[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 39 (Thursday, April 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2556-S2571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the much needed
energy security legislation that is before the Senate.
This week, at the very moment we debate this very important landmark
legislation, we are seeing a confluence of factors in our energy supply
and demand that amounts to what one might call the ``perfect storm.''
There have been few other times in the history of our nation where we
have seen such a stark demonstration that our national security
interests are synonymous with our energy security. And here are--in
this ``perfect storm''--the various storm fronts that are coming
together and colliding to produce some very ominous results for the
American people, their families, and small businesses.
The travel season is heading into its annual peak as more and more
Americans hit the road, and those numbers are higher than usual because
of people's fear of flying or the aggravation, the stress of commercial
air travel due to security concerns and desires.
Refineries are also beginning their annual changeover from winter
fuels to specially formulated, cleaner burning summer fuels that cost
more to produce. Those increased costs at refineries, that are already
running at near capacity, will be passed on to the American consumer.
In recent weeks, the Israelis have taken strong action to defend
themselves from the escalating growth of heinous suicide bombings in
Israel.
In response to all of this, the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has
pledged to embargo Iraq's oil exports for 30 days or until Israel
withdraws from Palestinian territories.
The Associated Press quoted Saddam as saying:
The oppressive Zionist and American enemy has belittled the
capabilities of the [Arab] nation.
Combine all of these factors together, and the price of gasoline has
increased about 25 cents a gallon in just the last few weeks. This is
the sharpest increase in a 4-week period since the year 1990, right
before the gulf war.
The price of a barrel of oil has risen to about $26 a barrel as of
yesterday, and many projections indicate the price will spike to more
than $30 a barrel.
The problem is one of basic economics that a fourth grade student in
Virginia would understand, or as the Presiding Officer would certainly
agree, a fourth grade student in West Virginia
[[Page S2557]]
as well. I hope that the Senate also understands this very basic,
simple matter of high demand and inadequate supply. Even as the demand
for oil is rising, supply is constrained this year because the nations
in OPEC have cut production since the end of the year 2000 by a total
of about 5 million barrels of oil per day.
The result is financial hardship for families and enterprises that
pay more out of pocket for their basic transportation needs. It is a
loaded weapon aimed at our economy, which appears to be moving slowly
on the road to recovery.
I wholeheartedly support a balanced energy policy, including
conservation and new, advanced technologies, such as hydrogen-fuel-
cell-powered vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and clean
coal technology. We are the ``Saudi Arabia of coal.'' I know the Chair
shares my desire in working for clean coal technologies--and also solar
photovoltaic technology.
But at the same time, we must increase our American-based production
to become less reliant and dependent on foreign sources of oil.
Rising tensions in the Middle East will further increase our prices
at the gas pump, damage job opportunities, and take more money from
working people. This increased cost in fuel will ultimately cause an
increase in the cost of goods and products, 95 percent of which come by
truck to some store or directly to your home.
Please be aware that the United States continues to import nearly 1
million barrels a day from Saddam Hussein. This is the same man who
turns around and compensates the families of suicide bombers at a rate
of $25,000. You could say that the compensation for 1 murderer is
equivalent to about 900 barrels of oil that the United States and other
nations buy from Saddam Hussein. We can no longer afford to let Saddam
Hussein quite literally put us over the barrel.
At a time when Iraq is calling for an OPEC embargo on oil sales to
America, environmentally safe production in a small and desolate place
on the barren Arctic Plain on the North Slope of Alaska could alone
replace more than 35 years of Iraqi oil imports. The potential is
enormous for large oil reserves relatively near that of the current
production at Prudhoe Bay--about 16 billion barrels. Conservative
estimates state that ANWR has more oil than all of Texas.
I read that the Senator from Connecticut yesterday said it would take
10 years to get oil flowing from the North Slope of Alaska and this
ANWR area. Let's assume it would take 10 years. Maybe this decision
should have been made 10 years ago. Indeed, this Senate, in 1995, as
well as the House, passed exploration permission legislation in 1995.
Unfortunately, that legislation and that permission to explore ANWR was
vetoed by the President in 1995. If that had not been vetoed, that oil
would be flowing and we would not have as great a dependence on foreign
oil, much less Saddam Hussein.
Also, there are groups of opponents. Many of those groups were also
the opponents who were against the Prudhoe Bay production several
decades ago. Thank goodness, reason and security prevailed and we are
getting oil through the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay.
The reality is, with the infrastructure and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
less than about 50 miles away, just a few years of work are needed to
get oil flowing from ANWR. The pipeline is already built. We just need
to get that 50 mile span built from Prudhoe Bay to the exploration site
at ANWR. It is not quite the magnitude of a project back in the 1970s.
The amount of oil we will be getting from there is about the same as
what we could replace from 30 years of Saudi Arabian imports. And on
top of it all, there are estimates--I will admit this is on the high
side--of the creation of as many as 735,000 new jobs. The estimated oil
at ANWR is valued at more than $300 billion, which could replace a
large portion of foreign oil imports and clearly create hundreds of
thousands of jobs for our economy.
Again, the North Slope of Alaska, the Arctic Plain, or ANWR, is not
some mountainous, beautiful sanctuary. It is a flat, barren, cold,
inhospitable place, and the small local population nearby is virtually
unanimous in its desire to see the utilization of the resources beneath
that frozen tundra. As it is very nearby, and similar to Prudhoe Bay,
and as has been seen from studies, there will be no adverse impact on
caribou or mosquitoes, which are plentiful in the summer, or other
flora and fauna.
I support environmentally responsible exploration and production at
ANWR to help at least ameliorate our dependence on OPEC. The
announcement of curtailed exports by Iraq should remind us more than
ever that our economy and national security will remain bound together
as long as we allow tyrants and despots to control our destiny.
In addition to the Middle East, the political dispute in Venezuela
has left their oil industry crippled as labor groups have staged a
nationwide strike.
Simply put, we are entirely too dependent on foreign oil and we must
expand our domestic production. We must also improve our energy
security by identifying and developing new energy opportunities.
Diversification of energy supplies is basic to our comprehensive
national energy policy. We should encourage new, cooperative trade
arrangements and new resources in willing prospects throughout the
world.
All of these initiatives, discussions, and cooperative efforts are
aimed at fulfilling just one part of our national energy policy, which
is the diversification of our international sources of supply.
A commonsense, comprehensive, long-term energy plan will get us off
this roller coaster of restrictive supply and demand that we have
ridden for the past several decades. We must not allow the Saddam
Husseins of the world to jerk us around and actually run that roller
coaster.
President Bush's energy plan is comprehensive. It combines
conservation and incentives for the development of alternative energy
sources. I look forward to voting for tax incentives for alternative-
fueled vehicles. It also includes increased domestic production. An
energy policy without all of these components will not be effective.
We have a responsibility to the American people to address these
challenges head on. If you think the situation is dire today, take a
look just a short time from now into the future. Over the next 20
years, U.S. oil consumption is projected to increase by 33 percent and
demand for electricity is projected to increase by 45 percent. Our
dependence on foreign sources of oil will grow from 55 percent today to
64 percent by the year 2020. This compares to just 42 percent from
foreign sources less than 10 years ago.
Clearly, we can see that something must be done, and soon. I am
committed to working for commonsense solutions based upon sound science
and the best available technologies so that all Americans can have
affordable, reliable access to energy to fuel our motor vehicles, our
homes, our farm operations, and our business operations across America.
I am also committed to making fuller use of the resources we have
within our own borders in States that are supportive. While there may
be oil off the coast of California, the people of California are
opposed to oil development off their coast. Therefore, I respect their
desires and would not support oil exploration off California.
In Alaska, Republicans, Democrats, Eskimos, Indians, all people are
overwhelmingly in favor of production in ANWR.
There are other groups that support production on the North Slope of
Alaska--groups such as the Vietnam Veterans Institute. I quote from
them:
War and international terrorism have again brought into
sharp focus the heavy reliance of the U.S. on imported oil.
During these times of crises, such reliance threatens our
national security and economic well-being. . . . It is
important that we develop domestic sources of oil.
Organized labor. This is from Jerry Hood of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters:
America has gone too long without a solid energy plan. When
energy costs rise, working families are the first to feel the
pinch. The Senate should follow the example passed by the
House and ease the burden by sending the President supply-
based energy legislation to sign.
The Hispanic community. I quote from Mario Rodriguez, president of
the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce:
[[Page S2558]]
We urge the Senate leadership to pass comprehensive energy
legislation. This is not a partisan issue. Millions of needy
Hispanic families need your support now.
From Jewish organizations, Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations:
The [Conference] at its general meeting on November 14th
unanimously supported a resolution calling on Congress to act
expeditiously to pass the energy bill that will serve to
lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
African-American groups. Harry Alford, chairman of the National Black
Chamber of Commerce, states:
Our growing membership reflects the opinion of more and
more Americans all across the political spectrum that we must
act now to end our dependence on foreign energy sources by
addressing the nation's long-neglected energy needs.
And Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated:
The events of September 11 lend a new urgency to our
efforts to increase domestic energy supplies and modernize
our nation's energy infrastructure.
The point of all this is that it has broad, bipartisan support across
the country, not just in Alaska. I also add that this is not simply a
matter of our economic security our physical security is also at stake.
I challenge my colleagues to join Americans in this effort. Let's
make America the most technologically advanced nation in the world for
new sources of energy to propel our motor vehicles and to provide
clean, efficient electricity. Let's also make sure we are less
dependent upon unpredictable and, in some cases, threatening foreign
sources of oil. Let's control our own destiny more than we have in the
past. Let's move forward united for America's bright future.
Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair heard a clap from the gallery. Those
here now, or at any time in the future, if that occurs again, they will
be removed by the Sergeant at Arms under the rules of the Senate. That
is not allowed and will not be tolerated.
The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Amendment No. 3114
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak for up to 15 minutes in conjunction with my opposition to the
Feinstein amendment, which has been introduced on the energy bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, this amendment and other
California amendments are outside the agreement and would negatively
impact the renewable fuels standard contained in the bill. While I
generally respect and certainly admire my colleagues from California,
who are joined by my colleagues from New York in this particular
situation, I must depart from their point of view and take this
opportunity to explain that the facts do not support their amendment.
The renewable fuels standard is the culmination of 20 years of sound
public policy. We have all worked at the State, local, and Federal
levels to make sure we have brought together the best kind of public
policy for energy as it relates to renewable fuels. This standard will
almost triple production of biofuels over the next 10 years. The RFS,
as it is known, will accelerate the biorefinery concept so that a wide
range of cellulosic biomass feedstocks will cost-effectively be
converted into biofuels, bioelectricity, and biochemicals.
Enactment of the RFS, along with other provisions in this bill, will
emphasize new sources of energy production from biomass to wind power,
as well as conservation, to further reduce our dependence upon foreign
sources of energy. As the previous speaker, my colleague, Senator
Allen, pointed out, this 100-year-old reliance on fossil fuels and on
fuels from unstable parts of the world has put us in a position
of instability. So this RFS is essential in helping us reverse this
100-year-old reliance on fossil fuels and on unstable governments.
Enactment of this bill will strengthen national and energy security and
improve our environment at the same time.
If you will look at this poster, according to a recent study
conducted by AUS Consultants, adoption of the RFS will:
. . . displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next
decade; reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; it will
increase new investments in rural communities by more than
$5.3 billion--and this is all domestic, all money that will
inure to the benefit of Americans. It will also boost the
demand for feedgrains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion
bushels over the next decade; it will create more than
214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy, and it will
expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over
the next decade.
These days, we are witnessing substantial increases in gasoline
prices at the pump because of disruption and turmoil in the Middle
East. Gasoline prices are not going up because we are using ethanol;
they are rising because we are not using enough ethanol. Over the next
10 years, the renewable fuels standard in S. 517 would increase United
States gasoline supplies to 5 billion gallons per year in 2012,
slightly less than the volume of crude oil we currently import from
Iraq. That will come from the addition of these biofuels that will come
from the renewable fuels standard. It will be bad public policy for us
to eliminate the existing oxygenate standard without replacing it with
the renewable fuels standard. That is exactly what S. 517 does.
I congratulate California Governor Gray Davis for his support of the
RFS section of S. 517. He recently declared:
Let's let the Daschle bill pass, have a nice schedule that
will affect the entire country, phase in ethanol and protect
the environment.
He also said:
All we need to do is use about 250 or 275 million gallons
of ethanol, which we already do and are prepared to do in the
future.
Governor Davis recently delayed his ban on MTBE in California for 1
year, coinciding with the initiation of the renewable fuels standard,
RFS, and his acceptance of that RFS package is the best option to meet
California's current and certainly its future gasoline needs. This, in
large part, is due to the fact that a Federal RFG with an MTBE ban
would require about 700 million gallons of ethanol annually in
California.
The next alternative would be a program to eliminate the current
minimum oxygen standard, a ban on MTBE, and retain the existing
wintertime carbon monoxide program using ethanol. This would require
about 500 million gallons of ethanol annually.
In contrast, the Daschle-Lugar-Nelson RFS requires California
refiners to use only about 250 million gallons of ethanol annually.
Finally, the RFS provision contained in the bill allows ``credit
training,'' which provides the option of reducing California's ethanol
use to zero, with a cost of less than 2 cents per gallon.
Lest anyone thinks this is somehow a plan or decision by the States
in the Midwest to support their own economies to the detriment of
economies elsewhere, Governor Pataki from New York, and Governor
Shaheen of New Hampshire, representing the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management, and other Governors belonging to the
Governors' Ethanol Coalition, have also signed a joint letter
supporting the renewable fuels standards. These are Governors from all
over the country.
I also remind my colleagues that the RFS agreement was unprecedented
in that it was accepted through the extensive and cooperative work of
the ethanol and biodiesel industries, their associations, most farm and
agricultural groups, the environmental and renewable energy
communities, and the American Petroleum Institute.
All of us, each and every one of us, is aware of how dangerously
close we are to an overdependence on imported oil. As Senator Allen
said, currently we are over 56 percent dependent on foreign sources,
and it will rise to over 60 percent in the very near future.
Too many of these supplies come from troubled nations in the Middle
East, the Caspian Basin, and Indonesia where almost 80 percent of the
world's reserves are located.
As our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, warned recently,
we must recognize this vulnerability because it also extends to the
potential of terrorist attacks on oil supply lines. An attack on our
oil supply lines anywhere in the world would have us on our backs
overnight.
The RFS is critical to the process of reducing our dependence on oil
imports
[[Page S2559]]
through the advancement of domestically dispersed renewable and
environmentally benign technologies that will generate new industries,
high-quality jobs, economic activity, and rural development, while at
the same time expanding national and local tax bases. This is, in fact,
a win-win for everyone in America.
Ethanol opponents claim that it takes more energy to make ethanol
than is contained in the fuel. This is simply not the case. The most
recent USDA report shows an increase in the net energy balance of corn
ethanol from 1.24 in 1995 to 1.34 in 2002, and that new technologies
continue that improvement. Furthermore, only 17 percent of the energy
that goes into farming and ethanol plant operations is from liquid
fuels, and with the advent of biodiesel and advanced farming practices,
this number continues to drop and will continue to do so into the
future.
Some opponents also claim that the price of gasoline could double.
The issue of consumer cost is clearly important to all sectors of our
Nation, certainly to the Midwest as well as to the West and the East.
But historically, ethanol serves as a buffer to higher prices. It does
so by actually extending supplies. It provides an alternative to costly
imported oil and leverage for independent gasoline marketers to compete
against the larger, more powerful integrated oil companies.
According to the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of
America:
The Federal benefits afforded ethanol-blended fuels have
been an important pro-competitive influence on the Nation's
gasoline markets. By enhancing the ability of independent
marketers to price compete with their integrated oil company
competitors, this program has increased independent
marketers' economic viability and reduced consumers' costs of
gasoline.
On April 8 in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the New York
metropolitan areas, the price of ethanol-blended premium midgrade and
regular ranged from .0133 to .0327 cents per gallon. So availability is
not going to be a problem and neither is price.
Today and into the near future, ethanol will be in abundant supply
because of market conditions and all the new plants that will be coming
online.
This chart shows the past, present, and predicted growth of the
ethanol capacity, and one can see that as it goes into this new
century, the incline is rather steep. Some worry about ADM's control
over the market and their ability to control prices, but their
influence is dissipating, being replaced by farmer, rancher, and
community-owned plants. It is not concentrated within only one industry
or within one producer. It is widely spread out over all kinds of
operations, from the small to the medium size to the large.
To attack some other myths, there are some claims that ethanol does
not contribute to cleaner air, and that is not true. There is no
question that ethanol blends reduce carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide,
but most areas with polluted air are worried about ozone.
The good news is that 3 years of clean air quality data in the
Chicago/Milwaukee area show that it is possible to effectively reduce
ozone emissions while using ethanol blends. These blends also reduce
air toxins, such as the carcinogen benzene.
The defeat of the renewable fuels standard in S. 517 would be a great
loss to the national energy and economic security of the United States.
The real tragedy would be a further loss to the Europeans as they
advance their biorefinery technology to produce biofuels,
bioelectricity, and biochemicals from a wide range of biomass,
including much of which is wasted or ends up in landfills.
If there is a myth that somehow this is going to simply affect our
food supply by providing alternative use, it is very clear to
understand that ethanol can be made from any kind of biomass, including
that which is waste, that which is garbage, that which is discarded and
ends up in landfills.
As technology continues to increase, we will have more and more
sources for a renewable resource that will come from those production
sources that currently have other means of disposal. Unfortunately,
some of them are disposed only in landfills.
The RFS provides a credit of 1.5 for biofuels made from cellulosic
biomass, oilseeds, tallow, animal fat, and yellow grease compared to 1
credit for ethanol made from starch and sugar crops; that is, every
gallon of these fuels is equal to 1.5 gallons in meeting the renewable
fuels standards. In fact, it does go to other kinds of biomass.
Consequently, the RFS will provide the stimulus and the market for
biofuels needed to produce the next generation of biorefineries.
In the past, it has always been the question of how you can create
the demand or whether you create the supply and hope, in fact, it will
create the demand. This bill with the RFS in it creates both the demand
and the opportunity and the incentive for more supplies in a cost-
effective and a very environmentally friendly and very economic
friendly manner.
During my two terms as Governor, I watched firsthand as the private
sector invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new community-based
ethanol plants. We went from one operating plant to more than seven
when I left, and there continues to be more plants built around the
State and a great deal of interest in further expanding the plants,
depending on the passage of S. 517.
These investments occurred primarily in response to the demand
created by the Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirements. Not one of those
plants is owned by AD in Nebraska. Farmers and ranchers own most of
them.
The ethanol industry in Nebraska has been one of the few bright spots
in an otherwise underperforming agricultural economy, thereby creating
quality jobs, increasing farm income, and, in some instances, maybe
providing the only farm income by adding value to farmers' products and
expanding local tax bases.
This is, in fact, sound public policy, and we should be doing more,
not less, of it. If we are going to eliminate the oxygen requirement
that has been proposed, then we must be sure to put in its place the
renewable fuels standard in S. 517. The RFS is sound public policy. The
provision will increase gasoline supplies and consequently serve to
lower gasoline prices. It will have a positive impact on the Farm Belt
economy and also reduce energy costs for other areas of the country.
This is truly a national plan to control costs, spur economic activity,
and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I ask my colleagues to vote to preserve the historic agreement
manifested in the RFS. To do otherwise will certainly face us in the
wrong direction, a step backwards, into deeper dependence on imported
oil.
I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. 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. If I still have time left, I am happy to use
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, earlier today, my colleagues
from California and New York quoted extensively from an Energy
Information Agency report which they said indicated the RFS would
result in gasoline price increases from 4 cents to almost 10 cents per
gallon.
We have read this report, and it is difficult for us to understand
how they arrived at those cost figures when our reading of the report
sets the increase at prices up to 1 cent per gallon for reformulated
gasoline and up to a half a cent per gallon compared to the referenced
case. This is with the reformulated fuel standard without the MTBE ban.
When there is an MTBE ban, there would then be a greater demand for
gasoline that would drive prices up. The availability of ethanol to add
volume as an additive and boost octane would put downward pressure on
prices, which is what has been shown elsewhere in the country. So we
are at a loss as to how that was arrived at.
There also was a suggestion there might be the possibility that
ethanol-blended gasoline could extend the benzene plume and contaminate
the ground water in the event of leaking tanks or spills.
Nebraska is the home of ethanol. It was first called gasohol. It has
been
[[Page S2560]]
used extensively for the past 20 years. I have used it for as long as I
can recall. There is absolutely no evidence of benzene-contaminated
water supplies resulting from the use of ethanol in Nebraska, and we
are not aware of anywhere else where ethanol has been used extensively
or even modestly where there has been an increase in benzene.
It is going to boost the octane of gasoline, and I think most people
looking at science will conclude it permits the reduction of aromatics,
including benzene. We found that ethanol-blended gasoline in Nebraska
has considerably less aromatics than unblended gasoline, and we do not
understand nor do we follow the logic or the facts that have been
presented.
I think it is important to consider the fact we must, indeed, reduce
our reliance on foreign sources of oil, and we must, in fact, expand
the opportunity for renewable resources so we are not reliant on
foreign sources of oil. When we can do this in an environmentally
friendly way, and at the same time have the economics of the country
advanced, it seems only too sound of logic to conclude we should go the
other way. We must, in fact, move forward with the RFS.
So I call on those who would have other information to return and let
us debate the issue on the facts as they are.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Feinstein amendment
for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, in the wake of September 11, America and the rest of
the free world now face dramatic new challenges as certainly evidenced
by our Secretary of State being in the Middle East today. There are
serious consequences to these great challenges. Energy independence is
one of these challenges.
Today, less than 1 percent of America's transportation fuel comes
from renewable sources. In the energy bill we are debating today
renewable fuel would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total
transportation fuel supply by 2012.
A few weeks ago, the Senate approved the renewable portfolio standard
for electricity which mandates that 10 percent of all electricity must
come from certain renewable sources. I note that my colleagues from
California and New York in particular voted in favor of that renewable
electricity mandate which the Department of Energy has estimated will
cost the ratepayers of America about $88 billion through 2020.
I note also that my colleagues from California and New York voted for
a 20-percent renewable electricity standard. Yet, as I heard this
morning, they oppose a 3-percent renewable fuel standard. What is the
difference between the renewable fuel standard and the renewable
electricity standard?
Here is the difference.
Today, we spend about $300 million per day on foreign oil imports. We
are nearing 60 percent of the total use of our oil coming from other
nations. We spend $12 million a day on Iraqi oil alone--we used to. We
did until Saddam Hussein announced this week that Iraq would halt its
exports of oil for a month.
With Iraq capping its production, Venezuela imploding, and other
producers such as Iran, Libya, and Nigeria sending very troubling
signals to the world, America must develop an accountable, responsible,
relevant, and workable energy policy that will replace the oil we now
import with alternative fuels and renewable fuels produced here in the
United States.
Despite the regional differences that sometimes arise, this renewable
fuel standard is good for all America. That has been highlighted by the
fact that this standard has broad bipartisan support in the Congress.
It has been endorsed by a majority of Governors, Democrat and
Republican; the Bush administration; agricultural and environmental
groups; and the oil and gas industry.
Consider that this standard would replace 66 billion gallons--1.6
billion barrels--of foreign crude oil by 2012. It would reduce the U.S.
trade deficit by as much as $34 billion.
The renewable fuel standard in the energy bill we debate today would
also bring a needed boost to our economy. This single provision would
create 214,000 jobs nationwide--not in the Midwest but nationwide. It
would create $5.3 billion in new investment nationwide. It would
increase household income by $52 billion nationwide. It would increase
net farm income by $6.6 billion a year, reducing the amount spent on
the farm price support program that we are now debating in a conference
committee, trying to resolve the differences between the House and
Senate agriculture bills. Unfortunately, since this landmark agreement
was announced, the opponents of renewable fuels have distorted facts
and tried to undermine our bipartisan compromise.
My colleagues from California and New York stated this morning that
the renewable fuel standard would result in substantially higher prices
at the gas pump. However, they fail to mention that the report by the
Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy stated
that over 90 percent of any increased costs would come from the
phaseout of MTBE.
They also failed to note that the recent reports by the Energy
Information Administration and the GAO did not take into account the
important fact that 13 States have already banned the use of MTBE. The
fact is, any increased cost at the pump would be very minimal at most--
perhaps a half cent a gallon--if there is an increased cost.
This standard does not require a single gallon of renewable fuel be
used in any particular State or region. The additional flexibility
provided by the credit trading provisions will result in much lower
cost to refiners, and thus, to consumers. Renewable fuels will be used
where they are most cost effective.
Others claim since renewable fuels are largely produced in the
Midwest, this standard will require substantial investments in
increased transportation costs. Again, not true. Ethanol has already
transported cost effectively from coast to coast via barge and railcar.
An analysis completed in January by the Department of Energy concluded
that no major infrastructure barriers exist to expanding the U.S.
ethanol industry to 5.1 billion gallons per year, which is comparable
to the renewable fuel standard in the energy bill.
I also would like to point out that it is 7,666 miles direct from
Baghdad to Los Angeles. It is 1,150 miles from Hastings, NE--home of
two ethanol plants--to Los Angeles. If we can transport oil that we pay
Saddam Hussein for from Iraq to the United States, we can surely
transport ethanol across the United States cost effectively and
certainly in the best security interests of our country.
Some have claimed there are not adequate supplies of renewable fuel
to meet the demand created by this standard. That is not true. One look
at the ethanol industry shows that it has been growing substantially in
recent years. It has been growing in anticipation of the phaseout of
MTBE--particularly in California.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 16 new ethanol plants--
14 of them farmer-owned cooperatives, not big companies, which I heard
this morning as well, not big companies, but individuals, small farmers
banding together, small businesspeople banding together to build
cooperatives--several of these expansions have been completed and new
ones are being built. Thirteen additional plants are now currently
under construction.
A survey conducted by the California Energy Commission concluded that
the ethanol industry will have the capacity to produce 3.5 billion
gallons a year by the end of 2004, and that capacity could double by
the end of 2005. With the standard beginning in 2004 at 2.3 billion
gallons, that means there will be an adequate amount of renewable fuel
to provide the additional volume needed.
Even with those assurances, we have included in this amendment
additional safeguards. If the standard is likely to result in
significant adverse consumer impacts, then the EPA Administrator
[[Page S2561]]
has the authority to reduce the volumes. Also, upon the petition of a
State--any State--or by EPA's own determination, the EPA may waive the
standard, in whole or in part, if it determines the standard would
severely harm the economy or the environment of a State, a region, or
the country.
Even more ludicrous is this claim by some who say the phaseout of
MTBE will result in a shortage of fuel supplies. That is not true.
Remember this agreement calls for a 4-year phaseout of MTBE.
The large expansion of the renewable fuel industry will easily cover
the loss of MTBE, given this 4-year notice. As an example, in
California, where polls show that more than 76 percent of the people of
California support a ban on MTBE, the fuel industry is ready to make
the transition from MTBE to renewable fuel. Why in the world do we
think the oil companies agreed to this standard if they thought it
could not be met?
All six California refiners are ready to use ethanol now, today. Both
the ethanol industry and the California refining and transportation
system have spent billions of dollars preparing to use ethanol.
I also keep hearing references to ethanol as an untested fuel.
Ethanol has been used across this country successfully for more than 20
years. It is hardly untested. But I also note that the California
Environmental Protection Agency completed a comprehensive analysis of
ethanol's environmental and health impacts, giving it a clean bill of
health, before approving ethanol for use as a replacement to MTBE.
Ethanol has helped the Chicago area become the only ozone
nonattainment area in the country to come into compliance with the
national ozone standard. Ethanol has been tested, and it has passed.
And one of the reasons that Chicago has found itself in that unique
position is because of its use of ethanol.
President Bush has proclaimed the promise of renewable fuels by
saying recently:
Renewable fuels are gentle on the environment, and they are
made in America so they cannot be threatened by any foreign
power.
As former President Clinton said during his administration:
Ethanol production increases farm income, decreases
deficiency payments, creates jobs in America, and reduces
American reliance on foreign oil.
Both Presidents Clinton and Bush are absolutely right. This renewable
fuel standard is good for all of America.
I, again, ask my colleagues to support the renewable fuels agreement
in the Senate energy bill that we debate today. I do oppose any
amendments that would undermine this carefully crafted agreement.
In conclusion, before I yield the floor, I wish to respond to a
comment I heard this morning from one of my colleagues from New York. I
believe he mentioned something to the effect that an ethanol bill in
Nebraska failed. I am not sure what his point was. But, for the record,
and for the edification of all who heard that, and especially my
colleague, last year the Nebraska Legislature tried to mandate that
every gas station--every gas pump--in the State sell an ethanol blend.
Now, that is a bit different--completely different--if that was the
parallel attempted to be drawn from this standard, this bipartisan
standard that we have agreed to that is currently in the present energy
bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for
his leadership in opposition to this amendment, and more importantly
for his leadership over the last several months in bringing together
unity on this issue that is both bipartisan as well as across industry
and economic sectors.
Madam President, there was a time when the States of New York and
California were represented by Senators who supported requiring the use
of ethanol and other domestic alternative fuels.
In fact, there was a time, less than 3 years ago, when two of the
current California Senators and the senior Senator from New York, voted
in favor of replacing MTBE with ethanol.
What has changed to cause these Senators to reverse themselves? I
frankly don't know.
But there is one thing that has changed since the time New York and
California were represented by Senators who supported replacing foreign
fuel with domestic alternative and renewable fuels.
Today, more than ever, our national security is at risk because of
our dependence upon foreign energy.
Today, more than ever, the Middle East oil and MTBE producers, have
us literally, over the barrel.
More than ever. That is the biggest change since the time California
and New York Senators supported replacing Middle East oil and MTBE with
home grown renewable and alternative fuels.
Yet, today, they come to the floor of the Senate, to offer an
amendment which will help assure that Middle East oil and MTBE
producers maintain and increase their grip over the United States.
Today, 75 percent of the MTBE California uses, is produced by
foreigners.
Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of California MTBE.
In March of 1999, California's Governor, Gray Davis, issued an
executive order, stating that by the end of 2002, all MTBE would be
banned from California.
In August of 1999, Senator Boxer of California introduced a Senate
resolution, calling for MTBE to be replaced by renewable ethanol. With
the help of Senator Feinstein and Senator Schumer, that resolution was
adopted by the Senate. That resolution underscored that renewable
ethanol should replace MTBE. Why? It specifically stated that ethanol
should replace MTBE to reduce our dependence upon foreign energy. It
also stated that renewable ethanol should replace MTBE because MTBE was
polluting drinking water.
Patriotic American farmers and ethanol producers, in direct response
to these two initiatives by California's elected officials, invested
$1.4 billion of their hard earned money to increase ethanol production
by 1 billion gallons a year.
By the end of this year, when MTBE was supposed to be banned in
California, our Nation's farmers and ethanol producers will be able to
produce 400 to 500 million gallons more than is necessary to replace
all of California's MTBE.
The California Energy Commission conducted a survey and concluded
that by the end of 2004, U.S. ethanol production capacity will reach
3.5 billion gallons a year.
The renewable fuels standard, which these Senators want to gut,
requires only 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol to be used starting in
2004. So even by the California Energy Commission's admission, the
United States will be producing 1.2 billion gallons above and beyond
what is required under the renewable fuels standard.
We are awash in ethanol produced in America's Midwest, yet 3 weeks
ago, the Governor of California announced that MTBE can be used for
another whole year. It doesn't make sense. Some elected officials would
rather force their consumers to use MTBE from the Middle East, instead
of ethanol from America's Middle West. They can't seriously be worried
about motor fuel prices. How can increasing and diversifying your
sources of energy, increase the price of your product?
Today, California has only seven refiners, and its two largest
sources for MTBE are foreign. In sharp contrast, there are 61 ethanol
plants in 19 States in the United States--two of which are in
California.
The California Energy Commission has determined that fuel without
oxygenates, such as MTBE or ethanol, will actually be more expensive.
In a recent report, the commission explained and I quote--``non-
oxygenated reformulated alternatives are not necessarily easier to
produce (than ethanol RFG), would involve significant capacity loss,
and would require even more complex logistics.''
A recent poll of Californian opinion, conducted by the California
Renewable Fuels Partnership, found that 76 percent of likely voters
support banning MTBE because we can't afford the pollution caused by
MTBE. Only 13 percent of those polled thought that it was a bad idea to
ban MTBE because of potential higher gasoline prices.
The concerns expressed by opponents of the renewable fuels standard
don't stand up to the facts.
[[Page S2562]]
So it boils down to this: If you want to take a positive step toward
helping our Nation become less dependent upon foreign energy and the
Middle East and to encourage the development of jobs and family income
here in the United States, then join me in defeating this attempt to
gut the renewable fuels standard.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to address the amendment
introduced by my colleagues from New York and California to do away
with the renewable fuel standard. I think it is important that we
correct some of the misunderstandings, misapprehensions, and
misstatements of fact that have gone on in this debate.
First, what does the bill do and what does it not do? The fact is
that S. 517 does not require that a single gallon of renewable fuels be
used in any particular State or region. The additional flexibility
provided by the RFS credit trading system provisions of S. 517 will
result in a much lower cost to refiners and thus to consumers. The
credit trading system will ensure that ethanol is used where it is most
effective.
Now, according to one of the leaders in the petroleum industry,
ChevronTexas:
The free market will not allow a California price
differential of 20-30 cents a gallon to be sustained. The
market will always find a way 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. The continuation of current policy whereby
States may ban MTBE without any regard to regional coordination is more
costly than a uniform Federal ban.
Increasing the use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel,
diversifies 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.
A review of the publicly available price information demonstrates
that ethanol has been consistently less expensive per gallon in net
cost to refiners than MTBE for the last 3 years. In fact, the March 4
issue of Octane Week quotes MTBE at 89 cents per gallon and ethanol at
just 60 cents per gallon. Instead of higher prices, ethanol would lower
pump prices. While this is undeniably true in conventional gasoline, it
is also true in RFG areas. Refiners do incur a small cost per gallon to
produce the RFG ethanol blendstocks, but the lower ethanol price more
than makes up for the difference. Thus, replacing MTBE with ethanol
should lead to reduced, not increased, consumer gasoline prices.
In other words, it is not accurate to say that the price in Missouri
will rise 5.9 cents per gallon or 4 cents per gallon in Wyoming.
My good friend and colleague from New York tells me that in my home
State of Missouri, gas prices as a result of the RFS will increase by
5.9 cents per gallon. He went on to tell us all that the increase is
based on the unavailability of ethanol, the inability of us to get
ethanol in Missouri.
I want to assure the senior Senator from New York that we produce a
lot of corn in Missouri, and our friends seem to be ignoring all of the
residual economic benefits of ethanol use.
For example, ethanol production increases personal and business
income and results in a net savings to the Federal budget of $3.6
billion annually.
Ethanol also adds over $450 million to State tax receipts. Ethanol
production reduces the taxpayer burden for unemployment benefits and
farm deficiency payments.
When you raise the price of corn by increasing the demand, it cuts
down on the amount of payments that are made under existing farm
programs to people who raise corn.
Ethanol production reduces the unfavorable U.S. trade balance in
energy by $2 billion annually.
Ethanol production increases net farm income by $4.5 billion, adding
30 cents to the value of every bushel of corn.
Ethanol reduces the consumer cost of gasoline by extending supplies,
providing an alternative to more costly imported oil, and leverage for
independent gasoline marketers to compete against the larger, more
powerful, integrated oil companies.
A recent study found that doubling ethanol production would create
nearly 50,000 new jobs, $1.9 billion in economic development, and
increase household incomes by $2.5 billion.
Some may say: Isn't the ethanol program just corporate welfare? The
simple answer is no. The ethanol tax credit is provided to gasoline
marketers and oil companies, not ethanol producers, as an incentive to
blend their gasoline with clean, domestic, renewable ethanol.
It is a cost-effective program that actually returns more revenue to
the U.S. Treasury than it costs due to the increased wages, taxes,
reduced unemployment benefits and, most importantly, reduced farm
deficiency payments, while at the same time holding down the price of
gasoline and helping the American farmer.
In summary, I encourage those who support the amendment against the
renewable fuels standard to come out to the heartland where the
occupant of the chair and I live to see Nebraska, to see Missouri, and
see what the industry is all about. They can learn the benefits of
ethanol, soy diesel, biodiesel, the home-grown renewable fuels to the
environment and to the communities and our economy, particularly our
rural economy.
Come down to my State and see what the Missouri Corn Growers
Association has done to provide value-added opportunities for Missouri
farmers. The Missouri Corn Growers Association and the Missouri Corn
Merchandising Council provided support for two groups of Missouri
farmers seeking to add value to their corn production by processing
corn into ethanol. In 1994, Golden Triangle Energy of Craig, MO, and
Northeast Missouri Grain Processors of Macon, MO, organized as new
generation cooperatives.
The latter, known as NEMOGP, broke ground for their plant on April
17, 1999. I was pleased, proud, and excited to be there. It is now
producing 22 million gallons of ethanol per year, and they are in the
process of doubling the capacity to make over 40 million gallons.
Similarly, the prospects at Craig are also very promising, and other
groups of farmers are looking to build ethanol plants and to build soy
diesel plants. We are growing it, we are processing it, we are
producing it, and we are ready to sell it. It is going to be good for
our trade balance, for our farmers, for our economy, and for the
environment.
I believe when one goes to a station that offers the E85 plan--there
are 100 of them nationwide: 1 in Kansas City, 2 in St. Louis, 2 in
Jefferson City, MO, and they are expected to have more around the
country. One can find out about the closest station by checking the Web
site of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. One will find one can
get good cleaner burning ethanol blended gasoline, and it is available.
Before we decide we are going to back off from this very wise,
multiple-benefit usage of renewable fuels, come see in the heartland
what a positive deal this is and come see why we in Missouri--I assume
my neighbors in States around us--are proud to be using E85 ethanol and
B20 soy diesel.
I yield the floor. I urge my colleagues not to support the amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those
who support the ethanol provisions in this legislation. Ethanol is one
of our most promising renewable resources. By blending ethanol with
gasoline, we can reduce oil imports and reduce the environmental damage
of vehicle emissions.
[[Page S2563]]
As America struggles to meet its growing energy needs, ethanol
provides extraordinary opportunities. The product is made from corn. It
can be produced in abundance, unlike other fossil fuels.
The more ethanol we use to fuel our cars and trucks, the less oil we
need to import from hostile countries such as Iraq. Rather than looking
to the Mideast for energy, we would be far better served to look to the
Midwest.
This legislation lays out a plan for increasing the amount of ethanol
Americans use to meet their transportation fuel needs.
I find it absurd that some claim these provisions are included in
this bill simply for the benefit of ethanol producers. Ethanol is an
environmentally safe and economically efficient way to reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of oil.
In short, additional use of ethanol to meet our needs for
transportation fuel will be good for our environment, good for our
economy, and good for our national security interests. Not only do I
support the renewable fuels standard we are debating today, I look
forward to supporting an amendment that will be offered by the Finance
Committee. That amendment incorporates several aspects of legislation
that I introduced last year.
Specifically, it will expand eligibility for the tax credit available
to small producers of ethanol. These changes will ensure that farmer-
owned cooperatives are eligible to receive a tax credit. It will also
encourage small producers to expand the size of their operation to meet
increased demand. These changes will help us meet the demand for
ethanol envisioned by the bill.
Ethanol is truly a win-win solution to our energy needs. The
increased use required by this legislation represents a positive step,
one for our farmers, for our environment, and for our energy
independence. I support the compromise in this bill that will lead to
increased uses of ethanol, and I urge my colleagues to support it as
well. The renewable fuels standard included in this bill is an
important part of a balanced energy policy that we need.
Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Mr. President, on a separate topic, I would like to discuss an
amendment I will be offering next week. Two years ago, the Department
of Energy proposed to send a shipment of foreign spent nuclear fuel
through Missouri. The route selected went through the heavily populated
areas of St. Louis, Columbia, and Kansas City, along a major highway,
Interstate 70, that was undergoing major repairs. Governor Carnahan
intervened, and an alternate, more rural route was selected. The
shipment was completed without incident.
Then last year, Missouri was asked to accept another shipment through
the State. Governor Holden raised the same objections that had been
discussed the year earlier. And after he did, a curious thing happened:
The Department of Energy held up shipments from a reactor inside
Missouri. This reactor produced isotopes used in cancer treatment. If
these shipments did not go forward as scheduled, the reactor would have
to be closed, halting production of needed medicines for bone cancer
patients.
I insisted these two matters--the shipments from the reactor in
Missouri and the transport of spent nuclear fuel through the State--be
delinked, and they were.
Eventually, Governor Holden worked out a safety protocol with the
Department and the foreign spent fuel shipment went forward. Although
the shipment was completed, we encountered some problems with the
timing of its passage through Missouri.
Our experience in Missouri over the past 2 years suggests the
Department of Energy's route selection process deserves careful study.
How we deal with spent nuclear fuel in this country may be a matter of
great controversy, but regardless of one's position on this topic,
everyone ought to be able to agree that when spent fuel has to be
transported we want it to be done in the safest possible way.
One of the key components in ensuring safe transport of spent fuel is
the process for selecting the safest route. My amendment would
commission the National Academy of Sciences study of the Department of
Energy's route selection process for shipments of spent nuclear fuel.
The National Academy would examine the way DOE picks potential routes,
the factors it uses to evaluate the safety of these routes, including
traffic and accident data, the quality of roads and the proximity to
population centers and venues where people congregate, and the process
it uses to compare the risks associated with each route.
There are a number of reasons why it makes sense to commission this
study now. First, the responsibility for this program is divided among
multiple agencies. The Department of Transportation sets the
regulations for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has oversight responsibility and the Department
of Energy makes the final decision in consultation with these
organizations.
A study will help ensure these agencies are working together and are
properly performing their function.
Secondly, these agencies are using regulations drafted in the 1990s.
The devastating events of September 11 have taught us we have to
rethink all of our security procedures, and while I understand the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued some additional guidelines
since that date, I believe a complete review is in order and an NSA
study will help us ensure that our agencies are focused on the
appropriate safety factors.
Finally, Congress will be considering a highway bill next year. If
there are safety problems on routes that are likely to be used for
cross-country shipments of spent nuclear fuel, we ought to address them
in the highway bill. We need to start the study now, however, if we
want to have the information in time for a debate on the highway bill.
This amendment is not intended to take sides on the controversial
issue that will soon be before this Senate. Its purpose is to get a
neutral, nonpartisan review of an important public safety function that
has received very little scrutiny.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3094, As Modified
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the pending business be an amendment
offered yesterday by Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I send a modification to the desk on behalf of Senator
Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 3094), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a Consumer Energy Commission to assess and
provide recommendations regarding energy price spikes from the
perspective of consumers)
At the appropriate place in title XVII, insert:
SEC. 1704. CONSUMER ENERGY COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment of Commission.--There is established a
commission to be known as the ``Consumer Energy Commission''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be comprised of 11
members who shall be appointed within 30 days from the date
of enactment of this section and who shall serve for the life
of the commission.
(2) Appointments in the senate and the house.--The majority
leader and the minority leader of the Senate and the Speaker
and minority leader of the House of Representatives shall
each appoint 2 members--
(A) 1 of whom shall represent consumer groups focusing on
energy issues; and
(B) 1 of whom shall represent the energy industry.
(3) Appointments by the president.--The President shall
appoint 3 members--
(A) 1 of whom shall represent consumer groups focusing on
energy issues;
(B) 1 of whom shall represent the energy industry; and
(C) 1 of whom shall represent the Department of Energy.
(c) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of the Act, the Commission shall hold the first
meeting of the Commission regardless of the number of members
that have been appointed and shall select a Chairperson and
Vice Chairperson from among the members of the Commission.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--Members of the Commission
shall serve without compensation, except for a per diem and
travel
[[Page S2564]]
expenses which shall be reimbursed, and the Department of
Energy shall pay expenses as necessary to carry out this
section, with the expenses not to exceed $400,000.
(e) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a nationwide study
of significant price spikes since 1990 in major United States
consumer energy products, including electricity, gasoline,
home heating oil, natural gas and propane with a focus on
their causes including insufficient inventories, supply
disruptions, refinery capacity limits, insufficient
infrastructure, regulatory failures, demand growth, reliance
on imported supplies, insufficient availability of
alternative energy sources, abuse of market power, market
concentration and any other relevant factors.
(f) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
first meeting of the Commissions, the Commission shall submit
to Congress a report that contains the findings and
conclusions of the Commission; and recommendations for
legislation, administrative actions, and voluntary actions by
industry and consumers to protect consumers and small
businesses from future price spikes in consumer energy
products.
(g) Consultation.--The Commission shall consult with the
Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the Department of Energy and other Federal and
State agencies as appropriate.
(h) Sunset.--The Commission shall terminate within 30 days
after the submission of the report to Congress.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on or in
relation to this amendment at 3:45, with the time prior to that time
equally divided, and there be no amendments in order prior to that
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor to the majority leader.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 3525 and ANWR
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am waiting to propound a unanimous
consent request having to do with border security. I will not do that,
of course, until the Republican leader returns.
My preference, as I said before on several occasions, and Senator
Lott has said, is that we take up the ANWR amendment. We have even said
we are prepared to offer it ourselves in order to move this process
along. I am told the sponsors of the amendment still are not prepared
to offer this amendment. So I have no choice, under these
circumstances, as much as I would like very much to be on it right now,
but to postpone consideration of the ANWR amendment and to make the
most of what time we have available to us.
I have consulted with the distinguished Republican leader. I know the
administration believes, as we do, to move the border security
legislation along is something in everyone's interest.
The House has passed a bill. It is my hope that we can pass the
border security bill as well. The House has passed two different
versions of border security, one involving the so-called 245(i)
provisions, and one without those provisions included. What we are
doing this afternoon would be to take up a bill that does not include
245(i), but I have indicated publicly, and indicated to Senator Lott
and to my colleagues, that it is my desire to bring up the 245(i)
provisions.
I know there is opposition--I am told on both sides of the aisle. But
we must address the issue. It is an important issue. It is one that
should be resolved. It is one on which the Senate has acted on several
other occasions. So there will come a time when we will do that.
But in order to at least pass those pieces of border security that we
all agree on, I will ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3525, the border security
bill, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration on Friday, April
12, at 11:30, and that no call for the regular order serve to replace
the bill; and that, upon resumption of the energy bill, S. 557, Senator
Murkowski be recognized to offer his ANWR amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Daschle will yield, I did not
object because I think, all things considered, this is a good way to
proceed at this time.
I, too, would prefer we go ahead and begin consideration of the ANWR
amendment with regard to oil exploration in that area of Alaska. But we
have other amendments that are pending. Work has continued to be done
on those issues this afternoon and perhaps, I assume, some in the
morning, even while a process is worked out as to exactly how to
proceed with the ANWR amendment.
One of the problems I understand--it is a legitimate one--is that the
amendment Senator Murkowski would like to offer has some provisions
that need to have some scoring done. I think that is legitimate. They
want to know what it might cost. I think Members are entitled to know
that. I presume he could have offered the amendment and had the scoring
done over the weekend, but I think both sides were a little bit
hesitant to have it offered and just have it kind of hanging out there,
not knowing what the final form would be--whether, if it would be
modified, we would get into a fuss over second-degree amendments. So I
think this is a good way to go. Hopefully, we will be ready to go back
to this on Tuesday, deal with the ANWR provisions, deal with the tax
provisions, and finish the amendments we have remaining. I still think
it is absolutely essential for our country that we get an energy bill.
I understand there is a need to complete our work next week on that
issue so we can move on to other issues. We are pressing Senator
Daschle to take up other issues, including this border security and the
245(i) immigration issue and the trade legislation--other issues.
By doing it this way, we can dispose of a bill that is needed. Border
security needs to be dealt with. It has bipartisan support. The
administration supports it. We can do that by taking it up tomorrow,
being on it Monday, and I hope we can be done with it sometime early on
Tuesday, and then go back to ANWR.
I have checked this out with the sponsors of the border security bill
and with Senator Murkowski and it seems this is agreeable to all
parties and this is the way we can get some work done while we work out
the process on the other amendments.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
cooperation in the effort to move this legislation along. As I say, my
choice would have been to have completed our work on ANWR already. We
have now been on the bill about a month. We have been on it 20
legislative days, but over a month of calendar days.
There is no reason why we should continue to wait for an amendment
that I thought might have been the first out of the box.
Having said that, I urge my colleagues to come down to the floor. We
are about to have a vote on the Durbin amendment. There are other
amendments pending on which we can have votes. And there are other
amendments to be offered that we should have votes on as quickly as
possible.
I ask my colleagues to offer amendments this afternoon. The floor is
open for additional business. This does not preclude additional
amendment consideration this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me underscore what the majority
leader has said, and also the Republican leader, and indicate that I
also believe we can complete action on this energy bill fairly quickly
once we come back to it and once we have the ANWR-related amendment
offered by Senator Murkowski and the other proponents of that
amendment.
I regret that we are not able to begin dealing with that today. But
we are not. Therefore, I support the majority leader's decision to move
to this other legislation beginning tomorrow.
Amendment No. 3094
Let me say a few words about the Durbin amendment. The Durbin
amendment was offered yesterday. It would establish the Consumer Energy
Commission. It provides for an 11-member Commission which would have
the job of doing a 180-day study of a variety of issues related to the
generation of electricity in our country and the potential failures of
the system.
[[Page S2565]]
I think it is a good amendment. I think it is one which has the
prospect of improving our understanding of this issue.
This board is to be concluded after 180 days and report back to the
Congress within 30 days. At the end of the 180 days, the group goes out
of existence 30 days later.
I don't think there should be any substantial objection to this. To
my mind, it is a meritorious amendment. I said yesterday that I thought
it should be approved. I certainly believe that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that in a moment we
will vote on my amendment. I certainly thank the chairman, Senator
Bingaman, for his kind words of support. A number of my colleagues are
cosponsors of this amendment to create a Consumer Energy Commission:
Senator Smith, Senator Schumer, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Stabenow.
In this bill involving energy policy in America, there are many
worthwhile issues to be considered. But I think there is one position
that needs to be filled with this amendment. It is time for us to
invite consumers from across America to be part of this conversation
about America's energy future--the families who have to pay the heating
bills, the hard-working people who have to pay for gasoline to get back
and forth to work, the individuals and small businesses that may find
because of price hikes they cannot keep their employees on the job, the
farmers who are worried about aspects of energy price fluctuations and
what that means to their lives.
This Commission is a short-term effort of limited duration and
limited expense to try to invite that conversation so the consumers,
small businesses, and family farmers will be part of our national
strategy for energy security. We do not believe that the GAO, as good
as it is, can really speak from that human and real perspective. They
cannot provide the kind of study of which we are asking. The GAO and
the IEA have provided plenty of studies and data on a variety of energy
issues. However, they haven't brought the analysis, industry, and
consumer groups together to consider particularly the problem of price
spikes.
I have a chart that shows gasoline retail prices. You can see why a
lot of people in the Midwest, for example, call me and call the
President from time to time to ask: What is going on at the gasoline
station? Today it is $1.30 a gallon and the next day it is $2 a gallon.
Why would that happen? Has war broken out in the Middle East? No. It is
just the Easter surprise that you have every year in the Midwest.
Gasoline prices have gone out of control. For months at a time,
families find they are spending extraordinary amounts for gasoline.
Businesses cut back on their employees. Whether it is trucking
companies, delivery services, we find a lot of sacrifices are being
made.
I do not know that this Commission is going to come up with the
direct answer to it, but what is wrong with inviting the consumers of
America into this conversation? What is wrong with asking families and
small businesses to join us in this effort?
That is why I hope we can bring all the stakeholders to the table.
That is why I think we need to give consumers and small business a
voice. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in strong
support of this amendment creating a Consumer Energy Commission.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--30
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--1
Gramm
The amendment (No. 3094), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3114
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to amendment No. 3114, offered by Senator Feinstein, and that
the time until 4:35 p.m.--for the next 20 minutes--be equally divided
in the usual form, and at 4:35 the Senate vote on or in relation to the
amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I
believe there is objection on this side. I am happy to check on that
and respond.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Feinstein
amendment on the renewable fuels standard.
The Senate energy bill contains a landmark renewable fuels standard
that is an essential part of a sound national energy policy. The bill
provides for an orderly phase-down of MTBE use, removal of the oxygen
content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) and the
establishment of a nationwide renewable fuels standard--RFS--that will
be phased in over the next decade. The standard has strong bipartisan
support and is the result of long and comprehensive negotiations
between farm groups, the American Petroleum Institute, and coastal and
Midwestern states. It is the first time that a substantive agreement
has been reached on an issue that will reduce our dependency on foreign
oil and greatly improve the nation's energy security. aa
Moreover, the renewable fuels standard in S. 517 provides a
nationwide, cost-effective solution to address the concerns over MTBE
use. Although individual states are banning or considering banning
MTBE, the states are still left with meeting the federal oxygenate
standard for reformulated gasoline. The provisions of S. 517 address
both of these issues in a balanced manner and do so without mandating
individual states to meet specific levels of renewable fuels production
or use.
I have spoken in the past about the benefits of renewable fuels.
These home-grown fuels will improve our energy security and provide a
direct benefit for the agricultural economy of South Dakota and other
rural states. The new standard is largely based on legislation that I
introduced with Senator Chuck Hagel. The leadership of Senators Daschle
and Bingaman resulted in the consensus legislation on this issue.
The consensus package would ensure future growth for ethanol and
biodiesel through the creation of a new, renewable fuels content
standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the U.S. Today, ethanol
and biodiesel comprise less than one percent of all transportation fuel
in the U.S--1.8 billion
[[Page S2566]]
gallons is currently produced in the US. The consensus package would
require that 5 billions gallons of transportation fuel be comprised of
renewable fuel by 2012 nearly a tripling of the current ethanol
production.
I do not need to convince anyone in South Dakota and other rural
states of the benefits of ethanol to the environment and the economies
of rural communities. We have many plants in South Dakota and more are
being planned. These farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota, and
in neighboring states, demonstrate the hard work and commitment being
expended to serve a growing market for clean domestic fuels.
Today, 3 ethanol plants--Broins in Scotland and Heartland Grain Fuels
in Aberdeen and Huron--produce nearly 30 million gallons per year. With
the enactment of the renewable fuels standard, the production in South
Dakota and other states could grow substantially, with at least 2000
farmers owning ethanol plants and producing 200 million gallons of
ethanol per year or more.
I understand the concerns raised by the senators from California and
New York. This is a major a major change in the makeup of our
transportation fuel. The goal of the agreement that has been reached on
this title is to phase in the renewable fuels standard in a manner that
is fair to every region of the country. It also bans MTBE and
eliminates the oxygenate standard, two changes that Californians have
sought for years. The goal of this agreement is not to raise gas
prices, but to diversify our energy infrastructure and increase the
number of fuel options. This helps to increase our energy security,
increase competition and reduce consumer costs of gasoline.
The new standard does not require that a single gallon of renewable
fuel must be used in any particular state or region. Moreover, the
language includes credit trading provisions that gives refiners
flexibility to meet the standard's requirements. In no way is this
intended to penalize California, New York or any other region in the
country.
In addition, there are allegations of huge price increases at the
pump should the standard be enacted. This concern is unfounded and the
analysis that the figures are based upon is flawed. Two recent reports
by the Energy Information Administration--EIA--and the General
Accounting Office--GAO--have raised some concerns about higher gasoline
costs as well supply implications of the renewable fuels standard.
These reports failed to take into account several factors, resulting in
conclusions that are incomplete.
The EIA report notes that 90 percent of the costs associated with the
provisions of the bill are because of the ban on MTBE, not the
inclusion of the renewable fuels standard. The report also states that
the RFS without the MTBE ban would raise prices up to one cent a gallon
for reformulated gasoline and up to .5 cents a gallon for all gasoline.
However, the report failed to account for the provisions of the
legislation that allow for credit banking and trading, which would
lower any increase in prices.
The GAO report only evaluated a California ban on MTBE but assumed
the continuation of the federal oxygenate standard. Because S. 517
eliminates the oxygen standard, the high costs in the GAO report are
exaggerated. The American Petroleum Institute analysis of the effect of
the RFS on gasoline costs, including the trading program and the
elimination of the oxygenate standard, indicates that there are almost
no additional costs.
The renewable fuels standard in S. 517 addresses the difficulties
that states have encountered in meeting the makeup of federal gasoline
standards, while promoting the use of home-grown fuels that will reduce
the nation's dependency on foreign oil. Any attempts to reduce or
eliminate the standard should be opposed so that we can move forward
and improve the nation's energy security.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. Well, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No.
3114. The clerk will call the roll.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous
order be amended to allow 15 minutes for the parties to debate and, as
indicated, the vote occur at 4:35 p.m; that the Senate resume
consideration of amendment No. 3114, and the time before 4:35 p.m. be
controlled equally and in the usual form; and that at 4:35 p.m. the
Senate vote on or in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree
amendment prior to that vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thought we were going to be given 20
minutes, 10 on each side.
Mr. REID. That will be fine.
Mr. SCHUMER. I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CRAIG. I object.
Amendment No. 3114
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 3114. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) and
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
Wellstone
NAYS--36
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Biden
Boxer
Campbell
Cantwell
Clinton
Collins
Corzine
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Feinstein
Hutchison
Inouye
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
McCain
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thompson
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Gramm
Gregg
Miller
The motion 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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader has authorized me to
announce there will be no more rollcall votes tonight. As per the
agreement we made earlier this afternoon, there will be no rollcall
votes tomorrow. There will be rollcall votes on Monday, for the
information of all Senators.
This has been a difficult week, but we have made significant
progress. We
[[Page S2567]]
have completed election reform. We have gotten permission to move to
the port security bill which we will start debating tomorrow. Senator
Bingaman and Senator Murkowski have slogged their way through this
amendment process. I think we have made significant progress on the
list of amendments we have. Although we have not gotten unanimous
consent to agree to a finite list, each side has worked on amendments.
We had a period when there were about 250 amendments. We are down now
to probably 40 or so. Not all of those could be referred to as serious
amendments. There is still a long way to go.
The amendment agreement entered into by the two leaders earlier today
indicates we are going to finish the border security legislation,
hopefully, by Tuesday. At that time, the Senator from Alaska will offer
his amendment on ANWR. We are not going to take up the energy bill
until the ANWR amendment is ready. When that is done, we will take it
up.
It is my understanding in speaking with the Senator from Alaska, and
several others, and also the Republican leader that they are very close
to having an amendment which they feel good about and will offer. I
hope that can be finalized by Tuesday.
Amendments Nos. 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, and 3123 En Bloc
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the
desk and ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes
amendments numbered 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, and 3123 en bloc.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3119
(Purpose: To ensure the safety of the nation's mines and mine workers)
On page 564, after line 2, insert the following:
``SEC. 1506. FEDERAL MINE INSPECTORS.
``In light of projected retirements of Federal mine
inspectors and the need for additional personnel, the
Secretary of Labor shall hire, train, and deploy such
additional skilled mine inspectors (particularly inspectors
with practical experience as a practical mining engineer) as
necessary to ensure the availability of skilled and
experienced individuals and to maintain the number of Federal
mine inspectors at or above the levels authorized by law or
established by regulation.''.
____
amendment no. 3120
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on the
effect of natural gas pipelines and other energy transmission
infrastructure across the Great Lakes on the Great Lakes ecosystem)
At the end of title XVII, insert the following:
SEC. 17___. STUDY OF NATURAL GAS AND OTHER ENERGY
TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS THE GREAT
LAKES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Great lake.--The term ``Great Lake'' means Lake Erie,
Lake Huron (including Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake
Ontario (including the Saint Lawrence River from Lake Ontario
to the 45th parallel of latitude), and Lake Superior.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with
representatives of appropriate Federal and State agencies,
shall--
(A) conduct a study of--
(i) the location and extent of anticipated growth of
natural gas and other energy transmission infrastructure
proposed to be constructed across the Great Lakes; and
(ii) the environmental impacts of any natural gas or other
energy transmission infrastructure proposed to be constructed
across the Great Lakes; and
(B) make recommendations for minimizing the environmental
impact of pipelines and other energy transmission
infrastructure on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
(2) Advisory committee.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into
an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to
establish an advisory committee to ensure that the study is
complete, objective, and of good quality.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report that describes the findings and recommendations
resulting from the study under subsection (b).
____
amendment no. 3121
(Purpose: To promote the demonstration of certain high temperature
superconducting technologies)
On page 408, line 8, strike ``technologies.'' and insert
``technologies; and
``(3) the use of high temperature superconducting
technology in projects to demonstrate the development of
superconductors that enhance the reliability, operational
flexibility, or power-carrying capability of electric
transmission systems or increase the electrical or
operational efficiency of electric energy generation,
transmission, distribution and storage systems.''
____
amendment no. 3122
(Purpose: To authorize a study of the way in which energy efficiency
standards are determined)
On page 301, after line 22, insert the following:
``SEC. 930. STUDY OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.
``The Secretary of Energy shall contract with the National
Academy of Sciences for a study, to be completed within one
year of enactment of this Act, to examine whether the goals
of energy efficiency standards are best served by measurement
of energy consumed, and efficiency improvements, at the
actual site of energy consumption, or through the full fuel
cycle, beginning at the source of energy production. The
Secretary shall submit the report to the Congress.''
____
Amendment No. 3123
(Purpose: To encourage energy conservation through bicycling)
On page 213, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
SEC. 8 . CONSERVE BY BICYCLING PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish a Conserve By Bicycling pilot program that shall
provide for up to 10 geographically dispersed projects to
encourage the use of bicycles in place of motor vehicles.
Such projects shall use education and marketing to convert
motor vehicle trips to bike trips, document project results
and energy savings, and facilitate partnerships among
entities in the fields of transportation, law enforcement,
education, public health, environment, or energy. At least 20
percent of the cost of each project shall be provided from
State or local sources. Not later than 2 years after
implementation of the projects, the Secretary of
Transportation shall submit a report to Congress on the
results of the pilot program.
(b) National Academy Study.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study on the feasibility and benefits
of converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips and to
issue a report, not later than two years after enactment of
this Act, on the findings of such study.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation
$5,500,000, to remain available until expended, to carry out
the pilot program and study pursuant to this section.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the recent debate shows the challenges our
country faces in balancing environmental protection with our Nation's
energy security. Containing nearly 95 percent of our countries surface
fresh water, the Great Lakes are a natural treasure which we must work
to protect. Today I offered an amendment which would request that the
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with representatives of the
appropriate Federal and State agencies and the National Academy of
Science, conduct a study of the transmission of natural gas and
electricity across the Great Lakes and report back to Congress within
365 days regarding the impacts of such lines and recommendations for
minimizing their environmental impact.
As the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas will play an increasingly
important role in addressing our nations energy demands. Even today,
natural gas consumption is forecasted to increase at over 2 percent per
year. However, the infrastructure for transporting natural gas is
already strained.
To address this problem, a number of companies have applied for
permits to place pipelines and electric transmission lines across the
Great Lakes. One such project is a pipeline which would transport up to
700 million cubic feet of natural gas per day to New York and the
northeast. The pipeline would cross the bottom of Lake Erie for 93.8
miles, from Port Stanley, Ontario to Ripley, NY. This pipeline will be
constructed using a new technique called jet trenching, which will
suspend two and a half million cubic yards of sediment in Lake Erie.
Much of this sediment may be contaminated and the effects of its
redistribution are at best, unknown. Further, no one has analyzed the
capacity of the Lakes to handle suspended sediments.
It is obvious that energy transmission infrastructure is important,
but it is critical that we understand
[[Page S2568]]
the impacts of placing this infrastructure across the lake beds. It is
also imperative that we develop a long term strategy for their
placement. This amendment would require the Department of Energy to
examine these questions and make recommendations on how to assure that
these incredible bodies of water are protected for future generations.
This amendment is simple, but its role in addressing the challenges
we now face is essential. I want to thank my colleagues in supporting
this amendment.
ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINES
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers this nation's
future energy policy, we would like to discuss the intent of the
amendment that the Senate will adopt regarding the planning and
coordination of energy transmission lines in the Great Lakes.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr.
Bingaman and Mr. Murkowski, for working with us to authorize the
Department of Energy, in consultation with Federal and State agencies,
to study the anticipated growth of energy transmission infrastructure
in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes ecosystem is complex, so it's
important to understand how to minimize the possible impacts that the
various energy transmission infrastructure proposals may have on the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues' concerns and
agree that a comprehensive study that considers the environmental
impacts of energy transmission infrastructure in the Great Lakes will
be useful, as will any recommendations on ways to minimize any possible
impacts.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is our intent that this amendment
require the Secretary of Energy to complete a study that will include a
review of the expected energy demand--including the geographic
distribution of the demand--in the Great Lakes States and northeastern
States for a 10-year period; a review of the proposed locations for new
natural gas-fired electric generation facilities; a review of the
locations and capacity of interstate and intrastate natural gas
transmission pipelines in all Great Lakes states and other energy
transmission infrastructure across the Great Lakes in existence or
proposed as of the date of the completion of the study; a review of the
potential environmental effects that could result from the construction
of pipelines and other energy transmission infrastructure across the
Great Lakes.
When reviewing the potential environmental effects of construction,
the Secretary should consider contaminated sediment deposits, Areas of
Concern as designated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
highly sensitive fisheries, and highly sensitive nearshore and coastal
habitat. The Secretary should also include an analysis of potential
environmental benefits of new natural gas-fired electric generation
facilities and reduced consumption measure that could be undertaken; an
analysis of the capacity of the Great Lakes to handle suspended
sediment; takes into consideration the impacts of accommodating the
energy transmission infrastructure on land use along the coasts of the
Great Lakes; and takes into consideration the emergency response time
for accidents in the energy transmission infrastructure. Not later than
180 days after enactment of the underlying bill, the Secretary should
report his findings and recommendations for the coordination of the
development of natural gas and other energy transmission infrastructure
that would minimize the aggregate negative environmental effects on the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished
Senators from Michigan and Ohio and our colleagues from the Great Lakes
states for clarifying the intent of their amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass by voice vote
an amendment to the energy bill that would establish a Conserve by Bike
Pilot Program in the Department of Transportation, as well as fund a
research initiative on the potential energy savings of replacing car
trips with bike trips. This program would fund up to 10 projects
throughout the country, using education and marketing to convert car
trips to bike trips. The research would document the energy
conservation, air quality improvement, and public health benefits
caused by increased bike trips. The goal is to conserve energy
resources used in the transportation sector by turning some of our gas
guzzling miles into bike rides.
There is no single solution for our nation's energy challenges. Every
possible approach must be considered in order to solve our energy
problems.
It would be unrealistic to expect most Americans to make a
substantial increase in the number of trips they make by bicycle. But
even a small percentage of bike trips replacing our shorter car trips
could make a significant difference in oil and gas consumption.
Right now, less than one trip in one hundred--.88 percent--is by
bicycle. If we can raise our level of cycling just a tiny bit: to one
and a half trips per hundred, which is less than a bike trip every two
weeks for the average person, we would save over 462 million gallons of
gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million. That's one day a year we
won't need to import any foreign oil.
In addition to conserving our energy, an increased number of bike
trips can improve our air quality. Significant declines in vehicle
emissions would follow from increased bike trips. A study in New York
City showed that bicycling spares the city almost 6,000 tons of carbon
monoxide each year. A reduced number of trips made by cars would
increase this number and help to clean our nation's air.
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 60 percent of all
automobile trips are under five miles in length. And these short trips
typically emit more pollutants because cars during these trips run on
cold engines. Engines running cold produce five times the carbon
monoxide and twice the hydrocarbon emissions per mile as engines
running hot. These cold engine trips could most easily be replaced by
bike rides.
Americans would experience additional advantages from increased bike
usage. The decreased number of cars on our nation's highways would help
reduce traffic and parking congestion. Congestion costs have reached as
much as $100 billion annually according to the Federal Highway
Administration. A reduction in cars on the roads will decrease the high
costs associated with congestion.
The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will also improve public health.
The exercise from more frequent bike trips would help improve our
physical well-being. Biking has proven to be effective in the
prevention of heart disease, our nation's number one killer. And,
biking also has been shown to help individuals who are trying to give
up health-impairing behaviors such as smoking and alcohol abuse.
The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will help America take a simple
but meaningful step in energy conservation. It will help fund up to 10
pilot projects that will use education and marketing to facilitate the
conversion of car trips to bike trips, and document the energy savings
from these trips. These projects will facilitate partnerships among
those in the transportation, energy, environment, public health,
education, and law enforcement sectors. There is a requirement for a
local match in funding, so that these projects can continue after the
Federal resources are exhausted. In addition, this amendment will fund
a research initiative with the National Academy of Sciences to examine
the feasibility and benefits of converting bike trips to car trips.
It is imperative that Americans are fully informed of the entire
range of benefits from biking in terms of energy conservation, air
quality, and public health. We also need to provide the best resources
in bike safety and convenience.
We have been spending a modest amount of Federal, State and local
funds on bicycle facilities since 1991. This amendment will leverage
those investments and help people take advantage of the energy
conservation choices they have in getting around their communities. I
am pleased that this amendment will be accepted by the Senate as part
of the energy bill that Senators Daschle and Bingaman have brought to
the floor.
[[Page S2569]]
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I am proud to join my colleague from
Illinois in offering an amendment to recognize and promote bicycling's
important impact on energy savings and public health.
With America becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil, it is
vital that we look to the contribution that bike travel can make
towards solving our Nation's energy challenges. This amendment would
establish a Conserve By Bike pilot program that would oversee up to 10
pilot projects throughout the country designed to conserve energy
resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car
trips to bike trips. By replacing even a small percentage of short car
trips with bike trips, we would save over 462 million gallons of
gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million.
While more bike trips would benefit our energy conservation efforts,
they would also contribute to the public's health. According to the
U.S. Surgeon General, less than one-third of Americans meet Federal
recommendations to engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate physical
activity at least five days a week. Even more disturbing is the fact
that approximately 300,000 U.S. deaths a year currently are associated
with being obese or overweight. By promoting biking, we are working to
ensure that Americans will increase their physical activity.
Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to meet with a delegation
representing the Bicycle Coalition of Maine. This group has done an
outstanding job of advocating bicycling safety, education, and access
throughout the State. As a result of the work of the Bicycle Coalition
of Maine, people living in and visiting Maine will have accessible and
safe conditions where they may comfortably and responsibly bicycle. The
``Conserve by Bike'' amendment has received support from this group and
many others on the national, State, and local level, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these five amendments have been cleared
on both sides. They include an amendment by Senator Rockefeller to
ensure the safety of the Nation's mines and mine workers, one by
Senator Levin to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on
the effects of natural gas pipelines in the Great Lakes, one by Senator
Schumer to promote the demonstration of certain high-temperature
superconducting technologies, one by Senator Smith of Oregon to
authorize a study of energy efficiency standards, and one by Senator
Durbin to encourage energy conservation through bicycling.
I believe there is no objection to any of these amendments. I urge
the Senate to adopt them at this time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, speaking from the standpoint of the
minority, we have worked with the majority on these amendments and find
them agreeable. They have been cleared on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, and 3123) were agreed to
en bloc.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want the body to note that on our
side there are about 10 or 14 amendments. I have no idea what the
situation is on the majority side with regard to amendments.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reiterate what the Senator from Nevada
said earlier, which is that we have a few more than that on the
Democratic side. But we have been making very good progress in reducing
the number of amendments. We are optimistic that after we conclude the
debate on the amendment which the Senator from Alaska is going to offer
next week, we will be able to move to complete other amendments and
complete action on the bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on a note of levity and in the spirit
of Senator Durbin with the authorization of a study on the use of
bicycles as a pilot program, I am going to pilot my program home
tonight on my girls' bicycle which I bought for $20. It is one which I
don't have to lock up because nobody would bother to steal it. It gets
me here a lot faster than driving.
I recall one day being behind an automobile of the junior Senator
from New York which was stalled in the drive, and they had to push it
out. I certainly recommend the amendment proposed by Senator Durbin,
which suggests obvious benefits of the bicycling. It is much easier to
get through security, and when the dogs come around you only have to
worry about one thing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska are printed in today's Record
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York?
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join with
my colleagues in talking about the very difficult choices that are
being foisted upon some of our States and all of our consumers because
of the renewable fuels provisions in the energy bill now under
consideration.
Now, these renewable fuels provisions do accomplish some very
important goals. First, they ban the use of MTBE, which has resulted in
serious ground water pollution all over our country. They revoke the
oxygenate requirements that led so many States to make such heavy use
of MTBE in the first place. And they do keep in place the same
stringent air pollution standards mandated by the Clean Air Act.
My State has, unfortunately, experienced firsthand the effects of
MTBE contamination in our drinking water sources.
While the full health and environmental impacts of MTBE are still
unknown, we do know that it smells bad, it tastes bad, and the bottom
line is that people do not want to be drinking MTBE-contaminated water
any more than they want to be drinking water with arsenic or some other
contaminant in it.
As many of my colleagues know, because of poor air quality in certain
areas of the country, we are required to meet something called an
``oxygenate requirement'' under the Clean Air Act.
New York City and surrounding counties constitute one of those areas.
This requirement requires that consumers use gasoline additives that
aid in reducing harmful air pollution. The additives available at this
time are primarily MTBE and ethanol. So those of us in the Northeast,
who need to meet this oxygenate requirement, have been adding MTBE to
our gasoline because we have no readily accessible, affordable,
available sources of ethanol in places such as New York.
The unfortunate consequence is that, as a result of leaking
underground storage tanks, other leaks, and runoffs, we are now
experiencing MTBE contamination in our underground water sources.
This has been a big problem in our State, particularly on Long
Island, which has an aquifer that provides drinking water that runs the
full length of the island. In Suffolk County alone, MTBE has been found
in both private and public wells in all 10 of the towns in that county.
This is a serious problem and the costs of cleaning up this MTBE
contamination are significant. While having clean air to breathe is
critically important, so is having clean water to drink. We should not
have to trade off air for water. We should be able to figure out how to
provide both clean air and clean water.
That is why New York State took the very bold step of banning MTBE by
January 1, 2004--less than 2 years from today. In fact, I believe that
about 13 States--including my own--have made the decision to restrict
or ban the use of MTBE in the next couple of years.
I agree that phasing out MTBE is exactly the right thing to do from a
drinking water perspective and from an overall environmental
perspective. That is why, in the last session, the Environment and
Public Works Committee voted out S. 950 by voice vote,
[[Page S2570]]
the provisions of which are incorporated in the renewable fuels
provisions that we are now discussing.
S. 950 includes a phaseout of MTBE and a repeal of the Federal
oxygenate requirement, as recommended by the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on
Oxygenates in Gasoline. I strongly support these provisions, and I
commend the bipartisan leadership of the EPW Committee for their work
on this important issue. But the committee-passed bill did not include
the ethanol mandate that we are here to discuss.
Now, I am not here--I want to make this absolutely clear--to oppose
ethanol. I believe in ethanol. I think it is a great step forward for
renewable fuels. And I know that it is an important use of the products
that are grown in many parts of our country. It is a new market. And I
believe that it does take us in the right direction.
And phasing out MTBE, even with a repeal of the oxygenate
requirement, will still lead to an increase in the use of ethanol in
our country. That is why a Federal mandate is not needed to ensure a
continuing market for ethanol. And that is why I and my senior
colleague from New York, and my colleagues from California, and others,
are opposing the ethanol mandate that is included in this bill.
The energy bill we are currently debating includes what I can only
describe as an astonishing new anticonsumer Government mandate: that
every refiner in our country use an ever increasing volume of ethanol
or pay for ethanol credits.
At first when this was described to me, I thought there had to be
some mistake because I, and I guess the majority of my colleagues,
support ethanol. But to be told it has to be used, and the amount of it
has to increase over time, struck me as exactly the opposite of what we
are trying to achieve in this new energy policy. Because regardless of
the market, and whatever the demand would be for ethanol, this bill
requires the use of ethanol or the purchase of ethanol credits at a set
amount, an amount that will eventually exceed 5 billion gallons.
Currently U.S. refiners use approximately 1.7 billion gallons of
ethanol. Starting in 2004, the Nation's refiners would be required to
use 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol. And that number would ratchet up to
5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. And the use of a constant
percentage of ethanol per volume of gasoline would be required every
year thereafter no matter what kind of new breakthroughs we had in
making gas both more efficient and cleaner. It would not matter. We
would have a big brother, big-hand Federal Government mandate: You have
to use it no matter what.
This means that from 2012 on, the Nation's ethanol producers would
have a Government-guaranteed annual market of at least 5 billion
gallons, or perhaps even more.
Now, oil refiners could, in a competitive market, find smarter,
cleaner, and less expensive ways to reformulate gasoline, but they
would be forced to keep using billions of gallons of ethanol annually
nonetheless.
Refiners in States outside the Corn Belt that lack the infrastructure
to transport and refine ethanol would nonetheless be forced to pay for
ethanol credits. The credits would result in rising gas prices and the
transfer of funds from hard-pressed consumers in one part of the
country to ethanol-rich areas in the rest of the country, while doing
nothing to improve air quality. In other words, consumers in every
State would be forced to pay for ethanol whether they used it or not.
Make no mistake about it, this is tantamount to a new gas tax. This
will cause the price of gasoline to go up anywhere from 4 cents to 10
cents a gallon. Others who spoke earlier today discussed specifically
what would happen in their own States. I believe for New York this
would mean more than 7 cents per gallon at the pump.
The reasons for these cost increases are manyfold. There are costs of
production issues. Ethanol simply costs more to produce than gasoline
or MTBE. Since ethanol is primarily made from corn, if there is a bad
corn crop one year, we can expect not only food prices but gas prices
as well to increase under this bill.
There are also supply issues. According to a recent report by the
Congressional Research Service, in the short term ethanol is unlikely
to be available in sufficient quantity. If the supply is not there, the
gasoline supply can't be there, and prices will inevitably rise as a
result.
There are transportation distribution issues, as has been discussed
earlier. The cost of using ethanol is also influenced by the fact that
almost 90 percent of ethanol production occurs in just five States:
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Indiana. The geographic
concentration of ethanol production is an obstacle to its use on either
the east or west coasts, particularly because ethanol-blended gasoline
cannot travel through petroleum pipelines and, therefore, it must be
transported by truck, rail, or barge which significantly increases its
per-unit cost.
As has already been mentioned, ethanol production is also
concentrated among a few large producers. The top 5 companies that
produce ethanol account for approximately 60 percent of production
capacity, and the top 10 companies account for approximately 75 percent
of production capacity. ADM alone markets about half of the ethanol
produced in the country.
All of this is going to mean higher prices for the American consumer,
particularly on the east and west coasts. There will be other costs to
consumers as well.
As many know, ethanol already gets a tax break in terms of the
gasoline tax. Every gallon of gas with ethanol gets a 5.4-cent Federal
subsidy. The subsidy is currently costing $600 million in Federal
highway funds at today's ethanol use level. That means that with a 5-
billion-plus-gallon-a-year ethanol mandate, we will have even less
dollars for much needed transportation projects in all of our States,
resulting in more traffic congestion, less safe roadways, and other
consumer costs.
Another cost to consumers will be the potential environmental cost of
an increased use of ethanol, not to mention the safe harbor from
liability that is included in this bill.
I have to give it to the sponsors and authors of this provision; they
have thought of everything: subsidies; put a tax on everybody else who
has to use it; make it even less likely that the environmental costs
are going to be in any way taken care of because the environmental and
public health impacts of ethanol are still not fully understood.
Studies have indicated that while reducing carbon dioxide emissions,
ethanol may increase emissions of smog-producing and other toxic
compounds.
Despite the questions on its environmental and public health impacts,
this bill also includes a renewable fuels safe harbor provision. What
does that mean? It gives product liability protection against consumers
and communities that may seek legal redress from the manufacturers and
oil companies that produce or utilize defective additives in their
gasoline. That is adding insult to injury. First, we are going to tax
you and, second, we are going to make it impossible for you to get any
kind of redress if what we are making you buy makes you sick or
pollutes the environment.
This means companies have less incentive to ensure that the additives
they manufacture and use are safe, eliminating an important
disincentive to pollute.
What is the net result? We are providing a single industry with a
guaranteed market for its products--subsidies on top of subsidies on
top of subsidies and, on top of that, protection from liability. What a
sweetheart deal.
If the average American consumer tunes in on this debate and realizes
what is happening, there will be a revolt. I dare predict that voting
for this bill, which will raise gas prices in 45 of our States, will be
a political nightmare for the people who end up voting for it. Higher
gas prices at the pump, reduced Federal assistance for much needed
transportation projects, possible negative air quality, and public
health impacts, to say nothing of raiding the Federal Treasury to give
this giveaway to these large producers, makes it impossible to
understand why any proconsumer, prohealth, pro-environment,
antigovernment mandate Member of this body would vote for this
provision.
For consumers, the ethanol mandate is a one, two, three, four punch.
First, consumers will pay more at the pump
[[Page S2571]]
to meet arbitrary goals that boost the sale of ethanol, whether we need
it or not. Second, consumers will face reduced Federal assistance for
transportation projects because the money is going to be going to the
ethanol producers, not to fix your roads or your bridges. Third,
consumers may experience potential environmental and public health
impacts. But guess what. You are barred from seeking redress. Who needs
tort reform, just stick this in the energy bill and forget about ever
getting any kind of liability against anybody who may be intentionally
or negligently causing health or environmental harm. And fourth, you
can't sue the manufacturers and the oil companies.
There are some very positive aspects of these provisions to phase out
MTBE and eliminate the oxygenate requirement. We have long fought for
this. There are many in this body who have been working on this a lot
longer than I have. I applaud those Members for doing everything
possible to ban MTBE and eliminate this oxygenate requirement. With
about 13 States having already taken such action, this is an issue that
needs to be addressed. But this is the wrong way to do it.
New York and California are on the front lines of this battle because
California had originally banned MTBE as of January 1, 2003, although
the Governor was forced to push the date back a year. Now California
and New York, with millions and tens of millions of consumers, are in
the same boat because New York has also banned MTBE. But Arizona has
also taken final action to ban MTBE. Colorado has mandated a phaseout,
Connecticut has also phased it out as of 2004, and even Illinois has
banned the use, sale, distribution, blending, or manufacturing of MTBE
as a fuel additive, along with Kansas and Michigan. And Minnesota has
prohibited the sale of gasoline containing more than .3 percent volume
by weight of MTBE and required the phaseout by July 2005.
There are many States that have taken actions. They have actually
passed laws. There are numbers of others who are trying to take action
to phase it out.
We do need Federal action. My colleagues from New York and California
and I understand that we need to pass provisions that will work. But
that does not mean we should pass a 5-billion-gallon, anticonsumer,
gas-price-increasing ethanol mandate.
So, Mr. President, I hope that calmer heads will prevail in this
debate, that we will understand the important role of ethanol, provide
an opportunity for that market to grow, but not mandate it, not
interfere with the operation of the market, not provide subsidies, not
require consumers to buy it whether we need it or not, and not protect
the producers from public health and environmental liability.
What is going on here? Any business or any sector of the economy
would love to have a mandated tax increase directly into their
pocketbooks. That is not the purpose of having an energy bill that puts
us on the path to self-sufficiency. I certainly don't think the tens of
millions of consumers who may be following this debate think at the end
of the day they are going to be transferring hard-earned money out of
their pockets into the pockets of ethanol manufacturers, whether it
helps or not.
So I really hope my colleagues will consider the impact of this
policy and join with those of us who are looking at this from the
longer term perspective to come up with an amendment that provides the
kind of support for ethanol we all believe would be in our best
interest, without the damaging mandates that this approach would
require.
Again, I don't think anybody in this body came to this energy debate
thinking they were voting to raise this gas tax, but indeed if we pass
this as currently written, that is exactly what we are going to do.
Those people who are going to pay that increased cost, starting in a
few years, are going to turn around and say: Why is this happening?
It is going to be hard for us to explain. There is no reason for us
to make this decision when there are alternatives and we can work
together and make it possible for us to have a much better approach
without the damaging impact this amendment on ethanol would cause to
our entire country.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand we have the regular order, and the Senator
who is supposed to speak is not here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There is no order for
speakers. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to a very
special anniversary that many in my home state of New Mexico will take
time to remember this weekend. Saturday, April 13th will mark the
sixty-year anniversary of the Bataan Death March. Some eighteen-hundred
men from the 200th Coast Anti-Artillery Aircraft and the 515th Coast
Anti-Artillery, Aircraft, New Mexico National Guard Units were involved
in that infamous march.
I do not think words can fully describe the bravery of these veterans
and the horrific conditions they endured. In all, more than seventy
thousand American and Filipino prisoners of war were captured in April
1942 and force-marched to a Japanese work camp. Suffering from
starvation and physical abuse, more than seven thousand died and only
about fifty-six thousand reached the camp. Thousands later died from
malnutrition and disease. Of those eighteen-hundred from the New Mexico
Brigade, fewer than nine-hundred returned.
On Saturday, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, we will dedicate the Bataan
Death March Memorial in memory and in honor of these men. And because
New Mexicans made up such a large proportion of those prisoners
involved in the march, this anniversary and dedication ceremony have
stirred many emotions throughout my state. For those survivors and
their families, there is a great sense of pride. Of course, there is
much lingering pain, as well. But by establishing a memorial in their
honor, we build a bridge to that emotion--a bridge that will allow all
generations of Americans to imagine the suffering these men endured,
and to remember, forever, their true valor.
For all Americans who are unable to travel to the Southwest to see
the beautiful bronze statue portraying an American soldier and a
Filipino soldier comforting an injured American comrade during the
midst of that seven-day march, I would encourage you to take the time
to learn about the horrors these men suffered--to learn their story. It
is both sobering and inspiring, and I pay tribute to their heroism
today.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 2115
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________