[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 11, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5047-S5050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. 
        Bryan):
  S. 1003. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
increased tax incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel and 
electric vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


              the alternative fuels promotion act of 1999

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with my 
colleagues Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan the Alternative Fuels 
Promotion Act. This is an important bipartisan piece of legislation 
providing tax incentives to help stimulate the still fledgling 
alternative fuel vehicle industry. It creates a $0.50 per gasoline 
equivalent gallon tax credit for natural gas, methanol, propane and 
hydrogen, thus almost leveling the tax treatment for all alternative 
fuels. The bill also contains provisions for extending the electric 
vehicle tax credit and augmenting it to encourage advanced technology 
vehicles. It also expands the existing tax deduction for alternative 
fuel fueling infrastructure to include the cost of installation. 
Finally, the bill gives states the authority to allow single occupant 
alternative fueled vehicles on high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.
  I introduce this bill today because I believe that it is time for the 
next automobile revolution.
  I say revolution because as Webster's tells us, the word can mean ``a 
fundamental change in the way of thinking about something.''
  One compelling argument for pursuing fundamental change when it comes 
to automobiles is the fact that we still need to reduce this nation's 
dependence on imported oil, for obvious reasons. After all, Saddam 
Hussein didn't invade Kuwait to increase his supply of sand. We are at 
an historic high in our dependence on imported oil. Currently, we 
import approximately one half of the oil consumed in this nation. 
According to the Energy Information Administration, that level is 
expected to increase to more than sixty percent within the next decade, 
unless we do something dramatic to reverse the current trend. Even more 
foreboding is the fact that most of the oil we import is from the 
Middle East. It makes no sense for us to stand idly by as this volatile 
region of the world increases its potential stranglehold over the 
world's economy.
  It is also critical that we reduce the transportation sector's 
negative impact on air quality. We are in the midst of an alarming 
increase in reported asthma and other respiratory diseases. This 
problem is esepcially acute among children and senior citizens. While 
the automobile industry has made great strides in reducing emissions 
from cars and trucks, the improvement has been largely offset by the 
dramatically increasing number of cars, sport utility vehicles and 
trucks on the road and the increasing number of miles these vehicles 
are driven each year. Clearly, doing something to cut air pollution and 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example, requires enormous change 
in transportation.
  The options for bringing about change in the transportation sector 
are limited. We can pursue punitive new taxes, mandates, or 
regulations. This approach, I believe, would result in job losses and 
economic stagnation, situations that are not acceptable to either the 
American people or the Congress. I believe the best way to bring about 
the change we need is to provide incentives--to manufacturers to 
develop and sell clean technology--and to consumers to buy and use that 
technology.

  The domestic automobile manufacturers have been developing a full 
menu of clean, efficient vehicles for the 21st century. And unlike 
before, these vehicles are much closer to their gasoline-powered 
counterparts in terms of performance, safety, comfort, and cost. Just 
recently, two of our biggest automobile manufacturers unveiled their 
latest fuel-cell-powered vehicles--the alternative fuel vehicle 
considered by many to be the car of the 21st century. Much of the 
technology incorporated into such advanced transportation 
technologies--hybrids, electric vehicles with advanced batteries, fuel 
cell vehicles as well as bi-fuel and flex-fuel vehicles--are a direct 
result of the work government and industry have done together, in full 
partnership, through programs like the United States Advanced Battery 
Consortium and the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
  Perhaps most exciting is that some of these ``cars of the future'' 
are available today. Electric vehicles are being sold, albeit in small 
numbers, to fleets nationwide, and to select target markets in 
California and Arizona. Also, most major automakers have alternative 
fuel vehicles available for either fleet or private purchase.
  And there is encouraging news on the infrastructure front as well. 
Alternative fuel providers and electric utilities throughout the 
country are putting the infrastructure in place to support alternative 
fuel and electric vehicles in operation. By the end of 1998, nearly 300 
public charging sites with more than 600 chargers, as well as hundreds 
of home chargers, and a number of fleet installations, were established 
throughout California and Arizona. We need more of this to happen 
nationally. There are also more than 110 methanol stations nationwide 
supporting alternative and flex fuel vehicles. Also, compressed natural 
gas and other natural gas-based fuels are developing infrastructure as 
well. For example, in my state of West Virginia alone there are over 40 
compressed natural gas fueling stations.
  I think this is all evidence that we have indeed initiated an 
automotive revolution. Unfortunately, the market hasn't developed as 
quickly as we thought it would when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 with such high hopes. And perhaps we were too optimistic about 
what would be required by both government and industry to build a 
sustainable market for the technology.
  So, what can we do to speed things up? How can we make sure there are 
more vehicles available, get more people to buy them, and develop the 
infrastructure to sustain them?
  First, as I mentioned earlier, the alternative fuel and electric 
vehicle markets started more slowly than I think many of us expected. 
Therefore, we need to extend the phase-out dates of current tax 
credits. This would continue to help us ``jumpstart'' the market for 
electric vehicles, and lay out a longer-term incentive policy. Also, I 
feel that hard work and progress should be encouraged. Electric 
vehicles with extended range capability are the result of additional 
investments in research and technology. This behavior needs to be 
rewarded.
  Second, there needs to be more support for the development of an 
effective alternative fuel fueling infrastructure. For too long, we 
been caught in a `chicken and egg' cycle, with the infrastructure not 
available to support alternative fuel vehicles, and consumers not 
interested in the vehicles because there's not support infrastructure. 
We need to break this cycle by creating better tax incentives to help 
develop alternative fuel infrastructure. The current tax deductions for 
capitol equipment is not sufficient since a large portion of the 
overall cost may be associated with the actual cost of installation.

  Finally, we must make alternative fuels, like natural gas, methanol, 
propane and hydrogen, economically attractive to producers, 
distributors,

[[Page S5048]]

marketers and buyers. If consumers see affordable new fuels available 
at their local fueling stations, they will be much more likely to 
actually use an alternative fuel vehicle. Tax incentives have 
traditionally been very effective in encouraging consumers to try new 
technology. While changing consumer's behavior is not easy, I am 
confident that if people begin to see that alternative fuels are 
available and affordable, they will soon begin to use them. Without the 
economic drive at every link in the fuel chain any alternative fuel 
effort will not succeed.
  This is why today I along with my colleagues are introducing the 
Alternative Fuels Promotion Act.
  This bill contains provisions for extending the $4,000 tax credit for 
electric vehicles until 2010. It also grants an additional $5,000 tax 
credit for electric vehicles that meet a 100 mile range requirement. 
These provisions will help electric vehicle commercialization and 
research to move forward at a faster pace, and will mean that more 
people will be able to buy electric vehicles.
  However, few people will buy electric vehicles and other 
alternatively fueled vehicles if there is nowhere to refuel them. I 
want to encourage the development of these stations. Therefore, my bill 
expands the current tax deduction for alternative fuel fueling capital 
equipment to include the cost of installation. This will allow more 
infrastructure for electric and alternative fuel vehicles to be 
installed and used.
  The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act also makes clean-burning 
alternative fuels economically attractive. The bill provides a $0.50 
per gasoline equivalent gallon tax credit to the seller of compressed 
natural gas, liquefied natural gas, methanol, propane or hydrogen. This 
will allow these non-petroleum fuels to become more economically 
favorable to the consumer through lower prices at the pump. It also 
places these fuels on tax parity with other alternatives. By giving the 
tax credit to the seller of the fuel, it reduces the paperwork burden 
on the individual consumer, and allows for easier dispersal of the 
credit throughout the production/delivery/marketing chain so that all 
parties are interested in increasing the consumption of alternative 
fuels.
  Finally, the Alternative Fuel Promotion Act gives states the ability 
to decide if they want to allow single occupant alternative fuel and 
electric vehicles in HOV lanes. This is, I feel, a strong incentive 
that states should be allowed, but not required, to give to owners of 
these special vehicles.
  We know that when national policy works in support of the energies 
and potential of the private sector, far more progress can be made at a 
far faster rate. The private sector is leading the way in developing 
alternatives fuel vehicle technology. We need to provide consumers with 
a strong financial incentive to use this technology. Certainly, our 
continued dependence on foreign oil and the contribution of 
conventionally powered vehicles to air pollution should drive us to 
try. In my case, I see exciting prospects for new uses of West 
Virginia's natural resources and other economic benefits for my state--
along with other states. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill 
and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1003

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Alternative Fuels Promotion 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Senate finds the following:
       (1)(A) Since 1994, the United States has imported over half 
     its oil.
       (B) Without efforts to mitigate this dependence on foreign 
     oil, the percentage of oil imported is expected to grow to 
     all-time highs.
       (C) This reliance on foreign oil presents a national 
     security risk, which Congress should address through policy 
     changes designed to increase the use of domestically-
     available alternative transportation fuels.
       (2)(A) The importing of a majority of the oil used in the 
     United States contributes negatively to the balance of trade 
     of the United States.
       (B) Assuring the Nation's economic security demands the 
     development and promotion of domestically-available 
     alternative transportation fuels.
       (3)(A) The reliance on oil as a transportation fuel has 
     numerous negative environmental consequences, including 
     increasing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
       (B) Developing alternative transportation fuels will help 
     address these environmental impacts by reducing emissions.
       (4) In order to encourage installation of alternative 
     fueling infrastructure, and make alternative fuels 
     economically favorable to the producer, distributor, 
     marketer, and consumer, tax credits provided at the point of 
     distribution into an alternative fuel vehicle are necessary.
       (5)(A) In the short-term, United States alternative fuel 
     policy must be made fuel neutral.
       (B) Fuel neutrality will foster private innovation and 
     commercialization using the most technologically feasible and 
     economic fuels available.
       (C) This will allow market forces to decide the alternative 
     fuel winners and losers.
       (6)(A) Tax credits which have been in place have led to 
     increases in the quantity and quality of alternative fuel 
     technology available today.
       (B) Extending these credits is an efficient means of 
     promoting alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fueling 
     infrastructures.
       (7)(A) The Federal fleet is one of the best customers for 
     alternative fuel vehicles due to its combination of large 
     purchasing power, tight record keeping, geographic diversity, 
     and high fuel usage.
       (B) For these reasons, the National Energy Policy Act of 
     1991 required Federal fleets to purchase certain numbers of 
     alternatively-fueled vehicles.
       (C) In most cases, these requirements have not been met.
       (D) Efforts must be made to ensure that all Federal 
     agencies comply with Federal fleet purchase requirement laws 
     and executive orders.
                        TITLE I--TAX INCENTIVES

     SEC. 101. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

       (a) Increased Credit for Vehicles Which Meet Certain Range 
     Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 30(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to allowance of credit) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 10 percent of the cost of any qualified electric 
     vehicle placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable 
     year, plus
       ``(B) in the case of any such vehicle also meeting the 
     requirement described in paragraph (2), $5,000.
       ``(2) Range requirement.--The requirement described in this 
     paragraph is a driving range of at least 100 miles--
       ``(A) on a single charge of the vehicle's rechargeable 
     batteries, fuel cells, or other portable source of electrical 
     current, and
       ``(B) measured pursuant to the urban dynamometer schedules 
     under appendix I to part 86 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 30(b)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(A)''.
       (b) Credit Extended Through 2010.--
       (1) In general.--Section 30(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by striking 
     ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 30(b)(2) of such Code 
     (relating to phaseout) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2002'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``2008'',
       (B) by striking ``2003'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``2009'', and
       (C) by striking ``2004'' in subparagraph (C) and inserting 
     ``2010''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION FOR COST OF INSTALLATION OF 
                   ALTERNATIVE FUELING STATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 179A(b)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 
     clean-fuel vehicle refueling property) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate cost which may be taken 
     into account under subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to 
     qualified clean-fuel vehicle refueling property placed in 
     service during the taxable year at a location shall not 
     exceed the sum of--
       ``(i) with respect to costs not described in clause (ii), 
     the excess (if any) of--

       ``(I) $100,000, over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of such costs taken into 
     account under subsection (a)(1)(B) by the taxpayer (or any 
     related person or predecessor) with respect to property 
     placed in service at such location for all preceding taxable 
     years, plus

       ``(ii) the lesser of--

       ``(I) the cost of the installation of such property, or
       ``(II) $30,000.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 103. CREDIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF CLEAN BURNING FUELS AS 
                   MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business related credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 40 the following:

[[Page S5049]]

     ``SEC. 40A. CREDIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF CLEAN BURNING FUELS AS 
                   MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the clean 
     burning fuel retail sales credit of any taxpayer for any 
     taxable year is 50 cents for each gasoline gallon equivalent 
     of clean burning fuel sold at retail by the taxpayer during 
     such year as a fuel to propel any qualified motor vehicle.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Clean burning fuel.--The term `clean burning fuel' 
     means natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural 
     gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, and any liquid at 
     least 85 percent of which consists of methanol.
       ``(2) Gasoline gallon equivalent.--The term `gasoline 
     gallon equivalent' means, with respect to any clean burning 
     fuel, the amount (determined by the Secretary) of such fuel 
     having a Btu content of 114,000.
       ``(3) Qualified motor vehicle.--The term `qualified motor 
     vehicle' means any motor vehicle (as defined in section 
     179A(e)) which meets any applicable Federal or State 
     emissions standards with respect to each fuel by which such 
     vehicle is designed to be propelled.
       ``(4) Sold at retail.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `sold at retail' means the 
     sale, for a purpose other than resale, after manufacture, 
     production, or importation.
       ``(B) Use treated as sale.--If any person uses clean 
     burning fuel as a fuel to propel any qualified motor vehicle 
     (including any use after importation) before such fuel is 
     sold at retail, then such use shall be treated in the same 
     manner as if such fuel were sold at retail as a fuel to 
     propel such a vehicle by such person.
       ``(c) No Double Benefit.--The amount of the credit 
     determined under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the 
     amount of any deduction or credit allowable under this 
     chapter for fuel taken into account in computing the amount 
     of such credit.
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     fuel sold at retail after December 31, 2007.''.
       (b) Credit Treated as Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to current year 
     business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end 
     of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(13) the clean burning fuel retail sales credit 
     determined under section 40A(a).''.
       (c) Transitional Rule.--Section 39(d) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to transitional rules) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) No carryback of section 40A credit before effective 
     date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any 
     taxable year which is attributable to the clean burning fuel 
     retail sales credit determined under section 40A(a) may be 
     carried back to a taxable year ending before January 1, 
     1999.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 40 the following:

``Sec. 40A. Credit for retail sale of clean burning fuels as motor 
              vehicle fuel.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuel sold at retail after December 31, 1999, 
     in taxable years ending after such date.
                     TITLE II--PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES

     SEC. 201. EXCEPTION TO HOV PASSENGER REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES.

       Section 102(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``(unless, at the discretion of the State 
     highway department, the vehicle operates on, or is fueled by, 
     an alternative fuel (as defined in section 301 of Public Law 
     102-486 (42 U.S.C. 13211(2)))'' after ``required''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, together with my colleagues, 
Senators Rockefeller, Crapo, and Bryan. The legislation we introduce 
today will help to solve one of our Nation's most expensive problems--
air pollution.
  As air pollution was introduced at the beginning of this century, it 
is fitting that, at century's end, we should find solutions to this 
vexing problem.
  Automobiles are a major source of pollution in our urban areas. Past 
efforts to address this mobile-source pollution have been fraught with 
pitfalls; and, as a result, the effort to control automobile emissions 
has progressed in fits and starts. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act 
avoids past mistakes, leaving behind command-and-control mandates from 
Congress and providing market-based incentives for consumers and for 
much needed infrastructure development.
  Mr. President, as we speak, my State of Utah is engaged in a mammoth 
road construction project on Interstate 15. This freeway runs right 
through Salt Lake City and through three counties in Utah that have 
struggled to meet national clean air standards.
  It might suggest that we should not improve or repair highways. Could 
it be that the availability of convenient and efficient roadways is in 
part responsible for our emissions problem? I doubt it. While the 
Eisenhower vision of a vast nation connected by interstate highways may 
have encouraged more people to commute or vacation by car, the fact is 
that vehicular traffic is increasing almost everywhere. One-car 
families have become two-car and three-car families.
  I do not believe that more cars crowded onto old and inefficient 
highways is the answer. In fact, slow-moving traffic is part of the 
problem.
  According to a recent study by Utah's Division of Air Quality, on-
road vehicles account for 22 percent of coarse particulate matter in 
Utah. Particulate matter can be harmful to those already suffering from 
chronic respiratory or heart disease, influenza, or asthma. Automobiles 
also account for 34 percent of hydrocarbon and 52 percent of nitrogen 
oxide emissions in my state. These two pollutants react in sunlight to 
form ozone, which in turn reduces lung function in humans and hurts our 
resistance to colds and asthma. Ozone may also lead to premature aging 
of lung tissue. In Utah, vehicles account for a whopping 87 percent of 
carbon monoxide emissions. Carbon monoxide can be harmful to persons 
with heart, respiratory, or circulatory ailments.
  Mr. President, while Utah has made important strides in improving air 
quality, more vehicular miles are driven every year. If we are to have 
cleaner air, we must encourage low emission alternative fuels or 
electric power.
  The need for alternative fuels will dramatically increase as the 
Environmental Protection Agency continues to implement its new, 
stricter clean air standards. With the tighter standards, some of 
Utah's counties will, once again, face non-attainment. Under the Clean 
Air Act, the EPA can impose sanctions on a state's highway fund if it 
determines a state has not adequately implemented plans to attain air 
quality standards, a sanction which, as I have suggested, may actually 
be counterproductive.
  Nevertheless, non-attainment can be a costly enterprise, whether due 
to the loss of federal highway money or to the expensive measures taken 
to reach attainment. And, as I have suggested, may be 
counterproductive.
  By the EPA's own estimates, the annual cost of achieving the new 
ozone standard in 2010 will be about $9.6 billion. Additionally, the 
EPA puts the annual cost of achieving the PM 2.5 standard at $37 
billion, making for a combined total cost of $47 billion annually. Mr. 
President, our most recent census count estimated that there are 65 
million families in the U.S. So, by the EPA's own account, implementing 
the new air quality standards will cost about $723 per family every 
year.
  Wouldn't it be wise, Mr. President, to invest some of that money in 
the development of alternative fuels?
  Take natural gas as an example. Natural gas is one of the cleanest 
burning fuels available. Add to this, methanol, propane has a variety 
of options that would allow Americans to continue to drive their cars, 
while dramatically cutting back on air pollution.
  Mr. President, research has brought us a number of excellent options 
to replace our dependency on traditional gasoline powered autos. It 
appears that our last obstacle remains bringing these alternatives to 
the marketplace. Past efforts to do so have failed to produce the 
hoped-for results because they have been too heavy on mandates and too 
weak on incentives to car buyers and to improve infrastructure.
  Clearly, if consumers are to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles, 
two elements must be in place: first, the price for vehicles and their 
fuel must be right; second, the consumer must feel confident that the 
infrastructure is in place with refueling stations widely available.

  This is where the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act comes into play. 
With this legislation, we take important steps forward to meet these 
goal without mandates. The only requirement in this bill is that 
federal agencies submit an annual report on their use of alternative 
fuel vehicles in their fleets.

[[Page S5050]]

  The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act encourages customers to purchase 
alternative fuels through a tax credit. Congress has already given 
ethanol users a tax credit of 54 cents per gallon. When adjusted for 
its energy capacity, ethanol's gasoline-gallon equivalent credit equals 
82 cents. Our legislation levels the playing field by extending a 50-
cent gasoline-gallon equivalent tax credit for the other alternative 
fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, propane, methanol, and 
electricity.
  There currently exists a tax credit for the purchase of electric 
vehicles. Our bill would extend the life of that credit, giving a 
continued incentive for companies to develop this technology. The 
current tax credit equals 10 percent of the purchase price of the 
vehicle, up to $4,000. Our legislation would extend the sunset date for 
this credit to 2010 and give an additional $5,000 credit toward any 
electric vehicle with a range over 100 miles.
  Mr. President, consumers will never be interested in alternative fuel 
vehicles until a strong infrastructure is developed. Under current law, 
there is a $100,000 tax deduction for the capital costs of equipment at 
alternative fuel stations. This legislation extends that benefit to 
construction and installation costs at a new filling station. Often 
constructions costs outweigh capital costs as a barrier to the 
installation of new alternative fuel stations.
  These measures will jump start a movement already under way toward 
increased use of alternative fuel vehicles. In California and Arizona 
there are already about 300 public charging sites for electric 
vehicles. Utah has led the way in natural gas infrastructure. An owner 
of a natural gas vehicle can crisscross my state from Logan in the 
north to St. George in the south, and from Salt Lake to the eastern 
border finding filling stations all along the way. This is progress, 
but much more needs to be done.
  Mr. President, I believe the momentum is building in this nation for 
a leap forward in the use of alternative fuel vehicles. There is broad 
agreement that our approach with this legislation is the proper course 
to help promote this step. In a letter to me, Utah's Clean Cities 
Coalition signaled its support for this measure. I quote, ``We believe 
that for the people living in urban Utah now is a good time to take 
strong action to encourage Utahns to buy alternative, clean-burning 
vehicles. We ask that you support the 50-cent per gallon tax credit.''
  This bill has also gained the support of the Wasatch Clean Air 
Coalition in Utah. They stated, ``We believe this tax credit would have 
a strong positive impact on our local air quality by encouraging the 
use of alternative fuels, and increasing the portion of cars on our 
roads fueled by alternative fuels.''
  Finally, the American Lung Association has told me that, ``Motor 
vehicles are a major source of pollution along the Wasatch Front. While 
automobiles do run cleaner these days, and while alternative forms of 
transportation are being considered, more needs to be done to address 
the current and future sources of emissions and poor air quality. One 
reasonable strategy to cut down on the amount of pollutants in the air 
is to increase the use of clean fuel vehicles. Vehicles that run on 
natural gas, propane or electric simply are cleaner burning than those 
fueled by gasoline or diesel. . . . This legislation will encourage an 
increased number of clean fuel vehicles on the road, and clean air for 
years to come.''
  Mr. President, I think we all know that 50 years down the road, we 
will not still be using petroleum fueled vehicles to the same extent we 
do today. This legislation is an attempt to bring the benefits of 
cleaner air to our citizens sooner, to free our cities from expensive 
EPA regulations, and to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. This 
legislation enables us to tackle these problems with incentives, not 
mandates. I urge my colleagues to join us in this future-minded 
approach to cleaning our air.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Alternative Fuels 
Promotion Act, which is introduced today by Senators Rockefeller, 
Hatch, Bryan, and myself.
  There are many reasons for my support of the Alternative Fuels 
Promotion Act offered today, in the Senate. A number of those reasons 
may not be immediately evident, given that the merits of alternative 
fuels are most often spoken in terms of environmental protection. While 
there are significant environmental benefits that can be gained from 
this bill, there are also benefits to be obtained in national security, 
promotion of the domestic oil industry, the encouragement of business 
development and innovation, and increased options for the consumer.
  Over half of the oil consumed in the United States is produced 
overseas. Internal combustion vehicles, cars, and trucks, are the 
primary market for this cheap and readily available source of energy. 
We, as a nation, have become complacent in our assumption that this 
stream of easily obtainable fuel will flow forever. It is time for this 
assumption to be challenged. Most of us have viewed this as simply an 
economic issue: buy what is cheapest and most available. However, this 
source of fuel is vulnerable to interruption by foreign governments 
through changing attitudes toward the U.S., foreign policy or military 
conflict. The United States should take positive and sure steps toward 
developing domestically available alternative sources of fuel in order 
that our economy and accustomed way of life cannot be threatened by the 
whims and troubles of those outside of our borders.
  The flood of foreign oil into the U.S. has left the domestic oil 
industry fighting for its life. Our support for alternative fueled 
vehicles should not be interpreted as a challenge or competition to the 
domestic oil industry. In direct contrast, it recognizes the importance 
of that industry of our national security. Petroleum products and 
fuels, including gasoline, will be needed far into the future for the 
transportation requirements of individuals, mass transportation, and 
conveyance of goods. The development of alternative fuels that are 
plentiful in this country, in conjunction with support for our domestic 
oil industry, will provide us a level of economic national security 
that we have not experienced for most of this century. By our efforts 
to revive the U.S. oil industry and the development of alternative 
fuels and vehicles, we will not be held hostage by foreign governments 
in gas lines again.
  The number of innovative alternative fuel technologies is 
encouraging. This bill supports the further development of vehicles 
that are powered by electricity, fuel cells, methanol, and various 
forms of natural gas. Tax incentives are already in place for other 
technologies such as ethanol. Support for all promising alternative 
fuels is warranted in order to give consumers options for choosing 
those vehicles that will best serve their needs; whether a company 
requires a fleet of natural gas powered buses to transport their 
employees of work sites, or an individual's preference for an electric 
vehicle for in-town use to commute to work or run errands.
  The enactment of tax incentives for emerging technologies is the 
logical way to encourage the development of cost effective alternative 
fueled vehicles, without the federal government mandating a preference. 
Leveling the tax incentive playing field within the alternative fuel 
energy sector will encourage partnerships between traditional providers 
of transportation and fuel products, and new companies with promising 
innovations. Instead of fighting change, traditional industry providers 
will participate in it and benefit from it. Increased market demand for 
alternative fuel vehicle technologies will also provide an opportunity 
and an incentive for the federal government to place greater emphasis 
on research and development in this industry sector. The results of 
which can then be leveraged into the private market.
  While the environmental benefits of cleaner burning fuels are often 
the most talked about and often the most evident; we should not 
discount the benefits that can be gained by developing our nation's 
energy independence.
                                 ______