[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 28 (Wednesday, March 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1805-S1834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding for the Department of 
     Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology 
     transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Feinstein amendment No. 2989 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     provide regulatory oversight over energy trading markets.
       Levin amendment No. 2997 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     provide alternative provisions to better encourage increased 
     use of alternative fueled and hybrid vehicles.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
a.m. shall be for debate only relative to ethanol.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, for the next several minutes, 
I will speak about the renewable fuel standard as part of the energy 
bill. For more than an hour, perhaps closer to 2 hours, my colleagues 
and I will be talking about the importance of the renewable fuel 
standard as a part of the energy bill and as a part of our national 
defense, as well as our economy, and for the environment.
  In the early days of the automobile, Henry Ford believed at first 
that the best source of power for the automobile was with ethanol made 
from farm crops and other renewable materials. It is interesting to 
note, after a century of domination by oil, that we have now come 
perhaps full circle to recognizing there is a place for ethanol and 
renewable fuels as part of the fuel standard in order to power the 
automobiles that we continue to drive some 100 years later.
  Ultimately, the power of oil interests led to policies that made oil 
king, with depletion allowances, foreign tax credits, and naval convoys 
and armies dispatched to protect oilfields around the world. Of course, 
the direct or indirect control of oil remains an American economic, 
diplomatic, political, and military priority.
  While we have had, in fact, a petroleum age, it has ushered in many 
technological advances. The industrialized world's love affair with oil 
has not been without costs. Dependence on imported oil threatens our 
national and our energy security, our economy, our jobs, our farmers 
and ranchers, our industry and our environment. Public policy decisions 
and discussions have continued that began nearly a century ago, 
launching upon a path which led us to our current reliance on imported 
oil.
  Today we have a historic opportunity to begin the process of swinging 
back full circle, at least to some degree, in our national energy 
policy. The energy policy today embodied in this bill offers us a 
chance to realize the potential that Henry Ford saw even then, and that 
his successors managing Ford, GM, and Chrysler are making possible 
every time they produce an E-85 automobile capable of running on 85-
percent ethanol. More than 2 million of these so-called flexible fuel 
vehicles are on the road at this time.
  Additionally, essentially all automakers in the world produce cars 
that run well on blends of ethanol, up to 10 percent, as well as those 
that will run up to 85 percent. We have the cars. Now we need the fuel. 
This bill provides the means in order to get it.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2002 will boost biofuels and biorefinery 
concepts to realistically address oil import levels that have now 
surpassed the 56-percent mark, with ever higher levels ahead of us if 
we do not do something significant now to change the direction in which 
we have been heading.
  From the perspective of a Senator from a farm State, and a former 
two-time chair of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition, one of the most 
important aspects of this landmark energy bill is the establishment of 
a 2-billion-gallon renewable fuel standard in 2004 that gradually grows 
to 5 billion gallons by 2012. Even if this approximate tripling of the 
ethanol industry from today's levels represents less than 4 percent of 
the total projected U.S. motor fuels demand over the next decade, it is 
a critical beginning of national importance. Enactment of this RFS, 
along with other provisions in this bill that emphasize new sources of 
energy production from renewables such as wind power, as well as 
conservation to further reduce our dependence upon foreign sources of 
energy, will help us reverse this 100-year-old reliance on fossil 
fuels. It will not replace them, but it will help us reduce the amount 
of reliance.

  There is now a revolution driving American agriculture as surplus, 
low-value starch and oils are converted into high-value liquid fuels, 
with the proteins being fed locally so that American taxpayers save 
money. Rural communities are reinvigorated. High-value, high-quality 
finished products enter the export market and the Nation's energy 
security and environment are dramatically improved.
  The Senate energy bill represents a historic step away from business 
as usual in U.S. energy policy. Just as we cannot export ourselves out 
of an agricultural crisis, we also cannot drill ourselves out of our 
energy crisis. With the renewable fuel standards, it will no longer be 
a matter of whether or not there will be a biofuels industry to augment 
our oil and auto industries. Rather, it will be how fast can we advance 
these domestic renewable fuels? How do we enhance their environmental 
performance, reduce their costs, and advance the technology to include 
the conversion of all forms of clean biomass into biofuels, 
biochemicals, and biopower?
  I am unabashedly proud of what my home State of Nebraska has 
accomplished. The formation of the National Governors' Ethanol 
Coalition was one of the most important steps. Nebraska and several 
other Midwestern States created this coalition that now represents 26 
States and one U.S. territory, as well as Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and 
Sweden.
  Since its formation in 1991, the Governors' Ethanol Coalition has 
worked to expand national and international markets for biofuels. I 
might add that this Governors' Ethanol Coalition included the current 
and the previous Presidents of the United States when they were 
Governors of the State of Arkansas and the State of Texas. Within the 
State of Nebraska during the period of 1991 to 2001, seven ethanol

[[Page S1806]]

plants were constructed and several of these facilities were expanded 
more than once during the decade. I do not want to take full credit for 
that timeframe, but I want the record to reflect it happened during my 
watch.
  Specific benefits of this national ethanol program in Nebraska 
include more than $1.2 billion in new capital investment in ethanol 
processing plants, 1,005 permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities, and 
over 5,000 induced jobs directly related to plant construction, 
operation, and maintenance. The permanent jobs alone generate an annual 
payroll of $44 million. More than 210 million bushels of corn and grain 
sorghum are processed at the plants annually. Economists at Purdue 
University and the USDA estimate that the price of corn increases from 
9.9 cents to 10 cents per bushel for every 100 million bushels of new 
demand. Local price basis increases in Nebraska range from 5 cents to 
15 cents, quite a stimulus for agriculture in ethanol-producing areas.
  These economic benefits and others have increased each year during 
the past decade due to plant expansion, employment increases, and 
additional capital investment.

  If each State produces 10 percent of its own domestic renewable 
fuels, as Nebraska does, America will have turned the corner and that 
noose of oil import dependency and climate change will begin to fade 
away. In the world of renewable biomass, there are no wastes, just feed 
stocks for other production systems, without the fossil-based toxins 
blocking the next biological step.
  I ask my colleagues to take a new look at the opportunities offered 
by RFS and grasp the full potential of the biorefinery portions of this 
energy legislation. These provisions are urgently needed to increase 
our energy and our national security, create new basic industries and 
quality jobs, reduce the vulnerability of our energy supplies, enhance 
the environment, contribute to the stabilization of greenhouse gases, 
while improving America's economic performance. Everyone gains from 
this effort.
  This balanced and comprehensive piece of legislation is the end 
result of the dedication of so many of my colleagues. It was not always 
easy to foresee the day when biofuels and other renewable resources 
would be poised to be a major component of our national energy policy. 
The farsightedness of a few has directly led to the creation and wide 
acceptance of the bill before the Senate today.
  The oil production versus imports chart shows the domestic oil 
production peaked in 1970 and again in 1985 and has continued to drop. 
The oil imports on the graph are shown to have expanded from 1950 to 
the point where they are more than 10 million barrels per day, and the 
trend continues. We must, in fact, support the growth of our own 
industry in the domestic production of fuels to power our energy needs.
  Last summer, Senator Tim Johnson and my colleague from Nebraska, 
Senator Hagel, introduced legislation that dealt with this very issue. 
Their hand is felt throughout the bill. I congratulate them and thank 
them for their efforts. Senator Daschle's and Senator Lugar's tireless 
efforts created a bill with broad consensus, taking shape in the form 
we see today, the legislation before the Senate. They have taken an 
issue that could have been controversial and instead introduced a bill 
that provides a wide-reaching blueprint for future renewable energy 
goals. These provisions are a direct result of their leadership. I am 
honored to be a cosponsor of this bill.
  I personally take a moment to recognize and thank staff who have 
worked on this issue as well. They worked long hours to put the bill 
together. Their efforts are much appreciated. Eric Washburn from 
Senator Daschle's staff and the rest of the team are a real asset to 
Senator Daschle and have been a tremendous help to me personally 
throughout this process.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting new opportunities for the 
technologies that will put our fuels and our world transportation fuels 
on solid, sustainable, and environmentally enhancing ground. We owe it 
to our country now and to future generations to pass this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I yield time to the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for 10 minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. That will be fine.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his 
leadership on this issue. Where we come from, ethanol is a big deal. It 
is a big deal because we have a lot of corn growers, farmers who need 
to have a better price for their corn. They need increased demand for 
their sales in the United States and overseas, and we know the ethanol 
industry consumes about 1 out of every 6 acres of corn across America. 
So as we increase the demand for ethanol in America, we increase the 
demand for corn, raising the prices and helping our farmers to sustain 
their farm operations and to have less dependence on the Federal 
Government from year to year.
  This is a major breakthrough. I salute all those responsible for it: 
Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Ben Nelson of 
Nebraska, as well as all those on the Republican side of the aisle. 
What has happened for the first time in 20 years since I have been on 
Capitol Hill is that we finally have reached this moment where we have 
an agreement, an agreement between the ethanol producers--the corn 
growers, obviously--and the oil industry. This is a big breakthrough 
because this has been a pitched battle for two decades, with the oil 
companies doing everything they can to suppress ethanol production.
  In this bill, we have a consensus agreement that has been crafted by 
the leaders who brought the bill to the floor, and with that agreement 
we will triple the use of ethanol in the United States over the next 10 
years. In tripling it, it will not just help the economics of the farm 
bill, it will mean we are going to have cleaner air in America, a 
better environment for America in its cities and its towns, and less 
dependence on foreign oil. That, to me, is a positive at three 
different levels.
  I salute all those responsible for it: the Renewable Fuels 
Association, National Corn Growers, American Petroleum Industries, the 
American Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union, and so many others. This 
really makes a difference.
  As a result of this decision, we are going to see more ethanol 
blended with gasoline. It is going to mean the exhaust coming out of 
our tailpipes across America for years to come is going to be less of a 
threat to the families across America. When we face an epidemic of lung 
and respiratory disease such as asthma and other problems, it is 
essential we continue to move forward with the use of this clean-
burning fuel.
  I have been chairman of the House Alcohol Fuels Caucus and a member 
of the Senate Alcohol Fuels Caucus. I can tell you this is a great day. 
I salute all those who crafted this wonderful compromise which is going 
to really make a commitment.
  I think Senator Nelson alluded to what will happen. Now that there is 
some certainty this bill will be signed into law, you will have more 
and more ethanol production coming on line. And for my selfish reasons, 
for downstate Illinois, where our economy is struggling with high 
unemployment and where we have more ethanol produced than anywhere in 
America, we want to see plants springing up, not just in Illinois but 
in Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, South and North Dakota--wherever we can 
find the agricultural feed stock to produce ethanol. We have the 
potential of creating good-paying jobs and then to have the technology 
from its source near the usage point that can help our economy all 
across the Midwest.

  This is a terrific shot in the arm in terms of the economy of the 
Midwest, in terms of the environment of the Nation. I salute all those 
who worked so hard to make this a reality.
  The second half of my statement is not as positive or optimistic or 
hopeful, but I want to add it because I think it is essential that we 
keep this achievement in perspective with what we are about to do this 
morning in just 2 hours on the floor of the Senate.
  By every vote count that I have seen, we are about to reject any 
significant increase in fuel efficiency in automobiles and trucks 
across America as part of this energy bill. The special interests who 
have come to Capitol Hill

[[Page S1807]]

to fight off any improvement in fuel efficiency are about to score a 
big victory this morning. That is a sad commentary on the Senate and on 
our efforts to be honest in trying to find a way, at least, to move 
toward energy independence and energy security for America. It is a 
triumph for these special interests. It is a defeat for the American 
people. It is about to happen in just 2 hours on the floor of this 
Senate.
  The opponents of increasing fuel efficiency have no faith in the 
ability of America's creative genius to come up with better technology 
and better science so we can have more fuel-efficient vehicles. The 
opponents of this fuel efficiency standard have no faith in the 
American people. They stand in the Chamber and say: We wouldn't dare 
tell people they couldn't buy bigger and fatter SUVs year after year.
  I think more of the American people understand we are at war against 
terrorism; we are a nation at risk; we are dependent on foreign oil. 
These American families and businesses are ready to participate, roll 
up their sleeves and help America move toward energy security. To 
suggest we would not dare ask them to consider buying a different 
vehicle 5 or 10 years from now is an affront to the unity which America 
has shown since September 11.
  Finally, it is a reflection on this Senate, as well as the House of 
Representatives, for its failure to show leadership on this critical 
issue. In 1975, this Congress took a look at the average fuel economy 
of fleets across America at 14 miles per gallon, brought together the 
political courage despite the opposition of the Big Three in Detroit, 
and said in 10 years we are going to double fuel efficiency in vehicles 
across America from 14 to 27.5 miles a gallon.
  We were told by the Big Three: it is impossible; we can't do it. We 
will be selling vehicles people don't want to buy. They will be kiddy 
cars and go-carts--that is the only way to achieve it, and you will 
drive businesses overseas.
  They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. In over 10 years we 
doubled the fuel efficiency of vehicles across America. By 1985, we 
were at 27.5 miles per gallon. So what happened between 1985 and today? 
In terms of increasing fuel efficiency, absolutely nothing. Nothing has 
been done by Congress or by the industry in the United States to 
produce automobiles and trucks that are more fuel efficient.
  So we come today with a proposal that over the next 12 or 13 years we 
will increase fuel efficiency by 30 percent. It is going to be rejected 
on the floor of the Senate. That, to me, is shameful. It is shameful 
that we have reached the point where we have no faith in America's 
technology, no faith in the people of this country to stand behind 
energy security, and no faith in the ability of the Senate to show 
leadership at a time when this country expects us to do so.
  I can tell you, quite frankly, that the Senate will bow down to the 
special interests this morning so that America has to bow down to OPEC 
for decades to come.
  That is a sad commentary on the Senate and this energy bill.
  It is naive for the American people to believe we can truly have 
energy security and independence if we don't address the efficiency of 
the vehicles we drive. Approximately 40 percent of the oil we are 
bringing up today from underground is being used to fill our vehicles. 
By the year 2020, over 50 percent is going to be used for highway 
travel and for vehicles and trucks. If you do not address fuel 
efficiency, you are not dealing honestly with the question of America's 
energy future.
  I can't believe we are standing here today to witness this on the 
floor of the Senate. But by every vote count that I have seen, we are 
going to lose big. The special interests are going to come in and tell 
us there is no way they can design an engine for fuel efficiency. I 
don't believe it. Frankly, I am embarrassed by the fact that most of 
the good technology that is leading the way in fuel efficiency and 
emissions has come from overseas automakers. We are better than that. 
American is better than that.
  For the Senate to abandon any hope that we can develop this 
technology is a sad commentary on this view of what our potential is as 
a nation. For them to turn their backs on the fact that if we don't 
have better fuel efficiency we are going to continue to be independent 
on foreign oil for decades to come is, frankly, a tragic mistake.
  I sincerely hope that good numbers about renewable fuel standards 
will be part of this ultimate legislation. I hope even more that before 
the end of the morning hour we will see some courage in this Senate to 
stand up to the special interests, stand up to OPEC, and say we are 
truly going to move towards energy security in this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, it is my pleasure at this 
point to yield the floor to the distinguished senior Senator from the 
State of Nebraska, my colleague, Mr. Hagel. I welcome his support for 
ethanol. As a colleague, as a Nebraskan, and as Member of this body, I 
congratulate him and Senator Johnson on their support of this very 
important bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, I ask that I be given 10 minutes of time from the 
Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.
  I first acknowledge the statements of my friend and colleague from 
Nebraska, Senator Nelson. He has been a leader on renewable fuels for 
many years--long before he came to the Senate, when he served our State 
of Nebraska ably as its Governor for 8 years, and for his leadership 
over those years. He brings that leadership and experience to this body 
in regard to not only this issue but many others.
  I rise in support of the renewable fuels standard included in the 
underlying bill. This legislation is important if we are to increase 
the market share for renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, and 
biogas from landfills and feedlots.
  I, too, wish to recognize and thank other colleagues who have been 
very important to this debate over many years, especially Senators 
Grassley, Lugar, Daschle, Bond, and in particular, as Senator Nelson 
has stated, Senator Johnson, who has been a strong leader both during 
his tenure in the House and here in the Senate, and, of course, again, 
my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Nelson. 
  Also, those groups that represent many of the important interests of 
this country that were very involved in bolting together a compromise 
for this section of the energy bill, as Senator Durbin pointed out, 
should be recognized and thanked for their participation and their 
support in helping to develop this section of the bill.
  During a recent stop to the Midwest, President Bush proclaimed the 
promise of renewable fuels, saying,

       Renewable fuels are gentle on the environment, and they are 
     made in America so they cannot be threatened by any foreign 
     power. Ethanol and biofuels are fuels of the future for this 
     country.

  The President is right. Renewable fuels afford us the opportunity to 
develop energy, environmental and economic policies that work together. 
A renewable fuel standard would enhance our environment, strengthen 
national security, reduce our trade deficit, and decrease our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Today, less than 1 percent of America's transportation fuel comes 
from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use 
would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation 
fuel supply. This would more than triple the amount of renewable fuel 
we now use.
  Today, America imports nearly 60 percent of the crude oil it 
consumes--estimated to climb as high as 70 percent by 2020.
  Senator Nelson displayed a chart which I think very clearly indicates 
the danger this presents to our foreign policy, to our interests, and 
to our geopolitical and strategic trade interests around the world, 
which now are, as we know, interconnected.
  Almost a fourth of these imports come from the Persian Gulf, where 
Iraq currently sells the United States between 600,000 and 1 million 
barrels of oil a day.
  This renewable fuel standard is a fair and workable compromise based 
on

[[Page S1808]]

months of work with the petroleum industry, the environmental 
community, DOE, USDA, and EPA. This is flexible legislation--not a 
gallon-by-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level of 
compliance in places where compliance may be difficult.
  To guard against possible fuel shortages, it permits the EPA 
Administrator, in consultation with USDA and the Department of Energy, 
to adjust the renewable fuel requirement.
  To make this legislation even more flexible, refiners, blenders, and 
importers will have access to a credit trading program--so those who 
use more renewable fuel can sell credits to other refiners, blenders, 
and importers who fall short on meeting their requirements. Producers 
will not be penalized if there are insufficient supplies of renewable 
fuel. Finally, small refiners will be exempt from their requirements 
established by this program.
  In the wake of September 11, America and the rest of the free world 
face dramatic new challenges. Energy independence is one of the most 
serious of these challenges.
  Our Nation needs a broader, deeper, and more diverse energy 
portfolio--one that ensures we have clean, reliable, and affordable 
domestic sources of energy. Expanding the market for renewable fuels is 
a modest, but significant part of the solution. To enhance national 
energy security and improve environmental quality, we need a reasonable 
renewable fuel standard. As President Bush said, ethanol, biodiesel, 
and other biofuels are the fuels of the future for this country.
  I ask my colleagues to support the renewable fuel standard in this 
energy bill to make renewable fuels an important component of a new 
national energy plan which is so vitally important to the future of 
this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank the Senator from 
Nebraska for his very articulate comments supporting the efforts for 
the renewable fuels standard and for his support for ethanol. It is a 
pleasure to work with him on this issue.
  Madam President, I thank members of my staff, as a matter of 
privilege, for their support and their work on this important issue. I 
have identified Eric Washburn of Senator Daschle's staff. It is my 
pleasure to also thank my staff, Tom Litjen as well as Scott McCullers.
  At this time, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota, to be followed by the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues this 
morning in congratulating the officials and organizations that came 
together recently to negotiate a broad compromise agreement on the 
regulation of clean-burning fuels in the United States. This is truly 
an historic agreement that reconciles a variety of competing interests 
in order to meet several important national policy objectives.
  The fuels provision establishes greater flexibility in the Nation's 
gasoline regulations, protects air quality and nearly triples the use 
of domestic, renewable fuels over the next 10 years. And, 
significantly, it enjoys the support of the ethanol industry, the oil 
industry and environmental organizations, three segments of society 
that have not always agreed on transportation fuels issues.
  A number of organizations worked diligently to fashion this agreement 
and deserve a lion's share of the credit for its success. They include 
the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, 
the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the Farm 
Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Corn 
Growers Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Northeast 
States Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, the Clean Fuels 
Development Coalition and the American Lung Association. It is indeed 
testament to the spirit of compromise in the U.S. Senate that all these 
groups representing often divergent constituencies and interests can 
come together to create a product that benefits all.
  While these groups came to the negotiating table with the interests 
of their members firmly in mind, they also understood that the fuels 
component of any viable energy strategy must serve a variety of 
national goals. Without their embrace of this far-sighted approach, 
this balanced agreement would not have been possible.
  Among the Senators that I would like to thank, first and foremost is 
Senator Dick Lugar. The seeds of this agreement were planted a few 
years ago when Senator Lugar and I first introduced legislation to 
establish a renewable fuels standard and provide greater flexibility in 
producing reformulated gasoline. Senator Lugar's enthusiastic support 
gave this idea needed momentum and helped lay the groundwork for the 
agreement that was reached last week.
  I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the involvement of the 
White House in crafting this agreement. Andrew Lundquist, who has a 
unique perspective gained as a former staff director of the Senate 
Energy Committee and Director of Energy Policy for the President, has 
been extremely helpful throughout the negotiation process, both in 
identifying effective policy and working with diverse parties to 
achieve it.
  Among those whose opinions I sought early in this effort and who 
always provide me with intelligent and helpful advice are Trevor 
Guthmiller and Bob Scott of the American Coalition for Ethanol, and 
Dave Hallberg, the first president of the Renewable Fuels Association 
who currently is developing an innovative ethanol plant and cattle 
feedlot in Pierre, SD. Their common sense, South Dakota counsel on 
these tough national fuels issues has never led me astray.

  This agreement could not have been fashioned without the leadership 
and advocacy of Red Caveney, president of the American Petroleum 
Institute, Bob Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, 
Jason Grumet, former executive director of the Northeast States 
Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, Bruce Knight, president of the 
National Corn Growers Association, Tom Buis, executive director of the 
National Farmers Union, and Doug Durante, chairman of the Clean Fuels 
Development Corporation. I am deeply grateful for the hard work and 
focus of these dedicated individuals as well as for the valuable 
contribution of Todd Sneller, administrator of the Nebraska Ethanol 
Board, Larry Pearce, director of the Nebraska Energy Office, and Bill 
Holmberg, an original foot solider in our 20 year campaign to promote 
the use of renewable fuels in America.
  Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel deserve enormous credit for 
legislation they introduced to establish a very ambitious renewable 
fuels standard, and for their tireless work in promoting this concept. 
And there are many others Ben Nelson, Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, Mark 
Dayton, Paul Wellstone, Max Baucus, Dick Durbin, Kit Bond, and others--
who also deserve recognition for the progress we have made on this 
issue. Senator Nelson, for example, has, at my request, taken on the 
responsibility of managing this debate on the fuels provision.
  Chairman Jim Jeffords and Ranking Member Bob Smith also deserve 
tremendous credit for moving this legislation through the Environment 
and Public Works Committee and for bringing their expertise and steady 
demeanor to the negotiating table. Their involvement was critical to 
the successful brokering of this agreement.
  This agreement makes a number of important changes in Federal law 
based on the experience we have gained over the last 7 years of 
implementing the reformulated gasoline program. It eliminates the 
oxygen requirement from the reformulated gasoline program, a change 
that is very important to the efforts of States like California and New 
York, who are planning to eliminate MTBE from their gasoline supplies 
in the near future. But, in so doing, it also ensures that we preserve 
the hard-fought air quality gains that have resulted from the 
implementation of that requirement.
  The agreement establishes a renewable fuels program to nearly triple 
the use of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 
years. It also provides special encouragement to biomass-based ethanol, 
which holds great promise for converting a variety of organic materials 
into useful fuel, while substantially reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions. This will have substantial benefits for the environment and 
for rural economies, while helping to lower

[[Page S1809]]

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
  It bans MTBE in 4 years and authorizes funding to clean up MTBE 
contamination and to fix leaking underground tanks. This section is 
particularly important to States like California that are struggling to 
clean up groundwater contaminated by MTBE.
  It allows the most polluted States to opt into the reformulated 
gasoline program, and provides all States with additional authority 
under the Clean Air Act to address air quality concerns.

  I would like to take a moment to acknowledge concerns about this 
program that have been expressed by my friends and colleagues from 
California, who in light of their recent experiences with electricity 
markets are understandably wary of new energy regulation in the fuels 
market. In response to their concerns, I and those participating in the 
development of this compromise have taken a number of steps to ease 
California's transition from MTBE to ethanol. Under the compromise, 
California no longer needs to meet the oxygen requirement of the 
reformulated gasoline program upon enactment; this is one year ahead of 
other States with reformulated gasoline programs. This modification was 
possible because of California's progressive State fuels program that 
ensures protection of air quality in the absence of the oxygen 
requirement.
  To address concerns that have been raised about ethanol supplies, 
prices and logistics, the compromise requires that during 2003, before 
the renewable fuels standard takes effect, the Department of Energy 
study these issues. If that study determines that there will be any 
problems with the ethanol program in 2004, then the EPA Administrator 
is directed to reduce the level of the mandate for 2004.
  Under the renewable fuels program, California and any other State can 
apply to EPA under separate provisions of the bill to request that the 
Administrator reduce the ethanol mandate in any year of the program, 
based on supply or economic concerns. The Congress will expect the 
Administrator to enforce this provision diligently.
  Moreover, the compromise allows California in 2004 to meet its 
ethanol requirement by blending ethanol only in the wintertime. This is 
very significant, because California is expected to use 300 to 400 
million gallons of ethanol in 2004 to meet its wintertime carbon 
monoxide Clean Air Act requirements anyway, while the new renewable 
fuels program will require the use of less than 250 million gallons 
that year. In other words, California will use more than 100 million 
gallons of ethanol in 2004 than the new mandate requires. So the 
ethanol mandate that is in this bill should have no effect on 
California in 2004, and will substantially lessen California's ethanol 
requirements compared to current law unless the State decides not to 
implement its ban on MTBE.
  As with all compromises, this agreement is not ideal for anyone, but 
measured against maintaining the status quo, this agreement will 
provide considerable additional flexibility to California and other 
states in producing and using clean-burning gasoline. For example, if 
this compromise were not developed, California would need to meet the 
existing reformulated gasoline oxygen requirement and implement the ban 
on MTBE that the governor has stated will go into effect either at the 
end of 2002 or, if extended, at the end of 2003. This scenario would 
result in the need for California to use over 800 to 900 million 
gallons of ethanol in 2004, far more than the renewable fuels 
requirements of this compromise.
  Finally, under the bill, refiners in California and throughout the 
Nation can buy credits from refiners that use ethanol in other States 
to meet its requirement, rather than use actual gallons of ethanol. 
This ensures that ethanol will be used where it is most efficient and 
economical.
  In the development of this compromise, I have had numerous 
conversations with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and 
with California Governor Gray Davis and the director of the California 
Department of Environmental Protection, Winston Hickox, about the 
effect of a renewable fuels standard on their state. I respect their 
knowledge of their State's energy situation and their passion and 
tenacity in defense of their State's interests. No one wants to see 
price volatility in any regional market. The renewable fuels provision 
has been modified in response to California's concern about possible 
future energy scenarios, and, I believe, effectively protects the state 
against unintended consequences.
  In the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate, this agreement represents 
a careful balance of often disparate and competing interests. No member 
or organization got everything they wanted. But in the end, each 
participant won important victories that made this agreement stronger.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, the House 
and the White House to enact this important compromise this year.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent to place a letter into the Record 
that I received yesterday from the Governor's Ethanol Coalition. The 
coalition has been a strong supporter of my efforts to enact a 
renewable fuels standard from the very beginning, and it gives me great 
pleasure to have worked closely with that organization for the last few 
years in this regard.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 Governors' Ethanol Coalition,

                                      Lincoln, NE, March 12, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Lott: On behalf of the 27 
     members of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition, we are writing 
     to express our strong support for the provisions including in 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 517), which will establish 
     a national renewable fuels standard.
       The provisions set forth in the Manager's Amendment to S. 
     517 reflect an agreement negotiated over the last two years 
     by the states, agricultural interests, refiners, and the 
     environmental community that will address such important 
     issues as MTBE water contamination and the oxygenate 
     requirements in reformulated gasoline while providing a 
     significant market for renewable fuels such as ethanol and 
     biodiesel. Specifically, we support those provisions in S. 
     517 that: Create a national renewable fuels standard, 
     ensuring a growing part of our nation's fuel supply, up to 5 
     billion gallons by 2012, is provided by domestic, renewable 
     fuels; eliminate the use of MTBE in the United States within 
     four years; eliminate the oxygenate requirements in the 
     reformulated gasoline program; and maintain the air quality 
     gains of the reformulated gasoline program.
       By enacting these provisions, we will strengthen our 
     national security, displace imported oil from politically 
     unstable regions, stimulate ethanol and biodiesel production, 
     expand domestic energy, supplies, and continue to reduce air 
     pollution.
       We encourage you to support these provisions and to resist 
     any amendments that would alter this landmark agreement.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Holden,
       Governor of Missouri, Chair.
     John Hoeven,
       Governor of North Dakota, Vice Chair.
     Mike Johanns,
       Governor of Nebraska, Past Chair.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the ethanol provision that has been included in the Energy Policy Act. 
I was pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Daschle, Bob 
Smith, Hagel, Bond, Brownback, and Ben Nelson, in developing a policy 
on ethanol that addresses the concerns of a variety of stakeholders in 
the energy debate while providing a tangible benefit for the American 
people. I believe the inclusion of this provision is a key element in 
our effort to construct a viable energy policy.
  As I have often stated, we face an incredible challenge in putting 
together an energy policy for our Nation. In my view, the Senate's 
final product has to be a policy that harmonizes energy and 
environmental policies, acknowledging that the economy and the 
environment are vitally intertwined. It has to be a policy that 
broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee 
reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to be a 
policy that won't cause energy prices to skyrocket, which would 
unfairly affect the

[[Page S1810]]

elderly, the disabled, and low-income families. Finally, it has to be a 
policy that won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the 
research that will yield future environmental protection technologies.
  The Senate is currently working to address these challenges, and I 
believe the inclusion of an ethanol provision in this bill will help 
the environment, protect public health, promote fuel efficiency, reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil, boost the economy, and create and retain 
jobs for Americans, all at the same time. As the ranking member of the 
Senate Clean Air Subcommittee, I am especially pleased that expanding 
the use of ethanol will help reduce auto emissions, which will clean 
the air and improve public health.
  Becuase of the events of September 11, perhaps our greatest energy 
challenge is to lessen our reliance on foreign sources to meet our 
energy needs. As my colleagues know, the United States currently 
imports about 58 percent of our crude oil. For both national security 
reasons, particularly now, and as part of a comprehensive energy 
policy, it is crucial that we become less dependent on foreign sources 
of oil and look more to domestic sources to meet our energy needs, and 
ethanol is an excellent domestic source. Ethanol is a clean burning, 
home-grown renewable fuel upon which we can rely for generations to 
come.
  Creating a greater market for ethanol is good for our Nation's 
economy and, in particular, good for Ohio's economy. Ohio is one of the 
Nation's leading consumers of ethanol, with 40 percent of the gasoline 
consumed in the State having an ethanol content. Ohio has placed a 
tremendous importance on expanding the use of ethanol, so much so, we 
are actively pursuing an opportunity to get ethanol production plants 
built in Ohio.
  In addition to consumption of ethanol, Ohio is also a major producer 
of the main component of ethanol, corn. In fact, Ohio is 6th in the 
Nation in terms of corn production, and an increase in the use of 
ethanol across the Nation means an economic boost to thousands of farm 
families across my State.
  Finally, I am also pleased that the tax package reported out of the 
Finance Committee to accompany the energy bill includes a provision 
that would transfer the 2.5 percent per gallon of the federal tax on 
ethanol-blended fuels from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund. 
This provision is similar to the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act, a 
bill that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and I introduced last 
summer.
  As my colleagues may know, 2.5 cents of 13.1 cents-per-gallon ethanol 
tax presently goes straight to the Treasury. That is more than $400 
million for transportation improvements lost per year, including $50 
million to Ohio. The Finance Committee provision ensures that the money 
is used for our roads, the purpose for which it was collected in the 
first place, and keeps ethanol viable by restoring people's faith that 
the taxes they pay on this clean fuel are used properly.
  I am delighted that the Senate was able to come together and craft a 
bipartisan agreement on the treatment of ethanol. It is my hope that 
the spirit of bipartisanship will continue throughout the energy debate 
so we can finally put in place a comprehensive national energy policy.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our dependence on oil from the Middle East 
represents a grave national security threat. The events of September 11 
have underscored the urgency of moving forward on multiple fronts to 
improve our energy situation in the short term and achieve energy 
independence in the long term.
  I have long believed that renewable energy is a vital part of the 
solution. Renewables are essential to freeing ourselves and developing 
countries from growing dependence on oil imports from volatile regions 
of the world. They also help address climate change. This is why I have 
long supported increased funding for biomass, solar, and other 
renewable energy programs.
  Today I am proud to introduce with my colleagues a bipartisan 
agreement on provisions in the energy bill that would go far toward 
diminishing our Nation's dependence on oil imports. The proposal 
incorporates into the energy bill the Daschle-Lugar national renewable 
fuels standard legislation that Senator Daschle and I introduced in May 
of 2000.
  This proposal, like the legislation I introduced with Senator 
Daschle, would phase-out the use of MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, 
and increase the use of ethanol and biomass ethanol as the clean fuel 
additive to gasoline. Use of biofuels would nearly triple over the next 
decade.
  Fuel derived from biomass offers the most promising long-term 
approach to the problems of oil dependence. Previously, ethanol could 
only be produced efficiently from a tiny portion of plant life 
including corn and other feedgrains. High production costs made a broad 
transition to ethanol fuel impractical. But recent breakthroughs in 
genetic engineering of biocatalysts, enzymes, bacteria and yeasts, make 
it possible to break down a wide range of plants. Like the Daschle-
Lugar legislation, the proposal that we are introducing today includes 
a special credit for ethanol used under the renewable fuels standard 
program that is produced from non-grain cellulosic materials like rice 
straw, municipal waste, and fast-growing poplars. Such fuel is 
environmentally friendly and would not require significant changes to 
America's automobile-based infrastructure.
  There is a virtual consensus among scientists that when considered as 
part of a complete cycle of growth, fermentation, and combustion, 
ethanol contributes no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The 
transition to cellulosic ethanol would have a positive effect on air 
quality in American cities.
  Cellulosic ethanol could be introduced directly into our current auto 
infrastructure with only modest changes. In fact, Henry Ford originally 
thought ethanol would be the fuel of choice to power cars. Studies 
indicate that the United States has more than enough idle land to 
supply a significant portion of its transportation fuel needs with 
cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol compares favorably to gasoline 
in its performance as an internal combustion engine fuel with 
considerably higher octane levels. Reductions in processing costs of 
ethanol are already occurring, and further reductions are imminent. We 
must remember that ethanol processing remains a relatively young 
industry. Oil processing is cheaper now because it has had the benefit 
of a century of intensive research and development.
  Further market penetration of cellulosic ethanol as a fuel provides a 
cash crop to any region that grows grass, trees or other vegetation. 
This offers enormous potential for rural development both in the United 
States and abroad. Such a democratization of world energy supplies 
could reduce armed conflict, lower the risk of global recession, and 
aid in the development of emerging markets. National security 
complications and costs stemming from the need to safeguard Middle 
Eastern oil resources will be diminished.
  The agreement my colleagues and I reached on the renewable fuels 
standard provision of the energy bill will form an important and 
essential component of our national energy policy, but it is only the 
beginning. I encourage my colleagues to support this agreement and to 
work with President Bush to achieve national energy security.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the renewable fuels 
provision in the energy bill that we are debating. Renewable energy 
sources are an increasingly important part of our energy generation, 
and it is clear that they will only continue to increase in importance. 
Thus, the debate is not over whether or not we will develop renewable 
energy resources, but how we will do so.
  Throughout my career in Congress, I have supported and led efforts to 
explore the development and promotion of renewable fuels. I have done 
this for several reasons including their value in offsetting our 
nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, their environmental 
benefits, and the potential economic opportunities for agricultural 
producers and rural communities. Clearly, hydropower is our greatest 
renewable supply. About ten percent of our nation's electricity is from 
hydropower. However, another very promising renewable energy source 
with

[[Page S1811]]

great potential is ethanol, and this is the area where I want to 
concentrate my discussion of renewables.
  Ethanol has already proven its importance to the nation. Its use as 
part of the clean fuel program has dramatically reduced air pollution 
in many cities across the nation. In fact, cities around the nation 
have found that using fuels with an ethanol blend help them to meet 
federal clean air targets. Ethanol also helps us to take a step closer 
to energy independence. By increasing our use of ethanol, we will rely 
less on imported foreign oil and more on America's farmers.
  Another benefit of ethanol is that, at the same time it helps the 
environment and makes our nation more energy independent, it also helps 
our rural communities. As a rancher in Midvale, Idaho, I believed--and 
still do--that energy can be a value-added opportunity for agriculture 
and I have worked to advance technological opportunities for ethanol 
and other bio-fuels. Currently, ethanol uses around seven percent of 
our nation's corn crop, and ethanol production facilities are an 
important economic resource in many states, including my own. Without 
this economic stimulus, many rural communities, which are already 
poorer and have higher unemployment than the rest of the Nation, would 
be hurting even more.
  For these reasons, I have always been a supporter of ethanol. As part 
of my efforts to promote it, there have been numerous times in the past 
when I supported legislation to help our nation develop its ethanol 
industry. For example, I was proud to join a majority of Senators in 
voting to support the 5.4 cent per gallon tax credit for ethanol, which 
ensures the ethanol tax credit will be in place until at least 2007--
something crucial to existing ethanol plants and to those considering 
new production facilities. I also led an effort, in cooperation with 
the American Soybean Association, in the 105th Congress to ensure that 
biodiesel was considered an ``alternative fuel'' under the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). My legislation, which was passed by 
Congress and signed into law by the President, now allows fleet 
operators to purchase vehicles powered by biodiesel under the 
requirements of EPACT.
  However, more needs to be done. Ethanol and other renewable energy 
resources must be encouraged in order to protect our environment and 
help our quest for energy independence. This bill has many important 
provisions relating to ethanol, and I want to encourage my colleagues 
to support these provisions. The increased use of ethanol that would 
occur if this bill passes will be good for the environment, good for 
our energy independence, and good for our farmers. It is much better to 
rely on the farmers of Idaho or Iowa or Kansas for our energy needs 
instead of Saddam Hussein.
  I look forward to working with the Bush administration, my colleagues 
in the Senate, and my constituents to develop a comprehensive energy 
policy that includes a new and strengthened resolve to develop 
domestically grown renewable sources of energy. The ethanol language in 
this bill is an important step in that direction. Bio-fuels, including 
ethanol, can and should be an important part of our path to energy 
independence, and I urge my colleagues to support the renewable fuels 
provisions in this bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, America needs a new energy policy that 
will increase America's energy independence and reduce the dramatic 
energy price spikes that hit Iowans right in the pocketbook. We need a 
forward looking, sustainable and environmentally friendly policy that 
will provide for America's national security and economic security.
  One of the keys to our energy future is a sustainable, 
environmentally friendly energy policy that includes the adoption of a 
nationwide renewable fuels standard. By requiring that a percentage of 
all the gasoline marketed in America contain renewable fuels we can 
greatly improve our energy security, protect the environment, and 
create jobs through the farm-based products used in energy production.
  I've worked for years in the Senate to build bipartisan consensus for 
the creation of a national renewable fuel standard, introducing my own 
legislation and cosponsored similar legislation by Senators Tim 
Johnson, and Chuck Hagel. This bipartisan effort paid off when we 
included a renewable fuels provision in the Senate energy bill 
recognizing the benefits of the oxygen content requirement in the 
reformulated gasoline program.
  The bipartisan renewable fuels provision will greatly increase the 
production of the fuels of the future, such as ethanol and biodiesel. 
By directing refiners and importers to increase the use of renewable 
fuels to 2.3 billion gallons in 2004 and 5 billion gallons in 2012 we 
can significantly increase the nationwide demand for ethanol, which was 
approximately 1.8 billion gallons in 2001.
  This bipartisan proposal also says that the government should lead by 
example and use alternative fuels in 50 percent of all Federal 
Government vehicles by 2003 and 75 percent by 2005. This is a common 
sense approach which has been proven to work in Midwestern States, like 
Iowa, where 100 percent of all gasoline used in State vehicles contain 
clean-burning, renewable ethanol.
  Renewable fuels already help improve our environment, provide energy 
security, and increase farm incomes and create jobs in rural America. 
Authoritative estimates indicate that a renewable fuels standard would 
increase demand for corn for ethanol from 650 million bushels to 2.5 
billion bushels in 2016 which would increase the price of corn by an 
average of 28 cents per bushel and create 300,000 jobs nationwide.
  America's energy past has been one of fossil fuels, air pollution, 
and dependence on foreign oil. Our new energy policy should not repeat 
the mistakes of the past. It must be forward looking, it must invest in 
a sustainable and independent energy future and not subsidize the 
failed policies of the past. America's energy future can start today 
with a greater investment in renewable energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Nebraska for his leadership on this issue. We are talking about the 
energy bill today in the Senate Chamber. We have been on this bill for 
some while, and we hope very much we will conclude it soon. But one 
piece of the energy bill deals with what is called the renewable fuel 
standards. For those who are not accustomed to what the titles mean, it 
simply means alternative fuels, such as ethanol.
  Ethanol is an awfully good example--there are others--of what would 
help us reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy.
  I have been to ethanol plants around the country, and a couple of 
them in North Dakota. It makes good sense, from a kernel of corn or a 
kernel of barley, to be able to take the drop of alcohol from that 
kernel of corn to extend America's energy supply, and, at the same 
time, have the protein feed stock left to feed the cattle. So you have 
a circumstance where you grow your fuel.
  Frankly, I did not know much about this a couple of decades ago. I 
saw an ad in one of the big daily newspapers, and it was by one of the 
largest oil companies in the country. It said: We oppose ethanol 
production because it really isn't very viable and doesn't contribute 
much.
  I thought: Well, if the biggest oil companies are opposing this, I 
ought to take a look at it. And I did. I discovered, sure enough, using 
the approach to take alcohol from grain, for example, to extend 
America's energy supply, holds great promise for our country.
  Since that time we have, of course, seen additional plants be 
developed in this country as well as more production of renewable 
fuels. But, it seems to me, everyone here understands that we have an 
enormous amount of our energy coming from a part of the world that is 
inherently unstable: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, part of the Middle East, and 
Central Asia. We have all of this oil and natural gas coming from parts 
of the world that are unstable. And our economy depends on that 
constant source of supply.
  That is an enormous risk to our economy in this country. What do we 
do about that? We do a lot of things, one of which is to create a 
renewable fuel standard by which we aspire, as a country, to get more 
of our energy supply in renewable fuels. We can do that. We can have 
that kind of future if we set goals and reach those goals.

[[Page S1812]]

  Today, ethanol reduces the demand for gasoline and for MTBE imports 
by 98,000 barrels a day. That makes great sense, as I said, to take the 
alcohol from a kernel of corn and extend America's energy supply.
  The American Petroleum Institute now supports this. The National Corn 
Growers, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Farmers Union, 
and the Farm Bureau all have sent letters to Senator Daschle and 
Senator Lott expressing their support for this version.
  Madam President, 1.8 billion gallons of pure ethanol are currently 
produced in our country. This provision that we are debating would add 
3.2 billion new gallons of ethanol, for a total of 5 billion gallons by 
the year 2012. That translates, for example, into a new market for 
American corn of 1.19 billion bushels of corn.
  That helps family farmers, obviously, to be able to produce a crop, 
and use that crop, on a renewable basis, to extend America's energy 
supply. It means new opportunities for farmers to invest in value-added 
processing of a product they are already growing.

  I might, while I am here, also say there are some other interesting 
and exciting things happening in my home State of North Dakota.
  The Aerospace Program and the Environment and Energy Research Center, 
both at the University of North Dakota located in Grand Forks, are 
researching potential uses of ethanol as aviation fuel.
  Aviation fuel is the last fuel in the United States that still 
contains lead. Ethanol, in our judgment, could be used for aviation 
fuel, and so the University of North Dakota is teaming with South 
Dakota State University and the FAA on a program to get ethanol 
approved and certified to help replace lead-based aviation fuel. The 
University of North Dakota, in fact, is hosting a conference on this 
subject in the month of May. And they are going to bring together 
aviation fuel distributors, pilots, plane manufacturers, and others, to 
determine the future role that ethanol can play in the aviation 
industry as an aviation fuel.
  We are talking, in this energy bill, about a lot of things. As I have 
indicated before, we are talking about electricity. We are talking 
about a renewable portfolio standard in that area. We are talking about 
limitless and renewable fuels in this area, the renewable fuels 
standard.
  There are a lot of people who deserve credit for bringing us to this 
position, because it has been a lot of hard work. We have had a lot of 
opposition over the years for ethanol production. But I think, finally, 
we have broken through, and this represents a kind of a new beachhead 
for opportunities in our country to understand what ethanol and what 
renewable fuels can do to extend America's energy supply.
  I indicated yesterday the I have been recently, in the last couple of 
months, to Central Asia. Those of us who have traveled in the Middle 
East and Central Asia understand that we cannot continue to hook 
America's economy to a constant fuel supply that comes from parts of 
the world that are so inherently unstable.
  We need to do better than that. We need to produce more of our own 
energy. Part of that is, yes, digging and drilling for natural gas, 
oil, coal, and doing that in an environmentally sensitive way, and the 
underlying bill does that. But a significant part of it is also in the 
area of limitless and renewable sources of energy. That is exactly what 
we are talking about today. That is what the Senator from Nebraska 
began talking about this morning.
  I am really pleased to be in this Chamber to support this. I want to 
see a series of ethanol plants dotting the prairies in the Northern 
Great Plains in this country which can take kernels of corn, barley, 
and other grains, put them in an ethanol plant, extract the drop of 
alcohol, extend America's energy supply and still have protein feed 
stock left for animals. That makes good sense for family farmers and 
good sense for America. It is not just national security; it is also 
energy security, which translates into national security. And that has 
its roots in this renewable fuels standard.
  So I thank my colleague from Nebraska. I am pleased to be with him 
and so many others in this Senate Chamber who have worked hard on this 
for a long period of time.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes from this 
side's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


                           Amendment No. 2997

  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I want to talk today about one aspect of 
this debate about CAFE standards. To me, this aspect is the most 
important consideration.
  I know we have talked about many different things. We have argued 
this issue, and we have talked about many statistics which have been 
given.
  I believe it would be a mistake to approve the underlying bill 
without the Bond-Levin amendment. I support the Bond-Levin amendment 
because I believe the underlying bill, quite bluntly, will cost 
thousands and thousands of lives. So for this Senator, while the other 
issues are important, the most important is this: Are we going to say, 
as a Congress, as a Senate, as the Government, that we are going to 
force people into smaller cars, when we know, by every piece of 
evidence that we can find, that smaller cars lead to higher fatalities? 
To me, that is the question. I think it would be a tragic mistake for 
us to do this.
  I know people have come to this Chamber--and I have listened to a lot 
of the debate--and have said that is just not true, it is not going to 
cost lives. They have argued about how many lives it will be. They have 
argued about whether the statistics that have been cited are accurate. 
But every scientific study that I have seen that really has much 
validity shows that some lives will be lost. In addition to that, I 
think good common sense tells us that as well.
  In 1989, a study by Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and 
John Graham of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis provided the first 
evidence suggesting a negative relationship between weight and vehicle 
occupant fatality risk.
  Another study from Dr. Leonard Evans, president of the International 
Traffic Medicine Association, found that large, heavy cars lower the 
risk to drivers. His study suggested that more passengers, i.e., more 
weight within the vehicle, reduced fatalities by 7.5 percent.
  The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, NHTSA, and 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that since 1975, 
46,000 people have died because of the 1970s-era push for greater fuel 
efficiency that has led to smaller cars.
  For every mile per gallon gained by the standards increased, 7,000 
people have died according to the USA Today. According to the National 
Academy of Sciences and supported by the National Safety Council and 
the American Trauma Society, CAFE standards have led to 1,300 to 2,600 
additional crash fatalities and 97,000 to 195,000 total injuries. The 
NAS report says:

       [I]t is clear that there were more injuries and fatalities 
     than otherwise would have occurred had the fleet in recent 
     years been as large and heavy as the fleet of the mid-1970s.

  According to the July 2001 issue of the American Journal of Public 
Health, the rates at which drivers crash are strongly influenced, of 
course, by drunk driver behavior. But the relative risk to each driver 
when a crash does occur is not affected in any obvious way by driving 
behavior. The relative risk is enormously influenced by relative masses 
of the involved cars. That is pretty simple. In other words, if two 
cars crash into each other, and one of them is twice as heavy as the 
other, then the driver of the lighter car is about 12 times as likely 
to be killed.
  Again, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 
between 1991 and 1997, 41 percent of all car deaths occurred in single-
vehicle accidents. So we need to ask ourselves this: If you or a member 
of your family are going to be in one of these single-vehicle 
accidents, in what kind of a car should you be sitting? Obviously, the 
heavier the car, the safer you are.
  In the year 2000, the motor vehicle death rate per 100,000 people was 
especially high among 16 to 24-year-olds--that is what we continue to 
see--and people 80 years and older. These are the portions of the 
population most likely, candidly, to buy a car based on financial 
situations since lighter cars are

[[Page S1813]]

cheaper to purchase and fuel. Now, in all fairness, there are other 
reasons why 16 to 24-year-olds are involved in more fatal accidents, 
but this is certainly one of them.
  Finally, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, based on 
J. DeFalco's findings in the ``Deadly Effects of Fuel Economy 
Standards, CAFE's Lethal Impact on Auto Safety,'' in my own State of 
Ohio, it is estimated, based on the data, that in the year 2000, 768 
passenger car occupants died because of these CAFE standards.
  I believe the statistics are clear. Simply put, we cannot increase 
CAFE standards without increasing fatalities. Yes, there are actions 
you can take to improve safety, such as airbags and other safety 
devices, and we are certainly moving in that direction, albeit more 
slowly than this Member would like. Yes, you can argue that the safety 
effect of downsizing and downweighting as a result of CAFE standards 
has been negligible because the injury and fatality experience per 
vehicle mile of travel has, in fact, steadily declined during the 
changes in the fleet. That is true.
  However, a 1992 National Research Council report suggested that 
reduced risk of motor vehicle travel is part of a long-term historical 
trend tracing way back to 1930, and the improving safety picture is the 
result of various interacting and sometimes conflicting trends.
  So while things such as enhanced vehicle designs, increased rates of 
safety belt use, better roads, and decreased drunk driving are, in 
fact, reducing crash injury risk, there are other variables, such as 
higher speed limits or no speed limits on some roads, increased 
horsepower, and an increased number of teenagers and other risky 
drivers on the road that are increasing crash injury risk. In short, 
technological innovations don't get you out of a CAFE safety bind.

  In the words of Dr. Leonard Evans, to argue this is

       [L]ike a tobacco industry executive saying that smoking 
     doesn't endanger your health because with everything we know 
     about diets and exercise, you can smoke and still be as 
     healthy as a non-smoker. It is true that with current 
     knowledge about keeping fit, smokers can be healthier. But, 
     this knowledge can make a non-smoker even healthier yet. If 
     you smoke, you're going to be taking a risk no matter what.

  Similarly, if you get in a car, you are taking a risk no matter what. 
That is just reality. We accept that there will be a certain number of 
accidents and injuries and deaths. We know that. We may not accept it, 
but we understand it. But the question really is about the weight and 
size of cars. You can argue about how many lives are lost or saved, 
what the exact figure is, what the exact number is. You can argue about 
how many variables impact safety and which variables have the most 
impact.
  You can argue about how much the environment will be affected by this 
bill. You can argue about oil dependency. But in the end, one of the 
main variables that we know will make a difference in determining how 
many Americans die next year driving automobiles or as passengers in 
automobiles is the weight of the car. That is a variable we know will 
make a difference.
  For me, that is what it comes down to. As millions of Americans, I do 
read Consumer Reports. Year after year, I take a look at the annual 
report that lists the cars and rates them for many reasons. It rates 
them for safety. One of the special reports every year is a safety 
report. You can look down and see how they rate each size car. They 
always break them down into the larger cars, the heavier cars, all the 
way down to the light cars.
  What you will see is that, yes, some of the midsize cars do very 
well. Some of the smaller cars do better than you might expect. But 
what you clearly can see is that by and large, if you are interested in 
safety, you buy a bigger, heavier car.
  I am not suggesting that every American should do that or can afford 
to do that. I am suggesting that is something that every American 
should have the option to do. Every American should have the option 
within their means to as best they can protect their family from 
highway fatalities. They should be able to intelligently choose their 
car. They should make the choice of the car, what safety features the 
cars have, and they should be able to make the choice in regard to the 
weight of that car.
  I believe the underlying bill strikes at that freedom, at that 
liberty, and at the ability of parents to protect their children in the 
car, the ability of someone buying a car to protect themselves or their 
loved ones. It is a tragic mistake.
  I will be supporting the Levin-Bond amendment. It is a rational 
compromise. It is an approach that makes sense. It is not 
micromanagement from the Congress but is allowing the science and 
technology to take place and to be utilized. I hope if that amendment 
does pass, when the decisions are made in regard to setting of the 
standards, highway safety will not just be one of the items 
considered, that highway safety will be at the top of the list.

  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, we yield time to the 
distinguished Senator from the State of Missouri, who will speak. We 
are alternating, but if there is no one on the other side to speak, 
then Senator Johnson will be next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, the Senate is engaged in an important 
debate on our Nation's energy policy. America needs an energy policy 
that reduces our dependency on imported oil, one that increases our 
energy efficiency, promotes the use of renewable fuels, and encourages 
additional domestic production of fossil fuels.
  We need an energy policy for the 21st century--not a pipeline to the 
past. The bill the Senate is now considering is a good foundation for 
this debate.
  This legislation promises to increase our domestic natural gas supply 
dramatically. It improves energy efficiency standards. It requires that 
the Federal Government lead in using our natural resources more 
efficiently. To me, the most exciting aspect of this bill is that it 
encourages production and use of renewable fuels. One of the most 
promising of these is ethanol. By blending ethanol with gasoline, we 
can reduce our oil imports and we can reduce the environmental damage 
of vehicle emissions.
  This legislation lays out a plan for increasing the amount of ethanol 
Americans use, and I strongly support these provisions. As America 
struggles to meet its growing energy needs, ethanol provides 
extraordinary opportunities. This product is made from corn and, unlike 
fossil fuels, can be produced in abundance. The more ethanol we use to 
fuel our cars and trucks, the less oil we will need to import from 
hostile countries such as Iraq. Rather than looking to the Mideast for 
energy, we would be far better off to look to the Midwest. With the use 
of a corn-based product such as ethanol, we can create an enormous 
market for home-grown agricultural products. At the same time, we can 
reduce the emission of harmful greenhouse gases. In short, ethanol use 
is good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for our 
national security interests.

  Ethanol is a relatively new fuel, and we are still building the 
infrastructure and capacity for wider use of this product. Last year, I 
introduced legislation to promote the production and the use of 
ethanol-blended fuels and other value-added agricultural products.
  My legislation proposed to expand eligibility for the tax credit 
available for small producers of ethanol. I am very pleased that these 
aspects of my bill have been included in the amendment crafted by the 
Senate Finance Committee. These changes will ensure that farmer-owned 
cooperatives are eligible to receive the tax credit. They will also 
encourage small producers to expand the size of their operations to 
meet increased demands.
  Under this legislation, facilities that produce as much as 60 million 
gallons a year could still qualify as small producers. These changes 
are necessary if America is to meet the demand for ethanol envisioned 
by this bill.
  Last year, America produced less than 2 billion gallons of ethanol. 
Under this legislation, annual ethanol use would increase to 5 billion 
gallons over the next 10 years.
  Ethanol is truly a win-win solution to our energy needs. The 
increased use required by this legislation represents

[[Page S1814]]

a positive step for our farmers, for our environment, and for energy 
independence.
  I support the compromise of this bill that will lead to the increased 
use of ethanol, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today to speak 
about the inclusion of a renewable fuels standard in the pending energy 
bill. In the midst of the ongoing debate about this legislation, it is 
heartening to see us come together on an issue that has the potential 
to enormously improve our Nation's transportation fuel supply.
  This is a landmark provision that will improve our energy security 
and provide a direct benefit for the agricultural economy in my State 
and in other rural States across our country. Senator Daschle should be 
commended for his hard work in bringing the parties and the industries 
together to reach a bipartisan consensus that will help our Nation in 
the next decade and in the decades to come. Senator Jeff Bingaman, 
chairman of the Energy Committee, also deserves commendation for 
working with us to include this package in a comprehensive energy bill.
  As we all know, there has been a great deal of discussion this past 
year about our Nation's energy. The increasing volatility in gasoline 
and diesel prices and the growing tension in the world from terrorist 
attacks have affected all of us. There is a clear need for energy 
policies that will address issues of the environment, issues of 
improving our trade balance, clean air, energy security, our farm 
economy, and more jobs in America. This provision addresses all of 
those issues.
  Earlier this year, I introduced legislation with my friend and 
colleague from Nebraska, Senator Chuck Hagel. Our legislation, the 
Renewable Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2001, S. 1006, was designed 
to ensure future growth for ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel fuels 
through the creation of a new renewable fuels content standard in all 
motor fuel produced and used in the United States. I am also a 
cosponsor of another renewable fuels bill that was introduced by 
Senator Daschle and Senator Lugar. I am pleased that an effort has been 
made here to incorporate these bills in a comprehensive energy 
legislation bill and that we have the package we are considering today.
  Meanwhile, the House of Representatives passed an energy bill that 
contains no renewable fuels standard of any kind. It is the Senate 
legislation that is the groundbreaking bill which will determine 
whether our Nation will, in fact, go forward with a thoughtful 
renewable fuels standard for our Nation. So it is with some pride and 
satisfaction that, in a bipartisan fashion, the Senate has come 
together on this issue. It is clear that Senators--particularly from 
rural States but others as well--understand the importance of including 
a new standard in our energy legislation.
  Today, ethanol and biodiesel comprise less than 1 percent of all 
transportation fuel in the United States, and 1.8 billion gallons is 
currently produced in our country. The consensus package we have today 
would require that 5 billion gallons of transportation fuel be 
comprised of renewable fuel by the year 2012. Ambitious but doable. 
That is nearly a tripling of the current ethanol production for the 
coming decade as we incorporate this new standard.
  I don't need to convince anybody in my State of South Dakota or other 
rural areas of the benefits of ethanol to the environment and the 
economies of rural communities. We have several plants in South Dakota 
and more are being planned. These farmer-owned ethanol plants in South 
Dakota, and in neighbor States, demonstrate the hard work, commitment, 
and vision we see in rural areas and the commitment to a growing market 
for clean domestic fuels.
  Based on current projections, construction of any new plants will 
generate roughly $900 million in capital investment and tens of 
thousands of construction jobs in rural communities. For corn farmers, 
the price of corn is expected to rise as much as 20 to 30 cents a 
bushel. Farmers will have the opportunity to invest in these ethanol 
plants to capture a greater piece of the ``value chain.'' Combining 
this with the provisions in this bill and the potential economic impact 
for South Dakota is tremendous.
  An important but underemphasized fuel is biodiesel, which is chiefly 
produced from excess soybean oil. We all know soybean prices are 
hovering near historic lows. Biodiesel production is small but has been 
growing steadily. The renewable fuels standard would greatly increase 
the prospects for biodiesel production and greatly benefit soybean 
producers all across our land.
  It is important that Congress take a serious look at these issues 
beyond just the economic impact to our region. Bio-based fuels offer 
multiple benefits--from addressing climate change to improving our 
trade balance.
  By increasing fuels production in rural areas of our Nation, we can 
also reduce the need for new refineries and new pipelines.
  The renewable fuel standard over the next decade will displace 
roughly 1.6 billion barrels of oil without any additional drilling and 
could increase ethanol renewable fuels being more widely used. In 
addition, it takes 1 gallon of ethanol to the same amount of fuel that 
produces 2 gallons of oil.
  A substantive bill that improves the Nation's energy security can 
only be enacted if we work in a bipartisan manner. Problems and 
difficulties our Nation faces are simply too important to be bogged 
down in partisan rhetoric. The consensus emerging on this issue 
demonstrates the benefits of working together to find real solutions 
for our Nation and should serve as a model for the consideration of the 
rest of the legislation we take up this year.
  Again, I thank Senator Hagel, Senator Daschle, and Senator Bingaman 
for their extraordinary efforts and for working with me as we have 
developed this amendment and included it in this important legislation.
  We know we are not to the goal line yet relative to the renewable 
fuel standard. This energy legislation remains controversial as a 
whole, with issues ranging from drilling in ANWR to CAFE standards, all 
creating hurdles to its final passage. But I am pleased to see the kind 
of bipartisan consensus that reaches across industries on the renewable 
fuel standard.
  It is my hope when the dust settles at the conclusion of this debate 
that we will have a comprehensive energy bill that will include this 
provision. Whatever else happens, this Congress cannot adjourn at the 
end of the year without having addressed the need for a renewable fuel 
standard in this or some other comprehensive legislation.
  I thank the Chair. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of the 
renewable fuel standard, and I look forward to final passage of this 
legislation. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank my colleague from 
South Dakota, who has worked so long and hard on this issue and has 
cosponsored the Hagel-Johnson/Johnson-Hagel legislation that helped 
lead the way to this particular part of the energy bill. I thank him 
for his constant support and vigilance on the issue.
  It is clear that this issue has achieved a wide bipartisan result 
with strong support from both sides of the aisle. It is also very 
apparent that some of the challenges the ethanol or biofuels industry 
faced in the past have lessened as a result of the hard work of so 
many.
  There was a time when there was an absolute conflict between oil and 
ethanol producers and between the interests that supported each of 
those industries. This past week, an agreement was announced that 
brought together the environmental industry as well as the petroleum 
industry. I thank the API for their support. It is a clear recognition 
that this is a way to work together to support an energy policy that 
will benefit all Americans and benefit our world as well.
  It is important to point out that while we continue to stress the 
importance of more domestic production and reduce the reliance on 
foreign sources of oil, there is a role that the industry domestically 
and the renewable fuels industry today can play together, a role that 
finds room for both domestically produced oil as well as foreign-

[[Page S1815]]

produced oil and domestically produced energy in the area of renewable 
fuels.
  It is pleasant to recognize we have crossed that line and have been 
able to bring together parties from different industries to recognize 
the common goal of the ability to rely on our own needs to the extent 
we can with our own production. That is clear in moving from 1 percent 
of the oil and fuel needs of our country and the supply to up to 4 
percent in just 10 years. That is not only a move in the right 
direction, it is a move away from some of the reliance we have had in 
other areas of the world where stability is not strong for our future 
but certainly puts us in peril for the future needs of our energy.
  It is also very important to point out that this industry, with the 
renewable fuel standard that will be created and with the ethanol and 
other biofuels processing plants that will be springing up all over 
America, can extend to the rural areas.
  I know the distinguished Presiding Officer is concerned about, in her 
own State, the erosion of the rural areas in population and the 
decreasing opportunities that exist in some of the rural areas. This 
industry can extend across America because of the reliance on biomass--
and it is not simply limited to the corn-producing States or other 
States more closely associated with farm products--and not only be a 
strong industry far beyond a cottage industry, but it can certainly 
extend to many of the other States that are not always considered part 
of the agricultural producing industry in America today, but we know 
they are. Therefore, this is, as the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri said, a win-win situation for all of us.
  I am also pleased there is a cutting-edge technology that continues 
to be a part of this biofuels effort. Many States are today advancing 
the new technology, which the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 
mentioned, of aviation fuel that can be extended to biorefinery 
products.
  The High Plains facility in my State of Nebraska at York is 
processing the plant's waste stream in an anaerobic digester for the 
production of biogas that can be used to dry the distiller's grains and 
operate the plant, so that the plant has the opportunity ultimately to 
be self-sustaining in terms of its own energy needs as it produces 
energy for the rest of the country.

  The Dow-Cargill facility in Blair, NE, is currently producing ethanol 
but in short order will be producing biodegradable plastics for use in 
the food industry in that same facility. They produce energy, but they 
will be producing an environmentally friendly plastic that will be 
biodegradable rather than what we are currently using.
  Later in this session, I hope to offer an amendment calling for a 
Manhattan-type project to aggressively advance the biorefinery 
concept--the production of biofuels, bioenergy, and biochemicals in 
integrated facilities. A major resource commitment, utilizing the 
unique capabilities of the Department of Defense to take a concept from 
inception to fruition, is needed in this country to ensure that 10 
years from now we have established the commercial technology base to 
produce many billions of gallons of renewable fuels in dispersed and 
decentralized installations around our country.
  There is the opportunity for increased technology, for increased 
production of biofuels that will assist us in the growth that is being 
sponsored by this legislation with the expectation that perhaps it is 
only the beginning--that, in fact, we can exceed the requirements that 
will be provided in this bill in years to come.
  I am proud the production and the testing of these products is 
underway today and will expand into the future and be a nationwide 
emphasis, whereas today clearly the emphasis has been more limited and 
more discussed in terms of the rural areas of the Midwest. This is 
about more than the Midwest. It is about, in fact, a national energy 
policy that will end up with national energy needs, in meeting those 
needs from so many different parts of our world and our Nation.
  The energy needs are clear, and that is why this energy bill is 
important. But not only are the needs important, but the sources of 
production to fill those needs likewise are important. That is why this 
particular provision is extremely important to deal not only with the 
energy needs, but to deal with a cleaner environment, for economic 
development, and obviously for national security by relying on our own 
sources for more of our own energy production.
  Shortly, Senator Lincoln from Arkansas will be joining us. I might 
mention, as I did before, as part of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition 
that was established in 1991, we had a distinguished Governor from the 
State of Arkansas in that initial group who kept his commitment to 
supporting ethanol not only in his role as Governor but as the 
President of the United States. It is also important to point out that 
as we have continued to expand the role of the current President, while 
the Governor of Texas he participated in that Governors' Ethanol 
Coalition, making it a broad-based group of 26 States and several 
countries working together to continue to support ethanol and the 
development of biofuels to deal with our energy needs.
  Until the distinguished Senator from Arkansas arrives, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, as we are waiting for 
Senator Lincoln, perhaps it is important to point out some of the 
truths about the renewable fuel standard and debunk some of the myths 
that sometimes have continued for a period of time as a method of 
trying to avoid dealing with the need for more domestic production and 
as a means of deterring our efforts for this renewable fuel standard.
  There is a myth that somehow there are inadequate supplies of ethanol 
to meet the demand that will be created by this renewable fuel 
standard. The fact is, the ethanol industry has been growing 
substantially in recent years. If I could get the chart that shows the 
growth within the industry, it has been growing in recent years in 
anticipation of the phaseout of MTBE, particularly in the State of 
California. We can see the historic fuel ethanol production over the 
course of the last 20 years. It continues to increase.
  According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 15 new plants have 
opened and several expansions have been completed, increasing U.S. 
ethanol production capacity to 2.3 billion gallons. Thirteen plants are 
currently under construction and will bring the total capacity to 2.7 
billion gallons by the end of 2002. A survey conducted by the 
California Energy Commission concludes that the ethanol industry will 
have the capacity to produce 3.5 billion gallons a year by the end of 
2004. So achieving the 5 billion gallon requirement over a 10-year 
period is clearly within reach, and we are clearly on our way to 
achieving that.
  There is also a myth that MTBE will result in a shortage of gasoline-
blending components; that if we remove MTBE it will result in a 
shortage of gasoline-blending components that will therefore reduce 
U.S. fuel supplies. The fact is, while acknowledging there will be 
enough ethanol, some have suggested there will be a shortage of 
gasoline-blending components needed to replace MTBE.
  MTBE is currently blended at 11-percent volume, largely in Federal 
reformulated gasoline in the Nation's nine severe ozone nonattainment 
areas so we can satisfy the oxygenate requirements.
  Ethanol is used exclusively today in RFG in Chicago and Milwaukee, 
where it is blended at 10-percent volume. Ethanol used in RFG to 
replace MTBE will similarly be blended at the 10-percent level, 
mitigating any loss in supply from MTBE's removal. A large share of the 
ethanol-blended formula will satisfy the renewable fuel standard. It 
will be blended in conventional gasoline where it simply is blended 
with finished gasoline, adding an additional 10-percent volume to the 
U.S. fuel market. In other words, it will, in fact, expand the 
availability of fuel rather than reduce it.

  There is another myth: that the RFS will result in significant price 
increases for consumers at the pump. The

[[Page S1816]]

fact is, S. 517 does not require a single gallon of renewable fuels be 
used in any particular State or region. The additional flexibility 
provided by the RFS credit-trading provisions of S. 517 will result in 
much lower costs to refiners and therefore to consumers. The credit-
trading system will ensure that ethanol is used where it is most cost 
effective.
  According to ChevronTexaco, the free market will not allow a 
California price differential of 20 to 30 cents per gallon to be 
sustained. The market will always find ways to take advantage of a much 
smaller differential. Furthermore, a nationwide Federal MTBE ban 
provides certainty for investments and eliminates the greater use of 
boutique fuels, thereby lowering gasoline prices.
  One of the constant challenges we have today is the use of boutique 
fuels, the blending of certain grades and certain kinds of fuels, which 
actually has the impact that while reducing efficiency it raises the 
cost of gasoline prices. This will have the effect of moderating that, 
and it will, in fact, reduce the number of boutique-blended fuels and 
therefore reduce the cost of production of these fuels.
  Increasing the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel 
will diversify our energy infrastructure, making it less vulnerable to 
acts of terrorism and increases the number of available fuel options, 
increasing competition, and reducing consumer costs of gasoline.
  There is a myth that more time is needed for the MTBE phaseout to 
ensure adequate fuel supplies. The fact is, the negotiated agreement 
set forth in S. 517 announced last week provides for a 4-year phaseout 
of MTBE, giving the petroleum and the transportation industries 
adequate lead time to make necessary changes to accommodate the 
increased use of renewable fuels. In fact, the American Petroleum 
Institute, the lead trade association for the refining industry, agrees 
that 4 years is an adequate phaseout period, and cost estimates for 
removing MTBE must also consider the cost incurred in additional MTBE 
water contamination if MTBE is not removed from the fuel supply.
  A recent poll conducted by the California Renewable Fuels Partnership 
concluded that 76 percent of likely voters supported banning MTBE 
because we cannot afford the pollution caused by MTBE, while only 13 
percent think it is a bad idea because of potential higher gasoline 
prices.
  The myth is it will raise gasoline prices when it is not expected to 
raise those prices. But 13 percent is a bad idea because of potential 
higher gasoline prices. If they are aware of the fact that it will not 
raise gasoline prices, perhaps the 76 percent favoring the phaseout, 
banning it, will increase substantially.
  There is another myth important to debunk; that is, ethanol cannot be 
transported from production centers in the Midwest, where it is 
currently produced, to coastal markets without incurring substantial 
investments and therefore large costs to the consumer. Furthermore, 
ethanol must be blended at the terminal and cannot be shipped by 
pipeline, constraining the distribution network. The fact is, today 
ethanol is transported cost effectively from coast to coast by barge, 
railcar, and oceangoing vessel.
  An analysis completed in January for the U.S. Department of Energy 
assessed the infrastructure requirements including transportation, 
distribution, and marketing issues for an expanding ethanol industry. 
The report concludes that no major infrastructure barriers exist to 
expanding the U.S. ethanol industry to 5.1 billion gallons per year, 
comparable to the renewable fuel standard established in S. 517. 
Therefore, the study concludes the logistics modification necessary 
under the scenario can be achieved cost effectively.
  Myths are important to debunk because they will, if not countered, 
very often stand in the way of the progress of this important part of 
our energy efforts.
  One final myth: Air quality will actually suffer as ethanol use 
increases nationwide. The fact is, the use of ethanol significantly 
reduces tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, an ozone precursor, VOCs 
and fine particulates that pose a health threat to children, seniors, 
and those with respiratory ailments. Importantly, renewable fuels help 
to reduce greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles, including carbon 
dioxide, methane, and other gases that contribute to global warming.
  S. 517 protects against any backsliding on air quality. First, the 
agreement tightens the toxic requirements of reformulated gasoline by 
moving the baseline refiners must meet by 1999 to 2000.
  The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management concluded 
that they are satisfied to have reached an agreement that substantially 
broadens the ability of the U.S. EPA and our Nation's Governors to 
protect, and in some cases actually improve to a greater extent, air 
quality and public health as we undertake major changes in the Nation's 
fuel supplies.
  Those who typically have proposed the myths and have supported those 
myths and made them a part of current mythology relating to biofuels 
and ethanol in particular have very often done so out of a lack of 
information but very often as a result of trying to derail the effort 
toward expanding this important part of our energy source. That is why 
it is important we take the opportunity to point out the truthfulness 
of the facts underlying ethanol and point out the falsehoods in the 
myths being used to deter our actions toward this amendment.
  I note my colleague from the other side. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank both of my friends from Nebraska. Both have been 
champions for renewable fuels, especially in the area of ethanol 
development.
  We all know we have not put forth our best effort toward research and 
development for the best use of this fuel. I was raised in the Midwest. 
When people think of ethanol, they think of corn. But corn is not the 
only grain that can be used. I lend my support to what the Senator from 
Nebraska is saying, and also to all our work in research and 
development for making this fuel more viable, making it work, and 
making it cost effective. It must be one of our big challenges.
  I have heard my good friend from Nebraska, the former Governor of 
Nebraska, make a couple of speeches on ethanol; both his enthusiasm for 
the product and the benefits it provides. It is not only good for our 
country, but good for our air and for the agricultural community that 
sorely needs help.
  Increasing the use of ethanol to 5 billion gallons is a step in the 
right direction. Some say it is possible to increase that figure. It is 
a number we finally settled on that was acceptable to folks who want to 
participate in this industry in my State of Montana.
  As I have stated, early this morning we spoke of the high-tech task 
force that we put together on this side of the aisle. We talk of all 
the research and development for the free flow of information. Here is 
another area we should zero in on. It will be new structures that will 
allow us to take advantage of this fuel and make it as efficient as 
using total gasoline or oxygenated gasolines.
  I talk to refiners in the private sector. Nobody wants to make a 
cleaner fuel than the refiners. The increase in production of ethanol 
is a good step. However, we should look at what we can do with our land 
grant universities who have the wherewithal to do some real research 
and development on this fuel, making it more viable than it is today. 
We have shortchanged making it better and more cost effective. We can 
let this work for us.
  I support my good friends from Nebraska. I thank them for their 
leadership on this issue. It is important. I would like to be part of 
trying to round up a little more money in a government-private sector 
partnership and allow the research to go forward on this matter.
  I thank my good friend from Nebraska. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my colleague from the great State of 
Montana for his support. He does have Midwest connections. He had the 
good fortune to marry a woman from the State of Nebraska. We appreciate 
his connection with the Midwest and his support.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Arkansas, who will speak on the 
renewable fuel standard.

[[Page S1817]]

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska, who 
has done critical work on this issue. I am delighted to be joining many 
of my colleagues in discussing the critical role that renewable fuels 
will play in our national energy policy.
  The energy bill we have been considering contains an important 
provision for renewable motor fuel standards. This provision 
establishes a national program for renewable fuels to be phased in 
beginning in 2004.
  This program would be flexible, so as not to adversely affect small 
producers and refineries, and it would provide incentives to encourage 
the development and use of renewable fuel.
  What would be the end result of this program? It would require 5 
billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2012, significantly 
reducing our dependence upon foreign energy sources.
  What does this mean? This is incredible. I think this is so important 
for us to stop and take a moment and realize what we are actually 
doing--5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. What a dramatic 
move we are making in the right direction.
  I should also mention that this provision includes measures to 
protect consumers. It would require a Department of Energy study next 
year, before the program begins, to assess the possible consumer 
impacts of a renewable fuels program. If the program would have a 
negative effect on consumers, the Environmental Protection Agency would 
be authorized to adjust the requirements to prevent these negative 
effects. By delivering the United States from the whims of groups like 
OPEC, who manipulate the production and price of oil, we will also 
reduce our trade deficit by an estimated $34 billion. That will be good 
for both American economic security and national security.
  Furthermore, a renewable fuel standard would create new economic 
opportunities in rural America. As many as 214,000 new American jobs 
could be created in response to the renewable fuel standard. It would 
increase the demand for grain by an average of 1.4 million bushels per 
year. It would create nearly $5.3 billion in new investment, much of 
that in rural areas.
  Importantly, a renewable fuel standard has attracted broad support--
and not only from the agricultural and fuel industries. The American 
Lung Association, for example, has also offered strong support for this 
provision, since renewable fuels would provide an effective strategy to 
reduce toxic air emissions and protect our air quality.
  It is an exaggeration to say that a renewable fuel standard could 
protect the health and well-being of future generations of Americans. 
Those of us from rural states appreciate the remarkable potential of 
renewable fuels. That is one reason why the farm bill that recently 
passed in the Senate also included a renewable motor fuels standard.
  In Arkansas, we recognize the importance of renewable fuels in 
helping the United States to become more energy-independent. That is 
why we are continuing to move forward with the development of a 
valuable new alternative fuel: Biodiesel. Biodiesel is a clean-burning 
fuel that can be produced from domestic renewable sources, such as 
agricultural oils, animal fats, or even recycled cooking oils. It 
contains no petroleum, but it can be easily blended with petroleum 
diesel at any stage of the process--during production at the refinery, 
in the pipeline, or even from the gas pump into a diesel tank.
  Biodiesel can be used in compression-ignition diesel engines with no 
major modifications. We are there. We are there with a product that is 
environmentally safe, that is good for our economy, and good for our 
environment.
  In road tests, biodiesel blends have demonstrated performance, fuel 
mileage, and drivability comparable to petroleum diesel. Biodiesel is 
simple to use, biodegradable, non-toxic, and essentially free of sulfur 
and aromatics.
  Athough new to our country, its use is well-established in Europe 
with over 250 million gallons consumed annually. Farmers in Arkansas 
and other rural States have embraced the development of biodiesel 
because it makes good economic sense for the farm industry. Biodiesel 
would allow us to develop new markets and to expand existing markets 
for soybean oil, cottonseed oils, and other types of agricultural oils.
  I have fought to include biodiesel as an alternative fuel, most 
recently by inserting a biodiesel tax credit in the Finance Committee's 
energy tax incentives package. This provision was overwhelmingly 
approved by the committee in a vote last month.
  Biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order 
to create favorable market conditions for biodiesel, we need market 
support and tax incentives to foster these conditions. With today's 
depressed market for farm commodities, biodiesel would serve as a ready 
new market for surplus farm products.
  Investment now in the biodiesel industry will level the playing field 
and create new opportunities in rural America.
  I believe that biodiesel could be made more available by allowing its 
use under the Energy Policy Act which Congress passed in 1992. If we 
expand the alternative fuels options to include biodiesel, we can make 
even more progress on bringing renewables to a wider market and making 
them more cost-effective.
  Reduced dependency on foreign oil, greater protection of our air and 
water against pollution and contamination, a strengthened rural economy 
with new jobs and productive uses for surplus farm commodities, energy 
sources that are natural, sustainable, and renewable--and all of this 
now. We do not have to wait. We do not have to retrofit our 
automobiles. All we have to do is move forward in making this product 
comparable in the sense that it can be competitive in the marketplace. 
We can do it now.

  These are only a few of the major benefits we will see from 
increasing our investment in renewable fuels. Now is the time to lay 
the groundwork to move our Nation in the direction of energy 
independence. How excited we should be that we have come this far, that 
we can move quickly now in energy policy to lessen our dependence on 
foreign oil, to use our own economy, our own production, and our 
agricultural and rural States to create a better environment and less 
dependence on foreign oil.
  I am very pleased to join Senator Nelson and the rest of my 
colleagues today in making sure that efficient, renewable fuels will 
play a key role in our Nation's future energy plan. Now is the time to 
act.
  We have been void of energy policy in our Nation for far too long--
one that is progressive, meets our needs, lessens our dependence on 
foreign oil, as well as putting our people to work --all the while 
protecting our environment.
  I thank my colleagues for bringing up such a critical issue, and I 
look forward to moving forward on this one quickly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Red River Valley


                                Sugarbeet Growers Association,

                                      Fargo, ND, January 18, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: As the Senate prepares to work on an 
     energy bill, you will have a voice on some important 
     decisions that will affect our country in many ways and for 
     many years to come. One of the most important things you can 
     do to make a difference is to support including a renewable 
     fuels standard in the energy bill. Such a measure would 
     require the oil industry to use an increasing amount of 
     ethanol and biodiesel every year, while giving the oil 
     industry the flexibility to determine when and where it is 
     best to use it.
       More importantly, a renewable fuels standard that would 
     require the use of at least five (5) billion gallons of 
     ethanol by 2012 is good energy policy. We hear a lot of talk 
     about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and this would 
     be the best measurable and tangible step we could take to 
     actually accomplish that goal.
       A renewable fuels requirement would increase jobs, 
     something our country desperately needs, create markets for 
     farm products, and help us reduce our reliance on oil from 
     the Middle East--over 66% of the world's oil reserves lie in 
     the politically unstable Persian Gulf. Ethanol and biodiesel 
     can help our country, but we need your support in order to 
     help make that happen. The time is right, and we need your 
     support for this effort. I urge you to contact me if for any 
     reason you cannot support such a provision. Thank you for 
     your help on this issue.
       A renewable fuels standard has been incorporated in S. 
     1766, and we strongly support

[[Page S1818]]

     that provision. No matter what form the final bill takes, we 
     want to see a renewable fuels requirement in the final 
     version of the Senate's energy bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark F. Weber,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                          ACE,

                                   Sioux Falls, SD, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: I am writing to thank you for your 
     support for including a renewable fuels standard in the 
     Senate energy bill. The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) 
     was one of the first organizations to advocate the creation 
     of a renewable fuels standard (RFS). In fact, I testified on 
     behalf of ACE in support of an RFS in front of the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee all the way back on April 11, 2000. As 
     an organization that represents a broad, grassroots base, 
     including many farmer-owned ethanol plants, rural electric 
     cooperatives and public power districts, ACE feels that a 
     renewable fuels standard that phases in ethanol demand over 
     10 years will allow more farmer-led ethanol projects to be 
     developed.
       A renewable fuels standard will give the ethanol industry 
     the certainty that it needs in order to continue to grow. It 
     will give farmers and bankers the assurance they need in 
     order to keep investing in new ethanol production. At the 
     same time, a renewable fuels standard will also: create badly 
     needed jobs and economic development in rural areas; create 
     opportunities for farmers to invest in the processing of the 
     products they are producing; and significantly reduce our 
     country's dependence on foreign oil, much of which we are 
     importing from Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.
       Various studies have shown that there are no barriers to 
     the implantation of a 5 billion gallon renewable fuels 
     requirement. Now, as the Senate begins work on its version of 
     the energy bill, it is time that ethanol and biodiesel be 
     recognized for their ability to help provide for a secure 
     energy future for the United States. We thank you for your 
     support for a renewable fuels standard and will look forward 
     to working with you to further expand opportunities for 
     farmers and rural America.
           Sincerely,
                                                Trevor Guthmiller,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                       Nebraska Farmers Union,

                                       Lincoln, NE, March 6, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: As you prepare for the debate on a 
     national energy policy, I want to re-state the importance of 
     the proposed renewable fuel standard to the Nebraska Farmers 
     Union. I know you have been a long-time supporter of this 
     concept but it is important that others understand the impact 
     this proposal can have on the agricultural economy, the 
     environment, and on our country. One example of the potential 
     impact generated by the proposed national standard is clearly 
     illustrated by the ethanol plants in Nebraska. The Clean Air 
     Act Amendments of 1990 and the ethanol program adopted in 
     Nebraska encouraged investment in ethanol plants. The 
     investment in Nebraska ethanol plants yielded a host of 
     economic and environmental benefits. These include the 
     expansion of grain markets in the state, quality jobs in 
     rural areas, displacement of imported gasoline, diversified 
     local tax bases, and the reduction of carcinogenic gasoline 
     components with clean burning ethanol. Enactment of a 
     renewable energy standard would provide a strong impetus for 
     additional investment in new plants throughout the country. 
     New investment will yield additional jobs, additional grain 
     consumption, increased output of clean burning ethanol and 
     additional tax contributions to state and local tax coffers. 
     All these benefits are crucial to the economy of Nebraska and 
     other states.
       Higher prices offered by ethanol plants for cash grain 
     helps support our farmers and reduces transportation of crops 
     grown in the state. Local access to expanded grain markets 
     reduces the use of imported fuels and lowers the 
     transportation costs associated with grain marketing. These 
     reduced costs are especially important during times of 
     economic hardship in the agricultural sector.
       Theses are many reasons why a national renewable fuel 
     standard is of importance to the national economy. I urge you 
     to continue your strong support for the proposed national 
     renewable fuel standard and to convey the importance of this 
     standard to your colleagues in the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John K. Hansen,
     President.
                                  ____



                            Nebraska Corn Growers Association,

                                       Lincoln, NE, March 6, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: As you prepare for the debate on a 
     national energy policy, I want to re-state the importance of 
     the proposed renewable fuel standard to Nebraska corn 
     producers. I know you have been a long-time supporter of this 
     concept but it is important that others understand the impact 
     this proposal can have on the agricultural economy, the 
     environment, and on our country. The ethanol plants in 
     Nebraska perhaps best illustrate one example of the potential 
     benefits that can be generated by the proposed national 
     standard. The ethanol development program adopted in Nebraska 
     encouraged investment in new ethanol plants. The investment 
     in Nebraska ethanol plants yielded a host of economic and 
     environmental benefits. These include the expansion of grain 
     markets in the state, quality jobs in rural areas, 
     displacement of imported gasoline, diversified local tax 
     bases, and value-added grain processing.
       Enactment of a renewable energy standard would provide a 
     strong impetus for additional investment in new plants 
     throughout the country. New investment will yield additional 
     jobs, additional grain consumption, expanded grain markets, 
     increased output of clean burning ethanol and additional tax 
     contributions to state and local tax coffers. These benefits 
     are crucial to the economy of Nebraska and other states.
       Increased demand for ethanol tends to stimulate higher 
     prices for corn. Higher prices bid by ethanol plants for cash 
     grain helps support our corn producers and reduces 
     transportation of crops grown in the state. Local access to 
     expanded grain markets reduces the use of imported fuels and 
     lowers the transportation costs associated with grain 
     marketing. These reduced costs are especially important 
     during times of economic hardship in the agricultural sector.
       These are numerous reasons why a national renewable fuel 
     standard is of importance to the national economy, and to our 
     rural economy in Nebraska. On behalf of Nebraska's corn 
     producers, we commend your hard work and thank you for your 
     strong support for the proposed national renewable fuel 
     standard.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark Schweers,
     President.
                                  ____



                                             NE Ethanol Board,

                                       Lincoln, NE, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: As you and your colleagues prepare to 
     continue the debate on a national energy policy, I want to 
     take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of the 
     proposed renewable fuel standard. I know you have been a 
     longstanding supporter of this concept but it is important 
     that others understand the profound impact this proposal can 
     have on our country. One example of the potential impact 
     generated by the proposed national standard is clearly 
     illustrated in Nebraska. The ethanol development program 
     adopted in Nebraska more than a decade ago has yielded a host 
     of economic and environmental benefits. These include the 
     following:
       Construction of seven grain processing plants that annually 
     convert 20 per cent of the Nebraska corn and grain sorghum 
     crop to clean burning ethanol and value-added protein 
     products.
       New capital investment in these facilities that totals more 
     than one billion dollars to date. Additional investment is 
     currently underway in new and existing plants.
       More than 1,000 permanent jobs directly resulting from 
     plant operations and more than 5,000 induced jobs that 
     support the ethanol industry.
       Quality jobs in rural areas of the state. A recent survey 
     indicates that the average salary paid at ethanol plants in 
     Nebraska is approximately $36,100. This salary level is 
     significantly higher than the average salary for all job 
     categories in the state. Quality jobs help retain skilled 
     workers in rural parts of the state. This income, coupled 
     with tax assessments on the plant, helps to diversify the 
     local tax base.
       Higher prices and reduced transportation of crops grown in 
     the state. This new demand for grain stimulates cash prices 
     and provides a local market.
       Increased economic activity in other sectors. For example, 
     a recent analysis by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
     indicates that the feeding of high protein co-products 
     produced at ethanol plants yields improved gains in cattle. 
     The study indicates that when fed as a wet ration, energy 
     costs are saved and cattle weight gains are improved. The 
     economic impact of this activity is measured at more than $41 
     million each year in Nebraska.
       Improved air quality. Reductions of carbon monoxide in the 
     atmosphere are in part due to the use of ethanol enhanced 
     fuels in Nebraska. In addition, a recent study by the 
     University of Nebraska concludes that ethanol reduces 
     aromatic levels in gasoline.
       Retention of energy dollars in the state economy. There is 
     no gasoline refined in Nebraska. Every gallon of gasoline 
     must be imported from outside the borders of the state. 
     Displacement of gasoline with ethanol helps retain dollars in 
     our economy.
       These are a few reasons why a national renewable fuel 
     standard is of such importance to the Nebraska economy. More 
     importantly, the proposed standard offers the opportunity to 
     generate similar benefits nationwide. For that reason, the 27 
     Governors that comprise the National Governors' Ethanol 
     Coalition stand firmly in their support of this proposed 
     standard.
       The proposed standard must be a key component of a new 
     national energy plan. The standard presents us with an 
     opportunity to stimulate a significant national biofuels 
     effort that will yield important economic, energy, 
     environmental and national security benefits. I urge you to 
     continue your strong support for the proposed national 
     renewable

[[Page S1819]]

     fuel standard and to convey the importance of this standard 
     to your colleagues in the Senate.
           Sincerely,
     Todd C. Sneller.
                                  ____



                                    Chief Ethanol Fuels, Inc.,

                                      Hastings, NE, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: As you prepare for the debate on a 
     national energy policy, I want to re-state the importance of 
     the proposed renewable fuel standard to companies like Chief 
     Ethanol Fuels. I know you have been a long-time supporter of 
     this concept, but it is important that others understand the 
     impact this proposal can have on ethanol companies and on our 
     country. One example of the potential impact generated by the 
     proposed national standard is clearly illustrated by our 
     plant in Nebraska. The ethanol development program adopted in 
     Nebraska encouraged us to invest in the Hastings plant. Our 
     investment has yielded a host of economic and environmental 
     benefits. These include the expansion of our processing plant 
     from 10 million gallons annual capacity to more than 60 
     million gallons capacity. At our plant, we convert Nebraska 
     corn and grain sorghum to clean burning ethanol and value-
     added protein products.
       We continue to evaluate the investment of new capital in 
     our facility when market conditions warrant. Enactment of a 
     renewable energy standard would provide a strong impetus for 
     additional investment. New investment yields additional jobs, 
     additional grain consumption, increased output of clean 
     burning ethanol and additional tax contributions to state and 
     local tax coffers.
       Our ethanol plant is an aggressive bidder for local grain. 
     Higher prices bid for cash grain helps support our farmers 
     and reduces transportation of crops grown in the state. The 
     ethanol we sell at local terminals helps to retain energy 
     dollars in the state's economy. Since no gasoline is refined 
     in Nebraska, we must import it from outside the borders of 
     the state. Displacement of gasoline with ethanol helps retain 
     dollars in our economy.
       As the debate on the issues progresses, I would ask that a 
     mechanism be included to assure year around blending and not 
     just Winter season. Smaller ethanol producers do not have the 
     storage capacity or financial wherewithal to store ethanol 
     production during the 6 month Summer season.
       I urge you to continue your strong support for the proposed 
     national renewable fuel standard and to convey the importance 
     of this standard to your colleagues in the Senate. Thank you 
     for your many years of strong support for ethanol.
           Sincerely,
     Roger Burken.
                                  ____



                                     Griffin Industries, Inc.,

                                   Cold Spring, KY, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: I wish to thank you for your continued 
     support of the biofuel efforts and initiative that you are 
     supporting in the upcoming discussion on the Senate Energy 
     Bill.
       As you know, we are the major supplier of biodiesel, a 
     renewable energy source for replacement of petroleum diesel 
     fuel, here in Kentucky. We currently service the Midwest, 
     East Coast and Southeast regions of the country with ASTM-121 
     high quality fuel to many non-attainment air quality cities 
     for use in buses and service vehicles and other fleets 
     delivering consumer goods of all types.
       Our plant has the capacity to produce ASTM standard fuel 
     from various feedstocks including soybean oil and spent 
     cooking oil. This new process is helpful in creating new uses 
     for agri-products and lessens our dependency on foreign oil 
     suppliers, especially the volatile Middle East Region of the 
     world where we are under battle at the present time.
       Biofuels can play a very important part in the United 
     States Energy Policy while helping agriculture at the same 
     time. We currently have several new projects under 
     consideration at other Griffin Industries locations and will 
     commit new capacities to the biodiesel market if biofuels are 
     included in our nation's energy future.
       Thank you for ``carrying the flag'' on biofuels. If we can 
     be of assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.
           Best Regards,
                                                Dennis B. Griffin,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                            Changing World Technologies, Inc.,

                                West Hempstead, NY, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. Ben Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: Although I am a resident of New York 
     and not Nebraska, I wanted to applaud your efforts in 
     promoting renewable bio-fuels. I am the chairman of a company 
     that is building a bio-refinery in Missouri, which will 
     process turkey slaughterhouse waste into natural gas, oil and 
     fertilizer with no material remaining that requires disposal.
       Our patented technology, if applied broadly, could replace 
     all imported energy feedstocks, thus insuring our energy 
     independence. In addition to our Missouri plant, which will 
     be operational in August, we are building commercial plants 
     to handle agricultural waste in Nevada, Alabama, Georgia, 
     Arkansas and Colorado. Our process can also be applied to 
     other organic wastes, such as scrap tires, waste plastic, 
     sewage sludge and municipal solid waste.
       We and others like us have commercial technologies, which 
     can transform costly waste materials into valuable energy 
     products. With your support and that of other like-minded 
     senators, we can advance the commercial viability of the 
     renewable fuels industry, enhance the quality of our 
     environment, and replace imported oil as a significant energy 
     source. You have our full support in all of your efforts.
           Best regards,
                                                   Brian S. Appel,
     Chairman and CEO.
                                  ____



                                               Masada, OxyNol,

                                    Birmingham, AL, March 5, 2002.
     Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson,
     Dirksen Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: I am writing to tell you how pleased I 
     am that a Renewable Fuel Standard proposal has been included 
     in the Senate energy bill. I know that you are a strong 
     supporter of the renewable fuel standard and I share your 
     hope that it is enacted.
       A renewable fuel standard will increase national energy 
     security, stimulate economic growth and help protect the 
     environment. The use of ethanol, a domestically produced 
     fuel, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports while 
     adding much needed jobs in the United States. Not only is 
     ethanol an alternative to imported oil, it is cleaner burning 
     and helps decrease air pollution by dramatically reducing the 
     production of greenhouse gases.
       Masada OxyNol TM has patented a unique process 
     that converts household garbage into fuel ethanol. After 
     traditional recyclables are removed, the remaining cellulosic 
     portion of the garbage is processed into ethanol. More than 
     90% of the garbage is beneficially reused or recycled instead 
     of being landfilled or incinerated.
       As a leader in the field of cellulose to ethanol 
     production, our company realizes the importance of a strong 
     renewable fuel standard. We at Masada OxyNol TM 
     are very much in favor of the inclusion of the renewable fuel 
     standard in the final energy bill. The implementation of such 
     a standard will be good for the nation.
       Thank you for all of your hard work toward the 
     establishment of the renewable fuel standard.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Daryl E. Harms,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

                                                February 22, 2002.
       Senators Thomas A. Daschle, Trent Lott, Jeff Bingaman, 
     Frank H. Murkowski, Ernest F. Hollings, and John McCain, and 
     Representatives J. Dennis Hastert and Richard A. Gephardt: As 
     you wrestle with the complex and vitally important energy 
     bill now before the Senate and the subsequent House/Senate 
     Conference, we ask that you carefully consider the national 
     and energy security aspects of this legislation in order to 
     reduce our reliance on oil.
       The United States is almost out of oil, and our dependence 
     takes us places and forces us to do things that are not 
     always in America's national interest. The power of oil 
     reinforces the top of almost all societies and that strength 
     and privilege too often fails to translate into policies and 
     actions meeting the true needs of the people, their 
     environment and their future. Perhaps the greatest gift 
     America can give to the world is to put the power of oil into 
     perspective.
       We can use less oil to meet our needs in smarter ways while 
     advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy 
     technologies. Europe is ahead of us in many these areas. 
     Countries rich in oil and poor in dealing with their people 
     and their environment may then begin to take a more 
     insightful look at their 20 year horizon and decide that 
     their current wealth can be better deployed. They should then 
     be able to see that subjugation, terrorism, and war are not 
     good investments for current oil-derived wealth.
       Here at home: America must reduce its dependency on oil as 
     we deplete our reserves and increase imports that will 
     increasingly come from the Middle East, the Caspian Basin and 
     Indonesia; we must accept our responsibility to reduce 
     America's greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions largely 
     emanating from the combustion of fossil fuels; we must 
     preserve for future generations and for strategic purposes, 
     the last of our oil reserves and pioneer the advancement of 
     non-petroleum transportation fuels; and we must disperse our 
     energy production facilities and reduce our reliance on 
     vulnerable electrical grids and oil and gas pipelines.
       There are major opportunities for energy efficiency, fuel 
     economy and renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, 
     biomass, geothermal, incremental hydro and hydrogen.
       While these imperatives will come at a modest investment to 
     our economy, they will bring major returns and benefits: 
     accelerate the process of freeing us from our oil dependency; 
     honor our international environmental obligations; create 
     major new domestic industries and millions of jobs--
     especially in rural America where opportunities for biomass, 
     solar, wind and geothermal industries abound; take America 
     out of the ``rumble seat'' and into the driver's seat in 
     establishing the world's energy future; and greatly 
     strengthen our energy and national security.

[[Page S1820]]

       We are national security specialists and energy security 
     advocates of biofuels because of their ready potential to 
     replace imported oil. We recommend: passage of a meaningful 
     renewable fuels and a renewable portfolio standard; increased 
     efficiency standards for vehicles--and the use of biofuels in 
     these vehicles--and for facilities/appliances using 
     electricity; and extension of the energy production tax 
     credits for at least two years and include open-loop biomass, 
     agricultural and forestry residues, animal waste, solar and 
     geothermal.
       We ask that you give our convictions and recommendations 
     careful consideration in your deliberations.
     Robert C. McFarlane,
       National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan.
     R. James Woolsey,
       Former Director, Central Intelligence.
     Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN (Ret),
       Former Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
                                  ____



                                 Governors' Ethanol Coalition,

                                      Lincoln, NE, March 12, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Lott: On behalf of the 27 
     members of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition, we are writing 
     to express our strong support for the provisions included in 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 517), which will establish 
     a national renewable fuels standard.
       The provisions set forth in the Manager's Amendment to S. 
     517 reflect an agreement negotiated over the last two years 
     by the states, agricultural interests, refiners, and the 
     environmental community that will address such important 
     issues as MTBE water contamination and the oxygenate 
     requirement in reformulated gasoline while providing a 
     significant market for renewable fuels such as ethanol and 
     biodiesel. Specifically, we support those provisions in S. 
     517 that: create a national renewable fuels standard, 
     ensuring a growing part of our nation's fuel supply, up to 5 
     billion gallons by 2012, is provided by domestic, renewable 
     fuels; eliminate the use of MTBE in the United States within 
     four years; eliminate the oxygenate requirement in the 
     reformulated gasoline program; and maintain the air quality 
     gains of the reformulated gasoline program.
       By enacting these provisions, we will strengthen our 
     national security, displace imported oil from politically 
     unstable regions, stimulate ethanol and biodiesel production, 
     expand domestic energy supplies, and continue to reduce air 
     pollution.
       We encourage you to support these provisions and to resist 
     any amendments that would alter this landmark agreement.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Holden,
       Governor of Missouri, Chair.
     John Hoeven,
       Governor of North Dakota, Vice Chair.
     Mike Johanns,
       Governor of Nebraska, Past Chair.
                                  ____



                            National Corn Growers Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Corn Growers 
     Association, I want to express our solid support for the 
     inclusion of a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in S. 517 that 
     is being debated in the Senate. A commitment to a RFS is a 
     commitment to making America energy independent. Our energy 
     security is not a partisan issue and we hope that all Members 
     of the Senate will put America first and vote yes on the RFS.
       We believe the benefits from passing the RFS are 
     overwhelming. Even a modest RFS that equals to about 3% 
     (phased in over 10 years) of the gasoline used in the U.S. 
     would reduce oil imports by 1.6 billion barrels over the next 
     decade. According to a recent study by AUS Consultants, 
     reducing oil imports by this amount will reduce our trade 
     deficit by nearly $34 billion while creating 214,000 jobs and 
     adding $51 billion to household income. In addition, the RFS 
     will create $5.3 billion in new investment, much of it in 
     rural America. Finally, the RFS provisions of S. 517 will 
     provide flexibility for refiners to produce fuel more cost 
     effectively while protecting the environment.
       The RFS is a standard, just like the standards we have for 
     automobile fuel economy or the energy efficiency of 
     appliances and buildings. Congress has established these 
     visionary goals for energy efficiency over many years as an 
     integral part of our pubic policy. The RFS simply says that 
     it is good public policy, and in our national interest for 
     some portion of our transportation fuel to be derived from 
     renewable resources.
       It is time for America to take meaningful steps toward 
     energy independence. A first, small step is to establish a 
     RFS now. Put America first, vote yes on the RFS.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Tim Hume,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the issue of ethanol 
and the renewable fuel standard, but before I do, I compliment the 
Senator from Arkansas for the simple reason that she was the sponsor of 
the amendment in the Senate Finance Committee in which we adopted this 
as part of our tax incentives for renewable fuels. She led the way in 
that committee. I was happy to join her as the Republican leader of 
that effort because not only will Arkansas benefit but half of our 
States raise some soybeans and they will benefit as well. So I 
compliment Senator Lincoln.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the renewable fuel 
standard, which is an example of true bipartisan cooperation in this 
body. It was a bipartisan effort that made this possible. Obviously, 
Senator Nelson has already been applauded by my colleagues. I would say 
that as well. Not only since he has been in the Senate but as Governor 
of the State of Nebraska he helped, through the Governors' Conference, 
cochairing issues of ethanol for that conference. So he has been a 
leader in this area for a long time.
  So I give my heartfelt thanks to him and to others who were 
instrumental, both directly and indirectly. Even though President Bush 
is not a member of this body, I think he needs to be complimented in 
the first instance for denying California's request for a waiver out of 
the Clean Air Act's oxygenation requirements.
  Upon taking office, President Bush quickly recognized that there was 
no scientific or legal justification for the waiver. He, in fact, had 
the courage to take that action. It could have been possible 2 years 
before, if President Clinton had done likewise. During that period of 
lost time, we had a dampening and a delaying of efforts, such as we are 
having today, to successfully help our national security and our farm 
economy because these all benefit from the increased ethanol use as an 
oxygenate.
  President Bush, has turned out to be the most pro-ethanol President 
we have ever had, and because he refused to let the Clean Air Act 
unravel, he gave us the leverage necessary for this process, the 
negotiation of a new renewable fuel standard. Now we are back on track.
  I thank Senator Nelson. I also thank the senior Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, because he provided persuasive leadership last 
fall in securing support for his Senate Energy Committee Republican 
colleagues to get behind this renewable fuel standard.
  I also have said this has been a very bipartisan effort. Obviously, 
our majority leader, Senator Daschle, has been involved in a very 
helpful way. During the negotiations conducted by Senator Hagel, he 
provided constant assurances that he would be supportive of this final 
product.
  I compliment our Republican leader, who comes from an oil-producing 
State and who has been behind ethanol for several years, Senator Lott, 
and also Senator Murkowski, the ranking member of the Energy Committee. 
Last fall, they gave Senator Hagel, myself, and other Senators their 
commitment, at least for the Republican side, that they would support 
this renewable standard.
  Today, our Nation produces just 1.8 billion gallons of ethanol a 
year. The renewable fuel standard will require that we use 2.3 billion. 
That is a one-half-billion increase in gallons by the year 2004. Then 
it steadily increases up the ladder until it is a mandated use of 5 
billion gallons by the year 2012.
  This sounds like just more and cheaper gas to burn. But it also will 
improve air quality. It strengthens our national security, and it 
reduces our trade deficit. One-third of our trade deficit is caused by 
the import of oil. It will decrease our independence upon oil from 
dictators who aren't reliable--Saddam Hussein. It will extend markets 
for agricultural products in a way that we all want--value added. It 
creates jobs in cities.
  A 1997 study by the Midwestern Governors' Conference--I would bet 
Senator Nelson had something to do with this when he was Governor--
determined that ethanol demand was responsible for over 195,000 jobs 
throughout the economy. Forty-two thousand of those jobs were located 
in Iowa.

[[Page S1821]]

  With the passage of the renewable fuel standard, 214,000 new jobs are 
anticipated. I expect a large portion of those would be in my State of 
Iowa.
  Just last week, for instance, Quad County Corn Processors, a 
cooperative in the small town of Galva, IA, began production at their 
new 18-million-gallon ethanol facility. Iowa now has nine ethanol 
plants and five more are under construction.
  The Iowa Corn Growers Association provided me an analysis of the 
economic impact of seven new Iowa farmer-owned ethanol plants in our 
State, two of which have been completed and five are under 
construction. Over 4,000 farmers have invested in these facilities. 
These are farmers helping themselves in a cooperative way. The 
facilities will create 170 new jobs. While Iowa currently produces 500 
million gallons of ethanol each year, these new facilities will add 150 
million gallons more.
  According to the Iowa Corn Growers, corn prices will increase 5 cents 
per bushel for every 100 million bushels of corn processed. Therefore, 
these seven new farmer-owned ethanol facilities alone will increase 
corn prices by 3.5 cents.

  Every year, about 175 million bushels of Iowa corn are processed into 
ethanol. This in turn adds about $730 million per year to the income of 
Iowa farm families. It adds up to $1.7 billion of increased economic 
activity in our State.
  As I mentioned today, we produce nationwide about 1.8 million gallons 
of ethanol. When fully implemented, the bipartisan compromise in this 
bill--the renewable fuel standard--will almost triple production.
  Economic analysis by A-U-S Consultants found that this legislation 
will displace over 1.6 billion barrels of oil, increase farm income by 
almost $6 billion annually, increase household income by $52 billion 
per year, and create over 214,000 new jobs nationwide.
  I also would like to share with my colleagues the finding of a study 
produced 2 years ago by the Department of Energy entitled ``The Impacts 
of Alternative and Replacement Fuel Use On Oil Prices.'' The study 
found that ``current use of alternative and replacement fuels is 
estimated to reduce total U.S. petroleum costs by about $1.3 billion 
per year.''
  It is very important to understand that these alternative fuels--
primarily MTBE as well as ethanol--made up only 2.71 percent of our 
total motor fuel use. I want to say to naysayers who criticize efforts 
to expand alternative sources of motor fuels that the evidence proves 
that even small amounts of alternative motor fuels can generate huge 
savings to consumers.
  The Department of Energy study went on to estimate that if we 
increase our alternative motor fuels use by just 10 percent by the year 
2010, consumers will save $6 billion per year. By increasing the use of 
alternative motor fuels, we increase price elasticity in the event of 
supply disruption and thus reduce the potential damage to our Nation's 
economy. To do otherwise leaves us subjected to our current vulnerable 
situation where, again, according to the Department of Energy, ``For 
every one million barrels per day of oil disruption, world prices could 
increase by $3 to $5 per barrel.''
  In closing, I emphasize that 1 million barrels per day is a mere 5 
percent of U.S. oil consumption. Yet this very small amount would cause 
price hikes of 10 to 25 percent if oil were $20 per barrel. A little in 
alternatives, such as ethanol--or we could even say biodiesel--can go a 
long way toward protecting all consumers from OPEC efforts of price 
gouging.
  I thank my colleagues for working together in this bipartisan effort, 
which is good for the economy, good for the environment, good for jobs, 
and good for energy independence.
  As I so often say to describe ethanol, it is good, good, good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to 
the distinguished Senator from the State of Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, first of all, alternative fuels 
and ethanol are the subject of the instant amendment, but I think we 
have to use our creativity and our technology in order to approach the 
overall energy crisis.
  If a terrorist sinks a supertanker in the Straits of Hormuz, which 
are only 19 miles wide, we are going to see a major disruption in the 
flow of oil to the industrialized world, and we will have wished we had 
used our technology and our creativity to reduce our dependence on that 
foreign oil by doing things that have worked to save our oil 
consumption in the past, like increasing the miles per gallon of the 
automobiles we drive. We have the know how to do that.
  It just amazes me that we have the technology to, for example, 
produce a car which will go 80 miles per gallon and yet we are still so 
balled up in our politics that we may not pass an initiative that calls 
for moderate increases in the fuel efficiency of our nation's 
automobiles. The modest increases called for by the Kerry-McCain 
initiative would achieve three goals of particular importance to our 
nation in this time of war: lessen our dependence on foreign oil, 
reduce gasoline costs for consumers and protect the environment by 
reducing toxic air emissions and carbon dioxide emissions, which 
contribute to global warming. Increasing CAFE can achieve these goals- 
which are particularly important to our nation's security now that we 
are in a battle against terrorists around this globe.
  So I wanted to add my voice, hopefully, as a voice of reason, to get 
our representative body to start using our technology and our common 
sense to increase the fuel economy of all of our vehicles.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                           Amendment No. 2997

  Under the previous order, the hour of 11:30 having arrived, there now 
will be 20 minutes equally divided on the Levin amendment No. 2997.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would assume that I would be dividing the 
time in support of the amendment equally with my cosponsor from 
Missouri, and we would each control 5 minutes of the 10 minutes on our 
side. So I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our bipartisan alternative to the Kerry-
Hollings language in the substitute before us is aimed at increasing 
fuel economy, helping to protect the environment, and decreasing our 
dependence on foreign oil but doing it in a way which does not harm the 
domestic manufacturing industries.
  We have a three-point policy, basically: One, we provide that we will 
increase fuel economy. Two, we have greater emphasis on positive 
incentives to produce and to purchase fuel-economic vehicles. We do 
this through joint research and development funds which we would 
increase over the amount requested by the administration. We would do 
this through mandatory Government purchases of hybrids. And we would 
also do this through increased tax credits above those provided by the 
Finance Committee.
  But the third part of our policy is that many factors should be 
considered in raising the CAFE requirement. It should be raised. And 
our amendment says that it will be raised, but it would be raised, 
under our amendment, not in an arbitrary way, not just by adopting an 
arbitrary number on the floor of the Senate, but, rather, by telling, 
in the first instance, the Department of Transportation to look at all 
of the factors which should be considered in adopting a new CAFE 
standard--many factors, including safety, including cost, including 
competitiveness of manufacturers.

  The National Academy of Sciences has specifically said that there is 
a safety tradeoff. That is what they have found. The opponents of our 
amendment say it is a flawed study. OK. We disagree with that. But, 
nonetheless, if it is a flawed study, the National Academy of Sciences 
has also then said, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
should continue their work in this area. But, point blank, the National 
Academy of Sciences says there is a tradeoff.
  I yield myself an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. In the year studied, 1993, they found between 1,300 and 
2,600

[[Page S1822]]

deaths and 13,000 and 26,000 injuries. They said these deaths and 
injuries were a painful tradeoff that resulted from CAFE. The opponents 
of our amendment do not consider safety. They just say the study is 
flawed. That is their answer.
  What about the discriminatory impacts of CAFE?
  The National Academy of Sciences again says that one concept of 
equity among manufacturers requires equal treatment of equivalent 
vehicles made by different manufacturers. We do not have equal 
treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different manufacturers under 
the language that is in the substitute of Senator Kerry and Senator 
Hollings. It treats equally-efficient vehicles differently and 
discriminates, thereby, against American jobs and the American 
industry.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. President, it is important to emphasize today that this debate is 
not about whether or not we will increase vehicle fuel efficiency. We 
are not arguing for a freeze on CAFE standards. What we are saying is 
that we need to do this in the best way possible. This needs to be 
something where we win environmentally and we win in terms of the 
economy and jobs.
  That is what this substitute does. It is comprehensive. It moves 
vehicle fuel efficiency forward. It creates the market incentives and 
the support to make sure we have what is necessary in terms of 
infrastructure for these new vehicles. It moves us in the right 
direction.
  I simply urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to support 
increased vehicle fuel efficiency, and a vibrant, economically healthy 
U.S. auto industry. We do both through this amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of the Levin-Bond 
amendment, and I want to explain my views in detail. Fuel efficiency is 
a critically important issue for our country, for my home State of 
Wisconsin, and for our future. I remain committed to the goal that 
significant improvements in automobile and light truck fuel efficiency 
can be achieved over an appropriate time frame. Some will argue that my 
vote for Levin-Bond is a vote against increasing the corporate average 
fuel economy, CAFE. I do not share that view.
  The Levin-Bond amendment seeks to renew the Department of 
Transportation's role in setting CAFE standards acting through the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, part of the 
Federal Department of Transportation, DOT. If Congress does not act 
today to try to restore normalcy to the NHTSA process, Congress will 
always either block or act to set CAFE standards, every 20 years or so, 
when the political will is sufficient to do so. NHTSA will never be 
able to carry out the normal process of reviewing and incrementally 
improving fuel efficiency for automobiles and light trucks, as Congress 
originally intended when it passed the CAFE law in the 1970s.
  Both interest groups battling over the CAFE issue, the auto 
manufacturers and the environmental community, have switched their 
positions in this debate on this bill. The auto industry, who once 
wanted CAFE perpetually frozen with a rider, now support the Levin 
amendment. The environmental community, who once opposed the rider and 
wanted NHTSA to act, now wants Congress to set the standard rather than 
NHTSA. With my vote, I am committing to a consistent position. Let me 
explain the evolution of that position.
  Months prior to the midterm elections in 1994, NHTSA published a 
notice of possible adjustment to the fuel economy standards for trucks 
before the end of the decade. The following year, however, the House-
passed version of the FY1996 Department of Transportation 
Appropriations bill prohibited the use of authorized funds to 
promulgate any CAFE rules. The Senate version did not include the 
language, but it was restored in Conference. Much the same scenario 
occurred in the second session of the 104th and the first session of 
the 105th Congresses. In both those sessions, a similar rider was 
passed by the House and not by the Senate, but included by the 
Conferees and enacted. However, the growth in gasoline consumption and 
the size of the light-duty truck fleet were concerns cited behind 
introduction in the Senate of an amendment to the bill expressing the 
Sense of the Senate that the conferees should not agree to the House-
passed rider for FY2000. The amendment, sponsored by the former Senator 
from Washington, Mr. Gorton, and the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein, was defeated in the Senate on September 15, 1999, by a vote 
of 55-40, and the rider was once again enacted into law.
  As I stated on the Senate floor in the debates on the CAFE rider on 
June 15, 2000, my vote was about ``Congress getting out of the way and 
letting a federal agency meet the requirements of federal law 
originally imposed by Congress.'' I supported removing the rider 
because I was concerned that Congress has for more than 5 years blocked 
NHTSA from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need 
to modify fuel economy standards.
  As I made clear then, I have made no determination about what fuel 
economy standards should be, though I do think that an increase is 
possible. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given 
model year, taking into account several factors: technological 
feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as 
those for safety and environmental performance, the need to conserve 
energy, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. I 
want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make 
an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I expect NHTSA 
to consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental 
interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested Wisconsin citizens 
in developing this rule. And, I expect NHTSA to act, and if it does 
not, this amendment requires Congress to act on a standard.
  In opposing the Levin-Bond amendment, some subscribe to the view that 
NHTSA has a particular agenda and will recommend weak standards. I do 
not support that view, just as I could not support retaining the CAFE 
rider in law.
  NHTSA should be allowed to set this standard. Congress is not the 
best forum for understanding whether or not improvements in fuel 
economy can and should be made using existing technologies or whether 
emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. 
Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. 
I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of 
those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of 
reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution.
  In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers, indeed all 
consumers, have a wide range of new automobiles, SUVs, and trucks 
available to them that are as fuel efficient as they can be while 
balancing energy concerns with technological and economic effects. That 
balancing is required by the law. I fully expect NHTSA to proceed with 
the intent of the law to fully consider all those factors, and this 
amendment ensures they do so.
  In supporting this amendment, I maintain the position that it is my 
job to ensure that the agency responsible for setting fuel economy be 
allowed to do its job. I expect them to be fair and neutral in that 
process, and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that 
their views are represented and that the regulatory process proceeds in 
a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits 
will support.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as co-chairman of the Senate Auto 
Caucus, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Levin and 
Senator Bond, in offering this CAFE standards amendment to the energy 
bill. This is truly an important issue; one that impacts upon our 
Nation's economy, our environment and the safety of the traveling 
public.
  There is no doubt that each of us wants the automobile industry to 
make cars, trucks, SUVs and minivans that are as energy efficient as 
possible.

[[Page S1823]]

Not only is it good for the environment, it also means more money in 
the pocket of the American consumer because they spend less at the gas 
pump.
  However, I am deeply concerned that the extreme Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard included in the pending energy bill will 
have a devastating effect on public safety, as well as put a severe 
crimp in the manufacturing base of my state of Ohio.
  For the first time in American history, new vehicle sales of trucks, 
SUVs and minivans in 2001 outpaced the sale of automobiles. This 
remarkable result can be attributed to a number of factors, but one 
reason that is often cited is the fact that these vehicles are seen as 
safer.
  Indeed, when asked why they bought their particular vehicle, truck, 
SUV and minivan owners overwhelmingly stated that they simply felt 
safer than they would have in a regular sedan or compact car.
  Overall, Mr. President, our roadways are safer. In fact, safety 
statistics show that the numbers of automobile fatalities are at 
historic lows while total vehicle highway miles traveled has risen. 
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), there were 1.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 
traveled in 2000, while in 1999, the rate was 1.6 per 100 million 
vehicle miles traveled. Ten years earlier, in 1990, the rate was 2.1 
per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Part of the reason traffic 
fatality rates have continued to drop can be attributed to the fact 
that vehicles are being made safer.
  However, some in this body are indirectly proposing that we give up 
the safety accomplishments we have attained in order to achieve an 
arbitrary fuel efficiency standard for automobile vehicles.
  As my colleagues know, the provision included in the energy bill sets 
the CAFE standard at a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 
2015.
  Under current law, light truck fleets and passenger cars make up two 
separate fleet distinctions with different mile-per-gallon requirements 
for each. The existence of two separate fleets recognizes that 
passenger cars and light trucks are different vehicles that require 
different capabilities. However, the enactment of a combined fleet 
average would ignore this distinction.
  We also need to ask what the scientific basis is for the 35 mile-per-
gallon threshold? What rational explanation is there for the magic 
number ``35,'' or was that number simply fabricated?
  To achieve this standard, the auto industry would have to modify 
their manufacturing base, and produce an automotive fleet that will in 
all likelihood require greater use of lighter materials. Lighter 
materials will definitely help increase fuel efficiency, however, it 
will also make those automobiles less safe.
  The provision in the bill also will be damaging to auto manufacturers 
that produce a large number of light trucks because a combined fleet 
average will factor in both the fuel efficiency averages of passenger 
cars and light trucks by a manufacturer.
  And, because truck, SUV and minivan demand is not expected to 
decrease anytime soon, automakers that are meeting this demand will 
either have to manufacture and sell a high-gas mileage vehicle that 
likely does not exist now, or cut the production of the trucks, the 
SUVs and the minivans that American consumers want. This will only 
increase prices for the safe vehicles America wants.
  Ohio is the number two automotive manufacturing state in America, 
employing more than 630,000 people either directly or indirectly. I've 
heard from a number of these men and women whose livelihood depends on 
the auto industry and who are frankly very worried about their future. 
I have met with members of the United Auto Workers, and executives from 
the major automobile manufacturers about the CAFE proposal and there is 
genuine concern that the provision in the bill could cause a serious 
disruption in the auto industry resulting in the loss of tens of 
thousands of jobs across the Nation.
  The Levin-Bond-Voinovich amendment is a rational proposal that will 
keep workers both in Ohio and nationwide working, allowing these men 
and women to continue to take care of their families and educate their 
children while also encouraging greater fuel efficiency and safer 
vehicles.
  Our amendment calls for the Department of Transportation to increase 
fuel economy standards based on the following factors:
  The need to conserve energy;
  Economic practicability;
  The effect of other government motor vehicle standards on fuel 
economy;
  The desirability of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil;
  The effect on motor vehicle safety;
  The effects of increased fuel economy on air quality;
  The adverse effects of increased fuel economy standards on the 
relative competitiveness of manufacturers;
  The effect on U.S. employment;
  The cost and lead-time required for introduction of new technologies;
  The potential for advanced technology vehicles (such as hybrid and 
fuel cell vehicles) to contribute to significant fuel usage savings;
  The effect of near-term expenditures required to meet increased fuel 
economy standards on the resources available to develop advanced 
technology;
  Technological feasibility; and
  The report of the National Research Council, entitled ``Effectiveness 
and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,'' issued in 
January 2002.
  I believe this is a much more responsible approach than picking a 
number arbitrarily--literally, it seems, out of thin air.
  Our amendment also requires that the Department of Transportation 
complete the rulemaking process that would increase fuel efficiency 
standards within 15 months for light trucks, and 24 months for 
passenger cars. If the Administration doesn't act within the required 
timeframe, Congress will act, under expedited procedures, to pass 
legislation mandating an increase in fuel economy standards consistent 
with the same criteria that the Administration must consider.
  The amendment will also increase the market for alternative powered 
and hybrid vehicles by mandating that the federal government, where 
feasible, purchase alternative powered and hybrid vehicles.
  This mandate is nothing new. The federal government, under the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992, is already required to maintain a covered fleet of 
75 percent of alternative fuel vehicles. This amendment will simply 
increase the amount to 85 percent for covered fleets and require the 
purchase of hybrid vehicles for fleets that currently are not covered. 
There are waivers that allow the federal government to purchase 
traditional fueled vehicles where necessary.
  However, I believe that this guaranteed market will encourage the 
auto industry to increase their investment in research and development 
with an eye towards making alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles more 
affordable, available and commercially appealing to the average 
consumer.
  Additionally, a federal fleet of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles 
will result in an improved infrastructure for these vehicles and 
encourage a commercial growth in such infrastructure as well.
  Our amendment will not cause shifting within the auto manufacturing 
industry. It does not pretend that Congress has the scientific 
expertise to determine the best mile-per-gallon increase for both light 
trucks and passenger cars, a number which currently would unfairly 
punish the auto companies and auto workers who build what consumers 
want--larger cars and trucks.
  I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. It meets our 
environmental, safety and economic needs in a balanced and responsible 
way, contributing to the continued and needed harmonization of our 
energy and environmental policies.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to take some time to explain to my 
friends the importance of the CAFE debate to the people of Oklahoma.
  Today most of the people in Oklahoma buy light trucks, sports utility 
vehicles, and minivans. They are what you see on the road in Oklahoma. 
In fact, they are what Americans all over the country are buying.
  Last year national sales of light trucks, sports utility vehicles and 
minivans outpaced cars for the first time, and since 9-11 there has 
been a

[[Page S1824]]

spike in sales of these vehicles. We have hard data showing us that 
this increase is due to Americans' desire for safety, comfort, and 
utility.
  In the 2001 Customer Satisfaction Study, Maritz Marketing Research, 
Inc. surveyed 83,196 new vehicle buyers. When asked what vehicle 
attributes were ``Extremely Important'' in their purchase decision, gas 
mileage ranked 15th on car buyers' lists, behind such things are 
reliability, value for the money, durability, and safety features. 43 
percent rated gas mileage as ``extremely important'' vs. 70.6 percent 
for reliability, 59.3 percent of value, 59.2 percent for durability, 
and 57.3 percent for safety features.
  When asked the same question, truck, SUV, and full-size van owners 
ranked gas mileage 32nd on their list of ``extremely important'' items, 
below safety features, interior roominess, passenger seating, and cargo 
space, among others. 29.8 percent rated gas mileage as ``extremely 
important'' vs. 51.4 percent for safety features, 41.9 percent for 
interior roominess, 38 percent for passenger seating, and 36.8 percent 
for cargo space.
  A governmental mandate flies in the face of Americans' desire for 
these very attributes: safety, utility, and comfort. A mandate against 
the will of the American people is not the way we do things in 
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
  As far as jobs and economics, a typical assessment comes from Dr. 
Robert W. Crandall, Senior Fellow in the economic study program at the 
Brookings Institution notes that the current proposal would cost the 
United States something like $17 or $18 billion a year in lost consumer 
surplus. This loss of jobs and damage to our economy is unacceptable 
when this mandate will also cost lives and fly in the face of 
Americans' free choice of vehicles.
  On safety, we have the scientific analyses of our National Academy of 
Science and our National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well 
as numerous analysts.
  For example, in 1972, Ralph Nader and Clarence Ditlow published a 
book entitled Small on Safety. Page after page has such statements as, 
``Small size and light weight impose inherent limitations on the degree 
of safety that can be built into a vehicle.''
  After all is said and done, drivers and passengers are safer and do 
better in crashes about 98 percent of the time when vehicle weight is 
greater. A Federal Government mandate to cut the weight of vehicles is 
going to cost lives. I want safe Oklahomans and therefore oppose CAFE 
mandates.
  The following groups oppose the Kerry/McCain CAFE provisions because 
they are bad for safety, utility, performance, consumer choice, and 
jobs:
  United Auto Workers; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Automobile 
Dealers Associations; American Iron and Steel Institute; Association of 
American Railroads; National Association of Manufacturers; American 
Highway Users Alliance; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American 
Farm Bureau Federation; Union Pacific.
  Competitive Enterprise Institute; American International Automobile 
Dealers Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; 
Original Equipment Suppliers Association; Delphi Automotive Systems; 
Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety; National Marine Manufacturers 
Association.
  Small Business Survival Committee; National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association; American Horse Council; American Recreation Coalition; 
Associated General Contractors of America; Automotive Coalition for 
Traffic Safety; Coalitions for America; Coalition for Vehicle Choice; 
National Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling.
  General Motors; Ford Motor Company; Daimler Chrysler; Toyota; Nissan, 
Volkswagen; BMW; Mazda; Fiat; Isuzu; Mitsubishi Motors; Porsche; Volvo; 
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds.
  National Grange; National Truck Equipment Association; Recreation 
Vehicle Industry Association; Specialty Equipment Market Association; 
National Four Wheel Drive Association; Business Round Table; AFL/CIO.
  Please join me in supporting the compromise crafted by Senators Levin 
and Bond.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
disappointment with the Senate's inability to act on the important 
issue of corporate average fuel economy standards for our Nation's 
vehicles. Addressing the transportation sector's consumption of fossil 
fuels is an integral part of any energy policy designed to meet the 
needs of our 21st century economy.
  I continue to believe that raising CAFE standards is absolutely 
critical in promoting more efficient fuel use--thus weening this nation 
from its dependence on foreign oil--while continuing to meet our 
transportation needs. At the same time, CAFE standards promise 
environmental benefits and savings for consumers. Despite what some in 
industry might suggest--suggestions that harken back to Congress' first 
debate on CAFE in 1975, when some claimed the current standards would 
render this Nation's auto manufacturers extinct--I believe we have the 
technologies and the American ingenuity necessary to meet the goals set 
out by tougher CAFE standards.
  Transportation accounts for 67 percent of U.S. oil consumption and 
one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, improving the 
efficiency of the U.S. vehicle fleet would serve the public interest by 
reducing individuals' exposure to fluctuations in oil prices and 
emitting fewer of climate changing greenhouse gases.
  To me, the numbers suggest a very clear choice.
  If my colleagues truly wanted to take the environmentally and 
economically responsible vote--to mitigate our exposure to foreign oil 
and economically devastating price shocks--they would have acted today 
to increase our fuel efficiency standards.
  I believe many in this Chamber agree on the theoretical goals of this 
bill--increased energy independence, diversification or our energy 
resources and improving the energy efficiency of our economy. But my 
colleagues must realize that to meet these goals we must address both 
supply-side and demand-side of the equation. And we cannot wait to take 
action.
  Simply cranking up oil production and ignoring the efficiencies at 
our fingertips will ensure that we will be in the same place 20 years 
from now--or worse yet, even more dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  Estimates suggest that if the status quo is maintained, our 
dependence will grow from 51 percent today, to 64 percent in 2020. If 
the status quo is maintained, we will be asking ourselves the same 
questions about economic and energy security as we are asking ourselves 
today.
  I believe that the CAFE provision proposed by Senator Kerry and 
Senator McCain, like its predecessor in 1975, would have gone a long 
way toward meeting the multiple goals of the overall energy bill. In 
addition to the energy security and environmental benefits I've already 
mentioned, it would have protected consumers against disruptions in oil 
supplies that increase the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
  The current CAFE standard--which has saved 14 percent of fuel 
consumption from what it would have been without CAFE--has not been 
updated in 20 years. By increasing fuel economy standards, consumers 
would travel farther on a gallon of gasoline than ever before. Since 
the introduction of the first CAFE standards in 1975, vehicle operating 
expenses have been halved, mostly due to decreased expenditures on gas 
and oil.
  Increasing fuel efficiency has a second impact, which is to help to 
stimulate the American economy by keeping dollars at home. At present, 
Americans spend over $300 million dollars per day on foreign oil. By 
reducing how much of that oil we consume, Americans save billions of 
dollars a year at the gas pump. This money would be available for 
reinvestment in our own economy and to help improve the lives of 
American families.
  Opponents of CAFE standards have argued that increased fuel 
efficiency will result in decreased vehicle safety. To the contrary, 
provisions to maintain vehicle safety are written directly into the 
language. Furthermore, by bringing SUVs and light trucks under the 
rubric of the CAFE standard, CAFE will without question save lives.
  Opponents also argued that CAFE standards hurt the American auto 
industry and American workers.

[[Page S1825]]

  In reality, a high fuel economy standard would put existing 
technologies into vehicles and spur technological innovation--something 
in which American industry is a proud leader. The CAFE proposal 
provided for gradual improvement in fuel economy over time, allowing 
manufacturers the opportunity to retool processes and redesign product 
lines over time. Consumer fuel savings and technological innovation 
will lead to an infusion of capital in local economies and investments 
in the auto industry, making U.S. vehicles competitive in a global 
market and creating--not destroying--jobs.
  The first time around, CAFE was created in response to rising oil 
prices. Today, volatility in the oil market continues to be a concern, 
along with our energy security and the environmental impact of fossil 
fuel emissions. We had before us an opportunity to alleviate threats to 
our national energy and economic security posed by foreign oil 
dependence, while protecting our environment and taking a positive step 
in the battle to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time to 
make these changes.
  I thank Senator Kerry and Senator McCain for their leadership on this 
issue. I want to add that I agree with my colleague from the Energy 
Committee, Senator Carper, who has suggested that we should--we must--
return to the issue of CAFE standards before we finish our work on this 
bill. Hopefully, we will all come to our senses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The minority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know there is a limited amount of time 
available, and it has been equally divided, so I would like to speak 
briefly and use leader time so it will not count against the time that 
has been reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in very passionate support of the 
Levin-Bond amendment. I know very good work has been done on this 
amendment, and it is based on sound science and solid data. It seems to 
me that is the way to go instead of just picking a number out of the 
sky, whether it is 32 or 35 or 37 or moving the years up or down. It 
seems to me it would be wiser to have decisions about the miles-per-
gallon requirements done in a responsible way, having been studied by 
the proper entity and based on science and solid data.
  Of course, the organization to do that is NHTSA. They have the 
expertise to analyze the numbers and consider all that should be 
involved here: the jobs that might be affected, technology, how soon 
this improved fuel efficiency could be obtained, and safety. Safety is 
a big issue.
  I heard Senator Mikulski from Maryland on the radio this morning 
talking about her concerns about the safety issue, and that was the 
point she emphasized. That is certainly understandable.
  The Levin-Bond amendment would be what we would do instead of the 
Kerry provision which adversely affects employment, safety, and 
consumer choice. I think the Levin-Bond amendment is a much wiser way 
to proceed.
  The National Academy of Sciences CAFE report declared there will be 
more deaths and injuries if fuel economy standards are raised too fast 
without proper consideration given to how that is going to be done and 
what impact it might cause.
  This amendment, the Levin-Bond amendment, is supported by labor, the 
UAW, the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau, automobile dealers, and over 40 other 
organizations, but, more importantly, by real people in the real world, 
people who do worry about safety, people who do have needs for a van or 
an SUV or a pickup truck who refuse to be relegated to an automobile 
such as the one shown in this picture. This type of car may be fine in 
Boston or Chicago, but it is not fine in Lucedale, MS, or Des Moines, 
IA, or a lot of other places around this country. People have to drive 
long distances. They have large families.
  In my case, when I move my family around now, I have a choice. I have 
a bigger automobile, an SUV. I worry about safety. And I worry about 
strapping in the grandchildren properly, making sure they are going to 
be safe. And I even worry about making sure that third seat is secured 
properly.
  I have a choice. I either can take two vehicles, the SUV or the van--
one of them being a bigger one--or I can take three automobiles. How 
much gas have you saved?
  This whole area astounds me. Let's talk about what real people do 
when they have a choice. After all, this is still America. We should be 
able to make our choices. We should not have the Federal Government 
saying you are going to drive the purple people eater shown here. I am 
not picking on this manufacturer. In fact, purposely I wanted to have a 
car that is hard to identify. This is basically in Europe. And when I 
was over there, I saw these little cars. I saw people pick them up and 
set them over into parking spaces. I also was trying to figure out how 
I was going to get my 6 foot 2\1/2\ inch frame in this automobile.
  So what do real people do when they have a choice in America? Well, 
the 10 most fuel-efficient cars account for only 1.5 percent of 
automobiles sales. Americans value fuel economy, but it ranks far 
behind other very important competing values, such as safety, comfort, 
utility, and performance.
  A recent survey of attributes consumers look for when buying a new 
automobile found that fuel economy ranks 25th out of the 26 vehicle 
attributes they were looking for.
  Automobile makers produce 50 different automobiles that get 30 miles 
per gallon or better. Anybody can go to a dealer today if they want to 
and drive home a very fuel-efficient automobile, but small cars make up 
only 14 percent of the market.
  Today's light truck gets better gas mileage than a subcompact car 
from the 1970s. Progress is being made. I do pay attention to it. The 
SUV I own and drive in the Washington, DC, area is the Honda SUV. It is 
actually my wife's car. I have to confess that because I always insist 
on still driving an American-made automobile. But a lot of these 
automobiles now are made by Honda and Nissan and Hyundai and Toyota. 
They are international companies, as are our domestic companies. So are 
all these other companies.
  I do pay some attention to what I choose to drive and the fuel 
efficiency that it gets in the District of Columbia.
  There also is no magic technology. I think progress is being made. 
But if you had the technology to go immediately to an automobile that 
got this fuel efficiency number picked out of the sky without 
sacrificing a lot of other very important factors, such as safety and 
comfort and the needs of the consumers, you would do that.
  There are those who say technology is going to make it possible for 
us to have much more fuel efficiency without reducing the waste and 
size of the automobile. I have faith in American technology. I think we 
will get there. We are headed there. That option will be there. But I 
still don't understand why we should be trying to mandate the laws of 
physics and require that these things happen.
  I heard one of the Senators the other day saying that the goal is to 
use less foreign oil. I agree with that. This is a national security 
question. That is why this bill is important. I have another 
alternative. While we do want to encourage conservation and look at 
alternative fuels, I also don't want us to take actions that basically 
mandate that in America you have to use less. We have a lot of domestic 
oil that we can use, natural gas, hydroelectricity, nuclear. We have to 
have more, not just less.
  If we conserve and produce more, America can continue to grow. That 
is what we want. We want a growing economy. If you don't have the 
energy supply, you are not going to have the economic development you 
want.

  CAFE standards have not reduced imported oil. We started to put these 
standards in place back in the 1970s. Yet as the efficiency has gotten 
better, the use of foreign oil has not gone down. It has been steadily 
going up. Now we are dependents for 59 percent of our energy needs 
supplied by foreign oil. That is a dangerous concept. We should produce 
more here while we are also conserving.
  I personally think the CAFE program is a flawed program. I don't 
think we

[[Page S1826]]

ought to be issuing these mandates. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the Levin-Bond approach. It is the responsible way. It will be based on 
something done by an entity in the Government that has the 
responsibility to get it done. I am not even sure right now what may be 
offered later on today, perhaps by Senators Kerry or McCain or others. 
If we don't even know what they are going to offer, what science is it 
based on?
  I conclude by saying this is the responsible way to go. It will not 
ignore the issue. It sets up a process based on science, capability, 
technology. It does take into consideration or will allow consideration 
of safety. And I don't want every American to have to drive this car.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Collins.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join several of my 
colleagues in rising in support of increased fuel efficiency standards 
for cars and trucks. Some people have tried to cast this argument as a 
choice between trucks and better fuel economy. This is simply a false 
choice. I am convinced that we can, with America's can-do attitude and 
technological know-how, provide safer, more efficient cars and trucks 
that will go further on a gallon of gas and save consumers money at the 
gas pump. CAFE standards will give us better trucks and more money in 
our pockets.
  OPEC's anticompetitive manipulations have driven the price of oil to 
a 6-month high. If we don't increase CAFE standards, America will only 
grow more and more dependent on foreign oil. Already we rely on foreign 
oil for 60 percent of our supply. That is a dangerous dependency. How 
much further into OPEC's clutches do we have to let ourselves slide 
before we decide that there is another way, a better way? CAFE is the 
American way of sending OPEC a message that we will not stand for their 
anticompetitive manipulative price increases.
  Our proposal will save more than 1 million barrels of oil a day. It 
will save billions of dollars for consumers. And it will do more to 
reduce our reliance on foreign oil than any other single measure before 
us.
  I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the proposal to 
increase CAFE standards. This proposal is the right thing to do for the 
environment, for the economy, for consumers, and for America.
  I commend Senators Kerry, Bingaman, McCain, and my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Snowe, for their efforts in coming up with an 
alternative approach.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Republican leader was just urging us to consider sound science 
and sound data in making judgments on this issue. I recall several 
years during which we passed in the Congress prohibitions against the 
administration, through NHTSA, even considering a change in CAFE 
standards. That doesn't seem particularly consistent to me with a 
reliance on sound science and sound data. The truth is, the Republican 
leader has set up a totally false choice. He has indicated the choice 
is between what we have now and, as he put it, this purple people eater 
that he has pictured.
  The reality is, the technology is there to keep the cars, the SUVs, 
the vehicles we now drive and shift them to being much more fuel 
efficient. The real choice is in the SUV that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has a picture of, which Ford Motor Company indicates they 
are going to have on the market next year. They say it is the same 
power as before, the same convenience as before, the same room as 
before, but it uses half as much gas. That is the option. We just need 
to step up to giving that challenge to the car dealers.
  When you look at why we are continuing to import more and more oil, 
it is very clear. The main reason is we have stalled out on improving 
efficiency in the motor vehicle sector.
  This chart shows that, since 1989, there has been absolutely no 
improvement. In fact, there has been a decline in the fuel efficiency 
of our overall fleet. So this amendment will take the teeth out of our 
efforts to improve efficiency. It should be rejected. I hope my 
colleagues will do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
is charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes 20 seconds on the 
opposition side and 5 minutes 13 seconds on the proponents side.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Grassley and Hutchinson of 
Arkansas and Allen be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Some people here believe Americans cannot be trusted to 
make the right choice. In choosing between consumers and Government, I 
will side with the consumers. I don't pretend to know what is best for 
the 15 million Americans who are purchasing vehicles each year, but I 
prefer to listen to those who are actually in the business of selling 
cars and trucks. They tell me one consistent message: The Kerry 
amendment is a job killer, a threat to the safety of friends and 
families, a mandated market that eliminates consumer choice.
  Now, 2,000 people a year, according to the National Academy of 
Sciences, have been killed by lighter cars. I don't want to tell a mom 
in my State she should not get an SUV because Congress decided that 
would be a bad choice. I just came from a news conference with Martha 
Godet, who explained last week that she wanted a minivan to carry her 
two preteen sons and one baby to various events. Her story in the 
newspaper was countered by one of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who said her proposal was ``nonsense.'' She extends an 
invitation to that Senator to join her in a carpool to see how it would 
be if they were in a subcompact or a Yugo. She said it would look like 
a clown car if they were in a Yugo that managed to meet the fuel 
standards in the Kerry amendment.
  I am grateful for the support of the Missouri Soybean Association, 
Corn Growers, and the Farm Bureau. We appreciate the information on 
safety from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National 
Association of Independent Insurers. The best way to get better mileage 
is through sound science and NHTSA.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that I may speak for 1 minute.
  Mr. BOND. I yield a minute to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Levin 
amendment. I believe the automobiles need to become more efficient; it 
is in our national interest. I think our leader referred to this car 
pictured on the chart as the ``purple people eater.'' I think that is a 
pretty good name.
  I do not believe the Senate is in the best position to dictate how we 
do this. When it comes to Congress dictating what kind of fuels we use 
in our vehicles, we fail miserably. We have about 15 different types of 
fuels we use in the country. It is at a significant cost. We don't even 
address it in this bill. We have proven we are not very good chemists 
in the Congress. We are not very good automotive engineers either.
  Congress should not randomly determine vehicle fuel mileage on a 
whim. We should leave it to the experts who know what they are doing, 
and we will take into account safety and economic impact. The Bond-
Levin amendment does that and leaves the decision to the experts. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes 12 seconds in opposition, 
and there are 2 minutes 1 second for the proponents.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  Let me share what this vote is now about. This vote is about whether 
or not we will keep any standard at all with respect to fuel 
efficiency. If the Bond-Levin amendment passes, there

[[Page S1827]]

will be not only no standard whatsoever in place, there will be a 
process that will allow for delay into the far future. And there is a 
provision in the Bond-Levin amendment which undoes the current safety 
standards. There is no safety standard at all. In NHTSA, they ask to 
look at it, but it undoes the current safety standard.
  Mr. President, this is a question of whether or not we are going to 
do what 88 percent of the people in America want us to do and only 9 
percent are opposed to, and that is to save a significant amount of oil 
that we import from the Persian Gulf, from countries that have the 
ability to dictate to the United States the price in our future--
whether we will save that and simultaneously contribute to global 
warming problems, as well as health in America.
  There are two stories here. There is the lie and there is the truth. 
To my right, that purple machine in the photograph is the lie. No 
American will be forced to drive any different automobile. My wife 
drives an SUV. She supports this effort because she knows she can still 
drive an SUV that is efficient. Cars such as Suburbans are not even 
included in this measure.
  We have seen advertisements suggesting that people will have to farm 
with a subcompact car. How insulting is that to the intelligence of 
Americans, who know they want more efficient cars? This doesn't even 
cover tractors. It doesn't even cover the basic trucks, the large 
trucks in the country.
  This is the most extraordinary expenditure of money in phony 
advertisements to scare the American people that I have ever seen 
here--perhaps since the tobacco debate. Here is the truth. This is Ford 
Motor Company's own advertisement. They advertise an SUV--a vehicle 
that gives you all the room and power you want but uses half the 
gasoline. That is the Ford Motor Company advertisement that stands as a 
stark contrast to these extraordinary, ridiculous scare tactics.
  My colleagues have been told that if we raise the CAFE standards, 
that will harm safety. Let me read from the Chairman of the National 
Academy of Sciences, from March 10 of this year. Paul Portney says:

       This proposal of ours is roughly consistent with what the 
     academy identified as being technologically possible, 
     economically affordable, and consistent with the desire of 
     consumers for safety.

  What safety organization in America supports the Bond-Levin proposal? 
Not one. Not the major safety organization, the Public Citizen Center 
for Auto Safety; they support what we are trying to accomplish. The 
reason they support it is that there are no safety provisions 
whatsoever in the Bond-Levin proposal. In our proposal, there is, 
however, an ability to live up to the safety standards.
  You have heard the National Academy of Sciences report distorted 
again and again. The update of that report, on which NHTSA has signed 
off, says you can build a car in America that is just as competent as 
any SUV today and provides safety.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 1 minute.
  Mr. KERRY. They try to suggest that this is a jobs problem. The fact 
is that our workers in Detroit have the ability to build all the cars 
America can buy that are just as large as the cars we have today but 
are more efficient. What they need is an auto industry that asks them 
to do it, that gives them the cars that are so designed. It is 
extraordinary that my colleagues have so little confidence in the 
ability of the American worker and American ingenuity to provide cars 
that are going to be competitive well into the future with the Japanese 
and Germans.
  I think we should celebrate the capacity of the American worker, and 
that is what we are asking people to do. Every year, there has been an 
opportunity to delay, to obfuscate. The opponents have chosen to do it. 
The only people who support Bond-Levin are those who support the 
specific automobile interests, the Big Three, people who work there--
not the safety people, not consumers, not the environmental interests 
of the country.
  Generally speaking, this is a pattern of delay and obfuscation. We 
will have an opportunity after this vote to vote on the Kerry-McCain 
alternative that reduces the level even further. I ask my colleagues to 
remember that there is no CAFE requirement at all in Bond-Levin. We 
will have no standard whatsoever. We will have years of lawsuits and 
years of delay. It is one more step in Detroit's effort to prevent us 
from having an opportunity to have cars that are competitive and meet 
the needs of the future.

  I retain the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains in support of the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls 2 minutes 
and 1 second, and the time of the Senator from Massachusetts has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 30 seconds to Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is not about the Ford Escape. We 
are pleased the auto industry is moving forward. The CAFE number does 
not reflect the fuel economy improvements of one particular vehicle. It 
is a fleet average. GM has from 2000 to 2001 improved fuel efficiency 
for eight different vehicles, and their CAFE number did not change.
  It is a system that does not work. It is crazy. It is discriminatory 
against the American auto industry. I encourage a vote for this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts said the 
amendment before us would eliminate existing safety standards. That is 
flat out wrong. He summarized a quote from one member of the National 
Academy of Sciences. I want to read one line from the National Academy 
of Sciences on the exact point:

       Equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different 
     manufacturers is a requirement of equity. The current CAFE 
     standards fail that test.

  I have much more confidence in the workers of this country and their 
representatives than my friend from Massachusetts. They strongly oppose 
this amendment. The UAW favored CAFE when it first came into existence. 
They favored CAFE. They strongly oppose the Kerry language because it 
discriminates against equally efficient vehicles made in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 10 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan. It is not 
fair to say there are no safety standards. The Levin-Bond amendment 
requires safety be considered in setting the standards. There will be 
standards.
  I have just come from a press conference with Diane Steed, former 
NHTSA Director, speaking on behalf of the National Safety Council. The 
National Safety Council is extremely concerned about the Kerry proposal 
and its likelihood to kill more people. Therefore, I urge support of 
the Levin-Bond amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2997.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. LEVIN. Did the Chair add Senator Voinovich as a cosponsor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland

[[Page S1828]]


     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2997) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Georgia is to be recognized to offer an amendment on which there will 
be 10 minutes of debate.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 2998

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I call up an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Miller], for himself, Mr. 
     Gramm, and Mr. Hutchinson, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2998.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the increase of the average fuel economy standard 
                           for pickup trucks)

       On page 177, before line 1, insert the following:

     SEC. 811. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR PICKUP TRUCKS.

       (a) In General.--Section 32902(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after the after ``Automobiles.--
     ''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The average fuel economy standard for pickup trucks 
     manufactured by a manufacturer in a model year after model 
     year 2004 shall be no higher than 20.7 miles per gallon. No 
     average fuel economy standard prescribed under another 
     provision of this section shall apply to pickup trucks.''.
       (b) Definition Of Pickup Truck.--Section 32901(a) of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(17) `pickup truck' has the meaning given that term in 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary for the 
     administration of this chapter, as in effect on January 1, 
     2002, except that such term shall also include any additional 
     vehicle that the Secretary defines as a pickup truck in 
     regulations prescribed for the administration of this chapter 
     after such date.''.

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the Miller-Gramm-Hutchinson of Arkansas amendment to protect 
pickup trucks.
  Our amendment is very simple. In fact, I cannot remember seeing a 
more simple amendment ever offered on the floor of the Senate. It is 
easy for all of you to understand. And I will tell you something else 
that is important, it is easy for the folks back home to understand.
  Pickups are now required to meet a standard of 20.7 miles per gallon. 
This amendment simply says that standard cannot be increased. The only 
thing greater than its simplicity is its fairness. We absolutely should 
not impose an undue safety risk and extra cost of higher CAFE standards 
on our farmers or on our rural families or on our carpenters, plumbers, 
painters, electricians--those small businesses that rely so heavily on 
the pickup that keeps our Nation moving.
  These are the hard-working people with calloused hands who build our 
homes and work our farms. They are the forgotten Americans who work 
from dawn to dark and then turn on the headlights of their pickup so 
they can see to work another hour.
  They never ask us for anything they have not earned. All too often in 
this great citadel of the people we turn our backs on these folks. They 
have no lobbyists. They don't have a single one; pickup pops are not 
organized. No soft money comes from them, and not much hard money. They 
are too busy working. As the pickup goes, so goes the very heart and 
muscle of this great country.
  If you apply higher CAFE standards to pickups, you will make them 
unaffordable for some and you will make them unsafe for all. A ``yes'' 
vote is a vote for the working man. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for rural 
America. A ``no'' vote is a vote against the working man. A ``no'' vote 
is a vote against rural America.
  In 1 year alone, the year before last, working people in this country 
bought 3,180,000 pickup trucks in 29 of our States. Pickups account for 
between 20 percent and 37.4 percent of all registered vehicles. Folks 
across this country buy pickups, not just because they are affordable 
and not just because they are safe. They also buy them because they 
have to have them. They have to have them to do their work. Pickups are 
as essential to the carpenter as his hammer; as essential to the 
painter as his paintbrush.
  So we must leave this American workhorse, the pickup truck, alone. 
Don't pick on the pickup.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the authority of Senator Daschle, I 
yield 5 additional minutes to Senator Bingaman in opposition to this 
amendment. That will be a total of 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I do not object. I think I have 5 minutes 
reserved to speak on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes. Is there objection 
to the unanimous consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate my dear 
colleague from Georgia. I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I 
say to him I am very happy again to be married up together, promoting 
the interests of the people who do the work and pay the taxes and pull 
the wagon in America.
  If you want to know how far out of touch with reality this Congress 
is, all you have to do is look at this CAFE standard debate. The 
American people want to be safe in their cars and trucks, and they have 
work to do. It is not uncommon in my State for people to get up in 
Corsicana at 4:30 in the morning, get in their pickup, drive to Dallas, 
work all day and work that pickup all day until 6 or 7 o'clock at night 
and then drive that pickup back to Corsicana. Every morning in small 
towns all over this country, people who work for a living and get their 
hands dirty in the process use their pickups for transportation and to 
make a living. There are not good substitutes.
  Our colleagues tell us: Oh, there are substitutes. We can have a 
substitute for the pickup. You don't need that big Dodge. You don't 
need that Chevrolet. You don't need that Ford. You don't need that 
Toyota pickup. They have an alternative. But they don't live in Mexia. 
They don't carry around tools. They are not hauling lumber. They are 
not getting their hands dirty working for a living, and they are 
totally and absolutely out of touch with the people who do the work in 
this country. Our amendment simply says: Leave pickup trucks alone.
  Try as I may to understand people who have a different mindset than I 
do--and I know many of my views are hopelessly out of fashion--but try 
as I do to understand it, sometimes I cannot. We will impose billions 
of dollars of cost on little towns to try to change arsenic standards 
for drinking water based on a projection of a very small effect on the 
health and lives of Americans. But, yet, when the National Academy of 
Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body on the face of the 
Earth, concludes that the existing CAFE standards may be costing as 
many as 3,600 lives a year--we are not talking about the new standards, 
we are talking about the old standards--the people who go absolutely 
ballistic over these little towns are nowhere to be seen. If Fallon, 
NV, has arsenic in its drinking water, and if the mayor

[[Page S1829]]

and his children and grandchildren have been drinking it for years with 
no appreciable effect or no effect, we have no doubt in our mind about 
imposing those costs because we are so concerned about an effect on 
people. Yet, when hundreds of times as many people are killed by these 
CAFE standards, we act as if that is all right because fuel efficiency 
is a good goal.

  I don't know a better goal than to have people drive pickups. I don't 
know any more reliable Americans than those who drive pickups. I don't 
know people who more deserve good government than people who drive 
pickups. So this amendment is critically important.
  Finally, if anybody cares about the automobile industry, let me 
remind my colleagues that we are trying to get out of a slowdown, a 
minor recession. We have just had the administration impose tariffs up 
to 30 percent on steel and while many Members of Congress support that, 
I do not. This action means money will be taken right out of the profit 
margin of American automobile producers because the Germans and the 
Japanese are not going to pay these higher prices for steel.
  If we come in now with these new CAFE standards on big-selling items 
such as pickups, this will further hurt automobile manufacturers and 
their workers. In my State, pickups are the largest selling vehicles. 
If you take trucks in general, trucks in general outsell cars in Texas. 
My guess is that is true in most of your States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan effort on behalf of 
people who drive and use pickups--people who do the work and make 
America work, and who deserve to be represented on the floor of the 
Senate. I am proud that Senator Miller has seen the day that they are 
represented.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains for the 
proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no additional time except for the 
time remaining to the Senator from Georgia, who has 41 seconds 
remaining.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I yield 41 seconds to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Georgia.
  For those of you who have ever driven a pickup and gotten stuck in 
the snow, you need a four-wheel-drive pickup to get out. We would not 
have been able to develop the Trans-Alaska Pipeline without the U.S.-
made pickup. It has the heavy undercarriage that can stand the gravel 
roads. The Senator from Texas is quite correct. The rest of the country 
lives on the pickup, and the transportation is used as part of your 
toolbag. You get your tools in it, you go out to work, and you get a 
job done. There is simply no other way you are going to accomplish 
this.
  I think the Senator from Georgia in his reference to what is in this 
amendment--automakers make more fuel-efficient pickups--there is 
nothing in this amendment that would prevent that. The reality is a 
pickup is a heavy piece of equipment that is designed to do a job. We 
should support the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 6 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I 
will yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Let me put this in perspective. We just had an amendment agreed to on 
the Senate floor which essentially says that we in the Congress are not 
going to specify what the corporate average fuel efficiency or economy 
number ought to be; that it ought to be left up to NHTSA, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to make those decisions.
  The Republican leader came to the floor and said we should do this 
because clearly we need to be sure that the decision is made on the 
basis of sound science and solid data. Those were the two phrases he 
kept using--sound science and solid data.
  The Senator from Michigan continually referred to the fact that we 
should not adopt some arbitrary number; that is totally contrary to 
common sense. Now we have an amendment by my good friend the Senator 
from Georgia which says let us make it permanent law--that beginning 2 
years from now with model year 2004 and after, for all pickups, it is 
prohibited for NHTSA or anyone else to impose a fuel efficiency 
standard in excess of what has been the standard for many years, 20.7 
miles per gallon.
  The last amendment said that NHTSA would make the decision. This 
amendment takes that away and says we are making the decision. It will 
be 20.7 miles per gallon on pickups starting in 2004, and from then on 
it is permanent law. I don't think we can have it both ways. If we know 
best, then fine, we shouldn't have adopted the last amendment. If NHTSA 
knows best, then we shouldn't adopt this amendment.
  I understand where the votes are. I understand that everyone wants to 
wrap themselves in the flag of the pickup pops and indicate that they 
don't want to pick on pickups. I understand all that rhetoric.
  I have a lot of pickups in my State. But I don't see why people who 
drive pickups should be required to be buying vehicles that are less 
fuel efficient than the rest of the population. The truth is these 
people who work so hard and have callused hands and are driving pickups 
don't want to have to pay more at the gas pump than anyone else. And 
this amendment essentially will ensure that they have to pay more from 
now on. They may get a very fuel-inefficient pickup, but every time 
they go in to fill up, they are going to be paying more because of this 
amendment, if it is agreed to.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 2 minutes, and 
then yield 1 minute to Senator Levin from Michigan.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. With the last 
vote, we threw in the towel on fuel efficiency. We said this Congress 
is incapable of requiring the automobile manufacturers to make a more 
fuel-efficient car so that America could have energy security and 
energy independence. We gave up on it. We turned it over to NHTSA and 
said: Study it, look at it, and we will get back to you.
  Now, with this amendment, we are saying we are going to exempt pickup 
trucks forever and that 20.7 miles a gallon is all we will ever ask of 
them. We will not ask Detroit to make a pickup truck that is more fuel 
efficient. And the argument has been made that it is unfair, that it is 
unpatriotic, that it is impossible to ask the drivers of pickup trucks 
across America to ask for a more fuel-efficient vehicle--even 1 more 
mile per gallon.
  Let me tell you what is also unfair. It is unfair to ask the men and 
women in uniform in the United States to risk their lives in a war in 
the Middle East to fight to preserve more imported fuel to fuel these 
vehicles on the highways. These hard-working farmers and ranchers and 
blue-collar men and women who drive these pickup trucks have kids who 
may be forced to serve in the military to fight a war because of our 
dependence on Middle East oil.
  With the last vote, we bowed down to the special interests on fuel 
efficiency. And I want to tell you that as a result of it, we are going 
to continue to bow down to OPEC for decades to come. That is not in the 
best interests of people who drive cars and pickup trucks in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute fifteen seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will split that time evenly with my colleague from 
Michigan.
  Mr. President, we have decided to refer to NHTSA for the next 15 
months the complicated question of whether or not we ought to increase 
CAFE on what vehicles and by what amounts. This amendment runs contrary 
to what we just agreed to.
  I could not disagree more with our friend from Illinois when he says 
we threw in the towel in terms of increasing CAFE with this last 
amendment.

[[Page S1830]]

 That was my amendment. We specifically said we are going to increase 
it, but we are going to do it in a rational and responsible way, 
considering all the criteria which should be considered. We should not 
adopt the standard on this floor. The Miller amendment, I am afraid, 
does that for one particular type of vehicle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  CAFE relates to fleet-wide averages. If we take out pickup trucks, we 
put more pressure on fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and minivans. I 
hope we will instead use the last amendment as the way that we will 
approach vehicle fuel efficiency and that we will not pit our farmers 
against our soccer moms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be made a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Miller amendment, No. 2998.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2998) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2999

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself and 
     Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 2999.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KERRY. On behalf of Senator McCain and myself, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments about 
where we now find ourselves. I was talking with the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan, who won a significant vote by the Senate a 
little while ago with respect to, instead of having the Senate set a 
standard, sending the CAFE standard to NHTSA and asking NHTSA to do so 
within a specified period of time. I understand the dynamics, but may I 
say there is an incredible schizophrenia in what the Senate has done in 
these two votes, because on the one hand the minority leader and many 
of our colleagues came to the floor to argue that the Senate doesn't 
have the ability--we don't have the science, the information, and we 
don't have enough capacity to make a determination about how the 
overall fleet ought to be determined. Then, of course, with the 
amendment of the occupant of the chair, the Senate decided all of that 
goes out the window; we do that by exempting pickup trucks.
  I sympathize with the occupant of the chair that pickup trucks ought 
to be treated differently. I am not arguing about that. Clearly, they 
are a mainstay to a huge amount of economic activity and people who 
contribute very significantly to the fabric of this country. But it is 
completely contrarian to say we are going to have NHTSA try to evaluate 
this and, on the next vote, we have exempted 20 percent of the 
available fleet, so that now, whatever fuel savings we have left to 
gain have to come out of the rest of the fleet--either passenger cars, 
SUVs, or others--if it is decided that any savings are going to come at 
all.

  Now, just today, some polls were released that showed that 88.9 
percent of Americans believe we are better off trying to raise the fuel 
efficiency of our automobiles, and they would like to see CAFE 
standards be at a level where America is saving oil, where we are not 
importing oil from abroad to a greater degree.
  Senator McCain has worked diligently with a group of Senators on both 
sides of the aisle--Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Gordon 
Smith, and Senator Chafee, and Senators on our side, such as Senators 
Hollings and Feinstein--to come up with an agreement on a different 
approach on CAFE. It is an approach that embraces the concept of credit 
trading, so that you soften, reduce significantly, the pressure on an 
automobile company to meet the higher standard of, say, the 36 miles or 
35 miles--or whatever it might be--by allowing that company to purchase 
credits from a greenhouse-gas-producing entity of some kind in the 
United States.
  What you get from this is a two-fer: You get the reduction in 
greenhouse gases, and you also get the incentive for companies to move 
forward, meeting a higher standard of fuel efficiency. I hope NHTSA--
now that the Senate has voted, it is my hope; and I am sure Senator 
McCain joins me--that this will be a concept maybe they will embrace as 
they consider how we might come back to more effectively implement the 
standard.
  What has happened here in the Senate is the result, to a large 
degree, of an extraordinary process of distortion over the course of 
the last days, where huge sums of money have been spent by an industry 
that has a lot of money, and rather than putting the money into fuel 
efficiency, they put it into advertising to maintain the status quo. It 
is ironic.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield on that point, isn't it 
particularly entertaining to hear the comments about the drivers of 
pickup trucks and how important it is for those good citizens--hard-
working, poor citizens who drive the pickup trucks, not a penny of 
theirs pays for these advertisements that have distorted this issue so 
badly.
  Wouldn't it have been more fair in the debate to talk about who is 
paying for all the advertising attacking you and me and anybody who 
wanted to increase CAFE standards? I don't think a single pickup truck 
owner paid for those ads. We know who it is. It is the automobile 
manufacturers. Isn't it the automobile manufacturers who have resisted 
every single change in safety or efficiency over the last 40 years in 
the United States of America? Isn't it true that to drag out a picture 
of an automobile called the ``purple people eater'' and somehow infer 
that that would be an automobile that the American people would be 
forced to drive, if we increased CAFE standards, has trivialized this 
entire debate?
  I have to tell my friend from Massachusetts that I have been engaged 
in debates on the floor of the Senate now for quite a few years, as has 
the Senator from Massachusetts. I haven't quite seen the trivialization 
of a debate

[[Page S1831]]

in the manner with which this one was when they dragged out pictures of 
little European cars. Frankly, the Europeans buy those cars because 
they don't have parking spaces in the major cities in Europe. I suggest 
that perhaps the occupant of the chair might go to Germany and get on 
the autobahn sometime. He will see some pretty big automobiles 
traveling at very high rates of speed. If we had the little ``purple 
people eater,'' maybe we ought to have shown the Porsches and the 
Mercedes Benz, which are extremely popular in Europe, as well.
  The other thing I ask of my colleague that is a bit disturbing about 
this debate is this: All these comments about the health of our 
citizens and the risks to their lives and how this could be so 
dangerous because we would have more accidents, which by the way have 
been refuted by recent studies----
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I could interrupt, I need to go into the 
cloakroom for a moment. I will yield the floor and let my colleague 
continue to speak.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I am sure he will be responding to 
the questions.
  Here we have a study from my home State of Arizona, the ``Governor's 
Brown Cloud Summit,'' a study released January 16, 2002, concerning the 
very serious problem we have in the valley, where the city of Phoenix 
and surrounding cities are located. I hope colleagues will keep in mind 
that this is the same valley where, many years ago, doctors recommended 
people to go and live if they had respiratory problems. Part of the 
conclusions here are that:

       Microns, often referred to as PM 2.5, is a significant 
     cause of haze. Each particle, about the size of a single 
     grain of flour, can float in the atmosphere for days, 
     behaving much like a gas. Over half of the PM 2.5 is caused 
     by the burning of gasoline and diesel fuel in vehicles, which 
     are sometimes referred to as on-road mobile vehicles.

  Then it says:

       PM 2.5, the prime cause of poor visibility in the valley, 
     also exacerbates health effects, such as asthma attacks and 
     other heart and lung problems that cause people the need to 
     go to the hospitals and is consistently associated with 
     higher-than-average death rates. Reducing the amount of PM 
     2.5 will make the view of more distant landmarks clearer 
     and reduce health effects. Improvements in visibility and 
     health will be directly proportional to the amount of the 
     emissions eliminated.

  Recently there was an editorial in the Arizona Republic on March 9, 
2002--``New study reveals wider health risks.'' The title is 
``Legislature Must Attack Brown Cloud":

       We have always known the valley's brown cloud is ugly and 
     unhealthy. Now we know it can be deadly. A new study 
     indicates years of breathing that haze of particulate 
     pollution will significantly raise a person's risk of dying 
     of lung cancer and heart attack. For lung cancer, the risk is 
     the same as living with a cigarette smoker, according to a 
     report published this week in the Journal of the American 
     Medical Association. The study, funded by the National 
     Institute of Environmental Health Sciences--

  Not an automobile manufacturer--

       is compelling because of its breadth. Researchers followed 
     half a million people across the country for over two 
     decades. No, it is not just desert dust. The most dangerous 
     particles are much smaller, 2.5 microns or less, so tiny that 
     it takes at least 28 to equal the diameter of a human hair. 
     These ultrasmall particles which wreak havoc by penetrating 
     deep into the lungs come from combustion.
       Here in the valley, as elsewhere in the West, a big part of 
     our particulate pollution spews out of tailpipes.

  Long-term exposure to pollution increases risk of lung cancer, 
according to this study, by 8 percent.
  The study concludes air pollution puts individuals at greater risk 
for heart attacks and lung cancer. Pollution has been correlated to 
reproductive, musculoskeletal, respiratory, and gastrointestinal 
problems. It is of particular concern to children and older people as 
their immune responses are less capable of dealing with the stresses 
caused by pollutants.
  Arizona has the second highest rate of asthma sufferers in the 
Nation. Approximately 300,000 Arizonans have asthma. The 2002 report by 
the Journal of the American Medical Association, says:

       Six hundred sixty-six premature deaths in Arizona are from 
     exposure to particulate matter.

  This is serious business. This is not pictures of little European 
cars. This is not comments about the great individuality of the pickup 
truck driver. This is about life and death of children and older 
people. That is what this argument is about and, unfortunately, that 
has not been part of this debate. It certainly could not have been part 
of this debate that I know of.
  It is calculated that brown cloud material would be reduced by 1.8 
metric tons per day in 2010, if the use of clean burning fuel was 
implemented.
  My State, Arizona, got an F, the worst rating on air quality, in 2001 
from the American Lung Association. Ninety percent of the workforce in 
my State drives to work. One in every 4.5 cars is an SUV; 54 percent of 
the passenger vehicles sold in Arizona qualify as light-duty trucks. I 
would be the last representative to try to take away an SUV from my 
family, my neighbors, or my constituents.
  Phoenix received a D rating for the amount of smog from cars and 
trucks per person and an F for the amount spent on public transit 
versus highways per person. In Phoenix, we have 70 pounds of smog per 
person per year. In Pima County, vehicle emissions are responsible for 
up to 70 percent of area air pollution, making them a prime candidate 
for reduced emissions and cleaner burning cars.

  An increase in CAFE would reduce my State's pollution by about 2.3 
million metric tons per year. The California Air Resources Board 
established a zero emission vehicle program in 1990 to meet health-
based air quality goals. Ten percent of new vehicles produced in 2003 
have to be zero emission vehicles. As of 1990, other States may adopt 
the California program as their own but are otherwise prohibited from 
setting their own emissions standards.
  The State of California has listed over 40 chemicals in diesel 
exhaust as toxic air contaminants. Numerous studies have linked diesel 
exhaust with cancer, bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory 
illnesses.
  It is very unfortunate that we are failing to address the severe 
health care problems and direct threat to the health of our citizens as 
we blithely believe the same old rhetoric from the automobile 
manufacturers of America which were wrong in 1974, they were wrong in 
1976, and they are wrong today. At one time, they were against 
seatbelts. At one time, they were against airbags. At one time, they 
said the CAFE standards increase that Congress had the courage to pass 
years ago would drive them out of business. The last time I checked, 
they were doing pretty well.
  I regret this action on the part of the Senate because I believe 
people will die unnecessarily over time as a result of the action we 
have taken today. We will revisit this issue because the problem in my 
State and America is getting worse rather than better.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I know he has been made 
famous in newspaper and television advertisements all over America as 
being the one who is bent on destroying Western civilization as we know 
it. I do extend to him some sympathy. Some day we will have a rational 
debate on this issue, and we will bring the scientific facts forward, 
as I tried to do through different studies conducted by the Journal of 
the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences, 
as to the threats to the health of Americans that our failure to 
address this issue presents.
  Some day I am sure we will revisit this issue, and I hope the debate 
is devoid of pictures of small cars that are used in Europe as a threat 
to the American way of life, in which I know the Senator from 
Massachusetts and I would never engage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
comments. I know he has been the recipient of those kinds of comments 
previously. He and I seem to find ourselves together on that 
occasionally.
  I came to the Senate hoping I would always find that this institution 
debated facts and truth. Obviously, I am not naive. I know there are 
some politics; we all understand that. I am not trying to suggest that 
is not part of it. But the level of Harry and Louise-ing of this issue 
that we saw in the last days is a commentary on money in American 
politics and how the agenda

[[Page S1832]]

of the country gets distorted and the ways in which special interests 
and big money can mold an issue into a certain perspective completely 
devoid of some of the reality.
  We saw a National Academy of Sciences study used again and again in 
the most obviously distorted way. People would read from the study 
which referenced a 1993 analysis. Despite the fact that analysis has 
been redone since then, despite the fact there is a 2002 current year 
analysis, everybody kept going back.
  Let us go back to 1993 because that is much more effective, even 
though it is not true. Across America, people were told they might have 
to farm with a compact car. I know the Chair does not believe that. 
People are not going to be farming with compact cars. Tractors are not 
even under CAFE standards. As to the level of reasonableness of the 
standard that could have been found with respect to light trucks or 
pickups, it is beyond imagination we would not be willing to come to 
grips with what I think is a greater truth.
  Those most concerned with safety in America, those entities that 
consistently earn a reputation coming to the Senate with studies and 
analyses upon which all of our colleagues depend--the Center for Auto 
Safety, Public Citizen, people who have a reputation of representing 
the consumer--were against what the Senate did. Not one safety 
organization in America supported what was adopted.
  I have learned to take my losses, and we are all going to live to 
fight another day. This issue is going to come back, I am absolutely 
convinced about that. We are going to face it.
  I saw that the price of gas went up about 5 or 6 cents at the pump in 
the Washington area in the last couple of days. I remember when I was 
going to law school what it was like to study my torts and contracts 
sitting for an hour and a half in a line waiting to get gasoline, and I 
wished I had a car that did not require me to go into that line as 
frequently as it did so I could get to school and back on one tank of 
gas more frequently.
  In Europe, people are driving cars that get 60 and 70 miles per 
gallon, and the question is pregnant here in America: Why aren't we?
  There is a new poll that came out yesterday. It shows 88 percent of 
Americans want cars that are more efficient. I believe even those who 
drive pickups and light trucks all across America would like a truck 
that is more efficient. They pay their gas bill. They have to pay for 
the same costs as everybody else. It would be a lot more efficient if 
they could have some of that new technology.
  In my judgment, we missed--it is my judgment, and I could be wrong, 
as everybody knows--an opportunity to help make America more 
competitive, to help save money for our consumers, and to beat back 
what has been a proven reluctance by an industry for years. This is not 
a matter of conjecture.
  I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Georgia, knows Stuart 
Eizenstat. I know the Presiding Officer knows President Jimmy Carter 
very well. President Jimmy Carter sat in front of the Big Three, and 
they came to him and said:
  Mr. President, we cannot do this. You are going to put us out of 
business. Stuart Eizenstat testified to our committee that he sat in 
that meeting and listened to the president of General Motors tell him 
it was impossible to meet the standards, but President Carter himself, 
somebody who understood technology, an engineer by training, made a 
courageous decision that we had to move forward. That courageous 
decision to move forward saved millions of barrels of oil--billions by 
now. It saved, many would say, the American industry because it made 
them competitive with the German and Japanese car that was increasingly 
gaining market share because Americans wanted cars that were more 
efficient.
  I believe in the capacity of every UAW worker and every car 
manufacturer in America to build a car that is competitive with any car 
in the world. I believe in the capacity of American ingenuity and 
technology. I believe in our entrepreneurial spirit.
  Today, we turned our backs on something President Kennedy did in the 
1960s when he said we could go to the moon in 10 years. He did not know 
for certain we could get there, but he set a goal, and America met the 
goal.
  We could have, today, set a goal for America. We could have said we 
are going to reduce the threat that our kids may have to go to another 
country to defend our gluttony on oil by becoming more efficient. We 
could have, today, had an opportunity to set a standard that would have 
pushed the technology curve so America could be the country that sells 
the cars of the future, all over the world, that are more efficient, 
more effective, and safer.
  I misspoke earlier when I said something about the Senator from 
Michigan. I want to clarify it. I told him about it, and it was purely 
misspeaking. I said his bill would wipe out the safety standards. I did 
not mean the safety standards of CAFE that are in existence today. I 
meant it would wipe out the underlying safety standards in our bill. 
That, it did.
  We had a safety standard that would have provided a rollover standard 
for SUVs. Every year we lose 10,000 Americans who are killed in 
rollover accidents in SUVs. SUVs are built with a very fragile roof. I 
think the roof weighs about 75 pounds, something in that vicinity. When 
the heavy SUV rolls over, people are crushed and killed. That could be 
prevented.
  The safety people who supported our bill suggested we should have had 
that standard in this legislation. That has now been wiped out.
  The reason this is so important is that there is a history. People 
know NHTSA has not been a fighting agency for change or for standards. 
That is why when Ronald Reagan came in and Congress was going to do 
standards, everybody said: Oh, NHTSA ought to do it. Do not let 
Congress do it.

  When Bush 41 was President, they said: Oh, Congress should not do 
this. NHTSA ought to do this. Then all of a sudden when President 
Clinton was in office, and Congress was in the hands of the 
Republicans, the whole argument flipped: Oh, we should not have NHTSA 
do this. We ought to have Congress do this.
  Lo and behold, in 1995, the Congress prohibited the EPA from even 
evaluating what the impact might be of raising the CAFE standards.
  There is a history, a history of delay, a history of resistance, a 
history of can't-do, a history of we do not want to do, a history of 
this is going to kill us. But when Congress had the courage to stand up 
and raise the aspirations of Americans, guess what. The industry met 
the standard and exceeded it. And guess what. We raised the numbers of 
workers in Detroit up to about 1 million in the year 1999, the highest 
level it had been for a number of years.
  When I hear my colleagues say, ``What about jobs,'' I do not think it 
is Toyota and Honda that moved to Mexico. The last measurement I had, 
it was the Big Three that had moved some plants to Mexico. Honda and 
Toyota are building plants in the United States of America, and they 
are increasingly building engines and automobiles in our country and 
grabbing market share.
  Maybe the competition of the marketplace will spur some of these 
entities on but history has shown--look at Enron. There is an example. 
If ever we have learned in recent days what President Teddy Roosevelt 
taught us when he had the courage, coming from his party, to stand up 
against trusts in America, we learned of the unfettered, completely 
unrestrained, absolutely unregulated appetite of most businesses. We 
have found countless examples of abuses where sometimes someone is 
needed to act as a referee, to act as a standard bearer. I believe that 
someone should have been the Congress. It has not been, and it 
obviously will not be. So my hope is that as we go down the road, 
people will think hard about the gains that were lost today.
  This is not the long-term solution for our country. I understand 
that. The long-term solution for our country is to be independent of 
oil, but 70 percent of the oil we consume in America is consumed in 
transportation. If we are going to reduce foreign dependence, we have 
only two choices: We either produce it in America or we reduce our 
dependency abroad. Since oil is the principal dependency, we cannot 
solve the problem when we only have 3 percent of the world's oil 
reserves but we use 25 percent of those reserves every year. The math 
is simple. Every child

[[Page S1833]]

in school can do the math. If the United States is using 25 percent of 
the oil, and we only own 3 percent of the oil reserves, either find the 
oil somewhere else or find an alternative to oil.

  We cannot drill out of this predicament; we have to invent our way 
out. One of the ways to have invented our way out of it would have been 
to have adopted a standard that pushed the technology curve so our 
industry would suddenly become the world's leader, as we were in 
alternatives and renewables and photovoltaics in the late 1970s, when 
we made a similar effort to adopt those technologies.
  I am proud we were fighting for this. I will stand up anywhere in 
this country and defend the rectitude of what we attempted to do and 
decry the lies that suggest everybody in America has to get into some 
little purple people eater, when Ford Motor Company itself is promoting 
an SUV with all the power you want, and all the room you want, and it 
uses half the gasoline.
  There it is, the car of the future, from Ford Motor Company. There is 
not a pickup truck, there is not an SUV, there is not a vehicle in 
America that cannot be driven this size. Look at our buses; look at our 
fleets. In America today we are driving huge numbers of people in buses 
that are driven on compressed natural gas. We have alternative 
vehicles. Fleets are being purchased that way.
  The Government has the opportunity to set the standard, requiring 
that no automobile is going to be bought for fleet use of the 
Government unless we are using hybrids and alternatives. We could begin 
to create the demand for the marketplace. There are all kinds of ways 
to try this, but it takes leadership.
  Today I regret to say I don't think the Senate offered that. I hope 
it will in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, for 2 weeks we have debated the 
comprehensive energy policy we should have for this country. Most 
Members and most Americans agree we need to do two basic things: One, 
we need to create more energy; two, we need to conserve more energy.
  Throughout the legislation we are debating, there are a variety of 
ways we will create more energy: make natural gas more readily 
accessible from northern Alaska; create renewable energy; more solar, 
wind, geothermal; interesting exploitation of biomass, biofuels, soy 
diesel, among others.
  On the conservation side, we are not doing so well. On the 
conservation side, we need to do a whole lot better. The Senator from 
Massachusetts has alluded to how much oil we consume. We consume a 
whole lot, given the size and population of our country, compared to 
the rest of the world. Our oil imports account for roughly 60 percent 
of the oil we consume. That is up from 30 percent when I came back to 
the United States at the end of the Vietnam war.
  By the mid-1970s, we did not have much of a trade deficit. Today we 
have a trade deficit of $300 billion a year. A good deal of that is 
oil. Roughly a little more than half of the oil we consume, we consume 
with cars, trucks, and vans we drive. To pass from the Senate and send 
to conference with the House energy legislation that does not make 
meaningful, measurable steps toward reducing the amount of oil we use 
for our cars, trucks, and vans is shortsighted and a mistake.
  A month ago I had an opportunity to participate in a meeting convened 
by our majority leader, Senator Daschle. At that meeting were Senator 
Levin, Senator Stabenow, Senator Kerry, Senator Carnahan, myself, and 
others. We were at the behest of our majority leader to see if we might 
try to find middle ground between the approach Senator Kerry wanted to 
take on CAFE standards and the approach of Senator Levin.
  I thought on that day and today I still believe there is a 
compromise, and a good compromise, between what each proposed then and 
what each proposes to do today. At that early meeting I laid out what I 
thought were five principles that should underlie any changes we make 
with respect to the fuel efficiency of our cars, trucks, and vans. I 
mention those again. Senator Mikulski alluded to them yesterday. No. 1, 
we need to reduce oil imports. That should be an embodied principle. 
No. 2, we should set clear, measurable objectives. No. 3, we should do 
our dead-level best to preserve American jobs. No. 4, we should provide 
reasonable leadtime to the auto industry for any changes that are going 
to be coming. No. 5, we need to think out the box. We need to be 
innovative.
  I have never been a big one for micromanaging. I urged Senator Kerry 
in his legislation to move away from the idea that the Congress would 
set these interim goals for fuel efficiency. It is appropriate for 
Congress and the Senate to set longtime goals for fuel efficiency, be 
it CAFE or a reduction, a measurable, tangible reduction in oil 
imports. I am not as comfortable for the Congress setting interim 
goals. I would have that delegated to an appropriate entity.
  Earlier today we debated the Levin amendment, for which I voted. I 
would like to be able to vote for the Kerry amendment not because I 
thought Levin was perfect, but there are a lot of elements that are 
good. Not because I think Kerry-McCain is perfect, but there is a lot 
that is good. If you put it together, we would have a good package.
  I mention a couple aspects of the Levin amendment that I think are 
helpful and ought to be in the final package that hopefully will go to 
the President for his signature. The Levin amendment focuses on three 
or four major things that the Government ought to do and can do well. 
One is significant investments of Federal dollars in research and 
development, for fuel cells, for hybrid technology, including diesel 
hybrid technology.

  The Levin amendment acknowledges there is a responsibility, and a 
good opportunity, a responsibility for the Federal Government to help 
commercialize the new technologies in fuel efficiency, vehicle 
efficiency that are coming along. The Federal Government has the 
opportunity to use its purchasing power to buy large numbers of cars, 
trucks, vans, jeeps, SUVs, trucks, semitrucks, others that are more 
fuel efficient. We should do that in the military and on the civilian 
side and use our purchasing power to help commercialize the new 
technologies.
  Another role for the Federal Government is with respect to tax 
policy. If we want producers of vehicles to produce more fuel-efficient 
vehicles, we need to include a tax incentive. The Levin approach 
provides that.
  Similarly, if we want to make sure the vehicles that are energy 
efficient are purchased by consumers, we need to provide incentives for 
consumers to buy. We do that under the Levin approach.
  The one element that is missing in the approach of Senators Levin and 
Bond is the biggest hole in the amendment: We do not set a clear, 
measurable objective. We can argue until the cows come home about 
whether or not we need to change CAFE, concerns of foreign and domestic 
production, are we fearful of exporting the building of small cars to 
other countries if we approach this the wrong way.
  Maybe the debate should not be about CAFE at all. Maybe the clear, 
measurable objective we ought to debate is an objective that reduces 
oil imports, reduces the consumption of oil by our cars, trucks, and 
vans.
  The House of Representatives has passed by a very narrow margin a 
flawed energy bill, flawed with respect to the measurable objective 
they set in reducing consumption of oil. But at least they have a 
measurable objective. And their measurable objective, as I recall, is 
over roughly another 5 or 6 years to reduce by, I think, 5 billion 
gallons the amount of oil that we consume. That is in their bill, with 
respect to our light trucks, vans, SUVs.

  If we actually consider how many miles per gallon that equates to, it 
says we are going to improve our fuel efficiency by maybe a mile or 
mile and a half per gallon over roughly the next half dozen years. That 
is not much. That is far too modest a goal and certainly far too modest 
a goal for the next dozen years.
  We are going to stay on this bill for a while longer. I wish very 
much we could vote for the Kerry-McCain amendment because it has 
changed a whole lot from what was originally envisioned and, frankly, 
what has been originally put in this bill, and it has been changed in 
ways that I think

[[Page S1834]]

make sense. I thank them for the changes, including ones I proposed, 
that they have been willing to accept.
  Before we move off this bill, I hope we will come back to this 
thought; that while it is important that we preserve jobs and while it 
is important that we provide reasonable lead time for the auto 
industry, and while it is important that we think outside the box and 
invest in R&D and tax credits and commercialize the technologies that 
are coming along--those are all things that are important to do--it is 
also important for us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
  For us, today, to think we are going to have to cram into these tiny 
little cars like the purple people eater that was put on display by 
Senator Lott earlier is just not the case.
  We build Dodge Durangos in my State. They get about 17 miles per 
gallon. If they introduce a gas hybrid engine, they will increase their 
fuel efficiency next year by about 30 percent. That is just next year, 
by 30 percent. There are ways we can use diesel hybrids to increase 
that 30 percent to something like 60 percent, if the diesel hybrid is 
able to meet our requirements for tier 2 clean air standards, 
particularly for nitrogen oxide and particulates. We can do these 
things and we don't have to sacrifice comfort, we don't have to 
sacrifice space, we don't have to sacrifice safety in order to have the 
kind of vehicles people want to buy and want to drive and to be able to 
remove our country's future from the hands of the folks who control so 
much of the oil in the world.
  My wife has a Ford Explorer. She likes it a lot. It doesn't get very 
good gas mileage, but she likes it a lot. She likes the size and a lot 
of things about it. Probably the next car she buys will be a similar 
vehicle. I drive a Chrysler Town and Country minivan. I like it a lot, 
and with a young family, it meets our needs. I sure wish it got better 
gas mileage. I wish it got a lot better gas mileage. We can do those 
things.
  Senator Kerry mentioned--I will just close with this--when John 
Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he talked about a goal of 
putting a man on the Moon, an American on the Moon by the end of that 
decade. Today, that may not seem to be a very big undertaking, but in 
1960 it sure was. The idea we could take a man and put him in a space 
suit, put him in a missile and send him up to the Moon and let him walk 
on the Moon and turn around and fly back safely, the idea somebody at 
the time could was almost incomprehensible. But he said we could do 
this as a nation; that we ought to do it before the end of the 1960s. 
And we did.
  If we could do that as a nation four decades ago, we can build cars, 
trucks, and vans that people want to buy and want to use in this 
country and at the same time reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
  When I filled up the tank of my Chrysler Town and Country minivan in 
Dover earlier this week, I know some of the $20 I charged on my credit 
card to fill that tank is going to people around the world, or will end 
up in the pockets of people in nations that do not like us very much 
anymore. They don't have our best interests in mind, necessarily. In 
some cases, they will use the resources we continue to ship overseas 
when we purchase the oil--some of them are committed to using the 
resources we give them against us, to hurt us and hurt our people here 
and in other places around the world. We should not continue to be so 
foolish as to do that.
  Before we leave this bill and vote on final passage next week, I 
believe we need to come back and address the issue of clear, measurable 
objectives and make sure as we go to conference with the House with 
respect to the use of oil, consumption of oil in our cars, trucks, and 
vans, that we have put in place some clear, measurable objectives that 
will reduce our reliance on that foreign oil.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________