act to be good law or not? Do they intend to abide by 
its provisions? Again, we do not know, and I doubt that they have given 
it serious consideration.
  All we really know, Mr. President, are two things. First, the Clinton 
administration, driven by domestic political considerations--a hunger 
strike, bullying by the liberal leadership of the Black Caucus--has 
been talking tough about Haiti for several months now. They have 
painted themselves into a corner with their constant flip-flops and 
contradictions. So maybe now all they can do is invade.
  Second, we know they now have Resolution 940 of the United Nations 
Security Council, which passed last Sunday, which they feel gives them 
all the authority they need. As a result, the talk of an invasion is 
bigger than ever. For example, take the saber-rattling message by U.N. 
Ambassador Madeleine Albright in the wake of the Security Council's 
vote speaking symbolically to Haiti's current military regime. This was 
reported in the Washington Post, August 1, 1994:

       You can depart voluntarily and soon, or you can depart 
     involuntarily and soon. The Sun is setting on your ruthless 
     ambition.

  With all due respect to the Ambassador, there appears to be some of 
this ``ruthless ambition'' she is talking about in this administration. 
This sounds to me like President Clinton feels he has the green light 
from the United Nations Security Council and they can care less what 
the Congress or the American people have to say about it.
  About a week ago, before the Security Council vote, Secretary of 
State Christopher was asked about the precise question raised by the 
Dole-Gregg amendment on ABC Good Morning, America. This is on June 25. 
The question:

       I'm curious why we're going to the United Nations. Why 
     aren't we going to Congress to seek authorization to go in?

  I think that is an excellent question. Why are they not? Here is how 
Secretary Christopher responded:

       Well, we're going to the United Nations because we think 
     it's very important to view this problem as an international 
     one. It's very important to the United States, but it's 
     important to many of the countries of the world, especially 
     in this hemisphere, to have democracy overthrown by a 
     military coup in Haiti, so I think we want to be sure there's 
     international backing for what we do, but that's not 
     exclusive of the Congress. We're in close consultation with 
     the Congress, meeting with them on a regular basis * * * So 
     it's not either/or, * * * We need to keep in very close touch 
     with both.

  At this point, the Secretary needs a reality check. He says it is not 
``either/or'' between Congress and the United Nations. So why does the 
Clinton team go to the Security Council for authorization but Congress 
only gets consultation? Secretary Christopher says it is important to 
``view this problem''--that is Haiti--``as an international one.'' But 
is it not even more important to see it as an American one? You can 
talk all you like about other countries and what they think, but the 
bottom line is this: If we go into Haiti, it will be overwhelmingly 
Americans fighting and possibly even dying.
  It seems to me that Secretary Christopher has this exactly backwards. 
They should be coming to Congress for authorization and keeping the 
United Nations consulted, not the other way around.
  In that connection, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to 
an article in the Washington Post on August 2. The headline reads: 
``Menem, Despite Opposition, Asks for Authority To Send Invasion Force 
for Haiti.''
  The article describes the President of Argentina, which voted with 
the United States in the Security Council to authorize an invasion of 
Haiti, going to the Argentine Congress for their authorization. The 
President of Argentina apparently understands the Security Council 
resolution is not a substitute for his own country's constitutional 
order, but it seems the President of the United States does not 
understand that.
  If it is important for Argentina to pay attention to its own 
constitution and laws, it is even more important for the United States. 
The United States has far greater responsibilities than Argentina in 
this hemisphere and in the world. This point was raised in that 
interview given by Secretary Christopher last week that I referred to 
earlier. He was asked the following question:

       Well, incidentally, going to the United Nations, though--
     doesn't that mean, in effect, we put an end to the Monroe 
     Doctrine? I mean, why would we go there [that is, the United 
     Nations]? What if they said no?

  I think that is another excellent question. As it turned out, the 
Security Council agreed with the Clinton administration's position, but 
what if the Security Council had said no? Would that mean the United 
States could not go into Haiti? Are we now saying the United Nations 
Security Council has the power to tell the United States what we can 
and cannot do in the Western Hemisphere? Here is what Secretary 
Christopher had to say:

       Well, we certainly are not giving up any of our rights to 
     use unilateral action, but I think it's much better if we can 
     do this under the international umbrella with the support, 
     with the concurrence of the international organizations. It 
     makes it far more acceptable.* * * So I think it's desirable 
     from the standpoint of the American people that we have--we 
     internationalize this and we share the burdens.

  Mr. President, I am appalled by the confusion displayed here, which 
has been typical of this administration, not just in Haiti but also in 
Bosnia, in North Korea, in Somalia--you name it. Secretary Christopher 
says we need to internationalize this to share the burden. But 
everybody knows that if we go into Haiti--or at this point, more like 
when we go into Haiti--the United States will bear almost the entire 
burden, U.N. resolution or no U.N. resolution.
  Secretary Christopher says having international authority from the 
United Nations is ``better'' and ``more acceptable.'' But he does not 
say why that is. Why is it better for American troops to take action 
and risk their lives because of the United Nations and not because the 
elected representatives of the American people authorized it? It seems 
to me that he has that backwards as well.
  Secretary Christopher says we are not giving up any of our rights to 
use unilateral action, but by implication we are. If we ask the United 
Nations for authorization, we are saying they have the right to say no. 
In fact, by seeking Security Council authorization while ignoring the 
Congress, the Clinton administration has done great damage to the 
Monroe Doctrine. I note that Charles Krauthammer reaches the same 
conclusion in his essay in the Washington Post on August 2, called: 
``Goodbye, Monroe Doctrine.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print that article in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1994]

                        Goodbye, Monroe Doctrine

                        (By Charles Krauthammer)

       The Clinton administration, preparing for a possible 
     invasion of Haiti, went to the United Nations to ask for 
     prior approval. Sunday it got it. Seems like a simple act of 
     international propriety. On the face of it, Clinton is merely 
     aping what George Bush did before the gulf war.
       But Iraq is very different from Haiti. Iraq is far away. It 
     had a formidable army that threatened serious fighting. The 
     United States needed allies to share the perhaps considerable 
     burdens ahead. It needed Saudi territory to stage a 
     counterinvasion. To induce others to sign up, it needed 
     international cover.
       Cover, leverage, allies: In Haiti none of this applies. It 
     is a pushover perched on a tiny nearby island. The invasion 
     will be almost unopposed. There is no need for allied 
     soldiers or foreign staging rights.
       In fact, the appropriate analogy is not Bush in Iraq but 
     Bush in Panama. Bush determined that Noriega was a threat to 
     American interests. Confident that he had right, power and 
     American interests on his side, he did the job and asked 
     questions later.
       The Clinton administration is deeply uncertain about right, 
     distrustful of American power and disoriented regarding 
     American interests. It is, accordingly, the first 
     administration in U.S. history to ask United Nations approval 
     for intervention in our own hemisphere.
       And Clinton did not just ask permission. He had already 
     dealt away American interests in order to get it. In a deal 
     largely unremarked except by Lally Weymouth in The Post [op-
     ed], July 24], the United Nations last month quietly approved 
     Russian ``peacekeeping'' troops in formerly Soviet Georgia. 
     Russia had threatened to veto U.N. approval of a Haiti 
     invasion if refused a free hand in its former colony.
       These are the same Russian troops that stirred up the 
     Georgian trouble they are now charged with pacifying. Their 
     role is less to keep peace than to restore a small piece of 
     the old Soviet empire and signal Russia's intent to 
     reestablish hegemony over the rest.
       The Russians might restore their hegemony regardless, but 
     they covet international recognition of their power grab. And 
     in the Security Council we gave it to them. In return for 
     what? For Haiti--a living hell for which we have no desire 
     and even less need.
       Only last month, Clinton led off a string of justifications 
     for intervention in Haiti by saying, ``first of all, it's in 
     our back yard.'' One does not ask permission to put out a 
     fire in one's own back yard.
       We come here to the root weakness of the Clinton foreign 
     policy: It has no conception of the prerogatives of power. It 
     appreciates the obligations of power--in Rwanda, for example, 
     the world cries out for someone to ``do something'' and 
     Clinton (rightly) rushes in. But with obligations come 
     prerogatives. And to these prerogatives the administration is 
     dead.
       It is the prerogative of a great power to do what it must 
     to secure its interests without asking. China sends warships 
     to secure a South China Sea oil patch it claims from Vietnam. 
     Deng Xiaoping does not ask for U.S. approval. Yet Clinton, 
     absurdly, seeks Deng's approval to act in Haiti. (Sunday, at 
     the Security Council, he got an abstention.)
       Moreover, unlike China, we are a global superpower. We 
     shoulder unique responsibilities. We are not a country like 
     any other. Yet the Clinton administration, running around the 
     U.N. gathering signatures for our Haitian send-off, acts as 
     if we are.
       Such thinking comes naturally to the lawyers who make up 
     the Clinton team. After all, here everyone is equal under the 
     law. When Warren Christopher represented his clients, the 
     rules applied to everyone.
       But the international system is utterly different. In that 
     arena, the players are radically unequal, the law is but a 
     piece of paper, and there is no outside source of 
     enforcement. In fact, the only enforcer is the big guy on the 
     block, the superpower, which in this post-Cold War era 
     happens to be us.
       It is we who take the risk to restore order when disorder 
     arises. It is we who bear the brunt of war to secure the oil 
     supplies of Japan and Germany and the world's other free 
     riders. It is we who mount the great air relief to Rwanda.
       We are not an ordinary player. We are the world's fireman, 
     on whose exertions the rest of the world rides free. In 
     return, we are entitled to certain prerogatives. When our 
     interests are threatened, we have well earned--from those who 
     benefit from our actions elsewhere--room to maneuver. A 
     nation with such global burdens both needs and is owed the 
     prerogative to act expeditiously and independently to secure 
     its own interests.
       A great power does not ask for such prerogatives. (Once 
     you've asked for it, you've forfeited it.) A great power 
     feels it, asserts it, exercises it. Yet this administration 
     does not move unless the United Nations nods, Micronesia 
     applauds and a dozen allies hold our hand.
       I happen to believe that invading Haiti is a bad idea. But 
     if Clinton thinks Haiti is an important national interest, he 
     should act. Scrounging for prior approval from Security 
     Council members Djibouti and Oman is not an act of propriety. 
     It is an act of flaccidity. It betrays not just a lack of 
     self-confidence but a profound misapprehension of America's 
     place in the world.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Dole-Gregg amendment is not just a 
typical sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This is not just, ``we think 
you ought to do this'' or ``we think you should not do that.'' In my 
opinion, this is far more serious. We are giving what amounts to a 
formal interpretation of the Constitution and laws of the United States 
with respect to the President's ability to short circuit our own 
domestic institutions for the United Nations. Who authorizes the Armed 
Forces of the United States to invade another country, the Congress of 
the United States or the United Nations Security Council? That is the 
issue. And I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I think an invasion of Haiti would be a serious 
mistake. I do not think that Mr. Aristide or reinstating Mr. Aristide 
is worth the loss of one U.S. life.
  Again, I wish to compliment my colleagues, Senator Gregg, Senator 
Dole, and others, in trying to reaffirm that the U.S. Congress, solely, 
has the power and the right to declare war, and we should not delegate 
that responsibility to the United Nations Security Council.
  I thank my friend and colleague.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Connecticut [Mr. Dodd].
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed for 5 minutes, and then I would like to be able to yield to the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, because he 
has another appointment to make----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Dodd is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I would like to yield whatever time he may need. But I want 
to take just a couple minutes if I can at the outset, Mr. President.
  First of all, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
included as a cosponsor of the Dole amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I begin by doing that because I think all of our colleagues 
understand, ought to understand, that there is absolutely nothing in 
this amendment that ought to cause any Member of this body to oppose 
this amendment. The amendment states very clearly what would be the law 
as far as I am concerned, that the action by the United Nations does 
not constitute the authority of the Constitution or the war powers 
resolution to commit United States forces to Haiti. That is self-
evident, in my view, and so I would hope that all Members--since a 
recorded vote has already been requested and approved--would support 
this amendment by the Senator from Kansas. So for those reasons, Mr. 
President, I asked to be considered as a cosponsor.
  But if I can, I would like to make a few brief remarks in these 
minutes to comment on it. Before I turn to the substance, Mr. 
President, of the pending amendment, I would like to commend our U.N. 
Ambassador, Madeleine Albright, for her tireless efforts to help 
galvanize the international community behind a united strategy to 
restore democracy in Haiti.
  I am somewhat stunned that that action is being challenged here. It 
seems to me that while we may disagree about what tactics to employ, I 
would hope there is no significant debate about the present conditions 
in Haiti and what occurred in Haiti. Whether one likes President 
Aristide or not is not really a relevant question; 70 percent of the 
people of that country decided to elect him President in the fairest 
election that nation has ever seen.
  It is not our business as a matter of policy to decide that we will 
support or oppose democracy based on what that system produces through 
the electoral process. We all can, I think, join in a common voice in 
deploring the hijacking of that democracy by a group of military thugs 
and their supporters. That was a great tragedy. We now have two 
countries in this hemisphere, Cuba and Haiti, which do not have 
democratically elected governments.
  The human rights violations, the mass of humanity that is trying to 
leave Haiti, many of them trying to come to our shores, the substantial 
allegations about these thugs also engage in significant drug 
trafficking, are some matters that ought to be considered of 
significant concern. So the fact that our Ambassador at the United 
Nations is trying to build some international support to try to deal 
with the problem in Haiti is one that I assume most people would think 
is the right way to go.
  In fact, I recall most people here--because I think President Bush 
deserves, in my view, historically, the credit for initiating a new 
approach to diplomacy worldwide, and that is to try to build, where you 
can, international support. You are not going to be able to do it in 
every case, but where you can it is of value in the conduct of foreign 
policy to try to build international cooperation. That is what 
President Bush did in the Middle East, and I think he was absolutely 
right to do so. He did not do so with the thought in mind that every 
single foreign policy problem that this country faces ought necessarily 
be solved, or could be solved, through international cooperation. But 
where possible that ought to be the strategy that the United States 
follows.
  So Madeleine Albright, our Ambassador, is merely building on that 
concept and idea in Haiti, to try to build international support so 
that we can all collectively examine ways in which to try to reverse 
the deplorable conditions, politically, socially and economically, that 
exist in that country.
  It was a remarkable decision by the U.N. Security Council and speaks, 
I think, of Madeleine Albright's effective leadership. During the 
Security Council's consideration of this resolution, Ambassador 
Albright, I think, expressed very succinctly the history of the efforts 
to restore democracy to the people of Haiti. She said in part, Mr. 
President:

       This Council has pursued patiently a peaceful and just end 
     to the Haitian crisis. The Organization of American States 
     has pursued a parallel effort. Member States, including my 
     own--

  For example, speaking of our country.

     have taken steps independently to encourage the illegitimate 
     leaders to leave. Together, we--the international community--
     have tried condemnation, persuasion, isolation and 
     negotiation. At Governors Island, we helped broker an 
     agreement that the military's leader signed but refused to 
     implement. We have imposed sanctions, suspended them, 
     reimposed them and strengthened them. We have provided every 
     opportunity for the de facto leaders in Haiti to meet their 
     obligations.

  She concluded as follows--and I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. She concluded as follows:

       The status quo in Haiti is neither tenable nor acceptable. 
     Choices must be made. And although the choice in Haiti is 
     complex, this choice is as simple as the choice between right 
     and wrong. Today, the Council has made the right choice--in 
     favor of democracy, law, dignity and relief from suffering 
     long endured and never deserved.

  Mr. President, Madeleine Albright's views I think are ones that all 
of us can share in this body.
  Now, for those reasons I think we ought to try at least to speak with 
one voice about conditions there. The President, if it is warranted, 
will come before this body and ask for authorization.
  I would point out to my colleagues that in both the case of Panama 
and Grenada, no such authority was sought. Now, there the President 
made a case that it was of such an emergency nature that he had to act.
  I mentioned to my colleagues here a few weeks ago that I received a 
call about 1 a.m. from then Secretary of State Jim Baker. That was the 
consultation. Planes were in the air. Troops were already landing. 
Within 4 hours, I was appearing on broadcast television supporting 
President Bush's decision. I think it was the right one to make under 
those circumstances.
  I would hope, as we talk about the conduct of foreign policy, we 
would at least leave the door open here for Presidents to be able to 
act. Ideally, he would come before us and ask for permission ahead of 
time. I wish that had been done in a lot of situations around the world 
over the last 4 or 5 decades. But to suggest somehow that the President 
is prepared and ready to charge into Haiti militarily, I do not think 
is the case.
  And so I hope that we would adopt this resolution. It states the 
obvious. But not imply by that, necessarily, that this President has 
any less authority than his predecessors, including his immediate past 
predecessor, to use the powers of the executive as Commander in Chief 
to respond to situations where military force may be warranted.
  With that, Mr. President, again I commend the Senator from Kansas for 
his amendment; I am glad to cosponsor it; I hope we all do so; because 
it states the obvious. But let us not engage here in a debate that 
would suggest by implication, particularly to the leaders of Haiti, 
that we think that what they did in 1990-91 was tolerable, acceptable 
or anything with which anyone in this body ought to be associated.
  Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut. I 
agree with his statement and the views he expressed.
  I would like to comment on several issues raised by the Senator from 
New Hampshire when the amendment was first offered on this past Monday.
  First, the Senator said that the United States support of the U.N. 
resolution is inconsistent with the sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
passed overwhelmingly by the Senate on June 29. The Senate resolution 
in fact does not specifically relate to the U.N. resolution, but more 
generally to potential United States military operations in Haiti. It 
expresses the sense of Congress that no funds should be obligated or 
expended for military operations in Haiti unless authorized by Congress 
in advance. If such authorization is not provided in advance, the 
resolution calls for the President to submit a report to Congress that 
the commitment of troops meets various criteria set forth in the 
resolution.
  As we all are well aware, at this time there is no military operation 
in Haiti. Thus, the administration has not taken any action 
inconsistent with the Senate resolution.
  Second, the Senator from New Hampshire stated the administration has 
decided to use force in Haiti. The authorization by the United Nations 
for multinational force in no way implies that the President has 
decided to use force in Haiti. In fact, I have advised the President 
not to use force. But the administration has made it clear that no 
decision has been made on using military force; that, in fact, its 
objective is to persuade the military junta to step down without--and I 
emphasize the word ``without''--having to use force.
  Third, the Senator raised an issue of great concern to all of us that 
the Senate be fully consulted on all aspects of United States policy 
towards Haiti, specifically on United States actions in the United 
Nations. It is my view that the administration has adequately consulted 
with the Senate, particularly with regard to the U.N. resolution 
supported on Sunday.
  Only days after the Secretary General issued a report recommending 
that the United Nations authorize a multinational force to facilitate 
the restoration of democracy, our State Department briefed the Foreign 
Relations Committee on the U.N. report and indicated its intention to 
seek a U.N. resolution within the following 2 weeks, which is just what 
happened. One week later, the State Department sent a letter to all 
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the United 
States intention to support the U.N. resolution. The next day the State 
Department briefed our committee in detail about the U.N. resolution. 
So the implication that the administration pays more attention to the 
United Nations than to the Congress is simply incorrect.
  Congress has and will continue to have ample opportunity to express 
its opinion on United States policy toward Haiti. As my colleagues will 
recall, the full Senate has debated amendments regarding Haiti twice, 
two times, in recent weeks, and administration officials have appeared 
at 70 hearings, briefings, and consultations on Haiti since President 
Clinton took office. Last month alone, the administration briefed the 
Foreign Relations Committee on five separate occasions on various 
aspects of United States policy toward Haiti.
  Mr. President, I do not oppose the amendment. I believe, though, it 
is not necessary, and that it is important to set the record straight 
regarding the administration's efforts to consult the Senate on an 
issue of such great importance to the American people.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 57\1/
2\ minutes, and the Senator from Connecticut controls 27 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, at the outset, I would like to say to the Senator from 
Connecticut that I appreciate his cosponsoring this amendment. I say to 
him that he somewhat, in his remarks, trivializes this amendment by 
pointing out that it is just something that we all recognize.
  The Senator from Connecticut should understand that this amendment is 
a way to prevent a full-scale debate on this floor as to whether we 
should authorize an invasion of Haiti, such as suggested by the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. Unless the President of the United States begins a 
consultative process, unless the Senate of the United States--I cannot 
speak for the other body--feels that they are involved in this decision 
which puts American lives at risk, the Senator from Connecticut should 
understand that there will probably be forces from both sides of the 
aisle seeking to prevent an invasion of Haiti, something that I think 
personally would set a very dangerous precedent for the future of this 
country.
  So if I were the Senator from Connecticut, I would not trivialize 
this debate. I would not trivialize this amendment. I would understand 
that, unless there is some kind of sign that we are not going to invade 
Haiti, or a sign that, if an invasion is planned, the American people--
far more importantly, the American people, I say to the Senator from 
Connecticut--who now overwhelmingly oppose an invasion of Haiti, and 
their elected leadership are going to be consulted on both sides of the 
aisle, we will see this body wrapped in a debate which I think would 
not really, in the long run, serve any useful purpose.
  So I suggest to the Senator from Connecticut and other Members of 
this body that they pay careful attention not only to what goes on in 
this debate over the Dole-Gregg amendment, but also to what is going to 
go on in the country in response to a possible invasion of a country 
which could entail the loss of American lives not only in the short 
run, but in the long run.
  Mr. President, as I said, I support the amendment. I commend the 
sponsors for reminding us that the United Nations Security Council 
cannot authorize the deployment of American troops into combat, or 
anywhere else, for that matter, without further authorization by the 
officials whom the American people have elected to exercise this grave 
and solemn responsibility. Thankfully, the day has not yet arrived when 
the lives of American servicemen and women are subjected in law to the 
supreme authority and frequently vacillating, frequently contradictory, 
and frequently reckless collective impulses of the United Nations.
  As I have often stated on this floor, I have strong reservations 
about prospectively limiting the President of the United States' role 
as Commander in Chief. I have no such scruples about limiting the U.N. 
Secretary General's role as commander in chief of the armed forces of 
the member states of the United Nations.
  Congress, of course, has the constitutional authority to declare war 
or to withhold that declaration. We also have the authority, under the 
War Powers Resolution, to terminate any U.S. military involvement in 
overseas hostilities by declining to authorize the operation 60 days 
after its initiation.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that we have established 
several precedents for undertaking military operations without 
congressional authorization before or after they have commenced. For 
years now, Congress has been in the absurd position of acquiescing by 
inertia with efforts to circumvent the law Congress has written.
  I question the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, and I 
frequently oppose efforts to prospectively restrict the President's 
ability to use force in defense of American interests abroad. But I am 
also greatly concerned that by simply ignoring the law of the United 
States requiring Congress' consent for military operations we are 
undermining the authority of Congress overall.
  Moreover, until we resolve this quietly and routinely ignored 
contradiction in our practicing checks and balances, we are seriously 
weakening the connection--the critically important connection--between 
the brave men and women who risk their lives in service to this country 
and the men and women who are directly elected by the people of the 
United States to represent their interests.
  It is in no one's interest, Mr. President--not the President's, not 
Congress', not the United States Armed Forces, and not the American 
people's--it is in no one's interest for this contradiction to be left 
uncorrected any longer.
  Those who have volunteered to risk life and limb on behalf of all 
Americans know what their responsibilities are to us. They have a right 
to know who is responsible for sending them into harm's way. It is 
unconscionable that Congress would assume in law this responsibility 
and then, again and again, relinquish it to the President, barely 
without comment, because Congress will not risk the opprobrium for a 
mission's failure while expecting the approbation for a mission's 
success. It is unconscionable and hypocritical.
  Mr. President, it is time for the administration and Congress--both 
houses and both parties--to sit down in good faith and resolve this 
contradiction. And I hope the leaders and the President will give 
serious consideration to doing so immediately. Otherwise, with every 
security question that involves the use of American force and which 
lacks unanimous support in Congress, we will have occasions where the 
merits of the case are debated, but the responsibility for the decision 
deferred.
  Today, we are debating whether that decision is the sole authority of 
the U.N. Security Council. I should think that few of my colleagues, if 
any, seriously believe that such is the case. Nevertheless, the debate 
is timely given the increasing likelihood that the United States will 
soon intervene militarily in a civil dispute in Haiti.
  The President, by mistakes of omission and commission, has created an 
environment in which diplomatic and domestic political imperatives are 
providing powerful incentive to take the grave step of sacrificing 
American lives on behalf of a man who--although freely elected by the 
people of Haiti--hardly qualifies as an enlightened champion of the 
rights of man.
  This amendment and debate is useful because it serves as a needed 
reminder to the President about his responsibility and ours to never 
risk the lives of any American unnecessarily. Should we invade Haiti; 
should that intervention be successful--as it will--in deposing the 
military thugs who run that police state and in restoring Aristide, at 
least temporarily, to his presidency; and even if we withdraw from the 
operation in a relatively short time; even if all these things occur--
and I am very concerned that our withdrawal will be much harder to 
effect than our entry--we can still expect some casualties. We have 
casualties, Mr. President, in peaceful military exercises. We will 
certainly have some, though I expect they will be minimal, in offensive 
military action in Haiti.
  Mr. President, Congress will bear some responsibility for the 
consequences of this operation if the mission somehow goes wrong or, as 
is more likely, we are unable to extricate ourselves from a situation 
in which we become little more than a semipermanent presidential guard 
for Mr. Aristide. And, now, apparently, the Security Council will share 
some of that responsibility. But let us be very clear, Mr. President, 
we all know who will shoulder the greatest burden for the mission's 
failures or receive the greatest credit for the mission's success--the 
President of the United States.
  The anguish the President feels over the loss of American lives in a 
military operation will not be alleviated by the recollection that the 
use of force was an international decision. And should those losses 
occur unnecessarily, the blame will not be shifted by pointing a finger 
toward the United Nations, or toward the President's supporters in 
Congress.
  Whether others in the administration or the Congress or the United 
Nations are involved in the decision or not, the President of the 
United States is a lonely man in a dark room when the casualty reports 
come in.
  Before we intervene, the President should contemplate this 
unavoidable burden of leadership very carefully and weigh it against 
the diplomatic and political imperatives that be believes require our 
involvement in Haiti. It is clear to me, Mr. President, that no vital 
U.S. interests were placed at risk by President Aristide's unlawful 
removal from office.
  As an advocate for democratic values, I did not welcome his 
overthrow, but I did not fear its effect on the security of the United 
States or our allies. Likewise, while the coup in Haiti did not advance 
the democratization of Haiti's political structures, Aristide's return 
to power may not advance that process either--given the fact that his 
own governing philosophy is suspected of leaning toward the tyrannical, 
and given the fact that he would have been returned to power at the 
point of American bayonets--a foreign intervention that will 
predictably incite some popular opposition in Haiti.
  Why then is the President considering this intervention? Because in 
place of a policy for Haiti based on a realistic assessment of Haiti's 
impact on our security in this hemisphere or on our ability to protect 
our interests in other regions of the world, the President substituted 
a policy--or more correctly several policies--which only responded to 
political exigencies of the moment; be those exigencies an aversion to 
illegal immigration or concern about a political hunger strike.
  In response to these various political pressures, the President has 
backed any number of policies with the credibility of the United 
States. Now, that policy has settled on one imperative only: the 
current unlawful Haitian regime will be terminated, by American force 
of arms if necessary, and President Aristide will be returned to power.
  At no time during most of the recent saga of United States policy 
toward the situation in Haiti was any thought given to how Haiti 
relates to other international concerns of the United States.
  One of the most frequent and fair criticisms of this administration's 
foreign policy is that it lacks a strategic rationale--premised on a 
sound prioritization of global challenges to the interests and values 
of the United States--that links our foreign policies in important 
respects from region to region and country to country. Beyond managed 
trade, I am uncertain what strategic concept energizes the 
administration's approach to the post-cold war world.
  Conceptual thinking that would respond to the connections between 
problems for the United States in the Middle East and problems in 
Argentina, for example--connections that would indicate for the 
administration what our global priorities should be--has not been 
evident in much of the administration's foreign policy initiatives. It 
has certainly been missing in our policies for Haiti.
  Among the many serious challenges that cry out for American 
leadership--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the 
reemergence of nationalist enmities that had been sublimated to the 
cold war; the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism; the political 
and economic crises in the former constituent republics of the Soviet 
Union; political and military rivalries in Asia; and many other 
developments with global implications--nowhere is the situation in 
Haiti a contributing factor. Nowhere.
  But our ability to use the power and prestige of the United States to 
affect some resolution of these global challenges is--it is now 
argued--being eroded by the situation in Haiti. Let us be clear about 
one thing, Mr. President, it is not the Haitian crisis that is eroding 
our strength. It is the administration's haphazard, poorly reasoned, 
vacillating, and inexplicable vesting of our credibility in that 
crisis' outcome that has put our credibility--and, hence, our power--at 
risk.
  The notion that United States failure to restore Aristide will 
undermine our credibility from Tehran to Pyongyang is becoming more and 
more a self-fulfilling prophesy with every not-so-veiled administration 
threat to General Cedras and company--threats that occur almost hourly 
from almost any administration official who happens to be near a 
microphone.
  I am concerned about the loss of American credibility over Haiti. 
Just as I am concerned about the loss of credibility incurred in our 
innumerable policy reversals elsewhere and in the exposure of our empty 
threats in Bosnia, in Korea, in Somalia, in China, and in Japan. In 
some instances those policy reversals and withdrawn threats were 
foolishly made, and despite the damage done to our credibility they 
deserved to be corrected--especially with regard to China and Japan.
  We remain in the world's only superpower, however. We do have some 
margin for error. It is arguable that the administration has nearly 
exhausted this margin. But I don't think one more policy change for 
Haiti will put us over the top. I believe we can still recover enough 
credibility to positively affect some progress in the critical global 
problems I have just mentioned.
  The administration should begin by investing considerable manhours 
into arriving at some coherent and realistic strategic rationale for 
our involvement in the post-cold-war era. I know such an undertaking is 
not an easy one. Today's international challenges are varied and 
complex, but they are not incomprehensible. Relations between nations 
are more chaotic today, but they are not unmanageable.
  The threats which deserve our priority attention are recognizable. I 
have identified some of the more salient ones. They are linked in small 
ways and large. And the United States, with our long history of 
imaginative and resourceful statesmanship, should be able to see and 
address these connections. With the power and prestige that has accrued 
to us--not only by reason of our economic might and our abundant 
resources, but by a century of success in the world through two world 
wars and one long, cold struggle with a militarily powerful adversary--
we should be able to affect considerable progress in many, if not all, 
of the most pressing problems of our time whether or not President 
Aristide recovers his office.
  We must recognize our own abilities and accept as ours the real 
responsibilities of the sole remaining superpower. We have the largest 
stake in international stability. As the world's greatest democracy, we 
have the largest interest in the ascendance of democratic values. But 
we must, in short, put things in perspective. We must see the currents 
that are running through this period of world history. We must see how 
they are related: how each affects one another; how each affects the 
interests of the United States.
  We must prioritize problems and where no impact to our vital 
interests occurs and where no link to larger problems exists we must 
assign some problems a lower priority. Problems which have a lower 
priority--under few, if any circumstances--warrant the use of force to 
resolve.
  If Americans must perish in a foreign conflict--it better be because 
no other remedy is available and because the cost of leaving the 
problem unattended is greater than the cost of a single American life. 
That, Mr. President, is a dimension that the Haiti problem does not 
possess.
  If the administration fails to reorder its statesmanship, then, I 
fear, the remaining days of the Clinton administration--whether those 
days consume 2 or 6 years--will be very dangerous days for America and 
for our interests and values in the world.
  There will be other Bosnia's: where American prestige is squandered 
in a rapidly changing array of policies; where force is easily 
threatened and just as easily withheld; where we seek to affect some 
more equitable balance of power and are convinced by others to abandon 
that pursuit; where at the end of the day all our exertions have only 
left the situation in about the same condition we found it.
  There will be other Somalias: where we thoughtlessly allow--almost 
without notice--a humanitarian mission to become something for which 
our troops were not told they would fight and our leaders could not 
define. Perhaps, it will occur in Rwanda where the President has 
rightly ordered our troops to help relieve the terrible suffering in 
that tragic country. Will we soon detect mission creep there which 
pulls Americans into a political and military quagmire of unimaginable 
dimensions? We will if we have not learned the lessons of Somalia.
  There will be other Koreas: where enormous risks to the most vital 
interests of the United States are addressed by little more than 
wishful thinking because the problem is vastly more difficult than a 
weekend spent restoring a dubious democrat to office in Haiti; where 
the stability of much of the world is allowed to rest on the whims of 
an heir presumptive to a tyrant's office; where the ball is always in 
our adversary's court and never our own.
  There will be other Haiti's; where the problems--sad as they are--of 
a small country whose fortunes will not affect by one degree the 
security of others or the progress of democracy elsewhere in the world 
are allowed to consume the foreign policy attention of the greatest 
Nation in the world; where other problems fester for lack of attention 
by a distracted superpower; where the United States vests a part of its 
credibility in the political success of someone whose authority 
Americans would reject were he in office in this country.
  Mr. President, the problem in Haiti is not a grave crisis for the 
United States. And the aspect of our policy for Haiti we are 
considering today is but a small part of the Haiti debate.
  But within this debate we see the outlines of a leadership failure 
that is undermining the interests and aspirations of the United States 
globally. It is a failure that will cost us dearly in the months ahead 
if it is not addressed comprehensively. I urge the President and his 
administration to do so immediately.
  For now, let us begin by recognizing that Mr. Aristide's fortunes are 
not a compelling reason for the sacrifice of American lives. Yes, we 
have lost some credibility in our feckless response to this problem 
thus far. But there is probably another way to see that an emerging 
democracy is not permanently extinguished in Haiti.
  Let us call for new elections without requiring the restoration of 
Aristide's presidency. Let us be mindful that resistance to Aristide 
will not disappear with the exodus of a few Haitian commanders. The 
rank and file of the Haitian security apparatus are no more hospitable 
to Aristide's well-being than General Cedras is.
  Mr. President, the administration is apparently prepared to allow 
North Korea to possess at least two nuclear weapons rather than risk 
war to prevent this serious calamity from continuing. Surely, the 
problem in Haiti is not so grave, nor the remedy so difficult nor the 
cost to our prestige so substantial that we must ransom with blood the 
office of Haiti's president.
  Let us put Haiti in perspective. Accord it the attention that it 
merits in a world of far more serious threats to the United States. 
Seek a reasonable resolution of that country's problems that does not 
require the most serious, the most solemn, the most tragic action the 
United States can take--the ordering of brave, young Americans into 
combat. And let us begin, Mr. President, to pursue our interests and 
promote our values in the world in a manner, that befits the strongest, 
most enlightened and most benevolent nation on Earth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields came?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from South Dakota 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join in support of this amendment. I 
have predicted an August invasion of Haiti that will take place when 
Congress goes home. Such an invasion would be a great mistake for 
reasons stated on this floor.
  It seems the Clinton administration is determined to invade Haiti. 
They have gone to the United Nations. They have fulfilled all the 
prerequisites, laying the groundwork for invasion. I have attended some 
of the briefings. They seem to have the military all ready to go.
  But nobody, except the President and the Black Caucus, is for an 
invasion. Of a 40-member Black Caucus, 38 are for it.
  Somehow, as I understand the Congressional Black Caucus, they believe 
it is almost a racist thing if the United States does not invade. I 
think that perception is very unfortunate because I have not before 
seen foreign policy made by one small group, nor have I seen the White 
House respond with a military invasion at the behest of just one group 
in the Congress.
  Invasion of Haiti would be a great mistake. It would neither put 
democracy in place, nor would it solve the economic problems in Haiti.
  What we should have regarding Haiti is a clear, clear policy. Right 
now our policy is unclear. First we should state very clearly that the 
United States is not going to invade. Then the Haitians would start 
trying to solve their own problems instead of anticipating or expecting 
American troops to solve their problems for them.
  Second, we should make it very clear that we want to lift the 
economic embargo because the economic embargo on Haiti is hurting the 
poor the most. It is a fact that these embargoes always hurt the poor 
the most.
  Third, we should, of course, state that we are for democracy and 
human rights, and we are. But those are not going to be instituted by 
sending United States troops into Haiti.
  We should also state and have a clear, clear policy that we are going 
to follow normal refugee asylum programs insofar as Haiti is concerned, 
so people stop getting into boats expecting to come to the United 
States.
  What we have instead is this unclear policy driven by the 
Congressional Black Caucus, and a President who seems determined to 
have a military adventure. I think maybe the President feels he needs 
to have military stripes, or something. Unfortunately, invading that 
little, tiny country will not give him many military stripes.
  Let us take a close look at the situation. This Congress should be 
able to vote on authorizing United States troops to invade Haiti, just 
as we did for the Persian Gulf war. That has not happened.
  The President wants to invade while we are out of town in August 
during the August recess that runs to September 12. So some time during 
that period the President seems determined to invade Haiti, and it is 
just nonsense. It is driven by one group here in Congress, the 
Congressional Black Caucus. Nobody else is calling for it. Nobody else 
will stand up on this floor and advocate an invasion. And that is very 
unwise American foreign policy. It will cost our taxpayers a great 
deal.
  Once we are in, we cannot get out. Once we are in Haiti, people are 
going to be suing us for years to come for damages, and we are a 
country that pays restitution and is responsible. We are going to have 
one or two of our people killed or captured, and it is going to cause a 
nationwide reaction.
  It is true that American Presidents seem to gain popularity by 
invading very small countries. I do not think that ploy is going to 
work this time either.
  I would plead with President Clinton not to invade Haiti. Instead 
make a clear, clear policy we are not going to, make a clear, clear 
policy that our refugee status is going to stay the same, make a clear 
policy we are going to lift the embargo, make a clear policy the 
Haitian people have to solve their own problems and develop their own 
democracy. That is the only way it should be.
  If we go in and invade, we will delay democracy and delay human 
rights.
  I strongly urge that this resolution pass as another signal to the 
President not to engage in this adventure. This White House seems to be 
determined to have military adventures overseas to prove they are 
supportive of the military. As a former lieutenant in the Army who 
served in Vietnam, I can assure the administration it is not that much 
fun to really go and do it.
  I will accept the President as my Commander in Chief, even without 
invading this little, tiny country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida. 
It is the Chair's understanding the Senator is yielded time under the 
control of the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time is remaining to the Senator from 
Connecticut?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 28 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Florida has yielded 20 minutes of the 
28 to himself. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 32 remaining 
minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I hope the time taken requesting how much 
time was remaining will not be counted against my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair assures the Senator it is not.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the statement of the resolution before us 
is self-evident. Obviously, action by the U.N. Security Council does 
not constitute authorization for the deployment of United States forces 
in Haiti under the Constitution of the United States or the United 
States War Powers Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as an original 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the purpose of this resolution is not to 
just restate the obvious, but rather to again afford a platform and a 
forum to raise issues about the President's policy in Haiti and his 
intentions in Haiti.
  I would like to respond to some of the comments that have been made. 
There has been reference that there has been inadequate consultation 
between the President and his administration and the Congress relative 
to our policy in Haiti.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
five pages of meetings which have been held since the commencement of 
this session of Congress relative to the administration providing 
information to various committees and other agencies of the Congress 
relative to Haiti.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Hearings and Briefings on Haiti, 103d Congress, 2d Session

       2 August 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed 
     Republican members: Goss; Chris Smith; Livingston; Fowler; 
     Ros-Lehtinen; Hobson; Shaw; Mica; Boehlert; Houghton; Coble; 
     Hunter; Bateman; Hutchinson; and Buyer.
       2 August 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed 
     Majority Leader Gephardt.
       2 August 1994 Meeting: Secretary of State met with Rep. 
     Berman on Haiti and other issues.
       29 July 1994 Briefings: Haiti Refugee Issues. State and 
     Justice briefed HFAC and House Judiciary Committee staff.
       28 July 1994 Briefing: State DAS George Ward briefed SFRC 
     and CJS on the UN Security Council Resolution on Haiti.
       27-28 July 1994 Briefings: Haiti Resolution; 5-Day Advance 
     Notice. State DAS Chapman briefed HFAC, CJS, HASC, SFRC, 
     SFRC, House and Senate Appropriations, and Sen. Dole's staff.
       22 July 1994 Phone Calls: Ambassador Albright and Under 
     Secretary Tarnoff telephone Members of Congress on U.N. 
     Secretary General's report on U.N. Mission in Haiti 
     peacekeeping force proposal. Members included: Sens. Pell; 
     Helms; and Hollings; and Reps. Obey; Livingston; Mollohan; 
     Payne; Rogers; Gilman; and Torricelli.
       21 July 1994 Briefing: Deputy Secretary Talbott briefed 
     Sen. Nunn.
       21 July 1994 Meeting: Deputy Secretary Talbott spoke with 
     Rep. Richardson regarding his trip to Haiti.
       21 July 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed Senator 
     Wellstone.
       21 July 1994 Meeting: Special Advisor Gray met with the 
     Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
       21 July 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed Rep. 
     Major Owens.
       20 July 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed Rep. 
     Porter Goss.
       19 July 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor on Haiti William 
     Gray briefed HFAC members in a closed session.
       14 July 1994 Briefing: Assistant Secretary of State Gati 
     and officials from CIA and Justice brief Senate Select 
     Intelligence Committee on Haiti and Iran.
       13 July 1994 Briefing: Secs. Christopher, Perry, Ambassador 
     Albright, National Security Advisor Lake, and General 
     Shalikashvili briefed the Senate and House Leadership 
     ``Consultative Group'' (leadership, chairs and ranking of 
     HFAC/SFRC; HASC/SASC; Intelligence; Appropriations--full 
     committee/DoD/Foreign Operations/Commerce, State, Justice) 
     separately.
       13 July 1994 Hearing: OAS Ambassador Babbitt and State DAS 
     Skol testified on Dominican Republic elections and Haiti 
     before the HFAC subcommittee on Western Hemisphere.
       13 July 1994 Briefing: Peacekeeping Monthly State official 
     Bob Loftis briefed SASC staff.
       13 July 1994 Briefing: Coast Guard officials briefed House 
     Merchant Marine committee members and staff.
       13 July 1994 Briefing: State officials briefed House 
     Appropriations staff on Emergency Refugee and Migrant 
     Assistance.
       12 July 1994 Briefing: Peacekeeping Monthly State DAS Ward 
     briefed HFAC staff.
       12 July 1994 Briefing: Peacekeeping Monthly Ambassador 
     Dobbins briefed senior House staff.
       12 July 1994 Briefing: Peacekeeping Monthly State DAS 
     George Ward briefed SFRC staff.
       7 July 1994 Briefing: Ambassador Dobbins briefed majority 
     and minority SFRC staff.
       7 July 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed HFAC 
     chairman Lee Hamilton.
       5 July 1994 Phone Calls: State officials made phone calls 
     to Congressional staff of SFRC and HFAC, and Judiciary on 
     ``safehaven'' policy.
       28 June 1994 Hearing: U.S. Policy Towards Haiti Special 
     Advisor Gray, Assistant Secretary of State Shattuck, State 
     DAS McKinley testified before SFRC Subcommittee on Western 
     Hemisphere Affairs.
       28 June 1994 Meeting: Secretary of State met with Speaker 
     Foley on Haiti and other issues.
       20 June 1994 State and DoD officials briefed HFAC staff on 
     Dominican Republic elections and the Administration's 
     sanctions-monitoring efforts.
       16 June 1994 Briefing: State, DoD, and CIA officials 
     briefed SSCI staff on drug trafficking in Haiti.
       15 June 1994 Hearing: Haitian Asylum-seekers; State DAS 
     Brunson McKinley testified before the House Judiciary 
     Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration, and Refugees 
     on Legislation on Haiti introduced by Reps. Meek and Dellums.
       8 June 1994 Hearing: Special Advisor Gray testified before 
     House Foreign Affairs Committee
       8 June 1994 Briefing: Assistant Secretary of State Watson 
     briefed Senator Bob Graham on Haiti and other regional 
     issues.
       1 June 1994 Briefing: Haiti Refugee Processing; State and 
     Justice staff brief HFAC staff.
       26 May 1994 Briefing: Ambassador Dobbins briefed Reps. 
     Dixon, Richardson, and Reed prior to their trip to Haiti.
       26 May 1994 Briefing: Ambassador Dobbins briefed Rep. 
     Rangel.
       25 May 1994 Briefing: Haiti Intelligence Community Briefing 
     (closed) HPSIC Members and Staff. Briefers: CIA/NIA Lattrel, 
     INR, others
       24 May 1994 Briefing: Haiti Pre-trip Intelligence Community 
     Briefing, Rep. Dixon and HPSCI staff. Briefers: CIA, INR, 
     DIA, DEA, NSA, JCS/J-2
       18 May 1994 Briefing: State and INS officials briefed 
     Senate Judiciary committee staff on Haitian refugee 
     processing.
       17 May 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed House 
     Democratic Leadership.
       17 May 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed Senate 
     Democratic Leadership.
       17 May 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed 
     Congressional Black Caucus.
       17 May 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed Senate 
     Republican Leadership.
       17 May 1994 Briefing: Special Advisor Gray briefed House 
     Republican Leadership.
       17 May 1994 Briefing: Acting Refugee Policy Director Oakley 
     and INS Commissioner Meissner briefed Reps. Mazzoli, Canady, 
     and Lamar Smith on Haiti refugee processing.
       12 May 1994 Briefing: Haiti Refugee Policy. House Judiciary 
     Subcommittee on Immigration; RP & INS.
       3 May 1994 Briefing: Haiti Refugee Issues: HFAC Staff with 
     RP, ARA, and INS.
       3 May 1994 Briefing: Haiti. Senator Dodd and other SFRC 
     Members. Briefers: Acting Secretary Talbott and NSC Sandy 
     Berger.
       24 March 1994 Meeting: Assistant Secretary of State 
     Shattuck met with Rep. Joe Kennedy regarding Haiti.
       8 March 1994 Hearing: Haiti. SFRC Subcommittee on Western 
     Hemisphere. Witness: Ambassador Pezzullo.
       2 March 1994 Meeting: Ambassador Swing met with Rep. 
     Torricelli on Gen. Cedras.
       9 February 1994 Hearing: Ambassador Pezzullo and AID 
     official Schneider met with HFAC members in a closed session 
     to brief Members on humanitarian relief.
       14 January 1994 Meeting: Assistant Secretary of State 
     Watson met with Sen. Dodd to discuss recent developments in 
     Haiti.
       9 November 1993 Briefing: Haiti: Hafac Western Hemisphere 
     Members Briefing; (Amb. Pezzullo).
       3 November 1993 Briefing: Haiti (closed); HPSCI Members & 
     Staff. Briefers: State/CIA/DIA/DOD.
       27 October 1993 Briefing: Haiti-Intelligence; House 
     Republican Policy Committee Members. Briefers: CIA, DI.
       20 October 1993 Hearing; Roundtable on Haiti, HFAC.
       20 October 1993 Briefing: Recent Events in Haiti: House 
     Intelligence Committee; State witness TBD (Pezzullo or 
     Watson).
       21 July 1993 Hearing: Recent Developments in Haiti; HFAC W. 
     Hemisphere Subcommittee.
       21 July 1993 Hearing: Governor's Island Implementation; 
     HFAC.
       18 June 1993 Briefing: Haiti; Cong. Toricelli and HFAC 
     staff. Briefer: Amb. Pezzullo.
       26 May 1993 Briefing: Assistance from Haiti; Sen. Leahy. 
     Briefers: ARA Pezzullo & Watson.
       18 May 1993 Briefing: Haiti; SACFO Minority Staff. 
     Briefers: ARA-Pezullo, AID.
       13 May 1993 Briefing: Haiti; SACFO Minority Staff. 
     Briefers: ARA-Pezullo, AID.
       13 May 1993; Briefing: Haiti; HAC Foreign OPS Subcommittee 
     and Associate Staff. ATA/Pezzullo, AID, and DOD.
       3 May 1993 Briefing: Situation in Haiti/Request for 
     Contingency Fund; SACFO Majority and Minority Staff Briefers: 
     ARA-Pezzullo, AID--Williams.
       10 March 1993 Briefing: Haiti; for HAC Foreign OPS Minority 
     Staff w/Majority Staff.
       9 March 1993 Briefing: Haiti; for HAC Foreign OPS Minority 
     and Majority Staff. Briefer: ARA.
       27 January 1993 Vote: Haiti; HAC Foreign OPS Subcommittee 
     Staff. ARA/Gelbard.
       12 January 1993 Briefing: Update on Haiti; Senate Judiciary 
     Committee Staff Briefers: ARA/RP/INS.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in fact, this has not been an issue held 
in the shadows, but an issue which has been receiving increasing 
visibility before the U.S. public.
  I take some offense at the suggestion that the only people who are 
concerned about our policy in Haiti are members of a particular caucus 
within the House of Representatives. In fact, the latest public opinion 
polls indicate that now more than a majority of the American people, if 
asked the question, ``Do you believe it is appropriate and in the 
national interest to commit U.S. forces if that is necessary in order 
to avoid a flood of refugees into the United States?'' a majority of 
the American people today, Mr. President, support the use of military 
force in order to accomplish that objective.
  The Senator from South Dakota issued the second challenge in 24 hours 
to stand up on the floor and make a clear statement. The first 
challenge was issued yesterday on national television by our majority 
leader, George Mitchell, on another subject in which he challenged 
those who today are opposing universal health care coverage because of 
its requirement of employer responsibility, that anyone who wants to 
stand up and call for the repeal of Social Security because of its 
requirement of employer responsibility, to do so. I hope someone would 
have the courage to take that position and be consistent in terms of 
their public policy.
  A challenge has been issued by the Senator from South Dakota for 
someone to stand up and say they believe the United States should be 
prepared to use military force in Haiti, to take that position. The 
United States, in my judgment, cannot afford to take either of the 
other two alternatives to the use of military force.
  One of those alternatives is to continue a policy which started with 
the Bush administration when, within hours of the ousting of President 
Aristide in September 1991, now almost 3 years ago, President Bush 
stated that the policy of the United States was to restore President 
Aristide to his democratically elected position as President of Haiti. 
That has continued now in the administration of President Clinton to be 
the U.S. policy.
  I believe that we cannot surrender from that position. I do not 
believe that we can continue to have a policy which tightens down on 
the conditions of the mass of Haitians without prospect of 
accomplishing the objective of a restoration of democracy in Haiti. 
And, to use the statement of the Senator from Arizona, who stated that 
the preconditions for the use of U.S. military force should be that no 
other option is available, I would suggest that, after 3 years of 
intensive economic and political isolation and sanctions, we are 
reaching the conclusion that they are unlikely to accomplish the result 
of a volunteer transfer of power from the current thugs, who took power 
by the gun, back to the democratically elected President.
  The second position of the Senator from Arizona is that the U.S. 
interest would be more adversely affected by a passivity, by abstaining 
from action, accepting the consequences, than the consequences to the 
United States of affirmative action, including the use of force.
  In my judgment, we are at that point. We are at the point where the 
consequences of inaction are greater to America's national interest 
than the consequences of the use of force.
  I would state that case as follows: First, Mr. President, in this 
post-cold-war era, I believe there is going to be, and in the U.S. 
interests should be, a regionalization of national security interest.
  I, for one, have been very reticent about the United States exposing 
itself to active involvement in Bosnia. One of the reasons I have 
resisted such an involvement is that I believe that is essentially a 
European conflict. I believe that our European allies, such as France 
and Great Britain, who have had much deeper experience in the Balkans, 
a greater understanding of the nuances of conflicts in that very 
volatile region, should assume the leadership for the alliance in terms 
of policies in that area. Therefore, I am prepared to give considerable 
weight and deference to the judgment of those European nations as to 
what our international policy should be in Bosnia.
  Conversely, the Western Hemisphere is an area in which the United 
States has had a similar depth of understanding, a long history of 
involvement in the affairs of this hemisphere. I believe that this is 
an area of the world in which we do have a special responsibility. And 
so, as I look at issues around the globe, those that are within 
essentially our area of special knowledge and, I believe, 
responsibility, the Western Hemisphere, to me take on a greater weight 
in terms of their potential effect on our national interest.
  We have seen a confusion in Haiti between causes and effects. The 
cause in Haiti has been the fact that a democratic regime, which 
carried with it the embodiment of a long-felt desire by the people of 
Haiti to rid themselves of authoritarian rule, that democratically 
elected President was ousted after slightly more than 7 months in 
office.
  We are not here debating an individual. We are debating the principle 
that the people of Haiti have the right to elect and have the right to 
expect a political leader to serve his or her term in office. And in 
this case, the people of Haiti, by a margin of better than 2 to 1, 
selected President Aristide to be that political leader.
  As a result of that ouster, there has been a reign of terror in 
Haiti--a country which has known terror throughout its 200-year 
history--unknown in that long history, and a series of political 
murders, rapes, and abductions have fallen on that country. Now, in the 
last few weeks the regime has forced the United Nations human rights 
observers, who were providing some window, some light to shine on those 
abuses, and knowledge to be made available in a credible form to the 
world--the regime has forced those human rights observers to leave. So 
now even a darker cloud has descended over Haiti.

  The ouster of the democracy in Haiti has resulted in a signal being 
sent, not just to that nation, but also to the nations of the Caribbean 
and Latin America. Twenty-five years ago, you could have counted on the 
fingers of your hand the number of democracies in this hemisphere. 
Today, 1994, all nations in the Western Hemisphere live under the 
benefits of a democratic government except for Cuba and Haiti.
  Many of those democracies are new, fragile, vulnerable. In many of 
those democracies there sits in the barracks the son or grandson of the 
former President of that country. In many of those cases that son or 
grandson feels that he is superior to the person who has been elected 
by the people of their country, just as those generals in Haiti thought 
they were superior to the person that 67 percent of the people of Haiti 
elected.
  So as Haiti goes, we can expect other nations in our hemisphere to 
go. If the signal is sent and received that it is acceptable behavior, 
and that there will not be an effective international sanction against 
the ouster of a democratic government by a military coup, we are 
planting the seeds for a long summer of those kinds of military 
actions.
  There are consequences to what has happened in Haiti, in our own 
country. One of those consequences is the increased use of Haiti as a 
platform from which to ship drugs into the United States. Haiti has 
become an increasingly favored spot for the international drug cartel 
to run its traffic through, from South America to the United States. We 
are seeing the consequences in our streets, from the east coast to the 
west coast.
  We also see the effects of what has happened in Haiti in the 
increasing number of refugees. We had a surge of refugees in the period 
from late June to early July. The numbers are down now, but I believe 
we can anticipate a reemergence of the desire of Haitians to leave when 
they are able to get access to the materials to continue to build their 
boats, and when the climate makes it propitious again for them to go to 
the high seas.
  In my judgment, there are important national interests of the United 
States, national interests that are put more at risk by our willingness 
to accept the regime that is in Haiti, than the risks which are 
obviously entailed by committing the United States to a multinational 
effort to oust the regime in Haiti.
  It has been suggested that it is inappropriate to think that the 
restoration of a single person, President Aristide, to his position as 
President of Haiti will immediately bring democracy to that country. 
Obviously that overstates. But it is a prerequisite to the hard work 
that is going to have to be done, primarily by the Haitian people, but 
with partnership of the international community, in order to secure the 
benefits of a democracy in Haiti.
  I believe some of the steps that are going to be required in the 
aftermath of the restoration of President Aristide, and steps that will 
be made possible by his restoration, include the following:
  First, the establishment of a security capacity in Haiti which will 
be done through a U.N. Peacekeeping Corps, a corps which is currently 
being assembled.
  Second, political reform. A long agenda of political reform. At the 
top of that list will be a separation of the police function from the 
military function. Today, Haiti's Army also operates as its police. And 
it is through that organization that the people are terrorized and 
maintained in a state of subservience.
  I, personally, believe we have an opportunity now, while we have 
large numbers of refugees in safe havens such as at Guantanamo Naval 
Station, that we ought to be identifying those persons who can become 
the foundation of an independent police force for Haiti, and commence 
the training of those individuals. That would accelerate the time in 
which there would be a professional, democratic police capability for 
Haiti. That would, in turn, accelerate the time when the U.N. 
peacekeepers would be able to turn over security responsibilities.
  Three, there will be the need for economic reform--reform in the 
private sector which had provided a substantial amount of the 
employment base for Haiti, and in the public sector, such as rebuilding 
much of the shattered infrastructure in that country.
  Back a year ago when the Governors Island Accord was signed--and Mr. 
President, I point out signed both by President Aristide and by General 
Cedras. General Cedras' subsequent denial and withdrawal from that 
agreement is just one evidence of how unlikely it is that current group 
in control of Haiti is going to voluntarily turn over power--but during 
that period, the international community had committed $1.5 billion 
over the next 5 years to the economic rebuilding of Haiti. We need to 
assure that financial support will continue to be available in the 
period after the restoration of President Aristide.
  Those are some of the things that are going to have to happen and 
which can occur if President Aristide is restored, which will be 
necessary in order to deepen the roots of democracy in Haiti.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am almost at the conclusion and I will 
then yield.
  I would bring to the attention of the Senate that this debate we are 
having today, and I am certain we will have in future days, is a 
fundamental one in terms of U.S. policy in the post-cold-war era. It is 
fundamental in terms of how the United States is going to organize 
itself with the international community in order to effectively use 
force.
  I believe it is appropriate that the United States has worked through 
organizations such as the United Nations and the Organization of 
American States, to build an international consensus prior to 
unilateral action. I believe it is appropriate for the United States to 
recognize that we have a special responsibility in the Western 
Hemisphere, and thus events such as are occurring in Haiti have a 
resonance and a impact outside that immediate island nation.
  I hope out of this debate and the honest disagreements that are so 
clearly evident, that we would begin a process of restoring what was so 
fundamental to the United States in the period immediately after the 
last great war--not a cold war but the hot war of World War II. This 
Chamber had a spirit of bipartisanship. A U.S. Senator from Michigan, 
Republican, Arthur Vandenberg, joined with President Truman in 
fashioning what became the fundamentals of U.S. foreign policy for 
almost half a century. We need to begin to restore that spirit of 
bipartisanship because our Nation is going to be facing equally murky 
and difficult challenges in the next 50 years, as we faced in the last 
50 years. And we need to do it together as Americans.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Exon). The time of the Senator from 
Florida has expired. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New 
Hampshire for focusing our attention on what I think is a very 
important subject.
  In many of today's newspapers, there is a cartoon which I believe 
adequately sums up the situation in regard to Haiti. In the first four 
frames of the cartoon, we see a battle-ready clerk and his commanding 
officer running through items on a check list:

       Marine landing force? Check.
       Naval support group?, Check.
       Cooperation from Central American countries? Check.
       United Nations support? Check.

  The final frame shows the commanding officer and his assistant 
standing on the foredeck of a battleship in the midst of a full-blown 
U.S. invasion force:
  ``Can you think of anything else,'' asks the officer?
  ``Er . . . just one thing, sir,'' says the clerk. ``Why are we doing 
this?''
  Mr. President, the question is a good one. And while the cartoon may 
be amusing, the situation is not. The fact is there is no reason good 
enough to justify sending United States military men and women into 
Haiti. There is even less reason for even one of them to die while they 
are there.
  Yet, the action taken this week by the Clinton administration to 
actively seek United Nations approval for an armed United States 
invasion of Haiti is dangerous for other reasons as well.
  First, it is dangerous because it builds upon the flawed premise of 
Clinton foreign policy, that any conflict, wherever it might occur, 
poses a threat to U.S. national interests and is a wrong that must be 
righted, and that righting those wrongs is a policy that must be part 
of our national military and security strategy.
  Second, like Somalia and Bosnia, United States engagement in Haiti 
further reinforces the precedent--established for entirely different 
and justified reasons during the Persian Gulf war--that grants the 
United Nations Security Council the power to authorize military action, 
``as may be necessary'' against any nation that the United Nations 
deems ``a threat to international peace and security.''
  Third, it further undermines the ability of the United States to act 
unilaterally when our own national interest is at stake. And 
particularly in this case, when the country in question lies within our 
own hemisphere, it effectively discards the Monroe Doctrine which has 
guided United States policy for more than a century. Whether or not one 
agrees that the United States has such a vital interest in Haiti that 
we ought to send our troops there, a valid question must be raised and 
addressed as to whether or not the United States needs the cover of 
U.N. Security Council authorization to take such action.
  Fourth, it completely ignores the lessons of recent history with 
regard to vital national interest and the use of force.
  This is yet another example of how this administration uses foreign 
policy to pursue public relations rather than national security goals.
  And most importantly, Mr. President, it demonstrates that the 
President has not yet learned that it is not enough to successfully 
make his case in the world court if he has not yet made it credibly to 
the Congress and to the American people.
  Mr. President, I support this resolution offered by the Senator from 
New Hampshire. I think it is important that this Congress, that this 
Senate, go on record today in response to the misguided direction of 
the policy that is emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I yield back whatever time I have not used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New 
Hampshire for his leadership on this most important issue and pick up 
on what the Senator from Indiana just said.
  ``President Clinton, it is time to come to Congress.'' As the Senator 
from Indiana pointed out, the troops are ready, President Clinton has 
gone to the United Nations and asked for permission, obviously an 
abrogation of the Monroe Doctrine. Everything is in place, except the 
President has not come to Congress to ask for the authority for the 
invasion that we all know is coming.
  I suggest that President Clinton surely must have a rationale, a 
convincing rationale that he can make to the Congress of the United 
States to give him the authorization that clearly he needs prior to 
this invasion. There is no indication that there is any emergency; no 
indication American lives in Haiti are in danger. Clearly, this is a 
premeditated plan to invade Haiti. He has to come to Congress. He has 
asked everybody else, but not us. It is time, it is time, President 
Clinton; come up here and make your case to the representatives of the 
people of the United States so they can authorize or fail to authorize 
this imminent invasion.
  The Haiti policy today has only made matters worse. Just last month, 
policy flip-flops generated over 15,000 refugees. As Charles 
Krauthammer pointed out in a column on July 22, the refugee flows show 
a striking mathematical relationship between Clinton's ever changing 
asylum policies and the number of Haitians taking to their boats.
  That policy shift, as we all know, was in response to domestic 
political considerations. The first thing the President ought to do is 
lift the embargo because it is making poor people in Haiti more and 
more desperate and more and more likely to try to get to the United 
States, thereby exacerbating the problem.
  I will concede that it might be possible for President Clinton to 
establish a rationale for the invasion of Haiti, but I would like to 
hear it and I would like to say, as for this Senator, I will not rule 
out in advance listening to the President's argument. There are some on 
our side who do not believe an invasion of Haiti would be appropriate 
under any circumstances and would not be open to any argument that 
might be made.
  I for one am willing to listen. I am having a hard time thinking of 
what kind of rationale the President can make to convince me to support 
an authorization for the invasion of Haiti, but I am willing to listen.
  In any event, whether or not there is a compelling case to be made, 
the Constitution is clear. This is a premeditated, planned invasion. It 
requires congressional approval. The President, obviously, felt he 
needed U.N. approval. I question that. I do not know that we need to 
ask the United Nations for permission to have our own policy in effect 
in this hemisphere. We have not done that before, we should not do it 
now or in the future.
  Clearly, the President has to get a handle on what he has in mind. 
And what the Senator from New Hampshire is saying in this resolution, 
which will probably be adopted without opposition, is a statement of 
the obvious, but a very important statement: The United Nations does 
not determine what we do. Authorization from the United Nations does 
not get the job done, President Clinton. We are waiting. We are waiting 
for you to come up here with your rationale for this invasion.
  As for me, I am willing to listen to the argument, but it is long 
overdue. We have been watching this invasion build for months and 
months and months. We know it is coming. We suspect it is coming when 
we are not in session, and we in the Senate keep saying to the 
administration in every way we can: ``Don't you do that without our 
authorization.''
  Deputy Secretary Talbott has characterized the administration's 
recent policy shifts as ``refinements'' of an existing strategy rather 
than flip-flops and reversals.
  In May, responding to Randall Robinson's hunger strike, Clinton 
offered the possibility of asylum hearings to anyone who could make it 
to a U.S. ship.
  It should have come as no surprise when refugees began arriving at 
the rate of 1,000 a day.
  By July the policy veered course again and we began sending refugees 
to third countries. Haitians stayed home.
  I think Krauthammer had it about right when he said:

       These wild fluctuations in refugee flow are not a function 
     of Haiti's military repression--the repression continues 
     unabated--but of the prospect of admission to the Promised 
     Land. People genuinely in fear of their lives are not 
     terribly fastidious about where they are granted safe haven.

  The Haiti policy, like other foreign policy positions taken by the 
administration seem to be monuments to the mood of the moment--not 
enduring, principled, well-constructed edifices.
  We have all been disheartened by the perilous policy twists and 
turns--that may be policy refinement in the Clinton play book, but the 
public cannot understand his calls.
  As we creep closer and closer to the use of force, no one understands 
why.
  The administration now has the approval of the United Nations to use 
all necessary means to remove the coup leaders from power and no one 
understands why.
  I support this amendment because I believe the President needs to 
explain to the public and to the Congress just what the American 
national security interests are that could risk American lives.
  Right now, there is no clear consistent message.
  Vague official commentary about restoring democracy is overshadowed 
by internal criticism of the alleged symbol of democracy, Aristide.
  Concern about the consequences of a tidal wave of refugees is muddled 
by senior officials who understandably engage in public hand wringing 
over images of children starving.
  And, the talk of invasion, purportedly to protect American lives is 
rejected by the very Americans who the administration wants to save.
  I think Carl Rowan was right when he said he thought the President 
was about to invade because he didn't have the foggiest notion what 
else to do.
  We have been reduced to this option because we have squandered our 
credibility and forfeited our resolve in enforcing any other option.
  At the end of the day a few thousand poorly trained, barely armed 
thugs have terrorized a nation and intimated the United States.
  In public and private comments the military leadership in Haiti 
scorns the United States and speaks with contempt at the prospect of an 
invasion. Bravado? Maybe, but so far they have little reason to believe 
we are as good as our word.
  Mr. President, I have heard senior officials lament time and time 
again that the policy appears confusing because the situation is 
changing rapidly and new circumstances must be evaluated and addressed. 
They are feeling their way through troubled waters.
  The administration needs to chart a course and stick with it. Just as 
the public was skeptical about the Persian Gulf during the build up, 
when a clear message was consistently delivered, when the economic and 
political principles at stake were sharply defined, the American people 
supported President Bush.
  I believe they will support President Clinton if he gives them a good 
reason to. Right now, there are a lot of questions and no answers. This 
amendment will make sure that before we shed American blood we will at 
least know why.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Kentucky has 
expired. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from Kentucky, I 
think his remarks were excellent on that point. I think he makes a very 
good point, and one I think most of us can identify with and associate 
with.
  We all have to listen to a case being made, and if the case is made, 
then I think many of us are prepared to agree with that case if, in 
fact, a good case is made.
  I think the Senator's point--he can correct me if I am wrong--is the 
idea that we would somehow say, regardless of the point being made, 
what the facts are, what the circumstances are, under no 
circumstances--to me it would be a mistake.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield? What I said--I think the 
Senator heard me correctly--is that I, for one, am willing to listen to 
the rationale. Frankly, I am having a hard time conceiving of a 
rationale that would get my vote, but I do not rule it out in advance. 
I do not rule it out in advance.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I hope, I say to my friend from Connecticut, that we 
can convince the President that this premeditated act requires 
congressional approval in advance. I think he ought to be up here 
making the case. He might well get my vote.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes and forty-four seconds on 
the other side.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire. Also, 
I thank my friend in the chair.
  My problem with this entire Haiti matter, in all seriousness, is I 
think the problem of most Americans. And my problem is: I do not 
understand the President's willingness even to consider risking the 
lives of 10,000 U.S. servicemen for the very unwise purpose of trying 
to restore to office Haiti's deposed President Aristide, because that 
is an enigma. Not only is it a mistake, it is a puzzling mistake. How 
did he arrive at that sort of foreign policy decision?

  Now, I happen to be ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and I am baffled why the President continues to do this 
unless it is a political stroke trying to buy influence with a certain 
group of people--citizens in domestic America.
  Aristide is a man who has made clear his hatred for America. He is a 
man who has advocated mob violence. He is a man who has advocated 
necklacing of his political opponents. This man is not worth the life 
of even one American serviceman.
  At the same time, much has been said--and as Shakespeare put it, 
``typical mewling and puking''--about restoring democracy to Haiti. You 
hear it all the time, in the commentaries on television, on this floor, 
mainly as far as I know on the other side of the aisle. There has never 
been any democracy in Haiti unless you want to count the 19-year 
occupation by United States forces the previous time that a United 
States President sent troops into Haiti.
  Aristide did not rule democratically during his short tenure. He 
refused to renounce violence against his political opponents. And why 
any U.S. President would even consider placing American soldiers in 
harm's way under these circumstances for this man for this purpose is 
beyond me.
  As has been said over and over again here this morning, the 
administration has gone, hat in hand, to the United Nations to ask the 
permission of the U.N. Security Council to invade Haiti. But the 
President, as has been emphasized here, has not bothered to ask the 
approval of the United States Congress to go to war--and that is what 
it amounts to--against Haiti. For the past 3 weeks, the President's 
advisers have been running around the United Nations in New York City 
lobbying the Russians and lobbying the French for permission to invade 
Haiti, but the permission of Congress, which is required by the United 
States. Constitution, has not been sought.
  I may as well read it into the Record again. I am sure others have 
this morning. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is quite clear:

       The Congress shall have the power to * * * declare war.

  It does not say the President.

       The Congress shall have the power to * * * declare war.

  Very straightforward, not a syllable confusing or ambiguous in that 
constitutional provision. It does not imply, let alone assert, that any 
President can declare war, nor does it suggest that foreign bureaucrats 
at the United Nations in New York City can declare war using American 
troops. The Constitution asserts, and the Founding Fathers meant, that 
only Congress has the power and responsibility to declare war.
  So, Mr. President, the President of the United States and his 
advisers need to answer some questions before they risk the life of 
even one American in Haiti. First, the President has attempted to 
justify his invasion under the guise of a multilateral force, yet when 
the State Department officials were repeatedly asked this past 
Thursday, July 28, if there were any other nations that have agreed to 
participate, they could not identify even one other country willing to 
join the United States.
  So, Mr. President, there is no United States national interest, no 
United States security interest in Haiti. It is impossible to conceive 
any reason why the lives of American servicemen and women should be put 
at risk in Haiti. Haiti, having never had a democracy, obviously has no 
democracy to restore. And Americans should not be asked to risk their 
lives to reinstate a man so passionately anti-American as Mr. Aristide.
  So, Mr. President--and this time I am talking to the President of the 
United States. He is not listening of course, but I say to him, ``Don't 
do it, Mr. President. Don't do it. Don't invade Haiti.''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me just again reiterate points that I 
have made. I think that this amendment deserves support. I do not 
trivialize it at all, although I will say to those, like the authors, 
that clearly an action by the U.N. Security Council, as important as it 
may be in the context of building international support, should never, 
nor could it ever, constitute a decision to engage U.S. forces by the 
U.S. Congress or an American President.
  So I do not trivialize the debate, but I also think it needs to be 
stated clearly that no one I know of--and I am confident this amendment 
will be supported unanimously--I hope it will be--as it reads before 
us. But I also want to state to my colleagues that the point which 
needs to be emphasized here is not whether or not we are particularly 
enamored with some leader. There are plenty of examples around the 
globe where there have been democratically elected leaders that take 
actions of which we do not approve. We disagree with them. In fact, 
they have been hostile to our interests. But I do not know of anyone 
who has advocated that the process of democracy is less important than 
the individuals who have assumed positions of authority through that 
process.
  So whether or not my colleagues like Mr. Aristide, whether or not 
they believe he is a total friend of the United States or not, 
certainly may be interesting talking points but when it comes down to 
the fundamental issue of whether or not the people of Haiti have made a 
choice and done so democratically, everyone who looked at that election 
will tell you that election was a fair election; 70 percent of the 
people chose Mr. Aristide as their President.
  We also know that a coup, a successful coup, ousted Mr. Aristide from 
power and basically robbed that country of its first democratically 
elected leader in memory, if not in the history of Haiti. And so the 
question of Mr. Aristide's foreign policy or domestic policy is 
certainly noteworthy, I suppose, depending upon your point of view. But 
there is a larger fundamental question here, and that is whether or not 
we are just going to sit back and say that this can happen wherever and 
treat it as if it were a nonevent.
  Now, many of us here have objected over the last decades to the 
robbing of Cuba of a democratically elected government, and we have 
treated Cuba accordingly--the imposition of sanctions, years back even 
some efforts through covert activities to change the leadership of that 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would remind the Senator that he has 
used 3 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, but yet there is an example where democracy 
was hijacked in that country, been denied to the people of that nation 
since 1959, and yet we have not just sat back and said, ``Well, so be 
it.'' We have imposed sanctions. We have utilized our votes in 
international bodies, tried to build international support to isolate 
Cuba as a result of its practices.
  Why is it that we find ourselves taking almost diametrically opposed 
positions with two nations who are virtually the same distance from our 
own shores, where democracy has been denied in the case of one country 
by a group of military thugs and in the case of Cuba by Fidel 
Castro. It seems to me that we ought to try to apply some standards 
that are consistent. The President has gone to the international 
community to impose sanctions. I think all of us deplore what happened 
in Haiti when democracy was robbed in that country. I do not believe at 
all, nor do I think any other Member of this body believes that the 
President of the United States or any President for that matter is 
somehow salivating over the opportunity to invade Haiti--or any other 
nation for that matter--subjecting Americans to the potential of great 
hazard, if not death.

  So I hope that we would try to come together and speak with one voice 
at least about our concern over what is going on in Haiti. And then, 
when and if the President comes forward and asks for our support on the 
authorization to use force, we will debate that. Honest people here can 
and will disagree, and vote against such a resolution.
  I am hopeful this evening that the President when he has a major 
press conference and event will address this issue again--I am 
confident he will--and identify the rationale and the reasons why this 
issue is important. I mentioned them already; obviously the flood of 
humanity. We have 1 million citizens of this country of Haitian decent. 
Thousands more are seeking to come to this country because of political 
asylum.
  I would point out to my colleagues that prior to the departure of 
President Aristide that flow of humanity from Haiti to this country 
virtually stopped. People felt in Haiti there was some hope and some 
future. So for that reason, as well as the drug trafficking question, 
there are legitimate interests that our Nation has in what happens in 
this country some 95 miles off our shores.
  For those reasons, I hope this amendment will be agreed to, that we 
will have a good debate when, and if, that question comes up, and 
hopefully it will not, sanctions will work, the government will change, 
and the people who have stolen democracy will leave.
  With that, I urge adoption of this amendment, and hope my colleagues 
will listen to the President this evening and that they will find a 
clear rationale as to why this issue is important to all of us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Dole-Gregg 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, U.N. Security Council Resolution 940 does not 
constitute authorization for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces under 
article I of the Constitution or the War Powers Act.
  On Sunday, the Security Council voted 12 to 0 to authorize the United 
States multinational force to use all necessary means to drive out the 
military leaders in Haiti and return Aristide to power.
  I find it rather curious that we would have a U.N. vote but no U.S. 
vote. The resolutions that have passed have called on the President to 
seek congressional authorization before invading. If American interests 
are at stake and American lives will be risked, then the President 
should get our blessing, not the U.N. Security Council's.
  The President has said that he will not seek a vote by this 
legislative body because he is not sending troops into a war theater.
  I beg to differ with that interpretation. It would seem to me that we 
are sending troops into a situation where the potential for war is very 
real. We can expect some kind of opposition, and perhaps even guerrilla 
activities. So clearly it is appropriate that this body reflect on the 
President's intentions.
  It is a U.S.-led force of some 15,000 U.S. troops, U.S. defense 
funds, and U.S. objectives. No wonder the United Nations approved it 
unanimously.
  Why did the administration seek United Nation rather than United 
States authorization to invade Haiti? It is easier obviously to get 
U.N. support than U.S. support. The United States could make deals with 
the U.N. members to seek support. One deal that has been reported is 
that the United States and the United Nations quietly approved Russian 
troops in Georgia in exchange for Russian support of the United States 
invading Haiti. If that is inaccurate, I would like for somebody to 
deny it. What did we do for Oman or some of the other countries who 
voted ``yes,'' but who will not contribute one soldier or one dollar to 
our efforts?
  The President cannot make deals with the American people. He must 
earn their support for this operation fair and square. In my mind, he 
has yet to do so. I cannot understand why the administration has become 
obsessed with returning Aristide to power. Aristide's character and 
loyalty to America are certainly questionable. But the President seems 
willing to risk American lives to prop up Aristide's questionable 
regime.
  Congress may not give the President blessing to invade Haiti, but he 
should ask. At this point, this Senator would simply not support an 
open-ended U.S. mission to restore Aristide to power. U.N. Resolution 
940 indicates that the purpose of the mission will be to establish and 
maintain a secure and stable environment. The last time we were in 
Haiti for similar goals we were there for 19 years; from 1914 to 1933.
  The President himself said he would not send United States troops 
into Haiti on an ill-defined mission.
  ``I have no intention of asking our young people in uniform * * * to 
go in there to do anything other than implement a peace agreement. * * 
*''--October 13, 1993, White House remarks.
  He now appears to have changed his mind, a not uncommon occurrence 
down at the White House, after pressure from liberals in Congress and 
Aristide's lobby. That is not how our foreign policy should be set, Mr. 
President.
  The administration charges that Republicans are hypocrites because we 
have traditionally supported a strong Presidential hand in foreign 
policy. That is true. We have supported a strong hand. But when the 
hand is shaky--and I say it is shaky now--the Congress has a right to 
seek reassurance. As many have observed, we can easily put troops into 
Haiti. But when will they come home?
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have an 
additional 5 minutes on our side so I can accommodate the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dole-
Gregg amendment. I am deeply concerned about another U.N.-sponsored 
``nation-building'' exercise involving American military personnel in 
Haiti. In Haiti there is clearly no national security interest at stake 
to justify an invasion and the subsequent loss of life--both American 
and Haitian. Recently the Senate received a briefing on the 
administration's Haiti policy from the Secretaries of Defense and 
State, the National Security Advisor, and our Ambassador to the United 
Nations. It was clear from that briefing that Haiti represents no 
national security threat to the United States or this hemisphere. The 
only rationale they could offer for the use of United States armed 
force against Haiti is to remove an admittedly brutal and dictatorial 
military regime, and replace it with Mr. Aristide. But in fact, Mr. 
President, what the administration's national security team described 
is not a peace operation, but an act of war.
  It also concerns me deeply that the administration feels required to 
seek permission from the United Nations for this ill-considered 
invasion, but not from the American people, acting through their 
elected representatives--the Congress. It is the American people, not 
U.N. bureaucrats, who send their sons and daughters into the Armed 
Forces. It is the American people, not U.N. bureaucrats, who pay the 
heavy tax burden that supports this outstanding military establishment. 
It is the American people, not the United Nations, who will suffer 
bereavement and the tragedy of loss when their sons and daughters die 
in an invasion and occupation of Haiti. Above all, it is the American 
people, not the United Nations, to whom the President and his advisors 
must hold themselves accountable for the use of force.
  As Senator McCain has just pointed out, the administration appears to 
have learned nothing from the debacle in Somalia. Admittedly, Haiti is 
much closer than Somalia--it is in our own hemisphere. But the purpose 
of invading Haiti is still poorly defined and unjustified.
  Haiti is a nation with a long history of instability and violence. 
How can we justify risking American lives to restore democracy to a 
nation and people who have never known it, and perhaps are not capable 
of sustaining it? The President-elect, Father Aristide, may have 
received a majority vote in the last election, but he is still hated 
and distrusted by a large number of the people. What will happen if we 
restore him to power and his regime turns out to be violent and 
despotic, which was the case during the short time he last held power? 
If our soldiers and marines are forced to remain there to prop up 
another dictatorial regime, even one that masquerades in the trappings 
of democracy, our people will become targets, just as they did in 
Somalia.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge the administration not to send 
troops to Haiti without the prior authorization of Congress. If the 
case for invading Haiti is sufficient, then it will withstand 
congressional scrutiny, and through that process, the scrutiny of the 
American people. All Americans deserve answers to these questions, 
which the President has not adequately answered: Is the policy goal to 
be served by invading Haiti truly consistent with the national 
interests? What are the risks? What are the projected costs? Are there 
contingency plans to wage a long-term urban guerilla war? What are the 
plans to get out, and when?
  If the case for invading Haiti cannot withstand this kind of 
scrutiny, and if these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction 
of the American people, then we should not intervene in that 
unfortunate country. Otherwise, we may well find the tragedy in Somalia 
repeating itself in Haiti.

  I urge the Senate to support the resolution. I thank the Chair, and 
yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that additional cosponsors be added, 
including Senators Brown, Pressler, Lott, Coverdell, and Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I am pleased to have this chance to offer 
a brief statement on behalf of the Dole-Gregg sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment.
  I am gratified to hear my colleagues on both sides of the aisle speak 
on behalf of this amendment. It is a reasonable amendment, and it has 
been narrowly drawn so as to be unobjectionable. The substance of it is 
straightforward: it makes it very clear that we in the Senate do not 
view ourselves as obliged in any way in favor of the use of force by 
the recent U.N. action.
  While the substance of this amendment is not controversial, the 
concerns behind it are of great import. This Senate has already gone on 
record that we expect to be consulted before any use of force is 
authorized in Haiti. The recent action in the United Nations has 
prompted a great deal of speculation nonetheless that such an invasion 
is imminent, and that somehow the United States has signed off on this 
as the most appropriate course.
  I trust that this action today will make it abundantly clear to all 
observers that the United States has not approved any such action until 
the U.S. Senate has been consulted and approved it--excepting of course 
the latitude granted to the President at all times to act in the 
interest of our national security.
  So I am pleased that it appears that we will approve this measure. We 
should not have continued idle speculation that Congress will tacitly 
accept a military action in Haiti. Despite this amendment's simplicity, 
it puts the Senate squarely on record that these decisions will be made 
here in Washington, and not at the United Nations. I thank my 
colleagues and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the 
Senate minority leader.
  The proposition stated by the amendment is simply a statement of 
fact: that the U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of 
``all necessary means'' to restore the legitimately elected government 
in Haiti does not constitute authorization for the use of force under 
the Constitution of the United States or the war powers resolution.
  I would hope that every Member here agrees with that position.
  Three and one-half years ago, the argument was made that a U.N. 
Security Council resolution constitutes sufficient authority for the 
President to authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces.
  The Bush administration, an advocate of the monarchist view of 
Presidential power, asserted repeatedly that the President had legal 
authority to order such action without congressional assent. The 
President's mistaken interpretation of the Constitution was supported 
by many on the other side of the aisle who are now supporting this 
amendment today.
  Only at the last minute--a week before the invasion--did President 
Bush request congressional action. But even after the war, the 
President continued to claim that he ``didn't have to get permission 
from some old goat in the U.S. Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of 
Kuwait.''
  As was made clear during the congressional debate in January 1991, 
when it comes to the most solemn decision that a nation can make--to 
send women and men to fight and die for their country--a vote in the 
U.N. Security Council cannot substitute for a vote by the United States 
Congress.
  On this point, the Constitution is as clear as it is plain. While 
article II of the Constitution gives the President the power to command 
our troops, article I of the Constitution commits to Congress--and 
Congress alone--the power to decide if this Nation will go to war.
  This is not merely a question of policy--about which branch of 
Government is the wiser judge of the use of American military power. It 
is a fundamental question about constitutional authority and 
constitutional duty--a question of how this Government proceeds in 
exercising its power.
  There is simply no credible argument that the U.N. Security Council 
resolution provides legal authority to invade Haiti. First, there is 
the question of whether any treaty, including the U.N. Charter, could--
in effect--modify the Constitution's allocation of power to decide if 
the United States will go to war. I seriously doubt that the President 
and the Senate could, by treaty, take away the House's role in making 
this choice.
  Second, even if the President and the Senate could do so, is the U.N. 
Charter such a treaty? Again, the answer is probably not. The law that 
this Congress enacted in 1945 to implement the U.N. Charter--the U.N. 
Participation Act, states that ``nothing here shall be construed as an 
authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the 
Security Council * * * armed forces * * * in addition to the forces * * 
* provided for in a special agreement'' under article 43 of the U.N. 
Charter--and no such article 43 ``special agreement'' has ever been 
negotiated.
  Moreover, even if our ratification of the U.N. Charter did, in 1945, 
give the President additional powers to go to war under the U.N. 
Charter, Congress' enactment of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 
reversed that decision. Section 8(a) of that act provides that:

       Authority to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities * 
     * * shall not be inferred from any treaty heretofore * * * 
     ratified.

  And finally, even ignoring all of this, and instead assuming that the 
President could take the Nation to war as directed by the United 
Nations, the fundamental fact is that no U.N. resolution has directed 
him to do so. U.N. Security Council Resolution 940 provides only the 
authority for member States to use all necessary means to facilitate 
the departure from Haiti of the military leadership. It does not direct 
member States to do so. Thus, there is no treaty obligation on the 
President to use force in Haiti.
  The need for congressional authorization is not a legal nicety. The 
framers of the Constitution wanted Congress involved in this decision 
for two sound reasons: to balance power within our Government, and 
because congressional support is a sound barometer of a policy's 
wisdom, and a prerequisite of a policy's sustainability.
  The President will undoubtedly be urged by the lawyers in the 
executive branch to not concede that congressional authorization is 
required. I urge the President, for both legal and practical reasons, 
to resist that instinct, and seek congressional authorization of the 
use of force in Haiti.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would state that I am pleased that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle--who were for so many years 
attached to the monarchist concept of the war power--now seem prepared 
to take a new look at the Constitution and to remind themselves that 
Mr. Republican--Robert Taft--was right: There is a fundamental 
constitutional role for Congress in the decision to engage this Nation 
in warfare.
  Perhaps now, we have reached a ripe moment for reconsideration of the 
war powers issue. I have drafted a revision of the War Powers 
Resolution, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on a 
comprehensive overhaul of that statute.
  Mr. GREGG. I wish to thank all the Members who have come to the floor 
in support of this amendment, which I originally offered on Monday, and 
which is now being offered on behalf of myself and, obviously, the 
leader, Senator Dole.
  I would like to incorporate a statement I made on Monday into my 
statement today, and this will be much briefer. Essentially, this 
amendment establishes unequivocally, or states unequivocally, what 
should be obvious to all but does not appear to be obvious to this 
administration, which is that both the legal and the moral authority 
for the use of American force lies with the Congress and with the 
Presidency, but, most importantly, it lies with the people of the 
United States.
  Nowhere in our Constitution is the United Nations mentioned as the 
source of authority for the use of American force. Yet, what we see 
here is an administration and a President which has chosen to go to the 
United Nations in order to sanction an invasion, but has not been 
willing to come to this Congress to have such an invasion sanctioned. I 
think the reason is obvious: They cannot make a case to the American 
people which can justify a national interest which is so significant in 
Haiti that putting American lives at risk should occur. Therefore, they 
have decided to ignore us, to ignore this Congress, and to ignore the 
American people. This is a mistake. It is a very severe mistake 
because, clearly, if American lives are to be put at risk, the American 
people should be in support of that effort.
  This has been an administration which has spent too much time chasing 
its tail on the issue of foreign policy. This, unfortunately, becomes 
another example of that sort of confusion and mismanagement. This 
Congress has stated through a sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by 
myself, and then offered by the majority leader, that prior to an 
invasion the administration and President should come to this Congress 
and explain to us what are the national interests which are so severe 
and so great that American lives should be put in jeopardy through the 
use of force. What are the national interests? In addition, if we do 
invade, how do we get out? What is the plan for getting our people out? 
And what will be our role after the invasion?
  We know the history of Haiti, and it is not a pleasant one for our 
Nation, or for Haiti, for that matter, or in relationship to our 
Nation. The last time we invaded that nation, we stayed for 19 years. 
We clearly need to have a definitive statement from this administration 
as to, first, what is the national interest that is so great that it is 
willing to put at risk American lives? And, second, what is the plan 
for exit once entrance is made through the use of military force?
  None of this has been accomplished. Nowhere does it say that this is 
a government of the United Nations, by the United Nations and for the 
United Nations This is a Government of the people, by the people, and 
for the people. When the President of the United States undertakes the 
most severe responsibility of that Government, which is an act of war--
and clearly an invasion, a premeditated invasion such as this, is an 
act of war--then there is an obligation to follow the order of the 
society. And the order of the society in our Nation is set out by the 
Constitution in article I, which says that the right to declare war 
lies with the Congress. That right is being ignored.
  In addition, just the moral responsibility of our Nation and the way 
it works requires that the President come to the Congress and the 
American people and explain what it is that is so significant to our 
national interest that American men and women shall be asked to put 
their lives at risk. That is not being done.
  So this amendment, this sense of the Senate, is put forward in order 
to, once again, put a shot across the bow of this administration on the 
issue of the use of military force and to make it clear that, before 
they exercise that force, they need to come to this Senate and explain 
why. But, more importantly, they need to come to the American people 
and explain why.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2445 
offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So, the amendment (No. 2445) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now formulating a time agreement 
on the ethanol amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I just want to apprise my colleagues we 
are moving to the ethanol amendment. We are waiting to see if four 
Republicans will agree to our time agreement.
  Under the previous agreement, we would go to ethanol. I wonder if the 
Senator from Louisiana would mind if, during this momentary interim, I 
could clear my committee amendments without violating the agreement 
that ethanol really is the next business?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Not at all.


                      unanimous-consent agreement

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, with the exception of the 
following list of amendments I now send to the desk: page 22, lines 18 
through 25; page 60, line 7 beginning with ``and'' through line 21, 
ending with the colon; page 20, lines 14 through 19; page 24, lines 21 
through 23; page 41, line 12 through page 42, line 11, page 45, lines 
13 through 22; page 47, line 19 through page 48, line 11; page 49, 
lines 11 through 13; page 49, line 22; page 91, lines 4 through 9; and 
that the bill, as thus amended, be regarded for the purpose of 
amendment as original text, provided that no points of order shall have 
been considered to have been waived if the request is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendments were agreed to en bloc with the exception 
of: page 22, lines 18 through 25; page 60, line 7 beginning with 
``and'' through line 21, ending with the colon; page 20, lines 14 
through 19; page 24, lines 21 through 23; page 41, line 12 through page 
42, line 11; page 45, lines 13 through 22; page 47, line 19 through 
page 48, line 11; page 49, lines 11 through 13; page 49, line 22; page 
91, lines 4 through 9.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note the Republicans, the other side 
of the aisle, have been consulted when this was agreed to.
  I wish to note for our colleagues that Senator Gramm, for the 
Republican minority, is tied up in Whitewater. We are in close contact 
with his staff and we are working along those lines. His absence from 
the floor is an indication that he must perform another duty which is 
being present at the Whitewater hearings.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the procedural 
clearances, it would be my recommendation that Senator Johnston be 
allowed to lay down his ethanol amendment and at the closure of the 
Johnston speech, if we have a procedural arrangement, it would be 
offered at that time.
  I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is to--
  Ms. MIKULSKI. My unanimous-consent request is that the Senator from 
Louisiana be allowed to lay down his amendment and make his speech 
while we are waiting for the Republicans to clear but we do not slow 
ourselves down. When he finishes his speech, then we will have the UC 
to propound.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not think we need unanimous consent for that. We 
already have one so I can proceed.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I wanted to cover all the bases. I now yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 2446

 (Purpose: To impose a limitation on the use of funding to promulgate, 
     implement, or enforce an EPA regulation mandating a specified 
percentage market share for ethanol oxygenates in reformulated gasoline 
 and, in addition, to reduce funding for NASA procurement expenses by 
                              $39,300,000)

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator intend to offer the amendment 
to the bill or to the pending committee amendment?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. This is an amendment to the bill, and I ask unanimous 
consent that we temporarily lay aside the pending committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], for himself, Mr. 
     Bradley, Mr. Wallop, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2446.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     two new sections:
       Sec.   . No funds in this Act may be used to promulgate, 
     implement, or enforce any requirement that a specified 
     percentage of oxygen content of reformulated gasoline (as 
     required by 42 U.S.C. 7545(k)) come from renewable 
     oxygenates, such as that requirement proposed as ``Regulation 
     of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Oxygenate Requirement 
     for Reformulated Gasoline'' at volume 58 of the Federal 
     Register at pages 68343 through 68353.
       Sec.   . The budgetary resources provided to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration in this Act for fiscal 
     year 1995 for procurement and procurement-related expenses 
     are reduced by $39,300,000.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this amendment denies funds to enforce, 
during the period of this year, the ethanol mandate amendment. Since 
CBO declared that the first year it would take $20 million, we needed 
an offset, so we have taken an offset from the reinventing Government 
budgetary request which was sent up by the administration.
  They say that $59 million in budgetary resources for procurement and 
procurement-related expenses at the various agencies which comprise 
this budget is excess and, therefore, this amendment will not cut into 
the spending of any function under this budget.
  A couple of years ago, we passed the Clean Air Act amendments. Those 
Clean Air Act amendments made a requirement for oxygenates in 
reformulated gasoline. There are four possible kinds of oxygenates in 
reformulated gasoline.
  When the Clear Air Act was passed, it was determined in that Clean 
Air Act that you have a 2 percent oxygenate requirement for 
reformulated gasoline. In the debate that took place on the floor, it 
was clearly stipulated that any of the oxygenates which could qualify 
would be suitable to be used in that reformulated gasoline.
  Essentially, there are two oxygenates in competition. One is ethanol 
from corn; the other is [MTBE] methyl tertiary butyl ether, which is 
made from natural gas, either natural gas produced in the United States 
or produced in Canada, but, in any event, natural gas.
  So there was a natural competition at that time between natural gas 
and ethanol from corn. The Senate was very clearly and specifically 
told at that time that this amendment was fuel neutral; that the market 
would be able to make that determination as to which of these two 
oxygenates to use in order to meet the requirement of 2 percent 
oxygenates.
  In the meantime, the EPA has come up with a rule that is no longer 
fuel neutral that says next year, 1995, you must have 15 percent of 
those oxygenates to be ethanol and the next year it must be 30 percent 
to be ethanol. So, in effect, what we have here is a requirement to use 
a fuel which otherwise would not be used because it is not efficient in 
the market, because it cannot compete, because it costs the American 
taxpayer more, but a requirement by EPA to do that.
  Mr. President, I believe this is really a gigantic flimflam to the 
American public in five different ways, and let me tell you why I 
believe that is so.
  First of all, the American public is not being told what the cost of 
this amendment is. According to [CBO] the Congressional Budget Office, 
this amendment will cost $249 million over a period of 5 years, cost to 
the budget, and these are the figures that come from CBO.
  In terms of highways, the highway user fund will cost $545 million, 
according to the Committee on Taxation. So that these figures from the 
highway trust fund will mean less money for the highways of every 
single State in this Nation.
  Understand, Mr. President, that this cost to the highway trust fund 
is on top of a yearly cost of $550 million which is now being charged 
to the highway trust fund because of the 54 cents a gallon subsidy for 
ethanol at the present time. So what you end up with is a subsidy for 
ethanol paid for by the highway users of every State in this Nation of 
$1 billion a year. More than $1 billion a year.
  You would think that ethanol, which in the past 10 years has received 
a subsidy of $4.6 billion, that that would be enough to make a 
noncompetitive fuel competitive. But it is not, and this is an 
additional subsidy for the highway trust fund.
  I ask my colleagues to look at this chart to determine how much each 
of the States is being impacted by the highway trust fund. Just look. 
Here is California, $51 million less from the highway trust fund in 
order to support this rule of the EPA.
  A second way that I believe this is a flimflam to the American public 
is it is being promoted as being good for the environment.
  Mary Nichols, who is the Assistant Administrator of EPA, whose 
regulation this is, who is head of Air and Radiation at EPA, testified 
at our committee hearing in the Energy Committee:

       We are not claiming any air quality benefits as a result of 
     this proposal. There's nothing you can really point to in the 
     Clean Air Act that says ``We give EPA authority to establish 
     a renewables requirement.''

  Two points in what Mary Nichols says. First, there is no air quality 
benefit provided for in the EPA rule and, second, she admits that there 
is nothing in the law that authorizes them to do it.
  Third flimflam, Mr. President, is that it is being promoted as 
renewable energy, renewable energy that is American energy and, 
therefore, it is going to reduce oil imports. Not so. Argonne National 
Laboratory was asked to do a study for EPA, and Argonne concluded as 
follows:
       It is clear there will be increases in oil use associated 
     with the ROS.

  (Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Let me repeat that, Madam President.

       It is clear there will be increases in oil use associated 
     with the renewable oxygenate standard.

  Overall fossil energy use they say:

       The percentage decrease [in overall fossil fuel use] 
     associated with the use of ethanol and ETBE--

  ETBE of course, is made from ethanol--

       only range from about one-half to one percent.

  These two quotes appear in conflict because this says it will 
increase oil use and this says it will decrease overall fossil energy 
use about one-half to 1 percent. That is because natural gas, which is 
a fossil fuel, is used in the making of MTBE, which is the competing 
product.
  According to the Department of Energy, Madam President, the mandate 
will increase imports--imports--by roughly 1 percent. It will increase 
imports by 76,180 barrels per day and add $1.5 million to the daily 
import bill, or a total increase in oil imports of $547 million per 
year.
  Let me repeat that, Madam President. There will be more oil imports 
as a result of what EPA does rather than less oil imports. There will 
be no cleanup of the air and more oil imports.
  Now, how about agriculture, Madam President? We are all for 
agriculture. We romanticize about the American farmer.
  Now, the problem is, Madam President, the American farmer is actually 
hurt by this because it will increase the cost of corn, or the price of 
corn, according to DOE, by some 4 to 6.7 cents per bushel, but that 
increase in cost to livestock and poultry farmers will increase their 
cost by $208 million a year to $348 million a year. In other words, if 
you raise the price of corn, then those who raise chickens and 
livestock, et cetera, will have to pay another $208 to $348 million a 
year.
  Now, the net cost to farmers is some $80 to $134 million a year if 
you assume that cost is not passed on to consumers.
  Now, how could this be? Well, there is a net cost to farmers, because 
all of that money does not go to the corn farmer. Rather, the corn 
farmer gets less support payments, so that the corn farmer does not get 
all of the 4 to 6.7 cents per bushel increase, but the livestock feeder 
and the poultry feeder have to pay the full cost. So that farmers in 
this country are actually suffering a net deficit from this amendment, 
which is supposed to be a farm amendment.
  Madam President, how was it that a moment ago when I said that 
imports are increased, the air quality is not improved? That sounds 
counterintuitive. We do know that to burn an oxygenate, whether it be 
MTBE or ethanol, makes for a better gasoline, of course, than the 
regular gasoline, but why is it that this rulemaking requiring ethanol 
results in dirtier air and more imports?
  Very simple. It is because to produce a gallon of ethanol it takes 
more fossil fuel energy, more Btu's than you produce. According to the 
Department of Agriculture in a letter to DOE, they say it takes 75,000 
to 95,000 Btu's for a gallon of ethanol, and yet the gallon of ethanol 
produces only 76,000 Btu's. So that you actually lose Btu's used in 
fossil energy in order to produce this gallon of ethanol.
  Madam President, the consumer is particularly impacted. I see my 
colleague from California in the chair. California is one of those 
States particularly impacted. According to the American Petroleum 
Institute, the price of gasoline in the impacted area, that is, 13 
States and the District of Columbia, which either are in the 
nonattainment area or have opted into the rule, constitute collectively 
one-third of the market. And the price of gasoline is to go up 2 to 6 
cents per gallon. If you average that out, it is about 4 cents a gallon 
increase in gasoline.
  Now, Madam President, we had a tremendous debate with a huge amount 
of heat and light here earlier this year on the question of the 4.3 
cents per gallon increase in taxes in order to pay off the deficit--a 
huge debate. And many Senators decried the effect upon consumers. And 
yet in this measure, hidden within all the great talk about farmers and 
renewable energy and solar energy and reducing dependence and all of 
those false arguments, is an increase in cost of gasoline to one-third 
of the consumers in this country, principally on the east coast, all up 
and down the east coast as well as the west coast--a third of the 
gasoline market, an increase of 2 to 6 cents a gallon, call it 4 cents 
a gallon.
  Not only that, but you can bet that the consumer is going to have to 
pay the cost of that increase in corn prices, in their corn flakes, in 
their corn meal, in their Fritos, in their you name it. The all-
American consumer is going to have to pay.
  Now, Madam President, I said this is a flimflam in five different 
ways because the cost is not talked about, because the environment is 
not helped, because oil imports are increased rather than decreased, 
because consumers are not helped. To the contrary, consumers are hurt. 
But, finally, it is a flimflam, Madam President--and I hate to use that 
strong a word--because the amendment which is said to authorize this 
EPA regulation was specifically sold to this Congress as being fuel 
neutral.
  I participated in that debate, Madam President. I was one of the 
skeptics. In fact, I opposed the amendment to the Clean Air Act which 
is said to authorize this amendment. I do not believe it does, and I 
hope and expect that the court will declare it to be illegal. I have 
all of the congressional debate that took place at that time.
  But, Madam President, just to take one of the quotes. This one is 
from my good friend and great ally on most things, the distinguished 
Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] who said:

       Our amendment does not lock refiners into any particular 
     fuel composition. Refiners can decide how they want to get 
     octane without toxic aromatics. They can decide how to 
     achieve the oxygenate standard.

  Madam President, I have a whole folder full of quotes from my good 
friends. And, listen, I stand in admiration of my good friends from the 
farm States. As I told them, if they win this--and I hope and expect 
that they will not--they ought to give me a medal for having made them 
heroes in their farm States.
  Can you imagine, Madam President, if the oil States came in and said, 
``Look, we need $1 billion a year to support oil. We want you to do it. 
It will not cost your consumers but 4 cents a gallon increase in the 
cost of gasoline. It will not cost you but $1 billion a year from the 
highway trust fund.''
  It will not cost you much at the supermarket for higher prices of 
corn products. It is also going to cost $249 million in the budget, and 
it is not going to improve oil imports. It is not going to clean up the 
air. But we want you to do it for us. They would laugh at me, but yet 
they have been able at least so far to convince EPA to do it.
  Madam President, why is it that API says it is going to increase the 
cost of gasoline by 12 to 6 cents a gallon? Call it 4 cents, and split 
the difference. It is because ethanol is much more difficult and 
expensive to use than is MTBE. You see, MTBE can be put in the pipeline 
and inexpensively transported. Ethanol cannot be put in the pipeline 
because ethanol, which is a very toxic substance by the way, absorbs 
water. And there is water in these pipelines. So you cannot use the 
pipeline.
  By the way, a pipeline is 30 times less expensive than trucking. They 
are going to have to truck ethanol into the markets. So that you are 
going to have to pay a transportation increment for shipping ethanol to 
these various centers. At present, all of the refineries are located 
mostly on the west coast and east coast, some in the Midwest. But by 
and large, the refineries are located on the east and west coasts where 
they bring in much of the imported oil by boat.
  They also have pipelines from the producing areas which go into the 
areas where the refineries are located. The gasoline is then 
manufactured, or as is the MTBE from natural gas, and blended pretty 
well at close to the markets in which it is produced.
  Madam President, when it comes to ethanol, the difference is that you 
are going to have to ship the ethanol from the Midwest to the 
Northeast, and to the Midwest where the corn is produced, ship it to 
California, and ship it to the east coast. How do you get it there? You 
cannot use the pipelines. So you are going to have to truck a very 
large percentage of this which is, as I say, 30 times more expensive 
than shipping by pipeline.
  That is why, along with the fact that you do not have the facilities 
to store it, you also have to have separate facilities to store the 
ethanol because you cannot store it with any other petroleum products. 
And you are going to have to have blending facilities closer to the 
consumer. You will not be able to blend as you would blend gasoline at 
the present time at the refinery. You are not going to be able to do 
that. You are going to have to go downstream closer to the consumer 
where they do not presently have these blending facilities. That is why 
the cost is going to be so much greater.
  Madam President, I do not know how Senators from areas that do not 
produce corn can be for this amendment. For example, some of my 
colleagues are from areas that produce a lot of chickens. The State of 
Louisiana produces a lot of chickens. We are going to be feeding that 
corn to chickens. It is going to directly impact the chicken producers. 
It is going to directly impact my highway users. That is why the 
Highway Users Association is so very strongly against this amendment.
  So, Madam President, to summarize very quickly, this amendment has 
huge costs to the economy, $249 million according to CBO in the next 5 
years, huge costs to the Highway Trust Fund, $545 million according to 
the Committee on Taxation, which has already added to $550 million a 
year to support the, 54-cents-a-gallon subsidy on ethanol.
  It does not help the environment. Indeed, EPA affirmatively, 
specifically, literally said, ``We are not claiming any air quality 
benefits as a result of this proposal.'' ``We are not claiming any air 
quality benefits,'' so says EPA.
  On oil imports, DOE says it is clear there will be an increase in oil 
use associated with this amendment. For consumers, we have a 2-to-6-
cents--call it 4 cents increase in costs to one-third of the gasoline 
users in this country. For corn users, we have a 4-to-6.7-cents-per-
bushel increase in the cost of corn, according to the EPA which is 
going to be a net loss to farmers.
  Consider the corn farmer, consider the cattle feeder, the chicken 
feeder, the hog feeder, et cetera. Put it all together--and for 
agriculture--and it comes out with a net loss to American agriculture 
of $80 to $134 million a year.
  Finally, Madam President, the amendment to the Clean Air Act, which 
supposedly gave authority to do this, to come up with this EPA 
regulation, was so specifically, and affirmatively, and literally, to 
this Senate as being fuel neutral. ``Our amendment does not lock 
refiners into any particular fuel composition.''
  What EPA proposes to do is exactly diametrically opposite from what 
the Senate was told. We were sold a pig in a poke, Madam President. I 
hope the court does not let EPA get away with that. And I certainly 
hope the Senate of the United States is not foolish enough to turn its 
back on its own words, and to settle for its consumers, its budget, and 
its Highway Trust Fund, for this huge new subsidy for ethanol refiners.
  I yield the floor.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 6 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Johnston and 
Harkin, or their designees, on the Johnston amendment No. 2446; that at 
6 p.m., Senator Mikulski be recognized to move to table the amendment; 
that if the amendment is not tabled, there then be 10 minutes for 
debate equally divided between Senators Harkin and Johnston on a motion 
to invoke cloture on the Johnston amendment, to be followed immediately 
after the tabling vote, with the mandatory live quorum waived; that if 
cloture is invoked, the Senate, without any intervening debate, vote on 
the Johnston amendment; that if cloture is not invoked, the Johnston 
amendment be withdrawn; that the amendment not be divisible; that no 
amendments be in order to the Johnston amendment or to any language 
that may be stricken by his amendment; and that no other amendments on 
the subject of ethanol be in order to H.R. 4624.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation. I thank the Republican leader, the managers of the bill, 
and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana, as always is the case, has eloquently described the case for 
this amendment, and said at one point, ``I do not understand why States 
that do not grow corn would support this.''
  It is a relevant question for any proposal. I must say, why would I 
support something that does not directly, I mean absolutely directly in 
every single case, have an immediate positive impact upon my 
congressional district or upon my State?
  That is a very relevant question.
  Typically what happens is we say we are also U.S. Senators. In 
addition to voting for what is just immediately in our interest, we try 
to consider what is in the national interest. We do that for disaster 
aid. We do that for the purpose of trying to promote and develop our 
own oil and natural gas industry, for maintaining as well our own 
merchant marine, our own ability to move products on U.S. bottoms. 
There are lots of reasons that this policy is a good policy.
  I would like to talk just a little bit about why I say with great 
respect the Senator from Louisiana--and he used the word ``flimflam.'' 
I honestly believe quite the opposite. I honestly believe, in fact, 
that the five arguments made here fit into the category as well. I say 
that with great respect.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record first a letter from 
the Environmental Protection Agency indicating that this proposed rule 
is in fact fuel neutral.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I understand a question has come up 
     as to whether the Environmental Protection Agency's renewable 
     fuels rule violates the reformulated gasoline regulatory 
     negotiation agreement. Since the provisions of the renewable 
     fuels rule were not covered by the negotiated agreement, the 
     renewable fuels rule in no way violates that agreement. It 
     does add to the program outlined in that agreement.
       Furthermore, the renewable fuels rule does not violate the 
     principle of fuel neutrality. Any fuel made from renewables 
     (including for example methanol produced from landfill gases) 
     would qualify. The negotiated agreement did not address fuel 
     neutrality in the context of renewable vs. nonrenewable 
     oxygenates.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Richard D. Wilson,
                               Director, Office of Mobile Sources.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a detailed statement that explained that 35 States are 
not even affected by the Highway Trust Fund. This would not affect 
every single State.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Highway Trust Fund/Federal Budget

       Statement: The ROS will drain the Treasury and the Highway 
     Trust Fund of hundreds of millions annually.
       First, estimates of the impact to the HTF have been greatly 
     exaggerated by the oil industry and intended to mislead 
     people into believing that highway funding in all states will 
     be affected. It will not. Only areas marketing reformulated 
     gasoline, approximately one-third of the nation's fuel, will 
     be affected at all. Fully 35 states will be unaffected by RFG 
     or the ROS, and will realize NO impact on their highway 
     construction dollars.
       Even in those areas that will be affected, however, the 
     impact has been greatly overstated. In the first year, when 
     only 15% of RFG must blend with renewable oxygenates, the new 
     demand for ethanol will be approximately 160 million gallons 
     (approximately 180 million gallons are already being sold in 
     ozone nonattainment areas). Thus, the maximum impact to the 
     HTF would be $86 million, which assumes that only ethanol 
     blends are used during the non-VOC control season. But 
     because ETBE will be used during the 5-month VOC control 
     period and ETBE use does not affect the HTF, the actual 
     impact on the HTF will be far less--approximately $50 
     million. In fact, when the summer-time use of ETBE is 
     considered, the new demand for ethanol created by the ROS 
     would have only an infinitesimal impact on the HTF.
       The HTF currently enjoys an $11 billion surplus. Annual 
     payments to the HTF exceed $16 billion. Thus, the potential 
     impact to the HTF resulting from implementation of the ROS is 
     less than 1/tenth of one percent of available HTF revenues, 
     and less than 3/tenths of one percent of the current surplus 
     alone.
       Second, it is important to note that an individual state's 
     highway fund allocation is not necessarily effected by a 
     state's contribution to the HTF. Under the complex formula 
     for allocating highway dollars, only those states that are in 
     a minimum allocation situation would be affected by reduced 
     HTF contributions (approximately 30 states). According to the 
     1994 Federal Aid Highway Program Apportionments, states that 
     will be using RFG, but which will be unaffected by reduced 
     HTF revenues include:

          States Whose Highway Funds Are Unaffected by the ROS

       Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, Rhode Island, 
     Illinois, New York, District of Columbia, and Massachusetts.
       Importantly, these states, particularly Illinois, represent 
     the most likely areas where ethanol will be sold. Renewable 
     Oxygenates sold in these states will generate ROS credits 
     that can be used in other areas, meaning that the ultimate 
     impact on federal highway funding will be further mitigated.
       Finally, and most importantly, the ROS will actually 
     decrease the federal budget deficit by reducing farm program 
     costs and increasing rural income. A recent analysis by the 
     USDA concludes that the ROS will save more than $2.2 billion 
     over the next 5 years. This recent analysis is consistent 
     with a prior report by the General Accounting Office which 
     concluded that savings to the federal government resulting 
     from the increased production and use of ethanol would be 
     between $480 and $610 million annually.
       Opponents of the ROS have alleged that a CBO analysis 
     concludes the ROS will increase budget outlays over the next 
     several years. But this analysis was prepared in response to 
     a very specific request using assumptions that are not 
     realistic. Specifically, the CBO figure cited assumes that 
     USDA adjusts the ARP to hold grain prices at 1994 levels, 
     meaning that farm income falls because of reduced demand for 
     grain used in ethanol production. USDA has clearly stated 
     that this is an unrealistic and unwise assumption, and stands 
     by its budget projection of $2.2 billion in government 
     savings.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The EPA, by saying the amendment is fuel neutral, is 
underlining what Mary Nichols said is no improvement.
  Mr. KERREY. I say, with respect to the Senator, that the proceeding 
at which Mary Nichols appeared was basically a hearing designed to 
prove that this rule should not be adopted. She has been quoted several 
times since then saying that there is good reason to believe that this 
is good environmental policy. This is a single quote. The EPA would not 
propose this rule if they believed it was bad for the environment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. But it does not improve air quality, according to Mary 
Nichols.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, we can always pull a quote from somebody 
and put it up on a board and make it look like official Government 
policy. The Environmental Protection Agency policy is that this rule 
will improve air quality. They would not propose this if it did not.
  I say, with all due respect, that the Mary Nichols quote was 
delivered at an Energy and Environment hearing that was basically 
rigged to show that this would be a bad policy to put in place.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. As long as we are talking about revenues to highways--and 
I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Nebraska--I have here a 
letter to me dated today from the U.S. Department of Transportation. It 
says:

       You have asked about the Department of Transportation's 
     position on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed 
     Renewable Oxygenates Rule for reformulated gasoline and its 
     potential effect on the Highway Trust Fund.
       We support the proposal * * *
       While revenues to the Highway Trust Fund would be reduced 
     by the Renewable Oxygenates Rule, DOT does not anticipate a 
     change in distributions to States under authorizations 
     provided in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991, due to the obligation ceiling established in 
     law.

  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of 
           Transportation,
                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: You have asked about the Department of 
     Transportation's (DOT) position on the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's proposed Renewable Oxygenates Rule for 
     reformulated gasoline and its potential effect on the Highway 
     Trust Fund.
       We support the proposal and the use of alternative fuels as 
     a way to partially address the Nation's air quality, energy 
     conservation, and balance of payments problems.
       While revenues to the Highway Trust Fund would be reduced 
     by the Renewable Oxygenates Rule, DOT does not anticipate a 
     change in distributions to the States under authorizations 
     provided in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-240) due to the obligation ceiling 
     established in law.
       If there is any additional information I can provide, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                Stephen H. Kaplan,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. HARKIN. The point by the Senator from Nebraska is that they say 
they do not anticipate any change in distributions to States.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, that is as a result of the ceilings, not as a 
result of----
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. Next, I ask that a letter of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: This letter responds to your request 
     for clarification of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
     policy for setting the annual percentage required for the 
     Acreage Reduction Program (ARP). You have asked me to address 
     this issue in the context of the Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO) estimates of Federal outlays associated with the 
     amendment sponsored by Senator Johnston.
       The CBO has concluded that a permanent suspension of the 
     renewable oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline 
     would reduce farm program outlays by $250 million. Thus, 
     reducing the demand for ethanol, which is primarily produced 
     from corn in the U.S., will reduce deficiency payments to 
     corn producers. However, history indicates that a drop in 
     demand, such as lower exports or industrial use of farm 
     output, lowers farm prices and increases deficiency payments. 
     A prime example is the embargo on grain shipments to the 
     Soviet Union in the early 1980's or more recently the drop in 
     exports to the Former Soviet Union.
       CBO's analysis of a permanent suspension of the renewable 
     oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline is based on 
     an incorrect perception of how the USDA operates the corn 
     price and income support program. CBO assumes that the USDA 
     makes infinitesimal changes in ARP's to maintain a particular 
     price objective for corn. Thus, if demand declines, USDA 
     raises the ARP just enough to keep price unchanged from the 
     ``budget baseline'' projection. The higher ARP reduces the 
     incentive to participate in the annual program for corn, 
     since producers must idle more land to participate and a 
     higher ARP lowers the acreage eligible for deficiency 
     payments. With prices unchanged and fewer producers and fewer 
     acres eligible for payments, CBO concludes that lower demand 
     for corn caused by a permanent suspension of the renewable 
     oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline will reduce 
     total deficiency payments to corn producers.
       USDA does not operate the corn program in the manner 
     assumed by CBO. Historical data and the Department's baseline 
     projection clearly indicate the Department does not make 
     through 1999/2000. Over the same time period, the price of 
     corn is projected to range from $2.25 to $2.35 per bushel. If 
     the Department operated the corn program as assumed by CBO, 
     the corn price would be projected to be unchanged over the 
     period and the corn ARP would vary from year-to-year.
       History also indicates that the Department does not make 
     infinitesimal changes in the ARP for corn. Since 1985, the 
     ARP for corn has ranged from 0 to 20 percent. Over the 10-
     year-period from 1985/86 through 1994/95 the corn ARP was 
     announced at 20 percent in 2 years, 17.5 percent in one year, 
     10 percent in 4 years, 7.5 percent in one year, 5 percent in 
     one year, and 0 percent in one year. These data further 
     confirms that the Department sets the ARP for corn at 
     discrete levels with changes being in increments of at least 
     2.5 percentage points, rather than making infinitesimal 
     changes in ARP levels to meet a particular price objective.
       In setting the ARP, the Department has historically taken 
     into account a number of factors including the previous 
     year's corn price, the level of stocks, and the potential 
     effects on farm income and program outlays. An increase in 
     ARP's reduces farm income because the loss in deficiency 
     payments and production from idling more land exceeds the 
     added income generated by higher prices and the saving in 
     production expenses from idling additional land. 
     Consequently, a modest increase in stocks or reduction in 
     price would not lead to an increase in ARP level if that 
     would aggravate the drop in farm income.
       In reality, USDA considers all of these effects when ARP 
     decisions are made. My experience tells me that USDA would 
     never make a policy change like the one assumed in the CBO 
     analysis. That is why the letter I recently wrote you 
     contains different estimates of Federal outlays than does CBO 
     analysis.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Keith J. Collins,
                         Acting Assistant Secretary for Economics.

  Mr. KERREY. It goes directly at the point of my distinguished 
colleague and friend from Louisiana that this is going to cost taxpayer 
money. In fact, the USDA would not adjust their base policy, as CBO 
indicated. CBO has based their estimates of cost to the taxpayers upon 
their belief that the USDA would take a certain action. They have not 
taken this kind of action in the past. The USDA is saying they would 
not take it in the future. Thus, the cost to the taxpayer, which was on 
the board of the Senator from Louisiana, simply would not occur.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters of local chambers of 
commerce be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 Greater York Area


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                          York, NE, July 28, 1994.
     Mr. R. Bruce Josten,
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Josten. It has come to our attention that the U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce has chosen to support the Johnston/
     Bradley amendment as it relates to Renewable Oxygenate 
     Requirements. Obviously, a great deal of research and effort 
     went into the regulations recently released by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the use of 
     ethanol as an alternative fuel. This amendment is seen by us 
     as a slap in the face to the EPA.
       As a U.S. Chamber member, we wish to express our concern 
     over the Chamber's actions to support the Johnston/Bradley 
     amendment. It is our opinion that this amendment is another 
     attempt by large petroleum companies to ``buy'' legislation 
     at the expense of America. The York Chamber is in no way one 
     of the ``3,000 state and local Chambers of Commerce'' 
     mentioned in one of your letters to Congressional leaders 
     supporting the Johnston/Bradley amendment.
       The benefits of using ethanol as a renewable energy source 
     are obvious to us. Nebraska currently has $500 million in 
     investment in ethanol plants/facilities. Obviously, we have 
     many jobs at stake. The future of rural America may truly 
     depend upon the future of ethanol.
       The future of our environment may also hinge upon the use 
     of alternative fuels such as ethanol. Studies have continued 
     to show that the use of alcohol-based fuels will be less 
     detrimental to our environment than petroleum-based products. 
     Please do not let the special interests of large petroleum 
     companies hinder the rejuvenation of rural America or the 
     destruction of our environment. Again, I would ask the U.S. 
     Chamber to reconsider their decision to support the Johnston/
     Bradley amendment. We all have a stake in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard J. Baier,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                     Columbus Area


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                      Columbus, NE, July 29, 1994.
     Re Your recent letter to members of Congress regarding the 
         Johnston/Bradley amendment to H.R. 4624

     R. Bruce Josten,
     Senior Vice President, Membership, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Bruce: Our community would definitely be positively 
     affected by acceptance of mandates for a market share of 
     ethanol and in our opinion, so would the country. We want to 
     voice our strong support for the Renewable Oxygenate Standard 
     (ROS) and express our opposition to any amendments to the 
     appropriations bill that would deny funding for this vital 
     economic program. We do not agree with the U.S. Chamber's 
     opposition to the ROS.
       Columbus is the home of Minnesota Corn Processors, an 
     expansion of a cooperative first located in Marshll, 
     Minnesota and will soon be grinding 200,000 bushels of local 
     corn a day in production of ethanol, corn starch, corn syrup 
     and fructose. This plant has been a tremendous boon to local 
     farmers, and supporting industries, in the Columbus area.
       This program will increase rural income, continue to 
     increase our industrial base, and provide jobs in communities 
     such as ours. We urge the U.S. Chamber to consider positions 
     from Chambers and communities such as ours when deciding a 
     position on such legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                           Dale Collinsworth, CCE,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Mr. KERREY. I could get many more letters saying basically that this 
is going to be good for our economy and that we disagree with the U.S. 
Chamber, and we wish they would consult at the local level.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that an article be printed in the 
Record from Congressional Daily.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

           Legislators Continue Push For Oil and Gas Credits

       A group of Senate and House members from areas with oil and 
     gas interests continued to argue the need to aid the ailing 
     domestic industry today, and voiced optimism that momentum is 
     building for action this year. The members, many of whom 
     recently met with President Clinton to present a series of 
     proposals on the issue, said Clinton has sent a positive 
     signal, particularly on assisting marginal wells and on 
     working to lift a ban on exporting crude oil from Alaska's 
     North Slope. Deputy Energy Secretary Bill White said a high 
     level administration meeting Friday will focus on Alaska, 
     investigating ways around international legal hurdles. A plan 
     pushed by Alaska and California members--lifting the ban and 
     requiring the oil be shipped on U.S. vessels--has raised 
     questions of trade violations. White said he is hopeful of 
     finding a resolution.
       ``I feel the mood is good,'' said Senate Energy and Natural 
     Resources Chairman Johnston, referring to the prospects for 
     his bill, which would provide royalty relief for some 
     marginal wells in the Outer Continental Shelf. Johnston, who 
     attached the royalty measure in his hardrock mining reform 
     proposal now being considered in conference, said he believes 
     mining reform cannot pass without it. Rep. Bill Brewster, D-
     Okla., described a proposal being discussed to allow tax 
     credits if oil prices drop below a certain level. He said 
     members are working toward achieving a plan with 
     administration approval before introducing legislation.

  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, this is an article headlined 
``Legislators Continue To Push for Oil and Gas Credits.''
  It is a reporting of a news conference that the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana had, asking that royalties be waived and that perhaps 
some additional credits be given to the oil and gas industry.
  Madam President, to the statement made by the Senator from Louisiana, 
``I do not understand why States who do not grow corn would support 
this,'' the answer is simple: This would create American jobs. Most of 
the new methanol that will be produced to satisfy the reformulated gas 
program will create jobs in Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates. The 
fuel produced by ethanol will create jobs in the United States--2,200 
jobs were created in the State of Nebraska in 1993 alone, with none of 
that money being invested by Archer Daniels Midland, which is typically 
pillarized as the enemy in all this.
  Second, it is good for the taxpayer. CBO required the Senator from 
Louisiana to come up with a $30 million offset because it costs 
taxpayer money.
  Third, it is good for farmers who are trying to provide market-based 
income because it will increase the market-based price for agriculture 
products.
  Last, Madam President, it is good for the environment. The EPA would 
not support this; the Clinton administration, President Clinton and 
Vice President Gore, would not support this rule if it was not good for 
the environment.
  I urge my nonforeign corn-producing colleagues to recognize that the 
flim-flam is not on the side of this policy, or the arguments 
underlying this policy. The flim-flam is in the arguments opposing it.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Grassley].
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his 
leadership in this area. I believe we heard in the opening statement of 
the proponents of this amendment about the 1994 farm program. I do not 
know whether Senator Johnston was intending to enunciate a policy for 
cheap grain and what that policy of cheap grain is going to do for 
agriculture. Who wants us to believe that it is going to fortify the 
livestock industry? Do you not know that the rules are as old as the 
hills, that cheap corn brings cheap hogs and cheap pork? I bet it is 
true of the other animal industries, as well.
  The corn/hog ratio is a historical relationship which tells whether 
there are good years ahead for agriculture or bad years ahead for 
agriculture. And it is just as plain and simple as the nose on your 
face. It is just as plain and simple that more corn is going to bring 
more hogs, and it is going to reduce the price of hogs.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, if the Senator will just take 1 minute.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, Madam President. Is the Senator trying to tell us 
that the more you pay for corn, the more hogs you produce and the more 
the hog producer makes by paying a higher price for corn?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, I can tell the Senator, Madam President. I will 
answer that question. But that mere question shows ignorance of the 
relationship between corn and hogs, or corn and livestock. What is 
wrong with this whole issue here is that people are trying to make 
agricultural policy who do not know anything about agricultural policy.
  We have to fight this amendment now, not only because it deals with 
ethanol and is bad for ethanol, but it is bad for agriculture, as the 
author's own statements indicate. The oil industry does not like 
competition. Let us get that straight. The oil industry does not like 
competition. The oil industry battles anything remotely viewed as 
competition to its monopoly over United States fuel supply. Big oil 
does like mandates. They may not like an ethanol mandate, but they like 
mandates.
  They like it if it is an oil mandate. When convenient and serving the 
interests of the oil industry, that industry demands that the Federal 
Government impose market mandates and protectionist policies to protect 
it from competition. We saw this during the late 1950's.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question 
on my time? I do not want to use his time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I think I will go through my statement. I think it is 
better I get on. I am sure the Senator wants to get this out from being 
an agricultural debate. I think he has made his own bed.
  The oil industry demands that the Federal Government impose market 
mandates and protectionist policies to protect it from competition. We 
saw this during the late 1950's when the oil industry was able to get 
the Federal Government to mandate that 90 percent of America's oil 
supply had to be produced domestically. At that time, it was convenient 
for the oil industry to argue that just a mere 10 percent reliance upon 
foreign oil and the importing of it was a threat, Madam President, to 
the national security of our country.
  Now, of course, we rely upon 50 percent or more of imported energy, 
but my colleagues may remember during the energy bill debate of 1992, 
when I suggested a similar but much smaller carve-out for domestically 
produced alternative fuels, the oil industry and its Senate supporters 
nearly had a collective heart attack. All of a sudden, in 1992, when 
you talk about a little mandate compared to what they wanted in the 
1950's to protect domestic oil, all of a sudden there is no national 
security problem. Oil said in 1992, ``Let the marketplace decide.'' 
That is what they are trying to say here today.
  Of course, the oil industry opposes subsidies, do they not. Unless, 
of course, those subsidies are for the oil company?
  Now, Senator Johnston told the full Senate in 1992 that the real cost 
of imported oil when factoring in the direct and indirect subsidies--
and that includes keeping the sea lanes open--amounted to $200 per 
barrel and that does not count, by the way, the blood of American men 
and women when we have to use them to defend oil imports when OPEC 
needs defending.
  In view of these subsidies for oil, it is hard to swallow listening 
to complaints that domestically produced ethanol excise taxes are not 
high enough, and somehow during this debate it comes out that it 
deprives a few million dollars for highway construction. The highway 
trust fund is flush with surplus money.
  If my colleagues are really worried about this, then they should 
require all highway trust funds to be drawn down every year and put 
into construction. We should also stop the diversion of the highway 
trust fund to mass transit subsidies. Let the city folks pay the entire 
bill. But that is not our policy.
  But how ironic it is. It is OK to divert the highway trust funds for 
mass transit, but not for domestically produced alternative fuels so we 
can be energy independent. The goal behind both mass transit and 
alternative fuels is to rid ourselves of our dangerous dependence upon 
foreign energy.
  Madam President, some have suggested that they want to support this 
amendment because they oppose mandates, but these same people supported 
a number of market mandates in the energy bill in 1992. More important, 
if the Johnston amendment passes, we will have passed a de facto 
mandate for MTBE, which, of course, as we all know, is controlled by 
the oil industry.
  But instead of mandating a mere 30 percent of the oxygenated market, 
as would the program that this amendment seeks to kill, the amendment 
will mandate a virtual monopoly for MTBE. The reason is simple: because 
EPA ignored the authors of the reformulated gasoline program in that 
1990 clean air bill and implemented a simple model test for 
certification. By doing so, it blocks out ethanol's participation while 
guaranteeing MTBE a monopoly over this new market.
  So, I say to my colleagues, those who are on the other side from 
those of us from the farm States on this issue, I hope you like your 
mandate. If you want to vote for the MTBE monopoly mandate, then 
support the Johnston amendment. On the other hand, if you want consumer 
choice, if you want competition for the oxygenated market, then you 
should oppose the Johnston amendment. Defeat of the Johnston amendment 
will assure that MTBE faces competition from domestically produced 
renewable fuels at the 30 percent level. And, remember, it is largely a 
question of a mandate that will increase the import of foreign MTBE 
versus a mandate that will increase the production of domestically 
produced renewable fuels.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes simply to 
reply very quickly to what my friend from Iowa has said.
  First of all, the question I wanted to ask him was, did he state as 
follows during the last debate? This is from page 3517 of the Clean Air 
Act amendment debates:

       Mr. President, there has been considerable misinformation 
     circulated about our amendment. We have been told that this 
     amendment mandates one oxygenated fuel additive over another. 
     That simply is not true.

  That is a quote of the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Grassley].
  I was going to ask him if he made that statement. Of course, he did. 
It is in the Congressional Record.
  I ask what he meant by it. The statement speaks for itself. And, yet, 
we are told today when we protest the fact that EPA has done precisely 
the opposite of what the Senator from Iowa has said, that this is some 
kind of big oil company conspiracy.
  Madam President, how can you fly in the face of what the 
Congressional Record quotes as the Senator's own statement?
  Second, I am told that I do not understand agricultural economics, 
that if I understood agricultural economics, I would understand that 
charging more for the price of corn gives higher profits to hog farmers 
or cattle farmers or chicken feeders.
  Madam President, we have a pretty good farm community in Louisiana. 
My family is involved in cotton farming and cattle farming, and I can 
tell you that that flies in the face of any kind of economics I have 
ever heard of that says the higher the price of your raw material, the 
more profit you made on your manufacturing product.
  The figures I showed about the net cost to agriculture were from the 
Department of Agriculture. They are not from some oil company 
economist. That came from the Department of Agriculture, which says 
that the net cost to agriculture as a result of this amendment will be 
$80 to $134 million a year every year unless that cost is passed on to 
the consumer, in which event the consumer pays that cost.
  We are also told that my figures on the cost of this amendment were 
wrong.
  Madam President, I have it in writing from CBO, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the letter from CBO detailing what the cost of this 
amendment is be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: At your request, the Congressional Budget 
     Office has reviewed an amendment you proposed on July 14, 
     1994, to H.R. 4624, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Bill, that would prohibit any funds from being 
     used to implement or enforce any requirement that a specified 
     percentage of the oxygen content of reformulated gasoline 
     come from renewable oxygenates. If adopted, this amendment 
     would preclude the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 
     implementing its rule that would mandate that 30 percent (15 
     percent in 1995) of the oxygenates used in reformulated 
     gasoline come from renewable sources.


                  original amendment: nine-month delay

       Because the appropriations bill only governs 1995 spending, 
     the EPA rule could be enforced beginning in the following 
     fiscal year. Therefore, this amendment would prohibit 
     enforcement for nine months (from January through September 
     1995). We estimate that the amendment would reduce ethanol 
     production and use in fiscal year 1995 and, because of 
     delayed plans to expand capacity, also in fiscal year 1996. 
     Because ethanol comes mostly from corn, the provision would 
     affect the corn market and the federal government's 
     agricultural income support payments.
       As a result, CBO estimates that an amendment delaying 
     enforcement for nine months would lead to an increase in 
     outlays for federal agriculture programs of $25 million in 
     fiscal year 1995 and $4 million in 1996. Outlays would 
     decline by $12 million in 1997. Because ethanol producers are 
     eligible for tax preferences, a decline in ethanol use would 
     produce a revenue increase for the federal government. The 
     Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that additional 
     revenues would amount to $26 million in fiscal year 1995 and 
     $37 million in 1996. These amounts are net of reduced income 
     and payroll tax revenues. The estimated budgetary impact 
     of this amendment is summarized in the attached table.

                    Effects on agricultural spending

       Because of reduced ethanol production, the demand for corn 
     would decline for the 1994 and 1995 crop years. (The 1994 
     corn crop year roughly corresponds to fiscal year 1995.) The 
     price of corn would therefore decline for the 1994 crop year, 
     leading to greater deficiency payments in fiscal years 1995 
     and 1996. (Deficiency payments are based on the difference 
     between farm-level market prices and a specified target 
     price.)
       We expect that the Secretary of Agriculture would seek to 
     offset the impact of lower corn demand on the 1995 crop of 
     corn. Otherwise, carryover stocks would accumulate, 
     depressing prices and leading to reduced farm income. The 
     Secretary could avoid these effects by increasing the acreage 
     reduction percentage (ARP), the proportion of their acreage 
     that program participants must withdraw from production. CBO 
     assumes that the Secretary would increase the ARP enough to 
     nullify the price effect caused by reduced ethanol 
     production. Such a change would cut agriculture spending in 
     two ways. It would avoid an increase in the rate of 
     deficiency payments (by holding up prices), and it would 
     decrease the acreage on which deficiency payments are made.
       As a result, the advanced deficiency payments (for the 1995 
     crop), made in the spring of 1995, would be lower than our 
     baseline projections. The net result of higher payments for 
     the 1994 crop and lower advanced payments for the 1995 crop 
     would be corn program payments $25 million above the baseline 
     level in fiscal year 1995.
       Fiscal year 1996 outlays would be slightly above the 
     baseline level because the final payment for 1994-crop corn 
     would be higher than projected in the baseline. In 1997, the 
     anticipated ARP increase for the 1995 crop would yield 
     savings of $12 million, because the final payment for 1995-
     crop corn would be lower than the baseline level.

                      Effects on Federal revenues

       A decline in ethanol use from delaying implementation of 
     the renewable oxygenates standards would increase federal 
     revenues because firms producing motor fuels that contain 
     ethanol may receive a federal tax preference. Firms have the 
     option of taking the tax preference as either an excise tax 
     exemption or an income tax credit. The Joint Committee on 
     Taxation has estimated that your amendment would lead to 
     additional revenues totaling $63 million in fiscal years 1995 
     and 1996. This figure is net of reduced income and payroll 
     tax revenues. Under established scorekeeping 
     procedures, revenue effects of appropriation bills do not 
     affect the scoring of those bills relative to the 
     committee's spending allocations and the discretionary 
     spending caps, because the legislative language of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 clearly puts all changes in 
     revenues on the pay-as-you-go scorecard.


                 alternative amendment; permanent delay

       You also requested an estimate of the impacts of 
     permanently blocking the EPA renewable oxygenate rule. This 
     would result in a greater reduction in the demand of corn in 
     fiscal year 1996 than under a temporary delay, and would also 
     cause a decline in demand in subsequent years. Consequently, 
     we would anticipate a greater increase in the ARP in 1996 
     (for crop year 1995), as well as increases in later years, to 
     offset the effects of the lowered demand. Outlays in fiscal 
     year 1995 would still increase, but by only $17 million. This 
     amount is less than the fiscal year 1995 increase from a 
     nine-month delay because advanced deficiency payments for 
     crop year 1995 would be even lower.
       The anticipated changes in ARP's would yield outlays 
     savings of $30 million in fiscal year 1996. This figure is 
     larger than the costs in 1995 because the expected ARP 
     adjustment would also reduce the acreage on which corn 
     deficiency payments are made. The savings would grow in 
     subsequent years because larger and larger ARP adjustments 
     would be necessary to offset the growing demand effects. We 
     estimate that, for the five years 1995 through 1999, 
     agriculture program costs would be $249 million below 
     baseline levels.
       The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that 
     permanently blocking the EPA rule would produce additional 
     revenues totaling $545 million over the 1995-1999 period, net 
     of reduced income and payroll tax revenues.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are David 
     Hull, who can be reached at 226-2860, and Mark Booth, who can 
     be reached at 226-2685.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
                                                         Director.

   CBO ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL SPENDING FROM DELAYING   
            IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA'S RENEWABLE OXYGENATE RULE            
                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1995    1996    1997    1998    1999 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-month delay:                                                          
    Estimated budget authority..      25       4     -12       0       0
    Estimated outlays...........      25       4     -12       0       0
Permanent delay:                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..      17     -30     -69     -78     -89
    Estimated outlays...........      17     -30     -69     -78    -89 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.                                    


    JCT ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT ON REVENUES FROM DELAYING    
            IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA'S RENEWABLE OXYGENATE RULE            
                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1995    1996    1997    1998    1999 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-month delay:                                                          
    Estimated revenues..........      26      37       0       0       0
Permanent delay:                                                        
    Estimated revenues..........      26      94     121     142    162 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Positive revenue changes refer to an increase in revenues;       
  estimates are net of reduced income and payroll tax revenues.         
                                                                        
 Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.                                   

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, that is what CBO says, and it is $249 
million over the 5 years.
  Finally, we are told that unless we do this it mandates a monopoly 
for MTBE, that somehow ethanol is excluded.
  Madam President, that is simply not so. To the contrary, the only 
reason that ethanol would be excluded is because of the lack of 
economics of ethanol because you cannot put it in the pipeline because 
it costs more to make, because it takes more Btu's to manufacture a 
gallon of ethanol than you get out of the gallon of ethanol. That is 
what dictates against ethanol. It is the market itself.
  We have already had $4.6 billion of subsidy over the last 10 years 
from ethanol, $4.6 billion, over a half-billion dollars a year subsidy 
for ethanol. And yet we are told that is not enough, that it would be 
locked out of the market.
  Madam President, I submit to you $550 million annual subsidy for 
ethanol is enough. If it cannot compete with that, then we should not 
force-feed it down the throats of consumers, a third of the gasoline 
users, who would have to pay 2 to 6 cents a gallon more, down the 
throats of those who pay the budget deficit, and $239 million for those 
who pay the highway users fund.
  One final point. There was a quote from someone on the highway users 
from the Department of Transportation that says that distribution 
formula is not changed.
  Madam President, we do not claim the distribution formula is changed. 
We say the amount of money in the highway trust fund is less. It is 
$545 million over 5 years less.
  That is what we claim, and we base it on the Committee on Taxation. 
We do not claim that the formula is changed. The States get the same 
percentage, there is just less in the pot.
  And why is that? It is common sense, Madam President. The source of 
the Highway Trust Fund is gasoline taxes. And if you substitute up to 
30 percent ethanol, which in turn is subsidized at 54 cents a gallon, 
you lose that 54 cents a gallon that you pay out in the subsidy. It is 
a direct loss to the Highway Trust Fund, which in turn means the direct 
loss to each of the State's in this country. That is what we claim and 
that is based on the Committee on Taxation.
  Madam President, if my colleagues can show me that that is wrong, I 
will withdraw this amendment without a vote, because I know it is 
right. The Committee on Taxation says it is right, the Highway Users 
Association says it is right, and everybody says it is right because it 
makes sense. I mean, if you subsidize 54 cents a gallon ethanol and 
substitute that for gasoline, which pays the full tax, and if that full 
tax funds the highway user fund, it makes sense.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Listening to the arguments of my good friend from Louisiana--and I 
will respond at length later on when I will utilize most of my time--I 
cannot help but think of those little games you play at a county fair, 
with those little ducks going across a pond and you are supposed to 
shoot at them and you are constantly looking at a moving target. I have 
heard all these arguments he is making here and, quite frankly, he is 
bouncing from one to the other.
  We are going to try to nail something down.
  On the issue raised by my colleague from Iowa, talking about the 
formulated gas was fuel neutral, well, Senator Grassley was right. It 
is fuel neutral. And on the ROS that we are talking about today, the 
rule that the Senator from Louisiana would support, even in its 
infancy, it is also fuel neutral. It does not say one word about 
ethanol. It simply says, renewable oxygenates, 15 percent first year, 
30 percent next year. The renewable oxygenates could be methanol, as 
long as it is made from wood or garbage in landfills. There are a lot 
of places we can get methanol.
  The Senator from Louisiana, of course, I understand wants it from 
natural gas.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will in a second.
  So the renewable oxygenate standard that we are talking about today 
is fuel neutral. It just says a certain portion of the reformulated gas 
market will be renewables.
  I will get on to the debate on renewables a little bit later, but it 
does not say ethanol. It could be ethanol if they make it from 
renewables. So the Senator from Iowa is exactly right.
  On the issue of agriculture, if this is so tough on the livestock 
industry and going to hurt them so badly, why do we have a letter here 
from both the National Cattlemen's Association and the National Pork 
Producers Association, two of the largest users of corn in this 
country, supporting the renewable oxygenate standard rule that we are 
talking about here?
  Madam President, I will ask unanimous consent to have this letter 
printed in the Record. It shows that the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the National Cattlemen's Association--well, there is a 
whole host of different farm organizations here that support it. And I 
have a separate letter from the National Pork Producers Council 
supporting our position on this.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                                    July 27, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Mitchell: As representatives of America's 
     farmers, we want to reiterate our support for the Renewable 
     Oxygenate Requirement (ROR) for reformulated gasoline, and 
     express our strong opposition to potential amendments to the 
     VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill that 
     would effectively repeal this important program.
       The ROR was recently finalized by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency after extensive comment and careful 
     consideration. This is the appropriate forum for 
     consideration of Clean Air rules.
       An expanded renewables market will generate demand for 
     grain and other energy crops and provide economic 
     opportunities for rural America. More importantly, this Clean 
     Air rule will enhance the environmental benefits of 
     reformulated gasoline, will contribute to energy security, 
     will reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses, and will provide 
     consumers with a choice of oxygenates. According to EPA, the 
     ROR will maximize reductions of volatile organic compounds. 
     The Department of Energy has concluded that the ROR will 
     provide significant reductions in fossil energy use. The best 
     news is that the positive environmental and energy benefits 
     of the ROR will not increase the cost of reformulated 
     gasoline at the pump for consumers.
       The benefits of this Clean Air rule for agriculture are 
     significant. According to an analysis completed by the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture, the ROR will increase the demand 
     for corn used in ethanol production and will reduce farm 
     program costs by $2.3 billion over the next five years. At 
     the same time, feed co-products of ethanol production will be 
     available to meet the needs of beef, dairy and poultry 
     producers.
       The ROR simply makes sense for America. We ask that you 
     support the rule by opposing amendments to repeal this 
     important program.
           Sincerely,
         American Agriculture Movement, Inc.; American Agri-Women; 
           American Farm Bureau Federation; American Seed Trade 
           Association; American Society of Farm Managers and 
           Rural Appraisers; American Soybean Association; 
           American Sugar Beet Growers Association; National 
           Agricultural Chemicals Association; National 
           Association of State Departments of Agriculture; 
           National Association of Wheat Growers; National Barley 
           Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Association; 
           National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton 
           Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; 
           National Family Farm Coalition; National Farmers 
           Organization; National Farmers Union; National Grain 
           Sorghum Producers; National Grange; National Rural 
           Electric Cooperative Association; Women Involved in 
           Farm Economics.
                                  ____



                              National Pork Producers Council,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1994.
     Hon. Paul Simon,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Simon: As you know, it has been suggested by 
     some of your colleagues that the U.S. pork industry is not in 
     support of the ethanol industry and the Administration's 
     recent action on reformulated gasoline. To the contrary, the 
     National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), which represents the 
     nation's pork industry, supports a renewable fuels-based 
     ethanol industry in the U.S. and the Clinton Administration's 
     recently announced Renewable Oxygenate Requirement (ROR).
       Furthermore, we strongly support the principle of value 
     added agriculture, whether it be producing pork from corn or 
     ethanol from corn. Both create jobs, increase revenues and 
     generated economic activity which are vital to the long term 
     viability of rural America.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Glen Keppy,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Finally, Madam President--and I will not get into this 
point now, but I will take my time after some other Senators speak--the 
Senator from Louisiana keeps saying that this is going to use more 
energy to make ethanol than what we get out.
  Well, Madam President, I am going to talk about seven myths that have 
come up about renewable oxygenates and about ethanol. And that happens 
to be one of the biggest one. The fact is that ethanol produces more 
energy than the fossil energy put in to make it. We get more out of it 
than what goes into it, and a lot more than methanol.
  And, again, if I can prove this, which I believe I can, to the 
Senator from Louisiana, perhaps he would want to withdraw his 
amendment, because he is basing so much of it on the fact that it takes 
more energy to make ethanol than the energy we get out of it. It is a 
total myth.
  Madam President, I now yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Iowa.
  Madam President, when I talk to my constituents, as I do every 
weekend, I frequently am asked about the form of debate on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate, where we continually say, ``My good friend and 
colleague from'' such and such a State and then you get into a violent 
discussion.
  Well, I simply want to start out my remarks today to assure my good 
friend and colleague from the State of Louisiana that he is an 
honorable man. I have known him for the 16 years that I have been in 
the U.S. Senate. We have been good friends. We serve on the Budget 
Committee and have similar views on many, many things. But we have 
sharp disagreement on this.
  I suggest, Madam President, that we have sharp disagreement primarily 
because we have the responsibility to represent the interests of our 
States. While I do not agree with very much of what my friend and 
colleague from the State of Louisiana has thus far said--and I will be 
talking some more about this later on today--I wanted to address some 
of the things that I think have not been put into proper perspective 
but may be, hopefully, during this debate.
  Madam President, I heard my colleague from Louisiana talking about 
our position in this as being a flimflam. Let me put that in 
perspective. The only flimflam so far in this whole debate--and I 
suspect it is going to be the centerpiece of this whole debate, so let 
us put it in perspective. This is big oil against the farmer. We can 
have all of the attacks that we want, but, the bottom line, Madam 
President, is big oil against the farmer. Let us lay that on the line 
and then let us take all of the arguments pro and con thereafter.
  Those of us from the agricultural States obviously take the position 
with the farmer. My colleague from Louisiana, a big oil State, 
naturally takes the position of the big oil. And I respect him for 
doing what he thinks is best to represent his constituents. That is 
part of his job. I do not quarrel with that. I do quarrel, though, when 
some kind of a flimflam is brought into this debate as if it was all 
one-sided.
  I simply say, Madam President, that my a association with ethanol 
goes way back to the early 1970's, when I served as Governor of 
Nebraska. Back in those days, we called it gasohol. I believe Nebraska 
was the first State in the Union to become actively involved in the 
promotion of the concept of having an additive to gasoline that was not 
only good for the consumer, good for the environment, but also good for 
agriculture. And I make no bones about that.
  At that time, Madam President, the only forceful opposition that we 
had that is still with us today is big oil. They are the flimflam boys. 
They fought us every step of the way back in those early days and they 
are still at it today.
  I will have a chart, or someone will have a chart, later on during 
this debate that will clearly show that, even if the initiative that 
the Senator from Louisiana is trying to defeat--and I think we will 
defeat him--when this becomes operative at the suggestion of the 
President of the United States and his environmental department, we 
will clearly show that of all of the gasoline manufactured and consumed 
in the United States, ethanol would only have 1.2 percent of that; 1.2 
percent of the total gasoline.
  Why is big oil raising the flimflam situation with the limited amount 
of competition that would be introduced permanently into their market? 
Because I believe the big oil flimflam boys recognize that this, in and 
of itself, is not going to be a killer to their profits. But I firmly 
believe that big oil recognizes this as a nose under the tent, if you 
will, an invasion of their marketplace.
  Not long ago there was such a connection between big oil and the 
automobile manufacturers that, when I bought a new automobile a few 
years ago and was reading through the manual, they said, ``Do not use 
ethanol in this car.''
  We took them on. We called them up and said, why are you doing that? 
They have since changed and that does not appear in any of the warning 
manuals, in any of the instruction guidelines as far as I know in new 
automobiles today.
  Big oil was against this in the 1970's, and if I were big oil I would 
be against us in the 1990's. For 20 years I fought this battle and I 
continue to fight it.
  I say to the Senator from Louisiana, there are those of us from 
agricultural States who I think can speak much better for what is good 
for agriculture than can the Senator from Louisiana. The Senator from 
Iowa is a farmer. The other Senator from Iowa does an excellent job of 
representing farmers. We have heard from my colleague, Senator Kerrey. 
We in Nebraska represent agriculture. I think we know what is best.
  I have noted the arguments made by the Senator from Louisiana 
traditionally talk about an official in the Environmental Protection 
Agency who is behind this move. I want to correct that. The person 
behind this move is the President of the United States. I will read 
into the Record at this time, and then without objection have printed 
in the Record, a letter of July 22 signed by the President of the 
United States to the majority leader upon a request I made of the 
President when I was with him the day before this letter was written. 
The letter is dated July 22.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: Last month, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) made an important decision to use renewable 
     fuels to help achieve the objectives of the Clean Air Act. By 
     promulgating the renewable oxygenate rule, my Administration 
     made good on a long-standing commitment to a cleaner 
     environment and a stronger economy. The use of reformulated 
     gasoline will help to improve the quality of the air in the 
     nation's district cities. Through this decision EPA is 
     helping to assure that renewable fuels continue to have a 
     fair market share in a changing world of cleaner burning 
     gasoline.
       I am award of the attempts by some in Congress to block 
     implementation and enforcement of EPA's rulemaking on 
     renewable oxygenates. I strongly oppose any attempt to 
     interfere with EPA's implementation or enforcement of this 
     rule.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I ask for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, The Senator may continue for 2 
additional minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the Johnston amendment, which would block the recently announced EPA 
ruling requiring a minimum of 15 percent, and ultimately 30 percent of 
oxygenates used in reformulated gasoline to come from renewable 
sources.
  The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require the use of cleaner-
burning gasoline in the nine worst ozone nonattainment areas of the 
United States, and calls for that reformulated gasoline to contain a 
minimum oxygen content of 2 percent. In accordance with Federal 
renewable fuels policies, EPA has called for renewable fuels, including 
ethanol, to be part of the oxygenate market.
  The EPA policy makes good policy sense. I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record the letter from the President the Senator 
from Nebraska has recently mentioned.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC., July 22, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: Last month, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) made an important decision to use renewable 
     fuels to help achieve the objectives of the Clean Air Act. By 
     promulgating the renewable oxygenate rule, my Administration 
     made good on a long-standing commitment to a cleaner 
     environment and a stronger economy. The use of reformulated 
     gasoline will help to improve the quality of the air in the 
     nation's district cities. Through this decision EPA is 
     helping to assure that renewable fuels continue to have a 
     fair market share in a changing world of cleaner burning 
     gasoline.
       I am aware of the attempts by some in Congress to block 
     implementation and enforcement of EPA's rulemaking on 
     renewable oxygenates. I strongly oppose any attempt to 
     interfere with EPA's implementation or enforcement of this 
     rule.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The policy will reduce our dependence upon foreign 
fuels, ensure competition in the marketplace, clean our air, and create 
investment and jobs in rural America. Most importantly, and the point I 
think we really need to emphasize here, is that we are finally moving 
away from mining and drilling and extracting a finite supply of fossil 
fuels from the earth. With the EPA policy, we are turning corn into 
fuel. And when we run out of corn, we will just simply grow some more.
  During the energy shortage of the 1970's, I am sure my colleagues can 
remember how Americans waited in long lines for a turn at the gas pump, 
as fuel prices soared. America faced up to a disturbing fact in those 
years: Dependence upon foreign nations for our energy needs was a 
serious problem, in terms of both national security, and economic 
stability.
  Twenty years later, Congress was engaged in debate over whether the 
United States should take military action against Iraq after the Kuwait 
invasion. Soon we were at war in the Persian Gulf. The origins of this 
conflict were, in no small part, related to energy policy, and our 
continued and growing energy dependency on the Middle East.
  So, it appears that despite the warning flags that have been raised 
over the past two decades, nothing much has changed. The United States 
still imports about half of its crude oil from the Middle East. This is 
why today's debate is so important.
  The EPA has ruled that a certain class of fuel additives, ones 
produced here in America, not overseas, should not be shut out of a new 
national gasoline market. That is not a revolutionary idea. It is 
simply common sense.
  Using home-grown, fuel additives as a route to energy independence is 
not a new concept. In fact, Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, whose 
seat I now hold, advocated this idea nearly 50 years ago when he wrote 
the following words:

       We must alter our internal economy by processing surplus 
     farm crops into alcohol of 10 percent * * * we will be able 
     to establish a balanced agriculture, a balanced industry, and 
     preserve for ourselves the greatest market in all the world: 
     namely the market in our own land for our own people. It is a 
     kind of diversification through which we can preserve an 
     internal prosperity and rid ourselves of a dangerous 
     dependence on the other nations.

  The Johnston amendment, in its attempt to block the EPA rule, seems 
to say that Everett Dirksen was wrong, and that energy dependency is 
just fine. If the Johnston amendment passes, the Middle East will still 
govern, to a great extent, our national energy policy.
  The EPA policy, the so-called renewable oxygenates standard, is a 
modest one. It will result in less than 1 percent of the Nation's 
gasoline being made from renewable materials, such as corn, cellulose, 
wood, and biomass. The overwhelming market share remains with MTBE, a 
methanol-based chemical produced by the petroleum industry.
  So, with the EPA ruling, the domestic production capacity of MTBE 
does not decline, but in fact, grows by leaps and bounds. No industry 
is a loser. The demand for all types of oxygenates expands 
considerably, holding down the price at the pump, and giving consumers 
a choice.
  However, by blocking EPA policy, as the Johnston amendment proposes 
to do, renewable additives would be shut out of the market, and a 
virtual monopoly of MTBE would be created. With renewable oxygenates 
removed from the equation, the commercial demand for MTBE would be 
forced far beyond domestic production capacity, and, according to 
Dewitt & Co. [an oil industry analyst], require a staggering 450 
percent increase in MTBE imports. Most of these new MTBE imports would 
be sourced from OPEC countries.

  This seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction, Mr. President. 
If we are concerned that our foreign policy in the Middle East is still 
driven in part by energy needs here at home, I urge my colleagues to 
think twice about voting for the Johnston amendment.
  In my hometown of Chicago, ethanol blends have been in use for well 
over a decade--in fact, over 1 billion gallons of ethanol-blends will 
be sold in Chicago this year. Consumer surveys show Chicagoans favor 
ethanol 8 to 1 when asked their preference for ethanol or MTBE.
  As one of the ozone nonattainment areas, Chicagoans will soon be 
using reformulated fuels. Given the preference of Chicagoans for 
ethanol, I think we have an obligation to assure the city's residents 
that costs at the pump remain low, and that there remains a choice 
among the types of oxygen components in the reformulated fuels market.


                              environment

  There also have been questions raised about the impact on air quality 
from using renewable fuels, particularly ethanol and ETBE, in the 
reformulated gasoline program. It is important to note that the very 
premise of this new rule is the finding by the EPA--after years of 
deliberation and review of over 12,000 comments--that the renewable 
oxygenate standard will improve environmental quality.
  A Department of Agriculture study estimates that the production and 
use of renewables emits 27 percent less carbon dioxide than the 
production and use of gasoline. Other studies show that ethanol's use 
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including reports from Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, and Congressional Research Service.
  Just this week, in fact, in response to the suit filed against the 
rule by the American Petroleum Industry, the EPA filed a document 
stating that ``renewable fuels in general, and ethanol in particular, 
have emerged as important sources of fuel promising significant 
benefits in * * * greenhouse gas emmissions,'' and goes on to say that 
there could be as much as a 5-percent reduction in ozone-forming 
volatile organic compounds as a result of the incentive to use ETBE in 
the summertime.
  Finally I would like to take a moment to touch upon what I think to 
be the most exciting aspect of this proposal: The benefits to the 
American farmer. Again, to paraphrase Senator Everett Dirksen, this EPA 
policy will encourage the establishment of an energy market by 
investing in our own land for our own people. By ensuring that 
renewable oxygenates, at the very least, will have a small share of the 
reformulated gasoline market, we invest in American land, and in the 
American farmer. Or, we can vote for the Johnston amendment, and invest 
overseas.
  Over the past 15 years, the American farmer has faced a grain 
embargo, debts, droughouts--and just last year, farmers in Illinois and 
other Midwestern States were seriously devastated by the Great Flood. 
The American farmer is hurting.
  The EPA rule provides part of the answer for addressing that pain. I 
have met with hundreds of farmers who see the EPA ruling as helping to 
revitalize their local economy and reducing their dependence on 
Government price support programs.
  Already, over the past 5 years, the ethanol blending industry has 
spurred increases of farm sales totaling $8.2 billion, and a $450 
million reduction, per year, in farm support payments. The spinoffs to 
related businesses such as fertilizer, seed, farm implements, and rural 
economics have been tremendous.
  According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, every 100 million 
bushels of increased ethanol use would result in approximately $120 
million annually to wheat producers, $50 million for soybean producers, 
and $40 million for producers of grain sorghum. As corn demand 
increases to satisfy new ethanol production, the benefits to rural 
economies will increase accordingly.
  We cannot shut out our agricultural community by voting for the 
Johnston amendment.
  Finally the EPA has ruled in this area after considerable study and 
debate. I ask my colleagues to seriously consider supporting this 
ruling of the EPA, to allow this bill on HUD-VA to go as it came out of 
subcommittee, and without this damaging and counterproductive 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Iowa. I will try to help him out 
with a little bit of time squeeze because I know they are running down 
to the shorter rows and we all understand what short rows are, 
especially in this debate.
  This issue has a tremendous impact on the agriculture community, even 
in my State of Montana. I know most of the rhetoric here has been 
centered around corn. But you can also use wheat and barley. Of course 
that is what we produce in our part of the country to produce ethanol.
  We also have two ethanol plants that are up and running in the State 
of Montana. The issue, as it stands, is one of the economic viability 
of a competing industry, the use of ethanol as a fuel source, versus 
the sole dependence of fossil fuel sources. Due to the present 
administration's policy, restricting oil exploration and drilling on 
some of the most productive areas in Montana, as well as most of the 
West, we are forced now to depend upon importation of the major oil 
supplies.
  I do not know whether America realizes it or not, but I would not 
sleep very good at night if I went home and I left this society at a 
security risk. Right now, 60 percent of our trade deficit is oil; 50 
percent of our oil needs are imported into this country, and that 
worries me a little bit whenever we talk about energy security.
  The implementation that will allow the use of ethanol as a fuel 
source will provide additional jobs not only in my State but across the 
Midwest, where we are striving to maintain our own.
  The jobs will be derived from the use of ethanol, not only into a 
production process but also into fields across Montana. The increase in 
usage of wheat for the production of ethanol will aid in the pricing 
structure of wheat as well as decrease the amount paid out in crop 
support payments. And, of course, that, too, comes from the Government. 
At a time when we are trying to trim the budget, trying to live inside 
the budget, we have to provide some way for our farmers to go for 
another source of income.
  We have to look at this and look at it from an environmental 
standpoint. A majority of high quality wheat is produced in Montana 
that goes in export. We still face the need to find new and developing 
markets for our grain we produce. Of course, another benefit that will 
be derived from the ethanol as used as an alternative fuel source is 
that of a clean burning gas. That is where we are coming from in this 
debate. Can we mix it?
  I agree with my friend from Louisiana. I hate quotas and mandatory 
quotas that come down from the Government. But we also have to look at 
what is happening in my State as far as public lands are concerned and 
how we provide jobs and opportunities in my State of Montana.
  So if we have to go to an alternative source, then we have to look at 
our renewable resources as a fuel source to keep this country running. 
The vast reserves of oil and natural gas in Montana are now, with this 
administration's policy, put at risk of even being extracted.
  I stand here today as a defender of some of those jobs, some of those 
opportunities and, yes, energy security for this country.
  Mr. President, I am heartily opposed to this amendment by my friend 
from Louisiana, knowing exactly where he is coming from, because I do 
not like the mandates either, but I have to look at a job base, an 
economic base, and energy security for this Nation called the United 
States of America.
  I appreciate the time, and I yield back the remainder of my time. I 
thank my friend from Iowa.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. President, the Senate has to make an important 
decision with this amendment.
  We have to make a choice. Are we going to allow the Federal 
Government to issue a decree of favoritism for one product--despite the 
fact that basic economics, environmental policy, and fairness argue 
otherwise? Or are we going to pass this amendment, and tell the Federal 
Government to stay out of the business of dictating decisions to 
consumers?
  I urge my colleagues to make the only sensible decision. Vote for our 
amendment to reject the idea of coddling one kind of fuel at the 
expense of others. It is clear that the Senate has no choice but to 
force the Environmental Protection Agency to come to its senses, and 
give up on its baffling effort to stack the deck for a single product, 
known as ethanol--when other good choices exist for the same overall 
objectives of cleaning up the air and increasing America's energy 
security.
  When EPA came out with its ruling to guarantee almost one-third of a 
market to a single product, I couldn't believe it. This ruling will 
eventually require that 30 percent of the oxygenated fuels sold in the 
Nation's nine smoggiest cities contain ethanol.
  A Government policy that dictates the purchase of ethanol will 
suppress all of the other alternative fuels that exists as options. 
Instead of diversifying our energy resources, EPA's ruling sets out to 
make one product the clear winner. Controlling consumer choice and 
preventing competition in the marketplace, as we all know, hurt 
consumers. When you stifle competition, that costs jobs in industries 
that are more than ready to compete on a level playing field.
  For years, I have been championed ways to promote clean-burning, 
domestically abundant alternative fuels. This is an essential course to 
continue progress in cleaning up our environment. It's also vital to 
overcoming the country's dangerous, overreliance on foreign sources of 
energy supplies.
  That's why I authored the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988, which 
helped foster the manufacture of alternative fuel motor vehicles. From 
there, I put together a series of alternative fuel provisions that were 
part of the landmark Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  My State of West Virginia produces coal and natural gas. Naturally, 
that means I am hard at work promoting the use of natural gas and 
methanol, which is derived from either coal or natural gas.
  But I don't agree with the idea of the Federal Government picking 
winners and losers in the alternative fuels marketplace, and nor do I 
think the Senate should stand for such an idea. Our objectives should 
be to spur the development and future of a wide range of alternative 
fuels. We can do that, and still maintain principles like consumer 
choice, competition, and market economics.
  It's in our Nation's interest to promote the use of alternatives to 
conventional gasoline made from imported crude oil. But it's illogical 
and too costly for the Government to hand over 30 percent of a market 
to one kind of alternative fuel. As we encourage other countries to 
develop market economies, how do we explain an EPA policy that has the 
Government managing the decisions of our own country's consumers?
  Of course, the ethanol industry wants this Government handout. But 
it's dangerous precedent. The administration is asking for big trouble 
if it wants to get into the business of replacing market forces. That's 
why I say we should get rid of this EPA policy. We should restore the 
original and still urgent goal of the 1992 Energy Act, which is to 
promote domestic energy alternatives to foreign imports that also 
benefit our environment at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. To 
do that, we should let the market decide which clean fuel makes that 
most sense.
  In favoring ethanol, the EPA is violating a clear record of 
congressional insistence on fuel neutrality. Throughout the 
consideration of the recent Clean Air Act, it was made very clear that 
the Government's interest was in aggressively promoting cleaner fuels 
made with domestic sources--but it was not to favor one product over 
another.
  If you vote against this amendment, consumers will pay more. Why? 
Because the EPA ethanol mandate will require the use of a more 
expensive additive when a more affordable one could do the same or 
better job. Our guess is that the EPA rule will increase the price at 
the pump by at least 7 cents per gallon of gasoline.
  Handing over a large piece of an otherwise competitive market to 
ethanol will not only cost consumers more at the fuel pump; it will 
also increase their grocery bills. If the Federal Government is allowed 
to rule that more ethanol has to be produced, that's going to push up 
the demand for corn. Then, watch the price go up for pork, beef, and 
chicken as higher corn prices are absorbed. If the EPA rule raises the 
price of corn by a mere 5 percent, consumers will wind up paying an 
additional billion dollars.
  The ethanol mandate will also chew away at the tax base needed to 
support our highway infrastructure. The highway trust fund is financed 
with fuel taxes. However, ethanol already has very special treatment in 
a place called the Tax Code, here, too, in the form of an exemption 
from 5.4 cents per gallon of the Federal gasoline excise tax.
  Due to this tax subsidy, at current production levels, the high trust 
fund already loses $540 million annually from ethanol sales. Over the 
past 10 years, the exemption has cost the fund $4.6 billion.
  According to the Federal Highway Administration, if the EPA gets its 
way with this mandate and forces the purchase of more ethanol for the 
purpose of making reformulated gasoline, the highway trust fund will 
lose an additional $465 million. Add it all up, and ethanol would cost 
our highways and bridges over $1 billion every year.
  And here again, the mandate will cost jobs on top of everything else. 
If we deplete this much more from the highway trust fund, using a 
Federal Highway Administration formula, about 13,000 jobs could be 
lost.
  Other jobs in our economy would go, too. Yes, jobs will be created in 
the ethanol industry, but at the expense of jobs in the methanol and 
natural gas industries.
  And we all know how desperately we need more money, not less, to 
repair and upgrade the Nation's infrastructure. This is what makes the 
idea of giving a handout to ethanol, draining the highway trust fund of 
tax revenue, seem even more inane.
  As far as environmental goals are concerned, requiring the use of 
ethanol would do nothing to improve air quality and could even make it 
worse. Ethanol has been shown to produce more greenhouse gases like 
carbon dioxide and other air pollutants than come from other 
alternative fuels.
  That's the reason that environmental groups, including the Sierra 
Club and the Environmental Defense Fund--along with State air quality 
regulators--oppose the mandate.
  Even Mary Nichols, Administrator for Air at the Environmental 
Protection Agency has admitted this, saying that the administration is 
``not claiming any air quality benefits as a result of this proposal.''
  And the mandate is not going to strengthen the country's energy 
security. The ethanol industry likes to call its product renewable--yet 
at least as much energy is required to plant, harvest and process corn 
for ethanol production as the fuel itself generates. There's a real 
possibility that the ethanol mandate could increase the use of energy 
from other countries.

  In fact, experts at the Department of Energy, Resources for the 
Future, and Stanford University all say the mandate could increase oil 
imports and wouldn't improve energy security. That's because more 
gasoline goes into reformulated gasoline when it's made with ethanol, 
than when it's made with the alternatives--and because oil is used to 
grow corn and to distill ethanol. And by the way, when we import more 
oil, the trade deficit increases.
  The ethanol industry has attempted to characterize this debate as an 
attempt by ``bid oil,'' as they put it, to block the mandate.
  In fact, the EPA rule is opposed by a broad coalition of interests 
including consumer groups, oxygenate producers, the natural gas 
industry, engineers, builders and contractors, truckers, traffic safety 
groups, chemical manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and major 
environmental groups.
  Actually, the mandate will guarantee sales for ethanol producers, who 
will reap the lion's share of the profits.
  For this reason, for anyone who is serious about cutting the fat out 
of Government, the ethanol mandate is a good place to start.
  The ethanol industry has grown accustomed to Government subsidies and 
preferential tax treatment, but it is fiscally irresponsible to give a 
mandate to a product that is already subsidized. One agribusiness 
giant, which makes more than 60 percent of the ethanol in the United 
States, could benefit more than all of the corn farmers combined.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnston-Bradley 
amendment to restore fuel neutrality to the reformulated gasoline 
program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my 
friend from West Virginia, and he is my friend. But, quite frankly, I 
have to say that it seems that he has fallen victim to the various 
myths that are surrounding the production of ethanol and methanol. Myth 
No. 1 that my friend seems to have fallen for is the myth that somehow 
the tax benefits accrue only to ethanol.
  Let me read from the Tax Code itself. This is providing for the tax 
benefits.

       The term ``alcohol'' includes methanol and ethanol but does 
     not include alcohol produced in petroleum, natural gas, or 
     coal.

  If you want to make methanol from renewable sources, it gets the same 
tax benefit as ethanol.
  Second, the Senator from West Virginia, as the Senator from Louisiana 
before him, talks about the great subsidies that we give to ethanol. I 
am reading from a chart put out by the Alliance to Save Energy. In 
April 1993, the types of subsidies to conventional versus 
nonconventional energy sources in 1 year, 1989--total subsidies for 
fossil fuel, coal, oil, natural gas, mixed oil and gas, was $21 
billion. Total subsidy for ethanol was $879 million. That is the 
difference. $21 billion subsidies for fossil fuel, $879 million for 
ethanol.
  So when we keep hearing about all of these subsidies, let us not lose 
sight of the fact that fossil fuel gets the lion's share of subsidies 
in this country.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. President, for years I have been working on the policy of our 
country moving away from traditional sources of energy towards 
domestic, renewable, more technology to protect the environment. That 
is why I serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But every 
step of the way the entrenched independent energy industry powers, such 
as the oil industry, have tried to block the way. The case of ethanol 
is no different. Colleagues listening to this debate must understand 
that.
  The EPA's renewables proposal is the direction we need to go in as a 
country. The rule is completely in tune with the intentions of the 
Clean Air Act, and it would represent a historic marriage between clean 
air policy and renewable energy progress.
  So why are we here one more time trying to defend such progress? 
Moving toward renewable fuels means a cleaner environment, energy 
security, and rural economic development. Big oil stands for dirtier 
air, fossil fuel imports, and nonsustainable fuel supplies. The choice 
between the two should not be difficult for our colleagues.
  Mr. President, there are so many issues I would like to debate. When 
I heard my colleague from West Virginia talk about the subsidies and 
talk about the whole issue of the market, I thought to myself, look at 
years and years of a stacked deck of massive subsidies for the oil 
industry. Now we look at renewable resources, and all of a sudden you 
have this intense opposition.
  Mr. President, I will be the first to admit, and I am proud to admit, 
that this ruling is important for rural America, for agriculture, for 
rural Minnesota.
  Five hundred farmers in Marshall, MN, this past February gave a 
standing ovation to a representative of the EPA, a bureaucrat from 
Washington, DC. There was genuine excitement because this rule 
communicates a message to rural America: You are not out of sight; you 
are not out of mind.
  This rule gives hope to farmers in rural communities throughout the 
Midwest who are investing. I heard about Archer Daniels. In Minnesota 
it is farmer cooperatives who are investing their own savings.
  Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Nebraska when he said 
the choice is very clear. You vote for big oil interests--and these 
giants never surrender their privileges gracefully--or you support 
farmers and you support the environment.
  Mr. President, I now want to focus, in the remaining minutes that I 
have left, on the consumer issues and the environmental issues. I was a 
college professor for 20 years, and I think I had a good reputation in 
my State for being a strong consumer advocate and an environmentalist, 
mainly through my writings. Now I am in the U.S. Senate. I know what my 
environmental record is, and I am proud of it.
  But I have to tell you today that I am not the only consumer advocate 
who is opposed to this Johnston amendment. Citizen Action, which is the 
largest consumer organization in this country, opposes the pending 
amendment and says that the EPA rule ``will assure consumers of 
competition among suppliers of oxygen components and choice in the 
reformulated fuels market'' because, otherwise, the oil industry locks 
it up. That is really what is at issue. If we want to have competition, 
then this amendment takes us exactly in the opposite direction; same 
old monopoly oil companies. They have the infrastructure. They lock up 
the markets. Where is the competition? This is not Adam Smith's 
invisible hand.
  Mr. President, I will not go into the arguments about the burden on 
gas buyers at the pump. They are unsound. And I know the Senators from 
South Dakota and Iowa will speak to them. They are off base. There is 
not a shred of evidence to support that. But I want to emphasize to 
fellow Senators there are two environmental reasons to oppose the 
Johnston amendment.
  First, it would kill a rule that will decrease greenhouse gas 
emissions and smog. Second, it will open up the Clean Air Act policies 
for amendment through the appropriations process.
  Five environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, Friends 
of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National 
Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental Working Group, all oppose 
this amendment on the basis that this opens up a whole can of worms and 
is inappropriate and is sadly mistaken.
  In addition, when Mary Nichols was quoted--and I think it was a bit 
out of context. That was before the final rule. But we now have a 
letter from Carl Brunner of July 22, spelling out clearly the positive 
environmental effects of their decision.
  Mr. President, if Senators plan to vote for the Johnston amendment, 
do not vote for it because environmental organizations favor this 
amendment. They oppose it.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter signed by five major 
environmental organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, National Wildlife 
           Federation, Environmental Working Group, Natural 
           Resources Defense Council
                                                    July 21, 1994.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the VA-HUD-
     Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY95, we ask 
     that you oppose all new policy amendments affecting the 
     environment. We take this position regardless of the 
     substantive merits of such amendments, which we believe we 
     are not the issue in this case.
       Subcommittee Chair Barbara Mikulski and the members of the 
     Subcommittee have reported a bill which focuses on the 
     funding allocations which are the primary purpose of 
     appropriations bills. While it is entirely appropriate to 
     have a lively floor debate about those funding choices, we 
     oppose any new proposal to encumber this bill with amendments 
     which are legislation or limitations restricting specific 
     environmental policies. Whatever the merits of any such 
     proposals, we believe they would be more appropriately 
     pursued through authorizing bills, regulatory procedures or 
     the courts.
       We recognize that Congress has a right and a responsibility 
     to set environmental policies when necessary. However, floor 
     amendments to the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations 
     bill should not be the tool of the first resort. We oppose 
     any floor amendments on takings, risk, cost/benefit and 
     unfunded mandates. Consistent with our general opposition on 
     procedural grounds to new policy floor amendments, we oppose 
     the Johnston amendment to prevent the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from implementing the ethanol rule. We 
     understand that a lawsuit has been filed on this matter, 
     which we believe should be decided through regulatory and 
     legal means.
       We make no pretense that the appropriations process is 
     procedurally pure, and believe that each bill should be 
     handled on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this bill, we 
     draw the line on the bill as reported, and urge you to oppose 
     all new environmental policy amendments offered on the floor.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph De Gennaro,
       Director, Appropriations Project, Friends of the Earth.
     David Hawkins,
       Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.
     A. Blakeman Early,
       Washington Director, Envir. Quality Program, Sierra Club.
     Sharon Newsome,
       Vice President, Resources Conservation Dept., National 
     Wildlife Federation.
     David Dickson,
       Senior Analyst, Environmental Working Group.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the House wants to make the transition 
to renewable energy technologies. The President wants to make this 
transition. Why are some in the Senate standing in the way and trying 
to halt this transition? This is the direction we have to go in. This 
is about how we produce and consume energy and how we can protect our 
environment and at the same time promote economic development in our 
country.
  This Johnston amendment represents a huge step backward, away from 
progressive and sound energy and environmental policy and toward the 
same old kowtowing to big oil. The administration is really trying to 
do something good. We have strong support from the minority leader, as 
well. Those of us who speak on this floor who care about rural America 
and agriculture, but also the environment, speak passionately for this.
  I urge Senators to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield.
  The Senator stated that a number of organizations, including the 
Sierra Club, oppose this amendment on the grounds that it is directing 
in an appropriation bill what EPA should do. Does the Senator say that 
we should never tell an agency what to do in an appropriation bill? For 
example, would the Senator oppose the moratorium on Outer Continental 
Shelf leasing, which is contained in the Interior appropriations bill 
for 1995?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me respond to the Senator from Louisiana by saying 
that I take it on a case-by-case basis. I think what these 
environmental organizations are trying to say, and I simply quote:

       We recognize that Congress has a right and responsibility 
     to set environmental policies when necessary. However, floor 
     amendments to the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies 
     appropriation should not be the tool of first resort. We 
     oppose any floor amendments on procedural grounds and new 
     policy floor amendments. We oppose the Johnston amendment to 
     protect the EPA from implementing the ethanol rule.

  I think it speaks for itself.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Would the Senator agree that all these organizations 
you just mentioned oppose the rule of the EPA, whether they are for or 
against this amendment, as a way to get at the rule? Would you agree 
with me that they all opposed it then, and they testified against it, 
and that they oppose it now?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No. Mr. President, I would not agree with the Senator. 
As the Senator from Louisiana knows, I am very close to the 
environmental community, and I have had much discussion with the 
community. The Sierra Club was originally opposed to the EPA decision. 
I am not aware that the other organizations in fact are opposed. The 
Sierra Club made it very clear--and I have this letter. They make it 
clear that they oppose this amendment and think it is a mistake. In 
addition, I will quote----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Sierra Club also opposes the rule, though, that 
this----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator asked me whether all of these 
organizations opposed EPA rule. The answer I gave was, no, that is not 
correct. The Sierra Club opposed it, but other organizations took a 
different position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Minnesota 
has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Before yielding to the Senator from California, I want 
to take a minute to correct the Record on this. There has been a lot of 
talk here about what did Mary Nichols say, Assistant Administrator of 
EPA. My friend from Minnesota suggested that the quote that I had maybe 
was a little bit out of context. If I may put it into the Record, here 
is what she said:

       We are not claiming any air quality benefits as a result of 
     this proposal.

  What she said in questioning by Senator Bradley before our committee 
is as follows:

       I think I was clear in my testimony that we are not 
     claiming any air quality benefits as a result of the 
     proposal.
       Senator Bradley. No air quality benefits?
       Ms. Nichols. Correct. The air quality benefits are exactly 
     the same and that is what we are trying to maintain.
       Senator Bradley. So there are no air quality benefits from 
     this proposal?
       Ms. Nichols. In the intermediate term, when the regulation 
     goes into effect in 1995, we are not claiming any such 
     benefits.

  Skipping to the next page--

       Senator Bradley. Mr. Riggs, has DOE done any analysis of 
     the impact of this mandate on the refinery industry?
       Mr. Riggs. No.
       Senator Bradley. Has DOE done an analysis of the impact of 
     this mandate on the marketing and supply industries?
       Mr. Riggs. No.
       Senator Bradley. Has DOE done any analysis on the impact of 
     this mandate on gasoline prices on a market-by-market basis?
       Mr. Riggs. No.
       Senator Bradley. Can you assure my constituents that this 
     mandate will not result in spot shortages and price spikes?
       Mr. Riggs. I do not have any evidence that would allow me 
     to do that. I do not know of any such.

  So, Mr. President, I would like to offer this. I ask unanimous 
consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Senator Bradley. Does the ETA make the claim that 
     environmental benefits will accompany this proposal?
       Ms. Nichols. The studies that I have indicated to you 
     indicate environmental benefits over the long term. But I 
     think I was clear in my testimony that we are not claiming 
     any air quality benefits as a result of the proposal.
       Senator Bradley. No air quality benefits.
       Ms. Nichols. Correct. The air quality benefits are exactly 
     the same, and that is what we are trying to maintain.
       Senator Bradley. So that there are no air quality benefits 
     from this proposal?
       Ms. Nichols. In the immediate term, when the regulation 
     goes into effect in '95 we are not claiming any such 
     benefits.
       Senator Bradley. Okay. Are you aware that the Deputy 
     Administrator of EPA, Mr. Sussman, on Tuesday said that the 
     CO2 benefits of the mandate were negligible, if any?
       Ms. Nichols. I have heard that statement, yes.
       Senator Bradley. Do you agree with that?
       Ms. Nichols. I believe that, again looking at the short 
     term, he is correct, and that is what the DOE study would 
     also indicate. I believe that the claims or the interest in 
     renewable fuels is one which is based on the post-2000 need 
     for greater reductions in CO2 emissions.
       Senator Bradley. How did you arrive at a 30 percent mandate 
     as opposed to a 50 percent or a 10 percent?
       (Pause.)
       Why do you not think about that and let me ask Mr. Riggs a 
     couple of questions. I will come back to you, Ms. Nichols. 
     Let me just get Mr. Riggs. I only have five minutes.
       Ms. Nichols. I have the answer to your question if you 
     would like.
       Senator Bradley. Mr. Riggs, has DOE done any analysis of 
     the impact of this mandate on the refinery industry?
       Mr. Riggs. No.
       Senator Bradley. Has DOE done an analysis of the impact of 
     this mandate on the marketing and supply industries?
       Mr. Riggs. No.
       Senator Bradley. Has DOE done any analysis of the impact of 
     this mandate on gasoline prices on a market by market basis?
       Mr. Riggs. No.
       Senator Bradley. Can you assure my constituents that this 
     mandate will not result in spot shortages and price spikes?
       Mr. Riggs. I do not have any evidence that would allow me 
     to do that. I do not know of any such.
       Senator Bradley. Thank you very much. Let me ask you a 
     further question here. Are you aware that the Secretary of 
     Energy described the CO2 impact of the EPA mandate as 
     being a wash at Tuesday's hearing, meaning there is no 
     significant CO2 advantages?
       Mr. Riggs. Yes.
       Senator Bradley. You are aware of that?
       Mr. Riggs. Yes.
       Senator Bradley. Did DOE provide any official comments to 
     EPA?
       Mr. Riggs. We provided our analysis. We did not provide a 
     comment or recommendation because the analysis was still in 
     draft.
       Senator Bradley. Did you provide any unofficial comments or 
     other analysis to EPA?
       Mr. Riggs. Not as a DOE position, but our analysts talk 
     regularly with their analysts.
       Senator Bradley. The answer is no, you did not?
       Mr. Riggs. No official comment.
       Senator Bradley. Were these unofficial comments part of the 
     EPA official record?
       Mr. Riggs. Yes.
       Senator Bradley. If DOE did not comment, do you know how 
     the EPA calculated the energy security and global warming 
     benefits?
       Mr. Riggs. I think that is an ongoing process. We provided 
     our analysis based on their proposed standard and they are in 
     the process now of analyzing all the input to determine the 
     final standard. I would have to ask Ms. Nichols * * *.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I noticed, as the Senator from Louisiana discussed the 
comments made by the official from EPA, the reference was made to ``no 
immediate effect.'' Would the Senator repeat for the Record that 
particular line?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.

       Senator Bradley. No air quality benefits.
       Ms. Nichols. Correct. The air quality benefits are exactly 
     the same.
       Senator Bradley. So that there are no air quality benefits 
     from this proposal?
       Ms. Nichols. In the intermediate term, when the regulation 
     goes into effect in '95, we are not claiming any such 
     benefits.

  It goes on to say, if I may:

       Senator Bradley. OK. Are you aware that the deputy 
     administrator of EPA, Mr. Sussman, on Tuesday, said that the 
     CO2 benefits of the mandate were negligible if any?
       Ms. Nichols. I have heard that statement, yes.
       Senator Bradley. Do you agree with that?
       Ms. Nichols. I believe that, again looking at the short-
     term, he is correct, and that is what the DOE study would 
     also indicate. I believe that the claims or the interest in 
     renewable fuels is one which is based on the post-2000 need 
     for greater reductions in CO2 benefits.

  Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield, that is the point many of us 
have made all along--that, obviously, during the implementation phase, 
intermediate phase, it is difficult to calculate the benefits because 
the rule has not been fully implemented. In fact, it is the Senator's 
position that it ought never be implemented or delayed, thereby 
delaying whatever benefits could be created at the time of 
implementation.
  Obviously, we have to provide for an opportunity for this rule to be 
implemented in order for the benefits to be derived. That is, I think, 
the point of this testimony. Nobody should be confused. There is a very 
significant benefit related directly to this rule if it is allowed to 
be implemented; immediate would be a question, but in the long-term, 
there is absolutely no question.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Senator has made a point, and I 
think it is a valid one. I would like to put it in full context, and I 
would like this to go into the Record. What Ms. Nichols said is that 
between now and post-2000, there are no benefits. What are the benefits 
from? Post-2000, at some time, you are going to be able to make 
methanol and ethanol from wood and other products, they hope, they 
think, they opine. When those new products come in, if ever--not from 
corn--they expect you will get some kind of payoff. In the meantime, in 
the next 6 years, you are losing a billion dollars a year at least from 
the Highway Trust Fund, with no benefits.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield, it is too bad Ms. Nichols 
cannot be here to defend herself. This is not their position.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. EPA has been told this is the rule.
  Mr. DASCHLE. They would not implement this rule where there are no 
benefits for 6 years. What they are saying is in the immediate or 
intermediate phase, as the implementation is continuing, that indeed 
there is a negligible benefit simply because it is not implemented. 
But, certainly, I think it is very important that we keep the Record 
accurate here. The accurate statement reflects that EPA's position is 
that there is a clear benefit, once this rule is implemented, and we do 
not have to wait until 2000.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I want to put in the Record the full record of this, 
which is very clear as to what Ms. Nichols' testimony is. They are not 
talking about the transition phase from now and the next couple of 
years. They are talking about post-2000 when some things may or may not 
happen, such as methanol from wood or wood products or some kind of new 
biomass. That is when they are talking about and what makes this clear.
  I am having the staff look through to give the Senator the exact 
quote on that.
  In the meantime, Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana and thank you, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. President, I have been listening to this discussion. It seems to 
me there are three issues involved.
  One, does it increase gasoline prices anywhere from 2 to 6 cents? 
Does it increase corn and consumer prices? And does it increase air 
pollution? And is there a loss to agriculture from $80 to $134 million 
a year?
  I would like to discuss for a moment air pollution in my State.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record at an 
appropriate place the affidavit presented in Federal court on July 28 
of this year by Mr. James M. Strock, the secretary for the California 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 
                                94-1502]

     American Petroleum Institute and National Petroleum Refiners 
Association, Petitioners, v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
                              Respondents


 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AFFIDAVIT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES M. STROCK, 
   SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

       Petitioners American Petroleum Institute (``API'') and 
     National Petroleum Refiners Association (``NPRA'') hereby 
     move for leave to file the Affidavit of the Honorable James 
     M. Strock, Secretary for Environmental Protection for the 
     State of California, as Exhibit 34 to their ``Emergency 
     Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Review.'' A copy of the 
     Affidavit is attached.
       The Affidavit of Mr. Strock demonstrates the environmental 
     harm associated with the ethanol rule, and the harm to other 
     parties that the rule will cause. It supports arguments of 
     Petitioners in both the Emergency Motion for Stay and their 
     simultaneously-filed ``Motion for Summary Reversal or 
     Expedited Consideration.''
       Good cause exists to permit the filing of Mr. Strock's 
     Affidavit. The Affidavit contains important information from 
     an objective high-ranking public official who is not a party 
     to this case. The information was not available to 
     Petitioners when the Motions were filed.
       The Affidavit also corroborates the other Exhibits filed 
     with Petitioners' Motions. Filing of the Affidavit therefore 
     should not prejudice the other parties to this action, and 
     should not delay the parties' responses to those Motions. If, 
     however, Respondents or the Renewable Fuels Association wish 
     to respond to Mr. Strock's Affidavit within a reasonable time 
     in a supplemental filing to their responses due August 1, 
     Petitioners would not object.
       Respectfully submitted,
                                               Michael F. McBride,
         Rita M. Theisen, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, 
           Attorneys for Petitioners.
       Dated: July 28, 1994.
                                  ____


[In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 
                                94-1502]

     American Petroleum Institute and National Petroleum Refiners 
 Association, Petitioners, v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
                              Respondents


 Affidavit of James M. Strock in Support of Emergency Motion for Stay 
                        Pending Judicial Review

       I, James M. Strock, declare as follows:
       1. I am the Secretary for Environmental Protection for the 
     State of California. I was appointed by Governor Wilson in 
     1991. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth 
     herein, and if called upon to do so, I could and would 
     testify competently thereto.
       2. As Secretary for Environmental Protection, I head the 
     California Environmental Protection Agency (``Cal/EPA''). I 
     am responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of our 
     citizens and for protecting the environment.
       3. The State Air Resources Board (``ARB'') is one of the 
     departments within the Cal/EPA structure. The ARB is 
     recognized by the U.S. EPA as the State agency responsible 
     for attaining and maintaining healthful air quality within 
     California.
       4. Pursuant to federal and California law, the ARB is 
     vested with the jurisdiction to coordinate efforts to attain 
     and maintain federal and the more stringent California 
     ambient air quality standards, to conduct research into the 
     solutions to air pollution and to attack the problems caused 
     by motor vehicles, the major source of air pollution in Los 
     Angeles and San Diego.
       5. As described more fully below, EPA's promulgation of its 
     renewable oxygenates mandate, the Regulation of Fuel and Fuel 
     Additives, Renewable Oxygenate Requirement for Reformulated 
     Gasoline (``ROR Rule''), [Final Rule promulgated June 30, 
     1994] will result in irreparable injury to the health and 
     welfare of California citizens and to the environment since 
     there are significant costs associated with its 
     implementation in California and because it will exacerbate 
     air quality problems in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas.
       6. The ARB has determined that the ROR Rule likely will 
     cause a demonstrable detrimental impact to California air 
     quality during the winter months. Adding Ethanol to gasoline 
     results in an increase of the Reid Vapor Pressure (``RVP''). 
     As a result, the State would suffer increases in ozone, 
     particulate matter (PM10), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and 
     a loss of carbon monoxide (CO) emission reduction benefits. 
     These are four of the criteria pollutants for which EPA and 
     the State have set ambient air quality standards for the 
     protection of human health and the environment. We estimate 
     the use of ethanol as a renewable oxygenate would increase 
     the RVP of gasoline by an average of one (1) pound per 
     square inch (PSI) and would result in 20 tons per day of 
     added volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions during the 
     non-RVP season (i.e., the wintertime). VOCs are a 
     significant contributor to smog for which Los Angeles, by 
     far, has the worst problem in the country. To put that 
     number in context, in order to bring the Los Angeles basin 
     into compliance with the ozone standard, the local South 
     Coast Air Quality Management District seeks to reduce 1990 
     VOC emissions from 1,452 tons per day to 300 tons per day. 
     Therefore, a 20 ton per day increase (even spread out over 
     Los Angeles and San Diego) is unacceptable and could 
     interfere with our efforts to attain the nationally 
     mandated ozone standard in the Los Angeles basin. The 
     negative impacts associated with the other pollutants may 
     not be as dramatic or as well understood. Nonetheless, 
     EPA's action is indefensible on this ground alone.
       7. EPA also neglected to adequately consider other impacts 
     of the ROR Rule as applied in California. California has an 
     aggressive reformulated gasoline program which will achieve 
     much greater emission reductions than would be achieved by 
     the federal program alone. California's reformulated fuels 
     program is fuel-neutral to maximize flexibility in fuel 
     production to most effectively and efficiently achieve air 
     quality goals. EPA's specification of renewable oxygenates 
     (ethanol) undercuts the flexibility of California's program 
     without any indication of environmental benefits.
       8. I am informed that some California refiners may have to 
     undertake modifications to their facilities in order to 
     comply with the ROR Rule. The ROR Rule will impede California 
     gasoline producers' ability to comply with the extensive 
     regulatory requirements associated with California's program 
     because any modification to a facility will require filing 
     applications with local air agencies for permits to construct 
     and to operate. Those permit applications are required to be 
     evaluated and approved prior to any significant modifications 
     taking place. The agencies cannot be required to process 
     those applications in less than 180 days after receipt of the 
     application.
       9. The costs associated with the ROR Rule are not justified 
     since there is no air quality benefit. In fact, California is 
     left with a lost-lose proposition--worse air quality at a 
     substantial price tag for the State, California refiners and 
     consumers.
       10. If ethanol is the only renewable oxygenate used, the 
     actual, monetary cost to the State is expected to be $60 
     million because the increased use of ethanol (for which there 
     is a $0.54 per gallon tax credit) mandated by the ROR Rule 
     will reduce the federal excise tax collected for gasoline in 
     California. This $60 million loss would come in the form of 
     lost federal highway trust funds, thereby exacerbating 
     highway congestion and causing even more emissions from 
     inefficiently performing engines.
       11. The cost impacts on California refiners arise from 
     several areas including, but not limited to, requirements to 
     add substantial storage capacity at refineries and terminals, 
     recordkeeping requirements, uncertainty of ethanol supply, 
     refinery modifications and repermitting. Such costs, to the 
     extent possible, would likely be passed onto consumers and 
     would further hamper recovery from the prolonged recession in 
     Southern California.
       12. EPA also recognizes that there will be increases in 
     toxic emissions resulting from the ROR Rule. While the ARB 
     has not had the opportunity to fully study the toxic emission 
     impacts of the ROR Rule, EPA has indicated that additional 
     toxic emissions will result from the use of renewable 
     oxygenates. Addressing this issue, EPA merely states that 
     toxics air standards have been set in the RFG Rule and, 
     therefore, must be met. EPA, however, ignores the impact of 
     the increase in toxic emissions on those refiners which 
     already have emissions lower than the standard prescribed in 
     the ROR Rule. For such refiners, we expect toxic emissions 
     will increase, possibly up to the level (or standard) 
     established in the RFG Rule. For those refiners, there will 
     be actual toxics emission increases. Therefore, there will be 
     irreparable harm to California citizens.
       13. For the foregoing reasons, the ARB funds the ROR Rule 
     to be indefensible. The State of California implores this 
     Court to issue the stay requested by petitioners and reverse 
     this ill-conceived, irrational and harmful requirement.
       Executed this 29th day of July, 1994, at Sacramento, 
     California.
                                                  James M. Strock,
                                               Secretary, Cal/EPA.
                                  ____


[In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 
                                94-1502]

     American Petroleum Institute and National Petroleum Refiners 
Association, Petitioners, v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 
  Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
                              Respondents


                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that this 29th day of July, 1994, I am 
     serving on the following, by hand delivery and by facsimile, 
     copies of the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Affidavit of 
     The Honorable James M. Strock:
       John Hannon, Esq., Office of General Counsel, Air & 
     Radiation Division, Room W545 West Tower, U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
     20460.
       Correspondence Control Unit Office of General Counsel (LE-
     13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
     S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
       Alice Mattice, Esq., Tim Burns, Esq., U.S. Department of 
     Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, 10th 
     Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.
       Barry B. Direnfeld, Esq. Robert S. Taylor, Esq. Michael E. 
     Ward, Esq. Swidler & Berlin, Chtd. 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 
     300, Washington, D.C. 20007.
                                               Michael F. McBride.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Johnston-Bradley 
amendment to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from spending 
funds to implement its renewable oxygenates rule requiring the use of 
ethanol in reformulated gasoline.
  I oppose the mandate to use ethanol in reformulated gasoline for 
three basic reasons:
  It will have no clear environmental benefit. In fact, in California 
it could adversely affect air quality, increase emissions of volatile 
organic compounds, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides;
  It will likely increase costs to consumers; and
  It will cost California as much as $60 million in lost Federal 
highway trust funds.
  Mr. President, James Strock, secretary for Environmental Protection 
of the State of California, states EPA's promulgation of its renewable 
oygenate mandate will result in ``irreparable injury to the health and 
welfare of California citizens and to the environment since there are 
significant costs associated with its implementation and because it 
will exacerbate air quality problems in the Los Angeles and San Diego 
areas.''
  According to the California Air Resources Board, the rule will 
adversely impact California's air quality during winter months. Adding 
ethanol to gasoline increases the Reid vapor pressure. This results in 
increases in ozone, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen 
[NOx]. The State of California estimates that the use of ethanol 
as a renewable oxygenate in gasoline would result in an additional 20 
tons per day of volatile organic compound emissions in the wintertime. 
Volatile organic compounds are a significant contributor to smog, and 
as I'm sure my colleagues know, Los Angeles has the worst smog problem 
in the Nation.
  In order to bring the Los Angeles area into compliance with the ozone 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and protect the health of our 
citizens, the local South Coast Air quality Management District is 
trying to reduce the 1990 volatile organic compound emissions from 
1,452 tons per day to 300 tons per day. An increase of 20 tons of 
volatile organic compound emissions certainly interferes with the 
efforts to reduce these emissions and makes the overall goal far more 
difficult to achieve.
  California already has an aggressive reformulated gasoline program 
which will achieve much greater reductions in emissions that would be 
achieved under the Federal ethanol mandate. The California program is 
fuel-neutral and thus maximizes the State's flexibility to attain the 
air quality goals in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. The 
ethanol mandate undercuts this flexibility with no air quality 
benefits.
  Moreover, it will increase costs to California refiners, costs that 
likely will be passed on to consumers. The petroleum industry has 
already undertaken significant investments in reliance of the fuel-
neutral reformulated gasoline rule. If the ethanol mandate goes 
forward, I understand some refiners may have to make modifications to 
their facilities in order to comply with this mandate. For example, 
ethanol cannot be shipped through pipelines and will have to be blended 
in terminals downstream from the refinery. When ethanol is added 
downstream, refiners may need to overdesign their refineries to be sure 
that their gasoline meets the reformulated gasoline specifications. In 
addition, there are going to be additional record keeping costs. All of 
these costs are likely to be passed on to consumers. While we do not 
know the exact amount of the increased costs to produce reformulated 
gasoline with ethanol since they will be refinery specific, the 
California Air Resources Board expects the costs to California 
consumers to be significant.
  Additionally, the cost of ethyl tertiary butyl ether [ETBE] is 
significantly higher than the cost of methyl butyl ether [MTBE] and 
other comparable ethers. EPA has estimated that gasoline blended with 
ETBE will cost somewhat more than gasoline blended with MTBE. According 
to the California Air Resources Board, the increased use of ETBE would 
increase the total cost to California consumers by $20 million per 
year.
  Finally, Mr. President, the ethanol rule is going to cost the State 
of California a very substantial amount of money--as much as $60 
million. If ethanol is the only renewable oxygenate used, the State of 
California will lose $60 million in Federal highway trust funds. This 
is because the increased use ethanol, for which there is a 54 cents per 
gallon tax credit, will reduce the Federal excise tax collected for 
gasoline in California.
  Mr. President, in sum, the ethanol mandate fails to provide air 
quality benefits and it is going to cost consumers, refiners and the 
State money. It is a lose-lose situation. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the Johnston-Bradley amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to quote just briefly from some of this 
affidavit.

       EPA's promulgation of its renewable oxygenate mandate, the 
     regulation of fuel and fuel additives renewable oxygenate 
     requirement for reformulated gasoline will result in 
     ``irreparable injury to the health and welfare of California 
     citizens and to the environment since there are significant 
     costs associated with its implementation''--in California--
     ``and because it will exacerbate air quality problems in the 
     Los Angeles and San Diego areas.''
       The Air Resources Board has determined that the rule will 
     cause a demonstrable detrimental impact to California air 
     quality during the winter months. Adding ethanol to gasoline 
     results in an increase of the Reid vapor pressure. As a 
     result the State would suffer increases in ozone, particulate 
     matter, and oxides of nitrogen and a loss of carbon monoxide 
     emission reduction benefits. These are four of the criteria 
     pollutants for which EPA and the State have set ambient air 
     quality standards for the protection of human health and the 
     environment.
       We estimate the use of ethanol as a renewable oxygenate 
     would increase the RVP of gasoline by an average of one pound 
     per square inch and would result in 20 tons per day of added 
     volatile organic compound emissions during the non-RVP season 
     the winter time. VOC's are a significant contributor to smog 
     for which Los Angeles, by far, has the worst problem in the 
     country. To put that number in context, in order to bring the 
     Los Angeles basin into compliance with the ozone standard, 
     the local South Coast Air Quality Management District seeks 
     to reduce 1990 VOC emissions from 1,452 tons per day to 300 
     tons per day. Therefore, a 20 ton per day increase (even 
     spread out over Los Angeles and San Diego) is unacceptable 
     and could interfere with our efforts to attain the nationally 
     mandated ozone standard in the Los Angeles basin.

  So here, Mr. President, you have one mandate conflicting with another 
Federal mandate. What is the State to do? These are not my words. These 
are the words of James Strock, director of the California Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  He goes on to say.

       California already has an aggressive reformulated gasoline 
     program which will achieve much greater emission reductions 
     than would be achieved under the Federal program alone.
       California's reformulated fuels program is fuel-neutral to 
     maximize flexibility in fuel production to most effectively 
     and efficiently achieve air quality goals. EPA's 
     specification of renewable oxygenates (ethanol) undercuts the 
     flexibility of California's program without any indication of 
     environmental benefits.
       I am informed that some California refiners may have to 
     undertake modifications to their facilities in order to 
     comply with the ROR rule. The ROR rule will impede California 
     gasoline producers' ability to comply with the extensive 
     regulatory requirements associated with California's program 
     because any modification to a facility will require filing 
     applications with local air agencies for permits to construct 
     and to operate. Those permit applications are required to be 
     evaluated and approved prior to any significant modifications 
     taking place. The agencies cannot be required to process 
     those applications in less than 180 days after receipt of the 
     application.
       The costs associated with the ROR rule are not justified 
     since there is no air quality benefit. In fact, California is 
     left with a lose-lose proposition--worse air quality and a 
     substantial price tag for the State, California refiners and 
     for consumers.
       If ethanol is the only renewable oxygenate used, the actual 
     monetary cost to the State is expected to be $60 million 
     because the increased use of ethanol (for which there is a 
     $0.54 per gallon tax credit) mandated by the ROR rule will 
     reduce the Federal excise tax collected for gasoline in 
     California. This $60 million loss would come in the form of 
     lost Federal highway trust funds, thereby exacerbating 
     highway congestion and causing even more emissions from 
     inefficiently performing engines.

  The affidavit goes on to say that both the Air Resources Board and 
the director of Cal/EPA finds this rule to be indefensible.

       The State of California implores this Court to issue the 
     stay requested by petitioners and reverse this ill-conceived, 
     irrational and harmful requirement.

  Mr. President, I think the point is from our State's perspective that 
we already have an aggressive reformulated gasoline program which is 
going to accrue greater reductions than that which would be achieved 
under this Federal ethanol mandate. Our program is fuel neutral. So it 
maximizes the State's flexibility to maintain air quality goals in the 
most cost efficient and air efficient manner.
  I think the point that was made earlier that ethanol cannot be 
shipped through pipelines and will have to be blended in terminals 
downstream from the refinery is a real point. When it is added 
downstream, refiners may need to overdesign their refineries to be sure 
that their gasoline meets the reformulated gasoline specifications. 
While we do not know the exact amount of the increased cost, there is 
sure to be some.
  Mr. President, these are not my views. These are the views of the 
California Environmental Protection Agency. I believe they should be 
entered in full into the Record and I hope this adds a positive note to 
this debate.
  I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senate Republican 
leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in the implementation of the Reformulated Gasoline 
Program contained in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the 
Environmental Protection Agency has misinterpreted the law, doctored 
the science and created this massive problem we are here trying to 
straighten out today.
  During the drafting of the Clean Air Act, some considered giving 
ethanol an advantage in the marketplace by writing into the law an 
oxygen requirement which MTBE could not meet. At the time, I said I 
could not support such a proposal, since it was and continues to be my 
belief that the marketplace should be the arbiter of this fight between 
ethanol and MTBE. The law was written with policy securely embedded 
within it--the policy that ethanol and MTBE would compete equally for 
the reformulated gasoline market.
  Following the enactment of the law, EPA undertook the task of writing 
regulations to implement the law. That process, referred to as reg-neg 
resulted in a product so foreign to both the letter and spirit of the 
law that I question the capability of the lawyers at EPA who allowed 
this abomination to move forward.
  What EPA created was a program in which only MTBE could compete--
there was no marketplace competition between MTBE and ethanol, there 
was no ethanol at all, it was a 100 percent mandate for MTBE. What is 
so outrageous about this approach is that the vast majority of the MTBE 
we will use will be from imports. That is right, the reg-neg process in 
a mandate for the United States of America to become even more 
dependent on foreign sources of energy. I ask my colleagues who are 
trying to protect the hydrocarbon industry of this country how they can 
support such a program? How can they lay claim to concern for the oil 
industry by turning their backs on American energy security?
  Mr. President, I did not vote for nor do I support a 100-percent 
mandate for MTBE. I did not vote for nor do I support a program that 
requires--that mandates--the United States. of America become more 
reliant on foreign sources of energy. Such a program is so outlandish 
that it would be laughed out of this chamber. Unfortunately, the 
adoption of the Johnston amendment would allow such a program to take 
place.
  On the other hand, I do not support the administration's proposed 
solution to the clear distortion of the law that EPA had been seeking 
to implement. Rather than simply allowing the marketplace to be the 
judge, we now have a proposal that ethanol should be given 30 percent 
of the market. Why 30 percent, why not 25 percent or 50 percent or even 
70 percent? It could just as easily be any of these numbers because 30 
percent is arbitrary, it has no real foundation in the market or in 
science or any other field of fact. Of course, that should not surprise 
anyone since EPA has studiously avoided any field of fact from the 
beginning of this horrendous process.

  EPA has long had an antiethanol bias. They had it in the Bush 
administration. As a result, the director of the EPA laboratory simply 
toys with numbers each time certified scientists pull back the curtain 
to reveal this Wizard of Oz and his tactics. There have been 
allegations of threats if private sector scientists did not cease 
seeking the truth, threats that no more EPA research dollars would flow 
their way. Mr. President, some day this will be rectified. It may not 
be today, it will not be resolved by this amendment, but it will be 
rectified.
  EPA's antiethanol bias efforts to produce antiethanol results in 
testing efforts go beyond belief. During a Senate agriculture hearing 
this May, my colleague, Senator Grassley, pointed out questionable 
testing procedures which included the removal of gas caps off cars and 
the failure to correct technical computer errors that would improve the 
testing outcome for ethanol. This type of control fails to provide a 
fair and accurate process to determine what everyone knows are the 
positive benefits of ethanol use.
  The justification for not using the marketplace is EPA's assertion 
that ethanol will result in increased ozone. But, what we must all 
realize is that all of this science is nothing more than theory. That 
is right, not on fact but on theory the EPA tried to mandate that the 
United States become even more energy dependent of foreign energy 
sources, on theory EPA bureaucrats want to further jeopardize our 
energy security.
  In addition, the health risks associated with the use of MTBE have 
been raised throughout the country. Senator Grassley and I included 
this information in our dear colleague letter, however, there are those 
unhappy with questions raised about MTBE health risks. The American 
Medical Association has called for a moratorium on MTBE-blended fuels 
until scientific studies resolve these health risk questions. Alaska 
was identified in the resolution, and complaints have poured in from 
other States as well. Ongoing investigations into the health risks of 
MTBE by the center for disease control is a recognition of the concern 
for the potential harm associated with the use of MTBE-blended fuels. 
Reputable groups, such as the American Medical Association and the 
Center for Disease Control continue to question the health risks 
associated with MTBE-blended fuels. As long as the questions exist, we 
need to insure consumers have a choice in the marketplace.
  If you do adopt the Johnston amendment, we create a de facto mandate 
for MTBE and not allow a choice for consumers.
  As I said, I do not support the administration's proposed solution of 
a 30-percent ethanol mandate. But, the Senate has been placed in the 
untenable situation of having to vote for a 30-percent mandate of a 100 
percent mandate. We are not allowed to choose the marketplace.
  But we must vote. And I will vote against the Johnston amendment for 
the reasons I have stated and many others that have been stated on this 
floor today, and ask my colleagues do the same. If you want a 100-
percent MTBE mandate, then I suppose you will support that amendment.
  This is not what we were told was going to happen in the Clean Air 
Act. And I happen to think it is bad energy policy and bad trade 
policy.
  So it seems to me that we are being asked to look at the lesser of 
two evils, the lesser of two evils by 70 percent.
  I know that this has been described as a battle between the farmer 
and big oil. That is not the point I am trying to make. The point I am 
trying make is, I am opposed to mandates. Why not let the marketplace 
work? It seems to me in this case we have a choice between a 100-
percent mandate and a 30 percent mandate. And I am prepared, at least 
in this case, to take the lesser of two evils.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Where did the Senator say this 100 percent mandate from 
MTBE comes from?
  Mr. DOLE. That really comes from what the EPA did a couple years ago. 
That is where it all started. Ethanol was shut out altogether. They had 
an ethanol bias.
  I must say, I tried to prevail on the Bush administration. Mr. Bill 
Reilly, as I recall, was the EPA Administrator. And I would insert for 
the Record a letter sent to Bill Reilly which outlines the concerns of 
EPA's actions toward ethanol. We met with him for month after month 
after month trying to find some relief. I think the Senator from 
Illinois may have been at one of the meetings.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 1992.
     Hon. William K. Reilly,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Bill: When Congress adopted the Clean Air Act 
     Amendments of 1990, it did so with the expectation that 
     alcohol fuels would not be precluded from being eligible to 
     meet the section 211 requirements for reformulated gasoline, 
     designed to provide cleaner fuel in ozone nonattainment 
     areas.
       At the same time, Congress did not intend that the Act be 
     used indirectly as a methanol mandate at the expense of 
     ethanol. Both ethanol and methanol were intended to be placed 
     on equal footing consistent with the air quality goals of the 
     Act. Unfortunately, reformulated gasoline regulations 
     proposed by EPA, after a negotiated rulemaking, appear to 
     have the effect of closing the reformulated gasoline program 
     to ethanol and do not, as currently proposed, comply with the 
     law.
       We are aware of negotiations currently ongoing within the 
     Administration which are attempting to resolve these 
     problems. Since the Act itself does not create them, we 
     strongly urge the EPA to resolve the problems created by the 
     proposed rules in a timely manner so that reformulated 
     gasoline is available by the statutory January 1, 1995 
     deadline.
       To this end, we request your direct personal intervention 
     in these negotiations to ensure the EPA is doing everything 
     within its authority to uphold the intent of the Congress and 
     the requirements of the law.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Dole,
     George Mitchell,
     John Chafee,
     Max Baucus.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is not claiming there is a requirement in 
the law now for 100 percent use of MTBE.
  Mr. DOLE. I am not claiming that.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator does understand that the EPA rules require 
30 percent of ethanol.
  Mr. DOLE. I am saying the net effect of it is you have a 100 percent 
MTBE mandate.
  I know what the rules require on ethanol. Why not let the marketplace 
work? Why rely on all the foreign sources? I know the Senator from West 
Virginia has a direct interest because it is very important to his 
State. I do not quarrel with that.
  But my view from the start has been, even though it may not be shared 
by some who support ethanol, there is a marketplace out there and we 
ought to let it work. And I believe ethanol will do quite well. Maybe 
MTBE will do quite well, also.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, my friend from Kansas, I sometimes 
disagree with him, but I never fail to be impressed with his wizardry 
here on the floor. To be able to say that the present law requires a 
100 percent MTBE mandate is an example of that wizardry. It appears 
nowhere in the statute, nowhere in the rules, and yet it appears out of 
the legislative creativity of the mind of our friend from Kansas, and I 
stand in admiration of that.
  Mr. DOLE. I just suggest, with ethanol shut out, you get it all. I am 
not sure what you call that. We have had a lot of talk about mandates 
and it seems to me that would be a fitting word to put in here. People 
understand mandates. That is where the Government says you cannot have 
any, and there is only one other product on the market. That is not 
much of a choice.
  So it seems like it is 100 percent. Maybe I missed something.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator agree with this: Whatever share of the 
market ethanol now has is as a result of the 54 cents a gallon; 
whatever share that MTBE has is as a result of the free market. And 
that is the sense of what my friend says is a complete mandate for 
MTBE.
  Mr. DOLE. I cannot totally agree with that.
  I have been prepared ever since we had the Clean Air Act to let the 
marketplace work. But, as I have said, there is and/or was, and I still 
think it may be to some extent, some anti-ethanol bias around this town 
and until we have an opportunity to compete fairly, then I do not think 
we have any choice but to vote against the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my friend from Louisiana.
  I say to the Republican leader, I can almost count the times on one 
hand that I have been around on the floor and heard you speak and 
wanted to stand up and say that I did not agree with you, because that 
had not happened very often. So maybe you ought to just go ahead and 
leave before I do so, so I do not have to do it in front of you, 
because I do not do that very often.
  Let me suggest that the distinguished Republican leader has it 
backwards, in my opinion. What this 30 percent mandate is going to do 
is to get rid of the marketplace. It is going to take the place of the 
marketplace.
  As a matter of fact, speaking about EPA arbitrariness, nobody 
understands where this came from. I mean, it went through reg-neg, 2 
years of hearings to establish regulations. And after they did that 
with everybody that has an interest, they decided there should be no 
mandate. And then, all of the sudden, and I hate to tell everybody 
this, but all of the sudden, I say to my good friend from Minnesota, 
the White House decided that it ought to be in there.
  Now that is wonderful, except it does not have a lot to do with EPA 
and it does not have a lot to do with environmental cleanup.
  Somehow or other, the Environmental Protection Agency was told after 
the full hearings on this that they had to go ahead and establish a new 
rule with 30 percent.
  Am I not right, I ask my friend from Louisiana? Did not the EPA, 
before our committee, sit there and say, first, we do not know where it 
came from; like the 30 percent came out of the sky. The more we pushed 
them, it was obvious there was a nice trail from EPA over to the White 
House. Then, whether it was the President himself--nobody would quite 
say it--but obviously somebody told them to.
  That is essentially what we are here for. Somebody in a high 
political position within the executive branch, after all of the 
appropriate hearings required by law were finished and there was no 
mandate on ethanol perceived to be in compliance with the law, needed 
by the law, or good for the country, after that all occurred the 30 
percent came along.
  Frankly, I am here because I recall vividly--and I thought he was on 
the floor a moment ago--during the debate on the Clean Air Act 
amendments, ethanol was discussed. Senator Daschle was the principal 
sponsor of an amendment that required that formulated gasoline use 
oxygenates.
  And during that, Senator Daschle assured us,

       Our amendment does not lock refiners into any particular 
     fuel composition. Refiners can decide how they want to get 
     octane without toxic aromatics; they can decide how to 
     achieve the oxygenate standard.

  What has happened is that the Environmental Protection Agency--and, 
frankly, I do not agree with them all the time, I am not sure 
everything they have done on this issue is right--but essentially they 
followed the law. They wanted to make sure there would be competition. 
They wanted to make sure we were doing the very best by cleaning up our 
air yet bringing ethanol and methanol into the marketplace.
  When they finished that, they decided there was competition, but they 
decided that it was not in the interests of the country to divvy up 
that market. If you could get ethanol cheaper, you ought to use it. If 
you could get methanol cheaper, you ought to use it. And, remember, 
ethanol has a pretty good subsidy going in. But that was not discussed. 
You take that as a given. If it was not competitive, obviously it would 
lose out.
  It turns out that is not the case. But I might suggest for those who 
are wondering about competition, we are using a lot more ethanol today 
than we did 5 years ago. And it is growing without a mandate. I do not 
remember the numbers. Maybe somebody on the floor does. But that 
marketplace is growing. In fact, I will tell you right now, in my State 
in a purely competitive market there is a refinery using ethanol 100 
percent.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator says ``a purely competitive market,'' 
purely competitive, keeping in mind the 54-cent subsidy for ethanol.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As I said a while ago, nobody suggested, in deciding we 
would not further clutter up this market, to take anything away from 
ethanol. They were getting a subsidy, and it was assumed there is some 
benefit to the subsidy. So it has been left alone in these 
calculations.
  In my State there is a refinery using 100 percent ethanol, and they 
are competitive. Frankly, I am very hopeful nobody votes for this on 
the basis that this is in favor of the refiners and against 
agriculture. I believe the vote in favor of the 1-year moratorium is a 
vote for the automobile users of America, which means all of them--
millions of Americans. They will pay less for gasoline over the long 
haul. As a matter of fact, it might shock people, but my best 
information is that we will import more oil, not less--more oil, not 
less--if we go to this 30-percent standard.
  Having said that, I am also hopeful nobody is confused about the 
environmental issue. There is a letter from the environmental groups 
suggesting in a very soft way they do not like this amendment. But not 
because they do not like the substance. They say they do not like it 
because they do not like the precedent of voting this kind of 
environmental prohibition on an appropriations bill.
  Let me suggest there is no other way. If we do not do it this way, we 
will not get it done and this 30-percent rule will go into effect.
  I will quote from the statement of the Sierra Club:

       The Sierra Club opposes the renewable oxygenate requirement 
     for reformulated gasoline because the proposal is illegal, a 
     violation of the regulatory negotiations, and the incomplete 
     analysis fails to demonstrate that there are any significant 
     air quality and other benefits that would warrant the 
     additional costs imposed.

  I want to close by saying to my friends Senator Johnston and Senator 
Bradley, who have raised the issue of the existing subsidy of 54 
cents--let me say to the Senator from Louisiana, did my colleague know 
we already calculate in our budget a very large cost to the budget of 
the United States based upon the 30-percent policy? It is assumed in 
the baseline we are using. And believe it or not, it increases the 
deficit over 5 years by $794 million.
  Frankly, I think that is enough. That is enough for ethanol. That is 
more than they ought to get. We ought to try to save some of that 
money. But if we do not do what my colleague is suggesting, then that 
is added to the deficit by the policy of 30-percent.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, that also does not take into 
consideration that which is lost to the highway trust funds, $545 
million.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. That is correct. So I close saying 
that far be it from the Senator from New Mexico being opposed to 
farming, being opposed to raising corn, being opposed to using various 
of these kinds of crops to make energy for the United States. I just 
believe we have a lot of sources. The other source is natural gas. We 
have that in abundance also, to make the methanol. So I believe we 
ought to leave the marketplace alone. That is precisely why I am here. 
I wish this amendment did away with the 30 percent rule forever, but it 
actually is a compromise, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. It is just 
a 1-year moratorium in an effort to make sure we have some more time to 
get to this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SIMON. On behalf of Senator Harkin I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma sought recognition 
first. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Senator Harkin has time allotted to him. He 
has asked me to allot myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we are hearing a lot of contradictory 
things here today. Let me just talk about a couple of things because 
Senator Bradley has indicated these in his letter. My friend, Senator 
Rockefeller, who has done such a great job on health care, has 
indicated consumers are going to pay more. He is right on health care. 
He is wrong on this one.
  Gasoline prices. EPA says this will increase gasoline prices between 
two-hundredths of 1 percent and two-tenths of 1 percent. So, yes, in 
gasoline prices a slight increase.
  But on food it is not going to increase food prices one one-hundredth 
of 1 percent, because that is not the way the food market works. The 
price of corn flakes is not going to go up 1 penny.
  Let me tell you from somebody who lives at Route 1, Makanda, IL, if 
the price of a combine by John Deere or International Harvester goes 
up, the price of wheat does not go up because that is not how we set 
the price of wheat out there. So do not think you are protecting 
consumers by voting for the amendment offered by my friend from 
Louisiana.
  If this were to increase the price of the end product, the National 
Pork Producers Council would certainly not be indicating support for 
the position that I hold.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
National Pork Producers Council be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              National Pork Producers Council,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1994.
     Hon. Paul Simon,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Simon: As you know, it has been suggested by 
     some of your colleagues that the U.S. pork industry is not in 
     support of the ethanol industry and the Administration's 
     recent action on reformulated gasoline. To the contrary, the 
     National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), which represents the 
     nation's pork industry, supports a renewable fuels-based 
     ethanol industry in the U.S. and the Clinton Administration's 
     recently announced Renewable Oxygenate Requirement (ROR).
       Furthermore, we strongly support the principle of value 
     added agriculture, whether it be producing pork from corn or 
     ethanol from corn. Both create jobs, increase revenues and 
     generated economic activity which are vital to the long term 
     viability of rural America.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Glen Keppy,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my friend from New Mexico, for whom I have 
great regard and with whom I have worked on a lot of budget matters, 
indicated that this is going to cost money. The reality is the GAO 
study says we are going to save $100 million a year in terms of 
subsidies, and that includes what goes over to the Highway Trust Fund.
  The Highway Trust Fund has been mentioned, and that we are going to 
lose jobs because of a lack of money going into the Highway Trust Fund. 
The reality is the Highway Trust Fund has an $11 billion surplus. What 
is stopping us from spending money from the Highway Trust Fund is not 
any regulation like this; it is our fiscal imprudence. I would love to 
be able to get Senator Rockefeller and Senator Johnston to join Thomas 
Jefferson in favoring a constitutional amendment that says we should 
have a balanced budget, and then when we allocate money like this, we 
will spend it for the purposes for which we should be spending it. But 
this is not going to lose one job, one highway project in West Virginia 
or Illinois or Minnesota or any other State.
  I think Senator Exon is correct. A lot of this is a fight between 
agricultural States and big oil States, and I understand that. We all 
have our particular perspective.
  Citizen Action does not have an ax to grind. They are opposed to this 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to print a letter from Citizen Action in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Citizen Action,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1994.
     Hon. Dale Bumpers,
     Dirksen Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bumpers: It is our understanding that Senator 
     J. Bennett Johnston may offer an amendment to the VA/HUD and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations bill that would prevent the 
     Environmental Protection Agency from implementing the 
     proposed Renewable Oxygen Standard (ROS) as part of the 
     Reformulated Gasoline program (RFG). Citizen Action and its 
     three million members in 33 states, the nation's largest 
     consumer organization, strongly opposes this amendment and 
     urges you to vote against it if it is offered.
       The EPA's Renewable Oxygen Standard is designed to ensure 
     that domestically-produced, renewable oxygen components have 
     a place in the RFG program. Without the ROS, major oil 
     companies will rely on MTBE, an oxygen component which U.S. 
     refiners cannot manufacture in sufficient quantity and which 
     increasingly must be imported from unstable regions of the 
     world like the Middle East.
       Moreover, the ROS will assure consumers of competition 
     among suppliers of oxygen components and choice in the 
     reformulated fuels market. Without the ROS, most refiners 
     will rely on MTBE, their oxygenate of choice. By increasing 
     the available supply of oxygenates by 30 percent, using 
     domestic renewable resources to make ethanol and ETBE, the 
     overall cost of the RFG program would decline.
       The aggressive propaganda and deceitful lobbying tactics 
     against the ROS by the major oil companies and their trade 
     associations, including the American Petroleum Institute and 
     the National Petroleum Refiners Association, are self-serving 
     and designed to block competition, not improve the 
     environment. Their claims to the contrary, the ROS does not 
     pose a serious threat to these companies. In point of fact, 
     the ROS will only require 1.6 volume percent of all 
     reformulated gasoline to be derived from renewable resources. 
     The remaining 98.4 percent will still be components 
     manufactured by the nation's refiners from hydrocarbon fuel 
     sources.
       Please vote against the Johnston amendment. Please vote for 
     consumers. Please vote for cleaner-burning, domestically 
     produced renewable fuel and competition in the market for 
     oxygenate components.
           Sincerely,
                                              Edwin S. Rothschild,
                                           Energy Policy Director.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, finally, if there is anyone in the Senate 
who hears my voice who has not made up his or her mind yet --and it is 
going to be a close vote--ask this question: Will this amendment make 
us less dependent or more dependent on foreign oil? And the answer is, 
it is going to make us more dependent.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMON. I want to use my 5 minutes. I will be pleased to yield to 
my friend after that.
  The reality is it is going to make us more dependent on foreign oil. 
We are more dependent on foreign oil right now than we were in 1973, 
when we had the great crisis. We should not exacerbate that problem.
  The reality is--and this will do just a small bit in making us more 
energy independent--but it gives us a renewable source, a domestic 
source for energy and, by all means, we ought to defeat this amendment 
of my friend from Louisiana who on many things is absolutely right and 
on this one, he is wrong.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Now, Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I think the Senator is well acquainted with Argonne 
National Laboratories.
  Mr. SIMON. I have heard of that facility. It is in my State.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It was commissioned by DOE to do a study on what the 
effect on oil imports would be of this. Is the Senator aware that their 
conclusion was:

       It is clear that there will be increases in oil use 
     associated with the ROS.

  ROS being the renewable oxygenated standard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. On my time, 1 minute. Is the Senator aware that Argonne 
made that conclusion?
  Mr. SIMON. I am aware of it. I also have a study I would like to 
enter into the Record--I do not have it with me--that points out the 
errors in the Argonne study, even though generally Argonne is a good 
source of information.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield for the 
purpose of asking the Senator from Illinois a question?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois made 
reference to the fact that not one single job would be lost if this 
ethanol mandate goes through. The Highway Users Federation, using a 
Federal Highway Administration formula, has estimated a loss of 13,000 
jobs in highway and bridge construction alone. That is simply a fact I 
assume the Senator is willing to accept.
  Mr. SIMON. It is a fact that they stated that. I disagree with their 
conclusion. They are opposed to any kind of use or any interference 
that might be made with the Highway Trust Fund, including use for mass 
transit and other things.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. In addition, the International Brotherhood of 
Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers--and 
I will submit this letter for the Record--states that: ``For each $1 
billion the trust fund loses America loses approximately 39,000 jobs. 
And that's a resource we cannot renew.''
  Is the Senator prepared to refute that?
  Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to respond. I am not familiar with that 
particular position, but let me say in response, the reality is, there 
is an $11 billion surplus in the highway trust fund.
  The problem with the highway trust fund is not the EPA regulation. It 
is our fiscal imprudence so that we take that highway trust fund and 
try to pretend we are balancing the budget with that.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in 
the Record the letter to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship 
           Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers
                                      Fairfax, VA, August 3, 1994.
     Attention: Energy/Environment Legislative Aide.
     Re support for the Bradley/Johnston amendment eliminating 
         funding for the ethanol mandate.

     Hon. John D. Rockefeller, IV D-WVA,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator. Today, the Senate resumes its consideration 
     of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. 
     This bill contains much that is vital for workers, including 
     members of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 
     Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO, 
     and we urge its passage. However, we believe the bill can be 
     vastly improved by striking the funding for the so-called 
     ethanol mandate from the EPA budget, and therefore 
     respectfully request that you endorse the Bradley/Johnston 
     Amendment.
       The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers include 
     lodges representing cement and construction workers. Both are 
     unfairly disadvantaged by the ethanol mandate. For each 
     gallon of ethanol consumed in the United States, the Highway 
     Trust Fund loses 54 cents. Given the additional usage 
     anticipated under the EPA proposal, the Trust Fund can be 
     expected to lose another $465 million--bringing total ethanol 
     losses to over $1 billion. Trust Fund money buys the cement 
     that Boilermakers make, and is used in projects on which 
     Boilermakers work. For each $1 billion the Trust Fund loses, 
     America loses approximately 39,000 jobs. And that's a 
     resource we cannot renew!
       Boilermakers have always supported alternative fuels. 
     Indeed, we have actively encouraged the use of waste-derived 
     fuels, or WDFs, in cement kilns. The difference is that where 
     WDFs save jobs, ethanol loses them; where WDFs help the 
     environment by recycling waste, ethanol hurts the environment 
     by increasing volatile air emissions; and where recycling is 
     encouraged under RCRA, the ethanol mandate appears illegal 
     under the Clean Air Act.
       Again, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 
     encourages you to reject the ethanol mandate, and to support 
     the Bradley/Johnston Amendment. Please let us know if you 
     have further questions.
           Very truly yours,
                                                      Ande Abbott,
                                          Director of Legislation.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, one further question. The Senator 
made in his presentation the argument that methanol is made overseas, 
and therefore its use increases the trade imbalance.
  Is the Senator aware 93 percent of the methanol consumption in North 
America is produced in North America, and that 80 percent of the 
methanol consumed in the United States is made in the United States 
itself?
  Mr. SIMON. There are those who differ with those percentages, but I 
just point out, if you have a choice of 100 percent domestically or 
whatever percentage you have from overseas, I prefer 100 percent 
domestic consumption.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate my 
colleague from Louisiana for his leadership on this amendment. I wish 
this amendment were not necessary. I, frankly, think the EPA made a 
serious mistake when they tried to mandate that 30 percent of 
reformulated gasoline use ethanol. That is the reason we are here.
  We are not trying to mandate methanol. I do not think Congress should 
be mandating fuels, period. I remember early in my Senate career in 
1981 spending a great deal of time on this floor debating the Fuel Use 
Act, saying Congress should not prohibit the burning of natural gas. 
And Congress passed a law called the Fuel Use Act that said we could 
not burn natural gas in certain industrial capacities and certain power 
plants. We finally repealed that law. Congress made a mistake. That was 
part of the energy program in the late seventies, where Congress tried 
to impose its will or its wisdom on the burning of fuels, and it made 
serious mistakes that caused a lot of economic hardships and cost 
consumers billions of dollars. That was a mistake.
  Many of us were involved in the negotiations of the Clean Air Act, 
and we made a decision. We were not going to dictate what type of 
oxygenates would be used. Then EPA comes in and says they are going to 
legislate, they are going to mandate, they are going to dictate that 30 
percent of the oxygenates have to come from ethanol. I think they are 
doing it for political purposes because there is no environmental 
purpose to be served.
  This does not improve the environment. I notice my friend and 
colleague, Senator Bradley, is here, and he asked the Assistant 
Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation of the EPA, Ms. Mary 
Nichols:

       What evidence is there, or is there any improvement in the 
     environment?

  Her quote is this:

       But I think I was clear in my testimony, we are not 
     claiming any air quality benefits as a result of this 
     proposal.

  No air quality benefits as a result of this proposal. So there is no 
environmental impact. Maybe even in some cases it would be detrimental 
to air quality. That is kind of technical, but we can get into that if 
people would like.
  What about the argument that some have said, ``Well, this will reduce 
oil imports?'' The facts do not substantiate that. Actually, by 
mandating the use of ethanol, you are requiring a greater fuel use in 
the production and manufacture of reformulated gasoline than is 
necessary in comparison to ethanol. So it could actually cause an 
increase in oil imports as a result of this.
  What is the impact on taxpayers? I have heard my colleagues, and I 
respect many colleagues who are debating the other side of this issue, 
say they think we should be fuel neutral. Then we should support the 
Johnston amendment. We are not fuel neutral now. The Johnston amendment 
is needed to make this issue fuel neutral.
  We have a massive subsidy for ethanol, more so than any other fuel or 
any other type of fuel. It is already 5.4 cents a gallon, and that 
costs taxpayers today about $550 million. So that is a big subsidy 
already today. If this proposal passes, that will increase it about 
$545 million. So we are talking about a subsidy to the ethanol industry 
of over $1 billion, and we do not reduce oil imports, and we do not 
clean up the environment.
  Well, we may make some ethanol producers happy, maybe one in 
particular, but I do not think we are accomplishing our objective. What 
are we doing to consumers? Well, we are increasing their price of fuel, 
and increasing their price of fuel substantially. What are we doing to 
taxpayers? Well, they are going to have to pay another $545 million in 
subsidies.
  This 30 percent mandate that EPA is trying to put on is a mistake for 
a lot of reasons. One, it is legislation. We did not do this in the 
clean air bill for a purpose. We knew it would be a mistake. If EPA can 
make a ruling that says, well, 30 percent is right, I guess they could 
say 100 percent is right, or 50 percent. EPA does not have that kind of 
authority.
  Now, this rule will be contested in court, but we should not allow 
this to go forward. This is a ripoff. This is an outrage. This is going 
to cost consumers and taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. People 
should know that. I have heard people say, well, this is big oil versus 
agriculture. That is hogwash. I happen to have both in my State. It is 
ridiculous to make that kind of statement because it is not true.
  Let us allow the marketplace to dictate what should be burned, what 
oxygenate should be used. Let us allow science to be involved. And this 
again is a serious, serious mistake.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would just note that some in the 
environmental community are opposed to this 30 percent mandate, and I 
think for proper reasons, because it does not improve the environment. 
I have also noted that there are several newspapers which have come out 
in strong opposition. I will read a couple of these. One is from 
Chicago. This is the Chicago Tribune. It says:

       The decision was a victory--

  Talking about the 30-percent mandate for ethanol.

       The decision was a victory for Midwest corn farmers and 
     ethanol producers, but it was a resounding defeat for good 
     public policy and sound science.

  I think they are exactly right.
  In the New York Times:

       Ethanol will not clean the air beyond what the 1990 Clean 
     Air Act would require; nor will it raise farm income very 
     much or significantly cut oil imports. What the EPA's rule 
     will do is take money from consumers and taxpayers and hand 
     it over to ADM.

  And the Washington Post:

       This misuse of environmental laws as patronage to benefit 
     narrow economic interests is a mistake.

  Finally in the Houston Chronicle:

       The requirement that a car's fuel be made from a renewable 
     source like corn makes no more sense than a demand that its 
     engine be made from wood.

  Mr. President, that is exactly right. We should be fuel neutral. We 
should allow the marketplace to dictate what is the best fuel, what is 
the most economical fuel. This decision by EPA, which I think is 
somewhat politically motivated, is a serious mistake. It is not in 
consumers' interests. It is not in the environment's interests. It is 
not in the interest of reducing energy imports. I hope that my 
colleagues would support Senator Johnston's amendment and send a signal 
to EPA that they are making a serious mistake.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Iowa to yield 
me 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield 10 minutes in just 1 second. 
I wish to get one thing in the Record here.
  Mr. President, I yield myself a couple minutes.
  I just keep hearing all this talk about the statement by Mary 
Nichols. It is true that she is a political appointee. She is an 
otherwise very bright, capable individual. I have a lot of respect for 
her. But I think a lot of this, the essence of what we are talking 
about in terms of ethanol and in terms of the oxygenate rule and what 
the environmental benefits were, was more clearly defined by Mr. 
Richard Wilson who is the expert, who works in that office and who has 
been there for several years. I do not know how long. He was here 
during the clean air debates.
  After the hearing in which Mary Nichols made the statement that we 
keep hearing repeated all the time around here by the proponents of the 
Johnston amendment, we had Richard Wilson up to testify, who as I said 
is the expert. And here is what he said:

       So there are a number of benefits, environmental benefits, 
     that we think will accrue both in the short term and 
     particularly in the long term as a result of the proposal.

  So the experts at EPA were saying something quite different.
  Mr. President, I would like to have Mr. Wilson's entire statement be 
printed in the Record.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, did I not get recognition? I did not 
yield to everybody in this place. I only asked for 15 minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator was recognized but the Senator 
from Iowa controls the time and had not yet yielded time to the Senator 
from Minnesota. So the Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will just be very brief. EPA has provided an actual 
position statement on this question, entitled ``Impacts of Renewable 
Oxygenates Rule,'' which confirms what the Senator from Iowa has just 
stated, although it elaborates in much more detail why the rule has 
intermediate and long-term benefits, and I think this would be an 
appropriate place to insert it in the Record as well.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Statement of Dick Wilson

       Q. Does EPA still believe that renewable oxygenates will 
     reduce VOC's and toxic air pollutants?
       A. Mr. Wilson. Well, Senator, as you know, we are in the 
     midst of our rulemaking process, so we are gathering all the 
     information that we can get from all the different sources. 
     But we certainly believe that the renewable oxygenate 
     proposal is likely to lead toward both shifting ethanol use 
     out of summertime and into the wintertime where it can count 
     toward the proposal and also likely over time to lead to an 
     increase--to a new market for ethanol use and ETBE. And both 
     of those trends would reduce VOC emissions in the summertime 
     that lead to ozone depletion in many of the cities across the 
     country.
       So there are number of benefits, environmental benefits, 
     that we think will accrue both in the short term and 
     particularly in the long term as a result of the proposal.
                                  ____


                Impacts of the Renewable Oxygenates Rule


                    environmental and other benefits

       The renewable oxygenates rule ensures that the benefits of 
     the RFG program will be achieved. In addition to the 15 
     percent reduction in VOC and toxic emissions from vehicles 
     using phase I RFG, additional reductions in VOC emissions may 
     occur if ETBE displaces currently-used ethanol during the 
     summer months. This occurs because the rule does not credit 
     the use of renewable oxygenates that increase evaporative 
     emissions during the summer smog season. (The summer season 
     is defined as May 1 to September 15, although a state may 
     request a longer season if needed for smog control.)
       The rule provides a strong incentive for the development of 
     new technology to efficiently produce renewable oxygenates 
     which would lead to long-term global warming benefits. Short-
     term global warming benefits would occur if methanol from 
     landfills is used to make renewable MTBE as one company 
     announced recently.
       There are also energy benefits. According to a DOE report, 
     up to 20 percent less fossil energy is used to produce 
     ethanol as compared to MTBE produced from natural gas.


                                  cost

       Consumers should see no increase in the prices of RFG at 
     the pump as a result of the renewable oxygenate rule. EPA 
     estimated that the reformulated gasoline rule that was 
     promulgated last December would cost between 3 and 5 cents 
     per gallon more than conventional gasoline. This includes the 
     cost of oxygenates. The new rule simply requires some 
     oxygenate to be renewable. EPA's analysis shows that the 
     incremental cost impact of the new rule ranges from 0.02 
     cents to as much as 0.2 cents per gallon when spread over the 
     39 billion gallons of RFG that will be produced each year.
       With respect to the impact on the Highway Trust Fund, EPA 
     estimated a $180 million loss and published this estimate in 
     the rule. Treasury, as part of updating the President's 
     budget in the Mid Session review, subsequently estimated the 
     loss to be around $240 million. USDA provided estimates that 
     show that the Highway Trust Fund losses are more than offset 
     by savings in farm deficiency payments. The rule included a 
     $344 million savings estimate based on a USDA analysis of a 
     report by the General Accounting Office. USDA has provided a 
     more recent savings estimate of $275 million.


                                 supply

       There is no doubt that there exists today an adequate 
     supply of renewable oxygenates to satisfy the requirements of 
     this program. The only question is whether renewable 
     oxygenates would need to be shifted out of existing markets 
     and into RFG cities. To alleviate as much as possible 
     concerns about the ability of the fuels industry to do some 
     shifting and also provide time for new renewable oxygenate 
     production to come on line, the Agency took a number of steps 
     in the regulation. First, we set the initial year's 
     requirement at 15 percent. In 1996, the requirement goes to 
     30 percent.
       Second, we included averaging provisions. With averaging, a 
     refiner may use more renewable oxygenate during the later 
     part of 1995, for example, and none during the first part of 
     the year, as long as over the year the 15 percent requirement 
     is met.
       Third, we included trading provisions, under which Refiner 
     A in Chicago may use more than the required amount of 
     renewable oxygenates. The ``excess'' oxygen credits may then 
     be sold to Refiner B in Chicago or even Refiner C in 
     Baltimore who choose not to use renewables.
       As mentioned above, no industry is losing in the 
     reformulated gasoline program. Renewable oxygenates, like 
     ethanol from grain, will get 30 percent of the new RFG 
     oxygenate market and nonrenewables, like MTBE from natural 
     gas, will get 70 percent of the new market. The production of 
     all oxygenates will grow significantly.
                                  ____

                                  Environmental Protection Agency,
                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: Since EPA announced its decision on 
     the role of renewable oxygenates in reformulated gasoline 
     (RFG) on June 30, a great deal of misinformation has been 
     heard from critics of the decision. I would like to take this 
     opportunity to clarify EPA's views on this important clean 
     air program.
       The Administration is aware that floor amendments to EPA's 
     appropriations bill may attempt to overturn EPA's rulemaking 
     on renewable oxygenates. The Administration believes that it 
     is inappropriate to legislate regulatory restrictions through 
     the appropriations process and will strongly oppose any 
     attempts to interfere with EPA's implementation or 
     enforcement of the rule.
       The requirement that 30 percent of the oxygenates used in 
     RFG be produced from renewable sources, such as grain, 
     biomass or even garbage, is necessary to assure that 
     renewable oxygenates are not disadvantaged in the RFG 
     program. EPA is not establishing a new program to benefit any 
     particular fuel, rather we are assuring that renewable fuels 
     continue to have an opportunity to compete in a changing 
     world of cleaner burning gasoline. Our actions are consistent 
     with long-standing Congressional support for renewable motor 
     fuels and this Administration's environmental and energy 
     goals.
       We have taken the necessary steps in the rule to alleviate 
     potential disruption in the gasoline distribution system. In 
     the context of overall gasoline usage, this program will 
     result in only one-half of one percent of the gasoline 
     consumed in the U.S. annually being made from renewable 
     sources.
       It is not an ``ethanol mandate.'' Rather, it is fuel 
     neutral in that any renewable oxygenate will qualify. The 
     production of all oxygenates will increase substantially as a 
     result of the RFG program. For example, nonrenewable MTBE 
     made from natural gas may well experience a 170 percent 
     increase in its market. No industry is a loser in this 
     program.
       I hope the above points and enclosure are useful in 
     explaining the role of renewable oxygenates in the 
     reformulated gasoline program. Please contact us if you have 
     any questions or need further information.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner,
                                                    Administrator.

  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Johnston 
amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its defeat.
  When the Senate and the Congress passed the Clean Air Act amendments 
in the spring of 1990, it was our unequivocal intent to provide a role 
for ethanol in the reformulated gas provisions in that bill which it 
cannot get from the marketplace because the oil companies own that 
marketplace, because they own the delivery system. We knew that at the 
time. It is specifically why we passed the amendment. And we have had 4 
years now debating with people that own that marketplace and we do it 
again today. That particular role was critical to the passage of the 
Clean Air Act. Two years later, in the fall of 1992, when EPA proposed 
a rule which effectively denied ethanol this role--that was the ``reg 
neg'' that has been talked about--then there was a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that such action was illegal and it was inconsistent with 
the Clean Air Act.
  In that same year, 1992, Senators Dole, Mitchell, Chafee, and Baucus 
sent a letter to then EPA Chief, Bill Reilly, insisting that ethanol be 
given the role that Congress gave it in the Clean Air Act. Since that 
time, both Presidents Bush and Clinton have attempted to promulgate 
rules consistent with congressional intent--and both have properly 
recognized a role for ethanol. President Clinton just did that, and 
that is the subject of this debate, the undoing of congressional 
intent.
  The RFG section of the Clean Air Act directs the EPA to reduce ozone 
while taking into consideration factors, including cost, energy 
requirements, and air quality. To that end, EPA proposed renewable 
oxygenate standards. That is the ROS you have heard referred to. That 
would reduce ozone, cut RFG costs to the consumer, provide the United 
States with greater energy security, and improve the overall quality of 
the air we breathe while also bolstering the Nation's economy.
  So I would like this afternoon to address three of the criticisms or 
perhaps misconceptions which have lingered over the proposed rule. The 
first is the air quality issue that various of my colleagues on the 
other side and the Senator from Oklahoma just argued. That is that ROS 
will have some adverse effect on the environment.
  This is clearly contrary to all the evidence that we have seen to 
date. Last winter, in my home State of Minnesota, ethanol was used in 
all gasoline sold in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and carbon monoxide 
levels were the lowest since the early 1970's.
  The ROS will decrease greenhouse gas emissions as well. The 
Department of Agriculture estimates that production and use of 
renewable oxygenates like ethanol and ETB emit 27 percent less carbon 
dioxide than regular gasoline. And if you put that another way, an acre 
of Minnesota corn removes 100 tons of carbon dioxide every year, 
offsetting the increased levels resulting from burning coal and oil.
  Much of the debate over the last few years has been about VOC 
emissions. This contributed largely to the opposition to the Bush 
proposal. But the VOC deals squarely with that issue by requiring that 
only oxygenates without the volatility problem associated with 
commingling such as ETBE are acceptable during summer months. I am 
going to get to that more specifically in a bit.
  EPA estimates that the effect of this decision will be to reduce VOC 
emissions by as much as 6,400 tons annually.
  These statistics only bear out what Minnesotans have come to realize 
through experience: renewable fuels such as ethanol and ETBE make good 
environmental sense.
  Last on this issue, I think it is particularly telling that five of 
the United States' leading environmental communities--Friends of the 
Earth, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental 
Working Group, and the Natural Resources Defense Council--all oppose 
the Johnston amendment.
  The second misconception is a smaller part of the congressional 
intent debate, and that is the contention of some that ROS strays from 
what Congress intended on the issue of fuel neutrality. Because in 
effect, as I heard it said, the ROS alters the market in favor of 
ethanol. In effect, it chooses the winner among otherwise competing 
oxygenates. In other words, the ROS is not fuel neutral.
  In reality, the ROS does not choose a winner at all. It simply 
ensures that renewable fuels are not predestined losers. We all know--
and we knew in 1990 when the Senator from South Dakota and I stood on 
this floor sponsoring the amendment which we are still debating today--
that without something like the ROS that is exactly what renewable 
fuels would be, a predestined loser. As it is, we only get 30 percent 
of the market at best. But at least it will not be dead before it 
arrives on the scene. I can assure you it was never the intent of any 
of us who worked so hard back in 1990 to give MTBE a monopoly, and shut 
out ethanol.
  MTBE is the oil company favorite. This is because it is produced by 
and sold through an infrastructure owned by the petroleum industry. Up 
against these facts, it is clear that ethanol and other renewable fuels 
would not stand a chance without the ROS. And, when we directed EPA to 
promulgate an RFG rule which considers the cost of the program to 
consumers, a monopoly with all the benefits of price gouging was the 
last thing any of us had in mind. By ensuring competition in the 
oxygenate market, the ROS is expected to reduce consumer costs for 
reformulated gasoline by $470 million. That is the benefit we had in 
mind. And, that is why America's largest consumer advocate group--
Citizen Action--opposes the Johnston amendment.
  Many of us involved in the Clean Air Act amendments had served in 
this body in the days of OPEC. We remembered the days when oil supplies 
were short and the patience of those waiting in gas lines was even 
shorter. We recognized the marriage between depleting supplies of oil 
at home and the growing dependence on supplies abroad--and, as their 
offspring, an ever-increasing trade deficit. So what we had in mind was 
not more dependence--but the self-reliance found in renewable fuels not 
domestic fuels as has been argued here, but domestic renewable fuels. 
The ROS sets out to achieve this end.

  There is one last point on this that I think is worth noting. 
Commodity groups like the oil producers and our farmers should be 
partners. There's no reason they should not. EPA estimates domestic 
producers of methanol will likely fill the demands of the remaining 70 
percent of the RFG market.
  It seems to me that we could have a winner-winner situation here, if 
we were not presented with the challenge of this amendment.
  This hardly makes MTBE a loser. So, with farmer-owned ethanol and 
domestic methanol producers splitting the market 70-30, it is hard to 
understand why these two commodity businesses--who have historically 
been friends--cannot work together on this issue.


                               Economics

  Finally, the oil industry points to current tax exemptions received 
by ethanol producers and then maintains that by expanding the industry, 
costs to taxpayers will increase. It may be of some interest to note 
that, over the years, the oil industry has received countless billions 
worth in tax preferences in the committee I sat on for 16 years. But I 
am not going to argue that point. This point provides little solace to 
the taxpayer.
  What does provide solace is that sagging rural economies are expected 
to get an $800 million a year boost out of ROS reducing annual 
government outlays for these areas by an estimated $400 million and 
providing between $60 and $70 million in new tax revenue. In fact, even 
when offset by losses in the Highway Trust Fund, the taxpayer comes out 
ahead. This is taxpayer savings.
  And, speaking of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, I have behind me a 
chart supplied by my good friend from Louisiana which theorizes what 
States will lose under the ROS. Now, my friend Senator Johnston is, I 
am sure, well-versed in French history. So, I think it is appropriate 
to say in the words of La Rochefoucauld, ``There is nothing more 
horrible than the murder of beautiful theory by a brutal gang of 
facts.'' And, here are the facts:
  This chart is supposed to reflect the cuts in State highway funds 
between 1995 and 1999. But, the fact is, we know that for fiscal year 
1995, appropriations has already allocated $19 billion in highway trust 
funds to the States. So, we know for a fact that there will be no 
impact on 1995 funding levels to the States.
  According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation the effects 
of ROS, if there are any, will not be known or calculated for the trust 
fund model until 1997. But just starting with that, even then, in 1997, 
two CBO officials and the Minnesota Department of Transportation told 
us to the extent there are any shifts in the trust fund moneys to the 
States, they will be negligible. The fact is FHA, the Federal Highway 
Administration, does not believe the ROS will have an effect on State 
funding levels at all. That is why they are expecting some revenue loss 
to the fund, a loss of less than one-half of 1 percent to be exact.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I will just yield for a question.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is aware that this chart is made up of 
taking the tax committee's estimate of the loss to the highway users' 
fund and allocating it according to the formula used. The last 
allocation was in 1994. The Senator is aware that chart came from that; 
that is, you take the loss that was estimated to the highway users' 
trust fund and allocated it according to the last allocation.
  Is the Senator aware that is how this chart was made?
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I thank the Senator very much for the question. I am 
now aware of it.
  I will just take a couple of minutes to complete what I began to say, 
now that he has explained where the chart came from.
  If it were true that any revenue loss to the fund would be reflected 
in proportionate cuts in State funding, as is argued by my colleague 
from Louisiana, then there will not be any less revenue in the fund. In 
other words, if the fund gets less and spends less, there is no loss. 
It is very even. So we know that any impact on State funding levels 
they will be negligible at best. But they are far from imminent. In 
fact, I believe ROS will have no effect at all on State funding levels, 
and I am going to quickly explain why.
  First, the ROS applies only to areas included in the Reformulated 
Gasoline Program [RFG]. These include nine cities with the worst smog 
problems, and States which have voluntarily opted-in to the RFG. So, 
the ROS does not even apply in those States which are not a part of the 
RFG--which are those States blacked-out on this map--and their Highway 
Trust Fund dollars are totally unaffected.
  Second, even among those States which are enrolled in the RFG, many 
are what is called nonminimum allocation States. This means that the 
amount these States receive in Federal Highway Trust Fund dollars bears 
absolutely no relation to the amount they pay into that fund. In other 
words, the highway funds for 41 States are totally unaffected by this 
rule.
  Third, four of the remaining States will use ETBE, a renewable ether 
fuel. ETBE has no effect on the Highway Trust Fund. So, these four 
States will see no change in their highway funding levels either.
  Now, we are left with five States. One of them has already met the 30 
percent renewable requirement and so the ROS is already satisfied 
there. And, in the remaining four States, oil companies are unlikely to 
use much ethanol, if any at all. Instead, they will either use ETBE, or 
they will more likely use ethanol and ETBE credits from other regions, 
to meet the overall 30 percent goal. So, even in these States, there 
would be no effect on highway funding levels.
  So, now that Mardi Gras is over, the mask comes off, and all we see 
under the ROS is a country with cleaner air and well-funded highways.
  Mr. President, I believe the ROS is faithful to the environment, 
energy, and the economic needs of the country as well as for the will 
of the Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to maintain the will of the Congress by voting 
against the amendment of my colleague from Lousiana.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished floor leader of 
the amendment for yielding 20 minutes.
  I rise in support of the amendment. Before I got to the floor, there 
were a number of statements made by opponents of this effort who talked 
about themselves as strong consumer advocates and who talked about the 
positive consumer benefits of this mandate. I think it should be noted 
that many of those who made these statements come from States in which 
the reformulated rule will not apply.
  They are talking about my constituents, not their constituents. They 
are talking about primarily States in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, 
in addition to the West, which will be forced to give 30 percent of the 
reformulated marketing to ethanol.
  So I believe that what we need to do here is be very clear about who 
will be most adversely affected by this mandate. It will be the States 
that are forced to use ethanol as opposed to another reformulated fuel 
that might be more competitive.
  Mr. President, it is with a certain sense of regret that I rise to 
speak. It is not always easy to criticize the administration or the EPA 
that I have worked to support. But I do so, nevertheless, because I 
feel strongly that the actions taken by the EPA in no way represent 
positive environmental policy. Indeed, I believe the EPA decision 
stands as a powerful threat to the agency itself and the prospect for 
effective implementation of the Clean Air Act. I would like to make a 
few points about the EPA ethanol mandate. First, the policy is 
intrusive, highly prescriptive, and the epitome of a ``command and 
control'' attitude. If we are going to pursue such policies, there has 
to be an overwhelming rationale for such involvement. That rationale 
simply does not exist.
  Second, the underlying EPA rule for the use of reformulated gas is in 
fact rule neutral. It sets performance criteria and lets the industry 
figure out the most cost-effective way of meeting these criteria. There 
is no mandate for methanol. There is no mandate for ethanol. Under the 
RFG proposal, as it is, there will continue to be ethanol use, 
especially in the States in the Midwest, where it is most cost 
effective. If ethanol and its derivative ETBE are not used in markets 
such as in the Northeast, it is because these fuels are not 
economically competitive.
  The underlying reformulated gas policy was set during the historic 
``regulatory negotiation,'' which brought together all of the involved 
parties to cut through the arguments and get to an agreement. Ethanol 
interests were directly involved, and ethanol interests signed the so-
called ``reg neg'' agreement. Not one of the participants objected--not 
one. Yet, the ethanol interests are, today, trying to bury a rule that 
they themselves participated in, that they agreed to, and that was 
truly focused on performance and not on politics.
  Third, there are no environmental benefits of the proposed rule. I 
know of no significant national environmental organization that 
supports EPA's findings of environmental benefits--not one. Indeed, the 
Sierra Club and the Northeast Air Quality managers--neither group with 
an obvious antifarmer or pro-oil company bias--testified against this 
mandate on environmental grounds. A little later in my presentation, I 
will submit a list of statements by various environmental groups in 
opposition to this mandate.
  Earlier in the debate, Mary Nichols was quoted, and it was in answer 
to a question I asked in the committee. She is EPA's Assistant 
Administrator, and she was asked: ``Do environmental benefits accompany 
this proposal?''
  Her answer was: ``I was clear in my testimony that we are not 
claiming any air quality benefits as a result of the proposal.''
  To be sure there was no mistake, I asked again: ``No air quality 
benefits?''
  The reply was: ``Correct.''
  So much for the environment.
  To my knowledge, Mary Nichols has not said something different. To my 
knowledge, she has not written a letter to the Senate saying, ``I want 
to correct the record.'' To my knowledge, her comment stands.
  Fourth, there are no energy security benefits to this proposal. 
Analysts at the Argonne National Labs performed an analysis for the 
Department of Energy which concludes:

       The results indicate that CO2 emissions could be relevant 
     to .3 percent to .4 percent higher than with year-round use 
     of MTBE. Oil use is always higher (from .9 percent to 3.3 
     percent) under the program.

  Somehow this analysis--which was doubtless paid for by the 
taxpayers--never made it into the EPA record. They never considered the 
analysis. A well-regarded think tank, the Resources for the Future, 
produced a study with similar results, concluding: ``The oil savings 
achievable with MTBE would be at least 8 percent higher than those with 
ethanol.''
  Perhaps we will hear today that these researchers were biased against 
ethanol. I have heard one supporter of ethanol say that now there is 
another study. Well, who did the study and paid for the study? And what 
does the study say? The National Argonne Labs says: ``No reduction in 
oil, particularly imported oil.''
  One of the points that needs to be made is that, under this proposal, 
increased ethanol and ETBE use does not displace oil. It displaces, 
most likely, the methanol-based additive, MTBE.
  One of the arguments that will be made is that this methanol is 
imported and therefore bad. The fact is that the methanol used today is 
largely domestically produced. Furthermore, if you believe an analysis 
prepared by CRS analyst, David Gushee, the U.S. methanol industry is 
competitive worldwide and could expand. Interestingly, he wrote:

       The continued efforts to the ethanol industry to win 
     legislative mandates and incentives which would favor ethanol 
     against ethers have had and continue to have a tempering 
     effect on investment planning for methanol capacity.

  In other words, one man's job is another man's job loss. The 
supporters of this mandate attack all this imported ethanol, when their 
actions are directly leading to a weaker domestic industry.
  The fifth point, Mr. President, is that this mandate is going to cost 
us in real dollars nationally. Any time you use a product that costs 
$1.10 per gallon to replace something generally available for less than 
half of that price, you are making a bad business decision. New 
Jersey's constituents will undoubtedly pay more for fuel--for no 
benefit.
  The costs will certainly rise for gasoline refiners and marketers. 
This is a waste. And, more than a waste, it is potentially dangerous. A 
study by the Department of Commerce has indicated that some 66 U.S. 
refineries, representing 1 million barrels per day of capacity, are 
already at risk of closure due to the regulatory effects of the Clean 
Air Act. What is the rationale for pushing them closer to the brink? A 
loss of domestic refinery capacity of this magnitude will have 
important energy security implications.
  The advocates of this proposal point happily at the possible increase 
in corn prices. Terrific. The subsidy mandates the market: A greater 
demand for corn, the price of corn will go up.
  Once again, Mr. President, one person's higher price is another 
person's higher cost. If the higher prices predicted by the USDA 
materialize, consumers of corn will be paying an additional 10 cents 
per bushel. Ironically, the largest customer for corn is the livestock 
industry. These farmers consume as feed grain some 60 percent of the 
corn grown, roughly 5 billion bushels annually.
  If corn farmers gained 10 cents a bushel, these other farmers with 
livestock, chickens, pigs, and cows lose $500 million each year. If the 
price of corn rises 10 cents, the corn farmer does experience greater 
sales revenue, but between 60 and 90 percent of this windfall is 
immediately offset by reduced USDA deficiency payments. The livestock 
industry, on the other hand, gets no relief, just higher prices. USDA 
does nothing to help the livestock industry whose costs have risen. 
Those farmers have to pass on their costs or eat them in lost earnings. 
How is this positive for agriculture?
  Additionally, Mr. President, cereal and soft drink manufacturers and 
other consumers of corn face higher costs, lost income, and lost 
competitiveness. It is because of these potential adverse effects that 
the EPA's mandate is opposed by the National Association of 
Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  I have heard that this is just one little program. Surely, it cannot 
be that bad. Experience, however, tells us be wary of little 
disturbances, especially when energy markets are involved. In 1973 and 
then again in 1979, a supply shift of only a few percent paralyzed our 
Nation and cost us trillions of dollars in lost output. A couple of 
winters ago, an extreme cold spell led to a doubling of oil prices in 
the Northeast, and there was no physical shortage of the product at 
that time.
  At the Senate hearing, I asked the DOE what analysis had been done to 
predict the impact of the mandate on fuel prices. The answer the 
Department of Energy gave was: None, no analysis. I asked them what 
analysis had been done of the impact on refiners and marketers. The 
answer was: None. I asked if the DOE could provide any assurance that 
the price of gas would not skyrocket in some regions. The answer: No 
assurance could be provided.
  To be frank, Mr. President, I was appalled by these answers. You 
could have a small supply disruption, a small shortage that would 
translate to gigantic price increases all along the Atlantic seaboard 
and on the west coast. That is reality when you get into mandating a 
market.
  This proposal does not amount to positive environmental or energy 
policy. Perhaps it is really agricultural or social policy, although I 
believe that I could make the case if this proposal fails on those 
grounds as well. But the last time I checked, these were neither the 
purposes of the EPA nor the goals of the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. President, there has been a lot of subtle and not so subtle 
allusion to the motives of various Senators in this debate. The 
proponents of the ethanol mandate are wont to infer that those on our 
side of the debate somehow are motivated by a desire to protect the oil 
industry and their so-called ``monopoly'' of the reformulated gas 
market.
  Mr. President, I think my record pretty well speaks for itself. In my 
first year in the Senate, I raised taxes on the oil industry $20 
billion with the so-called windfall profit tax. My motivation is clear. 
As I said earlier, I find the EPA mandate to be an unnecessary, 
intrusive regulation with no benefits for the environment and clear 
costs to the consumers of New Jersey. If the oil industry agrees with 
me, well, so be it. But, frankly, I find it offensive and more than a 
little ridiculous that anyone would infer that my actions are motivated 
by some desire to please big oil.
  I might simply point to the fact just 1 week ago on this floor I 
offered an amendment on the Interior appropriations bill to strike what 
I believed to be a $10 million subsidy to the oil and gas industry, 
and, ironically, some of the major supporters of ethanol opposed my 
amendment. At that time they were on the side of the oil and gas 
industry, supposedly, if we are making those kinds of judgments.
  The fact is that we squander billions annually in targeted tax breaks 
on special interests--a lot of special interests. I have watched it for 
16 years. When the Senate debated my amendment last week, I pointed out 
that the oil and gas industry is the beneficiary of $2 billion in tax 
breaks already--$2 billion.
  Even after noting that level of assistance, which works out to be a 
little more than $1 per barrel of domestically produced oil, I find it 
unbelievable that the supporters of the EPA mandate can criticize the 
oil and gas subsidies. The fact is that the subsidies given to the 
ethanol industry are nothing short of astounding. This industry, which 
produces roughly the energy equivalent of a day's worth of U.S. oil 
demand, stands to gain nearly $1 billion annually in total tax 
subsidies when this mandate is phased in--$1 billion. That works out to 
over $30--not $1, but $30--in tax subsidies per barrel of oil 
displaced. Obviously, the ethanol industry has not drilled the ground; 
they have drilled the Tax Code, and they have uncovered a gusher: $1 
billion. Thirty dollars for every barrel of oil displaced, versus the 
oil and gas industry that has $1 for every barrel of oil produced. My 
view is both of them should be gone. In this case we certainly should 
not increase what we give to the ethanol industry.
  If the EPA mandate is allowed, we will increase the ``subsidy'' given 
to the ethanol industry. By giving an industry that is dominated by a 
very few firms a guaranteed market, we are creating a market skewed 
against the consumer. It is not too surprising that one Wall Street 
analyst has estimated that the EPA mandate will add $100 million 
annually to the bottom line of a single ethanol producer. The costs 
associated with this ``subsidy'' will be placed squarely on the backs 
of my constituents, paying higher prices for their gas, subject to a 
possible disruption of supply, paying significantly higher prices.
  It is not too surprising, as I said, that given this particular 
subsidy, the cost associated with this subsidy placed on the backs of 
my constituents are simply too much, I do not have to be a strong 
defender of the oil and gas industry to find a reason to fight this EPA 
rule.
  I am sure that we will hear today that these subsidies actually save 
us money. We probably already heard it before I got to the floor. That 
is pretty routine. You hear it all the time in the Finance Committee. I 
understand the USDA has done an analysis that shows that this mandate 
saves the taxpayer billions over the next few years.
  This mandate will increase the demand for corn by 250 million 
bushels--about 3 percent of the national production--and USDA says it 
will save billions in support payments because of that increase in 
production.
  Well, Mr. President, what can we say about that analysis? USDA did 
not consider that people might react to higher prices by buying less. 
USDA did not consider that exports might drop. USDA did not consider 
that farmers, ginned up by the ethanol hype, might actually plant a few 
more acres of corn than they otherwise would. The USDA did not take 
into consideration the higher costs that livestock farmers are going to 
pay, that chicken farmers, that those who have pigs, that those who 
have cows will have to pay. They did not take into consideration the 
higher prices, $500 million a year, that they will have to pay.
  In short, Mr. President, the analysis of the USDA with regard to the 
total impact of this mandate on the economic fortunes of agriculture 
broadly defined is a joke.
  Around the Congress, these USDA arguments fortunately do not carry 
much weight. Around the Congress, though, we have another way of 
estimating costs. USDA does not tell the Congress how much some measure 
will cost. What we do is ask the Congressional Budget Office. And when 
the Congressional Budget Office was asked how much will this mandate 
cost, they said that the EPA mandate will increase Federal outlays by 
$250 million over the next 5 years. That is what the CBO said.
  And this analysis is only of the effect on outlays. It does not 
consider the additional hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax 
revenue that also goes with the mandate.
  So, Mr. President, it is not hard to see that this mandate creates 
some very big winners. Just do not expect me and my constituents to 
pick up that check--willingly or even reluctantly. This mandate, in my 
view, should be defeated. If we defeat it, we are going to save 
taxpayers a lot of money, and we are going to save consumers even more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Conrad). The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. President, I would like to make two points here.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee spent a lot of time with 
the Clean Air Act, had an extended and lengthy debate, and amendments 
were finally passed in the Clean Air Act years ago.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee has jurisdiction over the 
highway program, which has an interest in this measure.
  Let me address both of the points.
  First, with respect to the environment, I opposed the Johnston 
amendment very plainly, very simply, very clearly because the 1990 
Clean Air Act amendments required the development of reformulated 
gasoline to meet the 2-percent oxygen to lower smog in the nine cities 
in the Nation with the most smog and allowed other cities to opt in.
  You must remember we have dirty air in this country. We have had 
dirty air in this country for a lot of reasons, and one of them is 
because of the automobile. The Clean Air Act amendments had a lot of 
provisions with respect to the automobile, tougher tailpipe standards, 
on-board emissions canisters, other provisions, and one of them is the 
development of reformulated gasoline, because, obviously, the emissions 
that come out of the car have something to do with the nature of the 
gasoline that goes into the car.
  Smog is one of the biggest problems in this country. What causes 
smog? Smog is caused by volatile organic compounds. It is caused by 
several contaminants. The biggest are the volatile organic compounds 
and oxygenates.
  What are the facts about this rule and smog? Mr. President, ethanol 
reduces volatile organic compounds an additional 6 percent over 
methanol and MTBE. And ethanol reduces carbon dioxide emissions, carbon 
monoxide emissions, and toxic emissions. That, in turn, helps reduce 
smog and other air pollutants that come from cars.
  When we passed the Clean Air Act amendments a few years ago in this 
body, it passed by a large margin. We then turned it over to the 
Environmental Protection Agency to implement and develop the 
reformulated gasoline rule. The Environmental Protection Agency is the 
agency with jurisdiction. They are the experts. They know more than any 
other Federal agency what that reformulated gasoline rule should say so 
that we have cleaner air in America, and particularly less smog in the 
smoggiest cities in our Nation. What did they have to consider? Right 
now there are four oxygenates. Ethanol and methanol, and they have 
derivatives, Mr. President, ethyl tertiary butyl ether, or ETBE, and 
methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, after careful consideration of 
all these various different oxygenates, decided that the best way, with 
all the competing points of view and all the competing interests, in 
developing an oxygenate rule is the one they came up with.
  Basically, it provides that 30 percent of all oxygenates be made from 
a renewable source, such as ethanol or ETBE. It is important public 
policy to use renewables where appropriate. Methanol and MTBE are both 
made from natural gas. That is, they are fossil fuels. Using them 
depletes a finite natural resource that we cannot replace. I believe 
that we as a Nation should rely to the extent we can on renewable 
resources. And ethanol, which is made from corn, is one of those.
  In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency's rule provides that 
ethanol can only be used in the winter months, in order to allay the 
concerns of some who have alleged that ethanol causes increases in smog 
during the summer months. Finally, the rule provides for flexibility in 
achieving the 30 percent requirement, phasing it in over a couple years 
so refiners can average the ethanol content of their fuel annually and 
they can trade their use of ethanol with other refiners, other cities, 
and other States. This means the city of New York, or the whole State 
of New Jersey, may never need to use a drop of ethanol if they choose 
not to.
  All of this regulatory program is completely within the Environmental 
Protection Agency's discretion under the Clean Air Act amendments. The 
plain language of the statute permits the Environmental Protection 
Agency wide latitude to design the reformulated gasoline program, as 
long as it meets the statutory requirements, which this rule clearly 
does.
  What Senator Johnston's amendment purports to do basically is to 
second-guess the Environmental Protection Agency and say, ``Oh, no, we 
have got a better idea.'' Well, if that is the case, frankly, we might 
as well be legislating all the regulations under the Clean Air Act here 
on the Senate floor. I do not think that is what we in the Senate 
should be doing. We already gave the Environmental Protection Agency 
all the guidance it needed when we wrote the Clean Air Act amendments. 
We do not have the expertise here to get into complex chemical formulas 
and competing scientific studies. We have properly delegated that to 
the Environmental Protection Agency to sort through and make the right 
decision. And I believe that the Environmental Protection Agency has 
done just that, and come up with a rule which works. It's time for us 
to stop arguing about it and let the Agency go on with its work of 
cleaning up the air.
  Now some have said it does not have tremendous environmental 
benefits. Some have said that the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Assistant Administrator for Air, Mary Nichols, said that the ethanol 
rule does not have environmental benefits.
  That, Mr. President, misses the point. This is a rule which, by its 
design, has strong environmental benefits, because Congress required it 
to have those benefits. I have already explained them --the 2 percent 
oxygenate content, the reductions in volatile organic compounds and 
nitrous oxide emissions. Those are strong environmental benefits. 
Methanol and MTBE provide no greater environmental benefits than 
ethanol and ETBE. They all meet the requirements of the law--they all 
provide environmental benefits, because that's what's required by law.
  Now, there are other ways to reach the 2 percent oxygenate 
requirement, but the Clinton administration and the Environmental 
Protection Agency came up with this way because they felt it makes the 
most sense. And that is why I think we should not second-guess them.
  I want to emphasize again that ethanol reduces the volatile organic 
compounds, VOCs, an additional 6 percent over methanol and MTBE. That 
is a big improvement. Ethanol reduces carbon dioxide emissions, reduces 
carbon monoxide emissions, and also reduces toxic emissions. There are 
tangible air quality benefits to the rule, and I want to set the record 
straight on that point.
  In addition, I might add, several major environmental groups oppose 
this amendment. They oppose the amendment. Now some will stand up here 
and say they do it for various reasons not related to the substance of 
the rule itself. That is a rationalization. The fact is that major 
environmental groups oppose this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record, Mr. President, a letter from the groups, 
the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, the National 
Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental 
Working Group, and so forth, stating their opposition to the Johnston 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Friends of the Earth; Sierra Club; National Wildlife 
           Federation; Environmental Working Group; Natural 
           Resources Defense Council,
                                                    July 21, 1994.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the VA-HUD-
     Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY95, we ask 
     that you oppose all new policy amendments affecting the 
     environment. We take this position regardless of the 
     substantive merits of such amendments, which we believe are 
     not the issue in this case.
       Subcommittee Chair Barbara Mikulski and the members of the 
     Subcommittee have reported a bill which focuses on the 
     funding allocations which are the primary purpose of 
     appropriations bills. While it is entirely appropriate to 
     have a lively floor debate about those funding choices, we 
     oppose any new proposal to encumber this bill with amendments 
     which are legislation or limitations restricting specific 
     environmental policies. Whatever the merits of any such 
     proposals, we believe they would be more appropriately 
     pursued through authorizing bills, regulatory procedures or 
     the courts.
       We recognize that Congress has a right and a responsibility 
     to set environmental policies when necessary. However, floor 
     amendments to the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations 
     bill should not be the tool of first resort. We oppose any 
     floor amendments on takings, risk, cost/benefit and unfunded 
     mandates. Consistent with our general opposition on 
     procedural grounds to new policy floor amendments, we oppose 
     the Johnston amendment to prevent the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from implementing the ethanol rule. We 
     understand that a lawsuit has been filed on this matter, 
     which we believe should be decided through regulatory and 
     legal means.
       We make no pretense that the appropriations process is 
     procedurally pure, and believe that each bill should be 
     handled on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this bill, we 
     draw the line on the bill as reported, and urge you to oppose 
     all new environmental policy amendments offered on the floor.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph De Gennaro,
                                 Director, Appropriations Project,
                                             Friends of the Earth.
     A. Blakeman Early,
                      Washington Director, Envir. Quality Program,
                                                      Sierra Club.
     David Hawkins,
                                                  Senior Attorney,
                                Natural Resources Defense Council.
     Sharon Newsome,
                     Vice President, Resources Conservation Dept.,
                                     National Wildlife Federation.
     David Dickson,
                                                   Senior Analyst,
                                      Environmental Working Group.

  Mr. BAUCUS. What about public health? On this score, the issue is 
very simple. Methanol is toxic and ethanol is not. Methanol emissions 
contain formaldehyde, a carcinogen.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield at that point?
  Mr. BAUCUS. No; I will not. Later on, but not at this point. On the 
other hand, ethanol does not. Casual exposure to methanol can result in 
respiratory problems only a few hours later. If you drink methanol you 
will go blind.
  And look at MTBE. Both the Centers for Disease Control and the 
American Medical Association have raised serious concerns about MTBE. 
Consumers in Montana, Alaska, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina 
have suffered headaches and flu-like symptoms after coming into contact 
with MTBE. Last fall, the outcry was so great that the Senate voted 
overwhelmingly to oppose mandating the use of MTBE in Alaska due to the 
thousands of health complaints in that State.
  Ethanol, by contrast, is not toxic. In fact, it can be ingested with 
no lasting harmful effects. And, most important, cities which use 
ethanol and ETBE have had no health complaints.
  Finally, I want to address the comments of the Senator from New 
Jersey. He said that this rule will have a negative impact on air 
quality in the Northeast part of the country. I have a letter here from 
Administrator Carol Browner of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
addressing whether this rule has positive or negative environmental or 
economic effects in the Northeast. It is addressed to Senator Harkin. 
Let me read from the letter.

       Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing you regarding questions 
     that I understand have arisen with respect to the potential 
     impact of Environmental Protection Agency's renewable 
     oxygenate rule on the Northeast. The Environmental Protection 
     Agency took great care in developing a final rule that will 
     have environmental and energy benefits for the Northeast and 
     not cause adverse economic impacts.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of that letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing you regarding questions 
     that I understand have arisen with respect to the potential 
     impact of EPA's renewable oxygenate rule on the Northeast. 
     EPA took great care in developing a final rule that will have 
     environmental and energy benefits for the Northeast and not 
     cause adverse economic impacts.
       EPA believes that this rule is consistent with longstanding 
     Congressional and Administration policies to promote the use 
     of renewable fuels, and does not violate the reg-neg 
     agreement on reformulated gasoline.
       During the comment period on this rule, the Northeast 
     raised concerns that smog-forming emissions could increase 
     during the summer ozone season. Although EPA believes that 
     this should not be a problem for the Northeast, the agency 
     included provisions in the final rule giving states the 
     opportunity to address this issue by asking EPA to extend the 
     summertime season. Moreover, EPA believes that the rule 
     should not increase carbon monoxide emissions in the winter 
     or nitrous oxide emissions.
       Finally, EPA does not believe that this rule will increase 
     the price of reformulated gasoline sold in the Northeast. The 
     final rule includes averaging, trading and a program phase-in 
     to avoid any short term shortages and price increase.
       Thank you for your interest in this matter.
           Sincerely
                                                 Carol M. Browner.

  Mr. BAUCUS. In sum, this rule is good for the environment. Second, I 
want to address the arguments raised here on the floor regarding the 
highway trust fund. I have heard some Senators say that if the Johnston 
amendment is defeated, somehow that is going to cost jobs. That its 
defeat is going to reduce the highway trust fund. That its defeat means 
we are not going to be able to build highways in this country. These 
statements are totally untrue. Totally untrue.
  The highway trust fund by 1997 will have a surplus of at least $9.25 
billion. We in the Congress every year under ISTEA, the highway 
authorization program, decide what the appropriations will be. The 
implementation of Environmental Protection Agency's rule will have no 
effect--none, zero, zip--on our ability here in the Congress, as we 
appropriate dollars for the highway program, to appropriate the same 
number of dollars we would in any case.
  So let us not be confused. The Environment and Public Works Committee 
took a serious look at this issue of the impact of the reformulated gas 
rule on the highway trust fund and I can tell you, Mr. President, it 
does not have the adverse effect on jobs that some have alleged.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by saying, there are terrific 
environmental benefits here. There is no adverse effect on jobs in the 
highway program here.
  Most of all, this rule is good policy for this Nation as a whole. 
People like Shirley Ball, a tireless advocate for ethanol in Montana, 
cannot be wrong. For years she has worked to promote the use of 
ethanol, not because it is good energy policy, or good agricultural 
policy, or even good environmental policy. Although it is all of those 
things. Shirley has worked hard because she believes it is good for all 
the people of this country. Shirley's not an oil company executive or 
an agri-business person who will get rich or go bust depending on which 
way this rule comes out. She's just an ordinary American with an extra-
ordinary amount of common sense. I believe in her good judgment.
  For those reasons, and many others which other Senators have stated, 
I urge that the Senate table the Johnston amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Senator said methanol has adverse 
effects. The Senator is aware that competition here is not between 
methanol and ethanol, it is between MTBE and ethanol? Will the Senator 
agree?
  Mr. BAUCUS. MTBE also has adverse effects. In fact, as I said----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. But the Senator does agree with that?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Centers for Disease Control and the American Medical 
Association have raised serious concerns about MTBE.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Is the Senator aware, to use EPA's own words about the 
safety of MTBE, as reported in the Agency's Integrated Risk Information 
System, they say: ``A comprehensive review by environmental''----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield myself 1 additional minute.

       As reported in the Agency's Integrated Risk Information 
     System, a comprehensive review by Environmental Protection 
     Agency scientists of 20 MTBE chronic exposure research 
     projects establishes the safety of the MTBE.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I am not familiar with that. I would have to look at it 
before I could comment on it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It is from an EPA-sponsored research conference on MTBE 
and other oxygenates held on July 26 and 28, 1993 and it states as 
follows: ``Just last year an extensive series of health studies on MTBE 
exposure * * * demonstrated that no adverse health effects occur from 
MTBE exposure.''
  Mr. BAUCUS. To answer the Senator's question, all I know is the EPA's 
rule does meet the requirements in the law for 2 percent oxygen 
requirement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciate that courtesy, especially 
the courtesy of my friend from Alaska. I had come here to the floor and 
so had he. Therefore I will abbreviate my remarks and just say I 
represent a State that is the number one coal-producing State in the 
United States; the number five oil and gas-producing State. I have seen 
issues like this debated in the Senate before.
  This debate is not about the environment. It is about politics and 
gimmickry of the marketplace. Even the EPA is not claiming any 
significant air quality benefits which would result from the ethanol 
mandate.
  This issue is really about designating a market share. We have seen 
this type of activity before when Congress did this in the Clean Air 
Act in 1977. Back then, midwestern Senators from high-sulfur coal-
producing States put in the so-called percentage reduction requirement 
which was a response to a growing market for clean, low-sulfur western 
coal.
  That provision was guaranteed to ensure that high-sulfur coal would 
have a large market share by mandating scrubbers on powerplants 
regardless of how low-sulfur content the coal was in the beginning. It 
took us 13 years to repeal that little whizzer.
  The ethanol mandate is really no different. It is an effort to use 
the Clean Air Act to stack the deck in favor of ethanol instead of 
letting the free market work as it should.
  I understand the motivation of the farm State Senators. I represent 
one of those States, a great agricultural State of Wyoming. I have 
farmers in my own State, many of them. There is an ethanol plant coming 
on stream in Wyoming. But I also know that ethanol would garner a 
generous share of the market regardless of this mandate--regardless of 
it. The mandate only increases the market share artificially. It was 
always a political decision. It was never an environmental policy 
decision. Let us be very clear about that.
  The economy of my State depends primarily on the oil and gas 
industry. Unfortunately, that industry has been on the ropes in recent 
times, and my State has lost jobs and population and taxes because of 
the decline in oil prices and production. But I did not go out and ask 
the EPA to mandate ethanol or MTBE, or work with coal extracts to see 
if we could not determine some new type of fuel. An MTBE plant in 
Cheyenne has been on line for over a year. It is a very important part 
of our economy. There are plans to build another methanol plant in 
central Wyoming and I expect those plants to compete with ethanol on a 
level playing field. They should.
  I want to see all oxygenates produced in my State including ethanol, 
but I do not want to get into a situation as we had with this onerous 
percentage reduction requirement in the Clean Air Act and have it stuck 
on the books for 13 years.
  The other serious problem with ethanol mandate is its effect on the 
Highway Trust Fund. Many States will lose money, especially after 1997. 
Wyoming could lose up to $60 million between 1996 and the year 2005 
simply because there is no tax--like a gasoline tax--to help build your 
highways. Pay attention to this one. In a rural State like Wyoming 
where the transportation system is so vital, we have very little air 
transportation, that is a substantial sum.
  So I want to express my support for the Johnston amendment.
  Contrary to the rhetoric we have heard, this will not be an end of 
corn or be the end of ethanol production. It will be a return to a 
fundamental, American economic principle of a free marketplace. That is 
exactly where we ought to go.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska. I thank my friend from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I will yield the balance----
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I ask how much time did I have 
remaining on my 7 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. At the appropriate time I will yield that back or to the 
Senator from Alaska.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding.
  As the primary author of the amendment on the Clean Air Act, I think 
it is very important that we understand exactly what it is that the 
Clean Air Act does. It simply requires that 33 percent of the gasoline 
sold in 1996 have more oxygen. That is what it says. There will be no 
requirement for any relation to source. There is no requirement 
relating to whether it be renewable or nonrenewable. It simply says 
some gasoline, 33 percent, ought to have more oxygen.
  It has been 4 years since we passed the Clean Air Act. There have 
been many proposals. Environmentalists, consumers, and others have 
opposed the early drafts of some of these proposals. But the 
administration has listened. In fact it has listened probably more 
carefully than any other past administration when it has come to the 
rulemaking process.
  They received more comment on this rule than any other rule 
promulgated by the EPA. Some 12,000 comments were provided. Letters 
from virtually every Senator were provided to the EPA with regard to 
this rule. Having listened, the administration responded.
  Let me commend them for the way in which they have responded because 
they have addressed many of the concerns raised, time after time, from 
Senators and other comments alike. This rule is fuel neutral. Let me 
emphasize that. This rule is not an ethanol rule. It is not a methanol 
rule. There is no requirement that we mandate ethanol or methanol in 
this rule. It simply says that 30 percent--30 percent--of the oxygen we 
use to provide more oxygen in the gasoline comes from renewable 
sources.
  In fact, it is very clear today in a letter we received from Richard 
Wilson, Director of EPA's Office of Mobile Sources, that the renewable 
fuels rule does not violate the principle of fuel neutrality that so 
many Senators have raised this afternoon. Any fuel made from 
renewables, including the example methanol produced from landfill 
gases, would qualify. It can be renewable ethanol or it can be 
renewable methanol. It does not have to be an ethanol product.
  The negotiated agreement did not address the fuel neutrality in the 
context of renewable versus nonrenewable oxygenates. So this is a 
supplement to the rule, not in any way in violation to the reg-neg 
process that was promulgated over the last 4 years. It reduces 
emissions of greenhouse gases. There is no increased cost to the 
consumer. It reduces the cost to the Federal Government. There is no 
equivocation on those facts. That is exactly the result of the rule 
promulgated by the EPA.
  Environmental groups endorse that fact. Consumer groups have endorsed 
that fact. In fact, we have a letter from Citizen Action to which 
others have referred. Let me just relate the last paragraph of the 
letter dated July 18:

       Please vote for consumers. Please vote for cleaner-burning, 
     domestically produced renewable fuel and competition in the 
     market for oxygenates.

  Citizens Action clearly has indicated their strong support for this 
rule and against this amendment.
  Agriculture groups, energy groups, all of the groups have indicated 
that they support the President and this administration in opposing the 
amendment.
  The Environmental Protection Agency could not have made it more clear 
in a letter to me on July 21. I ask unanimous consent that the letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            U.S. Environmental

                                            Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: Since EPA announced its decision on 
     the role of renewable oxygenates in reformulated gasoline 
     (RFG) on June 30, a great deal of misinformation has been 
     heard from critics of the decision. I would like to take this 
     opportunity to clarify EPA's views on this important clean 
     air program.
       The administration is aware that floor amendments to EPA's 
     appropriations bill may attempt to overturn EPA's rulemaking 
     on renewable oxygenates. The Administration believes that it 
     is inappropriate to legislate regulatory restrictions through 
     the appropriations process and will strongly oppose any 
     attempts to interfere with EPA's implementation or 
     enforcement of the rule.
       The requirement that 30 percent of the oxygenates used in 
     RFG be produced from renewable sources, such as grain, 
     biomass or even garbage, is necessary to assure that 
     renewable oxygenates are not disadvantaged in the RFG 
     program. EPA is not establishing a new program to benefit any 
     particular fuel, rather we are assuring that renewable fuels 
     continue to have an opportunity to compete in a changing 
     world of cleaner burning gasoline. Our actions are consistent 
     with long-standing Congressional support for renewable motor 
     fuels and this Administration's environmental and energy 
     goals.
       We have taken the necessary steps in the rule to alleviate 
     potential disruption in the gasoline distribution system. In 
     the context of overall gasoline usage, this program will 
     result in only one-half of one percent of the gasoline 
     consumed in the U.S. annually being made from renewable 
     sources.
       It is not an ``ethanol mandate.'' Rather, it is fuel 
     neutral in that any renewable oxygenate will qualify. The 
     production of all oxygenates will increase substantially as a 
     result of the RFG program. For example, nonrenewable MTBE 
     made from natural gas may well experience a 170 percent 
     increase in its market. No industry is a loser in this 
     program.
       I hope the above points and enclosure are useful in 
     explaining the role of renewable oxygenates in the 
     reformulated gasoline program. Please contact us if you have 
     any questions or need further information.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.
                                  ____


                Impacts of the Renewable Oxygenates Rule


                    Environmental and Other Benefits

       The renewable oxygenates rule ensures that the benefits of 
     the RFG program will be achieved. In addition to the 15 
     percent reduction in VOC and toxic emissions from vehicles 
     using Phase I RFG, additional reductions in VOC emissions may 
     occur if ETBE displaces currently-used ethanol during the 
     summer months. This occurs because the rule does not credit 
     the use of renewable oxygenates that increase evaporative 
     emissions during the summer smog season. (The summer season 
     is defined as May 1 to September 15, although a state may 
     request a longer season if needed for smog control.)
       The rule provides a strong incentive for the development of 
     new technology to efficiently produce renewable oxygenates 
     which would lead to long-term global warming benefits. Short-
     term global warming benefits would occur if methanol from 
     landfills is used to make renewable MTBE as one company 
     accounced recently.
       There are also energy benefits. According to a DOE report, 
     up to 20 percent less fossil energy is used to produce 
     ethanol as compared to MTBE produced from natural gas.


                                  Cost

       Consumers should see no increase in the prices of RFG at 
     the pump as a result of the renewable oxygenate rule. EPA 
     estimated that the reformulated gasoline rule that was 
     promulgated last December would cost between 3 and 5 cents 
     per gallon more than conventional gasoline. This includes the 
     cost of oxygenates. The new rule simply requires some 
     oxygenate to be renewable. EPA's analysis shows that the 
     incremental cost impact of the new rule ranges from 0.02 
     cents to as much as 0.2 cents per gallon when spread over the 
     39 billion gallons of RFG that will be produced each year.
       With respect to the impact on the Highway Trust Fund, EPA 
     estimated a $180 million loss and published this estimate in 
     the rule. Treasury, as part of updating the President's 
     budget in the Mid Session review, subsequently estimated the 
     loss to be around $240 million. USDA provided estimates that 
     show that the Highway Trust Fund losses are more than offset 
     by savings in farm deficiency payments. The rule included a 
     $344 million savings estimate based on a USDA analysis of a 
     report by the General Accounting Office. USDA has provided a 
     more recent savings estimate of $275 million.


                                 Supply

       There is no doubt that there exists today an adequate 
     supply of renewable oxygenates to satisfy the requirements of 
     this program. The only question is whether renewable 
     oxygenates would need to be shifted out of existing markets 
     and into RFG cities. To alleviate as much as possible 
     concerns about the ability of the fuels industry to do some 
     shifting and also provide time for new renewable oxygenate 
     production to come on line, the Agency took a number of steps 
     in the regulation. First, we set the initial year's 
     requirement at 15 percent. In 1996, the requirement goes to 
     30 percent.
       Second, we included averaging provisions. With averaging, a 
     refiner may use more renewable oxygenate during the later 
     part of 1995, for example, and none during the first part of 
     the year, as long as over the year the 15 percent requirement 
     is met.
       Third, we included trading provisions, under which Refiner 
     A in Chicago may use more than the required amount of 
     renewable oxygenates. The ``excess'' oxygen credits may then 
     be sold to Refiner B in Chicago or even Refiner C in 
     Baltimore who choose not to use renewables.
       As mentioned above, no industry is losing in the 
     reformulated gasoline program. Renewable oxygenates, like 
     ethanol from grain, will get 30 percent of the new RFG 
     oxygenate market and nonrenewables, like MTBE from natural 
     gas, will get 70 percent of the new market. The production of 
     all oxygenates will grow significantly.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Carol Browner makes it clear this is not 
an ethanol mandate. Rather, it is fuel neutral in that any renewable 
oxygen will qualify. The production of all oxygenates will increase 
substantially as a result of the RFG program. For example, nonrenewable 
MTBE made from natural gas may well experience a 170-percent increase 
in its market. No industry is a loser in this program. So it is very 
clear.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. One hundred fifteen million gallons--I only have 5 
minutes. I will yield at the end.
  We are talking about 115 million gallons of gasoline; 33 percent of 
all gasoline used is affected by the RFG program; 3 percent of all that 
gasoline will probably be related to MTBE or nonrenewable sources. Only 
.6 percent, less than 1 percent of all the gasoline, will be renewable 
under this rule. That is really what we are talking about, Mr. 
President. That small green line on this chart relating to this entire 
gray column over on the right-hand side. That is the issue.
  There is also a very significant misconception, frankly, about the 
volume of fuel affected. I think this chart lays it out very well. This 
chart demonstrates as clearly as anyone can, I believe, why the impact 
on price, on the environment, on all of the other issues that people 
have raised is so minimal. We are talking about sixty-eight hundredths 
of 1 percent of all gasoline affected.
  There are so many arguments that I do not know that I have the time 
to talk about them all. But given the fact that many of these issues 
have been raised on the floor, let me just concentrate on three 
rebuttals to the issues raised by some of our colleagues.
  The first issue raised is that ethanol is subsidized. I am glad my 
colleagues have raised the issue of subsidization because I think it 
really ought to be a matter of perspective here. I am glad they raised 
it because ethanol is not the only source that has received 
subsidization in energy. All energy sources receive a substantial 
degree of subsidization. In fact, the oil industry has received $125 
billion in Federal tax incentives alone over the course of its 
development.
  Today, the oil and gas industry still receive $8 billion in tax 
incentives, and they are asking for $3 billion more. That is in tax 
subsidies. They also receive another $5 billion in research and 
development. Natural gas gets $4 billion in subsidization. If you take 
all of the subsidization together for 1 year--and that is what I have 
depicted on this chart--the total annual subsidies for all fossil fuels 
totals over $20 billion. That is more than 20 times the amount of 
subsidy received by ethanol, even though oil and gas have been the 
traditional fuels for generations.
  So let us talk about subsidy. Let us look at the comparative 
subsidization that exists between ethanol and all the fossil fuels, and 
if you look at the granddaddy of them all, nuclear fission, it receives 
$10.5 billion in subsidization on an annual basis. But that tax 
subsidization, Mr. President, is not the only issue as we look at what 
the real cost of our fuel is.
  If you examine what it costs to protect our foreign sources of oil, 
the costs actually just about go off the chart. According to the 
General Accounting Office and other studies that I have listed here, 
the United States spends between $80 and $120 per barrel in production 
costs and the costs of defense for foreign oil from the Middle East. If 
you are going to take all the costs entailed in actually using and 
producing the fuel that we use today, more than $60 to $100 more than 
the market price for oil per barrel goes into the cost of subsidization 
for oil today.
  Finally, there are the environmental costs, which cannot even be 
accurately calculated today. Fossil fuels are not alone. The nuclear 
industry and the fossil fuels together clearly are heavily subsidized 
by the Federal Government. I have not heard one comment from opponents 
of ethanol this afternoon in regard to the subsidization received for 
fossil fuels.
  Together, between nuclear and the fossil fuel energy, they receive 84 
percent of all Federal energy subsidization this year, and that is not 
including the cost of defending oil imports. So it is not subsidy, it 
is not the Federal tax policy they oppose, but the competition for 
available public resources that I believe is the real source of their 
opposition in this debate.
  When it comes to energy policy, it just makes common sense that 
renewable sources ought to have a role and some commitment from the 
Federal Government to provide the competition and the balance we say we 
all want.
  The second point I want to make this afternoon has to do with Federal 
cost. We heard a good deal of debate about it this afternoon. Let me 
try to explain very easily on this chart what the real Federal costs 
for the ethanol program is in 1994. Opponents talk of the loss of 
revenue to the Federal highway trust fund. I depict that here in the 
red. We do lose $270 million overall in costs as a result of the loss 
in the Federal highway trust fund. That is in large measure because of 
the exemption of 54 cents per gallon of pure ethanol. Since we are 
producing 500 million gallons, it is expected that that total annual 
cost will be somewhere around $270 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, income due to the exemption is taxable. 
Therefore, if we tax income from the exemption at the corporate rate, 
the return in revenue would be $100 million. So already we are 
offsetting that Highway Trust Fund.
  Finally, because the rule increased corn prices, it reduces the farm 
program costs substantially. The USDA has made that very clear, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the two letters from the USDA be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Department of Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: This letter responds to your request 
     that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimate the effect 
     of Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) renewable 
     oxygenate requirement (ROR) on Federal outlays.
       EPA's ROR for reformulated gasoline is expected to reduce 
     USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) outlays on price 
     and income support programs by $2.3 billion during FY 1995-
     1999 compared with outlays in the absence of ROR. The decline 
     in CCC outlays reflects lower deficiency payments for corn 
     and other feed grains.
       The ROR will increase the demand for corn used in ethanol 
     production by 40-50 million bushels during the 1994/95 crop 
     year. Larger increases in corn demand are expected following 
     the ROR phase-in period. By 1996/97 the ROR is expected to 
     expand the amount of corn used in ethanol production by 200-
     250 million bushels.
       Increased amounts of corn used in ethanol production would 
     raise the average price of corn by $0.02 per bushel during 
     the 1994/95 crop year. Corn prices are estimated to increase 
     by $0.08 per bushel annually once the ROR is phased in. 
     Higher corn prices translate into higher prices for other 
     feed grains and lower deficiency payments for corn and other 
     feed grains.
       Additional corn demand for ethanol production reduces the 
     amount of corn available for other uses, including 
     inventories held over from one year to the next. Reductions 
     in carryover stocks are not expected to exceed 140 million 
     bushels annually and therefore, are not expected to cause a 
     lowering in the acreage reduction program (ARP) percentage 
     for corn, and our projections therefore assume no changes 
     during 1995-1999. A lowering of the ARP percentage would 
     expand corn supplies, reduce corn prices, and reduce the 
     estimated savings in CCC outlays under the ROR.
       We have estimated the costs to the Treasury associated with 
     the $0.54 per gallon excise tax exemption or blenders tax 
     credit for ethanol. This calculation compares our long-term 
     projections for corn use with and without the ROR. Our 
     analysis shows that over the FY 1995-1999 period foregone tax 
     revenues from additional ethanol production for the ROR would 
     be about $1.2 billion. Subtracting these revenue losses from 
     savings in CCC outlays shows a net savings of $1.1 billion 
     for the 5-year period.
       I hope this information is helpful, if you have any further 
     questions concerning our estimates please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Keith J. Collins,
                         Acting Assistant Secretary for Economics.
                                  ____



                                    Department of Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     Mr. Eric Washburn,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Eric: This letter responds to your request for 
     information regarding the costs and benefits of the 
     environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation requiring 
     use of renewable oxygenates in reformulated gasoline (RFG).
       The renewable oxygenate requirement (ROR) will require 
     refiners to produce RFG containing renewable oxygenates 
     beginning January 1, 1995. The program will be phased in with 
     a 15 percent ROR in 1995 and a full 30 percent ROR in 1996 
     and thereafter. The Department (USDA) and other agencies 
     provided EPA with comments on many aspects of the regulation 
     including costs and benefits. I am providing a copy of our 
     comments for your information.
       EPA has stated, for the record, that the ROR offers both 
     immediate and long-term environmental benefits. In the 
     preamble to the final ROR regulation, EPA discusses summer 
     ozone-related benefits and global warming benefits. Summer 
     ozone-related benefits are associated with ETBE use in RFG 
     that is controlled for volatile organic compound (VOC) 
     emissions. The ROR only gives refiners credit toward their 
     percentage requirements in summer VOC-controlled RFG if ETBE 
     is used, giving refiners an incentive to use ETBE. ETBE 
     blended in VOC-controlled RFG has two effects; (1) reducing 
     the amount of ethanol available for splash blending; and (2) 
     the effect on the performance characteristics of RFG.
       It is not illegal to use ethanol in VOC-controlled RFG, 
     however ethanol blended into VOC-controlled RFG does not 
     receive credit as a renewable oxygenate. The ROR provides 
     incentives to blend ethanol in the winter and ETBE in the 
     summer because ethanol raises the volatility of fuels it is 
     mixed with. Even though all RFG must meet performance 
     standards, ethanol blends could raise the volatility of other 
     RFG when they are mixed in vehicle fuel tanks. This is called 
     the commingling effect. Ethers like ETBE and MTBE do not 
     exhibit a commingling effect. With incentives for ETBE, less 
     ethanol will be available for blending in VOC-controlled 
     gasoline. Therefore, in some RFG market areas there will 
     be less commingling than might have occurred without the 
     ROR. The result will be fewer VOC emissions and less ozone 
     potential for those areas.
       The second effect ETBE has on reducing VOC emissions is 
     linked to the ether's ability to reduce evaporative emissions 
     at temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. A large 
     fraction of summer VOC emissions are generated when gasoline 
     circulating in vehicle fuel systems becomes hot and 
     evaporates. ETBE reduces this evaporation and lowers these 
     emissions relative to both ethanol and MTBE. This effect is 
     not accounted for in EPA certification models for RFG and 
     thus, is a benefit not accounted for in RFG performance.
       EPA has been reluctant to quantify these emissions benefits 
     in their analysis of the ROR rule. This is partly due to the 
     uncertainty over the amount of ETBE that will be used in RFG, 
     particularly in the first year of the program. In addition, 
     the data available to quantify these effects is limited. EPA 
     does believe the available data have verified the scientific 
     theory indicating real VOC emissions reductions, however, the 
     data and estimation methodology have not been developed with 
     sufficient rigor to provide reliable point estimates of these 
     effects. EPA's final analysis of these issues indicates the 
     net impact of displacing ethanol or MTBE with ETBE in VOC-
     controlled RFG would be a reduction in VOC emissions over 
     what would have occurred in the absence of this rule.
       EPA, USDA, and the Department of Energy (DOE) all believe 
     the use of renewable fuels have the potential to 
     significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Several 
     new technologies are being developed that will enhance the 
     productive efficiency of current conversion processes and 
     allow ethanol to be produced from totally new feedstocks. We 
     believe the development and commercialization of these new 
     technologies depends on the existence of an expanding market 
     for renewable fuels. If such a market does not exist, or 
     lacks government support, potential investors will be 
     unlikely to provide the capital necessary for the development 
     of this industry. We believe the long-term viability of the 
     renewables industry is linked to the success of the ROR 
     program.
       You have also asked for our assessment of the effect the 
     ROR will have on Federal outlays. USDA has recently revised 
     estimates of these effects. I have included a copy of this 
     analysis for your information. Our analysis shows reductions 
     in Commodity Credit Corporation outlays resulting from the 
     ROR of about $2.3 billion over the 1995-1999 period. These 
     reductions occur because prices of corn and other feed grains 
     increase the level of deficiency payments for farmers 
     participating in the program decreases.
       We have also estimated incremental losses in the Highway 
     Trust Fund of general revenues from new ethanol marketings 
     resulting from the ROR. We believe about 115 million gallons 
     of new ethanol in 1995 and an additional 385 million gallons 
     in 1996 will be used to meet the ROR. In 1995, foregone 
     revenues for this level of additional production will be $62 
     million. Thereafter revenue losses from 500 million gallons 
     of new ethanol annually will be about $270 million per year. 
     Total foregone revenues over the period 1995-1999 would 
     amount to $1.15 billion as a result of the ROR. When farm 
     program payment savings and revenue losses are considered 
     together net reductions in Federal outlays are $1.15 billion.
       Finally, we have analyzed the costs of the ROR for 
     consumers using RFG. We believe these costs will be minuscule 
     for several reasons. First, the ROR provides for a flexible 
     system that allows refiners to trade ROR credits among 
     themselves and across geographic regions. Credit trading will 
     allow renewables to be used in areas where they are most 
     economical. Second, ethanol will be the low-cost oxygenate 
     for making winter RFG and should actually save consumers 
     money. Moreover, EPA has implemented a phase-in of the 
     regulation that will allow markets to adjust to these 
     requirements without causing shortages of oxygenates or 
     reformulated gasoline. There is currently enough additional 
     production and blending capacity in place to meet the 15 
     percent ROR in 1995.
       I hope this information is helpful. If you have additional 
     questions please give me a call.
           Sincerely,
                                               John W. McClelland,
                                               Associate Director.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what the USDA reports in its analysis, 
and others have corroborated this information, given the savings in the 
Federal farm program of $517 million, the annual cost savings, and the 
Highway Trust Fund loss, and the tax revenue generated, the savings in 
the farm program is $343 million.
  We have to rely upon domestic energy sources. The Wall Street Journal 
just today said there again has been a dramatic increase in the price 
of oil as a result of what is happening not in the United States, but 
in Nigeria.
  Energy imports are growing rapidly. We are now importing 50 percent 
of all oil consumed. During the last 4 years, imports of MTBE have 
grown tenfold. Without this rule, we are told that MTBE will double or 
even triple just in the next 2 years. So for the sake of energy 
security, we have to develop the renewable fuel market.
  Mr. President, finally, let me just say this. The integrity of the 
rulemaking process is at stake here. That is really what we are talking 
about. The President makes very clear how important this rule is to 
this administration, how important it is to him personally, how 
important it is to the integrity of the rulemaking process.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: Last month, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) made an important decision to use renewable 
     fuels to help achieve the objectives of the Clean Air Act. By 
     promulgating the renewable oxygenate rule, my Administration 
     made good on a long-standing commitment to a cleaner 
     environment and a stronger economy. The use of reformulated 
     gasoline will help to improve the quality of the air in the 
     nation's dirtiest cities. Through this decision EPA is 
     helping to assure that renewable fuels continue to have a 
     fair market share in a changing world of cleaner burning 
     gasoline.
       I am aware of the attempts by some in Congress to block 
     implementation and enforcement of EPA's rulemaking on 
     renewable oxygenates. I strongly oppose any attempts to 
     interfere with EPA's implementation or enforcement of this 
     rule.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, they have listened, they have consulted, 
they have responded. So the bottom line is that this rule is a good one 
because it is right. It is right on energy and tax policy; it is right 
on deficit reduction; it is right on the environment; it is right on 
reducing imports; it is right for America. The Senate should defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 15 minutes and 30 
seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment that 
would block funding for the enforcement of EPA's ethanol mandate.
  In reality, EPA is initiating implementation of a mandate which, in 
my opinion, is a bad policy. Make no mistake about it, it is a mandate. 
I do not believe that EPA has the authority to mandate one fuel use 
over another under the Clean Air Act. The market should dictate what 
fuel is used.
  Certainly this mandate is not fuel neutral. Congress should support a 
fuel neutral policy. Congress never gave the Environmental Protection 
Agency the legal authority to mandate one oxygenate over another for 
reformulated gasoline. The mandate violates specifically the regulatory 
negotiation agreement regarding fuel neutrality signed by all parties 
interested in the reformulated gasoline program including the ethanol 
interests. Mr. President, what we have here is a transfer of jobs from 
one industry to another.
  The Senator from Montana indicated that we were concerned with the 
MTBE, the ETBE, the ethanol, and the methanol. The public is obviously 
a bit confused by this mumbo jumbo.
  The Senator from Montana also said we should not second-guess the 
EPA. Well, I tell you, we should second-guess the EPA. In the opinion 
of the Senator from Alaska, the EPA is one agency that has totally run 
amok. I can tell you one horror story after another. The question of 
accountability in the mind of this Senator is the question as to 
whether the EPA is accountable to the Environment and Public Works 
Committee or it is the other way around. I am not sure which it is.
  But Alaska experienced a case with the Environmental Protection 
Agency where they mandated adding MTBE to our gasoline to comply with 
the Clean Air Act 2 years ago. We had people getting sick when they 
were filling up their cars, women breaking out in rashes. It got so bad 
that our State government, under the authority of the Governor of 
Alaska, terminated the MTBE additive and appealed to the EPA to do a 
study. EPA promised that they would do a study in Alaska.
  So they brought up a dynamometer. On the way up to Alaska, it fell 
off the truck and broke. The EPA never completed the study that they 
promised to complete for Alaskans to address the question of what 
health effects occur in cold weather, 40 degrees below zero and colder, 
associated with the burning of oxygenates in our gasoline. Neither MTBE 
nor ethanol have been adequately tested in Alaska's cold-weather 
climate.
  The bare-bone ethanol study was incomplete and nonconclusive. There 
had been concerns regarding moisture picked up in the process of moving 
the fuel from the gas tank into the carburetor, resulting in a freezing 
of one's gas line.
  So, Mr. President, I am somewhat amused when my colleagues in this 
body say do not second-guess the EPA. And I am further amused at the 
statement that we should pursue this 30 percent ethanol mandate because 
it is in the national interest of relieving our economy of imports.
  Mr. President, I can tell you as a Senator from Alaska one thing that 
you can do today. You can simply allow exploration in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Reserve where there is a greater likelihood of 
finding major, major oil fields to supplant Prudhoe Bay, which is in 
decline, which has been providing this Nation with 24 percent of its 
total crude oil for about 20 years now. That does not require any 
subsidy, not one cent. It can be done right now. American capital will 
invest and provide U.S. jobs.
  What we are doing here, Mr. President, is we are embarking, if you 
will, on a very dangerous principle. We are saying that, indeed, EPA 
has the authority to mandate. This mandate, in the opinion of the 
Senator from Alaska, is totally outside EPA's authority and its 
jurisdiction. I assure you, colleagues, that this is a very, very 
dangerous principle.
  Finally, as we look at an argument that I have heard that the mandate 
will reduce corn deficiency payments of some $275 million per year, I 
come to the conclusion that we are only replacing one subsidy for 
another.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa.
  Mr. President, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1990, corn 
farmers viewed it as a significant step toward creating an opportunity 
for corn-based ethanol to compete in the renewable oxygenate market for 
motor fuel. Clearly, when Congress authorized the production and use of 
oxygenated fuels and reformulated gasoline in areas experiencing 
serious air pollution problems, the intent was to allow ethanol to 
complete fairly in this new market.
  Because of the intent from Congress, the Environmental Protection 
Agency announced the renewable oxygenate requirement, ROR, which 
requires that 30 percent of the oxygen required in reformulated 
gasoline, RFG, must be derived from renewable sources such as corn-
based ethanol.
  Now, the Johnston-Bradley amendment would eliminate a major part of 
the Clean Air Act. This amendment attempts to rewrite history and undue 
the original intent of Congress. There are many in this body who have 
problems with the Clean Air Act who would like to rewrite history, the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill is not the place to change the Clean Air 
Act.
  What is this debate all about? Well, if you support ethanol, a 
renewable resource, you support reducing our dependence on foreign oil, 
reducing harmful carbon monoxide and other tailpipe emissions, and 
providing a tremendous marketing opportunity for rural America.
  The big oil lobby and those opponents of ethanol here today favor the 
continued use of foreign oil, the use of MTBE, a nonrenewable resource, 
and are willing to stop new growth in rural America.
  In fact, St. Joseph, MO, a town that was hit hard by the great flood 
of 1993 and who has lost two major employers in the last year, has had 
several firms looking at St. Joseph as a possible site for an ethanol 
plant. Clearly, the thought of the big oil lobby trying to kill this 
towns prospect for new jobs is intolerable.
  The current EPA program, which the Johnston-Bradley amendment will 
kill, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We will import 17 
million less barrels of imported crude oil in 1995. Are jobs overseas 
more important to the big oil lobby then jobs in St. Joseph, MO?
  The EPA's renewable oxygenate requirement will create millions of 
dollars of new growth in an otherwise stagnated rural economy. It is 
estimated that corn producers will see the price of corn increase by 
over 10 cents per bushel because of the expanded ethanol demand. To a 
typical 250 acre corn producer, that would mean an additional $3,000 in 
increased income. Missouri corn producers expected to harvest over 2.3 
million acres in 1994 and the ROR could add an additional $25 million 
in income.
  As a result of the Johnston amendment, CBO estimates that there would 
be an increase in outlays for Federal agriculture programs of $25 
million for fiscal year 1995.
  The ROR will ensure consumer choice in the marketplace. If the 
Johnston amendment passes, imported MTBE will virtually be the only 
oxygen component in reformulated gasoline and consumers will be without 
a choice.
  The American Medical Association has called for a moratorium on MTBE 
until scientific studies resolve health risk questions. MTBE has been 
detected in blood samples, and reports of nausea, headaches, dizziness, 
cough, and eye irritation from MTBE have come from all over the 
country.
  Environmental groups such as the Friends of the Earth, the Sierra 
Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Working 
Group, and the Natural Resources Defense Council all oppose the 
Johnston amendment.
  The ROS requires that a mere 1.6 percent of the total RFG market be 
derived from renewable resources. The remaining 98.4 percent will 
continue to be petroleum derived products. This will ensure that the 
intent of Congress will be carried out and that would allow ethanol to 
compete fairly in this new market.
  I urge the Senate to reject the Johnston amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
McCain be added as a cosponsor to our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed by efforts by the 
White House to abandon the requirement for fuel neutrality that is 
contained in the 1990 Clean Air amendments and the 1992 Energy Policy 
Act. What we are talking about is an intervention by the White House 
into EPA's regulatory proceeding to promote a special interest--
ethanol--in order to deliver on a 1992 campaign promise to corn State 
farmers and constituents.
  But what of his promises to the American people? In October 1992, on 
behalf of then Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle 
addressed the National Conference on Clean Air Act Implementation and 
Reformulated Gasoline. At that time Senator Daschle assured the 
audience that:

       Governor Clinton and Senator Gore understand the importance 
     of getting proposals on the table in order to make sure that 
     there will be full compliance with the reformulated gasoline 
     program in January 1995.

  He then went on to add:

       * * * they also know that the program will only succeed if 
     all oxygenates can compete for market share within the 
     context of the law. Only in this way will we make sure that 
     consumers are protected, the domestic economy is enhanced, 
     and innovation into new, better ways of making gasoline and 
     oxygenates continues.

  Nevertheless, despite these promises, the Environmental Protection 
Agency has chosen to mandate the use of ethanol and its derivative, 
ETBE, in reformulated gasoline in place of cheaper and equally 
effective alternatives, such as the natural gas derivative MTBE.
  Twice the Congress rejected policies that would authorize the Federal 
Government to select specific fuels or any particular oxygenate. In 
both the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the 1992 Energy Policy Act, 
the Congress enacted policies based on reliance on a competitive and 
fuel-neutral marketplace to make the selection among petroleum and 
nonpetroleum based transportation fuels.
  Therefore, when it was reported last fall that the Environmental 
Protection Agency had completed its regulatory negotiation on 
reformulated gasoline, many of us were relieved. With the full 
participation of the ethanol and methanol industries, an agreement was 
reached that preserved fuel neutrality. Certainty was achieved. 
Finally, this long awaited Federal program could be launched.
  Yet, betraying its proper role, before the ink was dry on the 
agreement, the EPA issued its supplementary rule regarding renewable 
oxygenates. Despite a lack of justification for the requirement, the 
final rule mandates a 2-year phase-in of a guaranteed 30 percent market 
share for renewable oxygenates. Uncertainty returned to the process.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that this mandate would affect 
one-third of the gasoline used in the United States. Even if it 
satisfied the criteria proposed by the EPA, which it does not, adoption 
of the mandate at this late hour violates fuel neutrality as well a 
jeopardizes the orderly introduction of reformulated gasoline into the 
marketplace.
  Let us also not forget that the ethanol fuel industry was created in 
the late 1970's out of the largest of the American taxpayer. During the 
last 15 years, there have been 17 attempts by special interests to 
carve out a guaranteed market for ethanol. Now ethanol producers are 
perhaps the United States' most heavily subsidized industry.
  The annual taxpayer subsidy is $540 million per year. Over the last 
10 years, this exemption has cost the highway trust fund $4.6 billion. 
What a deal for the middle class.
  According to the letter from the Highway Users Federation and 12 
other organizations, this new renewable oxygenate mandate will reduce 
annual deposits into the fund by an additional $465 million, for a 
total revenue loss of over $1 billion annually. This estimate is 
consistent with the estimate of Transportation Secretary Pena in his 
February 14 letter to OMB Director Panetta when he estimated that this 
mandate would result in an additional loss to the highway trust fund of 
from $340 to $465 million.
  As a consequence, all Americans will be faced with higher taxes, 
poorer quality transportation and fewer jobs. Every billion dollars 
spent on highway construction creates about 39,000 jobs.
  For example, California will lose $42 million annually; Georgia, $13 
million; Illinois, $11 million; Indiana, $9.7 million; Maryland, $8 
million; Massachusetts, $27 million; Michigan, $12.9 million; 
Minnesota, $6 million; North Carolina, $12 million; Virginia, $10 
million; and South Dakota, $3 million.
  Mr. President, fuel neutrality is a basic tenet of both the 1990 
amendments to the CAA and the alternative fuel provisions in the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992. As a result of the EPA's inability to issue the 
regulations on time, gasoline producers were not able to finalize 
gasoline composition or to commit to refinery construction necessary to 
produce the new formulations.
  Our Nation's transportation systems are in a critical period of 
transition. Ultimately, the marketplace must determine what combination 
of fuels and vehicles will meet the needs of American consumers 
consistent with national energy and environmental laws.
  Because of the EPA's action, fuel neutrality has once again become an 
issue. Once again the Federal Government, through EPA regulations, is 
attempting to dictate the content of transportation fuels without 
regard to the environment. What is of particular concern is that this 
mandate will penalize American motorists, taxpayers, and the Federal 
Treasury--while having very little, if any, environmental benefits. 
Testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
overwhelmingly supports this point.
  During hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I 
observed that the mandate not only appears to lack authority, but it 
violates the objectives of the reg-neg process itself. It fails to 
preserve the assurances provided to the participants by the EPA. Fifty-
one Members of the Senate and over 100 Members of the House share my 
concerns and have communicated them to EPA Administrator Browner.
  The mandate also appears to be inconsistent with President Clinton's 
Executive order that Federal agencies should only promulgate 
regulations that are required by law, are necessary to interpret the 
law, or are made necessary by compelling public need. This proposal 
fails to meet these tests, as well.
  Surely, the American consumer deserves better from its Government. 
They deserve what was promised by the Senator from South Dakota on 
behalf of Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton; namely:

       Under a Clinton-Gore Administration * * * [t]here will be 
     leadership so that when disputes arise, as they inevitably 
     will, they will be resolved in a quick and forceful manner. 
     Groups won't be pitted against each other at the expense of 
     progress. We will have an Administration that will work with 
     Congress to make sure that our national objectives are 
     advanced.

  In the words of the Senator from South Dakota, ``We should not settle 
for anything less.''
  Well, Mr. President, this administration's actions are settling for 
less with a disturbing political pay off to one firm. Farmer benefits 
will not even show next to those of Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
  A vote for the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana is a vote of 
support for the fuel neutrality requirement that was intended by the 
1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the 1992 Energy Policy Act.
  A vote for the amendment is a vote against Federal command and 
control policies.
  A vote for the amendment is a vote for reliance on a competitive and 
fuel-neutral marketplace for the selection among petroleum and 
nonpetroleum based transportation fuels, as the Congress intended.
  Let me address two other points. As of August 3, Mr. President, EPA 
has been particularly unresponsive in answering followup questions from 
members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee from a May 12 
hearing held on the Agency's proposed renewable oxygenate standard. 
Questions were sent to the EPA witness Assistant Administrator Mary 
Nichols on May 19, with a request that responses be provided to the 
committee by June 10. It has now been 76 days since these questions 
were sent to EPA, and no responses has been received--not even an 
interim communication.
  In fact, EPA has a pattern of being unresponsive to questions from 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Answers to questions are 
outstanding from four hearings.
  The most egregious and flagrant example of EPA's disregard of 
requests from the Senate is their lack of response to our committee's 
questions from a March 16 hearing regarding the domestic and 
international implications of energy demand growth in China and the 
developing countries of the Pacific rim. It has been 128 days--or 4 
months--since the questions were sent to EPA on March 28, and no 
response of any kind from EPA.
  The third example is a March 24, 1994 hearing on the impact of the 
administration's superfund reauthorization proposal on DOE's weapons 
complex efforts. Followup questions were sent to Assistant 
Administrator Elliott Laws on March 28, 1994, with answers requested by 
April 12. In this case, 128 days have elapsed since the due date, and 
no responses have been received, as well.
  Finally, the committee held a hearing on May 10 to examine the 
implementation of the administration's Climate Change Action Plan and 
the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Followup questions were sent on May 17. 
In this case, 78 days have elapsed, and no responses have been 
received.
  Mr. President, I believe Administrator Browner owes not just the 
committee, but the Senate, an explanation for the deplorable manner in 
which her office handles routine requests for further oversight 
information on their programs. In the aggregate, answers to the above 
questions are 410 days overdue.
  Perhaps the EPA Administrator should be called before the committee 
to explain this action--or lack of action--on her part. If EPA were in 
violation of an environmental statute, at $25,000 per day this would 
amount to $10.25 million. Perhaps we should consider assessing a fine 
on the Office of the EPA Administrator by reducing its appropriation by 
this amount.
  And now we must display the deference between the politics of 
campaigns and the politics of records.
  In October 1992, the Senator from South Dakota addressed the National 
Conference on Clean Air Act Implementation and Reformulated Gasoline in 
Washington, DC. At the time, certain promises were made to the American 
people on behalf of Presidential candidate Bill Clinton. I would like 
to read a few excerpts from his remarks.
  In order to clarify congressional intent, the Senator stated that:

       There appears to be some question about Congressional 
     intent relative to ethanol and the reformulated gasoline 
     program. For this explanation, I will take off my Clinton-
     Gore hat for a moment. As the principal sponsor of the 
     reformulated gasoline amendment in the Senate, I can speak 
     with some authority on this subject. The goal of reformulated 
     gasoline was to force gasoline makers to reduce the toxic, 
     ozone forming elements of gasoline by using clean-burning 
     oxygenates.

  The Senator seems to agree that the goal of the reformulated gasoline 
program under the Clean Air Act is the abatement of ozone pollution. 
The Senator also seems to agree that the Clean Air Act does not grant 
the EPA specific authority to consider energy security or climate 
change concerns when establishing the performance standard for 
reformulated gasoline.
  In his remarks, the Senator went on to make the point that:

       Contrary to some propaganda at the time, we did not give 
     anyone a formula for gasoline. We did not say what oxygenate 
     to use. We did not say whether to reduce olefins, or xylene, 
     or sulfur or other components of gasoline that are known to 
     cause ozone pollution * * *. Different refiners have 
     different capabilities.

  The Senator then added that:

       Some oxygenates are more readily available than others and 
     may make more economic or technical sense depending on the 
     refiner or blender. There are a host of variables that could 
     be used to decrease ozone within the general parameters of 
     our provision.

  The Senator agreed on behalf of Governor Clinton that each refiner or 
blender should have the flexibility to use the oxygenate that makes the 
most economic or technical sense.
  If the Clinton administration truly believes that each refiner should 
be able to use the oxygenate that makes the most economic or technical 
sense, then the administration should support reliance on the market, 
instead of promulgating a rule that guarantees renewable oxygenates a 
market regardless of price.
  Later in the Senator's remarks he assured the audience that,

       Governor Clinton and Senator Gore understand the importance 
     of getting proposals on the table in order to make sure that 
     there will be full compliance with the reformulated gasoline 
     program in January, 1995.

  He then went on to add:

       * * * they also know that the program will only succeed if 
     all oxygenates can compete for market share within the 
     context of the law. Only in this way will we make sure that 
     consumers are protected, the domestic economy is enhanced, 
     and innovation into new, better ways of making gasoline and 
     oxygenates continues.

  If the Clinton-Gore administration believes that the consumer must be 
protected, then this Senator does not understand how EPA's action 
expedites full compliance by January 1995 with the reformulated 
gasoline program.
  In my opinion, EPA has blatantly disregarded congressional intent 
regarding fuel neutrality in two major pieces of legislation--the Clean 
Air Act and the Energy Policy Act. Instead, the EPA has done just the 
opposite; they have pushed through the regulatory process a rule that 
favors one oxygenate over another.
  The rule is not fuel neutral.
  As the Senator from South Dakota said in his October 1992 statement, 
this program will only succeed if all oxygenates can compete for market 
share within the context of the law. EPA's renewable oxygenate rule 
fails to meet this test.
  In October 1992, the Senator from South Dakota further assured those 
in attendance that ``Governor Clinton wanted me to stress that he is 
not pro-ethanol at the expense of other oxygenates.'' The Senator then 
observed:

       There is a tremendous opportunity under the Clean Air Act 
     for methanol and MTBE, biodiesel, CNG, and other alternative 
     fuels. A strong methanol and MTBE industry in the U.S. has 
     many of the same virtues as a strong ethanol program. Instead 
     of helping bolster agricultural prices, methanol can play a 
     substantial role in strengthening the natural gas industry, 
     which is extremely important in enhancing our long-term 
     energy security. MTBE an methanol growth will also strengthen 
     our industrial sector and provide high paying jobs.
       Ethanol, ETBE, MTBE, TAME, and other oxygenates should all 
     be able to play a role in reformulated gasoline. And these 
     industries should be clear as the Federal Government's 
     commitment to this objective.

  If the administration believes, as the Senator from South Dakota has 
portrayed, that there is tremendous opportunity for methanol and MTBA, 
biodiesel, CNG, and other alternative fuels, then where is the 
justification for EPA's end run of the fuel neutral feature of current 
law that relies on a competitive market and guarantee renewable 
oxygenates a market regardless of price.
  In October 1992, the solution advocated by the Senator from South 
Dakota on behalf of Governor Clinton was:
  First, retain the environmental integrity of the law; and
  Second, guarantee that ethanol will be able to play a role in 
competing for market share on an equal footing with other fuels.
  If ethanol should compete with these other oxygenates on an equal 
basis, then I do not understand how he justifies either the EPA's 
mandate or the existing Federal tax subsidy.
  In his remarks, the Senator from South Dakota then pledged that--

       If Bill Clinton were President * * * [w]e would have a 
     complex model on the table by now letting science dictate 
     what ethanol's role can and should be. Any solution to the 
     current impasse must be based on consensus, as much as 
     possible, and it must be able to withstand legal and 
     technical challenges.

  He then added that:

       The worst thing that could happen to the ethanol industry, 
     not to mention the people who have to breathe the air in 
     these cities, is for a political solution to be proposed that 
     has no chance of withstanding protracted legal challenges.
       Under a Clinton-Gore Administration * * * [t]here will be 
     leadership so that when disputes arise, as they inevitably 
     will, they will be resolved in a quick and forceful manner. 
     Groups won't be pitted against each other at the expense of 
     progress. We will have an Administration that will work with 
     Congress to make sure that our national objectives are 
     advanced.
       We should not settle for anything less.

  If, as the Senator from South Dakota believes the proposed EPA 
renewable oxygenate rule is ``based on consensus'' and is ``able to 
withstand legal and technical challenges,'' then why is it being 
challenged by members of the reg-neg process.
  The underlying reformulated gasoline rule is based on consensus and 
should withstand challenge. The same cannot be said for the renewable 
oxygenate rule.
  The Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy Act specifically state, as 
does report language, that Congress' intent was to allow the 
marketplace to decide the appropriate, most cost-effective component of 
reformulated gasoline, rather than guaranteeing renewable oxygenates a 
market regardless of price.
  My opinion is that the rule does not accomplish this objective. 
Instead, the EPA's action pits special interest groups against each 
other at the expense of environmental progress.
  The administration's rule has been portrayed by the Senator from 
South Dakota as having our Nation's best interest at heart. I submit, 
Mr. President, that EPA's rule is not in our Nation's interest; rather 
it is intended to be in the best interest of Archer Daniels Midland.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, there are probably 10 or 15 undecided 
Senators. My guess is they will come to the floor in the next 15 or 20 
minutes trying to make up their mind.
  First of all, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 
for praising the President for keeping a campaign promise. That is 
precisely what he did. I appreciate the fact that the President is 
doing that.
  Let me say that there are four arguments that I have heard against 
the renewable fuel rule, that the Environmental Protection Agency 
heard, and it finally issued. There are four arguments.
  No. 1, that it is bad for the American economy and jobs because it is 
antimarket. That is baloney; just pure baloney. I mean every 
regulation, every spending program in Washington, DC, is by definition 
antimarket. So if you supported any rule, regulation, or spending 
program, you basically supported intervention into the market. That is 
what we do here. We measure that intervention to protect jobs and to 
make sure that we are not doing something bad. But everything that we 
do is effectively an intervention. It is baloney to oppose this rule, 
to support the Johnston amendment because all of a sudden you are 
riding the high horse of being promarket.
  Second, I have heard people say it is bad for farmers. Baloney again. 
Typically people who say it is bad for farmers have no idea what is 
going on in agriculture. Every farm organization in America is opposed 
to the Johnston amendment. So please do not vote for the Johnston 
amendment because you think it is going to be bad for farmers.
  Third, that it is going to be bad for the taxpayer. Baloney. The fact 
is the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has to find a $39 million 
offset for his amendment because it is going to cost more money. So do 
not cite a study saying it is going to be bad for the taxpayer and all 
this stuff about money being lost to the trust fund and States losing 
highway money. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota earlier showed 
that only three States are affected. Baloney it is bad for the 
taxpayer.
  Bad for the environment? Baloney. It is renewable fuel. You tell me 
why a renewable fuel is bad for the environment. The only thing it is 
bad for is for those people who want to exploit the environment and to 
deplete the resources that are nonrenewable.
  Mr. President, this amendment should be defeated because of the 
policy implemented by the Clinton administration, and the courage of 
the President to confront the oil industries and those individuals who 
want the status quo. This policy will be good for jobs; 2,200 permanent 
jobs just from the investments in Nebraska in 1993; not jobs in the 
Middle East. I do not mean the Middle East but the United States. I do 
not mean Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Almost every single drop 
of petroleum produced will create jobs in the United States.
  This policy creates jobs here at home. This policy will be good for 
taxpayers, as evidenced by the fact we have to find an offset to pay 
for the amendment. It is good for the taxpayers because it will reduce 
deficiency payments. It is good for farmers because every single farmer 
in America will benefit as a consequence of higher prices.
  Finally, it is good for the environment. We will find ourselves very 
soon with the Vice President in the chair. He would not support this 
policy if he did not believe it was good for the environment of this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I understand the Republicans cannot vote 
until 6:05. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the time for the 
vote be extended for 5 minutes until 6:05 and that the time be equally 
divided.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, could we extend it to 6:07 equally 
divided?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, in terms of whether the environmental 
organizations are for the mandate or against the mandate, not some 
procedural nicety, but the mandate, I ask unanimous consent that a 
statement in opposition to the mandate by the Northeast States for 
Coordinated Air Use Management be placed in the Record, along with a 
statement by the California Air Resources Board in opposition to the 
mandate be placed in the Record; I ask unanimous consent that the 
Environmental Defense Fund statement in opposition to the mandate along 
with the Florida Audubon Society statement in opposition to the 
mandate; the Sierra Club statement in opposition to the mandate; 
National Resource Defense Council in opposition to the mandate; World 
Resources Institute in opposition to the mandate; National Audubon 
Society in opposition to the mandate; Resources for the Future in 
opposition to the mandate all be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
         Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 
           (NESCAUM)
                                                    July 29, 1994.
     Senator Bill Bradley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bradley: In response to your request, the 
     Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 
     is pleased to enumerate our concerns relative to the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Renewable Oxygenate 
     Requirements for federal reformulated gasoline. NESCAUM is an 
     association of state air quality control agencies in the six 
     New England states, New Jersey and New York.
       NESCAUM has publicly opposed the Renewable Oxygenate 
     Requirements (ROR) proposal from the outset because we 
     believe that such a program would result in adverse 
     environmental and economic impacts in our region. Further, we 
     believe that the proposed program is in direct contradiction 
     to the negotiated agreement on reformulated gasoline (RFG) 
     that NESCAUM member states were party to. In light of these 
     concerns, NESCAUM appreciates and supports your efforts to 
     alter EPA's plans to implement this program.
       Of primary concern to NESCAUM is the fact that the 
     increased use of ethanol under an ROR program would 
     exacerbate several air quality problems in our region. 
     Greater emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would 
     occur during the early and late portions of the region's 
     ozone season since gasoline blended with ethanol is more 
     volatile than similar gasoline without ethanol. VOCs and 
     oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are the pollutants primarily 
     responsible for creation of ground-level ozone or ``smog''. 
     This initiative would promote conditions that result in 
     extending the length of the Northeast ozone season. This 
     effect would be particularly significant in the southern 
     portion of the NESCAUM region. New Jersey, for example, is 
     prone to high ambient levels of ozone in the Spring and early 
     Fall.
       We are also concerned that the increased use of ethanol 
     during the remainder of the year would lead to increased 
     emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and NOx. CO is 
     primarily a winter problem in the Northeast. The higher 
     volatility ethanol-blended gasoline can contribute to an 
     overloading of an automobiles evaporative canister and 
     subsequently lead to higher CO emissions. EPA has 
     acknowledged that the increased use of ethanol will result in 
     increased NOx emissions. In addition to further 
     contributing to the ``shoulder'' season ozone exceedances 
     mentioned above, increased NOx emissions contribute to 
     elevated ambient levels of nitrogen dioxide and fine 
     particulate matter, both are criteria air pollutants for 
     which EPA has established national ambient air quality 
     standards. The expected increase in NOx and nitrous 
     dioxide emissions under an ROR program also have important 
     global climate change implications since these pollutants 
     have 150 and 270 times greater climate change impacts than 
     carbon dioxide (CO2). These increased emissions will 
     offset much of the CO2 benefit that EPA has used as the 
     primary environmental justification for the ROR program.
       EPA estimates that inclusion of the renewable oxygenate 
     requirements will add about one cent per gallon to the cost 
     of RFG. Given that the ROR program provides little, if any, 
     air quality benefits, the projected annual cost of $50 
     million is hard to justify. The proposed program would result 
     in a significant transfer of wealth from the motorist in the 
     Northeast to agricultural interest in the Midwest. In spite 
     of the potential economic benefits of the ethanol initiative 
     to the corn growing states, Midwest states with nonattainment 
     areas have not pursued voluntary opt-in to the RFG program.
       EPA has identified reduced foreign oil consumption as a 
     major justification for the proposed ROR. However, the total 
     estimated savings appear to be extremely modest on a relative 
     basis, and highly dependent upon the assumptions made in the 
     supporting analysis. While NESCAUM is generally supportive of 
     efforts to foster energy savings and energy security, 
     considerable question remains as to whether minor and 
     uncertain energy benefits provide an adequate basis under the 
     Clean Air Act for a new program such as that contemplated in 
     the ROR proposal.
       Finally, as active participants in the regulatory 
     negotiation that produced the consensus agreement upon which 
     the federal reformulated gasoline rule was to be based, 
     NESCAUM is disheartened by EPA'S efforts to include an 
     initiative that clearly violates the fuel neutral concept 
     adopted by the ``reg-neg'' participants.
       In conclusion, NESCAUM would like to state our continued 
     opposition to the renewable oxygenates requirement and our 
     support for your effort to keep this program from becoming 
     part of the RFG program which we believe is a sound 
     environmental program in its current form.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael J. Bradley,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____


  Testimony of Michael J. Bradley Before the U.S. Senate Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

       Good morning. My name is Michael Bradley and I am the 
     Executive Director of the Northeast States for Coordinated 
     Air Use Management (NESCAUM). NESCAUM is an association of 
     state air pollution control agencies representing 
     Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
     New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. The Association provides 
     member agencies with technical assistance and policy guidance 
     on regional air pollution issues of concern in the Northeast. 
     We appreciate this opportunity to testify before the 
     Committee regarding the Renewable Oxygenate Requirement (ROR) 
     for Federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) which was proposed 
     last December by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 
     an effort to accommodate the corn grower's desire for a 
     larger role in the RFG program.
       I would like to begin by offering the Committee a brief 
     explanation of the contribution of motor vehicles and their 
     fuels as a source of air pollution in the northeastern U.S. 
     and with an overview of the comprehensive motor vehicle 
     emission control program that is currently being put in place 
     in our region. I will then share with the Committee our 
     concerns related to the ROR proposal and explain why NESCAUM 
     believes that the proposed does not represent an appropriate 
     or effective air quality control option. I would, however, 
     like to emphasize the fact that NESCAUM strongly supports the 
     federal reformulated gasoline program and that all ozone 
     nonattainment areas in the Northeast have opted in to this 
     program. My comments today are directed specifically at the 
     proposed ROR component of the RFG program.
       Ozone nonattainment remains a persistent and pervasive air 
     pollution problem in the United States. The problem is 
     particularly acute in the northeast corridor where the 
     general public in states from Virginia to Maine is 
     periodically subjected to unhealthful ambient ozone 
     concentrations. Ozone and its precursor pollutants, volatile 
     organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 
     are transported hundreds of kilometers along the east coast 
     by weather systems. It is now widely understood that the 
     ozone nonattainment problem in our region cannot be solved 
     without addressing long-range transport. In recognition of 
     this fact, Congress joined the NESCAUM states with our 
     counterparts in the Mid-Atlantic region through the Northeast 
     Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). The OTC has been charged 
     with the challenging task of developing coordinated regional 
     strategies to bring all areas of the region into timely 
     compliance with the national ambient air quality standard 
     (NAAQS) for this pollutant.
       As you know, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) 
     require states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 
     which demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS within a 
     given timeframe, according to the severity of an area's 
     nonattainment problem.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The RFG revisions in the CAA of 1990 directed EPA to 
     develop requirements that would address both the evaporative 
     properties of gasoline and the combustion characteristics. 
     NESCAUM's member agencies were active participants in the 
     regulatory negotiation (reg-neg) process that produced 
     consensus among all major interest groups on the structure of 
     the RFG program. Throughout the ensuing federal rulemaking 
     effort, we have supported the development of a cost-effective 
     and fuel-neutral approach that results in the greatest 
     feasible level of emission reductions. We are particularly 
     pleased that EPA has ensured that Phase II RFG will provide 
     reductions in emissions of NOX which are critical to 
     ozone attainment in the Northeast corridor. We are also 
     encouraged that the vast majority of reg-neg participants 
     have endeavored to adhere to the agreements reached in the 
     negotiated rulemaking.
       Based on the Administration's stated intention to make 
     greater use of the regulatory negotiation process and similar 
     dispute resolution techniques, we question the Agency's 
     rationale for proposing the ROR concept which is inconsistent 
     with the negotiated RFG rule. We would like to point out that 
     after considerable deliberation, stakeholders involved in the 
     reg-neg decided that, on the basis of fairness, the RFG 
     program would be fuel-neutral. The ROR initiative proposed by 
     EPA violates this objective. The state air agencies, as well 
     as other parties, will be closely monitoring EPA action in 
     this instance as an indicator of the federal government's 
     commitment to abide by agreements reached through negotiated 
     rulemaking.
       We also question the merits of this proposal in terms of 
     legal authority, air quality impacts, economic impacts and 
     energy implications. The following sections highlight our 
     concerns in each of these regards.


                              legal basis

       The CAA directs EPA, in developing requirements for RFG, to 
     take into consideration ``the cost of achieving such emission 
     reductions, any non air-quality and other air-quality related 
     health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.'' 
     NESCAUM finds it curious that EPA is now pointing to this 
     language as a rationale for proposing the ROR program. 
     Indeed, these and other factors were afforded serious 
     consideration during the regulatory negotiations, 
     negotiations which included representatives of companies that 
     produce ``renewable oxygenates'', that led to the reg-neg 
     agreement and the subsequent EPA proposed rule for RFG. In 
     fact, the resolution of these issues was critical to the 
     development of a consensus agreement. We don't believe this 
     statutory language provides sufficient authority or reason 
     for the EPA to create an entirely new program, such as the 
     proposed ROR.
       NESCAUM is also concerned that the increased use of ethanol 
     during the remainder of the year will lead to increased 
     emissions of CO. Many researchers and public agencies 
     (including EPA) have noted that increases in fuel volatility 
     (RVP), which would occur with the use of ethanol, can result 
     in increased evaporative canister loading and, consequently, 
     increased CO emissions during the air/fuel mixture enrichment 
     process that accompanies purging of the evaporative canister. 
     Because the RFG program does not include an RVP limit outside 
     the summer ozone season, any mandate leading to increased use 
     of ethanol in the wintertime, would in NESCAUM's judgment, 
     result in additional CO emissions.
       EPA has acknowledged that the increased use of ethanol 
     outside the peak ozone season would also result in increased 
     emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX). In addition to 
     adversely affecting ozone levels during the ``shoulder'' 
     periods in Spring and Fall, increased NOX emissions 
     would contribute to elevated ambient levels of the criteria 
     pollutants nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate 
     matter (PM10). While no areas in the Northeast currently 
     exceed the NAAQS for NO2, excursions above the standard 
     are observed periodically in Boston and New York City, 
     particularly during the winter. EPA is currently assessing 
     the protectiveness of the NAAQS for NO2. If the standard 
     is revised so that attainment status is based on short-term 
     ambient concentrations, areas like Boston and New York will 
     be at risk of being designated as NO2 nonattainment 
     areas. In light of these issues, we are troubled by EPA's 
     proposal of a mandate that would lead to increased emissions 
     of NOX.
       It is also important to note that New York City has 
     recently been designated as a PM10 nonattainment area. 
     With a wealth of recent scientific evidence suggesting an 
     enormous public health problem relating to the inhalation of 
     fine particulate matter, EPA is currently reassessing the PM 
     NAAQS. Any tightening of the particulate standard would place 
     other areas in the Northeast at risk of being designated as 
     PM nonattainment areas. Given the proclivity of NOX to 
     form secondary particulate matter and the potential for the 
     proposed ROR to increase mobile source NOX emissions, we 
     must question the foresight of this EPA initiative.
       EPA's failure to acknowledge the impacts of the increase in 
     emissions of NOX and nitrous oxide (N2O) is also 
     troubling because of the global climate change implications 
     associated with increased emissions of these gases, which are 
     respectively 150 and 270 times greater than that of CO2. 
     Given that EPA's estimate of the CO2 reductions which 
     would result from the proposed ROR appears to hinge on best-
     case assumptions regarding ethanol production efficiency, the 
     failure to acknowledge NOX and N2O emissions calls 
     into question the conclusion that the proposed ROR would 
     actually offer any global climate change benefits.


                               conclusion

       While the U.S. EPA justifies the ROR proposal by pointing 
     to projected greenhouse gas emission reductions and attempts 
     to minimize possible adverse air quality consequences, 
     NESCAUM believes that the potential global climate change 
     benefits would be marginal, at best and that the adverse air 
     quality impacts may be significant, especially if the ozone, 
     nitrogen dioxide and/or particulate NAAQS are tightened. As 
     stated, NESCAUM strongly supports the federal reformulated 
     gasoline program as promulgated in December, 1993, as well as 
     EPA's objective of implementing measures to reduce greenhouse 
     gas emissions. Unfortunately, the ROR proposal will deliver 
     only modest global climate change benefits at a significant 
     cost in terms of adverse air quality and economic impacts in 
     the Northeast. In light of the potential air quality 
     disbenefits and the high cost of the proposed program on 
     consumers and businesses in the region, NESCAUM opposes the 
     ROR proposal.
       NESCAUM believes it is particularly ironic that this 
     program could be forced on the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 
     states when many Midwestern states eligible to participate in 
     the federal reformulated gasoline program have resisted doing 
     so in spite of a clear air quality need and the direct 
     economic benefits that would accrue in those states.
       In conclusion, NESCAUM believes that the ROR proposal 
     represents an unsound environmental policy with unfair 
     economic consequences for states that are trying to meet 
     their Clean Air Act commitments in the most timely and cost 
     effective manner. Adding further costs to the RFG initiative 
     to include a program component without clear overall air 
     quality benefits makes our job of providing healthy air to 
     the citizens of our region more expensive and more difficult.
                                  ____



                                          Air Resources Board,

                                Sacramento, CA, February 14, 1994.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir or Madam: The California Air Resources Board (ARB/
     Board) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the United 
     States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) proposed 
     renewable oxygenates program for reformulated gasoline. I 
     have summarized our comments below and enclosed a more 
     detailed analysis for your consideration.
       As now written, the proposed requirements would likely have 
     adverse fiscal and air quality impacts on California. First, 
     California will lose federal highway funds because the 
     ethanol tax credit will reduce the federal excise tax by 54 
     cents for every gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline. 
     Second, the proposed requirements could increase the 
     refiners' cost to produce reformulated gasoline, which would 
     likely be passed on to the consumer. Third, the proposed 
     requirements could make it difficult for California refiners 
     to meet the Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG) regulations 
     because it limits their flexibility in choosing how to meet 
     the regulations. Because the ARB has adopted stringent 
     standards on gasoline properties for Phase 2 RFG, our policy 
     has always been to remain fuel-nuetral, providing refiners' 
     with flexibility. The proposal would limit that flexibility, 
     without providing an air quality benefit. In fact, the 
     proposed requirements could also have negative impacts on 
     California's air quality. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen, 
     particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons could 
     increase, and this would force us to adopt other measures to 
     attain and maintain state and national air quality standards.
       Because of the concerns listed above, we cannot support the 
     current proposal. We recommend that the U.S. EPA reexamine 
     its proposal in light of these concerns and not promulgate a 
     final rule that could have both adverse air quality and 
     economic impacts on California.
                                  ____



                                   Environmental Defense Fund,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Bradley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bradley: You have requested the views of the 
     Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) on the environmental 
     consequences of using ethanol as an automotive fuel additive. 
     As you may know, EDF provided written comments on EPA's 
     proposed rule regarding ethanol which raised a number of 
     environmental concerns. We wish to make clear that our views 
     have not changed with the insurance of the final rule by EPA. 
     Attached to this letter is a copy of our comments. We hope 
     this letter and attachment adequately expresses our view on 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Roberts,
                                             Legislative Director.
                                  ____


            Comments to the Environmental Protection Agency

         (By Paul J. Miller, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Fund)

       The Environmental Protection Agency is to be commended for 
     its efforts to replace a portion of the fossil fuels 
     currently consumed by the transportation sector with 
     alternative fuels derived from renewably-grown biomass. Such 
     an approach promises to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (a 
     potent greenhouse gas) while also reducing the federal trade 
     deficit incurred from foreign oil imports. It is heartening 
     to see EPA address this issue, and the Environmental Defense 
     Fund supports the environmental goals EPA seeks to achieve.
       Unfortunately, while the proposed rulemaking has laudable 
     goals, its practical effect at best will be to divert scarce 
     resources away from other options that can have a greater 
     impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and at worst will 
     exacerbate the very problems it seeks to solve.


              The Use of Ethanol as a Renewable Oxygenate

       The primary reasons for using renewable oxygenates as part 
     of reformulated gasoline are the potential improvements in 
     air quality, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and 
     reductions in foreign oil imports. While EPA states methanol 
     from biomass such as wood or organic waste products requires 
     ``essentially no use of crude oil,'' EPA goes on to say there 
     is no methanol capacity in the United States based on biomass 
     sources. Therefore, ethanol will be the most likely source of 
     renewable oxygenates under this proposed rulemaking. As a 
     practical matter, the ethanol will come from corn, the major 
     source of ethanol in the United States.
       It has been argued elsewhere that the use of ``renewably'' 
     produced ethanol will have marginal benefits at best on air 
     quality, and may in fact be detrimental during the ``shoulder 
     seasons'' that immediately precede and follow the high ozone 
     season (see testimony of S. William Becker, Executive 
     Director, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 
     Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution 
     Control Officials). Even assuming, however, that there is 
     some air quality benefit to the use of corn ethanol, it will 
     be largely outweighed by the environmental damage caused by 
     growing corn and the poor economics of corn as a source of 
     ethanol.


                            the environment

       Under the predominant agricultural practices of the United 
     States today, corn is grown on land subjected to intensive 
     cultivation with heavy applications of fertilizers, 
     herbicides and pesticides. Large areas of land under 
     cultivation have led to significant soil erosion along with a 
     loss of natural biodiversity as land has been converted to 
     monocropping. Heavy applications of fertilizers, herbicides 
     and pesticides cause serious water pollution problems when 
     rain water drains from fields into rivers and streams. This 
     non-point source of pollution is a major issue in the current 
     re-authorization of the Clean Water Act. In addition, 
     biologically harmful levels of chemicals from agricultural 
     sources concentrate in wildlife, leading to high mortality 
     rates and birth deformities. Two vivid examples are the 
     adverse effects widespread use of DDT has had on the 
     reproduction rates of birds of prey, and the hatchling 
     deformities caused by selenium poisoning of migratory 
     waterfowl feeding in the irrigation evaporation ponds of 
     California's San Joaquin Valley.
       In a recent study of the environmental impacts of energy 
     crops, the Office of Technology Assessment essentially 
     dismissed the use of annual crops such as corn as a source of 
     energy because of the environment damage associated with its 
     cultivation.\1\ With the poor environmental record of most 
     modern day agriculture, the environmental harm that will be 
     caused by greatly expanding corn ethanol production to meet 
     the requirements of this proposed rulemaking will far 
     outweigh the marginal air quality benefits that the use of 
     ethanol may have in reformulated gasoline.


                        Greenhouse Gas Emissions

       In addition to increased environmental degradation from 
     greater corn cultivation, the use of corn as a source of 
     biofuel does little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
     According to scientists at the National Renewable Energy 
     Laboratory (NREL), the fossil fuel savings obtained by the 
     use of ethanol from corn in reformulated gasoline are largely 
     canceled by the greater use of fossil fuels in the actual 
     growing and processing of the corn to make ethanol.\2\ 
     Approximately one-third to more than one-half of the energy 
     content of ethanol produced from corn is off-set by the 
     fossil energy used in fuel and fertilizer to grow the crop. 
     Additional fossil fuel inputs are required to process the 
     corn into ethanol. The NREL researchers conclude that, taken 
     as a whole, the energy input from all fossil fuel sources is 
     approximately equivalent to the energy content of the 
     produced ethanol, and the net amount of carbon released from 
     the fossil fuels is comparable to that of gasoline. 
     Similarly, the fossil fuel required to make corn ethanol 
     means any reduction in foreign oil imports is not likely to 
     be significant. While these reasons alone make ethanol from 
     corn unattractive, the greater emissions of nitrogen oxides 
     from the increased use of fertilizers to grow more corn would 
     have negative effects on greenhouse gas reductions. 
     Fertilizer is a source of nitrogen oxides such as N2O 
     that are even more potent greenhouse gases than carbon 
     dioxide.


                               economics

       Even apart from the environmental cost, the financial cost 
     of ethanol from corn calls into question the utility of its 
     use in reformulated gasoline. A cost breakdown of ethanol 
     made from corn by both wet and dry milling is given in Table 
     1. While the cost varies from year to year depending on the 
     price of corn, on average, the cost of a gallon of ethanol 
     made from corn greatly exceeds the price of a gallon of 
     gasoline. Even under the best of assumptions, the cost of 
     corn ethanol will be about $1.50/gallon. Instead of the price 
     falling with expanded ethanol production, the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture projects that the cost of corn will rise and 
     the revenue from coproducts will fall as corn ethanol 
     production increases over current levels.\3\ Obviously, to 
     make the price competitive will require huge subsidies. EPA 
     estimates that the current $0.54/gallon tax credit given to 
     the corn ethanol industry could amount to $340 million in 
     lost highway-related revenue if this proposed rulemaking goes 
     forward. This is on top of the roughly $550 million tax 
     credit already given to the industry based on an annual 
     ethanol production of about one billion gallons. Furthermore, 
     about 80 percent of this alcohol is produced by a single firm 
     that receives a comparable share of the tax subsidy.\4\


                             an alternative

       In light of the environmental cost of producing more corn 
     and the limited benefit the use of corn ethanol will have on 
     air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, it makes far more 
     sense to target scarce resources on other measures that are 
     more environmentally and economically sound.
       One such measure that deserves more attention, but is 
     beyond the scope of this proposed rulemaking, is to 
     sustainably grow energy crops to displace fossil fuels 
     currently used by utilities for powerful generation. Energy 
     crops such as herbaceous energy crops (HECs) (e.g. 
     switchgrass) and short-rotation woody crops (SRWCs) (e.g. 
     poplars) reduce soil erosion and require fewer applications 
     of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (see Table 2). 
     While not having the biodiversity of undisturbed ecosystems, 
     the growing of energy crops can improve the habitat potential 
     of previously degraded farmlands because monocropping need 
     not be done. As an added benefit, recent cost estimates 
     indicate that energy crops are already competitive at today's 
     electricity prices, therefore they do not need the massive 
     subsidies required for ethanol production from corn (see 
     Table 3).
       Growing energy crops for power generation, however, is not 
     without its own environmental implications. According to the 
     Office to Technology Assessment, ``Substituting energy crops 
     (such as short-rotation woody crops or herbaceous perennials 
     like switchgrass) for conventional new crops (such as corn or 
     soybeans) will under proper management generally improve soil 
     quality, reduce soil erosion and runoff, reduce the use of 
     agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, 
     fungicides), improve local air quality, and improve habitat 
     for a variety of animals. On the other hand, substituting 
     energy crops for hay, pasture, or well-managed Conservation 
     Reserve Program Lands will generally have mixed impacts.''\5\
       If natural forests are replaced by monocrop energy 
     plantations, a substantial loss of biodiversity could occur. 
     Undisturbed wetlands are an integral part of surrounding 
     ecosystems and should not be drained or converted for biomass 
     farming. On the other hand, if biomass is grown on land 
     currently degraded from overgrazing or farming, or on 
     farmland whose ecology has been greatly simplified by 
     monocropping, biological diversity can be greatly enriched, 
     both above and below ground. Croplands with wetness problems 
     may be prime candidates for bioenergy farming. As a specific 
     example, scientists are evaluating the silver maple as a SRWC 
     for occasionally flooded Iowa bottomland that was once 
     cleared for farming, but subsequently used for pasture or 
     abandoned.\6\ Such work may provide an economically and 
     ecologically-sound alternative to the rebuilding of levees 
     destroyed during the 1993 Midwest floods.
       The types of crops raised and growing methods used will 
     need to be individually tailored on a regional basis. 
     Environmental considerations such as maintaining or improving 
     biodiversity may require biomass farmers to accept less than 
     maximum yields. To address these issues, several recent 
     efforts have begun to look at the development of 
     environmental guidelines for biomass energy production.\7\ 
     These efforts deserve EPA's support and attention before it 
     embarks upon a well-intentioned but misdirected program to 
     mandate the use of ``renewable'' oxygenates in reformulated 
     gasoline.


                               conclusion

       The proposed rulemaking at issue here will have the 
     practical effect of greatly expanding the use of corn for 
     ethanol production (potentially a 60% increase over current 
     ethanol production levels by EPA's own estimate). This in 
     turn will increase the environmental damage caused by 
     intensive cultivation of corn, while the associated subsidies 
     to the corn ethanol industry will drain scarce resources away 
     from other options capable of achieving greater environmental 
     benefits. While the goals enunciated by EPA as laudable, this 
     proposed rulemaking is not the appropriate path towards a 
     renewable energy future.

   TABLE 1.--COST OF ETHANOL FROM GRAIN\1\ (MODERN GREENFIELD PLANTS)   
                  [Dollars per gallon of pure ethanol]                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Wet           Dry    
                                               Milling\2\    Milling\3\ 
                                              (Capacity=70  (Capacity=20
               Cost Component                    million       million  
                                                gallons/      gallons/  
                                                  year)         year)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital\4\..................................          0.41          0.54
Energy Costs                                                            
    Coal....................................          0.10          0.14
    Natural Gas.............................          0.32          0.32
    Electricity.............................          0.04          0.05
                                             ---------------------------
      Subtotal..............................          0.46          0.51
Chemicals, enzymes, yeast...................          0.04          0.12
Personnel...................................          0.07          0.19
Maintenance.................................          0.11          0.16
Feedstock\5\................................          1.16          1.12
Byproduct Credit............................    -0.50 to -              
                                                      0.75    -0.03 to -
                                                                    0.64
                                             ---------------------------
      Totals................................  1.50 to 1.75  2.00 to 2.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Except for corn prices, all cost components are from E.E. Wyman, R.L.
  Bain, N.D. Hinman, and D.J. Stevens, ``Ethanol and Methanol from      
  Cellulosic Feedstocks,'' pp. 865-923, in T.B. Johansson, H. Kelly,    
  A.K.N. Reddy, and R.H. Williams, eds., Renewable Energy: Sources for  
  Fuels and Electricity, Island Press, Washington, DC, 1993.            
\2\For wet milling: the yield is 116 gallons of ethanol per ton of corn;
  coproducts are worth $57.8 to $86.7 per ton of corn ($0.50 to $0.75   
  per gallon), and the capital cost is $2.46 per gallon per year of     
  capacity.                                                             
\3\For dry milling: the yield is 121 gallons of ethanol per ton of corn;
  coproducts are worth $35.9 to $76.9 per ton of corn ($0.30 to $0.64   
  per gallon), and the capital cost is $3.22 per gallon per year of     
  capacity.                                                             
\4\The annual capital charge rate is 15.1% (based on an assumed 25-year 
  plant life and average financial parameters for major US corporations,
  1984-88: 9.9% real rate of return on equity, 6.2% real rate of return 
  on debt, a 30% debt fraction, a 44% corporate income tax rate, a      
  property tax plus insurance rate of 1.5% per year), and the plant     
  capacity factor is assumed to be 90%.                                 
\5\The average cost of corn production in the US, 1986-1990, excluding  
  the return to the landowner was $268.79 per acre per year or $2.43 per
  bushel of corn (USDA, ``Costs of Production--Major Field Crops,       
  1990''). To this should be added the net return to the corn farmer in 
  this period, some $52.8 per acre, or ($52.8 per acre)/(110.61 bushels 
  per acre)=$0.48 per bushel. Thus the total cost of corn, including the
  return to the farmer, averaged, 1986-91, $2.91 per bushel or ($2.91/  
  bushel)/(0.02151 dry tons/bushel)=$135/dry ton of corn.               


       TABLE 2.--TYPICAL EROSION LEVELS AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL USE OF SELECTED FOOD AND ENERGY CROPS\1\      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fertilizers                
                                                            Erosion --------------------------------------------
                           Crop                             (Mg/ha-  Nitrogen               Potassium  Herbicide
                                                              yr)     (kg/ha-  Phosphorous   (kg/ha-    (kg/ha- 
                                                                        yr)     (kg/ha-yr)     yr)        yr)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn......................................................     21.8       135         60          80       3.06 
HECs......................................................      0.2        30         50          90       0.25 
SRWCs.....................................................      2.0        60         30          80       0.39 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\L.L. Wright and W.G. Hohenstein (eds.), ``Biomass Energy Production in the United States: Opportuntiies and  
  Constraints,'' US DOE and US EPA, draft, August 1992.                                                         


                       TABLE 3.--BIOMASS POWER\1\                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Gasifier/   
                               Conventional    Whole-      combustion   
        Cost breakdown           traveling      tree       turbine\4\   
                                 grate\2\    burner\3\ -----------------
                                                         First    Tenth 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Cost ($/kW)..........         1,850     1,416     1,500      994
Operating Cost ( cents/kWn)..          4.12      2.01      3.67     3.14
Cost of Electricity ( cents/                                            
 kWh)........................          7.54      4.63      6.45     4.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Data compiled by Union of Concerned Scientists, Powering the Midwest,
  p. 54 (1993). Costs are in real levelized terms, assuming 10.5 percent
  fixed charge rate, 65 percent capacity factor, and a fuel cost of $34 
  per dry ton ($2.0 per million Btu).                                   
\2\US DOE, Solar Thermal and Biomass Division, Electricity from Biomass:
  A Developemnt Strategy (1992).                                        
\3\Research Triangle Institute, Whole Tree Energy: Engineering and      
  Economic Evaluation (Palo Alto, Calif.; Electric Power Research       
  Institute, 1991). Operating costs for technologies compared in this   
  report are significantly lower than in other sources.                 
\4\Supra note 15.                                                       

       For comparison, baseload electricity is typically generated 
     at a cost of about 6 centskWh with peak electricity at about 
     10 cents/kWh.
       In addition to cost of constructing a wood-burning power 
     plant from scratch, estimates have also been made on 
     converting existing coal-fired power plants to co-fire wood 
     and to burn whole trees. These costs are $50/kW and $410/kW, 
     respectively.\8\


                               footnotes

     \1\The OTA report states:
     Bioenergy crops include annual row crops such as corn, 
     herbaceous perennial grasses . . . such as switchgrass, and 
     short-rotation woody crops . . . such as poplar. Annual row 
     crops are grown in essentially the same manner as their food 
     crop counterparts and consequently offer few or no 
     environmental benefits over conventional agricultural 
     practices. Because of this, annual row crops are not examined 
     further in this report.
     U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Potential 
     Environmental Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production--
     Background Paper, OTA-BP-E-118 (Washington, DC: US Government 
     Printing Office, September 1993), p. 1.
     \2\E.E. Wyman, R.L. Bain, N.D. Hinman, and D.J. Stevens, 
     ``Ethanol and Methanol from Cellulosic Feedstocks,'' pp. 910-
     12, in T.B. Johansson, H. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy, and R.H. 
     Williams, eds., Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and 
     Electricity, Island Press, Washington, DC 1993.
     \3\U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ethanol's Role In Clean 
     Air, USDA Backgrounder Series, Washington, DC (1989).
     \4\T.B. Johansson, H. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy, and R.H. Williams, 
     ``Renewable Fuels and Electricity for a Growing World 
     Economy: Defining and Achieving the Potential,'' p. 50, in 
     T.B. Johansson, H. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy, and R.H. Williams, 
     eds., Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity, 
     Island Press, Washington, DC, 1993.
     \5\Supra note 1, p. 23.
     \6\J.H. Cook, J. Beyea and K.H. Keeler, Potential Impacts of 
     Biomass Production in the United States on Biological 
     Diversity, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., Vol. 16, p. 416 
     (1991); citing L.L. Wright, T.W. Doyle, P.A. Layton, and J.W. 
     Ranney, Short Rotation Woody Crops Program: Annual Progress 
     Report for 1988. Environ. Sci. Div. Pub. No. 3373, ORNL-6594, 
     pp. 1-5, 31, 37, 41, 45, Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. (1989).
     \7\These are: Towards Ecological Guidelines for Large-Scale 
     Biomass Energy Development, Report of a Workshop Convened by 
     the National Audubon Society and Princeton University, May 6, 
     1991; and the National Biofuels Roundtable, convened by the 
     Electric Power Research Institute and the National Audubon 
     Society.
     \8\Supra note 14, p. 50.


                                      Florida Audubon Society,

                                   Casselberry, FL, July 28, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Bradley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bradley: This is to confirm our strong support 
     for the Bradley/Johnson amendment which is intended to slow 
     the precipitous move toward ethanol being pursued by the EPA 
     and the sugar industry and other agricultural interests. For 
     the past 4 years, FAS has been involved in a number of 
     efforts designed to counteract the momentum of the ethanol 
     lobby because of the serious negative impact that crop 
     changes to produce increased quantities of ethanol have on 
     wetlands and ultimately the Everglades ecosystem. We strongly 
     urge you to continue your support of this important 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Charles Loe,
                                            Senior Vice President.
                                  ____


                     Testimony of A. Blakeman Early

       Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I have attached 
     to my testimony Sierra Club's comments on the EPA's proposed 
     renewable oxygenate program. Briefly, those comments contend 
     that the renewable oxygenate program is illegal, a violation 
     of the regulatory negotiation that is the basis for the 
     reformulated gasoline program regulations, and fail to 
     provide any significant air quality or other benefits that 
     would justify the additional cost and complexity imposed on 
     the reformulated gasoline program.
       My testimony will simply highlight and amplify some of 
     these points.
       1. The Renewable Oxygenate Program Proposal Violates the 
     RFG Regulatory Negotiation.
       As you may already know. The regulatory negotiation 
     involved 35 parties, including the ethanol and corn growers 
     and took many months to negotiate. This negotiation was first 
     hailed as the most successful ``reg-neg'' ever. But from the 
     environmental community's point of view it has proven to be a 
     failure due in large part from the efforts of the ethanol 
     industry and the corn growers to push changes that 
     drastically alter the compromise they originally endorsed. 
     One of the principal purposes of our participating in the 
     ``reg-neg'' was to arrive at regulations that would be less 
     controversial and less likely to be challenged with 
     consequent delay and confusion in implementing the much-
     needed reformulated gasoline proposal. As a result of the 
     ethanol industry and corn grower's efforts this program has 
     been plagued with delay in the issuance of the regulations 
     and, if this program is finalized, litigation--the very 
     outcomes most reg-neg participants sought to avoid. This is a 
     disservice to all the people in smog non-attainment areas who 
     are struggling to reduce the smog problem and need this 
     program to be implemented as quickly as possible to help 
     them.
       2. The Renewable Oxygenate Program Violates the Principal 
     of Fuel Neutrality.
       The oxygen requirement for reformulated gasoline was 
     adopted by the Senate with the support of the ethanol, 
     methanol industries and the environmental community on the 
     basis of fuel neutrality. Senator Daschle, one of the 
     authors, stated, ``(O)ur amendment does not lock refiners 
     into any particular fuel composition. * * * Refiners can 
     decide how they want to get octane without toxic aromatics. 
     They can decide how to achieve the oxygen standard.''
       Later Senator Daschle stated, ``* * * to claim this is an 
     ethanol amendment is wrong. The 2.7 percent oxygen standard 
     is fuel neutral.'' By mandating that a specific percentage of 
     the fuel contain domestic renewable oxygenate, the proposed 
     regulation violates the very principal of fuel neutrality 
     that was the basis for obtaining Congressional approval.
       3. The Renewable Oxygenate Program Does Not Provide Global 
     Warming and Air Quality Benefits.
       As my testimony points out, even the EPA's initial analysis 
     of the program failed to establish that mandated renewable 
     oxygenate use would result in a net reduction of global 
     warming gases. In proposing the renewable oxygen program, EPA 
     claimed DOE support for its assertion that the renewable 
     oxygen program ``would reduce foreign oil imports, * * * 
     reduce fossil energy use, and lower emissions of harmful 
     greenhouse gases. The DOE has now challenged these EPA claims 
     and recently released a report from Argonne National 
     Laboratories showing that the ROP is more likely to 
     increase--not reduce--foreign oil imports, fossil energy use, 
     and global greenhouse gas emissions. The following table 
     summarizes the recent DOE findings, assuming increase ethanol 
     and ETBE production from corn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Percent                
                                                 increase        EPA    
                                                over MTBE     estimates 
                                                   use                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Energy.................................          1.6  ............
Oil Use......................................          3.2         -1.8 
Imported Oil Use.............................          7.3         -0.26
CO2-equivalent Emissions.....................          1.0  ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The DOE study also considered a scenario under which the 
     renewable oxygen program merely causes existing corn-based 
     ethanol production to be diverted to the PFG program without 
     an actual increase in total ethanol production. Under this 
     scenario, DOE estimated total energy use will be reduced by 
     only 0.6 percent and CO2-1 equivalent emissions by a barely 
     noticeable 0.1 percent. And this analysis does not even 
     calculate the impact of additional fertilizer use to global 
     warming caused by nitrous oxide emissions from new corn 
     fields. Testimony by numerous corn producers' organizations 
     at the EPA hearing on the renewable oxygen program concluded 
     that the renewable oxygen program would in fact increase 
     corn-based ethanol production significantly. In fact, strong 
     corn-grower support for the renewable oxygen program is 
     predicted on the economic relief which corn growers believe 
     that increase production will bring to their hard-pressed 
     industry.
       Although the main objective of the reformulated gasoline 
     program is to reduce pollutants that contribute to smog and 
     reduce toxics, the renewable oxygenate program appears to 
     have no additional benefits in comparison to the reformulated 
     gasoline program as finalized, and may in fact provide less 
     air pollution reduction. EPA's analysis of the ``shoulder 
     season'', hot periods which occur before and after the 
     official ``ozone season'' may under estimate the ozone 
     increases that higher use of ethanol is reformulated gasoline 
     may create. Ethanol use by refiners may be very high during 
     the non-ozone season in order to reduce the amount of ETBE 
     use that would be needed during the season. The result could 
     be significant increases in ozone levels from a program that 
     is supposed to obtain decreases.
       In addition, the EPA is under a general mandate to obtain 
     ``the greatest reduction'' in emissions of toxic air 
     pollutants. The renewable oxygenate program would appear to 
     reduce the amount of toxic air pollutants. EPA has already 
     publicly stated that ``due to a characteristic of MTBE unique 
     amount oxygenates, evaporative benzene emissions are 
     suppressed, and MTBE achieves a greater toxic performance on 
     a wight percent oxygen basis than the other oxygenates.'' By 
     requiring less MTBE use and substituting ethanol, the 
     proposed program would likely have the effect of reducing the 
     amount of benzene emissions reduced. Moreover, it takes a 
     greater volume of MTBE to provide the needed oxygen in 
     reformulated gasoline. The added volume reduces the amount of 
     toxic aromatics, thus reducing the over-all toxic emissions 
     in comparison with lower volumes of ethanol needed to achieve 
     the same oxygen level. I note that ETBE would have the same 
     volumetric beneficial effect.
       Finally, the proposed program is designed to encourage 
     substantial use of ETBE before this fuel has been adequately 
     tested. While ETBE has attractive properties as an oxygenate, 
     we can not support its widespread use until testing assures 
     we are not subjecting the public to a new toxic pollution 
     hazard. Frankly, we fail to comprehend how the EPA can 
     proceed without such assurance.
       In sum, we see the renewable oxygenate program as 
     potentially increasing global warming, increasing smog, 
     increasing air toxics, and increasing water pollution and 
     damage to erodible and sensitive habitat areas. All this at 
     an increased cost to the reformulated gasoline consumer and a 
     significant decrease in Highway Trust Fund revenues. I assert 
     that this proposal is fatally flawed. It is time to focus on 
     the main goal of the reformulated program which is reducing 
     air pollution and stop trying to manipulate it for other 
     purposes, such as increased ethanol demand.
       There are farm groups, Governors, and Senators supporting 
     the proposed renewable oxygenate program while severely 
     criticizing the EPA for issuing regulations where the 
     benefits do not justify the costs. In my opinion, the 
     proposed renewable oxygenate program represents the essence 
     of the very regulatory program they argue against in other 
     circumstances. Only in this case, the costs fall on gasoline 
     consumers and the benefits inure to corn farmers and ethanol 
     producers. Sierra Club's message to them is--you can't have 
     it both ways.
                                  ____

                                                 Natural Resources


                                              Defense Council,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Bradley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bradley: In a recent letter to you and other 
     Senators regarding EPA's proposed renewable oxygenate 
     requirement (ROR), Senators Daschle, Leahy, and Lugar quoted 
     extensively from the Natural Resources Defense Council's 
     comments to EPA on the ROR proposal. Taken out of context, 
     these quotations may have given the erroneous impression that 
     NRDC supports the ROR as currently proposed. I am writing to 
     clarify our actual position on the issue.
       A crucial part of NRDC's position on the ROR is an 
     insistence that any such requirement include stringent full 
     fuel-cycle environmental performance criteria. A minimum 
     criterion, in our view, would require at least a 20 percent 
     reduction in full fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. As we 
     point out in our comments, the ability of today's corn-based 
     ethanol to meet such a test is, to say the least, debatable. 
     Ethanol is not renewable to the extent that fossil fuels are 
     consumed in agricultural production and fuel conversion 
     processes. Thus, we concluded that without strict 
     environmental criteria ``the perverse result of a renewable 
     oxygenate requirement might be to mandate use of a fuel that 
     has little, and in the worst cases even negative, 
     environmental benefit.''
       Independent of these issues, our comments also raised 
     questions regarding the appropriateness of the ROR in the 
     context of a previously concluded regulatory negotiation on 
     reformulated gasoline. Finally, it may be worth noting that 
     NRDC did not attempt to address cost and consumer concerns 
     relevant to the ROR proposal that could also be significant.
       It is true that we support EPA's general concern with 
     broader environmental impacts--including global warming--and 
     with stimulating truly renewable petroleum alternatives. Thus 
     we agree that a renewable oxygenate requirement could achieve 
     environmental benefits in theory; however, we also note that 
     ``designing a requirement such that it actually achieves 
     those benefits in practice will not be straightforward.'' In 
     sum, we cannot support EPA's ROR proposal until our concerns 
     and those of other stakeholders are addressed.
       I would be glad to discuss this issue further or to send 
     you a copy of our comments to EPA. Meanwhile, I would 
     appreciate your help in clarifying our position with your 
     colleagues in the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Marika Tatsutani,
                                        Senior Research Associate.
                                  ____


               [From World Resources Institute, May 1994]

   The Keys to the Car: Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles for the 21st 
                                Century

                        (By James J. MacKenzie)


                                ethanol

       Ethanol (ethyl alcohol, also known as grain alcohol) is the 
     intoxicating ingredient in alcoholic beverages. In 1991, 
     gasohol (nine parts gasoline and one part ethanol) accounted 
     for about 6 percent of U.S. motor-fuel consumption. Congress 
     and some agricultural states, have promoted the use of 
     ethanol in cars, claiming that it will reduce carbon-monoxide 
     emissions when blended with gasoline.
       About 95 percent of the ethanol used in motor vehicles in 
     the United States is derived from corn, and the greatest 
     political support for ethanol comes from corn-growing states. 
     But despite gasohol's political popularity, greater use of 
     this fuel wouldn't significant reduce ozone levels. Nor would 
     corn-based ethanol appreciably reduce the threat of global, 
     warming. In a study of ethanol's impacts on air quality, 
     Sierra Research concluded that gasohol would on average 
     reduce CO concentrations by 25 percent, but would increase 
     NOx emissions by 8 to 15 percent and evaporative 
     emissions of VOCs by 50 percent. Switching to gasohol, the 
     researchers estimated, would increase ozone concentrations by 
     at least 6 percent. The Office of Technology Assessment also 
     concluded that ethanol would not help cut smog 
     concentrations:
       * * * recent government studies indicate that future use of 
     ethanol blends, assuming modern vehicles, low volatility 
     gasoline, and no volatility corrections made for blending, 
     will have negligible impact on urban ozone levels. * * *
       A review in 1993 of air pollution from motor vehicles also 
     found that switching to ethanol blends won't do much to 
     conquer smog. Indeed, it concluded that the ``addition of 
     ethanol to gasoline is generally counterproductive with 
     respect to ozone formation * * * [and that no] convincing 
     argument based on combustion or atmospheric chemistry can be 
     made for the addition of ethanol to gasoline.''
       Estimates of the net greenhouse impacts of ethanol are 
     subject to great uncertainty. All depend on which feedstock 
     is used, what fuels are used in distillation, and how much 
     energy is credited to the by-products (such as animal feeds, 
     in the case of corn) of ethanol production. According to OTA, 
     the corn-based technology now used to produce ethanol offers 
     no significant greenhouse benefit. Calculating the greenhouse 
     gas emissions for vehicles running on pure ethanol (E100), 
     DeLuchi concludes that switching to motor vehicles running on 
     E100--made from corn--would increase greenhouse gas emissions 
     by 20 percent (for light-duty vehicles) to 50 percent (for 
     heavy-duty vehicles). DeLuchi also points out, though, that 
     these results reflect a wide range of assumptions about the 
     processes for producing ethanol and that:
       ``The general message of the corn-to-ethanol scenarios is 
     that one can pick values for a set of assumptions that will 
     support virtually any conclusion about the impact of the 
     corn-to-ethanol cycle on global warming.''
       Like CNG, ethanol is subsidized by the federal and some 
     state governments. The federal tax subsidy on gasohol is 5.4 
     cents per gallon (or $0.54 per gallon of ethanol). Several 
     states also reduce their fuel taxes on gasohol. In 1990, 
     combined federal and state subsidies amounted to $467 
     million. The average federal/state subsidy in 1990 was about 
     $0.62 per gallon of ethanol, with present production costs 
     estimated at $0.90 to $1.15 per gallon. The subsidy thus 
     amounts to 50 to 70 percent of total production costs.
       Producing ethanol from corn requires large amounts of land. 
     To fuel a typical American car for a year on pure ethanol 
     would take about 14 acres of corn--about nine times the 
     amount of cropland needed to feed an average American. Even 
     devoting the nation's entire corn crop, some 8 billion 
     bushels, to ethanol production would displace less than 10 
     percent of the country's motor vehicle fuel. Moreover, 
     growing corn year after year causes serious erosion. 
     According to a recent OTA report, U.S. corn production erodes 
     about 9 tons of soil per acre per year, some 20 times faster 
     than new soil is formed. For these reasons, replacing all 
     motor fuels with ethanol-from-corn is out of the question, 
     and ethanol proponents agree that corn would not be used for 
     making more than 2-3 billions gallons per year.
                                  ____



                                     National Audubon Society,

                                      New York, NY, July 14, 1994.
     Mr. Dean Kleckner,
     President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Maryland Avenue, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Kleckner: I am writing to draw your attention to 
     the seemingly stark contradiction between the American Farm 
     Bureau Federation's enthusiastic support for the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's new policy on adding 
     ethanol to gasoline, and your organization's equally 
     enthusiastic support for the so-called ``takings'' or 
     ``property rights'' agenda. The substantial threat that an 
     exaggerated version of ``takings'' presents for the new EPA 
     policy highlights, I respectfully suggest, your 
     organization's shortsightedness in supporting a legislative 
     and judicial agenda on ``takings'' that threatens to inflict 
     serious harm on the agricultural community.
       As you are well aware, on June 30, 1994, Administrator 
     Carol Browner announced that nearly one-third of gasoline 
     sold in the most polluted cities in the United States must 
     contain renewable oxygen-bearing additives. In practice, 
     these mandated additives will principally be ethanol derived 
     from corn. According to press reports, the American Farm 
     Bureau Federation, whose members obviously produce corn, and 
     the Archer Daniels Midland Co., which produces at least 60% 
     of the nation's ethanol supply, vigorously support the 
     policy. On the other hand, the petroleum industry equally 
     vigorously opposes the policy. The Environmental Protection 
     Agency has defended the policy in the belief that it will 
     help reduce green house emissions, help the balance of trade, 
     and improve domestic energy security. Some or all of these 
     ostensible benefits have been contested by the American 
     Petroleum Institute and others, including some environmental 
     groups.
       Whatever the actual public benefits, however, this new 
     policy will result in a potentially enormous transfer of 
     wealth from one sector of the economy to another--from the 
     natural gas industry and its employees to ethanol producers 
     and corn farmers, who will now have an expanded market for 
     their product. According to press reports, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency has estimated that this new policy could 
     boost annual demand for corn by some 250 million bushels; as 
     a result, farmers, who already receive substantial federal 
     subsidies, could receive at least $250 million in additional 
     annual income. This increased income would naturally 
     contribute to higher agricultural land values. On the other 
     hand, the new policy will tend to reduce sales and jobs in 
     the methanol and natural gas industries, reducing the 
     value of these businesses.
       In supporting takings legislation, the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation and other supporters of these bills have often 
     argued, generally in the context of wetlands or other 
     environmental regulations, that when the government adopts 
     new policies for public benefit, the public should 
     ``compensate'' those whose property values are adversely 
     affected by the new policy. Does this mean that the American 
     Farm Bureau Federation would support payment by the American 
     taxpayer to the natural gas industry to ``compensate'' these 
     companies for the losses they will suffer as a result of this 
     new policy?
       It is interesting to observe how S. 2006, a ``takings'' 
     bill introduced by Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, would have 
     applied to the development of this new policy. S. 2006 would 
     require federal agencies, before issuing any new ``policy'' 
     which could result in a taking or diminution of use or value 
     of private property'' to prepare a ``taking impact 
     analysis.'' The analysis would include, among other things, 
     an assessment of whether a ``taking'' may occur under the new 
     policy, a description of the effect of the policy on private 
     property, a description of alternatives to the proposed 
     policy ``that would lessen the adverse effects on the use or 
     value of private property,'' and an estimate of ``the 
     reduction in use or value of any affected private property as 
     a result of such policy.'' As applied to the new EPA ethanol 
     policy, S. 2006 would have required preparation of a takings 
     impact analysis, because the new policy will certainly 
     diminish the ``use'' and ``value'' of property of the natural 
     gas industry. The bill would also require an elaborate 
     analysis of the estimated effects of the new policy on the 
     natural gas industry and an evaluation of alternatives that 
     would lessen the adverse effects on the property interests of 
     the gas industry. It is obvious, at a minimum, that S. 2006, 
     if enacted, would have been a formidable procedural barrier 
     to the adoption of the new ethanol policy, to the detriment 
     of the agricultural community.
       Finally, press reports indicate that the petroleum industry 
     recently commenced a legal action to challenge the new 
     policy. It is interesting to speculate whether the natural 
     gas industry might also file suite challenging the new policy 
     as a Fifth Amendment ``taking.'' The American Farm Bureau 
     Federation has, of course, filed friend of the court briefs 
     in recent Supreme Court ``takings'' cases urging the Court to 
     adopt an increasingly more expansive view of Fifth Amendment 
     property rights. I understand that your organization has 
     taken the position that any action by the government that 
     diminishes an owner's right to use his property constitutes a 
     ``taking'' of that owner's property. Under this view of the 
     Fifth Amendment ``takings'' clause, however, could it not be 
     argued that the Environmental Protection Agency has adopted 
     an ethanol policy that effects a taking because it surely 
     will diminish the right of the natural gas industry to use 
     its property? If the natural gas industry mounted such a 
     challenge to the ethanol policy, would the American Farm 
     Bureau Federation be willing to file a friend of the court 
     brief in support of this particular application of an 
     expansive reading of the ``takings'' clause? Or would your 
     enthusiasm for this particular legal theory wane if it were 
     turned into a sword at attack a policy of enormous benefit to 
     the agricultural community?
       There is an old saying: Be careful what you wish for; your 
     wish may come true. This saying is particularly apt when it 
     comes to the agricultural community and the ``takings'' 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A.A. Berle,
                                                  President & CEO.
                                  ____


   The Impact of a Proposed EPA Rule Mandating Renewable 
  Oxygenates for Reformulated Gasoline: Questionable Energy Security, 
                  Environmental and Economic Benefits

             (By Vito Stagliano, Resources for the Future)

       In a proposed rule issued in December 1993, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to require that 
     30 percent of the oxygenates to be used in reformulated 
     gasoline be derived from renewable feedstock. The only such 
     feedstock currently available is ethanol which is heavily 
     subsidized by the Federal government and by a number of 
     States. EPA justifies the rule on grounds that it would 
     improve energy security, create domestic employment and 
     contribute to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A RFF 
     examination of the proposed rule leads to the conclusion that 
     energy security would not be affected but oil imports would 
     likely rise; employment would be redistributed rather than 
     created, and global climate change benefits would be marginal 
     or negative. This is due to the availability of unsubsidized, 
     lower-cost, domestically produced, non-renewable oxygenates 
     which can be blended with reformulated gasoline at greater 
     volume than ethanol, and produce environmental benefits 
     indistinguishable from those of renewable oxygenates.
       EPA appears not to have considered the option of waiving 
     the statutory requirement that summer reformulated gasoline 
     contain 2 percent oxygen by weight. Authority is provided by 
     the CAAA to exercise the waiver option in cases where the 
     oxygen requirement is deemed counterproductive to the 
     achievement of ozone control objectives. The addition of 
     oxygen to summer reformulated gasoline imposes substantial 
     costs to consumers without providing discernible 
     environmental benefits, and would appear to meet the test for 
     a waiver.


 the impact of a proposed epa rule mandating renewable oxygenates for 
reformulated gasoline: questionable energy security, environmental and 
                           economic benefits

       The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 require, inter 
     alia, that motor gasoline used in ozone non-attainment ares 
     be ``reformulated'' to reduce emissions of volatile organic 
     compounds (VOC). The law further requires that reformulated 
     gasoline contain a minimum of 2 percent oxygen by weight. A 
     proposed EPA rule\1\ would further require that 30 percent of 
     the oxygenates used in reformulated gasoline be derived from 
     renewable sources. This paper examines the effects of the 
     renewable oxygenate requirement and concludes that the 
     proposed rule is likely to produce adverse economic and 
     energy security results without improving environmental 
     quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Footnote at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       CAAA Title II Regulations

       Title II of the CAAA aims inter alia to reduce emissions of 
     toxic and tropospheric ozone-forming compounds in order to 
     improve ambient air quality in U.S. cities. Nine\2\ 
     metropolitan areas are classified by EPA as having severe 
     ozone problems. An additional 90 areas are classified as 
     moderate to serious.
       Congress specified in the statute that volatile organic 
     compounds (VOC) which are precursors of ozone pollution, must 
     be reduced by 15 percent between 1995 and 1999 and by 25 
     percent or more in 2000 and beyond, from 1990 baseline to be 
     established by EPA. Congress directed that gasoline be 
     ``reformulated'' to reduce VOCs and that reformulated 
     gasoline contain a minimum 2 percent oxygen by weight. 
     Congress also stipulated that maximum VOC reductions should 
     be sought, taking into account cost, health and other air and 
     non-air environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
       The nine metropolitan areas classified as having severe 
     ozone pollution account for approximately 21 percent of total 
     U.S. gasoline consumption of 113 billion gallons per year. 
     Under conditions of full opt0in by the ninety additional 
     moderate-to-serious areas, fully 55 percent of the U.S. 
     gasoline pool would require reformulation.
       Except for the requirement that reformulated gasoline 
     contain a minimum 2 percent oxygen, the intent of Congress is 
     precise. The 2 percent oxygen standard is an aberration 
     because gasoline can be reformulated to achieve VOC 
     reductions without the addition of oxygenates. Congress 
     recognized that the 2 percent oxygen standard could be 
     problematic and consequently provided to EPA waiver authority 
     for cases in which the requirement would produce 
     counterproductive results. Without so-specifying, Congress 
     apparently wanted to create a new market for ethanol. Ethanol 
     can be used in reformulated gasoline either directly in 
     winter months or in the form of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 
     (ETBE) in summer. The alternatives to ethanol and ETBE are 
     methanol or Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) derived from 
     natural gas.
       In interpreting Congressional intent, EPA was confronted by 
     immutable science and economics. Ethanol, as such, cannot be 
     blended into gasoline during summer months because its high 
     volatility increase the very VOCs that reformulated gasoline 
     is intended to reduce. If used as a feedstock for ETBE, the 
     volatility problem is resolved but the higher cost of 
     ethanol, even with its 54 cents/gallon exemption from Federal 
     excise taxes, makes ETBE uncompetitive with MTBE.
       EPA was further constrained by the fact that the 
     reformulated gasoline rule took shape as a result of a 
     regulatory negotiation process a process supported by 
     stakeholders to the extent that the final rule would assure 
     fuel (oxygenate) neutrality.\3\ EPA was also under court 
     order, obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council to 
     issue its rule no later than December 1993.
       In December 1993, EPA issued the final reformulated 
     gasoline rule. Separately, EPA issued a new, proposed rule 
     aimed at ensuring the use of ethanol in reformulated 
     gasoline.
       In the proposed rule, EPA intends to require that an 
     arbitrary 30% of the oxygenates to be used in reformulated 
     gasoline be derived from renewable sources. These potentially 
     include corn, grain, wood or any organic matter. But the only 
     renewable oxygenate currently produced in the United States 
     is ethanol derived from grain. EPA justifies this proposal on 
     the grounds that it will reduce imports of crude oil, create 
     investment and jobs in America, reduce fossil energy use, and 
     lower emissions of greenhouse gases. EPA believes that the 
     CAAA statute provides broad authority to carry out this 
     proposal under Section 211 (K)(1) which directs EPA to 
     promulgate regulations ``establishing requirements for 
     reformulated gasoline.''
       It remains for the courts to decide whether or not EPA has 
     the statutory authority to direct a specific fuel, at a pre-
     determined level of consumption, into the transportation fuel 
     market. Of analytical concern is whether or not the rationale 
     provided in the EPA proposed rule makes policy sense on the 
     merits. It should be noted that with this proposal, EPA 
     enters policy areas substantially removed from its mandate. 
     The proposal involves issues of energy security policy, 
     domestic and international trade policy, domestic employment 
     and investment policy and global climate change policy.
       Benefits could potentially accrue to the Nation were 
     Federal regulators to consider a particular rule's cascading 
     effects. But in expanding the universe of considerations, 
     regulators assume concomitant responsibility for results. As 
     will be discussed in the following sections of this paper, it 
     would appear that in the case of the renewable oxygenate 
     rule, EPA's effort to broaden the policy considerations is 
     stymied by counterproductive results.

                            Energy Security

       EPA justifies its renewable oxygenate proposal, among other 
     reasons, on grounds that the United States imports half of 
     the oil it uses, and that these imports account for half of 
     the U.S. trade deficit. EPA notes that since 1972 the U.S. 
     has spent $1.3 trillion on imported oil. EPA believes that: 
     ``money now spent on imported oil . . . could instead be 
     spent on renewable fuels currently grown or processed in the 
     United States. This would keep capital in the U.S., provide 
     domestic jobs, strengthen our national security, and support 
     a wide variety of American agricultural and fuel 
     industries.''
       Concerns about the trade deficit notwithstanding, the 
     analytical literature is rich in the history of failed 
     attempts to reduce U.S. oil imports or find oil substitutes 
     by means of government intervention in the market place. The 
     Truman Administration experimented with Federal investment in 
     synthetic liquid fuels. The experience was repeated, albeit 
     at higher cost, by the Carter Administration. Eisenhower 
     imposed controls on oil imports. Nixon imposed controls on 
     oil prices. All of these efforts proved futile. The United 
     States government has been repeatedly forced to reverse its 
     policy of intervention in the petroleum market, because the 
     costs of intervention have proved consistently higher than 
     the benefits.
       Energy security is a complex subject, extensively studied. 
     A strong analytical concensus, reached perhaps as far back as 
     1981, supports the view that dependence on imported oil is 
     not symmetrical with energy security. Even if U.S. oil 
     imports were to be drastically reduced to a fraction of their 
     present level of roughly 6 million barrels/day, the U.S. 
     could not be insulated from disruptions in any part of the 
     international oil market, nor from price fluctuations 
     resulting from such disruptions. Rather, energy security is 
     to a far greater degree a function of the geopolitical forces 
     that shape the international oil market than of marginal 
     policies to induce reductions in imports.
       U.S. policies that have the aim of reducing oil imports by 
     substitution of domestically subsidized fuels are inimical to 
     broader U.S. security and trade interests. The United States 
     obtains oil at market prices from nations that are, with few 
     exceptions, allies and trade partners. They include, in order 
     of oil trade importance, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Canada, 
     Mexico, Nigeria, Angola, Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, 
     Algeria and Norway. The U.S. obtains approximately 25% of its 
     oil imports from Persian Gulf producers.
       The majority of U.S. oil suppliers are liked to the United 
     States, to each other, and to other trading nations by bi-
     lateral and multilateral treaties that have the force of law. 
     These obligations include respect for market competition and 
     avoidance of artificial preferences for national products. 
     Federal interventions to mandate market share for domestic 
     fuels would expose the United States to indefensible charges 
     of protectionism; the same practices that have exacerbated 
     U.S.-Japan trade relations, and recent U.S.-European 
     Community negotiations on the Uruguay round of trade talks.
       The substantial cost of oil imports is not, as EPA 
     suggests, the sole factor to consider in assessing the value 
     to the economy of higher priced oil substitutes. The U.S. 
     economy actually derives substantial benefits from free 
     access to the international oil markets. Low oil prices fuel 
     economic growth, employment and productivity. High energy 
     prices act as a drag on economic expansion and fuel 
     inflationary pressures.
       In sum, the U.S. cannot now, or in the foreseeable future, 
     meet its petroleum needs except through imports. Federally 
     mandated alternatives to oil imports decrease economic 
     efficiency and hamper free trade without contributing to U.S. 
     energy security.

                         Cost/Oil Barrel Saved

       EPA calculates that the renewable oxygenate program will 
     reduce oil imports by 9,000 barrels per day during the five 
     months (summer ozone program) in which ETBE will be used in 
     reformulated gasoline. EPA estimates that the high cost of 
     ETBE will add $388 million to the cost of the reformulated 
     gasoline program. In simple terms, this would mean that 
     during the five months in which the ozone control program is 
     in effect, 1.35 million barrels of oil will be saved as a 
     result of EPA's renewable oxygenate proposal, at a per barrel 
     cost of $289.00.
       The proposal does not appear to be a cost-effective, or 
     least cost means of reducing oil imports. For reference, the 
     Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the imposition of a 
     $10.00/per barrel tariff on imported oil would increase 
     domestic production by up to 500,000 barrels/day, with 
     concomitant reductions in oil imports and a $10 billion to 
     $12 billion improvement in the trade deficit. A $10.00/barrel 
     fee would increase current oil prices to about $25.00 per 
     barrel, or to less than a tenth the per barrel cost of the 
     EPA proposal. Similarly, DOE estimates that synthetic oil 
     substitutes (coal liquids) can be produced at a cost of 
     $32.00 to $45.00 per barrel.
       Actually, the oil import savings projected by EPA may be 
     entirely illusory. A plausible second scenario leads to the 
     opposite conclusion. Ethanol is currently blended with 
     gasoline and sold as gasohol. Recall that ethanol cannot be 
     directly blended in summer reformulated gasoline because of 
     its high volatility, and can therefore be used in summer only 
     as a feedstock for ETBE. EPA's requirement that 30% of 
     oxygenates used in reformulated gasoline be produced from 
     renewable sources would have the effect of making ETBE a 
     higher value market for ethanol than the gasohol market. This 
     is so because, as the only oxygenate that currently meets 
     EPA's renewable source criterion, ETBE use will essentially 
     be required by law. Under normal market dynamics, a 
     proportion of ethanol currently used in gasohol will be 
     diverted to the higher value reformulated gasoline market. As 
     a consequence, a proportion of the oil displaced by current 
     use of ethanol in gasohol, which amounts to about 900 million 
     gallons/year, would no longer be displaced.
       The effect on oil consumption and imports is compounded 
     during the winter months of the reformulated gasoline 
     program. In winter, when gasoline volatility is a lesser 
     concern, reformulated gasoline makers would have no incentive 
     to use the higher cost ETBE. They would, however, be required 
     to fulfill the 30% renewable oxygenate mandate, and they 
     would likely do so by using ethanol. Ethanol would be blended 
     with reformulated gasoline at 5% by volume to meet the 2% by 
     weight statutory oxygenate standard, and as a consequence 
     would displace roughly 5% of the crude oil in the fuel. In 
     the absence of the EPA mandate, however, reformulated 
     gasoline makers would use MTBE, which can be blended at 
     13% by volume in order to achieve the 2% by weight 
     statutory standard. As a consequence, and discounting 
     variations in energy content, the oil savings achievable 
     with MTBE would be at least 8% higher than those 
     achievable with ethanol. Not incidentally, VOC as well as 
     carbon dioxide emissions would also be lower in the MTBE 
     case because oil would account for a lower proportion of 
     the reformulated fuel.
       In sum, the oil import savings claimed by EPA in the 
     renewable oxygenate proposal appear implausible. The mandate 
     will increase the cost of reformulated gasoline beyond the 
     already significant cost of meeting the unnecessary 2% oxygen 
     standard, most likely without producing any savings in crude 
     oil consumption or imports.

                 Income Transfer and Deadweight Losses

       The proposed renewable oxygenate rule will have the effect 
     of transferring income from Gulf Coast natural gas and MTBE 
     producers to corn and ethanol producers in the Mid-west. This 
     may be a desirable national policy to the limited extent that 
     corn production dedicated to ethanol production reduces 
     Federal farm price support obligations. But the income 
     transfer appears to be highly inefficient and would not, in 
     any case, principally benefit farmers of corn.
       Montgomery (1994) argues that 70% of the cost of producing 
     ethanol is associated with post corn harvest costs. His 
     analysis indicates the following cost breakdown of ethanol 
     production: capital costs 32.2%; operating costs 39.8%, net 
     corn (feedstock) costs 28%. Capital costs include a return on 
     investment in ethanol processing plants; operating costs 
     include the energy (mainly from coal) required for feedstock 
     grinding, process steam and distillation.
       Public policy aimed at income transfer, argues Montgomery, 
     should aim to keep waste or deadweight losses minimal in 
     relation to total income transferred. In this case of EPA's 
     proposed rule, deadweight losses depend on the difference 
     between the cost of producing ethanol and the cost of 
     substitutes such as MTBE, which can be produced for 60% of 
     ethanol's equivalent cost. Every dollar spent on ethanol, 
     Montgomery concludes, delivers 30 cents of income to farmers, 
     but imposes $1.40 in deadweight loss on consumers.
       The proposed EPA rule would also transfer income from 
     Northeastern and Californian consumers of reformulated 
     gasoline to Mid-western corn and ethanol producers because 
     the vast majority of ozone-non-attainment areas are located 
     on the East and West cost of the United States. Only one is 
     located in the Mid-west. The socio-economic distributional 
     effects of the proposed rule would be inequitable as well: 
     The higher, Federally-mandated cost of reformulated gasoline 
     would effect low-income consumers disproportionately because 
     they devote a higher proportion of their disposable income to 
     energy costs than do higher-income consumers.

                   Active and Sunk Federal Subsidies

       The U.S. ethanol industry was created by Congress and is 
     maintained as an economic enterprise by a number of 
     preferences in the Federal Tax Code. Initial taxpayer 
     investments and current tax preferences can be summarized as 
     follows:
       National Energy Act of 1978: $400 million in loans were 
     authorized by Congress to finance ethanol plant construction. 
     DOE and Treasury data indicate that of 18 plants funded, the 
     Federal government had, by 1992 received full repayment for 
     only one.
       Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1980: $250 
     million were appropriated by Congress to support loan 
     guarantees administered by the Farmers Home Administration 
     for producers of ethanol. The record of Federal debt exposure 
     on these guarantees is not available.
       Amendments of 1990 to the Tax Reform Act of 1984: Federal 
     excise taxes for gasoline were set at 14.3 cents/gallon, but 
     fuels containing 10% alcohol received an exemption of 5.4 
     cents/gallon. The value of the exemption equals 54 cents for 
     every gallon of ethanol used in gasoline blends, and 
     represents a subsidy of $22.68 per 42 gallon barrel of 
     ethanol. Federal Treasury losses due to the ethanol excise 
     tax exemption totalled about $550 million in 1992.
       The Energy Policy Act of 1992: The excise tax exemption was 
     extended to include blends of ethanol/gasoline at levels 
     below ten percent. The statute, and previous laws were 
     further interpreted by the Treasury Department to include a 
     tax credit for producers of ETBE.
       Omnibus Tax Reconciliation Act of 1980: Tariffs were 
     imposed on alcohol imported for use as a fuel. The tariff was 
     initially 10 cents per gallon but rose to 60 cents per gallon 
     in 1986.
       State Subsidies: Seventeen States offer fuel tax exemptions 
     or producer subsidies for fuel ethanol ranging from $0.10 to 
     $1.40 per gallon of ethanol.
       In sum, Federal and State support of ethanol production is 
     extensive, and probably sufficient to ensure--without market 
     mandates--a share of the oxygenates market created by the 
     CAAA. This market includes reformulated gasoline and 
     oxygenated gasoline used to combat carbon monoxide pollution 
     in thirty-nine metropolitan areas that do not meet CO ambient 
     air quality standards.

              Job Creation and Domestic Investment Policy

       EPA argues in the proposed rule that because renewable 
     oxygenates are more likely to be produced in the United 
     States than are fossil fuel oxygenates, jobs and investment 
     capital would be retained in the domestic economy. This 
     argument may have mercantilist merit to the extent that the 
     reformulated gasoline market induces incremental domestic 
     production capacity for ethanol and ETBE. And it may have 
     jingoistic merit to the extent that non-renewable oxygenates 
     are imported rather than domestically produced. Neither 
     argument, however, withstands scrutiny.
       Current ethanol production capacity (operational and idle) 
     is estimated at 1.2 billion gallons per year. Firm expansion 
     plans are reported to likely achieve capacity of 1.6 billion 
     gallons per year in 1995. Ethanol sales to the gasohol market 
     were slightly over 810 million gallons in 1992. EPA estimates 
     that the renewable oxygenate mandate would require roughly 
     630 million gallons of ethanol per year.
       Assuming that the ethanol market will function 
     competitively [which may not necessarily be the case because 
     ethanol production capacity is abnormally concentrated], 
     existing and projected ethanol capacity will be sufficient to 
     meet most CAAA-induced demand. As earlier noted, ethanol 
     currently used in gasohol is likely to be diverted to the 
     higher-value ETBE market in the summer ozone season. In the 
     winter, ethanol would be used to concurrently satisfy thirty 
     percent of oxygenate requirements in reformulated gasoline 
     and the separate requirements of the carbon monoxide control 
     program. Under this scenario, it is difficult to detect 
     demand for ethanol production capacity beyond capacity 
     already in place or firmly planned. Further job creation 
     seems unlikely.
       The more probable outcome of the EPA proposal is loss of 
     employment and devalued investment in the MTBE and methanol 
     production industry. The oxygenates market was extensively 
     analysed by the National Petroleum Council between 1992 and 
     1993. The NPC analysis modeled reformulated gasoline supply 
     and demand under a variety of scenarios. Model results were 
     as follows:

                       U.S. oxygenate supply 1995

                    [Barrels/day of MTBE equivalent]

U.S. domestic production and potential supply...................442,000
U.S. total potential demand.....................................345,000
                                                             __________

Composed of:
  CAAA demand (9 cities plus known opt-ins).....................276,000
  Gasohol demand.................................................69,000
    U.S. projected excess capacity...............................97,000

     Existing oxygenates production capacity is overwhelmingly for 
     production of non-renewable oxygenates: 312,000 barrels per 
     day versus renewable installed capacity of 100,000 barrels 
     per day. It is therefore probable that the EPA renewable 
     mandate will likely idle non-renewable oxygenate capacity 
     rather than induce construction of new renewable oxygenate 
     capacity. In sum, it seems virtually certain that the 
     proposed rule would not increase employment but redistribute 
     it.

                 Environmental Policy Beyond Clean Air

       EPA believes that the renewable oxygenate requirement will 
     provide added environmental benefits because the production 
     of oxygenates from corn and other biomass involves lower 
     emissions of greenhouse gases than that of oxygenates derived 
     from fossil fuels. This is because fossile-fuel derived 
     oxygenates (methanol, MTBE) are produced from natural gas 
     feedstocks. ETBE and ethanol production require fossil fuels 
     for soil fertilization, farm machinery, grinding, 
     distillation and plant operation, but ethanol contains 
     embedded solar energy which is, of course, non fossil fuel 
     based. There may therefore be some carbon dioxide reduction 
     benefits to the use of renewable oxygenates, although it is 
     not entirely clear that total greenhouse gas emissions are 
     lower for ethanol production than for production of 
     alternatives.
       The issue is not, however, whether the production of a 
     given gallon of ethanol or ETBE emits less greenhouse gases 
     than does the production of methanol or MTBE. The issue is, 
     rather, whether the net greenhouse gas impact of the 
     renewable oxygenate mandate is infact positive. The answer is 
     almost certainly: no. As previously noted, during the winter 
     reformulated gasoline program, the renewable mandate would 
     force the use of ethanol blended at 5% by volume. In the 
     absence of the mandate, winter reformulated gasoline would be 
     blended with MTBE as 13% by volume. In the MTBE case, 
     reformulated gasoline would contain 8% less crude oil than 
     would the same gasoline blended with ethanol. Greenhouse gas 
     emissions would consequently be lower in the MTBE case. In 
     the summer reformulated gasoline program the greenhouse gas 
     effects of using ETBE would be slightly more positive than 
     those of using MTBE, but insufficient to offset the winter 
     gasoline equation.
       There is, in any case, a significant difference between 
     claiming incidental benefits for a rulemaking on pollutants 
     regulated by statute, and establishing a standard for 
     emissions not currently regulated by any Federal law. EPA 
     proposes to promulgate such a standard, requiring that 
     renewable oxygenates be produced with a net 20% reduction in 
     carbon dioxide emissions, compared to emissions from non-
     renewable oxygenates.
       The issue is whether the Clean Air Act Amendments provide 
     to EPA any statutory basis to set CO2 standards. Greenhouse 
     gases are addressed in Title VI of the CAAA solely to the 
     extent of codifying U.S. commitments to the Montreal Protocol 
     on phase-out of CFCs and halons. But no reference can be 
     found in the statute that can be interpreted to provide 
     authority for regulation of carbon dioxide or other 
     greenhouse gas emissions. EPA's presumption of authority to 
     regulate CO2 emissions would set an unusual precedent of 
     regulatory reach. It is difficult to see how the exercise of 
     such self-awarded administrative authority could be 
     judicially sustained.

                              Conclusions

       The EPA proposal appears to be untenable on the very 
     grounds used to justify it. It will have no material effect 
     on energy security regardless of whether or not petroleum 
     will be displaced by the mandate for ethanol use. Domestic 
     employment and investment opportunities will not materialize 
     because excess capacity exists to manufacture oxygenates. The 
     more likely outcome will be to idle existing MTBE/Methanol 
     capacity without inducing construction of incremental ethanol 
     capacity.


                               Footnotes

     \1\EPA: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable 
     Oxygenate Requirement for Reformulated Gasoline. Proposed 
     Rule. December 1993.
     \2\Severe ozone areas: Los Angeles, New York, greater 
     Connecticut, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee, 
     Houston, San Diego.
     \3\A summary of the understandings reached during the RegNeg 
     process between EPA and stakeholders can be found in 
     testimony of January 14, 1994 by Roger Hemminghouse for the 
     National Petroleum Refiners Association, delivered at the 
     public hearing called by EPA to obtain comments on the 
     proposed renewable oxygenate rule.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
address, in detail, the lack of a positive environmental rationale for 
the EPA mandate. I understand that some environmental groups have 
signed a letter which urges opposition to all amendments on this bill. 
I am sure that this procedural position has created ambiguity about the 
substantive position of these groups on the EPA rule. I would like to 
clear away that uncertainty.
  Before I do that, however, I would like to address some of the 
procedural issues that may be raised. I need to point out that the 
amendment does not amend the Clean Air Act or any environmental law. It 
merely prohibits the use of funds to implement an EPA regulation. I 
note that, already in the bill--page 62, lines 8 to 13, to be precise--
there is a nearly identical prohibition of an EPA clean air 
requirement. There are other references to Clean Air Act regulations in 
the report. If anyone is to assert that this is somehow a clean bill 
that will be sullied by our amendment, they will have to argue against 
the existing text of the bill.
  In my statement earlier, I quoted EPA Assistant Administrator Mary 
Nichols, who was unable to assert any definite environmental benefits 
from the ethanol mandate. I would like to include the relevant text 
from the Senate Energy Committee hearing in the Record.
  EPA's testimony that day was clear, but what about the other 
environmental professionals? Mr. President, my region believes that 
reformulated gasoline can help with air quality problems. In fact, most 
of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic have opted-in to the reformulated gas 
program. Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New York, Virginia, Maryland, 
Massachusetts--these States have all voluntarily agreed to the original 
RFG program. My region believes that there can be benefits from RFG.
  But what is the consensus on the ethanol mandate? Let me quote from a 
letter I received last week from the Northeast States for Coordinated 
Air Use Management, which includes representatives from eight States' 
environmental offices:

       NESCAUM has publicly opposed the Renewable Oxygenate 
     Requirements (ROR) proposal from the outset because we 
     believe that such a program would result in adverse 
     environmental and economic impacts in our region.
       Of primary concern to NESCAUM is the fact that the 
     increased use of ethanol under an ROR program would 
     exacerbate several air quality problems in our region.
       This effect would be particularly significant in the 
     southern portion of the NESCAUM region.

     [Note: That means New Jersey!]

       The proposed program would result in a significant transfer 
     of wealth from the motorist in the Northeast to agricultural 
     interest in the Midwest. In spite of the potential economic 
     benefits of the ethanol initiative to the corn growing 
     states. Midwest states with nonattainment areas have not 
     pursued voluntary opt-in to the RFG program.
       In conclusion, NESCAUM would like to state our continued 
     opposition to the renewable oxygenates requirement and our 
     support for your effort * * *.

  This letter makes one interesting point: My region has agreed to 
participate in the underlying RFG program. The Midwest, whose 
representatives today are telling us of the benefits of ethanol within 
the RFG program, is not even participating. Has Ohio or Illinois or 
Indiana opted-in to the program. No.
  Another area that will be greatly affected by this mandate is 
southern California. The California Air Resource Board sees exactly the 
same problems and comes to the same conclusion as its northeast 
counterpart: ``* * * the proposed requirements would likely have 
adverse fiscal and air quality impacts on California. * * * we cannot 
support the current proposal.''
  When I asked the EPA at a Senate hearing in May whether there was any 
support for the mandate from significant, national environmental 
organizations, the EPA could not provide a single example of an 
endorsement. The facts and the record are clear: There is no support. 
On the contrary, just about every major environmental organization 
opposes this mandate and has said so publicly. There are no 
environmental benefits. There may be environmental costs. Worse still, 
it appears to many of these groups that the Clean Air Act--which these 
groups fought so hard to create--is becoming a vehicle for political 
payback.
  Last week, I received a letter from the Environmental Defense Fund, 
one of the driving organizations behind the 1990 Clean Air Act.

       We wish to make clear that our views have not changed with 
     the issuance of the final rule by EPA.
       The proposed rulemaking at issue here will have the 
     practical effect of greatly expanding the use of corn for 
     ethanol production.
       This in turn will increase the environmental damage caused 
     by intensive cultivation of corn, while the associated 
     subsidies to the corn ethanol industry will drain scarce 
     resources away from other options capable of achieving 
     greater environmental benefits.

  This mandate can also have profound negative effects at the local 
level in some instances. The Florida Audubon Society, which has been 
waging a strenuous and often lonely war to save the Everglades from 
extinction, wrote saying:

       This is to confirm our strong support for the Bradley/
     Johnston amendment ***.
       For the past 4 years, FAS has been involved in a number of 
     efforts designed to counteract the momentum involved in a 
     number of efforts designed to counteract the momentum of the 
     ethanol lobby because of the serious negative impact that 
     crop changes to produce increased quantities of ethanol have 
     on wetlands and ultimately the Everglades ecosystem.

The record is as clear as any record can be. The opposition is across 
the board.
  From the Sierra Club, testimony of A. Blakeman Early:

       *** we see the renewable oxygenate program as potentially 
     increasing global warming, increasing smog, increasing air 
     toxics, and increasing water pollution and damage to erodible 
     and sensitive habitat areas.
       *** this proposal is fatally flawed.

  From the National Resource Defense Council:

       Ethanol is not renewable to the extent that fossil fuels 
     are consumed in agricultural production and fuel conversion 
     processes.
       *** without strict environmental criteria ``the perverse 
     result of a renewable oxygenate requirement might be to 
     mandate use of a fuel that has little, and in the worse cases 
     even negative, environmental benefits.''
       In sum, we cannot support the EPA's ROR proposal ***

     [Note: ``ROR'' refers to Renewable Oxygenate Requirement; 
     that is, the ethanol mandate.]

  From the World Resources Institute:

       *** despite gasohol's political popularity, greater use of 
     this fuel wouldn't significantly reduce ozone levels. Nor 
     would corn based ethanol appreciably reduce the threat of 
     global warming.
       Switching to gasohol *** would increase ozone 
     concentrations by at least 6 percent.

  From the National Audubon Society:

       *** this new policy will result in a potentially enormous 
     transfer of wealth from one sector of the economy to 
     another--from the natural gas industry and its employees to 
     ethanol producers and corn farmers ***
       The EPA proposal appears to be untenable on the very 
     grounds used to justify it. It will have no material effect 
     on energy security regardless of whether or not petroleum 
     will be displaced by the mandate for ethanol use. Domestic 
     employment and investment opportunities will not materialize 
     because excess capacity exists to manufacture oxygenates. The 
     more likely outcome will be to idle existing MTBE/Methanol 
     capacity without inducing construction of incremental ethanol 
     capacity.

  Mr. President, I hope that this exercise has cleared up the issue of 
the environmental virtues of this proposal. The simple truth is that 
there are none. On the contrary, many of long time defenders of the 
environment see this new rule as harmful.
  Those are the facts. I realize that the opponents of our amendment 
are waiving a letter signed by several groups urging opposition to all 
amendments to this appropriations bill. But no one can allege that this 
procedural opposition to the amendment translates to substantive 
support for the EPA mandate.
  There is no doubt that the EPA mandate represents terrible 
environmental policy. Our amendment should be adopted.
  Mr. President, this mandate will cost the taxpayers $250 million. CBO 
says that this is a $30 per barrel subsidy for oil saved versus $1 per 
barrel subsidy for oil produced with oil. Ethanol gets $30 per barrel 
for every barrel that is saved. In terms of other subsidies, antimarket 
or promarket, the reality is the mandate and a subsidy is like the 
difference between allowing you to deduct your meals and mandating that 
you eat an entire meal 30 percent of the time of nothing but oysters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 12 minutes and 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American Medical Association passed 
a resolution urging that a moratorium be placed on the use of MTBE-
blended fuels until such time that scientific studies show that MTBE-
blended fuels are not harmful to our health.
  Thanks to the oil industry that raised questions about this, they 
asked us to take another look at this AMA resolution. Taking another 
look at it, it literally blows the heart out of the oil industry's 
arguments that the EPA and other institutions have concluded that MTBE 
is not harmful to the health of American consumers.
  Now note, the AMA resolution urges a moratorium on MTBE-blended 
fuels, not on pure MTBE. That is a very important, telling distinction. 
I would like to read for you from a May 16, 1993, article contained in 
the U.S. Oil Week. That publication is hardly a proethanol publication. 
I quote:

        EPA's 1993 MTBE study failed to find a high likelihood of 
     dangerous or toxic health effects, but the agency admitted 
     the study has flaws. Among the biggest flaws: EPA never 
     tested gasoline/MTBE blends; just pure MTBE. But the recent 
     health complaints recorded from the people are from gasoline/
     MTBE fuel blends, not pure MTBE or any other pure oxygenate.

  The U.S. Oil Weekly continued:

       In 1993 MTBE studies, EPA failed to figure out why 
     thousands of people have complained of headaches, dizziness, 
     nausea, nosebleeds, and from MTBE oxy-fuel blends.

  Mr. President, it is clear that it is the oil and MTBE industry and 
not renewable fuel advocates who are attempting to fool the American 
public.
  The fact of the matter is and the AMA was right on target there have 
not been sufficient studies to clear MTBE-blended fuels. What is the 
health effect of burning MTBE-blended fuels; or, the effects of MTBE-
blended emissions?
  The Centers for Disease Control are still studying this problem. EPA 
has admitted there is sufficient grounds to do additional studies, but 
there is no evidence that are doing so. Senator Harkin and I asked for 
the reported conclusions of these new studies 2-months ago and we still 
do not have anything from EPA.
  Chri Dyson, an energy policy analyst for Public Citizen has stated 
that, politically, EPA officials can't afford to give much credence to 
the public health concerns because ``they have a lot invested in the 
oxygenated program.''
  Mr. President, it is that simple and that serious.
  If you vote for the Johnston amendment, you are voting to deny 
American consumers, little alternative to MTBE-blended fuels which has 
made thousands of Americans throughout the country sick.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the AMA 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Resolution Passed By the American Medical Association

       Whereas, The Clean Air Act amendment of 1990 required the 
     use of oxygenated fuel in winter in all areas which exceed 
     the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 
     carbonmonoxide (CO), and Anchorage and Fairbanks were two of 
     39 cities required to use oxygenated fuel in the 1992-1993 
     winter season; and
       Whereas, in Fairbanks and Anchorage in 1992-1993 a large 
     number of citizens complained of symptoms including 
     headaches, dizziness, nausea, cough, and eye irritation; and 
     studies by the Alaska Division of Public Health and the 
     National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 
     that these symptoms were associated with exposure to 
     oxygenated gasoline, that MTBE was detectable in the blood of 
     all workers and communities studied in Fairbanks, and that 
     the association between symptoms and exposure to MTBE in 
     gasoline needs further study; and
       Whereas, limited scientific evidence raises questions about 
     the potential carcinogenicity of MTBE; and
       Whereas, the Alaska Division of Public Health recommended 
     in reports released on December 11, 1992 and December 23, 
     1992 that the oxygenated fuels programs, in Fairbanks and 
     Anchorage, respectively, should be suspended; and
       Whereas, results of recent scientific studies suggest that 
     addition of MTBE to gasoline does not lower CO emissions from 
     motor vehicle exhaust at temperatures below 0 degrees; and
       Whereas, a dramatic decline in CO levels in ambient air in 
     Anchorage and Fairbanks occurred before the implementation of 
     the oxygenated fuels program as a result of the existing 
     inspection and maintenance program and replacement of aging 
     vehicles without using MTBE; and
       Whereas, based on current ambient air CO levels in 
     Anchorage and Fairbanks, characteristics of population, 
     conditions of temperature and darkness, and low opportunity 
     for exposure, no beneficial public health effects can be 
     expected from further minor reductions of ambient CO levels 
     that might result from use of MTBE, therefore be it.
       Resolved, That the American Medical Association urges that 
     a moratorium on the use of MTBE-blended fuels be put into 
     place until such time that scientific studies show that MTBE-
     blended fuels are not harmful to health, and that no 
     penalties or sanctions be imposed on Alaska during the 
     moratorium.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a news 
release on MTBE fuels from the American Medical Association, dated July 
11, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Fuels

       Chicago, July 11.--Reports that the American Medical 
     Association is petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection 
     Agency today for a nationwide moratorium on Methyl Tertiary 
     Butyl Ether (MTBE) fuels are inaccurate.
       The questions raised about the alleged health hazards of 
     MTBE fuels and their benefits at the AMA's annual meeting in 
     June relate primarily to their use in extremely cold 
     climates, and the focus of the resolution was the use of 
     these fuels in Alaska.
       Neither the AMA nor the resolution attempted to answer the 
     question of MTBE fuels safety in Alaska or anywhere else.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. This news release states:

       Reports that the American Medical Association is 
     petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today 
     for a nationwide moratorium on MTBE fuels are inaccurate.

  I ask unanimous consent that the words of EPA as written here be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Information on MTBE safety as recorded in the EPA's 
     ``Integrated Risk Information System'':
       ``A comprehensive review by Environmental Protection Agency 
     scientists of 20 major MTBE chronic exposure research 
     projects establishes the safety of MTBE.''
       EPA's summary of the proceedings of an EPA-sponsored 
     research conference on MTBE and other oxygenates, held on 
     July 26-28, 1993:
       ``Just last year, an extensive series of health studies on 
     MTBE exposure near cars or service stations demonstrated that 
     no adverse health effects occur from MTBE exposure.''

  Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, How much time exists on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9 minutes 46 seconds for the Senator 
from Iowa, and there are 7 minutes 6 seconds for the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 2 minutes 30 seconds to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, this is the wrong amendment on the 
wrong bill at the wrong time. It is an end run on the regulatory 
process. It is a back-door attack on the integrity of the legislative 
process in the Senate. It is simply a bad amendment, and it does not 
belong on this bill.
  The Senator from Louisiana is asking the Senate to reverse a 
rulemaking process that began with the passage of the Clean Air Act 
amendments in 1990. His amendment would upset years of rulemaking in 
one easy step.
  When EPA began to develop the rulemaking on the use of reformulated 
gasolines, it did so under the express guidance of the Clean Air Act 
passed by this body, signed by the President.
  Now the Senator from Louisiana wants to turn the clock back and 
rephrase the mandate for reformulated gasolines, and he wants to do it 
on an appropriations bill.
  This amendment has not even seen the light of day in the authorizing 
committee. The Environment Committee and the Clean Air Subcommittee 
have jurisdiction over the act that delegated the authority for the 
rule. But have they been consulted? No.
  This amendment would upset a rulemaking process in which 12,000 
comments were filed to develop an important environment, energy, and 
rural economic policy.
  Passing this amendment is bad for consumers. Citizen Action, one of 
the largest consumer organizations in the country, has noted that the 
adoption of the EPA rule would reduce the overall costs of the 
reformulated gas program.
  Finally, as I said at the outset, this is the wrong time for this 
amendment. The rule that the Senator from Louisiana wants to eliminate 
is the subject of several lawsuits that have been filed.
  If there is an issue as to whether the rule exceeds the scope of the 
legislative authority of the Clean Air Act, let the courts make that 
determination. We have a system of checks and balances between the 
legislative, executive, and judicial branches that works quite well.
  Now is not the time to start second-guessing it. I understand that a 
number of my colleagues are prepared to speak at length if this 
amendment is not tabled. If the amendment is not tabled, I will join 
them, and I am willing to speak at length on this issue. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Johnston amendment rather than to have to 
listen to me and others speak at length.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I must tell my colleague from Ohio that we will not 
have the pleasure of listening to him no matter what happens, because 
if this amendment is not tabled--and I hope and trust it will not be--
then there will be, under the unanimous-consent agreement, I believe 10 
minutes of debate equally divided, after which we will go to a cloture 
vote.
  Mr. President, the debate has largely revolved around the question of 
whether this mandate cleans up the air and saves oil. Mr. President, we 
have heard about the question of what has the EPA said about this 
matter, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
testimony of Ms. Nichols, who is the assistant administrator of EPA, 
with the responsibility for air.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The Chairman. Well, between now and 1998--you talk about 
     there are no short-term advantages here. There is no 
     advantage between 1998 in fuel displacement or air quality, 
     is there?
       Ms. Nichols. The only I think real benefits in the short 
     term, according to the numbers that we receive, is the 
     displacement of fossil energy used in making the reformulated 
     gasoline.
       The Chairman. Well, yesterday Mr. Sussman testified that 
     that was pretty well a wash. I think he had some figure, 
     point zero zero something or other. Is that not correct?
       Ms. Nichols. It is very small. It is a very small benefit.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. We had a colloquy earlier about what does she mean by 
short-term benefits. In a question from me, I asked about her about the 
short-term, and she said:

       For the longer-term environmental impact, which we believe 
     will only be realizable if and when there is a diversity of 
     renewable sources.

  That means in the next century. I also asked her:

       Well, between now and 1998, you talk about there are no 
     short-term advantages here. There is no advantage between 
     1998 in fuel displacement or air quality, is there?
       Ms. Nichols: The only I think real benefits in the short 
     term, according to the numbers that we receive, is the 
     displacement of fossil fuel energy used in making 
     reformulated gasoline.

  Question:

       Well, yesterday, Mr. Sussman testified that that was pretty 
     well a wash. I think he had some figure, point zero zero 
     something or other. Is that not correct?
       Ms. Nichols: It is very small. It is a very small benefit.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, also to the point is the rulemaking 
filed by EPA in the Federal Register. This is the official position of 
the EPA. Here is what they state at page 7719 of the Federal Register 
of February 16, 1994. I want to quote this because I think it settles 
this question:

       At the time of the February 26, 1993 proposal, EPA had a 
     number of concerns with respect to its legality, energy 
     benefits, and environmental neutrality . . . Additional data 
     and information has been developed which indicates that 
     energy benefits would be unlikely to occur as a result of the 
     proposal. While the production of much of the ethanol in the 
     country produces on the margin more energy and uses less 
     petroleum than went into its production, a recent study by 
     the Department of Energy indicates that the margin disappears 
     when ethanol is mixed with gasoline. The energy loss and 
     additional petroleum consumption necessary to reduce the 
     volatility of the blend to offset the volatility increase 
     caused by the ethanol, causes the energy balance and 
     petroleum balance to go negative.

  I will repeat the last phrase:

       . . . causes the energy balance and the petroleum balance 
     to go negative.

  I ask unanimous consent that this page from the Federal Register be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Concerns With the Proposal

       At the time of the February 26, 1993 proposal, EPA had a 
     number of concerns with respect to its legality, energy 
     benefits, and environmental neutrality. Nevertheless, we 
     proposed the provisions for public comment in the hope that 
     these concerns could be overcome based on new data and 
     information developed in-house or received through public 
     comment. Since the time of the proposal these concerns have 
     been enhanced. Additional data and information has been 
     developed which indicates that energy benefits would be 
     unlikely to occur as a result of the proposal. While the 
     production of much of the ethanol in the country produces on 
     the margin more energy and uses less petroleum than went into 
     its production, a recent study by the Department of Energy 
     (refer to DOE's comments on the proposal) indicates that the 
     margin disappears when ethanol is mixed with gasoline. The 
     energy loss and additional petroleum consumption necessary to 
     reduce the volatility of the blend to offset the volatility 
     increase caused by the ethanol causes the energy balance and 
     petroleum balance to go negative. Since the potential energy 
     benefits were the basis in the proposal for providing the 
     incentives for renewable oxygenates, the justification for 
     the proposal no longer exists.
       Additional data and information has also been developed 
     which indicates that VOC emissions would increase 
     significantly under the proposal. As discussed in section I 
     of the RIA, the commingling effect of mixing ethanol blends 
     with non-ethanol blends in consumer's fuel tanks, the effect 
     of ethanol on the distillation curve of the blend, and 
     unrestricted early use of the complex model combined result 
     in roughly a 6-7.5% increase in gasoline vehicle VOC 
     emissions even though there is no increase in the average RVP 
     of in-use gasoline. As a result, the proposal would have 
     sacrificed 40 to 50 percent of the VOC control that is 
     required under section 211(k) for reformulated gasoline in 
     exchange for incentives for what is likely to have been only 
     a marginal increase in the market share of ethanol in 
     reformulated gasoline and no energy benefits or cost savings.
       As discussed in section I of the RIA, ethanol is not 
     excluded from competing in the reformulated gasoline market 
     under the provisions of the April 16, 1992 SNPRM. As a result 
     of the economic advantage of ethanol over other oxygenates, 
     ethanol should maintain a significant market share under the 
     reformulated gasoline program even without the renewable 
     oxygenate incentives proposed in the February 16, 1993 
     proposal. As a result, the actual ethanol market share 
     increase as a result of the renewable oxygenate provisions 
     would be expected to be far less than the maximum of 30% for 
     which incentives were provided. Given the relatively small 
     increase in ethanol demand as a result of the renewable 
     oxygenate provisions in exchange for such a large loss in the 
     environmental control of the reformulated gasoline program, 
     there does not appear to be any justification for 
     promulgating these provisions.
       Furthermore, comments were received from virtually all 
     parties, including ethanol industry representatives, that the 
     proposal was unworkable and would significantly increase the 
     cost of the reformulated gasoline program. While EPA 
     maintains that the program would have provided an economic 
     incentive for the use of renewable oxygenates in reformulated 
     gasoline up to a 30% market share, EPA acknowledges that the 
     proposal would have intruded into the efficient operation of 
     the marketplace, impacting the cost of the reformulated 
     gasoline program. As a result, after taking into account the 
     cost, non-air quality and environmental impacts, and energy 
     impacts, EPA has found itself with no choice but to back away 
     from the renewable oxygenate provisions of the February 26, 
     1993 proposal.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, Robert Sussman, EPA Deputy Administrator 
testified:

       It shows that increasing the use of ethanol derivatives and 
     reformulated gasoline will have no net impact on the emission 
     of greenhouse gases. In other words, the net impact will be 
     neither positive nor negative.

  Mr. President, one final statement, and that is from the study from 
Argonne National Lab for DOE. They state:

       It is clear that there will be increases in oil use 
     associated with the ROS.

  I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Conclusions

       The significance of these results varies with the parameter 
     evaluated. One reviewer made the comment that the few 
     percentage point differences estimated in this analysis do 
     not mean that the impacts of alternative scenarios are really 
     different. Another reviewer essentially termed impacts of 
     less than 1% as trivial. This point, that the analysis has 
     generated estimates of very small differences in the impact 
     of the different oxygenates, is particularly true for the 
     CO2-equivalent emissions analysis. There are large 
     uncertainties in estimating the CO2-equivalent emissions 
     of various fuels. This analysis only generates differences on 
     the order of about one-half of one percent or less. From this 
     we have to conclude that there are essentially no differences 
     between the RFGs using various oxygenates in terms of their 
     CO2-equivalent emissions.
       The uncertainty associated with the estimates of oil use 
     and fossil energy is less than that for CO2. Because the 
     oil use increases associated with the use of ethanol and ETBE 
     are higher than the CO2 increases (about one to three 
     percent) and because the uncertainty associated with their 
     estimation is less, we attach more significance to the oil 
     use estimates. It is clear that there will be increases in 
     oil use associated with the ROS.
       The significance associated with the decrease in fossil 
     energy use is somewhere between the significance associated 
     with the CO2 results and the oil use results. The 
     uncertainty associated with these results is similar to that 
     for oil, but the percentage decrease associated with the use 
     of ethanol and ETBE only range from about one half to one 
     percent. From this we conclude that there will be a small 
     decrease in fossil energy use with the ROS.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, it is just absolutely clear from the 
DOE, from the EPA, from the Argonne National Laboratory, from every 
reputable study, that is will not reduce oil imports. It will not clean 
up the air. That is why all of these environmental organizations have 
come out against this rule.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to speak in strong opposition to 
the Johnston amendment, which would prevent the Environmental 
Protection Agency from carrying out the Renewable Oxygenate Requirement 
[ROR] for Reformulated Gas [RFG] under the Clean Air Act. The ROR, 
which mandates that at least 30 percent of the oxygenates in RFG come 
from renewable sources, is a policy that will benefit all Americans. 
Simply put, it is good energy policy, good environmental policy, good 
economic policy, and good budget policy. The ROR should move forward in 
1995, as planned. It should not be held up by the U.S. Senate.
  I would like to briefly detail some of the benefits of the ROR. 
Before I begin, however, I would like to point out that the ROR 
includes all renewably produced oxygenates. This includes ethanol, 
ethanol derivatives [ETBE], and methanol derivatives [MTBE] produced 
from landfills and other renewable sources. The ROR is not an ethanol 
mandate. Nevertheless, my remarks will focus largely on ethanol, since 
it has drawn the brunt of the criticism from ROR opponents.
  To begin with, the ROR is smart energy policy. For many years, we 
have struggled to put together a national energy strategy that 
increases our economic security and reduces our dependence on imported 
oil. The ROR helps to do this by substituting domestic renewable fuels 
for imported oil and imported MTBE. In fact, the ROR is estimated to 
reduce oil imports by over 17 million barrels per year and MTBE imports 
by 600 million gallons per year. If we do not use domestic renewable 
oxygenates, the U.S. demand will instead be met by imports from the 
Persian Gulf. In fact, a tremendous amount of MTBE production capacity 
is already being put in place in the Gulf. I have always said that it 
is poor energy policy to depend on cheap imports, especially from an 
area as unstable as the Middle East.
  Just as important, the increased demand for ethanol and ETBE will 
help strengthen the domestic renewable fuels industry, laying the 
groundwork for greater import reductions in the future. A viable 
renewable energy industry is essential for good U.S. energy policy, and 
that industry is now beginning to emerge. New technologies are being 
brought on line that make ethanol cheaper and more efficient to 
produce.
  The ROR is also good for the environment. Reduced imports mean fewer 
tankers and less of a chance of a disastrous oil or MTBE spill. MTBE is 
highly toxic and can be very dangerous if spilled. By contrast, ethanol 
is nontoxic, safe, and will simply break down if spilled.
  More significantly, the ROR will deliver cleaner air and lower 
greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol and ETBE reduce emissions of volatile 
organic compounds [VOC's], carbon monoxide, and air toxics--all primary 
components of urban air pollution and smog. Some have expressed concern 
about the negative impact of ethanol use in summer months because of 
ethanol's high evaporative properties. This concern has been addressed 
by requiring less-evaporative ETBE in summer months. Renewably produced 
oxygenates will also significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions 
compared to MTBE and other fossil fuels. New ethanol and ETBE 
production will incorporate more efficient technology, leading to even 
larger CO2 reductions. In fact, new ethanol production has an 
efficiency of 110 to 120 percent, meaning you get more energy out than 
you put in.

  If you aren't convinced about the merits of the ROR for energy and 
environmental reasons, you should be for economic ones. Increased 
ethanol production will create over 14,000 permanent new jobs, plus 
thousands of short-term construction jobs. This is the kind of economic 
development that is desperately needed in rural America. It is also the 
kind of development we should keep here in the United States, instead 
of shipping it overseas.
  The ROR is also good for the American agricultural industry because 
it will increase the value of farmers' crops. Reasonable estimates put 
the increased annual farm income due to the ROR at $400 to 600 million. 
These are not pie-in-the-sky numbers, Mr. President. They come from the 
USDA Office of Economics, and they've been verified by other groups. 
This increased income will turn over many times, generating additional 
economic activity.
  Some are worried that more money for U.S. farmers will result in 
significantly higher gasoline and food prices for U.S. consumers. This 
is not true. Even the most conservative estimates put the price 
increase for RFG at less than one cent per gallon. And, many people 
believe the ROR will actually reduce RFG costs by forcing MTBE to 
compete in the market. This is one of the reasons that Citizen Action, 
the Nation's largest consumer group, has endorsed the ROR and opposes 
the Johnston amendment. As for food, the cost of corn or wheat is only 
a tiny fraction of the overall cost of production. Go to the store each 
year and see if the price of your bread fluctuates with the price of 
wheat. You'll see that it doesn't.
  Finally, what is the cost of the ROR to the Federal Government? 
Anyone familiar with agricultural programs and policies cannot help but 
conclude that the ROR will result in significant net budgetary savings. 
Why? Because increased commodity prices will reduce the farm program 
costs. USDA estimates the ROR will reduce these costs by $2.3 billion 
over the next 5 years. $2.3 billion. I say to my colleagues that this 
is budget cutting we all can live with. However, if we pass the 
Johnston amendment, we will not see this reduction. Instead, we will 
see decreased economic growth and greater farm program spending.
  The Congressional Budget Office analysis of this issue differs 
greatly from the USDA analysis. CBO calculates that the Johnston 
amendment will save money in the out years. The difference between the 
two analyses involves some very arcane assumptions about farm acreage 
set-aside. I can only say that CBO's set-aside assumptions are wholly 
unrealistic, and therefore so are CBO's numbers. It would seem to me 
that USDA, the agency which determines the yearly set-asides, would 
have a better idea of what the right assumptions are in this case. 
However, CBO refuses to listen to USDA. My colleagues would be well-
advised to consider USDA's opinion in this matter.
  Mr. President, I will not deny that my State of North Dakota has a 
stake in this issue. We have two ethanol plants, and several others are 
in the planning stages. However, this is much more than a parochial 
issue--it is a national one. With the ROR, the entire country benefits 
from energy security, from environmental protection, from economic 
growth, and from deficit reduction. We should go forward with the 
renewable oxygenates requirement. We should defeat the Johnston 
amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues Senator Bradley and Johnston.
  In general, I am very reluctant to support an amendment which 
prohibits the EPA from spending money to enforce properly promulgated 
regulations. There is a right to challenge these regulations in the 
Court of Appeals. In general, I believe this should be the route of 
opposition.
  In this case, however, I am so concerned about the potential 
detrimental impact on the environment and consumers of Connecticut, as 
well as the integrity of the entire Clean Air Act implementation 
process, that I feel congressional action is warranted. While there is 
no doubt that the potential negative environmental effects of this rule 
are far less than under the Bush administration proposal, the purpose 
of the Clean Air Act requirements is to help clean up our air, not 
potentially worsen air quality in order to serve some other social or 
economic purpose. This rule still has potential adverse air quality 
impacts on Connecticut and the Northeast. The Clean Air Act amendments 
do not allow EPA to sacrifice air quality to achieve other aims.
  This November, the State of Connecticut and all other nonattainment 
areas must submit State implementation plans showing how they will 
achieve attainment by the dates in the Clean Air Act. In Connecticut, 
industries and individuals have come together to help ensure that the 
State can meet the act's requirements. But the reductions to be 
achieved from the reformulated gasoline program will be a very 
important part of this attainment demonstration. If the anticipated 
reductions are not achieved from reformulated gasoline, or air quality 
is actually worsened, the burden on the industries of Connecticut and 
other nonattainment areas potentially will increase.
  At a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation Mary Nichols testified that there 
would be no air quality benefits from the ethanol mandate. The 
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management [NESCAUM] and the 
Sierra Club testified that the rule would have a significant cost in 
terms of adverse air quality. NESCAUM has reiterated these concerns in 
a letter to Senator Bradley dated July 29, 1994 in which it supports 
the efforts to alter EPA's plans to implement the program.
  Let me spend a few minutes outlining my concerns about the 
environmental impact of the rule.
  First, the Northeast States have raised concerns that while the rule 
discourages use of ethanol during the peak ozone season, the use of 
ethanol during the spring and fall months--the time period surrounding 
the high ozone season known as the shoulder season--will lead to 
increased emissions of volatile organic compounds. The Northeast States 
are required to monitor ozone levels from the period April 1 through 
October 31, The States have informed EPA that ozone excedances occur in 
the region during this shoulder period. The use of ethanol will 
contribute to elevated ozone levels during this period of time when the 
States are required to monitor their ozone levels.

  The final EPA rule attempts to respond to this concern by allowing 
the States to petition EPA to extend the period of time for the high 
ozone season during which ethanol use is discouraged. I have consulted 
with the Northeast States and this response is entirely inadequate. 
States would not be able to even petition for this protection until 
1997. The requirements that the States must demonstrate are onerous and 
resource-intensive; they are required to conduct complex and expensive 
additional air quality monitoring. Whether States will be able to meet 
this exacting test is unclear. Why should the States be faced with this 
burden in addition to their other very significant responsibilities 
under the Act? The State regulators have no motivation to discourage 
ethanol use during the shoulder season other than to protect air 
quality.
  Second, the Northeast States are concerned that the increased use of 
ethanol will lead to increased emissions of carbon monoxide during the 
wintertime. According to the States, many researchers including EPA, 
have noted that increases in fuel volatility which would occur with the 
use of ethanol, can result in increased evaporative canister loading 
and consequently increased carbon monoxide emissions.
  Third, EPA has acknowledged that the overall air toxics emissions 
performance would be reduced by the mandate.
  Fourth, the States are concerned that the increased use of ethanol 
outside the peak ozone season will contribute to emissions of nitrogen 
oxides. NOx is a contributor to PM10. Based on recent studies by 
researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and EPA, it has been 
estimated that 50,000 to 60,000 premature deaths a year are caused by 
pollution from small, respirable airborne particles known as 
particulate matter which are emitted without violating the current 
standard. New Haven, CT, and New York City are PM10 nonattainment areas 
under the current standard; and EPA is currently reassessing whether 
the current standard is protective and may revise the standard.
  In its regulatory analysis accompanying this rule, EPA contends that 
the proposal may have a beneficial impact on air quality because it 
will encourage the use of ETBE, an ether made from ethanol, during the 
summertime months rather than the use of other additives. According to 
EPA, ETBE has a greater VOC reduction potential than other additives. 
However, EPA's analysis is highly speculative. In part, it is based on 
the contention that ETBE use will be encouraged because it is eligible 
for the Federal tax credit afforded to ethanol blends. But evidence in 
the Record and the testimony of the Northeast States indicates that 
ETBE is not eligible for this credit. Additionally, as the Sierra Club 
pointed out in its testimony and as EPA states in its regulatory 
analysis, the Agency to date has completed no health studies of ETBE to 
determine if any risks exist. I do take some comfort from EPA's 
statement that ETBE producers will be required to demonstrate any 
health impacts and if there are any risks, EPA will consider the 
implications of its rule in light of that information.

  In short, implementation of this rule has potential negative air 
quality impacts for those States struggling to meet the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act.
  Nor can this proposal be justified by global warming benefits. EPA 
retreated from its initial position that the proposal would provide 
benefits. EPA now states that there will be no global warming benefits 
in the short-term. Analysts at DOE's Argonne National Labs performed a 
study for DOE which concludes that carbon dioxide equivalent emissions 
would be higher with an ethanol mandate. EPA speculates that there will 
be potential global warming benefits in the long run, but these 
potential benefits rest on best-case assumptions about significant 
changes in the production processes for ethanol. Additionally, both the 
Northeast States and the Sierra Club have testified that EPA failed to 
adequately account for NOx emissions in its global warming 
calculations.
  I am also extremely concerned about the potential cost to the 
consumer in the Northeast. EPA states that the mandate itself will not 
result in any increase in costs at the pump. But I tend to agree with 
Senator Bradley: anytime you use a product that costs $1.10 per gallon, 
to replace something available for less than half the price, that's 
bound to be a bad decision and someone will pay for it. Also, EPA's 
cost estimates rest in part on ETBE's eligibility for a tax exemption, 
but that eligibility does not appear to be the case.
  I also share the concern raised by the State of Connecticut about the 
impact on the Federal transportation trust fund of the ethanol mandate. 
Ethanol is exempt from contributing to this fund. The State of 
Connecticut has written to me that the loss of revenue resulting from 
the rule would hinder the ability of the fund to finance transportation 
infrastructure investments. Such investments are critical to our 
economic well-being and competitiveness.''
  For all of these reasons, I urge support of the Johnston-Bradley 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by 
the Senator from Louisiana and my colleague from New Jersey to prohibit 
funds appropriated in this bill from being used to implement or enforce 
EPA's ethanol mandate regulations. The EPA regulation is inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act, provides no clean air benefits and may worsen 
levels of polluted air, will increase costs to consumers and will 
adversely affect funding of the Highway Trust Fund reducing the money 
available for transportation projects across the Nation.
  Mr. President, I am one of the authors of the Clean Air Act. I 
understand full well the importance that reformulated gas can play in 
achieving clean air. But when we developed the bill, we did not mandate 
that any particular product be used to achieve the clean air goals of 
the reformulated gas program. We set a standard for levels of 
oxygenates which reduce pollution from gasoline and then left it up to 
industry to determine the most economical means of achieving this 
standard. EPA knows this. EPA's own Regulatory Impact Analysis on the 
ethanol mandate regulation says ``EPA has no legal authority under the 
Clean Air Act to provide such a mandate.'' So the ethanol mandate is 
something which the Congress not only did not require, it did not 
authorize.
  Mr. President, you would think that if EPA was going to mandate the 
use of ethanol, it would provide clean air benefits. But the ethanol 
mandate does not provide any benefit in reducing summertime ozone 
levels. All oxygenates will reduce emissions of smog forming 
pollutants.
  And ethanol may actually worsen air pollution during what is known as 
the shoulder season. These are the months on either side of the summer 
smog season. Because ethanol is more volatile than other oxygenates, 
use of ethanol will exacerbate smog. Since the ethanol mandate is 
likely to lead to increased use of ethanol in the shoulder season, smog 
may become more of a problem in the shoulder season.
  Mr. President, the ethanol mandate also will have a significant 
fiscal impact on the Highway Trust Fund. As chairman of the Senate 
Transportations Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you first hand 
how important funding for the Fund is. Every year, I receive requests 
from virtually all of my colleagues to use the Highway Trust Fund for 
projects in their States. But if we deplete the Fund, we will not have 
money available for these projects.
  The ethanol mandate will result in a significant reduction in funds 
available to the Highway Trust Fund. Ethanol already receives a 
significant tax break from the Federal gasoline tax which reduces 
funding for the Highway Trust Fund. The more use of ethanol, the less 
money going into the Fund.
  According to Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena, the ethanol 
mandate will result in losses to the Highway Trust Fund of from $340-
$465 million per year. These losses would be on top of the current 
losses of over $500 million per year because of the fuel tax exemption 
for ethanol. Secretary Pena concluded that the ethanol mandate could 
cost as much as $10 billion over the next decade. That is a pretty 
steep impact for a program which will not provide clean air benefits.

  I recently wrote CBO Director Robert Reischauer about the loss of 
Federal gas tax revenues. CBO's estimate of a loss of $545 million over 
5 years is consistent with Secretary Pena's estimate. CBO also 
determined that the ethanol mandate would increase budget outlays over 
the next 5 years by $249 million. I ask unanimous consent that a copy 
of Director Reischauer's letter to me be included in the Record.
  Finally, the ethanol mandate will result in higher gasoline costs. 
Resources for the Future, a respected think tank, estimated that 
consumers in the northeast will pay at least 7 cents per gallon more 
because of the ethanol mandate.
  Mr. President, the EPA mandate is a bad policy. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the Johnston-Bradley amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1994.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related 
         Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In your letter of July 21, you inquired 
     about CBO's scoring of Senator Johnston's amendment that 
     would delay implementation of the renewable oxygenate 
     standard promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA). If adopted, this amendment would preclude EPA from 
     implementing--in fiscal year 1995--its rule mandating that a 
     specified percentage of the oxygenates used in reformulated 
     gasoline come from renewable sources. Because the standard 
     takes effect on January 1, 1995, this amendment would 
     prohibit enforcement for nine months.
       There are two aspects to the scoring of the Johnston 
     amendment--the effect on spending for farm price support 
     programs and the effect on federal revenues.
       Effect on Outlays. The Johnston amendment would affect 
     spending for farm price support programs because demand for 
     corn would diminish, leading to a reduction in the price of 
     corn in the first year and subsequent actions by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to offset the impact of lower 
     demand. CBO estimates that a nine-month delay in implementing 
     the EPA standards would increase outlays for farm programs by 
     $25 million in fiscal year 1995 and by $4 million in 1996. We 
     expect that outlays would decline by $12 million in 1997. (A 
     permanent delay would increase spending by $17 million in 
     1995, but would generate outlay savings totaling $249 million 
     over the 1995-1999 period.)
       Under the scorekeeping rules delineated in the conference 
     report on the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, such changes in 
     mandatory spending made in appropriation bills are scored as 
     discretionary. They would therefore be counted against the 
     Appropriations Committee's spending allocations under the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and against the 
     discretionary spending caps established by the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       Effect on Revenues. The Johnston amendment would affect 
     federal revenues because firms producing motor fuels that 
     contain ethanol are eligible for tax preferences. Firms have 
     the option of taking the tax preference as either an excise 
     tax exemption or an income tax credit. A decline in ethanol 
     use from delaying implementation of the EPA standards would 
     increase federal tax revenues by diminishing the use of these 
     preferences. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates 
     that a nine-month delay in implementing the EPA standards 
     would produce a revenue increase of $26 million in fiscal 
     year 1995 and $37 million in fiscal year 1996. These amounts, 
     which are net of reduced income and payroll tax revenues, 
     reflect estimted increases in excise taxes dedicated to the 
     Highway Trust Fund of $33 million in fiscal year 1995 and $47 
     million in fiscal year 1996. (A permanent delay in 
     implementing the standards would have a much greater revenue 
     effect, estimated by JCT to total $545 million over five 
     years. This amount, which is net of reduced income and 
     payroll tax revenues, is based on an estimated increase of 
     $697 million in excise tax revenues for the Highway Trust 
     Fund over the 1995-1999 period.)
       Under established scorekeeping procedures, the revenue 
     effects of appropriation bills do not affect the scoring of 
     those bills relative to the committee's spending allocations 
     and the dicretionary spending caps, because the legislative 
     language of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 clearly puts 
     all changes in revenues on the pay-as-you-go scorecard. Thus, 
     even though the Johnston amendment would have the effect of 
     generating additional revenues, the revenue increase cannot 
     be used to offset an increase in spending that is charged 
     against the Appropriations Committee's allocations and the 
     discretionary caps.
       I hope this explanation is helpful to you. If you would 
     like further information on this issue, we would be pleased 
     to provide it. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Booth (for 
     revenue estimates), who can be reached at 226-2865, and David 
     Hull (for outlay estimates), who can be reached at 226-2860.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James L. Blum,
                             (For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments require 
the use of reformulated gasoline in the nine cities with the worst 
summertime smog problems. Smog results from the combination of air 
pollution--emissions from cars and trucks and industry--and sunlight. 
The principal component of smog is ozone.
  Under the Clean Air Act the Federal Government has established a 
health standard for ozone. It is up to the States to develop plans to 
control various sources of pollution, so that the Federal health 
standard is attained in every city. One of the largest sources of the 
ozone problem is the gasoline fuel that we burn in our cars and trucks.
  Gasoline is a complex mixture of 200 chemicals with a wide variety of 
recipes depending on the brand, octane rating and season of the year. 
The precise formulation can have dramatic impacts on air pollution.
  For instance, one of the substances added to gasoline in increasing 
quantities in recent years is butane. Butane is a relatively 
inexpensive byproduct of natural gas production. It is the fuel used in 
cigarette lighters and is highly volatile. So volatile, in fact, that 
most of the butane added to gasoline evaporates from the gasoline tank 
of a car before it ever reaches the engine to be burned. Limiting 
butane content can reduce total smog pollution by up to 10 percent in 
some cities. EPA has issued a rule that limits the addition of butane 
to gasoline in summer months.
  The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments require oil refiners who make and 
sell gasoline to reduce the hydrocarbon pollution from their gasoline 
by 15 percent in the 9 U.S. cities with the worst smog problem. The 
nine cities do not include any part of my home State of Rhode Island. 
But other cities with less serious smog problems may also ``opt in'' to 
the reformulated gasoline program. And the State of Rhode Island would 
like to use reformulated gasoline as one part of its strategy to reduce 
ozone.
  In addition to the hydrocarbon reduction requirement, reformulated 
gasoline must also contain 2 percent oxygen by weight. This oxygen will 
be added by blending the gasoline with an alcohol--either methanol or 
ethanol. The oxygen in the fuel promotes more complete combustion and 
prevents the formation of carbon monoxide in the tailpipe exhaust 
gases. Carbon monoxide, like smog, is an air pollutant regulated under 
the Clean Air Act.
  It is this requirement for additional oxygen in reformulated gasoline 
that is causing all the controversy. There are two competing additives. 
One is called MTBE and is made from methanol that might be derived from 
natural gas or coal. The other oxygen additive is ethanol made 
principally from corn in the United States The potential market for 
these additives created by the reformulated gasoline requirements of 
the Clean Air Act have pitted the oil industry against agriculture in a 
heated battle over EPA's regulations.

  There are many arguments on both sides of the question, but there are 
two concerns raised by the MTBE proponents to which I have given close 
attention. First, they allege that using ethanol in reformulated 
gasoline will actually make it more difficult to control smog 
pollution. If true, that would be good reason to vote for this 
amendment. But I believe the assertion is mistaken.
  It is true that when ethanol is added to gasoline, the volatitlity--a 
measure of the amount of the fuel that evaporates--of the blended fuel 
is higher. A more volatile fuel will generally mean more air pollution. 
But the rule for reformulated gasoline puts an overall limit on smog-
forming emissions. In other words, if refiners use ethanol to meet the 
oxygen requirements for reformulated gasoline, the rules will require 
them to make some other changes in the formulation to compensate for 
the increase in volatility. The overall result must be a 15-percent 
reduction in smog-forming emissions. There can be no negative air 
quality impact, if the finished fuel complies with the rules.
  Second, the oil industry has charged that prices for fuels using 
ethanol as an oxygen additive will be much higher than prices for fuels 
using MTBE. The oil industry made a similar charge about reformulated 
gasoline, in general, asserting at the time the Senate considered the 
1990 amendments that reformulated gasoline would increase prices to 
consumers by 25 cents per gallon. Shortly after the bill was passed 
some of the very same oil companies were running ads for their gas 
saying that it already met these new reformulated gasoline 
requirements. Little has been heard lately about the 25-cent-per-gallon 
price rise.
  EPA has done a careful analysis of the costs of ethanol additives and 
the impact of its renewable fuels mandate on consumers. That analysis 
shows that costs to use ethanol might be slightly higher, perhaps 
totalling $4 million to $60 million per year for the Nation. But these 
cost increases are spread over such a large quantity of gasoline, 
nearly 40 billion gallons of reformulated gasoline will be sold each 
year, that consumers will not see any real change in price.
  Mr. President, I have brought to the Senate floor today letters from 
President Clinton to Majority Leader Mitchell and from EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner to Senator Daschle that address these 
questions of cost and air quality impact directly. We are assured by 
the Administration that its ethanol mandate will not cause prices to 
increase and that the air quality requirements of the Clean Air Act 
will be fully complied with.

  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that both of these 
letters, along with a letter addressed to the Senate signed by five 
major environmental organizations opposing this amendment, be printed 
in the Record after my remarks.
  Because of these from the administration assurances, I intend to vote 
against the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. I 
generally oppose amendments to appropriations bills that attempt to 
amend the underlying authorizing statutes. EPA believes it has the 
authority under the Clean Air Act to issue this rule. Senator Johnston 
disagrees. But that is not a question the Senate need decide. The rule 
has been challenged in court and if EPA has exceeded its authority, the 
courts will overturn the rule.
  I believe that section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act gives EPA clear 
authority to take into account the energy impacts of its rules. Here, 
the Agency has determined that a rule favoring domestically produced, 
renewable energy resources is an appropriate consideration in carrying 
out the reformulated gasoline requirements of the Clean Air Act. 
Considering all of these factors, I do not think the Senate should vote 
to overturn EPA's policy on a rider to appropriations bill. I would 
urge the Senate to reject the Senator's amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: Last month, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) made an important decision to use renewable 
     fuels to help achieve the objectives of the Clean Air Act. By 
     promulgating the renewable oxygenate rule, my Administration 
     made good on a long-standing commitment to a cleaner 
     environment and a stronger economy. The use of reformulated 
     gasoline will help to improve the quality of the air in the 
     nation's dirtiest cities. Through this decision EPA is 
     helping to assure that renewable fuels continue to have a 
     fair market share in a changing world of cleaner burning 
     gasoline.
       I am aware of the attempts by some in Congress to block 
     implementation and enforcement of EPA's rulemaking on 
     renewable oxygenates. I strongly oppose any attempts to 
     interfere with EPA's implementation or enforcement of this 
     rule.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
                                  ____



                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: Since EPA announced its decision on 
     the role of renewable oxygenates in reformulated gasoline 
     (RFG) on June 30, a great deal of misinformation has been 
     heard from critics of the decision. I would like to take this 
     opportunity to clarify EPA's views on this important clean 
     air program.
       The Administration is aware that floor amendments to EPA's 
     appropriations bill may attempt to overturn EPA's rulemaking 
     on renewable oxygenates. The Administration believes that it 
     is inappropriate to legislate regulatory restrictions through 
     the appropriations process and will strongly oppose any 
     attempts to interfere with EPA's implementation or 
     enforcement of the rule.
       The requirement that 30 percent of the oxygenates used in 
     RFG be produced from renewable sources, such as grain, 
     biomass or even garbage, is necessary to assure that 
     renewable oxygenates are not disadvantaged in the RFG 
     program. EPA is not establishing a new program to benefit any 
     particular fuel, rather we are assuring that renewable fuels 
     continue to have an opportunity to compete in a changing 
     world of cleaner burning gasoline. Our actions are consistent 
     with long-standing Congressional support for renewable motor 
     fuels and this Administration's environmental and energy 
     goals.
       We have taken the necessary steps in the rule to alleviate 
     potential disruption in the gasoline distribution system. In 
     the context of overall gasoline usage, this program will 
     result in only one-half of one percent of the gasoline 
     consumed in the U.S. annually being made from renewable 
     sources.
       It is not an ``ethanol mandate.'' Rather, it is fuel 
     neutral in that any renewable oxygenate will qualify. The 
     production of all oxygenates will increase substantially as a 
     result of the RFG program. For example, nonrenewable MTBE 
     made from natural gas may well experience a 170 percent 
     increase in its market. No industry is a loser in this 
     program.
       I hope the above points and enclosure are useful in 
     explaining the role of renewable oxygenates in the 
     reformulated gasoline program. Please contact us if you have 
     any questions or need further information.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.
                                  ____


                Impacts of the Renewable Oxygenates Rule


                    environmental and other benefits

       The renewable oxygenates rule ensures that the benefits of 
     the RFG program will be achieved. In addition to the 15 
     percent reduction in VOC and toxic emissions from vehicles 
     using Phase I RFG, additional reductions in VOC emissions may 
     occur if ETBE displaces currently-used ethanol during the 
     summer months. This occurs because the rule does not credit 
     the use of renewable oxygenates that increase evaporative 
     emissions during the summer smog season. (The summer season 
     is defined as May 1 to September 15, although a state may 
     request a longer season if needed for smog control.)
       The rule provides a strong incentive for the development of 
     new technology to efficiently produce renewable oxygenates 
     which would lead to long-term global warming benefits. Short-
     term global warming benefits would occur if methanol from 
     landfills is used to make renewable MTBE as one company 
     announced recently.
       There are also energy benefits. According to a DOE report, 
     up to 20 percent less fossil energy is used to produce 
     ethanol as compared to MTBE produced from natural gas.


                                  cost

       Consumers should see no increase in the prices of RFG at 
     the pump as a result of the renewable oxygenate rule. EPA 
     estimated that the reformulated gasoline rule that was 
     promulgated last December would cost between 3 and 5 cents 
     per gallon more than conventional gasoline. This includes the 
     cost of oxygenates. The new rule simply requires some 
     oxygenate to be renewable. EPA's analysis shows that the 
     incremental cost impact of the new rule ranges from 0.02 
     cents to as much as 0.2 cents per gallon when spread over the 
     39 billion gallons of RFG that will be produced each year.
       With respect to the impact on the Highway Trust Fund, EPA 
     estimated a $180 million loss and published this estimate in 
     the rule. Treasury, as part of updating the President's 
     budget in the Mid Session review, subsequently estimated the 
     loss to be around $240 million. USDA provided estimates that 
     show that the Highway Trust Fund losses are more than offset 
     by savings in farm deficiency payments. The rule included a 
     $344 million savings estimate based on a USDA analysis of a 
     report by the General Accounting Office. USDA has provided a 
     more recent savings estimate of $275 million.


                                 supply

       There is no doubt that there exists today an adequate 
     supply of renewable oxygenates to satisfy the requirements of 
     this program. The only question is whether renewable 
     oxygenates would need to be shifted out of existing markets 
     and into RFG cities. To alleviate as much as possible 
     concerns about the ability of the fuels industry to do some 
     shifting and also provide time for new renewable oxygenate 
     production to come on line, the Agency took a number of steps 
     in the regulation. First, we set the initial year's 
     requirement at 15 percent. In 1996, the requirement goes to 
     30 percent.
       Second, we included averaging provisions. With averaging, a 
     refiner may use more renewable oxygenate during the later 
     part of 1995, for example, and none during the first part of 
     the year, as long as over the year the 15 percent requirement 
     is met.
       Third, we included trading provisions, under which Refiner 
     A in Chicago may use more than the required amount of 
     renewable oxygenates. The ``excess'' oxygen credits may then 
     be sold to Refiner B in Chicago or even Refiner C in 
     Baltimore who choose not to use renewables.
       As mentioned above, no industry is losing in the 
     reformulated gasoline program. Renewable oxygenates, like 
     ethanol from grain, will get 30 percent of the new RFG 
     oxygenate market and nonrenewables, like MTBE from natural 
     gas, will get 70 percent of the new market. The production of 
     all oxygenates will grow significantly.
                                  ____

         Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, National Wildlife 
           Federation, Environmental Working Group, Natural 
           Resources Defense Council,
                                                    July 21, 1994.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the VA-HUD-
     Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY95, we ask 
     that you oppose all new policy amendments affecting the 
     environment. We take this position regardless of the 
     substantive merits of such amendments, which we believe are 
     not the issue in this case.
       Subcommittee Chair Barbara Mikulski and the members of the 
     Subcommittee have reported a bill which focuses on the 
     funding allocations which are the primary purpose of 
     appropriations bills. While it is entirely appropriate to 
     have a lively floor debate about those funding choices, we 
     oppose any new proposal to encumber this bill with amendments 
     which are legislation or limitations restricting specific 
     environmental policies. Whatever the merits of any such 
     proposals, we believe they would be more appropriately 
     pursued through authorizing bills, regulatory procedures or 
     the courts.
       We recognize that Congress has a right and a responsibility 
     to set environmental policies when necessary. However, floor 
     amendments to the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations 
     bill should not be the tool of first resort. We oppose any 
     floor amendments on takings, risk, cost/benefit and unfunded 
     mandates. Consistent with our general opposition on 
     procedural grounds to new policy floor amendments, we oppose 
     the Johnston amendment to prevent the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from implementing the ethanol rule. We 
     understand that a lawsuit has been filed on this matter, 
     which we believe should be decided through regulatory and 
     legal means.
       We make no pretense that the appropriations process is 
     procedurally pure, and believe that each bill should be 
     handled on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this bill, we 
     draw the line on the bill as reported, and urge you to oppose 
     all new environmental policy amendments offered on the floor.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph De Gennaro,
         Director, Appropriations project, Friends of the Earth.
     David Hawkins,
         Senior Attorney, National Resources Defense Council.
     A. Blakeman Early,
         Washington Director, Envir. Quality Program, Sierra Club.
     Sharon Newsome,
         Vice President, Resources Conservation Dept, National 
           Wildlife Federation.
     David Dickson,
         Senior Analyst, Environmental Working Group.


                       ethanol the future is now

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I oppose the Johnston amendment and urge 
this body to reject it. The crucial issue in this debate is how the 
United States can meet competitively future energy needs with cleaner 
burning fuels.
  The new EPA renewable oxygenate standard [ROS], was developed to 
achieve this goal. The standard will permit renewable fuels, such as 
ethanol, to be competitive in the reformulated gasoline market. 
Adopting the Johnston amendment will prevent this from happening. The 
amendment is designed to deny ethanol a role in meeting this Nation's 
future energy needs. It should not be adopted.


                               background

  EPA issued the renewable oxygenate standard on June 30, 1994. The 
proposed standard is the culmination of years of work and countless 
staff hours. It should be noted that the rule received more public 
comments--over 12,000--than any other regulation in EPA's history.
  In addition, EPA officials received abundant expert testimony on the 
pros and cons of developing renewable oxygenate stands for the 
reformulated gasoline market. The use of renewable fuels in the 
reformulated gasoline program has been supported by both the past and 
current administrations. The record on this issue is complete. No stone 
was left unturned.
  Simply put, the rule is designed to enable the development of fuels 
that are environmentally sensitive, renewable, and good for the 
economy. Yet there are those who do not want this to happen.
  Mr. President, the renewable oxygenate standard [ROS] is the proper 
solution. The standard will assure adherence to the air quality 
standards of the 1990 Clean Air Act. It should be implemented.


                       who supports the standard

  The list of supporters of the renewable oxygenate standard is 
impressive. The administration strongly opposes the Johnston amendment. 
The EPA, USDA, OMB, and the Energy Department all support the standard.
  Agriculture solidly supports EPA's renewable oxygenate standard. The 
Governor of the State of South Dakota supports the new standard. 
Consumer groups support the standard.
  In addition, environmental groups oppose the Johnston amendment. 
Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Environment Working 
Groups all oppose the Johnston amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from all these 
groups appear at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, ethanol is one of this Nation's most 
efficient sources of energy. The EPA has stated that the renewable 
oxygenate standard has both immediate and long-term environmental 
benefits.


                                benefits

  Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced under the new rules, 
according to the EPA. Ethanol use lowers carbon monoxide output.
  Several studies have shown that ethanol yields equivalent reductions 
in urban ozone as does the use of MTBE. Under EPA's rule, all 
environmental objectives of the reformulated gasoline program will be 
met. According to the EPA, the new standard ``maintains the 
environmental benefits of the reformulated gasoline program as 
promulgated on December 15, 1993, and has the potential to increase 
these benefits through the incentives it provides for increased ETBE 
use during the summer months.''
  Earlier this year, I wrote a letter to the Journal of Commerce 
responding to an editorial that erroneously attacked ethanol. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of my letter appear in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      [From the Journal of Commerce and Commercial, Mar. 10, 1994]

                 Ethanol: Good News for the Environment

                        (By Sen. Larry Pressler)

       Wayne Brough's article ``A Special Bargain for Ethanol'' 
     (Opinion, March 2, Page 6A) sees the glass as half empty and 
     not half full. His diatribe against the ethanol industry 
     simply overlooked the facts. According to Mr. Brough, there 
     are no environmental benefits, no economic benefits and no 
     consumer benefits to ethanol. Nothing could be further from 
     the truth.
       The facts are these. Ethanol reduces our dependence on 
     imported oil and enhances U.S. energy security. Dependence on 
     foreign oil costs the United States $40 billion to $80 
     billion each year. Every billion dollars spent on imports 
     results in the loss of 25,000-30,000 U.S. jobs. Ethanol can 
     help change that. The EPA expects its proposal will create 
     and sustain more than 10,000 new domestic jobs, a fact Mr. 
     Brough overlooks.
       Ethanol is one of this nation's most efficient sources of 
     energy. A recent Department of Agriculture study showed that 
     ethanol's energy efficiency was 108% to 125%. For every 100 
     BTUs used in the production of ethanol, 108-125 BTUs of 
     ethanol are created. Compare ethanol's energy efficiency with 
     gasoline's 85%, methyl tertiary butyl ether's (MTBE) 55% and 
     coal gasification's 45%. It is evident that ethanol is an 
     efficient energy source.
       Ethanol production is vital to improving farmers' income 
     and to economic growth in agricultural communities. The 
     expanded production and use of ethanol prompted by EPA 
     regulations should increase corn prices more than 30 cents a 
     bushel and reduce corn price supports over 50%. Resulting 
     savings to U.S. taxpayers should be in the hundreds of 
     millions of dollars.
       Ethanol has improved air quality and it has broad consumer 
     acceptance. The city of Denver has experienced significant 
     air quality improvements as a result of ethanol usage. 
     Citizen Action, one of the largest consumer organizations, 
     called on President Clinton to include the use of ethanol in 
     the reformulated gasoline program.
       The proposed rules recognize ethanol as a friend of the 
     environment, and they assure a fuel-neutral reformulated 
     gasoline marketplace. Without the changes adopted by the 
     administration, MTBE would be the primary oxygenate used in 
     reformulated gasoline. Without competition, consumers would 
     pay higher prices. This was the ostensible goal of Mr. 
     Brough's article--to demonstrate the need to avoid higher 
     consumer costs. Ethanol can help achieve the goal Mr. Brough 
     promotes.
       He also attempted to illustrate how new government 
     regulations under the Clean Air Act could cost Americans up 
     to $25 billion annually. He raised a valid concern that the 
     Clean Air Act could result in expanded government control 
     over the economy. But Mr. Brough would have done well to 
     discuss other EPA proposals, such as how new environmental 
     regulations ignore the considerable costs they impose on 
     farmers, ranchers and other small businesses.
       Unfortunately, he missed that opportunity and unfairly 
     attacked ethanol. The facts on ethanol speak for themselves. 
     EPA carefully considered costs and energy and air quality 
     effects in determining its proposed regulations. If the 
     merits of ethanol had not been evident, the EPA would not 
     have issued the regulations it did.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, USDA studies have shown that the 
renewable oxygenate standard can reduce farm program costs by $2.3 
billion between 1995-99. These savings come from higher prices for corn 
as a result of the standard.


                    agricultural and budget benefits

  Our farmers need higher prices for their crops. Corn is a leading 
crop in South Dakota. The proposed standard would raise the income of 
the average South Dakota corn producers by more than $3,600. However, 
should the Johnston amendment be approved, this potential income would 
be lost. Not only would it be lost, but corn prices could drop and corn 
farmers would be robbed of existing income.
  Mr. President, the Johnston amendment would hinder economic growth, 
increase costs to the Government, adversely affect corn prices, and 
cause economic hardships for corn producers nationwide. Just last year, 
ethanol blended gasoline achieved a 44-percent market share in South 
Dakota making it the leading State in ethanol use. If this trend 
continues, South Dakota will become the first State in the Nation to 
achieve a 50-percent market share for ethanol blended fuel.
  Increasing ethanol use will provide additional markets for South 
Dakota corn growers, benefit the State's agricultural economy, and 
decrease the U.S. dependency on foreign oil. If other States follow 
South Dakota's lead, ethanol production and consumption will benefit 
the economies of communities nationwide.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, if one needs to know congressional intent on this 
issue, one only need to look at the record. Congress clearly intends 
that ethanol play a role in the reformulated gasoline program.
  Ethanol will help us meet our Nation's future fuel needs. There is no 
argument. Ethanol is good for the economy. It is good for agriculture. 
Ethanol is good for the environment.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Johnston amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                    July 27, 1994.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pressler: As representatives of America's 
     farmers, we want to reiterate our support for the Renewable 
     Oxygenate Requirement (ROR) for reformulating gasoline, and 
     express our strong opposition to potential amendments to the 
     VA, HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill that 
     would effectively repeal this important program.
       The ROR was recently finalized by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency after extensive comment and careful 
     consideration. This is the appropriate forum for 
     consideration of Clean Air rules.
       An expanded renewables market will generate demand for 
     grain and other energy crops and provide economic 
     opportunities for rural America. More importantly, this Clean 
     Air rule will enhance the environmental benefits of 
     reformulated gasoline, will contribute to energy security, 
     will reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses, and will provide 
     consumers with a choice of oxygenates. According to EPA, the 
     ROR will maximize reductions of volatile organic compounds. 
     The Department of Energy has concluded that the ROR will 
     provide significant reductions in fossil energy use. The best 
     news is that the positive environmental and energy benefits 
     of the ROR will not increase the cost of reformulated 
     gasoline at the pump for consumers.
       The benefits of this Clean Air rule for agriculture are 
     significant. According to an analysis completed by the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture, the ROR will increase the demand 
     for corn used in ethanol production and will reduce farm 
     program costs by $2.3 billion over the next five years. At 
     the same time, feed co-products of ethanol production will be 
     available to meet the needs of beef, dairy and poultry 
     producers.
       The ROR simply makes sense for America. We ask that you 
     support the rule by opposing amendments to repeal this 
     important program.
           Sincerely,
         American Agriculture Movement, Inc.; American Agri-Women; 
           American Farm Bureau Federation; American Seed Trade 
           Association; American Society of Farm Managers and 
           Rural Appraisers; American Soybean Association; 
           American Sugar Beet Growers Association; National 
           Agricultural Chemicals Association; National 
           Association of State Departments of Agriculture; 
           National Association of Wheat Growers; National Barley 
           Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Association; 
           National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton 
           Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; 
           National Family Farm Coalition; National Farmers 
           Organization; National Farmers Union; National Grain 
           Sorghum Producers; National Grange; National Rural 
           Electric Cooperative Association; Women Involved in 
           Farm Economics.
                                  ____

                                                    July 21, 1994.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the VA-HUD-
     Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY95, we ask 
     that you oppose all new policy amendments affectng the 
     environment. We take this position regardless of the 
     substantive merits of such amendments, which we believe are 
     not the issue in this case.
       Subcommittee Chair Barbara Mikulski and the members of the 
     Subcommittee have reported a bill which focused on the 
     funding allocations which are the primary purpose of 
     appropriations bills. While it is entirely appropriate to 
     have a lively floor debate about those funding choices, we 
     oppose any new proposal to encumber this bill with amendments 
     which are legislation or limitations restricting specific 
     environmental policies. Whatever the merits of any such 
     proposals, we believe they would be more appropriately 
     pursued through authorizing bills, regulatory procedures or 
     the courts.
       We recognize that Congress has a right and a responsibility 
     to set environmental policies when necessary. However, floor 
     amendments to the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations 
     bill should not be the tool of first resort. We oppose any 
     floor amendments on takings, risk, cost/benefit and unfunded 
     mandates. Consistent with our general opposition on 
     procedural grounds to new policy floor amendments, we oppose 
     the Johnston amendment to prevent the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from implementing the ethanol rule. We 
     understand that a lawsuit has been filed on this matter, 
     which we believe should be decided through regulatory and 
     legal means.
       We make no pretense that the appropriations process is 
     procedurally pure, and believe that each bill should be 
     handled on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this bill, we 
     draw the line on the bill as reported, and urge you to oppose 
     all new environmental policy amendments offered on the floor.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph De Gennaro,
         Director, Appropriations Project, Friends of the Earth.
     David Hawkins,
         Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.
     A. Blakeman Early,
         Washington Director, Envir. Quality Program, Sierra Club.
     Sharon Newsome,
         Vice President, Resources Conservation Dept., National 
           Wildlife Federation.
     David Dickson,
         Senior Analyst, Environmental Working Group.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: Last month, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) made an important decision to use renewable 
     fuels to help achieve the objectives of the Clean Air Act. By 
     promulating the renewable oxyenate rule, my Administration 
     made good on a long-standing commitment to a cleaner 
     environment and a stronger economy. The use of reformulated 
     gasoline will help to improve the quality of the air in the 
     nation's dirtiest cities. Through this decision EPA is 
     helping to assure that renewable fuels continue to have a 
     fair market share in a changing world of cleaner burning 
     gasoline.
       I am aware of the attempts by some in Congress to block 
     implementation and enforcement of EPA's rulemaking on 
     renewable oxygenates. I strongly oppose any attempts to 
     interfere with EPA's implementation or enforcement of this 
     rule.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
                                  ____



                                         State of South Dakota

                                          Pierre, SD, May 4, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In the next several weeks, the United 
     States Environmental Protection Agency will be issuing final 
     rules regarding the ability of ethanol to be utilized as an 
     oxygenate in the federal reformulated gasoline program. The 
     proposed rule, ``Renewable Oxygenate Requirement for 
     Reformulated Gasoline'' would require that 30% of the 
     oxygenates used in reformulated gasoline be derived from 
     renewable resources.
       This rule, as proposed by the EPA, would result in a 
     significant increase in the demand for ethanol. As you know, 
     ethanol is one of this nation's premier renewable 
     transportation fuels. Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas 
     emissions, promotes rural economic development, and reduces 
     our nation's dependance on imported petroleum products. 
     Ethanol also stimulates the demand for agriculturally-derived 
     products and services to reduce federal farm deficiency 
     payments.
       Without question, you have heard from the petroleum 
     industry that the Renewable Oxygenate Requirement should be 
     withdrawn for a variety of reasons. Principal among the 
     criticisms is that the program will establish a mandate for 
     fuel ethanol. We believe nothing could be further from the 
     truth. In fact, it is my opinion this is a historic action by 
     your administration to begin the long process of reducing our 
     nation's dependance on foreign oil.
       I wish to express my strong support for the adoption of the 
     Renewable Oxygenate Requirement, and I encourage you to 
     direct the EPA to promulgate the final rule as proposed. Such 
     an action will send a strong signal of your commitment and 
     approach to both environmental stewardship and economic 
     development.
       Thank you in advance for your continued support and 
     attention to this important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Walter D. Miller,
                                                         Governor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who controls time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes four seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. President, let us face it. This boils down to one essential 
issue. It can be summed up in one sentence. All the debate held here 
today can be summed up in one sentence. This is a choice that we have 
to make, a choice between domestically produced, renewable fuels, or 
imported methanol and MTBE. That is it.
  Are we going to vote for America and vote for American jobs and fuels 
produced here, renewable fuels, or are we going to vote to continue the 
pipeline from Saudi Arabia to America? This is what this vote is all 
about.
  As it has been pointed out time and time again, environmental groups 
support our position in opposition to the Johnston amendment--Friends 
of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the 
National Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental Working Group.
  A lot of Senators wanted to speak on this issue today. I particularly 
wanted to mention Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, who could not be 
here because he is in conference committee. He has been a great leader 
on this.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the EPA 
response to major points raised by NESCAUM regarding the renewable 
oxygenate rule, and also the letter from the five environmental groups.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

EPA Response to Major Points Raised by NESCAUM Regarding the Renewable 
                          Oxygenate Rule (ROR)


                  action contradicts reg-neg agreement

       The provisions of the Renewable Oxygenate Rule were not 
     covered by the Reg-Neg agreement.
       Does not alter the emission performance standards or other 
     provisions for the RFG program, which was based on Reg-Neg.
       The renewable oxygenate requirement was promulgated as a 
     supplement to the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program.


        shoulder season concerns; ozone violations in new jersey

       RFG program requires VOC-controlled fuel at the terminal 
     from May 1-September 15; refiners will be shipping such fuel 
     as early as March 1.
       VOC controlled gasoline is thus expected to be utilized 
     during most or all of the shoulder season months of concern 
     in the Northeast.
       Impacts of renewable oxygenate rule on VOC emissions during 
     the shoulder season are thus, not likely to be a problem in 
     the Northeast.
       States already have authority to control fuel RVP and/or 
     ethanol content; many have standards in place.
       Furthermore, EPA included provisions in the final ROR by 
     which states can petition EPA to extend the period during 
     which ethanol cannot be blended for credit toward the 
     renewable oxygenate requirement. This should give states 
     complete assurance that the environmental benefit of the RFG 
     program will be realized.


        increase in emissions of carbon monoxide (co) in winter

       EPA's MOBILE5a does show a small effect of RVP on CO 
     emissions above 45 degrees Fahrenheit.
       Thus, only effect on CO emissions is potentially small 
     increase on winter days with temperatures above 45 degrees 
     Fahrenheit; the days with the least concern of CO 
     exceedances.
       In any event, the higher oxygen levels from the 
     reformulated gasoline program and the use of renewable 
     oxygenates result in large reductions in carbon monoxide 
     emissions.


                    increased emissions of nox

       Rule does not alter the NOx performance standards 
     under the RFG program.
       Hence, no increase in NOx emissions will result.


                            economic impacts

       EPA does not believe this rule will increase the price of 
     reformulated gasoline.
       EPA has included averaging, trading, and a program phase-in 
     to avoid any short term shortages and price increases.


                             energy impacts

       Program will have fossil energy benefits.
       Promulgated to be consistent with Congressional and 
     Executive Branch efforts (past and present) to promote the 
     use of renewables.
                                  ____

         Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, National Wildlife 
           Federation, Environmental Working Group, Natural 
           Resources Defense Council,
                                                    July 21, 1994.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate considers the VA-HUD-
     Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY95, we ask 
     that you oppose all new policy amendments affecting the 
     environment. We take this position regardless of the 
     substantive merits of such amendments, which we beleive are 
     not the issue in this case.
       Subcommittee Chair Barbara Mikulski and the members of the 
     Subcommittee have reported a bill which focuses on the 
     funding allocations which are the primary purpose of 
     appropriations bills. While it is entirely appropriate to 
     have a lively floor debate about those funding choices, we 
     oppose any new proposal to encumber this bill with amendments 
     which are legislation or limitations restricting specific 
     environmental policies. Whatever the merits of any such 
     proposals, we believe they would be more appropriately 
     pursued through authorizing bills, regulatory procedures or 
     the courts.
       We recognize that Congress has a right and a responsibility 
     to set environmental policies when necessary. However, floor 
     amendments to the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations 
     bill should not be the tool of first resort. We oppose any 
     floor amendments on takings, risk, cost/benefit and unfunded 
     mandates. Consistent with our general opposition on 
     procedural grounds to new policy floor amendments, we oppose 
     the Johnston amendment to prevent the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from implementing the ethanol rule. We 
     understand that a lawsuit has been filed on this matter, 
     which we believe should be decided through regulatory and 
     legal means.
       We make no pretense that the appropriations process is 
     procedurally pure, and believe that each bill should be 
     handled on a case-by-case basis. In the case of this bill, we 
     draw the line on the bill as reported, and urge you to oppose 
     all new environmental policy amendments offered on the floor.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph De Gennaro,
       Director, Appropriations Project, Friends of the Earth.
     David Hawkins,
       Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.
     A. Blakeman Early,
       Washington Director, Envir. Quality Program, Sierra Club.
     Sharon Newsome,
       Vice President, Resources Conservation Dept., National 
     Wildlife Federation.
     David Dickson,
       Senior Analyst, Environmental Working Group.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there has been so much smog put out by the 
proponents of the Johnston amendment, it is hard to know where to 
begin.
  I thank all colleagues who have spoken before me, who laid to rest 
these myths that have been propounded by the proponents of the Johnston 
amendment.
  Let me just summarize if I might.
  First, the myth of increased cost to consumers and for subsidies. EPA 
has said that the renewable oxygenate rule will add only two-hundredths 
to two-tenths of 1 cent per gallon of gasoline--not the 7 cents a 
gallon that we heard from the Senator from New Jersey--two-hundredths 
to two-tenths of 1 cent per gallon.
  The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] has been a great leader 
on this issue since the Clean Air Act, and he points out that in 1 year 
alone subsidies to fossile fuels were $21 billion and the subsidies to 
ethanol were $879 million.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an 
article which appeared in the Washington Post this Sunday, ``Oil Slick: 
Profits Abroad and Poison at Home.'' It talks about how EPA estimates 
the cost of cleaning up ground water contaminated by petroleum will run 
about $790 million a year.
  Who is going to pay it?
  The cost of plugging 22,500 abandoned wells, $300 million.
  Who is going to pay it?
  If you think the oil company is going to pay it, you are living in 
dreamland. We are going to have to pay those bills. I think this 
editorial points it out.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 31, 1994]

              Oil Slick: Profits Abroad and Poison at Home


           big petroleum ships out, leaving behind a big mess

                            (By Jack Doyle)

       For the last five years the U.S. oil industry has been 
     spending more of its production dollars abroad than it has at 
     home. Companies such as Amoco, Chevron and Phillips are now 
     earmarking 60 to 75 percent of their exploration and 
     production budgets for operations abroad. Meanwhile, at home 
     the oil companies have been selling off production fields, 
     shutting down refineries and laying off workers. More than 
     500,000 oil jobs have been cut since 1982, at lest 130 oil 
     refineries have closed and an estimated $20 billion worth of 
     oil property will come on the market in the next five years.
       As Big Oil heads abroad, it is leaving behind a giant oil 
     mess, the cost of which is becoming more apparent every day:
       The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the cost of 
     cleaning up groundwater contaminated by petroleum will run 
     about $790 million a year.
       The cost of plugging 22,500 abandoned wells on public lands 
     will exceed $300 million, according to the inspector general 
     of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
       Texas auditors estimate the cost of cleaning up leaking 
     underground storage tanks in the state will be about $2.5 
     billion and could take 38 years at current funding levels.
       New York officials say well-plugging liability in their 
     state is between $35 million and $100 million.
       Oil, it is often forgotten, is a toxic substance, 
     containing three dangerous chemicals: benezene, toluene and 
     xylene. Benzene is a known human carcinogen and chronic 
     exposure can cause leukemia. Toluene can cause mutations in 
     living cells and can damage a developing fetus. It can also 
     damage the liver, kidney, brain and bone marrow. Chronic 
     exposure to xylene may damage the liver, kidneys, skin, eyes 
     and bone marrow as well as developing fetuses. Citizens 
     living near gas stations, storage terminals and refineries--
     as well as workers--are especially at risk, often exposed to 
     higher levels of petroleum emissions and pollutants.
       The problem, in part, is a leaky infrastructure. America's 
     vast and sprawling oil empire--some 650,000 wells, 220,000 
     miles of pipelines, 2,500 marketing terminals, 700,000 above-
     ground storage tanks, 200 refineries and more--is aging and 
     in disrepair. Oil, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel and petro-
     chemicals are leaking out of the system in supertanker 
     proportions. Every year, in fact, the energy equivalent of at 
     least 1,000 Exxon Valdez oil spills, roughly 11 billion 
     gallons, is leaked, spilled, evaporated, thrown out, used 
     inefficiently or otherwise dissipated somewhere in the U.S. 
     oil system.
       According to the American Petroleum Institute, floating 
     gasoline or other leaked hydrocarbon is found in groundwater 
     beneath 357 oil facilities in the United States. Near 
     Charlotte, N.C., residents living near a gasoline tank farm 
     where 17 wells have been contaminated have a leukemia rate 
     double that of normal. In Newell, W. Va., a foot of petroleum 
     has been found on groundwater beneath a Quaker State 
     refinery. In California, massive leaks in 28 separate 
     locations have been found beneath a Unocal oil field where a 
     petroleum thinner used to recover heavy crude has leaked out 
     of pipes and storage tanks over the last 40 years.
       The investment--or disinvestment--policies of the major oil 
     companies are no small part of the leaky infrastructure 
     problem. During the go-go 1980s, capital goods replacement 
     and plant maintenance were not top priorities in the oil 
     industry. On Wall Street, merger mania was the rule of the 
     day, and Big Oil went prospecting. Chevron bought Gulf, Mobil 
     bagged Superior, and Texaco went after Getty. Exxon bought up 
     billions of dollars worth of its own stock. Unocal and 
     Phillips borrowed heavily to defend themselves from corporate 
     raiders. Enormous debt piled up, and in 1986 the collapse of 
     oil prices made matters worse.
       Soon, the debt service and profit pressures pushed 
     management to cost-cutting and ``restructuring.'' Seasoned 
     employees were let go. Exxon alone cut 40,000 during the 
     1980s. Untrained, unskilled and less expensive contract 
     workers were used to fill the gaps. Debt was paid down, 
     gasoline was refined and the petrochemicals kept coming--but 
     not without a price.
       Between 1983 and 1992, fires and explosions at U.S. oil 
     refineries and petrochemical plants killed more than 80 
     workers, injured 900 and caused thousands to be evacuated 
     from nearby communities. The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers 
     Union charged that many of the accidents were ``linked [to] 
     drastic reductions in the resources devoted to plant 
     maintenance.'' Shell and Phillips, among other companies, 
     were cited by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration for inadequate maintenance in fatal explosions 
     during 1988-1989. After Exxon's string of spills and refinery 
     mishaps in 1998-90, even Wall Street began to wonder if the 
     company's restructuring hadn't gone too far.
       Meanwhile, major U.S. oil companies have been shutting down 
     or selling off old U.S. oil properties. Last year, Mobil 
     closed 10 product storage terminals, sold four pipeline 
     systems and cut its U.S. marine fleet by one-third. Exxon has 
     sold $1.1 billion worth of U.S. assets in the last two years.
       Chevron is selling off what it calls ``marginal'' oil and 
     gas properties, hundreds of which were acquired in the 1984 
     takeover of Gulf Oil. In all, some 1,200 oil and gas 
     properties are planned to be sold by 1995--properties that 
     one senior Chevron official called ``garbage.'' Chevron is 
     also selling one-third of its U.S. refining capacity and more 
     than 800 gas stations, using the proceeds to help pay for its 
     overseas operations, such as its joint venture with 
     Kazakhstan. Booming oil growth is already raging in many 
     developing economies and is expected to pick up even more by 
     the year 2000.
       Back home, however, U.S. oilmen are quick to blame 
     environmental regulations as the reason they are shutting 
     down and heading abroad. True, environmental regulations are 
     less stringent abroad--in fact, nonexistent in some 
     countries. But should that become the global standard? In the 
     United States, oil and gas interests already have specific 
     exemptions or exclusions in at least nine federal 
     environmental laws. The Superfund law mandating cleanup of 
     toxic wastes, for example, does not cover petroleum. These 
     exclusions--many obtained in the 1970s--have made possible 
     what amounts to two decades of unregulated activity and toxic 
     pollution. The American people are now paying dearly for this 
     lack of regulation in expensive cleanups and rising public 
     health costs.
       Yet, as Big Oil heads abroad, American taxpayers are 
     helping them go. In Russia, U.S. oil companies are receiving 
     U.S. aid to produce oil. In September, the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corp. (OPIC), a federal agency, approved loan 
     guarantees and insurance worth $28 million to Texaco. The 
     company will restore production at 150 idle oil wells in the 
     Sutormin fields of Western Siberia. Last May, Conoco received 
     aid from OPIC for a smaller project.
       Texaco and all these other companies have on line projects 
     that will cost multibillion dollars,'' explained an OPIC 
     spokesman. ``The administration has decided it's important 
     for the U.S. to provide assistance to U.S. companies to help 
     the former Soviet Union become a developed economy.''
       Meanwhile, in the United States, pipelines are leaking, 
     tank farms are seeping and two-thirds of the oil ever 
     discovered here is still in the ground. In fact, without even 
     considering oil shale or tar sands, there is more oil to be 
     extracted and discovered in the domestic U.S. onshore--more 
     than twice as much under some scenarios of price and 
     technology--than there is in the entire federal U.S. offshore 
     and Alaskan regions combined. And fixing the leaks and 
     capturing the inefficiencies in the U.S. oil system today 
     would exceed the energy equivalent of Australia's annual 
     petroleum consumption--about 263 million barrels.
       An ``oil boom'' is possible in America, only this time the 
     dollars must be invested in efficiency, new technology, 
     environmental protection and worker training.
       On one level, the oil industry is a very sophisticated 
     technological player. Amazing feats of production are 
     demonstrated daily almost anywhere in the world. Offshore oil 
     platforms are engineering and technological marvels. Yet when 
     it comes to efficiency and pollution prevention, the oil 
     industry is laggard in its technologies.
       Some industrial hazard analysts, such as Nicholas Ashford 
     at MIT, point out that existing accident prevention systems 
     are grounded in ``secondary prevention''--measures that 
     reduce the probability of accidents but do not really change 
     the inherent risks associated with those technologies or 
     processes. Ashford and others suggest that the industry 
     should move to a new level of safety and plant design--known 
     as ``primary prevention'' or ``inherently safe technology,'' 
     also applicable to the prevention of leaks, spills and 
     emissions.
       A few industry leaders have discovered that the necessary 
     changes need not be all that earthshaking and can have 
     multiple benefits.
       ``[W]e set out to improve stationary combustion safety at 
     our refineries,'' reported British Petroleum's James Ross in 
     a 1991 speech to petroleum analysts in Toronto. ``The 
     solution was to develop a new burner. This new burner not 
     only increased safety, it also reduced nitrogen dioxide and 
     particulate emissions--and it provided a material improvement 
     in efficiency. We now also provide that technology to our 
     customers.''
       Certainly in America--which now purports to lead the world 
     in stabilizing greenhouse gases--oil profigacy and oil waste 
     must end in all forms, especially within the oil industry 
     itself.
       But how does this process begin?
       President Clinton should publicly challenge the oil 
     industry to clean up its waste, repair the infrastructure and 
     improve operating efficiencies capable of ``backing out'' 
     millions of barrels of imported oil--now at record levels.
       Congress should live up to its regulatory responsibilities 
     and repeal the oil and gas exemptions found throughout the 
     nation's environmental laws. Tax writers should abolish the 
     write-off allowed oil companies for expensing oil spill 
     cleanups and property damage. Double hulls should be required 
     on the nation's 30,000 oil barges. Oil pipelines should have 
     automatic shut-off values and improved leak-detection 
     systems. And aboveground storage tanks should have double 
     bottons.
       As long as oil must be used--and the prospect of global 
     climate change makes urgent the need to develop non-fossil 
     alternatives--oil producers and oil refiners must be held to 
     a higher standard of efficiency: no waste, no pollution, no 
     endangerment. The petroleum system, in transition to whatever 
     comes next, must perform to a new level of operational and 
     environmental integrity. The free ride for oil should be free 
     no more.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, clearly, the costs of the renewable 
oxygenate rule are minimal. The benefits are monumental. To those who 
said they would not want to spend two-tenths of 1 cent, I say if cost 
is the only concern, maybe we ought to take catalytic converters off 
cars. They costs more. We could save that money. Why not put lead back 
in gasoline? That is the cheap way if you want to go that route of 
cutting cost.
  No. The people of this country want cleaner air and domestically 
produced fuels.
  The other myth is it takes more energy to produce ethanol than we get 
out of it. I heard that six times today. It simply is not true, as this 
chart points out. This chart shows the energy we get out for the fossil 
energy put in.
  As you can see, for methanol, for every 100 Btu's to make methanol, 
you get 55 Btu's back. For every 100 Btu's to make gasoline you get 74 
Btu's back. For each 100 Btu's used to make ethanol see what you get--
118 Btu's out of it. That is the fact. It is not myth. It is fact. 
There are other data, maybe 20 years old, based on outdated production 
practices, but these are the facts today.
  Now, one of the things we want to do with this rule is to move into 
the future. So we have another chart. This chart again shows methanol, 
gasoline, ethanol. You get 1.18 units of energy back for every unit you 
put into producing ethanol from corn grain. When we go to making 
ethanol from the total corn plants we get even more energy back, 1.90 
units for each unit put in. When we go to making ethanol from 
switchgrass, for every one unit in we get 18.80 units out.
  This chart shows the future, and that is where we are going. Yet the 
Johnston amendment would choke this bright future off in its infancy so 
we could not get to this day when we can use switchgrass, where for 
every 100 Btu we get 1,880 Btu's out of it. The Johnston amendment 
would choke this promising future for renewable energy off in its 
infancy.
  Information Resources Inc. estimated that if we passed the Johnston 
amendment the imported MTBE--in 1995 alone, next year, will go up by 75 
percent. That is money out of this country going to Saudi Arabia.
  Next myth. Somehow this violates the regulatory negotiation agreement 
for the reformulated gasoline program. Mr. President, this rule 
complies with the reg-neg agreement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record at this 
point a letter from the EPA to Senator Daschle pointing out that this 
rule complies fully with the reg-neg process.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I understand a question has come up 
     as to whether the Environmental Protection Agency's renewable 
     fuels rule violates the reformulated gasoline regulatory 
     negotiations agreement. Since the provisions of the renewable 
     fuels rule were not covered by the negotiated agreement, the 
     renewable fuels rule in no way violates that agreement. It 
     does add to the program outlined in that agreement.
       Furthermore, the renewable fuels rule does not violate the 
     principle of fuel neutrality. Any fuel made from renewables 
     (including for example methanol produced from landfill gases) 
     would qualify. The negotiated agreement did not address fuel 
     neutrality in the context of renewable vs. nonrenewable 
     oxygenates.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Richard D. Wilson,
                               Director, Office of Mobile Sources.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the parties accept the reg-neg agreement 
and the renewable oxygenate rule supports that.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 55 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, think about the Bell Telephone Companies 
and the monopoly they had. We had to break it up to provide 
competition. When we did, we saved the taxpayers money. We got new 
instruments out there, new telephones and services at lower costs.
  The Johnston amendment would provide for methanol and MTBE the same 
kind of monopoly. What we are asking for is competition. We ask to have 
a competitive atmosphere out there in the reformulated gasoline market, 
to have cleaner air, reduced greenhouse emissions, reduced reliance on 
imported fuels.
  I ask my colleagues to reject the myth, cut through the smog, support 
real competition, domestic jobs, clean fuel, clean air. Vote for 
America. Vote for American jobs. Defeat the amendment by the Senator 
from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 30 seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the 
time.
  Mr. President, from time to time, we have an amendment on the floor 
of this Senate which I call the ``buzzard coming home to roost'' 
amendment. That is an amendment which sounds good when you are talking 
about it or a proposal that sounds good when you are talking about it 
but which, if enacted, comes back to haunt you.
  I remember very well the catastrophic health plan that did that. I 
could quote several examples.
  Mr. President, if this rule of EPA goes into effect, these buzzards 
are coming home to roost in terms of higher consumer prices, in terms 
of higher gasoline prices from 2 to 6 cents per gallon in 30 percent of 
the markets concerned, in terms of the budget which, according to CBO, 
is going to cost $250 million. According to the Joint Tax Committee it 
is going to cost over $\1/2\ billion to the Highway Users Fund, which 
impacts each State in the Nation, as I have stated.
  Mr. President, I have put into the Record quotations from the EPA 
from their own mouth, from their own studies, which indicate this does 
not reduce imports, it does not clean the quality of the air. All it 
does is cost consumers, and it costs the price of gasoline, it costs 
the Highway Trust Fund and it costs the budget.
  Mr. President, there is already $\1/2\ billion a year in subsidy for 
the ethanol market, and that is enough. Vote against tabling this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time controlled by the Senator from 
Louisiana has expired. All time has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the substance of the Johnston amendment 
is clearly a central issue at the heart of the Clean Air Act. While 
drafted as a limitation on funds, it is more appropriately considered 
as legislating on appropriations.
  I am concerned as the manager of the bill that, if the amendment is 
adopted, it would seriously delay the enactment of this bill. It is 
enormously controversial. I do not want to delay the enactment of this 
bill, the vital things. And the VA-HUD appropriations meet compelling 
human needs--veterans' health care, housing for the homeless, emergency 
relief.
  Therefore, Mr. President, as the manager of the bill and for 
procedural reasons, I move to table the Johnston amendment and urge my 
colleagues to join me in that.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2426 offered by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. 
Johnston].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bond
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Conrad
     Craig
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Helms
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--50

     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford
  The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 50 and the nays are 
50. The Senate being equally divided, the Vice President votes in the 
affirmative, and the motion to table the Johnston amendment No. 2446 is 
agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________