[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 4, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7365-S7373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 14) to enhance the energy security of the United 
     States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Domenici/Bingaman Amendment No. 840, to reauthorize Low-
     Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), 
     weatherization assistance, and State energy programs.
       Domenici (for Gregg) Amendment No. 841 (to Amendment No. 
     840), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
     reauthorization of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act 
     of 1981.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 
840 be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 850

  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the majority leader and minority leader 
and other Senators listed, I send to the desk the ethanol amendment 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. Domenici] for Mr. Frist, 
     for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Lugar, 
     Mr. Johnson, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, 
     Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Talent, Mr. 
     Dayton, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
     DeWine, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Bond, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 850.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.''
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senate, we are 
now back on the Energy bill. The pending business is the ethanol 
amendment. We did dispose of two amendments yesterday. I am hopeful we 
will not have to redo them, however there is going to be another 
amendment, at least one, perhaps two, on the ethanol amendment. But in 
the meantime, the distinguished Republican whip has requested that he 
be permitted to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  I make that request in his behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Chair get order in the Senate so he can be 
heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell, Mr. McCain, and Mrs. Feinstein, 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 1182 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the ethanol 
amendment No. 850 that has been offered by our distinguished majority 
leader, Senator Frist. This is a bipartisan amendment which has been 
crafted thoughtfully by leadership on both sides of the aisle and 
proves to be a compromise bill that will triple the amount of 
domestically produced ethanol used in America. President Bush was right 
when he said 2 years ago that we are long overdue in implementing a 
comprehensive energy policy for our Nation. If he were to say the same 
thing today, he would still be right. We need a policy that broadens 
our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable 
prices, and protect America's security.
  I believe that increasing our use of alternative and renewable fuels 
such as ethanol and biodiesel is a key element in our effort to 
constructing that much needed stability. It is a clean burning, 
homegrown renewable fuel that we can rely on for generations to come. 
Ethanol is a step towards good stewardship of our environment. 
Expanding the use of ethanol will also protect our environment by 
reducing auto emissions, which will mean cleaner air and improved 
public health. It just so happens that as we are looking out for our 
environment we are not only going to benefit in the arena of 
environmental friendliness but as the same time boost our economy.
  Consumers will benefit from more efficient use of their vehicles at a 
lower cost. Adding 10 percent ethanol to a gallon of regular gas would 
reduce the retail price to consumers by almost seven cents per gallon 
according to the Energy Information Administration.
  By continuing each year to increase the volume of ethanol in a gallon 
of gasoline, we can concurrently decrease the volume of crude oil 
needed for it. Crude oil prices have risen in 2003 as a result of the 
war with Iraq and international tensions. We must protect ourselves and 
be secure with our independence during these trying times and possible 
terrorism. It is no secret that we currently import over 58 percent of 
the oil we use. This dependence is not getting better. The Energy 
Information Administration estimates that our dependency on imported 
oil could grow to nearly 70 percent by 2020. We are so dependent on 
foreign oil, that the demand for renewable fuels such as ethanol and 
biodiesel is on the rise. Although our troops were successful in the 
liberation of Iraq, our greatest energy challenge remains the need to 
reduce our reliance on foreign sources to meet our energy needs.

  The production and marketing of ethanol is very important to the 
economy of my state and the nation. The Energy Information 
Administration has proven that tripling the use nationally of renewable 
fuels over the next decade will increase U.S. GDP by $156 billion by 
2012, reduce our National Trade Deficit by more than $34 billion, save 
taxpayers $2 billion annually in reduced government subsidies due to 
the creation of new markets for corn, and create more than 214,000 new 
jobs.
  The benefits for the farm economy are even more pronounced. An 
increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic 
boost to thousands of farm families across my State. Currently, ethanol 
production provides 192,000 jobs and $4.5 billion to net farm income 
nationwide. Passage of this amendment will increase net farm income by 
nearly $6 billion annually. Passage of this amendment will create $5.3 
billion of new investment in renewable fuel production capacity. Kansas 
are loudly voicing their support of this legislation. Phasing out MTBE 
on a National basis will be good for our fuel suppliers. Refiners are 
under tremendous strain from having to make several different gasoline 
blends to meet various state clean air requirements. The MTBE phaseout 
provisions in this package will ensure that refiners will have less 
stress on their system.
  This entire Nation's is in need of this environmentally friendly, 
sustainable fuel as we carry on in our efforts to be good stewards of 
our environment. Ethanol will boost our energy independence and become 
an aid to national security while we as a country find ourselves 
continuing the battle against terrorism. I cannot proclaim enough, the 
greatness of the positive impacts this fuel contains. Leaders here in 
our body have discovered it. The language in this bill has strong 
bipartisan support and is the result of long negotiations between the 
Renewable Fuels Association, National Corn Growers Association, Farm 
Bureau Federation, American Petroleum Institute, Northeast States for 
Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM, and the American Lung 
Association.
  Americans can rest more sound and secure as we further develop the 
use of our homegrown fuel, ethanol.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know there are many Senators who have 
plenty to do besides being concerned about this Energy bill on the

[[Page S7366]]

floor of the Senate. But I want to say for some of us that the Energy 
Policy Act is a very important subject. The committee has worked very 
hard. We don't claim to have a perfect bill, but we claim to have a 
bill that deserves the consideration of the Senate.
  For all those Senators who want to review the bill and haven't, I 
hope they will start. For those who have amendments and haven't reduced 
them to writing, I hope they get going. For those who have questions 
about the bill, we are going to be here working on it--both the 
minority whip and Senator Bingaman. His staff is adequate in numbers 
and capacity and will be available, as will mine.
  With that in mind, we are back to the point where we have set aside 
the LIHEAP issue that came about yesterday--the issue with reference to 
the jurisdiction of the different LIHEAP provisions that we wanted to 
have in this bill where the chairman of the Committee on Health and 
Human Resources desires that it not be on the bill but rather be 
returned to his committee for jurisdictional consideration. That will 
be taken up later.
  We are now back to ethanol. Yesterday we had two votes. They were 
very heavily debated for a long period of time. In each instance both 
failed. In each instance 60 votes or more were obtained on the side of 
supporting the bill, which is not just a Republican or Democrat bill. 
It is a bill put together by Democrats and Republicans, and all kinds 
of different leadership groups in this country that are concerned about 
our future in terms of dependence upon oil and its derivatives; those 
who are concerned about agricultural products and the fact that we 
produce so much more than we need and that the price is constantly a 
problem both to the Government because of its support programs and to 
the farmer because it is difficult to make a living.
  Those who are concerned about rural America see this bill as a 
potential for the injection of tremendous amounts of real investments 
and real jobs and capital into all parts of rural America because 
facilities will have to be built that will cost billions of dollars in 
order to comply with the requirements of this national mandate for 
ethanol use.
  The mandate is a good mandate. It is a national mandate. It is a 
mandate that says by a year certain we will be using certain quantities 
of ethanol in our petroleum products that feed the gasoline tanks, and 
thus the automobiles and trucks of America that use gasoline and diesel 
fuel.
  I am sure there are additional amendments on this issue. I merely 
wanted to recap for the Senate where we are.
  I also wish to say that while we have been on this bill for a number 
of days, it appears that the only amendments are those that pertain to 
ethanol. I know there are more. I implore Senators, I beg them, if they 
have amendments, let us get them ready and bring them down here. Who 
knows, they may have winners. They may have a much better approach to 
energy independence in this bill. We stand ready to accommodate and get 
them before the Senate and get the votes on them as soon as possible.
  What I understand the situation to be now, so the Senators will 
understand, is that the distinguished minority manager, the junior 
Senator from New Mexico, has an amendment on ethanol. I understand that 
when he is finished, the distinguished Senator from New York has an 
amendment. He told the Senator from New Mexico that he would follow the 
amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. I hope that will be the case. 
If he comes forth, we will not have one vote at a time but rather back-
to-back votes. There appears to be a couple of other amendments that 
may be offered before the day is out.

  Then I suggest that as many Senators as possible begin to try to 
figure out what they want to do with this bill. I know there are 
Senators who have not had a chance to make up their mind about 
amendments but I ask that they do that. Actually, there are many of us 
who want to get an Energy bill. We think the remainder of this week, 
clear through Friday, and all of next week ought to be sufficient time 
to get this done. Some do not think so but I surmise that if we tried, 
and we had amendments going most of the day, with votes taking place 
each day, we would be surprised how soon we would get this bill 
completed.
  Having said that, I yield the floor to my distinguished fellow 
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Domenici, for his comments. I agree with his request 
that we move ahead with amendments. I know there are many Senators with 
amendments they want to offer. I think the logical thing to do is to 
try to deal with all of the ethanol-related amendments at this stage in 
the consideration of the bill. I hope that by offering an ethanol-
related amendment now, on behalf of myself and Senator Sununu, we can 
begin the process of considering these amendments in a thoughtful way 
and, hopefully, work through them over the next day or two.


                 Amendment No. 851 To Amendment No. 850

  Mr. President, with that, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration. It is an amendment to amendment No. 850 
that Senator Domenici offered on behalf of Senator Frist and others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BINGAMAN], for himself and 
     Mr. Sununu, proposes an amendment numbered 851 to amendment 
     No. 850.

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

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Energy to waive the ethanol 
mandate on the East and West Coast in the event of a significant price 
                    increase or supply interruption)

       On page 18, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(11) Significant price increase or supply interruption.--
       ``(A) Suspension of requirements.--In addition to the 
     authority of the Administrator to waive the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) under paragraphs (7) and (8), and to extend the 
     exemption from paragraph (2) under paragraph (9), the 
     President, acting through the Secretary of Energy, may 
     suspend the requirements of paragraph (2) in any Petroleum 
     Administration for Defense District, in whole or in part, in 
     the event the Secretary of Energy determines that--
       ``(i) application of the requirements of paragraph (2) in 
     the District will result, or has resulted, in an increase in 
     the average cost of gasoline to end users in the District of 
     ten cents per gallon or more; or
       ``(ii) a significant interruption in the supply of 
     renewable fuel in the District will result, or has resulted, 
     in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to end users 
     in the District of ten cents per gallon or more.
       ``(B) Duration of suspension.--A suspension granted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall terminate after 30 days, but may be 
     renewed by the Secretary of Energy for additional 30-day 
     periods if he determines that the significant price increase 
     or significant supply interruption persists.''.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, this is an amendment I 
am offering on behalf of Senator Sununu and myself. It is to improve 
the waiver provisions in the renewable fuels standard in the Daschle-
Frist amendment.
  The amendment we are offering seeks to give the President the 
authority to suspend the ethanal mandate--he could suspend it with 
regard to a particular geographic area in the country--in the event 
there is a severe supply or price disruption to U.S. gasoline markets. 
We have a way of determining when that threshold is reached. It 
provides a path for immediate action to be taken to deal with that 
price circumstance.
  This is not a requirement that the President act. This is merely 
authority for him to act if he chooses to do so. I think we need to 
make that point so all Members understand we are not requiring any 
action by this amendment; we are expanding the waiver authority so that 
additional authority exists if the President chooses to use it. 
Ultimately, someone needs to have the authority to take immediate 
action if there happens to be a crisis, if a crisis comes upon us.
  The Daschle-Frist amendment waiver provisions--and this is on page 12 
of the underlying Daschle-Frist amendment--those waiver provisions give 
each State the right to petition the Administrator for a waiver in the 
event of severe harm to the economy or the environment. The process 
that is outlined can take up to 90 days. It is not necessarily going to 
take 90 days. It could

[[Page S7367]]

take longer, as there is no enforcement really built in, but it is 
supposed to take no more than 90 days.
  The State files the petition. The Administrator has the 90 days, 
maximum, to make a determination of whether the petition should be 
granted. In making that determination, the Secretary is required to 
give public notice and an opportunity for comment. That is a 3-month 
period--or up to a 3-month period--for a determination to be made and 
for the mandate to be suspended.
  In a crisis situation, a significant amount of economic or 
environmental damage could be done during that period while all of this 
notice and opportunity for comment is occurring. In my view, we cannot 
afford that. Ninety days is too long a period.
  The amendment we are offering does not seek to disturb or to weaken 
the underlying Daschle-Frist amendment. It simply gives the President 
the authority to take immediate action to deal with urgent issues that 
may arise in particular regions. If a State or region experiences a 
supply disruption which they might experience with regard to ethanol or 
a price spike resulting from the mandate, and a suspension of the 
mandate is necessary, then we are giving the President authority to 
suspend the mandate for a 30-day period. He could renew that for an 
additional 30 days if he chose to. But that is the essence of our 
amendment. If the gasoline prices rise more than 10 cents as a result 
of the mandate, that is when this authority would come into place.
  Now, this is not the price of ethanol rising 10 cents; this is the 
price of gasoline at the pump rising 10 cents because of the mandate to 
use ethanol as required in the Daschle-Frist amendment. If the price of 
gas at the pump rises over 10 cents, and the Secretary makes the 
determination that immediate action is necessary, then the mandate 
could be suspended for the 30 days in this affected PADD, this 
Petroleum Administration for Defense District, or in the effected State 
or region.

  What does that 10-cent rise in the price of gasoline per gallon mean? 
Let me refer to this chart I have in the Chamber.
  You can see that ethanol is going to be blended with other petroleum 
fuel in gasoline, and 10 percent of it is going to be ethanol. So, in 
fact, if you saw a 50-cent increase in the price of ethanol per gallon, 
that would mean a 5-cent-per-gallon rise in the price of gasoline. If 
you saw a $1 increase in the price of ethanol per gallon, that would 
mean a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the price of gasoline.
  I think this chart makes clear that what we are proposing gives the 
President the ability to act expeditiously. If there is this kind of $1 
increase in the price of ethanol itself, that could translate 
approximately to a 10-cent increase in gasoline. This is a high 
threshold. Frankly, I know there are Members of this Senate who would 
say that should not be 10 cents; we ought to have the President have 
the authority to act if you have a 3-cent increase or a 2-cent increase 
or a 5-cent increase, and I might agree with some of that logic.
  But the truth is, we have tried to write this in a way that makes it 
clear that this is not authority we would expect to be invoked or to be 
available to the President under most circumstances. This is authority 
which would only be available under extraordinary circumstances.
  Today prices are at about $1.15 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, 
this is roughly where they were back in 1998. There has been some 
fluctuation.
  This second chart that I have in the Chamber shows what has happened 
to the price of gasoline from 1998 through the current period. You can 
see that there has been fluctuation in the price of ethanol, but we 
have not seen enough fluctuation in the price of ethanol from the 
average price to trigger this authority to ever take place, so that 
during this entire period this authority would not have come into 
place. It is clear we are not setting up some kind of a hair-trigger 
procedure here which will give the President or the Secretary of Energy 
the ability to step in at will and act.
  The amendment we are proposing is simply a safety valve. As I have 
said several times, it is not automatic. If there is no disruption in 
supply, if prices do not spike substantially outside the range shown on 
this chart, then nothing would happen. However, in the event we do have 
a problem, we would have in place, with this amendment, a procedure for 
dealing with it.
  The reason I think this amendment is important is because fuel 
transitions are inherently problematic.
  We have a lot of history on which to base that judgment. All previous 
changes to the reformulated gasoline formula have resulted in severe 
price volatility in gasoline markets. We don't have to go back very far 
to see that this is the case. In 1996 and in the year 2000, we saw 
gasoline prices rise substantially, and both times this resulted in 
gasoline price spikes of more than 30 cents a gallon in California.
  There are previous EIA studies that have been done, but they have not 
addressed short-term issues. That is what we are talking about, short-
term supply disruptions. They either look at the long-term outcomes or 
act to analyze supply disruptions only after they have occurred.
  The mandate we are proposing to put into law with the Frist-Daschle 
amendment does create substantial uncertainty. That has been discussed 
in some of the debate that has already occurred. The mandate says we 
will use 5 billion gallons of ethanol in the Nation's fuel supply by 
2012. It bans the use of MTBE beginning in the year 2007. While some 
would prefer to call it a renewable fuels standard, it is in fact a 
mandate. All of us understand that. By the nature of a mandate, it 
creates a substantial amount of uncertainty.
  While my colleagues may argue that they have crafted a plan that 
allows plenty of time for the transition from MTBE to ethanol, I have 
doubts about whether that is the case. Under the mandate in the Frist-
Daschle amendment, it is possible that our motor fuels market will see 
disruptions in supply and price spikes that, if left unattended, could 
harm consumers and the economy. Our amendment tries to deal directly 
with that.
  We have to keep in mind the MTBE ban affects supply immediately. Once 
the bill passes, MTBE will be quickly phased out and banned in 16 
States; most importantly, in California and Washington and Arizona on 
the West Coast and in New York and Connecticut on the East Coast. These 
States in the Northeast in particular are heavily dependent on gasoline 
product imports from Europe and South America. Venezuela supplies 8 
percent of the gasoline volume on the East Coast. The Venezuelan 
National Oil Company says a renewable fuels mandate could make it 
difficult if not impossible to import finished gasoline into the United 
States as they have been doing.
  Most of the East Coast imports come into the New York area and need 
to be suitable for the reformulated gas markets.
  As I have said in several ways, there is a lot of uncertainty that we 
just do not know the answers to. Let me list some of that again. Then I 
will defer to my colleague from New Hampshire who is here and wishes to 
speak on behalf of the amendment as well.
  Some of the questions that still exist in my mind as regards this 
mandate are, No. 1, what if we have a supply shortage when refineries 
are already producing at capacity? What does that do to the price to 
the consumer? Second, what if our import capacity declines and prices 
spike even further? Third, what if there is a drought in the Midwest 
that affects corn production and therefore affects ethanol production? 
That could significantly affect the price. And it could get the price 
outside of this area that is reflected on the chart behind me.
  Perhaps we could experience problems in transporting the ethanol or 
an important element in the refinery infrastructure could be damaged at 
a key hub. There is any number of scenarios that could lead us to 
supply disruptions, to price spikes. Under those circumstances, we need 
to have authority vested with the President to take action. We should 
not be requiring that he take that action, but we should be giving him 
the authority. We need to be proactive. We need to look forward and 
analyze potential problems the U.S. motor fuels market could face in 
the short term, and we need to do this before the disruption occurs.

[[Page S7368]]

  I urge our colleagues to carefully consider the amendment. It is good 
policy to build in such a provision to protect consumers in the event 
of a crisis. It is a good safety valve to add to the bill. It 
substantially strengthens the bill. I hope my colleagues will agree and 
that we can add this as an amendment.
  I yield the floor. I see my colleague, my cosponsor from New 
Hampshire, is in the Chamber waiting to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman 
amendment and I thank my colleague for allowing me to work with him on 
this initiative. I have expressed concerns about the ethanol mandate in 
this energy bill before, and the concerns this amendment tries to 
address are obviously an extension of those concerns.
  As we have debated this Energy Bill prior to today, in the work I 
have done in the House, and the visits I've had back home with the 
people of New Hampshire, I have always emphasized that to the extent we 
are debating an energy bill, it ought to be about price and access. It 
should be about making sure we have available, stable, reliable sources 
of energy and a diversified supply for consumers, because those stable, 
reliable sources of energy are so central to economic growth.
  At the end of the day, this debate ought to be about access and 
price. What this amendment attempts to do is to ensure that where the 
gasoline markets are concerned, consumers are protected on access and 
on price. We need to make sure that we have, as the Senator from New 
Mexico described, a safety valve--a way to ensure that if and when the 
very significant fuels mandate proposed for this bill is imposed on 
cities, towns, and States across America, there will not be major 
disruptions in supply that would lead to price spikes, and that 
consumers not be subjected to higher fuel costs unnecessarily.
  There is a waiver provision in the underlying amendment. But we ought 
to be concerned about that waiver provision because of the 90-day 
window described by the Senator from New Mexico. This would allow the 
President and Secretary to act if there is economic harm, but it would 
allow up to 90 days to do so. Ninety days can be a very long time, as 
anyone who sat through the price spikes two summers ago will tell you. 
Gasoline prices spiked up, 25, 50 cents, spiking well over $2 in some 
places. To the extent that those price spikes could have been avoided, 
many people would argue the President or the Secretary of Energy should 
have taken steps to avoid them. That is exactly what this kind of an 
amendment will allow.
  If the cost of ethanol drives those prices up more than 10 cents a 
gallon, then the President can act with the Secretary and suspend the 
mandate for 30 days. It is a safety valve. It doesn't take away from 
the mandate, although I am one who would like to see more done in terms 
of eliminating the mandate. But, our amendment is a safety valve that 
allows the President to act. It does not force the President to act, 
and it does not require him to act. Instead, it gives the President and 
the Secretary the opportunity to take steps to protect consumers from 
unreasonable price spikes.
  Supporters of the ethanol program, those who would like to see the 
mandate imposed no matter what the constraints, might say: Well, it is 
highly unlikely such spikes will occur. We can look at the graph 
presented by the Senator from New Mexico. It is highly unlikely we 
would see significant price spikes. Maybe this amendment is 
unnecessary.
  But, Mr. President, we can't predict the future. We don't know with 
certainty what will or will not happen to the cost of fuel with the 5-
billion gallon mandate on ethanol that has been proposed, but we should 
be prepared.
  That is what we are trying to accomplish with this amendment. We 
could certainly see problems with ethanol production. We don't have the 
capacity to produce 5 billion gallons today. If the mandate were 
imposed, we would like to believe we could double the production 
capacity in a brief amount of time, but we don't know that for sure. We 
could have problems with ethanol production. Frankly, we are likely to 
have problems with ethanol distribution. They may not be huge problems, 
but ethanol has to be trucked or shipped around the country. It cannot 
be distributed through the existing pipeline system we use for gasoline 
in parts of the country.
  So there are going to be new demands on the logistics governing our 
distribution system for gasoline. That could certainly have a big 
impact on prices. The Senator from New Mexico talked about the issue of 
importing gasoline from places such as Venezuela--there is no certainty 
that we would be able to continue to import finished gasoline; we might 
have to import the raw blend stock to be mixed with ethanol in the 
United States.
  There is no guarantee of the reliability of those imports. And, of 
course, we may have unusual spikes in demand because of the MTBE bans 
that are likely to go into effect if and when this legislation becomes 
law. I come from a State where there has been strong support for 
banning the use of MTBE. Even more important, I would certainly like to 
see a provision in the bill--one that was proposed the other day by the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein--to allow States to waive the 
requirement for this mandate, so that States could be free to meet the 
Clean Air Act without having to use MTBE or without having to use 
ethanol.
  But the point is, there are uncertainties about the future price of 
gasoline. Those uncertainties are made greater by the potential 5-
billion-gallon ethanol mandate in the bill. Our amendment would provide 
a safety valve so that if there were price spikes, the President and 
the Secretary could act in consumers' interests.
  Despite my concerns about the mandate and all the other concerns I 
might have about this Energy bill, I think at the end of the day we 
should be looking to ensure that the bill protects consumers. This 
amendment does that. I think it is common sense.
  I say to my colleagues, you can support the ethanol program and still 
support this amendment that protects consumers. Also, you can certainly 
oppose the ethanol program and support this amendment that protects 
consumers.
  I hope my colleagues will join Senator Bingaman and me in doing the 
right thing for taxpayers and for consumers by supporting this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in 
opposition to the Bingaman amendment. I must say as I begin, however, 
that there is no one in the caucus--and, I argue, in the Senate today--
who knows more about the issues relating to energy than does my 
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. He has been an outstanding 
leader, and I have enjoyed working with him on these issues now for 
many years. I recall so vividly his masterful work in getting us a bill 
that generated some 88 votes, if I recall, last year. That was after 
about 8 weeks of work. So it is not easy to take these issues or to 
move this legislation. He deserves great credit for the work he has 
done.
  I take issue with this amendment for several reasons. I have had a 
chance to look at the amendment itself. There are phrases on line 9 and 
on line 2 of page 2 that are of particular concern to me. I will read 
the pertinent passages of the amendment, and I will explain my concern.

  First, I have a little explanatory comment. Obviously, the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico is interested in providing 
greater authority to the Secretary to suspend the requirements of the 
bill. Then he lists those instances in his amendment where the 
requirements of the bill would be lifted. It is in these areas that I 
find my initial concern, and then I will address some other concerns I 
have.
  On line 9, page 1, it says:

       Application of the requirements of paragraph (2) in the 
     District will result, or has

[[Page S7369]]

     resulted, in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to 
     the end users in the District of ten cents per gallon or 
     more.

  Line 2, page 2, that he can suspend the requirements of the bill if, 
in the estimation of the Secretary of Energy:

       a significant interruption in the supply of renewable fuel 
     in the District will result, or has resulted, in an increase 
     in the average cost of gasoline to end users in the District 
     of ten cents per gallon or more.
  The phrase that troubles me is ``will result.'' We all would like to 
be able to anticipate the future. But I could easily see a Secretary 
who has opposition to renewable fuels, opposition to any real 
requirement that we move to find replacements for gasoline; or, for 
that matter, you could put this in a larger context, if we were talking 
about the renewable portfolio standard, to wind, solar, biomass, or any 
other renewable fuel, where you could see a Secretary announce: You 
know what. I have made a decision. I have made a decision that this 
will result at some point in the future in a cost increase, and the 
Senator here would set as the threshold 10 cents a gallon. But it will 
happen, and on that basis I am going to suspend the law.
  First, the declarative authority on the part of the Secretary as a 
result of his ability to predict--weather men are wrong, politicians 
are wrong, and Secretaries could be wrong. Yet we would give him the 
authority, based on his judgment and his prediction that somehow he 
will know we are going to exceed 10 cents a gallon and, on that basis, 
suspend the law, take an action to suspend the law.
  The second concern I have is the good government concern. If we are 
going to suspend the law, it seems to me we ought to have an 
opportunity to have comment, to have others express themselves on 
whether this will result in a price increase. As an advocate of good 
government, generally when we pass legislation, anytime we designate 
authority to somebody else, we say, look, you cannot do this without 
some ability to be heard. You have to be heard. There has to be a 
process before we give dictatorial powers to somebody to change the 
law.
  That is exactly what our bill does. Our bill says that in those 
instances when some economic disruption might occur, No. 1, there has 
to be a demonstration that it has occurred. No prediction that it might 
happen. It has to happen so we know with what we are dealing.

  Secondly we say: If we are going to suspend a law passed by the U.S. 
Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States, 
there has to be a good government procedure, and that procedure simply 
says there has to be notice, there has to be an opportunity to be 
heard, and then a decision has to be made.
  Then we even go beyond that. We say a decision has to be made within 
90 days. At one point, in a previous version of this bill, we said it 
had to be done in 180 days. Some said that was too long a period. So we 
have already cut that in half. Then it said no later than 90 days. That 
is not the threshold to start the decisionmaking process. That is the 
threshold to end it.
  Advocates of good government, I would think, would say that is a 
pretty good way to do it. If we are going to have price spikes--and I 
will get to that in just a minute--then it seems to us you ought to 
give somebody an opportunity to waive the requirements of law. That is 
understandable. We can do that. But to say, first, we are going to 
allow that person to make this decision based on what he thinks is 
going to happen, and then, secondly, allow him to make a decision based 
on what he thinks is going to happen without any good government 
application of the law, an opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to 
make some judgment based on facts, is an awfully troubling assertion or 
proposition to me.
  Having said that, the Department of Energy, in January of last year, 
just a little over a year ago, completed a report on this very issue. I 
have not known the Department of Energy necessarily to be a cheerleader 
for ethanol. They have not been out there leading the pack. But they 
were asked: What analysis can you provide us with regard to this very 
concern? Here is their conclusion:

       No major infrastructure barriers exist to expand ethanol to 
     5 billion gallons per year comparable to the legislation 
     before us today.

  The Energy Information Agency said after their careful analysis in 
concert with this report:

       The cost of establishing a renewable fuels standard is less 
     than half a penny per gallon for all gasoline.

  That is not an assertion by the Senator from South Dakota. That is 
not the ethanol industry. That is the Federal Government in its 
analysis of the implications of what it is we are doing with this 
legislation--a half a penny per gallon for all gasoline.
  In March of this year, the California Energy Commission analysis said 
it cannot establish any attributable increase in the price of gasoline 
based on the cost or availability of ethanol and the requirements under 
which they currently are living.
  Mr. President, first, if you listen to our own analysis, the 
Government agencies that have provided their most objective review of 
the circumstances, we are talking about half a penny per gallon for all 
gasoline. We are talking about the California Energy Commission--and I 
might note, as I said yesterday, 65 percent of all the gasoline sold in 
California today has ethanol. It is going to go to 80 percent by 
summer. And we have the California Energy Commission saying they cannot 
find any tangible connection between the price of ethanol and the price 
of gasoline. But if, for whatever reason, it might happen, we say: 
Let's give the Secretary the authority. Let's make sure we are not 
going to hold consumers hostage to some sort of unexpected price hike, 
but let's, No. 1, make sure it happens, rather than give the Secretary 
this ability to predict and make some assertion it might happen. And, 
secondly, let's use the good government practices we have always used 
to ensure if we are going to change the law for whatever period of 
time, that we do so with the opportunity for Americans to be heard. So 
I hope we oppose this amendment.

  I end where I started. The Senator from New Mexico deserves great 
credit for all he has done to bring us to this point. I respect him 
immensely and differ with him on this amendment. We could not be in 
better hands. I appreciate his cooperation on so many of these issues 
as we move forward. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                     Amendment No. 851, As Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of 
the leader. I know of his strong commitment to this underlying 
amendment. I will say what everyone in the Senate knows, which is his 
reputation, a well-earned reputation, for straight dealing. He 
indicated to me before I offered the amendment that he would be 
compelled to oppose it, and I certainly understand. I am anxious to 
accommodate some of the concerns he has raised.
  With that in mind, I send a modification of the amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 18, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(11) Significant price increase or supply interruption.--
       ``(A) Suspension of requirements.--In addition to the 
     authority of the Administrator to waive the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) under paragraphs (7) and (8), and to extend the 
     exemption from paragraph (2) under paragraph (9), the 
     President, acting through the Secretary of Energy, may 
     suspend the requirements of paragraph (2) in any Petroleum 
     Administration for Defense District, in whole or in part, in 
     the event the Secretary of Energy determines that--
       ``(i) application of the requirements of paragraph (2) in 
     the District has resulted in an increase in the average cost 
     of gasoline to end users in the District of ten cents per 
     gallon or more; or
       ``(ii) a significant interruption in the supply of 
     renewable fuel in the District has resulted in an increase in 
     the average cost of gasoline to end users in the District of 
     ten cents per gallon or more.
       ``(B) Duration of suspension.--A suspension granted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall terminate after 30 days, but may be 
     renewed by the Secretary of Energy for additional 30-day 
     periods if he determines that the significant price increase 
     or significant supply interruption persists.''.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me explain what I did with the 
modification. I dealt with the issue Senator Daschle raised about his 
concern that

[[Page S7370]]

the language in the previous amendment, as I offered it with Senator 
Sununu, allowed the Secretary to act on the basis of a prediction about 
what was going to happen. That language was in the bill, and I just 
modified the bill to provide that the President--let me clarify that 
nothing in this amendment gives the Secretary authority to act. This 
amendment only gives the President authority to act. The President can 
only act on the basis of a determination made by his or her Secretary 
of Energy.
  Now, with the modification, it would be a determination made by his 
or her Secretary of Energy that this ethanol mandate, in fact, has 
resulted in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to end users or 
it has resulted in a significant interruption or has resulted in an 
increase in the average cost by at least 10 cents per gallon as a 
result of the mandate.
  In response to that concern Senator Daschle raised, I want to be 
clear that we have dealt with that in the modification I have just sent 
to the desk.
  Let me also address briefly the other issues Senator Daschle raised.
  He indicated the need for this is not there because, in fact, the 
Energy Information Agency in the Department of Energy has said this 
mandate will result in an increase in the price of gas per gallon of 
less than one-half of 1 cent per gallon, and the California Energy 
Commission has also concluded that there is no appreciable increase 
that will result from this mandate.
  First of all, if you look into the analyses that were done both by 
the Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission, they 
were looking over the long term and saying over the long term there 
will not be, in their view, a substantial increase in the price of 
gasoline as a result of this mandate. That may well be true. Our 
amendment does not deal with the long term. Our amendment tries to deal 
with the short term, and that is where there is a price spike, where 
there is a supply disruption that causes the price to go up an 
additional 10 cents per gallon because of the ethanol mandate, if that 
occurs, and it may well not occur. So there is a difference between the 
studies that they did, which are long term, and the issue we are trying 
to deal with, which is short term.

  I also point out that another sort of flaw in the argument, at least 
in my view, is that we are now saying we do not need to put this extra 
safety valve in the legislation because we have a prediction by the 
Energy Information Agency and we have a prediction by the California 
Energy Commission that this will not be needed down the road. It may 
well not be needed, and certainly I am not here to predict that it will 
be needed. I am just saying this is a good insurance policy. This is a 
good safety valve.
  The Energy Information Agency has been known to make mistakes in 
their predictions. As to the California Energy Commission, although I 
am not totally familiar with all of their work, I would venture to say 
they have probably made a few mistakes in their predictions. I do not 
know exactly where they were on their predictions with regard to the 
price of electricity in California a few years ago, but they may well 
have missed the mark in predicting what that price was going to be, and 
they might well have wished there was some similar authority to this in 
place that could have been exercised or had been exercised when that 
crisis hit.
  So I think this is good government practice, and clearly under most 
circumstances the appropriate course is to give public notice, to have 
opportunity for comment and hearings, have all the sides, all the 
interest groups come in and give their point of view. That is a good 
course. But if the price of ethanol has gone up substantially or there 
has been a supply disruption or there has been something that has 
occurred that has caused the price of gasoline to jump more than 10 
cents that is directly traceable to this mandate, I believe the wise 
course is for us to give authority to the President to take action if 
he or she decides to take action.
  As I say, there is nothing in this amendment that requires anyone to 
do anything. This amendment merely gives people authority to take 
action if a crisis occurs, if a price spike occurs, if they determine 
that action is appropriate.
  It is possible, in some future administration, that there will be a 
Secretary of Energy who is opposed to ethanol perhaps, but I assume 
that the American people are going to elect Presidents in the future 
who reflect their views on most issues. If they do not reflect their 
views, then of course the voters have the opportunity to hold them 
accountable when there is a follow-on election.
  Clearly, I think we are mandating a substantial increase in the use 
of ethanol. I am not opposing that in this amendment, but I am saying 
let us at least be a little bit humble about our own ability to predict 
what might occur in the future. If, in fact, there is a significant 
price spike because of some problem in transitioning to this new fuel 
mixture, if there is some price spike as a result of interruptions in 
supply, then let's have the President, with the authority, deal with 
the situation, and let's not just say, okay, we are going to require 
that they go through the normal hoops, give public notice and comments, 
have hearings, and all of that. I think there is certainly a time for 
all of that, but there is also a time to take action. When the American 
people elect a President, they expect the President to have authority 
to act when the circumstance requires. That is what our amendment would 
do, and we hope very much it will be agreed to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator join me in asking for the yeas and 
nays on his amendment?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask, does Senator Reid know if there is another 
Senator who has an amendment?
  Mr. REID. Senator Schumer is due any minute to offer an amendment on 
this subject.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the two managers of the 
bill. We have been dealing now for the second day on the ethanol 
section. What we would like all Members to hear, if anyone has any 
desire to offer an amendment on the ethanol section, is they should let 
their respective Cloakrooms know immediately. The knowledge we have at 
this time is Senator Boxer has two amendments, Senator Schumer has one 
amendment, Senator Clinton has one amendment, and Senator Feinstein has 
two amendments.
  If there are amendments other than these that I have just 
enumerated--Boxer, two; Schumer, one; Clinton, one; Feinstein, two--
they should let the cloakrooms know. It is my understanding Senator 
Nickles may or may not offer an amendment but he is on the list.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Should we put Nickles on the list?
  We think he will come off.
  Mr. REID. He is on the list. If anyone else wants to offer an 
amendment, let us know immediately. Otherwise we are going to enter 
into an agreement that the amendments I have just listed will be the 
only ones in order on the ethanol section.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might we do it this way, so there will be a bit of 
finality. It is 10 minutes to 5. Could we enter into an agreement that 
that is it, unless some Senator contacts you or Senator Bingaman or 
myself by 5 o'clock?
  Mr. REID. We should give people a little bit of time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is plenty, 10 minutes. At 5:30?
  Mr. REID. I personally would like to get off this section. We hope to 
have a vote, it is my understanding, by 5:15. We would know as soon as 
that vote is completed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. For now we are going with the fact this is all we are

[[Page S7371]]

aware of. We hope Senators understand we are perilously close to making 
that a consent agreement but we have not yet, just in deference to 
somebody who might still come up with a new idea regarding this 
subject.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I have spoken to Senator 
Feinstein. She is willing to offer one of her amendments tonight, as 
soon as the vote is completed. What we will try to do is have slots 
available, either tonight or first thing in the morning, to finish 
these amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand. To give her a little more time, I 
understand we could have two votes. What we will tell the Senate 
shortly, about LIHEAP, which may meet with your approval, Senator 
Bingaman--the idea would be to bring it back immediately following a 
vote on your amendment. It would make the pending business the LIHEAP 
amendments, both of them, at which time we would have a vote on the 
Domenici amendment that was offered in behalf of the chairman of the 
committee, and there would be a vote. Immediately following that vote 
there would be a vote, if required, on the LIHEAP amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to the question, my 
understanding is Senator Cantwell, from Washington, did want to speak 
on this LIHEAP issue. I don't feel comfortable just agreeing we are 
going to lock her out of that opportunity. I think we have been 
advising people that the LIHEAP issue had been put aside for some 
period of time.
  Until we can consult with her, at least, and find out--as I 
understand it, the Senator is suggesting we go ahead and go to a vote 
on the Gregg amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Gregg amendment, yes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. That would essentially replace the LIHEAP provisions 
with a sense of the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am saying before I agree to that specific time I 
would like to be sure to protect Senator Cantwell.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we could agree to vote on the Bingaman 
amendment and then say, when that vote has been completed and we finish 
it, there would be 10 minutes for debate, at which time I will give 5 
of that to the Senator you just described, for her discussion, or 10, 
whatever you would like, after which we would have a vote? That gives 
you what you need and it sets up at least two votes and a disposition 
of your LIHEAP.

  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, that may be appropriate, but we 
need to check with her first.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Could we just make sure everybody 
understands we are prepared to move, soon, to bring the LIHEAP issue 
back on the calendar where it belongs, and to dispose of it this 
evening?
  With that, I assume we will proceed, Senator, to vote on your 
amendment, if that is all right with you.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response, I have no problem with 
proceeding to a vote on my amendment on ethanol at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 851

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, there has been ample argument in 
opposition to the Bingaman amendment. The Senator from New Mexico, the 
manager of the bill, would merely like to say, while I accept the 
argument of the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico, it seems 
to this Senator from New Mexico that to adopt the amendment truly 
creates an unworkable situation with reference to the source, supply, 
and the management of petroleum needs in the United States. That is all 
I have to say. I believe there is ample flexibility in the underlying 
bill. I do not believe we ought to make it more difficult to turn the 
spigot on and off with reference to the impact of ethanol on the 
gasoline supply in the country.
  I believe it is almost unworkable, for any President to decide, for 
instance, what caused the increase and to turn that on and off with 
reference to the supply and refining capacity and the like.
  With that, I yield the floor. I am prepared to vote up or down on the 
Bingaman amendment to the ethanol amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to suggest the absence a quorum for about 10 
minutes. Senators are being put on notice during that period of time 
that we are going to vote shortly. That is why we are having a 10-
minute quorum call at this time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Madam President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that 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 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     McCain
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Sununu
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Crapo
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 851) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Madam 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.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, 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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to fellow Senators, we are going 
to have a unanimous-consent request that will pertain to ethanol. There 
will be no further votes this evening. We will have a unanimous-consent 
request regarding three amendments on ethanol that will be entered into 
shortly. All three will be voted on tomorrow, and that will dispose of 
the ethanol second-degree amendments.
  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. 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.
  Mr. REID. After visiting with the two managers of the bill, the next 
amendment that will be offered on this Frist-

[[Page S7372]]

Daschle amendment is one by the Senator from New York on behalf of 
himself and Senator Clinton. The agreement on that is that there will 
be 20 minutes equally divided. That basically is what would happen on 
this amendment. This is a second-degree amendment. So that is all the 
protection they need.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be recognized to offer 
his amendment, that there be 20 minutes equally divided on this 
amendment, and that the vote would occur sometime tomorrow, which will 
be subject to the two leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do we have the rest of the consent ready?
  Mr. REID. He is not quite ready yet.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator think we should wait now and do it or 
let Senator Schumer begin?
  Just so everybody understands, we do intend to have a consent that 
disposes of all three amendments, with votes on all three, Schumer and 
two others. But that consent agreement will come along shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 853 to Amendment No. 850

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and 
     Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 853 to amendment 
     No. 850.

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To exclude Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts I, 
               IV, and V from the renewable fuel program)

       On page 4, strike lines 6 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(i) Promulgation.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall 
     promulgate regulations to ensure that gasoline sold or 
     introduced into commerce in the United States (except in 
     Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts I, IV, and V), 
     on an annual average basis, contains the applicable volume of 
     renewable fuel determined in accordance with subparagraph 
     (B).

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would modify the renewable fuels provision of this amendment and limit 
it to Petroleum Administration Defense Districts II and III where corn 
and ethanol are most naturally available.
  The objection that those of us from the coasts and the Rocky Mountain 
areas have with this amendment is very simple. While corn is plentiful 
in the Middle West, as this chart shows, and ethanol will be a good 
additive for gasoline in terms of cleaner air, in terms of oxidation, 
it will not work on the coasts. First, we do not have the corn 
available. It has to be shipped. It has to be made into ethanol and 
then shipped. Since ethanol is combustible, shipping is expensive. It 
will raise prices for us. We do not know how much. There is a dispute. 
But when there is a better way to do it that will not raise any 
gasoline prices, there is no reason we should not be for this.
  So this amendment would basically be very simple. It would say that 
PADDs II and III, the corn-growing areas of the country which produce 
most of the ethanol, would, indeed, still have the mandate before them, 
but it would allow PADDs I and IV and V to be exempt.
  This body has no reason not to exempt. We have already exempted 
Alaska and Hawaii because they are far away. The issue is not the 
amount of water or land that must be traversed; it is how far the 
ethanol has to be transported, and it has to be transported quite a 
long distance to get to these other areas.
  So I join with my colleague, Senator Clinton, to offer this amendment 
and to say the main reason we are against this is very simple: There 
are cheaper ways to do this. This will raise the price of gasoline, and 
it will be an unfair burden, an unfair tax, on many of the people who 
live in the two coastal areas of this country and in the Rocky Mountain 
States.
  Every one of my colleagues from the PADD IV, PADD V, and PADD I areas 
are not representing their constituents unless they vote for this 
amendment because the benefit for the few corn growers in our area will 
be far exceeded by the detriment to every driver in the area in terms 
of increased gasoline prices.
  Some say it will not raise prices much. Most of the studies are 
admittedly divided on that, but there is too much evidence that says 
they will. If there is a better way to do it that does not require a 
mandate, why not? I say to my free market colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, it is very hypocritical to be for the free market except 
when it benefits a product in their State. To force ethanol on areas 
that could do it better in other ways is not free market.
  Ethanol is already subsidized dramatically. I have supported money 
for our corn growers, even though we have very few in New York. But if 
we are going to do it, it ought to come out of the Treasury, not out of 
the pockets of drivers throughout the Nation. We are going to be making 
a major mistake. We will come back 3, 4, 5 years from now, if we pass 
the Frist-Daschle amendment, and we will regret it.
  Remember the catastrophic tax? This is the same type of thing. I do 
not want any of my colleagues to say they did not know, because we are 
giving them warning loudly and clearly that the chances that this will 
raise gasoline prices significantly are too high to risk it, 
particularly when there are other ways to require the clean burning of 
fuels other than ethanol.

  So for my colleague from Tennessee and for my colleague from South 
Dakota, who are both fine people, we are not exempting their areas. If 
they want to do it there, that is fine. It is not going to cost them 
much. It will help their corn growers and not cost their drivers much. 
But for all the people on the east coast, the west coast, and the Rocky 
Mountain States, this makes a huge difference.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following be the only remaining second-degree amendments to No. 850 and 
that they be related to ethanol: No. 1, Schumer, which we are hearing 
now, 20 minutes equally divided; Senator Boxer, 1 hour equally divided 
on two amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that following 
debate on the Schumer amendment this evening, the amendment be 
temporarily set aside. I further ask consent that when the Senate 
resumes consideration of the Energy bill on Thursday, Senator Boxer be 
recognized--at that time, she be recognized in order to offer her first 
amendment.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following debate on the above 
listed amendments, they be temporarily set aside and the votes occur in 
relation to the amendments in the order offered at a time determined by 
the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic assistant leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to object, but I want to ask a question 
because I am rereading what I just read. It does not seem to me that it 
says there is a second Boxer amendment.
  Mr. REID. Yes, she has two. It does say that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It says Senator Boxer be recognized to offer her first 
amendment.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the 
above listed amendments--it does not say her second amendment.
  Mr. REID. We want to make sure she gets to offer her second 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Boxer has indicated she would be 
willing to come anytime in the morning. It

[[Page S7373]]

is my understanding, after having spoken to the managers of the bill, 
that she would need to be here at approximately 10 a.m. tomorrow.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is about right.
  Mr. REID. We will go into session at 9:30. Staff should advise 
Senator Boxer to be here at 10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, maybe I did not make it clear, because it 
was not clear, that we are going to have three votes. I assumed we 
would go right into the first vote and not need the 2 minutes, but we 
are going to do this later, so Senator Schumer would also need the 2 
minutes as with the two Boxer amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from New York has 
5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't see anyone here who wants to argue in 
opposition to you. We have already voted. I know the Senator from New 
York has great, innovative capacity and that he has proudly come up 
with an amendment the likes of which the Senate has never seen or 
heard, but I have an inclination that it is similar to what we have 
voted heretofore; I don't believe it has been offered to do anything 
other than cause significant mischief to the ethanol bill which is 
before the Senate, which I understand has very broad support.
  So my argument would merely be, in all deference, to suggest that 
enough is enough, and just as we voted heretofore in opposition to the 
other amendments, we follow suit and vote against the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from New York.
  I only used 3 minutes and I yield back any other time in opposition. 
I thank the Senator for being generous in only using a small amount of 
the Senate's time this evening. I do mean the latter seriously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I conclude, first, one difference with 
this amendment--it has the support of the ranking Democrat on the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which the others did not. 
Second, it affects all of the coastal States, not just one or two.
  On the other amendments there was a general opt-out. Those who 
advocate ethanol would say every State could opt out and we would not 
have an ethanol program. Here, the main States that care about it in 
PADDs II and III, half of the States in the country or less, would not 
be allowed to opt out. It would be cheaper for them.
  I say to my good friend, ``mischief''? We are creating mischief with 
this amendment? My goodness, the amendment my good friend the chairman 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is creating affecting the 
drivers in more than half the country is enormous, all to help the corn 
growers and to help the ethanol industry. That is the kind of mischief 
that people do not like about Washington.
  They are saying, you are telling me, Mr. John Q. Smith of New York, 
Miss Mary E. Jones of Oregon, Miss Young Teenager who just learned to 
drive from Denver, CO, they must use ethanol even if it costs more.
  I see my good friend from Pennsylvania, one of the great upholders of 
free market principles--except when it comes to steel and corn.
  Let's be realistic here.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator from New York would yield, if he checks 
my vote on the last 2 amendments he would find I am a great defender of 
the free market principle and have joined the Senator from New York in 
support of those.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I retract my remarks. I should not have assumed the 
worst.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I say to my friend from New Mexico who also upholds free 
market principles that this is not a free market bill. This is the 
opposite. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page has come out 
against this proposal.
  Can't we form a nice little coalition of the States poorly affected, 
the States that are hurt by this, plus all those who believe in the 
great free market, like my good friend from Pennsylvania on the issue 
of corn?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I remind the Senator, in response to the Senator from 
New Mexico and his remarks about this being more of the same and enough 
is enough and his comment, one thing is different, and that is that the 
ranking minority member of the Energy Committee was on his amendment, I 
remind the Senator that same Senator has offered his own amendment and 
it did not get enough votes. If you get as many votes as he got, you 
are doing quite well. I don't know that you can expect more by saying 
he is on it since he has tried his best and failed already.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, I simply say to my friend from New 
Mexico, the underlying is so bad and so egregious it is worth trying 
and trying again.
  You know the old song: what made you think that ram could punch a 
hole in the dam? Everyone knows a ram can't punch a hole in the dam, 
but he had high hopes. He had high hopes, high, apple pie-in-the-sky 
hopes.
  That is what we have here. We know if we persist, because we are 
right, we can do it, just like the ad, that could not move a banana 
tree plant in the same aforementioned song.
  We are going to keep trying. We know it is an uphill fight. We do not 
think that is because we are wrong. We think that is because there is a 
lot of power on the other side. I guess our lack of strength and votes 
thus far is somewhat made up for in the passion we felt about this 
issue in these amendments.
  If my colleague would like to conclude, I yield him whatever time 
remains.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am anxiously awaiting for you to decide you have used 
your time up. Have you?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask the President if I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 54 seconds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. In deference to my good friend from New Mexico, and in 
hopes that he will see the error of his ways, I yield back those 54 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am so thrilled. That is the first act of generosity 
that has occurred with reference to the chairman, who has been trying 
to get this bill completed. I am very thrilled.
  Tomorrow we will have three votes, as I indicated, starting sometime 
after 10 o'clock. They will all be on ethanol. We have a bill with all 
kinds of things in it and we will just be finishing the subject matter 
of both votes on ethanol.
  I do thank the minority managers for their efforts, in particular 
Senator Reid, in trying to narrow down the number of amendments on the 
Democratic side, which they have done.
  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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________