Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 82 (Monday, June 20, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 82 (Monday, June 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6786-S6795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure,
affordable and reliable energy.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator,
Mr. Wyden, is here and desires to speak.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 792

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee, Senator Domenici. I ask unanimous consent to call up at this
time an amendment I filed with Senator Dorgan, No. 792.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, is there a pending
amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no pending amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. He does not need consent to bring up the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
correct.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for himself and Mr.
Dorgan proposes an amendment numbered 792.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the suspension of strategic petroleum reserve
acquisitions)

On page 208, strike lines 11 through 20 and insert the
following:
(e) Fill Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Capacity.--
(1) Definition of price of oil.--In this subsection, the
term ``price of oil'' means the West Texas Intermediate 1-
month future price of oil on the New York Mercantile
Exchange.
(2) Acquisition.--The Secretary shall, as expeditiously as
practicable, without incurring excessive cost or appreciably
affecting the price of gasoline or heating oil to consumers,
acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the 1,000,000,000-barrel
capacity authorized under section 154(a) of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6234(a)), in accordance with
the sections 159 and 160 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 6239, 6240).
(3) Suspension of acquisitions.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall suspend acquisitions
of petroleum under paragraph (2) when the market day closing
price of oil exceeds $58.28 per barrel (adjusted in
accordance with the Consumer Price Index for all-urban
consumers United States city average, as published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics) for 10 consecutive trading days.
(B) Acquisition.--Acquisitions suspended under subparagraph
(A) shall resume when the market day closing price of oil
remains below $40 per barrel (adjusted in accordance with the
Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers United States
city average, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
for 10 consecutive trading days.

[[Page S6787]]

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his thoughtfulness.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would watch the floor for me
while I leave for 10 minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. Absolutely. It is my intent to speak on this amendment I
offer with Senator Dorgan and then lay it aside. My hope is we can work
something out. I know Senator Collins and Senator Levin are working on
something and desire to work with you, as well. If we bring it up now,
we can start the discussion on it and work something out.
I see Senator Bingaman. He has been so thoughtful throughout the
process as well.
Mr. President and colleagues, the reason I have come to the floor
today is because oil prices per barrel are now at an all-time record
high. If you scour this legislation, it is hard to find anything in it
that would provide relief to the American consumer any time soon. It is
my hope as we go forward with this debate, at a time when prices are in
the stratosphere, that we work in a bipartisan way and at least provide
some help in this legislation for the consumer who is getting clobbered
by these historically high costs.
What especially concerns me is it seems to this Member of the Senate
that the Federal Government actually makes the problem of high oil and
gasoline prices worse every day. Every single day, the Federal
Government, through its policies, is compounding the problem the
consumers are seeing at the pump because it has been the policy of the
Federal Government to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the worst
possible time--when prices are at record-high levels.
When the prices are at a record-high level, it seems to me this is
not the time to be taking oil out of the private market and putting it
in the Government reserve. It just does not make economic sense to add
more pressure to what is already a very tight oil supply. Reducing the
supply of oil on the market, of course, leads to higher oil prices.
That is simply supply and demand. Because oil accounts for 49 percent
of the cost of gasoline, that means higher prices for consumers at the
pump. For the life of me, I do not see how it makes sense for
consumers, who are already paying sky-high prices at the pump, to then
have their Government force them to pay higher prices by taking oil out
of the private market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. So it does not make sense for the consumer, and, in my view,
it does not make sense for taxpayers as well, who have to pay record-
high prices for the oil that is taken off the market.
Now, this is not just my opinion. The Senate Energy Committee heard
testimony last year by experts who said the policy with respect to
filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are so high jacks
up costs. I asked John Kilduff, senior vice president of energy risk
management at Fimat USA, whether the SPR fill rate of 300,000 barrels
per day was contributing to oil price increases. Before the committee
that day, which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Domenici, chairs, and our friend, Senator Bingaman, is the ranking
minority Member, when we were all in our committee, the expert
witnesses said they do believe these policies are contributing to oil
price increases. Mr. Kilduff specifically stated:

A fill rate of 100,000 represents, obviously, 700,000
barrels for a week. At 300,000 it is 2.1 million barrels. A
2.1 million barrel increase in U.S. commercial crude oil
inventory in a particular weekly report would be a big build
for the particular week and would help with downward pressure
on crude oil prices.

So I would say to colleagues that this notion that this is something
the Senate can just let the Secretary of Energy do what he wants is
belied by the expert testimony we have had before the Senate Energy
Committee where experts specifically said that a fill rate of several
hundred thousand barrels per day is contributing to oil price
increases.
As far as I can tell, under the policy we are now seeing at the
Energy Department, it does not matter how high the prices are, they are
just going to keep filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They will
continue to take oil off the private market no matter how high the
prices get.
I would just like to say, Mr. President and colleagues, I am not
talking about taking oil out of the Reserve. I know people very often
bring that up. I am just saying it does not make sense to have the same
fill rate when you are talking about historically high prices because
that very high cost of filling it at that point directly hurts the
consumer at the pump.
On Friday, and again today, when the price of oil skyrocketed to the
highest price ever recorded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, our
Government has continued to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Earlier this spring, when gasoline prices set an all-time record high
of $2.28 for a gallon of gas, the Energy Department continued to fill
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So I say to those who have
reservations about what I am advocating, I would simply ask, how high
do prices have to go before we stop pursuing policies that drive the
prices even higher? At some point, there should be some limit when it
comes to the Federal Government actually compounding the difficulties
consumers are having at the pump.
Under the language currently in the bill, there are no limits. There
seems to be some language about ``excessive'' costs, but there is
nothing that actually blocks our Government from filling the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve if the price goes even higher than the current record
price of $59.23 per barrel. So I want to repeat that. Even if the price
goes to $60 or $70 or $80, there is nothing that would force our
Government to change its policy of filling the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve at these very high prices. So with no restrictions in sight, I
guess the Government can just continue indefinitely to fill the Reserve
with these record prices.
To address this problem, my amendment directs that the Secretary of
Energy suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the
prices go above the record-high level in the market and stay above that
record-high level for 10 consecutive trading days. The suspension of
filling would continue until the price of oil falls back down for 10
consecutive days.
I also note the House of Representatives at least is trying to move
in the direction of a bit of consumer protection because they have
included a prohibition against continuing to fill the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve until the price drops below $40 per barrel. Under my
amendment, current SPR filling could go forward. But additional filling
would be halted when prices are at record-high levels unless there is
some consumer protection for our citizens.

The bottom line is we cannot continue to allow filling of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve when our economy suffers due to high gas
and oil prices without providing some safety valve. Unless this
amendment is adopted or unless we can work out a compromise with
Senator Collins and Senator Levin and other colleagues who worked on
this--unless we can get some legislation in place--there will be no
standard for action or any certainty there will be some consumer
protection for our citizens when oil prices are out of control.
Now, some may argue there should not be these kinds of price triggers
for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I guess that argument is: Let's
just leave it to the Secretary of Energy. Well, there are parts of this
bill, such as section 313, that do not leave matters to the Secretary's
discretion, such as when you are talking about price relief, royalty
relief for oil and gas producers. Section 313 of the legislation has
clear price levels for when the oil companies get a break from the
normal royalty policy.
So what we have here is a double standard. There are price levels to
protect oil and gas producers when it comes to their royalties but
absolutely no protection for the consumer who is getting clobbered at
the pump and who could get some relief if the Government simply did not
fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when prices are at a
record-high level.
The last point I would make is suspending the fill of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve when prices are at a record-high level will not hurt
this country's energy security. The Reserve already has more than 693
million barrels now in storage. That is the highest level in history.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is expected to be filled to

[[Page S6788]]

its current authorized capacity by the end of the summer.
What is more, a 2003 study by the Senate Permanent Investigations
Subcommittee found that increased filling of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve when prices were high did not increase overall U.S. oil
supplies. Instead, because of the higher prices, oil companies took oil
out of their own inventories rather than buy higher priced oil on the
market. That does not increase our overall oil supply or our Nation's
energy security.
So what we have is record prices for the consumer, record costs in
terms of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Federal
Government, in effect, providing free oil storage for high-priced oil
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so oil companies can reduce their
own inventories and storage costs. That is not energy security; that is
just pounding the consumer and taxpayers once more.
For these reasons, I strongly urge colleagues to place some limits on
when the Energy Department can fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
When prices are at an all-time high, it seems that to do otherwise
denies consumers a fair shake and taxpayers a fair shake. It is my view
the Senate can take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and off
consumers who are getting squeezed at the pump without compromising our
national security. One way to do it is along the lines of the amendment
I propose this afternoon.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oregon for
his comments and his amendment.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Wyden, just offered
an amendment on his behalf and mine. He spoke in support of it.
Obviously, I am a cosponsor so I support the amendment. It is an
amendment that is very simple. We are putting oil away underground in
something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or SPR. The purpose of
putting oil underground at this point is in the event that we would
have an emergency at some point in the future, we would have a
substantial inventory of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
That SPR is nearly full. As I understand, it is well over 98 percent
filled at this point. Yet we are still, each day, taking about 100,000
barrels of oil off the market and putting it underground at a time when
we are effectively paying the highest price ever for that oil in order
to put it there.
There are two problems with that. No. 1, at a time when we have very
high prices, which means we have lower supplies and higher demand, it
makes no sense to have 100,000 barrels a day taken off the market and
stuck underground. Even more than that, it makes no sense to do this,
with the last increment to be put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
at a time when oil is $55, $57, $58 a barrel.
Our amendment is very simple. It would suspend the acquisition of oil
at these inflated prices, suspend the acquisition of oil at a time when
we need more supply, not less, and it would allow the acquisition to
complete filling the SPR when the price of a barrel of oil reaches $40
per barrel or below.
My hope is the Senate will adopt the amendment. It is just common
sense. It is not rocket science to believe that if you have a Strategic
Petroleum Reserve almost filled, you should not go to the market and
take $55 or $57 oil in order to take inventory off the market at a time
when you have record prices. That doesn't make any sense.
We are asking that the Senate approve the amendment.
Before the Senator from New Mexico leaves the floor, I have another
matter I wish to address, but I don't intend to address something in
morning business that would interrupt the work on the bill. I ask
unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes
with the understanding that if someone comes to the floor with an
amendment on the Energy bill, I will defer. I don't want to delay the
bill. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes in morning business with
that understanding.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't think that is going to be any major obstacle to
the progress we are making on the Senate floor this afternoon. I have
no objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 1
minute?
Mr. BUNNING. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Bunning
from the State of Kentucky, is going to speak, and I assume he is going
to talk about the Energy bill; is that correct?
Mr. BUNNING. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to say as a preamble to his speech, for those
who are going to listen to him, that he is a member of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and has been for some time. Most of the
time people think that the committee is a committee of interior, public
land States, but it also has a lot to do with coal and our energy
future, diversification of our energy resources.
We have had a marvelous committee. Part of it is because of Members
such as Senator Bunning. He has been a great participant. He comes to
the meetings, he works hard, he offers amendments. He understands we
need an energy bill. He does not win all the time, but he has his
views, and he has been a strong proponent for us getting our house in
order and to use as much American energy as possible for our future. I
commend him for it.
I trust we will get a bill out of the Senate and out of conference,
one he can vote with not just a ``yea'' but with a hearty ``yea,'' not
just one of those softballs but one of those fastballs he used to
throw. That is what we are looking for.
I yield the floor and thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Domenici for his
extremely hard work in trying to get an energy policy for the United
States since I have been in the Senate.
Many of us have spoken on this Senate floor several times about the
need for our national energy policy. We have been here before debating
an energy bill. To some, it may seem like the same old song and same
old dance. But here we are again. I am more optimistic than I have ever
been about finally getting an energy bill to the President's desk.
I commend Chairman Domenici for his leadership and determination in
helping to put America on an independent path with this energy
legislation. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Energy
Committee.
The Energy bill before us is a good starting point that attempts to
strike a balance between conservation and production. In the past,
Congress failed to make progress on energy policy because we tried to
make a choice between conservation and production, but it does not have
to be one or the other.
Many of us understand that a balanced and sensible energy policy must
boost production of domestic energy sources as well as promote
conservation. This Energy bill takes a good step toward striking a
balance, and passing an energy bill is important now more than ever.
We all know the price of energy has risen very sharply in the last
few years, and it is only going to keep rising. It goes without saying
that energy costs touch every single part of our economy and our lives.
The average

[[Page S6789]]

price of gasoline has risen, for unleaded regular around this country,
to about $2.13 a gallon, and the price of oil is bumping up against $60
a barrel. Natural gas, coal, and other fuels have also seen record
prices this year. This is hitting Americans in their wallets,
especially now when so many families are hitting the road for
vacations.

Higher energy prices also slow business growth and force businesses
to pass increased pricing on to consumers with higher priced goods.
While passing an energy bill might not help energy prices in the short
term, it will make a big difference over the long term.
This bill's domestic energy production provisions and increased
conservation provisions will help slow these spikes of price increases.
But without a new energy policy, there is not much we can do about
rising energy prices. Oil producers and production are at full
capacity, and with China and India upping their demands for oil, the
world oil supply will be drawn down while prices continue to rise. This
means that we cannot just try to conserve our way out of any kind of
energy problem. We must find other sources of reliable and low-cost
fuels or our economy and national security will be at risk.
We continue to depend on oil from some of the most dangerous and
unstable parts of the world. It is a recipe for disaster.
The stock market jumps up and down, all around, depending on the
latest reports of pipeline sabotage in the Middle East. Everyone
wonders where the next terrorist attack is going to hit. We also worry
about Iran's developing nuclear weapons, and we are trying with our
allies to figure out a diplomatic answer that will bring stability to
the region. But the Iranians do not have a lot of incentive to deal
when they are getting nearly $60 a barrel for their oil. In a way, our
increasing need for energy is cutting our influence in the part of the
world where we need it the most. We have to reduce our reliance on
foreign oil and do a better job internally of taking care of our own
energy needs.
Congress has been playing political football with this issue over the
past few Congresses, and it is time to end the game. Our Nation and our
national security continue to be at risk. We do not want the United
States beholden to other countries just to keep our engines running and
our lights turned on.
It impresses me to know that the bill contains some strengthened
electrical provisions. We have outgrown our electrical system, and
changes need to be made. One of the provisions in the bill is PUHCA
repeal, which will go a long way in helping our energy system meet
increasing demands.
Also, we desperately need to build new transmission lines. I am glad
to see that this bill has some provisions which will help ensure that
happens. Building a better electric system, however, should not require
mandates for electricity companies to get into regional transmission
organizations. States and companies should be able to decide on their
own what is best for their consumers. So I am pleased to see a
provision in the bill that explicitly prevents FERC from mandating
RTOs.
The Energy bill will also help reduce our dependence on foreign oil
by increasing domestic energy production. It also provides important
conservation provisions which will help protect the environment. And
because coal is such a key industry in Kentucky, I am pleased that this
bill contains clean coal provisions that I have authored and been
pushing for a long time. The clean coal provisions will help to
increase domestic energy production and help improve the environment.
Coal is an important part of our energy plans. It is cheap,
plentiful, and we do not have to go very far to find it. For my home
State and the States of others, this means more jobs and a cleaner
place to live. Clean coal technologies will significantly reduce
emissions and sharply increase efficiencies in turning coal into
electricity.
Previously, our Government overpromoted production of one source of
energy--natural gas. This not only depleted our supply, but it created
so much demand that it completely outstripped supply and left Americans
to pay higher prices for just this one energy source.
A sound energy policy should promote the use of many different types
of fuels and technologies instead of favoring just one source. As we
have seen time and again, putting all our eggs in one basket simply
does not work.
I am glad we are turning things around and taking steps toward making
sure clean coal and other sources play a vital role in meeting our
future energy needs.
This bill encourages research and development of clean coal
technology by authorizing about $2.4 billion for the department of
energy.
These funds will be used to advance new technologies to significantly
reduce emissions and increase efficiency of turning coal into
electricity.
And almost $2 billion will be used for the clean coal power
initiative.
This is where the Department of Energy will work with industry to
advance efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness
of new clean coal technologies.
And the Finance Committee's energy tax package provides $2.7 billion
to encourage the use of coal and deployment of clean coal technologies.
Coal plays an important role in our economy. It provides over 50
percent of the energy needed for our Nation's energy.
The Energy Information Administration expects coal will continue to
remain the primary fuel for electricity generation over the next 2
decades.
As my colleagues can see, I am a little biased when it comes to coal.
It means so much to my State, and it is such an affordable and
plentiful fuel to help America in her quest for energy independency.
The 21st century economy is going to require increased amounts of
reliable, clean, and affordable energy to keep our Nation running, and
clean coal can help fill that requirement.
With research advances, we have the know-how to better balance
conservation with the need for increased energy production at home.
The diversity of this energy package to promote new fuels is quite
impressive.
There are provisions for nuclear, hydro-power, solar, wind, bio-fuels
and other renewable energy sources.
All this put together with the bill's conservation provisions will
help America meet its sensible and long-term energy strategy and goals.
I look forward to the continued debate and consideration of this
bill.
And I hope we can get it approved, conferenced and sent to the
President's desk for his consideration.
The quicker we can do this, then the sooner we can help make our
environment, economy, and national security stronger, and the sooner we
can become more energy independent from other sources.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to address some statements made
last week, during the debate on the Bingaman amendment No. 791,
regarding community acceptance of renewable energy in Vermont. After I
left the floor, one Senator tried to make a point in opposition to the
creation of a national renewable portfolio standard by referencing some
opposition to a wind power project in Vermont. I want to set the record
straight: though we have had some siting issues, Vermonters
overwhelmingly support renewable energy over nuclear, coal, or natural
gas.
The Senate should not confuse local concerns about the appropriate
location for wind power siting in Vermont as a monolithic objection to
any new renewable energy in my State. In fact, the views are contrary
to such a conjuncture, even in the case of wind power. Numerous polls
throughout the last decade have consistently shown that Vermonters
support wind energy. In fact, a survey in March 2004 found 74 percent
of respondents said they would consider wind turbines along a Vermont
mountain ridge either beautiful or acceptable. The same survey found 83
percent of Vermonters choose renewable energy from wind, solar, hydro
and wood as preferable to other energy sources.
Lawrence Mott, Chair of Renewable Energy Vermont, which commissioned
the energy poll said, ``It's clear, Vermonters want more renewable
energy, including wind turbines, and that they find installation on
ridgelines very acceptable.''
Vermont's history with wind power goes back to the turn of the
century when farmers used windmills to pump

[[Page S6790]]

drinking water from their wells. One of the first great experiments in
converting wind to energy was conducted atop a peak in Vermont called
Grandpa's Knob in Castleton, Vermont. It was, at the time, the world's
largest wind turbine and produced 1.25 MW with the first synchronous
electric generator. I recall visiting this wind turbine with my
grandfather, an architect, and we marveled at its beauty and ingenuity.
It was the first time energy from a wind turbine was interconnected to
the utility grid.
Vermont's interest in wind power has continued to grow since then.
Just look at Green Mountain Power's wind farm in Searsburg, Vermont.
Eleven wind turbines generate enough electricity to power more than
2,000 homes, reducing toxic air emissions by 22 million pounds compared
to the impacts if that amount of electricity had been produced through
combustion of fossil fuels.
Vermont has a tremendous capacity for wind power, as several of my
colleagues have demonstrated with wind maps produced from the U.S.
Department of Energy. Industry representatives in Vermont envision a
handful of wind farms scattered about Vermont producing enough
electricity to power about 50,000 homes, which would account for about
10 percent of the State's electricity needs.
Last week, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed a new renewable energy
bill into law. He did so at the manufacturing plant of Northern Power
Systems, a world leader in off-grid power systems. Northern Power is
about to ship seven 100-kilowatt wind turbines to three communities in
remote western Alaska, and the Governor used a 31-foot-long blade from
one of these turbines as his writing table.
Clearly, Vermont's Governor and Vermont's legislators see the value
of renewable energy. A large majority of Vermonters support wind energy
and renewable energy. And I am very optimistic about the role wind
energy can play in satisfying a growing proportion of this Nation's
energy needs.
Last week the Senate defeated an important amendment that would have
helped set this nation on a course to significantly reduce our reliance
on foreign oil. It is unfortunate that a majority of my colleagues did
not see fit to put the U.S. on the right course--to break our addiction
to foreign oil.
H.R. 6 requires a 1 million barrel a day oil saving goal.
Unfortunately, this goal would actually result in more oil being
imported, not less. In fact, the U.S. will still be importing 14.4
million barrels a day under the underlying bill's goal. Slowing down
the increased rate of consumption alone is not enough. We should be
setting an ambitious goal that actually reduces imported oil, not a
goal that will result in more oil being imported.
Instead, the Senate refused to set a national goal to reduce the
Nation's addiction to foreign oil. The Cantwell amendment would have
established that goal--to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 40
percent by 2025. By turning our backs on this goal, we are sending the
wrong message. Reducing our addiction to foreign oil is essential to
the economic security of our Nation. We cannot continue to rely on
unstable foreign countries for the energy that runs the economic
machine of this Nation.
Fluctuating energy prices and instability in the Middle East once
again are prompting calls for energy independence for the U.S.
Federal efforts to ensure freedom from fluctuations in energy prices
have been advocated by every President, both Republican and Democrat,
since 1973 and the infamous oil boycott. As Americans we count on
energy to protect our security, to fuel our cars, to provide heat, air
conditioning and light for our homes, to manufacture goods, and to
transport supplies. In all of these needs, we, as consumers, pay the
price for fluctuations in the global energy market.
Reducing our reliance on foreign oil is essential and the most basic
step we need to take to address this crisis. The Cantwell amendment
would have resulted in about 7.6 million barrels per day less oil being
imported in 2025. Those savings are equivalent to the amount of oil the
U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia. We can and should stop the
oil cartels from controlling the future of this Nation.
In addition, I believe setting an oil saving goal could have
beneficial effects on our air quality. Since a vast majority of current
oil consumption is from the transportation sector, I believe setting an
oil saving goal would encourage auto manufacturers to voluntarily
improve efficiency of cars and trucks. As our population continues to
grow and more people are driving more miles, it is essential to our air
quality to continue to improve fuel efficiency of the vehicles we
drive.
As it stands now, this bill does not require auto manufacturers or
others in the transportation sector--the plane, train and truck
sector--to meet corporate average fuel economy standards. I believe
increased fuel economy standards can and should also be included in
this bill. But short of adding new standards, setting this goal would
have been a significant step in that direction.
By failing to set an oil saving goal, I think we have failed to state
one of the most basic goals of this bill--a real reduction the amount
of foreign imported oil.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator is recognized.

Amendment No. 799

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr.
Carper, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered
799.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today as
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air,
Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety. This amendment is a bipartisan
piece of legislation that was introduced last Thursday. It is called
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, or S. 1265.
This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee
Chairman Jim Inhofe and Ranking Member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom
Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and
Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting
public health, it would establish voluntary National and State-level
grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions.
Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the
new air quality standards.
Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the
legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA,
regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new
diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group
of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense, Clean Air Task
Force, Union of Concerned Scientists, Ohio Environmental Council,
Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc., Diesel Technology Forum, Emissions
Control Technology Association, Associated General Contractors of
America, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
in Dayton, OH., and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission.
The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is
why this amendment is so special. I ask unanimous consent that letters
of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S6791]]

Caterpillar Inc.,

Mossville, IL, June 16, 2005.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: Caterpillar is in full support of
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. Thank you for
assembling a broad coalition of stakeholders in this
bipartisan effort to modernize and retrofit millions of
diesel engines across the country. It is impressive to see
such a strong coalition of environmental groups, regulators
and industry representatives working hard to advance retrofit
as a national energy and environmental policy issue.
As a company. Caterpillar has invested more than $1 billion
in new clean diesel engine technology. No power source can
match the reliability, efficiency, durability and cost
effectiveness of the diesel engine. From the late 1980s to
2007, Caterpillar will have reduced diesel emissions in on-
road trucks and school buses by 98 percent. When meeting
Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 regulations,
Caterpillar will reduce emissions for off-road machines an
additional 90 percent by 2014. This ensures that clean diesel
engines will continue to be the workhorses of our economy for
years to come.
Our customers who operate fleets of buses, trucks,
construction machines and the equipment that safeguards our
homes and lives in non-attainment areas are very interested
in retrofit technology. However, they need a nationally
consistent approach to address these challenges. Your bill,
which focuses on grants and loans, wisely lets the market
determine the right technologies for various product
applications. Retrofitted engines last longer and, most
importantly, have fewer emissions.
Thank you again for your commitment to this legislation.
You can count on Caterpillar's support as the bill moves
forward in Congress.
Sincerely,
James J. Parker,
Vice President.
____

Environmental Defense,

New York, NY, June 17, 2005.

Re Introduction of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2005.

Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich, I am writing to express
Environmental Defense's support for the Diesel Emission
Reduction Act of 2005 which you are introducing today.
As you are aware the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
regulations establishing new standards for diesel buses and
freight trucks and new nonroad diesel equipment will slash
diesel emissions by more than 80% from 2000 levels,
ultimately saving 20,000 lives a year in 2030. But because
these federal standards apply only to new diesel engines and
because diesel engines are so durable, the high levels of
pollution from existing diesel sources will persist
throughout the long lives of the engines in service today.
Your legislation establishing a national program to cut
pollution from today's diesel engines would speed the
transition to cleaner diesel engines and achieve healthier
air well in advance of that schedule. The program design
principles embodied in your bill help ensure that the funds
for diesel emission reduction projects will be spent in an
equitable and efficient manner.
Environmental Defense has long been a proponent of smart
policy design. We have promoted market-based and cost-
effective programs such as cap-and-trade as a solution to a
variety of environmental issues dating back to the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendment.
Environmental Defense commends you on your leadership in
cleaning up the existing diesel fleet. We look forward to
working with you and your staff to ensure the passage and
funding of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.
Sincerely,
Fred Krupp,
President.
____

The Associated General

Contractors of America,

Alexandria, VA, June 15, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Associated General Contractors
of America (AGC) thanks you for taking the lead in
introducing The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) to
provide assistance for owners to retrofit their diesel
powered equipment. The legislation would establish grant and
loan programs to achieve significant reduction in diesel
emissions. This initiative could prove to be extremely
beneficial to local areas attempting to come into compliance
with the Clean Air Act.
The construction industry welcomes this legislation because
it will provide the needed assistance to help contractors
retrofit their off road equipment. Contractors use diesel
powered off road equipment to build projects that enhance our
environment and quality of life by improving transportation
system, water quality, offices, homes, navigation and other
vital infrastructure. This equipment tends to have a long
life, and therefore is in use for many years before it is
replaced.
Reducing the emissions from the engines that power this
equipment is a costly undertaking and is particularly
burdensome for small businesses. Providing grants to aid
contractors with the expense of retrofitting is a highly cost
effective use of federal funds.
AGC applauds your efforts in taking an incentive approach
to addressing environmental concerns. AGC urges that this
legislation be enacted quickly so that environmental benefits
can be achieved as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Stephen E. Sandherr,
Chief Executive Officer.
____

Cummins Inc.,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: Cummins Inc. strongly supports the
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, which establishes a
voluntary national retrofit program aimed at reducing
emissions from existing diesel engines, and congratulates you
on your efforts to bring the diesel industry and
environmental groups together on this effort.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 recognizes the
clean air challenges ahead of us and puts in place a system
to help address them. In the near future, states must develop
plans to address particulate matter and ozone emission
reductions to meet the new air quality standards. A federally
sponsored voluntary diesel retrofit initiative is a great
tool to help states and communities meet these new air
quality standards. Your legislation recognizes that one size
does not fit all, and there are a number of technologies,
which can be implemented to modernize diesel fleets. The term
retrofit not only describes an after treatment exhaust device
used to reduce key vehicle emissions but also refers to
engine repair/rebuild, refuel, repower, and replacement.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 represents a
sound use of tax payer dollars. Diesel retrofits have proven
to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reductions
strategies. Furthermore, another advantage to retrofits is
that reductions can be realized immediately after
installation and can be particularly important in
metropolitan areas where high volumes of heavy-duty trucks
are prevalent and/or where major construction projects are
underway for long periods of time.
Finally, I, again, wanted to congratulate you on your
efforts to bring our industry together with the environmental
community on this legislation. This legislation is truly a
model on how to find solutions to environmental problems. It
is our hope that the process, which you put together to craft
this legislation, can be used to further address the older
fleets as well as advance efforts, which recognize the energy
efficiency and environmental benefits of clean diesel
technologies.
Again, Cummins thanks you for your vision on these issues
and looks forward to working with you to pass this
legislation.
Very truly yours,
Mike Cross,
Vice President, Cummins Inc. and General Manager,
Fleetguard Emission Solutions.
____

Diesel Technology Forum,

Frederick, MD, June 9, 2005.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: We would like to recognize and
thank you for your leadership in developing the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. We are especially encouraged
by the broad coalition of industry and environmental groups
from whom you have successfully sought not just cooperation,
but real collaboration in development and support of this
important legislation.
As you know, the recent advancements in new clean diesel
technology have been substantial. New emissions control
devices such as particulate filters oxidation catalysts, and
other technologies will play an important role in the clean
diesel system of the future, allowing new commercial truck
engines to be over 90 percent lower in emissions than those
built just a dozen years ago. And, as we have learned over
the last 5 years, these technologies can also be applied to
some existing vehicles and equipment. Your legislation will
play an important role in helping to deploy more clean diesel
retrofit technologies to thousands of small businesses and
equipment owners who might otherwise not be able to afford
the upgrading of their equipment.
Because of its unique combination of energy efficiency,
durability and reliability, diesel technology plays a
critical role in many industrial and transportation sectors,
powering two-thirds of all construction and farm equipment
and over 90 percent of highway trucks. Diesel technology has
played and will continue to play a vital role in key sectors
of our economy. Thanks to your legislation, diesel technology
will continue to serve these sectors and help assure this
country's continued clean air progress.
We look forward to continuing to promoting a greater
awareness of the benefits of clean diesel retrofits and your
legislation.
Sincerely yours,
Allen R. Schaeffer,

Executive Director.

[[Page S6792]]

____
State of Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency,

Columbus, OH, June 15, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: It has been a great pleasure to
meet you and discuss air quality issues with you over these
last few months. Ohio's air quality has improved dramatically
over the last 30 years. However, as you are well aware, Ohio
faces a significant challenge in achieving compliance with
the new federal air quality standards for ozone and fine
particle matter. We have 33 counties that don't meet the more
stringent ozone standard, and all or part of 32 counties that
don't meet the more stringent particulate standard.
Diesel emissions are part of the problem in both of those
scenarios. That is why I am so encouraged by your efforts to
develop bipartisan legislation to provide federal financial
assistance for a voluntary diesel retrofit initiative. In
many cases, lack of funding is the only thing keeping people
from using the cleaner technology that is available.
As Ohio develops its clean air plans for ozone and
particulate matter, we need to consider every tool available
to us. A funding program to help reduce pollution from diesel
engines is a valuable tool.
I look forward to the successful passage of your bill and
the clean air benefits it bring to Ohio and the nation.
Sincerely,
Joseph P. Koncelik,
Director.
____

Ohio Environmental Council,
Columbus, OH, June 13, 2005.
Subject: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.

Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Ohio Environmental Council
offers its hearty support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act of 2005. This landmark legislation will help clean up one
of Ohio's and the nation's largest sources of dangerous air
pollution; diesel engines.
From our initial meeting with you in April of 2004 to
discuss the impacts of diesel pollution, we have been
impressed by your leadership in addressing this significant
contributor to Ohio's, and the nation's, air quality
problems. As you know, approximately one-third of Ohio
counties are failing federal air quality standards for
ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Much of the
nation faces a similar burden with an estimated 65 million
people living in areas exceeding the fine particulate
standard and 111 million people living in areas exceeding the
8-hour ozone standard.
Diesel engines contribute significantly to this problem
with on-road and off-road diesel engines accounting for
roughly one-half of the ozone contributing nitrogen oxide and
fine particulate mobile source emissions nationwide.
According to EPA, diesel exhaust also contains over 40
chemicals listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), some of
which are known or probable human carcinogens including
benzene and formaldehyde. Numerous studies have suggested
that diesel pollutants contribute to health effects such as
asthma attacks, reduced lung function, heart and lung
disease, cancer and even premature death.
Fortunately, unlike many complex environmental problems
that have very complicated solutions, the clean-up of diesel
air pollution is easy. Technologies are available today to
retrofit existing diesel engines, reducing emissions from the
tailpipe by 20-90%--reductions realized immediately after
installation. In fact, due to EPA's Diesel Rules, starting in
2007 we will see the cleanest diesel engines ever coming off
production lines. Unfortunately, those rules do not address
the 11 million diesel engines in use today. In order to meet
EPA's goal to modernize 100% of these existing engines by
2014, states and fleets will need assistance.
That is why the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 is
so imperative. It will establish an unprecedented $200
million annual national grant and loan program to assist
states, organizations and fleets in reducing emissions from
diesel engines. These efforts will serve to help counties in
complying with federal air standards as well as minimize the
health toll of diesel emissions on the public.
I am proud to offer the Ohio Environmental Council's
support to you, Senator Voinovich, with the introduction of
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
Sincerely,
Vicki L. Deisner,
Executive Director.
____

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission,

Columbus, OH, June 14, 2005
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: Our membership, comprised of 41
local governments in central Ohio, has identified our ozone
and PM2.5 nonattainment status as one of the most daunting
challenges facing our region. Numerous health studies
demonstrate the negative health impacts of polluted air,
especially for asthmatic children and older adults with heart
disease. In addition to these, health impacts, failure to
clean up our air could inhibit business expansion and
investment in transportation.
Freight transportation is one of the primary growth sectors
for central Ohio. Yet, we do not want growth at the expense
of a diminished quality of life for our residents. Therefore,
it is important that we do whatever we can to encourage
public and private on and off-road fleets to improve
emissions from existing diesel engines that will continue to
operate for many years.
MORPC's Air Quality Committee is working diligently with a
broad coalition of local governments, manufacturers,
industry, health organizations, and environmental groups to
identify and implement cost effective ways to reduce nitrogen
oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions
that contribute to ozone and particle pollution in central
Ohio. We strongly support the introduction of the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 to provide federal funds to
spur local investment in voluntary diesel emission reduction
programs. This will be an invaluable tool to help us meet the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ambient air quality
standards.
We look forward to working with you to continue to develop
support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
Please let me know if we can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
William C. Habig,
Executive Director.
____

Clean Air Task Force,

Boston, MA, June 16, 2005.
Re Letter of support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
of 2005.

Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Clean Air Task Force is proud
to be one of the core members of a group of industry,
environmental and government representatives that worked
together on a collaborative effort to find ways of reducing
harmful emissions of air pollution from existing diesel
engines. We strongly support legislation that grew out of
that effort, the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act of 2005. We
thank you and your staff for your leadership on this
important issue.
Heavy-duty diesel engines powering vehicles and equipment
such as long-haul trucks, buses, construction equipment,
logging and agricultural equipment, locomotives and marine
vessels produce a wide variety of dangerous air pollutants,
including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and air toxics.
These pollutants, emitted at ground level often in populated
areas, produce substantial harm to human health and the
environment, up to and including premature death.
Recently, EPA has determined that 65 million people live in
areas where the air contains unhealthy levels of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), areas that EPA has
thus classified as nonattainment for the PM2.5
NAAQS. In order for those areas to meet the attainment
requirements in the Clean Air Act, substantial reductions of
PM2.5 emissions will be required. The largest
local source of potential PM2.5 reductions in most
urban areas is the existing fleet of heavy-duty diesel
engines. Although EPA has promulgated regulations to
substantially reduce emissions from heavy duty highway and
nonroad diesels, many of these engines are long-lived and the
air quality benefits of EPA's new engine rules won't be fully
realized for more than two decades--a full generation away
and long past applicable NAAQS attainment deadlines.
Fortunately, efficient and cost-effective means of
substantially reducing diesel emissions are readily available
today. For example, diesel particulate filters can reduce
diesel PM2.5 emissions by about 90% from many
heavy-duty diesel engines. Widespread use of such controls
could dramatically reduce harmful diesel emissions in our
cities and states, would save thousands of lives, produce
billions of dollars of societal benefits, and help states
meet their attainment obligations under the Clean Air Act.
One of the primary barriers to the widespread installation
of diesel emission control technology is a lack of resources.
Many heavy-duty diesel fleets, such as buses, refuse trucks,
highway maintenance equipment, trains and ferries are owned
or operated by public agencies with limited resources.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 will provide
$200 per year for the next 5 years to help fund reductions of
air pollution from in-use diesel engines, including those
operated by cash-strapped public agencies. This will produce
human health and environmental benefits far in excess of the
costs, and will provide timely assistance to many areas to
help them achieve EPA's health based air quality standards
for particulate matter and ozone.
CATF urges your support of the Diesel Emissions Reductions
Act of 2005.
Very truly yours,
Conrad G. Schneider,
Advocacy Director.

[[Page S6793]]

____
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and
Nuclear Safety, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Voinovich: On behalf of the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(ALAPCO)--the national associations of state and local air
pollution control agencies in 53 states and territories and
more than 165 metropolitan areas across the country--I am
pleased to offer support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act of 2005 and to commend your leadership in introducing
this legislation and in working with a broad coalition of
diverse stakeholders to draft it.
Emissions from dirty diesel engines pose serious threats to
public health and the environment. These emissions are not
only substantial contributors to unhealthful levels of ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), they cause or
exacerbate unacceptably high levels of toxic air pollution in
most areas of the country. Although our nation has taken
significant action to reduce emissions from new highway and
nonroad diesel engines, and additional federal measures are
planned to address new diesel marine and locomotive engines,
several critical opportunities remain for achieving further
reductions in diesel emissions. Chief among them is cleaning
up existing diesel engines by retrofitting these engines with
new emission control technologies. By authorizing funds for
grants and loans to states and other organizations for the
purpose of reducing emissions from diesel engines, the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 will help states and
localities achieve their air quality goals, including
attaining and maintaining health-based National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone and PM2.5 and reducing
exposure to toxic air pollution.
STAPPA and ALAPCO are pleased to support this bill and look
forward to working with you and other stakeholders as it
proceeds through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
S. William Becker,
Executive Director.
____

Union of Concerned Scientists,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2005.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, and our 140,000 members
and activists nationwide, strongly support the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. This landmark legislation
will improve air quality across the country by providing $200
million in grants and loans to reduce pollution from diesel
vehicles and equipment.
The exhaust from conventional diesel-powered engines may
cause or exacerbate serious health problems such as asthma,
bronchitis and cancer, and can even lead to premature death.
In addition to its public health toll, diesel exhaust exacts
enormous social costs, with escalating health care
expenditures, loss of work and school days, and the most
costly impact of all--the loss of human lives.
Although standards for new diesel engines offer important
health benefits, they do not address the biggest polluters:
existing diesel engines. The bulk of diesel pollution now and
for the next decade or more come from engines already in use.
Fortunately, there are a wide range of readily available
cleanup technologies and strategies, including replacing
high-polluting engines and retrofitting with emissions
controls. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act will help get
diesel cleanup technologies off the shelf and onto today's
vehicles and equipment.
USC is pleased to be part of a diverse coalition of
groups--including environmental and health groups, the diesel
industry, and public agencies--that is working
collaboratively on reduciug diesel pollution. This unique mix
of voices all agree that reducing pollution from diesel
engines is a public health priority, and that federal and
state funding is a key strategy to clean up diesel engines.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act will accelerate the
public health benefits of the new engine emissions standards,
and will help Americans breathe easier.
Sincerely,
Patricia Monahan,
Senior Analyst, Transportation Program.
____

Regional Air

Pollution Control Agency,

Dayton, OH, June 15, 2005.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and
Nuclear Safety, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency (RAPCA) would like to express our support for the
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. RAPCA is a six county
local air pollution control agency charged with protecting
the residents of the Dayton/Springfield area from the adverse
health impacts of air pollution. We would like to thank you
and your staff for offering this vital piece of legislation
which will greatly help the citizens of our area breathe
healthier air.
Diesel emission reductions offer a significant opportunity
in the effort to clean the nation's air. Diesel emissions
represent approximately one-half of the nitrogen oxide and
particulate matter emissions from the mobile source sector
and numerous air toxics.
Like many areas across the county, the Dayton/Springfield
area is nonattainment for both ozone and fine particulate
matter. RAPCA strongly believes that this bill provides a
unique opportunity to help the area attain these standards,
especially fine particulates, as well as reducing the health
risks associated with air toxics. Furthermore, many of the
diesel vehicles that would be affected by this bill operate
in the urban core, thus providing health benefits to many
individuals.
Again we would like to express our sincere thanks to you
for offering the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005,
which will help millions of Americans breathe easier.
Sincerely,
John A. Paul,
Supervisor.
____

Emission Control

Technology Association,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Emission Control
Technology Association (ECTA), I would like to thank you for
introducing the Diesel Retrofit Reduction Act of 2005, and
advise you of our wholehearted support for this legislation.
If enacted, this legislation will help states to reduce
diesel engine emissions, thereby, strengthening the economy,
public health, and the environment.
On-road heavy duty diesel vehicles and non-road diesel
vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM)
mobile source emissions nationwide. These emissions
contribute to ozone formation, fine particulate matter, and
regional haze. With more than 167 million Americans living in
counties that do not achieve the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) established by the Environmental Protection
Agency, it is more important than ever that states and other
organizations are given the means to address this growing
problem. Clean diesel retrofits are a highly cost effective
means of reducing these emissions, costing approximately
$5,000 per ton equivalent of air pollution removed. The
Diesel Retrofit Reduction Act of 2005 will ease the growing
burden states are feeling as they strive to reach attainment
of these national standards, by providing them with grants
and loans for the purpose of reducing emissions from diesel
engines.
There are several programs that demonstrate the
achievements made by clean diesel retrofits. A prime example
is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Retrofit
Program in San Francisco, California. As part of the MTC
program, more than 1,700 emission control systems were
installed on diesel buses. It is estimated that 2,500 pounds
of NOX and 300 pounds per day of particulates will
be eliminated as a result of the MTC transit bus retrofit
program. We are certain that the Diesel Retrofit Reduction
Act of 2005 will accomplish similar feats upon its passage.
ECTA thanks you for authoring this important legislation
and for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to
working with you and your staff to ensure its passage.
Sincerely,
Timothy Regan,
President.

Mr. VOINOVICH. The process for developing this legislation began last
year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They
informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions.
On-road and non-road diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly
one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source
emissions nationwide.
I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action
with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a
collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However,
I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until
2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11
million existing engines have a long life. Diesel engines have a very
long life.
I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could
address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan
programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that are
working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines.
I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air
quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program
was needed to help the Nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment
counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like
Northeast Ohio.
Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical
Center

[[Page S6794]]

doctors--as recently as earlier this month--to discuss their Cincinnati
Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results
indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near
highways because of emissions from diesel engines.
It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then
formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental,
industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work was
released last Thursday with the introduction of the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act of 2005.
The amendment that I am offering today is the same as this bill. It
would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan
programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. The amendment
would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some
will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not
enough--so probably it is the right number.
We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is
contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible
as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective
emissions reduction strategies. For example, let's compare the cost
effectiveness of diesel retrofits versus current Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality program projects.
We are talking about the per ton of Nitrogen Oxides reduced, cost on
average. We are talking about 1 ton of nitrogen oxides and how much it
costs to reduce them: $126,400 for alternative fuel buses; $66,700 for
signal optimization; $19,500 for bike racks on buses; and $10,500 for
vanpool programs.
This is compared to $5,390 to repower construction equipment and
$5,000 to retrofit a transit bus.
The bottom line is that if we want to clean up our air to improve the
environment and protect public health, diesel retrofits are one of the
best uses of taxpayers' money.
Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air
quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our States and
localities--and they need the Federal Government's help. We are going
to find that out. Many Americans are not aware, because of the ozone
and particulate standards that many communities are going to have a
difficult time complying with these new ambient air standards.
This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by
encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines,
substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and
particulate matter.
The amendment is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in
several ways. First, 70 percent of the program would be administered by
the EPA. The remaining 20 percent of the funding would be distributed
to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. Ten
percent of the amendment's overall funding would be set aside as an
incentive for state's to match the Federal dollars being provided.
The hope is this amendment leverages additional public and private
funding with the creation of State level programs throughout this
country. The amendment would expand on very successful programs that
now exist in Texas and California.
Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is
needed the most.
Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to
be used on public fleets since we are talking about using public
dollars.
Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the
most cost effective and affect the most people.
Lastly, the amendment includes provisions to help develop new
technologies, encourage more action through nonfinancial incentives,
and require EPA to reach out to stakeholders and report on the success
of the program.
EPA estimates this billion-dollar program would leverage an
additional $500 million, leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion
with the reduction of 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a
quite substantial 13-1 cost-benefit ratio.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan
support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent 10 minutes
be set aside prior to the vote on the amendment for sponsors to speak
on its behalf.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Ohio a
question about his amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if we could get copies of the amendment,
Senator Domenici would be anxious to review it. I would, as well. It
sounds very meritorious as described, but before actually agreeing to a
unanimous consent as to the timing of the vote and the amount of time
needed in anticipation of a vote, it would be better to get a copy at
this point, if we could. That is just a suggestion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I withdraw the request for the 10 minutes until the
ranking member has an opportunity to review the amendment, and we can
discuss at that time how much time the Senator is willing to give.
Mr. BINGAMAN. That will be very good. I appreciate that opportunity.
We will be back in touch with the Senator.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator from Ohio a
question. I walked in about two-thirds of the way through his remarks.
Do I understand that this is legislation that helps reduce sulfur in
the air by retrofitting diesel engines so they comply with the new EPA
requirements for low sulfur?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Right. This is one of the most effective ways,
actually, to reduce nitrogen oxide and also particulate matter. In my
remarks I mentioned the study at the University of Cincinnati on
children. The negative impact is amazing on children who live very
close to freeways with this diesel fuel. Retrofitting would be the most
cost-efficient way of dealing with that problem.
This program fundamentally is a voluntary program. It is a program in
which we encourage all of the States to participate. If they did, each
State would get 2 percent of the money. If they didn't, those States
that participated would benefit from this on a per capita basis, 30
percent of the program allocated to them and 70 percent of it would be
distributed by the Environmental Protection Agency based on submissions
submitted and also on the basis of giving priority to public requests
for this money.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Ohio. He has
spent a long time in this session working on clean air legislation.
As one Senator, I am extremely interested in that for our country.
The Great Smoky Mountains--2 miles from where I live, and on the other
side is the Senator from North Carolina, the Presiding Officer--is the
most polluted National Park in America.
Many of our counties are not in attainment. Our biggest problem is
sulfur. But NOX is also a major problem. Of course, a major
contributor is the big diesel trucks on the road.
One of the President's greatest accomplishments in terms of sulfur is
tighter restrictions on the fuel that will be used in these trucks.
They also are major contributors to NOX, nitrogen oxide. My
understanding from my visits and discussions with people who know about
the big trucks is that the retrofitting of these older engines is not
as good as a new engine, but it is a very substantial--70 or 80 percent
as good as having a new engine.
I look forward to reading the legislation. The Clean Energy Act that
we are working on is not the Clean Air Act that the Senator spent so
much time on, but clean energy is the solution to the clean air
problem. I am glad the Senator is bringing this to our attention. I
look forward to reading it. It looks like a welcome contribution.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. The administration
should be complimented. The new diesel regulations will go into effect
next year. The fact is, 11 million on- and off-road vehicles will still
be on the road for many years to come. As the Senator pointed out
regarding retrofitting,

[[Page S6795]]

we had a bus retrofit. We are talking about 85 percent reduction. The
diesel fuel is fine, but if you do not have the retrofit, it will not
give you the desired emissions control.

Amendment No. 800

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1936 to provide energy
tax incentives, and for other purposes)

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the leader, we have cleared the amendment
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside. I further ask that the Grassley-Baucus amendment No. 800 which
is at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider
be laid on the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 800) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support the Finance Committee's
energy tax language.
Why are the incentives proposed in this language so important? First
and foremost, they are important because of the energy challenges
facing the Nation.
Energy is critical to our Nation's economy and security. Our
continuing dependence on foreign oil increasingly threatens our vital
national interests.
As the world's demand for oil continues to grow at a record pace, the
world's oil producers strain to meet consumption. Today, OPEC is
pumping close to full capacity. Even so, refined products remain
scarce.
The price of oil has soared to more than $55 a barrel. The price of
gas at the pump is a daily reminder of the scarcity of energy.
Increasing energy prices stifle economic growth.
Folks in my home State of Montana are hit hard by rising energy
prices. High gas prices particularly hurt folks who have to drive great
distances. And high energy prices hurt small businesses, ranchers, and
farmers by raising the costs of doing business.
We can do more to provide reliable energy from domestic sources. That
is our first challenge.
Our next great energy challenge is to ensure safe, clean, and
affordable energy from renewable resources. Energy produced from wind,
water, sun, and waste holds great potential. But that energy cannot
currently meet our national energy demands. Technology is helping to
bridge the gap. But further development requires financial assistance.
The energy tax incentives take an evenhanded approach to an array of
promising technologies. We do not yet know which new technologies will
prove to be the most effective. As we go forward and provide the needed
incentives to develop these new technologies, we also need appropriate
cost-benefit assessments to guide future investments.
The energy tax language reflects the incentives endorsed by the
Finance Committee last Thursday. These incentives make meaningful
progress toward energy independence. They provide a balanced package of
targeted incentives directed to renewable energy, traditional energy
production, and energy efficiency.
These incentives would encourage new energy production, especially
production from renewable sources.
They would encourage the development of new technology.
And they would encourage energy efficiency and conservation.
To encourage production, the tax language provides a uniform 10-year
period for claiming production tax credits under section 45 of the Tax
Code. This encourages production of electricity from all sources of
renewable energy. It would not benefit one technology over another.
In Judith Gap, MT, wind whips across the wheat plains. Wind is a
great and promising resource in Montana. But future development of wind
projects needs support, like that provided in the tax language.
The tax language recognizes the value of coal and oil to our economy.
It provides tax incentives for cleaner-burning coal and much-needed
expansion of refinery capacity.
The lack of refinery capacity is driving up the price of oil. And our
lack of domestic capacity increases our vulnerabilities. A new refinery
has not been built in the U.S. since 1976. The tax language would
encourage the development of additional refinery capacity domestically
by allowing the development costs to be expensed.
The tax language also rewards energy conservation and efficiency, and
encourages the use of clean-fuel vehicles and technologies. It provides
an investment tax credit for recycling equipment. These incentives are
environmentally responsible. They reduce pollution. And they improve
people's health.
The energy tax provisions would make meaningful progress toward
energy independence. They are balanced and fair. I encourage my
colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________