[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 3, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7212-S7220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Continued
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the renewable
fuels standard that is the subject of the Frist-Daschle amendment, and
specifically with regard to a report released today by the National
Corn Growers which contains yet another round of good news regarding
ethanol.
For decades, those of us who care about energy in the United States
and care about energy independence, who care about jobs and the
creation of jobs, who care about the future and how we are going to
have enough energy for this economy to expand throughout the 21st
century have looked for alternative sources of energy. The Energy bill
we are debating is a great progrowth, projobs Energy bill across the
board. It encourages the production of traditional forms of energy, and
it should. It encourages the production of oil and natural gas and
nuclear energy. I support all of that. I think most of us in this
Senate do. But all of us are concerned about the fact that the
traditional forms of energy tend to be nonrenewable. There is a point
at which we are in danger of running out. We import a lot of oil from
foreign countries. About 59 percent of what we use in the United States
we import.
We have all wanted and have talked about for decades the possibility
of renewable sources of energy, particularly that we can make here. I
go around Missouri and I talk with our corn growers and other
agricultural producers about what a great day it will be when we can
grow our own fuel effectively and when we don't have to worry about
running out and being dependent on other countries.
As the Frist-Daschle amendment indicates, that day, if it is not
here, is fast approaching. We are close to being able to grow our own
fuel. That fuel is ethanol. It is a great day when that means more jobs
for America. It will mean a greater measure of energy independence for
our country and a greater measure of energy security for our country.
It will mean support for and new markets for our family farmers and our
agricultural producers. It is a good thing.
I am glad Senator Frist and Senator Daschle have offered this
amendment. I am a strong supporter of it. In fact, I am a cosponsor of
it. I am proud of the fact that ethanol will be the subject of one of
the first genuine bipartisan efforts in this country, and I hope that
amendment passes.
The Corn Growers issued a report today designed to rebut some of the
concerns that people have expressed. It is kind of ironic that we are
now approaching this day when we actually have access to renewable
sources of energy and alternative fuels. And some are getting nervous
about it. Their report issued today indicates what common sense already
tells us.
First of all, blending ethanol with gasoline at a 10-percent level,
which is what the renewable fuels standard calls for, will reduce the
retail price of conventional gas by 5 percent or 6.6 cents per gallon
based on national average 2002 prices. This translates into an annual
savings to consumers of $3.3 billion. The report says that. They have
studied it for a long time. It really is a matter of common sense
because when you increase the supply, the price goes down. The more
ethanol we produce, the more we can rely on renewable sources we can
grow and the greater the supply of energy.
The report also indicated that using corn and other grains to produce
the 5 billion gallons of ethanol required by the renewable fuels
standard will have an insignificant impact on consumer food prices.
In other words, the price of corn and other items is not going to go
up because we have tremendous productive capacity in this country. As a
matter of fact, we are not using the capacity we have. As a matter of
fact, the price to consumers is going to go down because as our
producers are able to grow corn and turn it into a value-added
commodity, a valuable commodity, ethanol, the price of future farm
bills is going to go down.
I was impressed very much when I was in Macon, MO, visiting our
ethanol plant there. One of the producers who owns that plant pulled me
aside and said: Senator Talent, the real good thing about this is when
the price of corn goes down, I make more money on the ethanol.
I thought to myself: Yes, that is one of the keys to ethanol. It will
help smooth out some of the cycles of commodity prices, the ups and
downs of commodity prices worldwide, which will mean that farm bills
will become less challenging every 5 years. It will also mean more
money for the transportation trust fund once we have adopted the tax
changes that the Finance Committee has worked out and which will
accompany or follow shortly after this Energy bill.
It is a good thing for America. It is a good thing for our producers.
It is a good thing for the creation of jobs.
I am glad this amendment is being offered. I want to address briefly
the amendment of the Senator from California. I know it is an amendment
offered in good faith. It is an amendment to exempt California from the
renewable fuels standard. It is a little hard for me to understand
because the standard is not a mandate for the States. It is a mandate
for the refineries. They have to have 5 billion gallons of ethanol
refined and into circulation by the year 2012. That should not be
difficult.
The use of ethanol is growing all over the country, precisely because
of the advantages it offers, which I have outlined. Exempting States
doesn't make any sense. California is already using ethanol. By this
summer, 60 to 70 percent of the gasoline sold in California will be an
ethanol blend.
I suspect that maybe States such as California think: we don't
produce ethanol here; we don't want to have to import energy from other
States. If you do not import energy from other States, and if you do
not import ethanol from other States, you are going to have to import
something from someplace in order to run the automobiles. I would a
whole heck of a lot rather have States in this country importing
ethanol, which is good for the environment and jobs in the United
States, from other States in the U.S. than the alternative, which is to
import gasoline, which is not as good for the environment and which
does not mean jobs for our country, from Venezuela or from the Arab
States or from some other place in the world. They are taking one of
the tremendous virtues of the renewable fuels standard and trying to
turn it into a vice.
It will reduce our dependence on foreign countries.
There is really no danger to the United States being dependent on
fuel that we produce in the United States. It is a good thing to be
dependent on fuel we produce in Missouri or Minnesota or North Dakota
or South Dakota or Illinois or any of the number of States that produce
ethanol.
I understand the uneasiness. The use of ethanol is growing very fast.
Its future is coming on us very fast. Sometimes change is difficult to
deal with. I was in a Breaktime convenience store in Columbia, MO,
where they are selling ethanol at the pump for the same price they have
traditionally sold gasoline. I went to this place, stood out next to
the pump, talked to the proprietors, and said: This is the future. It
is a good future. It is a national future for the United States. This
is a national energy policy. We have one Union, not just 50 different
States. We have one national economy, and we ought to have one
renewable fuels standard for everybody, and we ought to have confidence
in it.
I think this 5-billion-gallon standard will be very easily attained.
I think we will be above that. States all over the country and
consumers all over the country are using ethanol to their benefit and
to the benefit of the Nation as
[[Page S7213]]
a whole. This is a pro-jobs, pro-growth Energy bill, and the Frist-
Daschle amendment is a very important pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-energy
security and independence part of it.
Let's adopt that amendment. We do not need these weakening
amendments. Let's face the future with confidence. One of the reasons
we can do that is because the Nation will increasingly rely on fuel
that we produce in this country in the 50 States.
I thank the Senate for its attention, Mr. President, and I yield the
floor.
Mr. REID. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this point I want to talk to the general
subject of the two second-degree amendments offered by the Senator from
California which will be pending for us to vote on later this
afternoon. They both have to do with the requirement under the
underlying amendment to impose an ethanol requirement for gasoline
throughout the country and to not allow States to opt in or opt out of
that mandated ethanol requirement.
One of the amendments by the Senator from California is to allow an
opt-in, so that States that believe this will help them deal with their
problems of ozone and the environment or other environmental pollution
can opt into this program and take advantage of it; but for those
States that believe it would be harmful to their environment, they
would not have to opt in. The other amendment would require findings
with respect to whether or not it would help the environment.
I want to comment about that because the State of Arizona is one of
the States that would be adversely affected by a requirement to use
ethanol. Partly, this is as a result of the fact that the climate in
Arizona is very warm, shall we say, particularly in the summertime. Our
summer runs essentially from April through October. During that period
of time, ethanol does not work well in communities such as Yuma, AZ,
and Tucson, AZ, because of the way it interacts with the surrounding
hot air, and the product that is produced, the moisture from the
tailpipe of the automobile, interacts with the air to in fact produce
ozone, which is the very thing we are trying to prevent by the use of
oxygenated fuel. As a result, Arizona has used an MTBE substitute
oxygenate that doesn't create the same problem ethanol creates in the
hot environs of the climates in Yuma or Tucson, AZ.
As you know, MTBE is associated with some environmental damage to
aquifers, where MTBE has spilled into them inadvertently and, as a
result, MTBE is being phased out.
Arizona receives all of its gasoline from refineries in California.
Therefore, decisions California makes pretty well impact on what
Arizona has available to it for its vehicle use. This is why,
naturally, the points of the Senator from California are exactly the
points I make, because they apply to the refineries in her State and
the same kinds of climatological requirement that my State of Arizona
has with respect to environmental protection.
So let me refer to several points with respect to the ethanol mandate
and begin with that point of environmental impact. Ethanol is an
extremely volatile fuel. It breaks down very quickly. In fact, it is
virtually impossible to transport by pipeline because of this. It has
to be transported by truck. Obviously, it is not produced in the West,
in States like Arizona. It would have to be trucked in from other
places such as the Midwest. This adds to the cost of the fuel, but that
is another matter. Ethanol has been used as an additive in gasoline
sold in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. But according to the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, the State agency of the State of
Arizona that is responsible for environmental protection in the State
of Arizona, this mandate would be very bad for communities, as I said,
like Yuma and Tucson, probably causing those areas to violate the 8-
hour ozone standard under the Clean Air Act. This would have dramatic
effects in Arizona. Those communities would be out of compliance.
There are a whole host of economic negative effects from finding a
violation of the ozone standard. How can it be that the use of an
oxygenate such as this would create more ozone? Because of the unique
climate in Arizona in the summertime where, instead of reducing the
amount of ozone particulate, it increases it.
Given the fact that there is no evidence that the use of oxygenates
like ethanol would help improve the quality of air in Arizona, it seems
to me a finding from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
that says Arizona communities would likely violate the 8-hour ozone
standard by being forced to use ethanol is a very powerful argument for
the Governor of the State of Arizona having the option of opting into
this program.
Why would the other States force on Arizona a program which our own
Department of Environmental Quality says is going to make the air
worse, not better--in fact, so much worse it will be in violation of
the Clean Air Act? It is not as if the committee and the proponents of
the underlying amendment have not understood that the mandate should
not apply to all States. In fact, two States are specifically
exempted--Hawaii and Alaska--from this mandate.
Why, if it is appropriate to exempt two States, is it not appropriate
to at least afford other States the option of submitting themselves to
this mandate or not, depending upon whether this mandate would make
their air quality worse or better? It seems to me if we are really
talking about environmental quality here, rather than a subsidy for the
corn industry in the Midwest, then we would be looking at the
environmental impact of a mandate of this sort. Since we have already
decided that two States should not be required to comply with this
mandate, we have already crossed the bridge of saying it is appropriate
to exempt some States. Why not allow those States, with their
departments of environmental quality having said they would be harmed,
the ability to opt out, or the requirement that they opt in, in order
for the program to be effective in the State? Why not allow that option
for those States? What is so important about this mandate that every
single State, except two--and I don't know why these two were
exempted--is not at least given the opportunity to exempt itself from
the provision?
It seems to me there has to be something else involved here. I
suspect it has to do with the desire of the corn producers and the
people who transform the corn into an ethanol kind of product to make a
buck. But we already provide them a lot of bucks through the subsidy
for ethanol that has already been voted on by the Congress, has already
been in existence for many years, and which will increase in this bill.
I could understand--I would not agree with it--a subsidy to try to
produce more of something we think we want to produce. Even though I
don't think that is a good idea, I could at least understand the theory
that if we want more of something, we are going to have the Government
provide a subsidy to produce more of it. I could also understand the
alternative, which would be that this is such a good idea that we are
going to force people to do it; we are going to mandate it because we
in Washington know best, of course, and therefore irrespective of what
the environmental quality people in your own State believe, by golly,
we know better, so we are going to make them do it.
What is a little hard for me to understand is why we still need the
subsidies if we are going to have this mandate. The purpose of the
subsidies was to try to encourage this production, but we do not need
the subsidies if people are going to be required to use ethanol. It is
a mandate. We do not need the incentive or the encouragement anymore.
Clearly, this is about special interest money influence, and I will
be that specific because the environmental benefits, especially to an
area such as mine, have not been demonstrated. At least the point is
made by an agency of my State that it would actually degrade the air
quality of some parts of the State--in fact, pull them out of
compliance with the Clean Air Act, and yet
[[Page S7214]]
the mandate would be imposed at the same time we continue to provide
this subsidy. Something is drastically amiss here.
There is an old phrase, ``Follow the money,'' so maybe that is what
we should do here. Let's take a look at the money part of this issue.
Currently, refiners use approximately 1.7 billion gallons of ethanol
annually, and the underlying provision would increase that to 5 billion
gallons annually by the year 2012.
There is no question that gasoline prices would increase, based on
data from the Energy Information Administration. It has been estimated
that the increase in gas prices caused by this mandate could be between
$6.7 billion and $8 billion a year. So that is the price we as a
country, as consumers of this product, will be paying simply to enrich
the people who produce the product.
Arizonans will, according to this estimate, be paying on average 7.6
cents more per gallon of gas. Is that fair, Mr. President?
I speak very plainly about the subsidies to the ethanol industry.
According to the Congressional Research Service--this is an unbiased
source--the ethanol and corn industries have received more than $29
billion in subsidies since 1996 and could receive another $26 billion
more over the next 5 years.
CBO, another unbiased source, has a different estimate for a
different time period. They have estimated, based on a review of S.
791, the basis of the underlying amendment we are debating, $2.3
billion just between the years 2004 and 2008.
We also know there is an impact on the highway trust fund because
every gallon of gas containing ethanol--10-percent blend--gets a 5.3-
cent subsidy in the form of reduced gas taxes. This amounts to a 53-
cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy to the industry at the expense of the
highway trust fund, and the Energy Information Administration has
estimated that this will reduce the annual gasoline excise tax
collections by an average of $892 million between the years 2006 and
2020.
Again, my State is a donor State already. Arizonans send $1 in taxes
to the Federal Government and for highway transportation-related needs
receives in return only 90.5 cents. So to the extent total revenues to
the fund are reduced, the Arizona highway program will obviously be
significantly impacted.
There are a lot of general points that I could discuss. There are
disputes between authorities on the subject of whether or not it takes
more to produce a gallon of ethanol than the gallon actually contains
in terms of Btu content; in other words, do you actually have a net
loss in net energy value. There are disputes about that. Some
experts say about 29 percent more energy is used to produce a gallon of
ethanol than the energy in a gallon of ethanol. The National Corn
Growers Association, not exactly an unbiased source, disagrees with
that. I do not know where the truth lies. Clearly, it seems to me the
science is at best in dispute.
In any event, we would all have to agree that taking into account all
costs, not just the energy cost, that clearly it costs a great deal to
produce a gallon of ethanol or they would not need the subsidy which
Congress has generously provided for its production.
I have already talked about the environmental benefits being
questionable. It is not just my own State environmental agency but also
a National Research Council report found that oxygenates have little or
no impact on ozone formation, and there are a lot of refineries that
claim they can actually produce similar environmental gains without the
use of oxygenates. In fact, that is what we are going to have to do in
Arizona because we cannot use MTBE, and we would hope not to have to
use the ethanol, as a result of which we would have to find a different
blend and would be committed to doing that.
It seems to me the ethanol industry, which enjoys this 5.2-cent-per-
gallon exemption on the ethanol blend, or gasohol, from the 18.4-cents-
per-gallon Federal excise tax on motor fuels, with the resulting
mandate that the Congress is going to impose for the increase in the
number of gallons used, would no longer need to be supported by this
subsidy, which, as I said, works out to be 52 to 53 cents per gallon
for pure ethanol.
The General Accounting Office estimates the tax exemption has
deprived the highway trust fund--a slightly different number than I
gave before--of between $7.5 billion and $11 billion over the 22 years
it has been in place. This is a very costly subsidy and would be a very
costly mandate.
Because the underlying amendment is costly, is not necessary, is
contradictory with the subsidies that are already provided, and because
the amendment of the Senator from California would simply provide the
opportunity for States that would be adversely affected by this mandate
to deal with their pollution problems in some other way--remember, they
still have to comply with the Clean Air Act; nobody is exempting
anybody from the Clean Air Act; they simply have to find a different
way to comply--it seems to me it would be appropriate for us to support
the amendment of the Senator from California and allow States to tailor
their blends to the unique situation in their particular States.
Everybody would still have to meet the Clean Air Act but we could
each do so in a way that best suits our individual purposes. For that
reason, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment of the Senator
from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. McCAIN are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the
ethanol amendment and to comment upon several of the remarks that were
made by my colleagues.
One of the items that was mentioned by the junior Senator from
Arizona was the issue of subsidy. I think it is important we clarify
the fact that, yes, ethanol has been subsidized over the years, but the
Federal ethanol program was established following the OPEC oil
embargoes of the 1970s.
I am old enough to remember the long lines in 1973. At that stage of
the game, we were only about 34 percent reliant on foreign oil. Of
course, we all know today we are 58 percent reliant on foreign oil.
So when the ethanol subsidy came in place and the program was
established, we had a dangerous dependence on imported oil. That was
one of the reasons they did it. As an alternative to petroleum, ethanol
directly displaces imported oil and reduces tailpipe emissions while
helping to bolster the domestic economy. Yet today, as I just said, we
import more petroleum than ever before with rising crude oil prices and
increasing international instability.
Incentives for production and use of domestic ethanol are critical;
that is, we can rely upon ethanol. We cannot rely upon imported oil.
I think it is really important for all of us to recognize the fact
that we have subsidized the oil industry substantially since the early
1900s. Some may not believe this, but the oil industry started out in
the State of Ohio. It was called Standard Oil. Today we continue to
subsidize the oil industry. In fact, according to the General
Accounting Office, in an October 2000 report, the oil industry has
received over $130 billion in tax incentives just in the past 30 years,
dwarfing the roughly $11 billion provided for renewable fuels.
Here is an interesting fact: During this time, the U.S. oil
production has plummeted while annual U.S. ethanol production has grown
by over 2 billion gallons. The point is, when we got into the issue of
subsidizing ethanol, we were in very bad shape in terms of our reliance
on foreign oil. Since that time, we have made substantial progress.
During the same period of time, if you want to pit one industry over
the other, we have seen our dependence on foreign oil grow despite the
subsidy we have provided to the oil industry.
There is also the suggestion that the ethanol mandate will largely
benefit producers, not farmers. According to
[[Page S7215]]
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ethanol production raises the price
of corn by 30 to 50 percent nationwide. This is an average of 5 to 10
cents additional premium in the areas that supply ethanol plants. Both
of these numbers apply to all corn, not just corn sold to ethanol
plants. Given a billion bushel corn crop, it adds between $3 and $5
billion to farm income every year. There is no question, ethanol is
good for our farmers. Additionally, farmers own nearly 40 percent of
the ethanol industry, and that is growing. These farmer owners realize
value-added benefits from their investments.
A chart was referenced by the Senator from California about the fact
we are relying on Archer Daniels Midland for 46 percent of our ethanol.
The fact is it is now down to 32 percent. The real growth in producing
ethanol is from ethanol plants financed by the agricultural community
in the United States.
Finally, every major farm organization supports the fuels agreement,
including, but not limited to, the following: American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Farmers Union, National Corn Growers
Association, American Corn Growers, National Grain Sorghum Producers
and American Soybean Association.
Now, we have some concern about what impact does this industry have
on the National Treasury, our general fund. Both the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the Congressional Budget Office have recognized the
benefit of the investment in the ethanol program on the overall health
of the Nation's economy. Recently, the USDA stated the ethanol program
would decrease farm program payments by $3 billion per year. In its
analysis of this amendment, CBO stated the provision would reduce
direct spending by $2 billion during 2005 to 2013, certainly a partial
offset to any subsidy given to the ethanol industry.
Tripling the use of renewable fuels over the next decade will reduce
our national trade deficit by $34 billion. Our trade deficit is at an
all-time high. A lot of that trade deficit has to do with importing
oil. It will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $156 billion
by 2012 and create more than 214,000 new jobs. It will expand household
income by an additional $51.7 billion, and it will save taxpayers $2
billion annually in reduced government subsidies due to the creation of
new markets for corn.
We see a tremendous economic benefit to this ethanol industry in our
country. That is why we are working so hard to have this amendment
included in the Energy bill.
In addition to its importance in becoming more self-reliant in terms
of imported oil, also in terms of our economy, ethanol helps our
environment. This bill provides strong antibacksliding provisions that
prohibit refiners from producing gasoline that increases emissions.
Once the oxygenate requirements are removed, a Governor can also
petition EPA for a waiver of the ethanol requirement based
on supporting documentation that the ethanol waiver will increase
emissions that contribute to air pollution in an area of the State.
This is something that was not mentioned by the junior Senator from
Arizona in his presentation. The fact is, if ethanol is such a big
environmental problem in the State of Arizona, the Governor of Arizona
can petition that they be exempt from the mandate provision. That is
included in our amendment.
Last year, the ethanol industry also worked with EPA on the discovery
and containment of the emissions from ethanol facilities. Consent
decrees have been filed by the Justice Department in record time, and
compliance by the ethanol industry has been cited as a model.
The fuels agreement we are asking Members to support will benefit the
environment in a number of ways. It reduces tailpipe emission of carbon
monoxide, VOCs, and fine particulates, and phases down MTBE over 4
years to address our ground water contamination problem. It provides
for one grade of summertime Federal RFG, which is more stringent. It
increases the benefits from the Federal RFG program on air toxin
reduction. It provides States in the ozone transport region enhanced
opportunity to participate in the RFG program. And it includes
provisions that require EPA to conduct a study of the effects on public
health, air quality, and water resources of increased use of MTBEs. We
have tried to cover everything in this amendment.
The amendments to opt out of this program are unnecessary and
unwarranted.
The fuels agreement contained in this amendment that passed the
Senate last year includes the establishment of a renewable fuel
standard and will provide for greater refinery flexibility in the fuels
marketplace than the existing Clean Air Act oxygenate requirement. It
does not require that a single gallon of renewable fuels be used in any
particular State or region; rather, the requirement is on the refiners.
The RFS will allow much greater flexibility in the work of oxygenates,
which should reduce the chances that localized supply disruption of
gasoline or oxygenates will result in retail supply shortages.
The additional flexibility provided by the RFS credit trading
provisions will be a lower cost to refiners and, thus, consumers. The
credit trading system will ensure that renewable fuels are used when
and where most cost effective, which is why we have the credit and
trading provisions. In California, we need to emphasize this.
By the way, California is the area where the junior Senator from
Arizona says they are going to have to rely upon getting their ethanol
blend gasoline. Nearly all the refiners, the people who provide the
gasoline to the State of Arizona, have switched from MTBE to ethanol in
advance of the State's MTBE phaseout deadline of January 1. The results
can only be described as seamless. There have been no ethanol
shortages, transportation delays, or logistical problems associated
with the increased use of ethanol in the State of California. In fact,
according to an April 2003 California Energy Commission report, the
transition to ethanol which began in January 2003 ``is progressing
without any major problems.''
We need to emphasize that. This is not going to discombobulate
delivery of the gasoline in California or New York or other places that
people say it will cause a problem. The Energy Commission of California
says it is progressing without any major problems. Today, approximately
65 percent of all California gasoline is blended with ethanol. It is
estimated that 80 percent of the fuel will contain ethanol by this
summer. They are moving ahead. Only 100 million gallons of ethanol were
used in the State last year. California refiners will use between 600
and 700 million gallons of ethanol in 2003. There is not any reason to
opt out because of the fact that blended gasoline will not be available
to these States.
This legislation is the result of a great deal of work and compromise
on the part of many Members of the Senate working with a variety of
organizations.
I would like to remind my colleagues of the organizations that
support this. It is unusual, in terms of the diverse groups
represented. It is supported by the American Petroleum Institute. There
has been some talk that the oil industry does not support it. The fact
is, the American Petroleum Institute is supportive; of course, the
Renewable Fuels Association; the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management. Again, there is an area of the country that could be
affected by it, and they like the compromise that has been put
together.
We are talking about environmental concerns. The American Lung
Association is supportive of this ethanol amendment. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce is certainly concerned about the impact this would have on
the economy of the United States. The Union of Concerned Scientists,
again, a very forthright, outspoken environmental organization that, on
many occasions, is very critical of legislation being promoted in the
Senate, says: We like this agreement that has been entered into.
The Environmental and Energy Studies Institute; the Governors'
Ethanol Coalition; General Motors. Here is one that I think is really
important for some of my colleagues who cannot make up their mind with
regard to some of the amendments we are going to get to this ethanol
amendment, and that is that the Governors of both California and New
York support this compromise, and, of course, all the major
agricultural organizations in the United States.
I urge my colleagues to support this ethanol amendment and defeat
some of
[[Page S7216]]
the amendments that they are going to have an opportunity to vote on
later on this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, first, I compliment my colleagues, the
chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, for doing such an
incredible job on an Energy bill that is so needed in this great
country. For the last 25 years, I think we have really begun to see the
growth in our Nation and recognized the need for a modernization of our
energy policy in this country. I think these Senators have done an
excellent job in bringing together a diversity of issues, certainly in
recognizing the need for renewable fuels, in looking at how we can work
with cleaner burning fuels, the diversity of energy sources and
resources that we can use in this great Nation. I applaud them for
their hard work and diligence in that.
It is so important in our State. In Arkansas, both as a consumer as
well as producer of energy, and certainly in terms of the rural nature
of our State, so much of what is in this bill is going to be very
productive for what we want to see happening, not only in the State of
Arkansas but across this great Nation in new and innovative energy
policy.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1308
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I also would like to talk about
something that has been on the minds of many of my colleagues as well
as others across this great land. After we finished the growth package
the week before we took our break, I had many concerns about what we
were doing in that growth package and what we were trying to do, what
supposedly was our objective in terms of stimulating the economy. I
think it is so important to recognize the reasons why we wanted to
stimulate our economy in this country. I think that really is to move
forward the growth of this great Nation.
I think we need look no further than the American family if we want
to understand why we want to stimulate growth in this great Nation to
stimulate the economy. That is why I introduced the Working Taxpayer
Fairness Restoration Act. I offered this bill on behalf of nearly 12
million children who were left behind when President Bush signed the
2003 tax bill. There were many of us who were very anxious to make sure
we had a fairness in that stimulus package and in that tax bill; that
there was a balance between fiscal responsibility and tax relief that
would be available to all families.
I have introduced the bill with many of my good friends, including
Senators Snowe, Warner, Jeffords, Rockefeller, Collins, Reed, Bingaman,
Landrieu, Johnson, Harkin, Kennedy, Pryor, Breaux, Edwards, Clinton,
Corzine, Durbin, Sarbanes, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Lautenberg,
Mikulski, Reid, Graham of Florida, Baucus, Leahy, Nelson of Florida,
Nelson of Nebraska, Levin, Carper, Hollings, Biden, Specter, Cantwell,
Daschle, Stabenow, Dodd, Conrad, Voinovich, Akaka, Dorgan, Kohl,
Chafee, Feinstein, and Boxer.
This bill would restore a provision left on the cutting room floor
when the House and Senate leaders finalized the conference report on
the tax cut.
Our bill will restore the advanced refundability of the child tax
credit. My friend from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, and I have worked
since 2001 to ensure all working families benefit from the child tax
credit. We worked very hard to ensure in the 2001 tax cut that the
child tax credit was refundable.
During the Finance Committee deliberations on this year's tax bill, I
successfully offered an amendment that would have advanced the
refundability of the child tax credit. Regrettably, that provision was
dropped in conference.
Really, unless we pass this bill we have introduced soon, families
with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625 will not get that $400 check
that will be mailed in July as part of the 2003 tax bill. Since nearly
half of the taxpayers in Arkansas have an adjusted gross income of less
than $20,000, Arkansas families are among the hardest hit by this
omission in the new tax law.
Consider this: The base pay for a private in the military, serving in
Iraq, is just under $16,000 per year. The average Arkansas firefighter
makes between $22,000 and $25,000 a year. Many of those enlisted men
and women, who could be given a few days' notice before being shipped
off to war, and those firefighters who could get no more than just a
few minutes' notice before rushing into a terrorist attack--they all
have families, or many of them do. They work hard to support their
families and to protect us. Yet they got left out when negotiators
shook hands over that final tax bill.
I was not in the room during those negotiations in the dark of night,
and I understand very few of my colleagues were. But we are here today.
We are all here in the Senate, working today, united, hopefully, in our
effort to fight for these working families.
Advancing the refundable portion of the child credit to cover these
families will cost only $3.5 billion--just 1 percent of the entire cost
of that tax bill. This measure had strong bipartisan support in the
Senate, I am proud to say. I was proud to play a leading role to expand
the child tax credit in the Senate bill. I am glad to have bipartisan
support in my efforts on the bill that we have introduced to restore
this provision.
We will pay for this tax relief for working families by shutting down
some of the Enron-related tax shelters. This pay-for was included in
the Senate version of the 2003 tax bill that has already received the
blessing of the majority of the Senate Members. Especially as our
Nation contends with a sluggish economy, we should ensure that everyone
benefits from the tax cut. After all, buying blue jeans for
schoolchildren, washing powder for the laundry, or tires for the car
costs just as much for a family making $20,000 a year as it does for a
family making $100,000 a year. If we want to get our economy back on
track, we need to make sure we are putting money into the pockets of
consumers who will spend it.
This is not about partisanship. It is not about who is going to win
here or lose here today or in the next coming days. That is certainly
evidenced by the cosponsorship of this bill. What this is about is
doing what is right for the families who may need a little extra help,
families who are working hard, day in and day out, playing by the
rules, bringing home a paycheck and trying to raise their children the
best way they know how: with good values and good examples.
We should fix this problem--not in the future, not next year, not
sometime down the road. We need to fix this and correct this
inconsistency immediately. We have an opportunity to do what is right
on behalf of the working men and women in this country who are working
hard, creating a face for this Nation in the next 20 years.
What is our Nation going to look like in the next 20 years? What are
the values of the leaders of tomorrow? These faces and these values are
in the children we are raising today. It is not too much for this body,
or the coequal body of the House, to say the time is right, to put our
money where our mouth is, to give these hard-working families the
opportunity to get a little extra--a little extra of the incredible
amount they pay into the system, a little bit extra to raise those
children the best way they know how.
I started by saying the initiative to stimulate the economy in this
country was an initiative, I think, based on what we all wanted to
achieve: Not just to stimulate the economy but to strengthen our
Nation. And, once again, we have the opportunity, and we need to look
no further than the faces of our children and the workers of the
American family in order to be able to do that.
Let us make these American families our priority today.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to calendar No. 52,
H.R. 1308, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end
certain abusive tax practices; that the Lincoln substitute amendment,
which is at the desk and is a modified version of S. 1162, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in
the refundability of the child tax credit, be considered and agreed to;
that the bill H.R. 1308, as amended, be read three times, passed, and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening
action or debate, on behalf of working American families.
[[Page S7217]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask
unanimous consent that the request be modified so that all after the
enacting clause of H.R. 1308 be stricken, and the text of the Grassley
amendment regarding the child tax credit be inserted in lieu thereof;
provided further that the bill then be read a third time and passed and
the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague, I
reserve the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes. I object.
I would like to comment. I think I know what the chairman is doing. I
would like to comment that we did provide pay-for in our bill. My
concern for what he has offered is that it is going to add another $90
billion or $80 billion to unpaid debt in this country, for which I
don't believe there is a pay-for.
I respectfully object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
Is there objection to the request?
Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to state what the Grassley
proposal is.
It would make permanent the increase in the child tax credit. The
bill signed by the President last week increases the credit from $600
to $1,000 for the next 2 years. The Grassley amendment would make the
increase permanent.
Second, it would eliminate the marriage penalty built into the
current child tax credit. The Grassley amendment increases the income
phaseout for married couples filing jointly to twist the limit for
single individuals filing alone. The Lincoln amendment fails to address
this inequity in the current formulation of the child tax credit.
Third, the amendment would create a uniform definition of a
``child.'' This language is identical to the legislation introduced by
Senators Grassley and Baucus. This change reduces from five to one the
number of definitions of a ``child'' in the Tax Code, which will
simplify part of the code that will directly affect working families.
I might say to my good friend that I think she understands. I have
the greatest respect for her. And, obviously, she makes a case today
not only for herself but for many Senators and for many who voted with
her in the days preceding as this legislation worked its way through
here and through the conference in the House.
It is the responsibility of the Senator from New Mexico to respond in
behalf of the majority, and I have done so. In doing so, I have offered
a counterproposal. Obviously, it is significantly different than the
one the distinguished Senator from Arkansas offered; nonetheless, a
very significant proposal. I thank her for her generosity.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and my good friend,
who is a diligent worker on behalf of children. I know his concern for
the children of this country. I would like to express to him that in
the counterproposal that has been offered, it was not my intent to look
for an attempt or an excuse to reopen the tax package or to spend an
additional hundred billion dollars. I simply felt very compelled--that
with a small portion of this bill that could be rectified to make sure
these working families in America could get the same benefit from this
tax bill that everybody else will on July 1--to think this was an easy
opportunity for us to do that. We had a pay-for that was reasonable and
something that the rest of the Senate had already agreed to and that
Senators probably felt very comfortable with. It was simply an
opportunity to express to those families that we certainly believed
they were a priority and that we could support them in this effort.
I appreciate the remarks of the Senator very much. I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly and indicate
my strong support for the Senator from Arkansas and her effort.
I think clearly we need to address this major failing of the
previously passed tax bill, and we need to do so in a way that is
fiscally responsible. That is exactly what the Senator from Arkansas
has proposed--to find a way to pay for the refundability of the child
tax credit. That is what she proposed earlier in the bill. That is what
the Senate agreed to earlier in the bill. That is clearly what we ought
to do at this point. I regret that we were not able to do that this
afternoon. But I hope the opportunity to do so will recur at some point
in the near future and we can, once again, do what we believe should be
done to try to bring more equity to that tax package which was passed
and signed by the President.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a vote will
occur at 4:30; that there are 10 minutes prior thereto for debate on
the first amendment equally divided into 5 minutes each for those
proponents and opponents of that amendment. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the title of the first
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first amendment is amendment No. 843
offered by the Senator from California, the purpose of which is to
offer an ethanol mandate renewable fuel program to be suspended
temporarily if the mandate is harmful to the environment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I trust the Senator from California will
be here if she desires to debate it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendments Nos. 843 and 844
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we will be voting at 4:30 on the
Feinstein amendments. Both amendments attempt to provide waivers to the
States from the renewable fuels standard. There are several points to
be made. I made some of them this morning. But in case my colleagues
have not had the opportunity to evaluate the amendments or consider the
concerns raised by many of us with regard to the amendments, I thought
it would be appropriate for me to say a couple of words again now.
First of all, with regard to ethanol utilization, the State of
California is currently using ethanol in 65 percent of all the fuel it
is marketing within the State. That is expected to go up to 80 percent
this summer. The Department of Energy in California has said there has
been absolutely no difficulty in the integration of ethanol from a
transportation point of view, a storage point of view, an environmental
point of view, or a cost point of view.
So that would be first. Why have a waiver when there is no problem?
The problem does not exist. In fact, studies have shown--that I pointed
out this morning, one by the Department of Energy Information, one by
the Department of Energy in California--that have said there is
absolutely no connection between increases in the price paid for
gasoline and the use of ethanol. So from a cost point of view in
particular, there certainly isn't any need for a waiver.
Secondly, and perhaps far more importantly, this legislation provides
that there is no mandate on the States. There isn't one requirement
within the bill that says a State must use ethanol as part of its
requirement under the law. That does not exist. The requirement is on
refiners, not on the States. And the refiners are given wide latitude
to make their decisions based on where it is appropriately marketable
and not on any predesign with regard to the market itself.
We are not dictating to any oil company that that 65 percent now
being used in California be used as a result of a legal requirement.
That does not exist. We are simply saying: Look, we will let the oil
companies and the refiners make up their own minds. And
[[Page S7218]]
with the credit trading system, the job is made all the easier.
I would also say that if worse comes to worst, we have said: Look, if
all else fails, there is absolutely no reason why a State cannot apply
for a waiver under the new law. Senator Feinstein and others have
suggested, well, they have applied for waivers in the past and have
been turned down. I hasten again to add for those who may be confused
by this, she is talking about the current law. In part, what we are
doing now is amending the law, removing the oxygenate requirement,
phasing out methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and providing an
opportunity for States to get out from under requirements of the old
law while at the same time coming up with a way with which our country
can reduce its dependence on foreign sources, can find ways with which
to clean up the air, and can do as much as possible to find markets for
agricultural products within our own States and country. That is, in
essence, what this bill provides.
So I simply say, Mr. President, as well intended as the Senator from
California is, there is absolutely no reason why this waiver is
necessary. They have one in the bill. They have the credit trading
system in the bill. There isn't any requirement for a State to mandate
the use of ethanol in this bill.
And, finally, it is working as we have predicted it would, certainly
in those States where the markets have been allowed to work.
California, as I said, now expects 80 percent of their fuel to
incorporate ethanol through the summer. So it is yet another one of
these constant myths that has to be destroyed and dealt with as we
consider the many allegations about what it is we are trying to do.
Very simply, we are saying to the country, to the refiners, to
petroleum marketers in particular: We are going to give you as much
flexibility as you could possibly hope to have. And that is exactly
what this legislation does.
Having said that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the
second-degree amendment I offered this morning to the pending first-
degree ethanol mandate that would provide authority to the
Administrator of the EPA to waive the ethanol mandate if a State or a
region does not need it to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
In the pending first-degree ethanol mandate, there is waiver
language, and that waiver language allows the Administrator of the EPA
to waive the ethanol mandate if it would severely harm the economy or
environment of a State, a region, or the United States.
I believe the EPA Administrator should also have the ability to waive
the mandate if a State can show that it can meet the Clean Air Act
standards without having to use ethanol. I think that is very important
because all the refiners in my State tell me that if we allow them
flexibility, they can, through the reformulated model of our gasoline,
for the most part, meet Clean Air Act standards without this mandate.
They may have to use some ethanol--and they are using ethanol now
because there is a 2-percent oxygenate requirement--they may have to
use some ethanol at certain times of the year in certain areas of the
State, but they do not need to use the amount of ethanol that this
legislation forces them--forces them, Mr. President--to use to meet the
Clean Air Act standards.
This mandate forces California to use over 2.5 billion gallons of
ethanol over 8 years that the State does not need.
On this chart, the red shows the forced use of ethanol. The blue
shows the ethanol we would use in certain markets during certain
seasons to meet Clean Air Act standards. As one can see, there is a
huge differential between the red and the blue areas.
We use this amount shown in blue and do not use the rest of the
ethanol which is shown in red which we have to pay for anyway. That is
a wealth transfer, if you will. In the outer years, it most certainly
is going to mean an increased price of gasoline at the pump for
consumers.
All this amendment does is add to the waiver provision one other
possibility for waiver, and that is, if a State can show that it does
not need to use all of this extra ethanol to the EPA, the EPA can then
waive the mandate. What could make better sense? Why would anyone
oppose this as a matter of public policy? Why would any public policy
force use and force costs on a consumer and transfer wealth to another
area of the country when it is not necessary to do so? That is the crux
of my argument. We do not need to use it. This chart clearly shows it.
If we look at another chart, we will see that we are forced to
transport a lot of ethanol to get it out to California; that the big
production of ethanol is in the Midwest in what is called PADD II. Mr.
President, 2.27 billion gallons of ethanol are made in this area. The
entire West makes maybe 10 million gallons of ethanol. Therefore, all
of this has to be moved not by fuel line but by barge, by truck, by
boat, by some other way, and increases costs. That is the reason for
the waiver. If we can show that we can meet Clean Air Act standards,
EPA can give those States a waiver.
I thank the Chair. I gather my time is up. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am prepared to vote. Do I have to
yield back time?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Time is yielded back.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the vote may occur at this
time. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 843. The clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
would each vote ``nay''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]
YEAS--35
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Clinton
Collins
Corzine
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Gregg
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Kennedy
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
McCain
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Sununu
Thomas
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--60
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--5
Bond
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 843) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Change of Vote
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that on vote No. 203 my vote be
changed from nay to aye. There is no consequence.
[[Page S7219]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 844
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 4 minutes evenly divided. Who
yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we have order, Mr. President? I understand the
Senator from California has 2 minutes. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will just use a minute and then cede
some of the remaining minute to the Senator from Arizona, if I might.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment would allow a Governor
of a State to opt into the ethanol program. Both Alaska and Hawaii have
been able to become exempted from the ethanol mandate. The question
this presents for many of us is this: If a Governor of a State believes
the program is cost effective, believes it is going to clean up their
environment, believes it is all of the things the ethanol proponents
say it is, then surely that Governor will opt in.
But if a Governor of a State, depending upon geographical location,
infrastructure for delivery, or science about the product, might decide
not to opt into the program, that Governor would have that opportunity.
This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Nickles, McCain, Kyl, Gregg,
Wyden, Leahy, Schumer, Reed, Sununu, Kennedy, and Clinton.
I thank them for their support and yield the remainder of my time to
the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, can we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let's make it clear that every State still
has to comply with the Clean Air Act. The question is how they each
choose to do so. In Arizona, the Department of Environmental Quality,
the department of the State that is required to cause the State to be
in compliance, says this mandate will actually cause two of our larger
communities, Yuma and Tucson, to be in noncompliance with the ozone
standard during the summer months. Each State can meet the requirements
in the ways they deem best under the amendment of the Senator from
California. Let's not mandate a one-size-fits-all--oh, excuse me,
except for Alaska and Hawaii--for every State. Give the Governors who
are responsible people the ability to decide whether this is the best
way for their State to meet the Clean Air Act standards.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Democratic leader.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, can we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment is based on a
misconception. The misconception is that somehow there is a mandate to
begin with. There is no mandate for the States under this bill.
There is a requirement that refiners find a way to reach the goals
that we set out in the legislation overall, both in energy as well as
the ethanol itself, but there is no requirement that States meet some
standard with regard to utilization of ethanol. And there is also an
option for the States to opt out if they find the circumstances
described by the distinguished Senator from Arizona would ever come
about. States have the right to opt out, even though there is no
particular mandate to opt into the program to begin with. This is a
refiners obligation, not a State obligation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I say, if you are for an ethanol
program for the Nation, then you can't vote for this amendment.
If this amendment passes, there is no American ethanol program as we
have been speaking of it in terms of reducing the American dependence
on foreign oil. It becomes something different and not an American
program to accomplish that purpose.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficent second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
would each vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]
YEAS--34
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Boxer
Campbell
Chambliss
Clinton
Collins
Corzine
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham (SC)
Gregg
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Kennedy
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lott
McCain
Nickles
Reed
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Sununu
Thomas
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--62
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--4
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 844) was rejected.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Next Generation Lighting Initiative
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, will the manager of the legislation
yield for a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Section 914 of this legislation directs the Secretary
of Energy to establish a research and development program on solid-
state lighting. I worked on this provision with the Senator from New
Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and
I thought it would be useful to have his agreement that this program
should not be a traditional grant, contract or cooperative agreement
effort. The Department of Energy, DOE, should administer this program
in partnership with an alliance of solid-state lighting industry
partners who will act to guide and evaluate the research.
Mr. DOMENICI. I certainly concur. The alliance should be an inclusive
but well-defined group of companies active in the research, development
and implementation of solid-state lighting technologies in the United
States. The DOE should select the alliance as quickly as possible, so
as not to delay the program's implementation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. If the Senator would yield for a further question, I
would like to know whether he also agrees that our intention is that
academia, national laboratories and other research organizations should
perform most of the fundamental research, while commercial entities,
especially alliance companies, should perform most of the development
and demonstration work. The selection of DOE laboratories should be
based on demonstrated technical accomplishments
[[Page S7220]]
in the field of solid-state lighting, particularly inorganic and
organic light-emitting diodes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, again I completely agree with the
Senator. I would also add that the intellectual property in section 914
is patterned after the Department of Energy's Solid State Energy
Conversion Alliance, or SECA. Under the SECA model, research and
development qualifies for the ``exceptional circumstances'' provision
of the Bayh-Dole Act. Inventors still retain rights to their
intellectual property. Those alliance participants who are active in
solid-state lighting research and development will receive the first
option to negotiate non-exclusive licenses and royalty payments to use
the invention.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator and would ask one final question. I
think he would agree that solid-state lighting is in its research
infancy. While it holds a promise to make white light illumination 10
times more efficient than today's light bulb, it is imperative that the
DOE implement this program quickly, and transfer the pre-competitive
research to industry, so that our country can retain its leadership
position in lighting--a field that Thomas Edison started.
Mr. DOMENICI. I fully agree. The Senator serves as our ranking member
and was instrumental in the adoption of this provision by our
committee. I think we both expect that quick action by the Department
of Energy will stimulate the private sector.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Amendment No. 845 to Amendment No. 539
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the
increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other
purposes)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Schumer and
Senator Lincoln, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mrs.
Lincoln, proposes an amendment numbered 845 to amendment No.
539.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the majority whip be
recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. As in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Virginia? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.
(The remarks of Mr. McCONNELL are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. FRIST. Madam 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. 539 Withdrawn
Mr. FRIST. I now withdraw amendment No. 539.
____________________