[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________