[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4423-4438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the much needed 
energy security legislation that is before the Senate.
  This week, at the very moment we debate this very important landmark 
legislation, we are seeing a confluence of factors in our energy supply 
and demand that amounts to what one might call the ``perfect storm.''
  There have been few other times in the history of our nation where we 
have seen such a stark demonstration that our national security 
interests are synonymous with our energy security. And here are--in 
this ``perfect storm''--the various storm fronts that are coming 
together and colliding to produce some very ominous results for the 
American people, their families, and small businesses.
  The travel season is heading into its annual peak as more and more 
Americans hit the road, and those numbers are higher than usual because 
of people's fear of flying or the aggravation, the stress of commercial 
air travel due to security concerns and desires.
  Refineries are also beginning their annual changeover from winter 
fuels to specially formulated, cleaner burning summer fuels that cost 
more to produce. Those increased costs at refineries, that are already 
running at near capacity, will be passed on to the American consumer.
  In recent weeks, the Israelis have taken strong action to defend 
themselves from the escalating growth of heinous suicide bombings in 
Israel.
  In response to all of this, the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has 
pledged to embargo Iraq's oil exports for 30 days or until Israel 
withdraws from Palestinian territories.
  The Associated Press quoted Saddam as saying:

       The oppressive Zionist and American enemy has belittled the 
     capabilities of the [Arab] nation.

  Combine all of these factors together, and the price of gasoline has 
increased about 25 cents a gallon in just the last few weeks. This is 
the sharpest increase in a 4-week period since the year 1990, right 
before the gulf war.
  The price of a barrel of oil has risen to about $26 a barrel as of 
yesterday, and many projections indicate the price will spike to more 
than $30 a barrel.
  The problem is one of basic economics that a fourth grade student in 
Virginia would understand, or as the Presiding Officer would certainly 
agree, a fourth grade student in West Virginia as well. I hope that the 
Senate also understands this very basic, simple matter of high demand 
and inadequate supply. Even as the demand for oil is rising, supply is 
constrained this year because the nations in OPEC have cut production 
since the end of the year 2000 by a total of about 5 million barrels of 
oil per day.
  The result is financial hardship for families and enterprises that 
pay more out of pocket for their basic transportation needs. It is a 
loaded weapon aimed at our economy, which appears to be moving slowly 
on the road to recovery.
  I wholeheartedly support a balanced energy policy, including 
conservation and new, advanced technologies, such as hydrogen-fuel-
cell-powered vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and clean 
coal technology. We are the ``Saudi Arabia of coal.'' I know the Chair 
shares my desire in working for clean coal technologies--and also solar 
photovoltaic technology.
  But at the same time, we must increase our American-based production 
to become less reliant and dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  Rising tensions in the Middle East will further increase our prices 
at the gas pump, damage job opportunities, and take more money from 
working people. This increased cost in fuel will ultimately cause an 
increase in the cost of goods and products, 95 percent of which come by 
truck to some store or directly to your home.
  Please be aware that the United States continues to import nearly 1 
million barrels a day from Saddam Hussein. This is the same man who 
turns around and compensates the families of suicide bombers at a rate 
of $25,000. You could say that the compensation for 1 murderer is 
equivalent to about 900 barrels of oil that the United States and other 
nations buy from Saddam Hussein. We can no longer afford to let Saddam 
Hussein quite literally put us over the barrel.
  At a time when Iraq is calling for an OPEC embargo on oil sales to 
America, environmentally safe production in a small and desolate place 
on the barren Arctic Plain on the North Slope of Alaska could alone 
replace more than 35 years of Iraqi oil imports. The potential is 
enormous for large oil reserves

[[Page 4424]]

relatively near that of the current production at Prudhoe Bay--about 16 
billion barrels. Conservative estimates state that ANWR has more oil 
than all of Texas.
  I read that the Senator from Connecticut yesterday said it would take 
10 years to get oil flowing from the North Slope of Alaska and this 
ANWR area. Let's assume it would take 10 years. Maybe this decision 
should have been made 10 years ago. Indeed, this Senate, in 1995, as 
well as the House, passed exploration permission legislation in 1995. 
Unfortunately, that legislation and that permission to explore ANWR was 
vetoed by the President in 1995. If that had not been vetoed, that oil 
would be flowing and we would not have as great a dependence on foreign 
oil, much less Saddam Hussein.
  Also, there are groups of opponents. Many of those groups were also 
the opponents who were against the Prudhoe Bay production several 
decades ago. Thank goodness, reason and security prevailed and we are 
getting oil through the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay.
  The reality is, with the infrastructure and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
less than about 50 miles away, just a few years of work are needed to 
get oil flowing from ANWR. The pipeline is already built. We just need 
to get that 50 mile span built from Prudhoe Bay to the exploration site 
at ANWR. It is not quite the magnitude of a project back in the 1970s.
  The amount of oil we will be getting from there is about the same as 
what we could replace from 30 years of Saudi Arabian imports. And on 
top of it all, there are estimates--I will admit this is on the high 
side--of the creation of as many as 735,000 new jobs. The estimated oil 
at ANWR is valued at more than $300 billion, which could replace a 
large portion of foreign oil imports and clearly create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs for our economy.
  Again, the North Slope of Alaska, the Arctic Plain, or ANWR, is not 
some mountainous, beautiful sanctuary. It is a flat, barren, cold, 
inhospitable place, and the small local population nearby is virtually 
unanimous in its desire to see the utilization of the resources beneath 
that frozen tundra. As it is very nearby, and similar to Prudhoe Bay, 
and as has been seen from studies, there will be no adverse impact on 
caribou or mosquitoes, which are plentiful in the summer, or other 
flora and fauna.
  I support environmentally responsible exploration and production at 
ANWR to help at least ameliorate our dependence on OPEC. The 
announcement of curtailed exports by Iraq should remind us more than 
ever that our economy and national security will remain bound together 
as long as we allow tyrants and despots to control our destiny.
  In addition to the Middle East, the political dispute in Venezuela 
has left their oil industry crippled as labor groups have staged a 
nationwide strike.
  Simply put, we are entirely too dependent on foreign oil and we must 
expand our domestic production. We must also improve our energy 
security by identifying and developing new energy opportunities. 
Diversification of energy supplies is basic to our comprehensive 
national energy policy. We should encourage new, cooperative trade 
arrangements and new resources in willing prospects throughout the 
world.
  All of these initiatives, discussions, and cooperative efforts are 
aimed at fulfilling just one part of our national energy policy, which 
is the diversification of our international sources of supply.
  A commonsense, comprehensive, long-term energy plan will get us off 
this roller coaster of restrictive supply and demand that we have 
ridden for the past several decades. We must not allow the Saddam 
Husseins of the world to jerk us around and actually run that roller 
coaster.
  President Bush's energy plan is comprehensive. It combines 
conservation and incentives for the development of alternative energy 
sources. I look forward to voting for tax incentives for alternative-
fueled vehicles. It also includes increased domestic production. An 
energy policy without all of these components will not be effective.
  We have a responsibility to the American people to address these 
challenges head on. If you think the situation is dire today, take a 
look just a short time from now into the future. Over the next 20 
years, U.S. oil consumption is projected to increase by 33 percent and 
demand for electricity is projected to increase by 45 percent. Our 
dependence on foreign sources of oil will grow from 55 percent today to 
64 percent by the year 2020. This compares to just 42 percent from 
foreign sources less than 10 years ago.
  Clearly, we can see that something must be done, and soon. I am 
committed to working for commonsense solutions based upon sound science 
and the best available technologies so that all Americans can have 
affordable, reliable access to energy to fuel our motor vehicles, our 
homes, our farm operations, and our business operations across America.
  I am also committed to making fuller use of the resources we have 
within our own borders in States that are supportive. While there may 
be oil off the coast of California, the people of California are 
opposed to oil development off their coast. Therefore, I respect their 
desires and would not support oil exploration off California.
  In Alaska, Republicans, Democrats, Eskimos, Indians, all people are 
overwhelmingly in favor of production in ANWR.
  There are other groups that support production on the North Slope of 
Alaska--groups such as the Vietnam Veterans Institute. I quote from 
them:

       War and international terrorism have again brought into 
     sharp focus the heavy reliance of the U.S. on imported oil. 
     During these times of crises, such reliance threatens our 
     national security and economic well-being. . . . It is 
     important that we develop domestic sources of oil.

  Organized labor. This is from Jerry Hood of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters:

       America has gone too long without a solid energy plan. When 
     energy costs rise, working families are the first to feel the 
     pinch. The Senate should follow the example passed by the 
     House and ease the burden by sending the President supply-
     based energy legislation to sign.

  The Hispanic community. I quote from Mario Rodriguez, president of 
the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce:

       We urge the Senate leadership to pass comprehensive energy 
     legislation. This is not a partisan issue. Millions of needy 
     Hispanic families need your support now.

  From Jewish organizations, Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference 
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations:

       The [Conference] at its general meeting on November 14th 
     unanimously supported a resolution calling on Congress to act 
     expeditiously to pass the energy bill that will serve to 
     lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

  African-American groups. Harry Alford, chairman of the National Black 
Chamber of Commerce, states:

       Our growing membership reflects the opinion of more and 
     more Americans all across the political spectrum that we must 
     act now to end our dependence on foreign energy sources by 
     addressing the nation's long-neglected energy needs.

  And Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated:

       The events of September 11 lend a new urgency to our 
     efforts to increase domestic energy supplies and modernize 
     our nation's energy infrastructure.

  The point of all this is that it has broad, bipartisan support across 
the country, not just in Alaska. I also add that this is not simply a 
matter of our economic security our physical security is also at stake.
  I challenge my colleagues to join Americans in this effort. Let's 
make America the most technologically advanced nation in the world for 
new sources of energy to propel our motor vehicles and to provide 
clean, efficient electricity. Let's also make sure we are less 
dependent upon unpredictable and, in some cases, threatening foreign 
sources of oil. Let's control our own destiny more than we have in the 
past. Let's move forward united for America's bright future.
  Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

[[Page 4425]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair heard a clap from the gallery. Those 
here now, or at any time in the future, if that occurs again, they will 
be removed by the Sergeant at Arms under the rules of the Senate. That 
is not allowed and will not be tolerated.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3114

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for up to 15 minutes in conjunction with my opposition to the 
Feinstein amendment, which has been introduced on the energy bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, this amendment and other 
California amendments are outside the agreement and would negatively 
impact the renewable fuels standard contained in the bill. While I 
generally respect and certainly admire my colleagues from California, 
who are joined by my colleagues from New York in this particular 
situation, I must depart from their point of view and take this 
opportunity to explain that the facts do not support their amendment.
  The renewable fuels standard is the culmination of 20 years of sound 
public policy. We have all worked at the State, local, and Federal 
levels to make sure we have brought together the best kind of public 
policy for energy as it relates to renewable fuels. This standard will 
almost triple production of biofuels over the next 10 years. The RFS, 
as it is known, will accelerate the biorefinery concept so that a wide 
range of cellulosic biomass feedstocks will cost-effectively be 
converted into biofuels, bioelectricity, and biochemicals.
  Enactment of the RFS, along with other provisions in this bill, will 
emphasize new sources of energy production from biomass to wind power, 
as well as conservation, to further reduce our dependence upon foreign 
sources of energy. As the previous speaker, my colleague, Senator 
Allen, pointed out, this 100-year-old reliance on fossil fuels and on 
fuels from unstable parts of the world has put us in a position of 
instability. So this RFS is essential in helping us reverse this 100-
year-old reliance on fossil fuels and on unstable governments. 
Enactment of this bill will strengthen national and energy security and 
improve our environment at the same time.
  If you will look at this poster, according to a recent study 
conducted by AUS Consultants, adoption of the RFS will:

       . . . displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next 
     decade; reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; it will 
     increase new investments in rural communities by more than 
     $5.3 billion--and this is all domestic, all money that will 
     inure to the benefit of Americans. It will also boost the 
     demand for feedgrains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion 
     bushels over the next decade; it will create more than 
     214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy, and it will 
     expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over 
     the next decade.

  These days, we are witnessing substantial increases in gasoline 
prices at the pump because of disruption and turmoil in the Middle 
East. Gasoline prices are not going up because we are using ethanol; 
they are rising because we are not using enough ethanol. Over the next 
10 years, the renewable fuels standard in S. 517 would increase United 
States gasoline supplies to 5 billion gallons per year in 2012, 
slightly less than the volume of crude oil we currently import from 
Iraq. That will come from the addition of these biofuels that will come 
from the renewable fuels standard. It will be bad public policy for us 
to eliminate the existing oxygenate standard without replacing it with 
the renewable fuels standard. That is exactly what S. 517 does.
  I congratulate California Governor Gray Davis for his support of the 
RFS section of S. 517. He recently declared:

       Let's let the Daschle bill pass, have a nice schedule that 
     will affect the entire country, phase in ethanol and protect 
     the environment.

  He also said:

       All we need to do is use about 250 or 275 million gallons 
     of ethanol, which we already do and are prepared to do in the 
     future.

  Governor Davis recently delayed his ban on MTBE in California for 1 
year, coinciding with the initiation of the renewable fuels standard, 
RFS, and his acceptance of that RFS package is the best option to meet 
California's current and certainly its future gasoline needs. This, in 
large part, is due to the fact that a Federal RFG with an MTBE ban 
would require about 700 million gallons of ethanol annually in 
California.
  The next alternative would be a program to eliminate the current 
minimum oxygen standard, a ban on MTBE, and retain the existing 
wintertime carbon monoxide program using ethanol. This would require 
about 500 million gallons of ethanol annually.
  In contrast, the Daschle-Lugar-Nelson RFS requires California 
refiners to use only about 250 million gallons of ethanol annually.
  Finally, the RFS provision contained in the bill allows ``credit 
training,'' which provides the option of reducing California's ethanol 
use to zero, with a cost of less than 2 cents per gallon.
  Lest anyone thinks this is somehow a plan or decision by the States 
in the Midwest to support their own economies to the detriment of 
economies elsewhere, Governor Pataki from New York, and Governor 
Shaheen of New Hampshire, representing the Northeast States for 
Coordinated Air Use Management, and other Governors belonging to the 
Governors' Ethanol Coalition, have also signed a joint letter 
supporting the renewable fuels standards. These are Governors from all 
over the country.
  I also remind my colleagues that the RFS agreement was unprecedented 
in that it was accepted through the extensive and cooperative work of 
the ethanol and biodiesel industries, their associations, most farm and 
agricultural groups, the environmental and renewable energy 
communities, and the American Petroleum Institute.
  All of us, each and every one of us, is aware of how dangerously 
close we are to an overdependence on imported oil. As Senator Allen 
said, currently we are over 56 percent dependent on foreign sources, 
and it will rise to over 60 percent in the very near future.
  Too many of these supplies come from troubled nations in the Middle 
East, the Caspian Basin, and Indonesia where almost 80 percent of the 
world's reserves are located.
  As our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, warned recently, 
we must recognize this vulnerability because it also extends to the 
potential of terrorist attacks on oil supply lines. An attack on our 
oil supply lines anywhere in the world would have us on our backs 
overnight.
  The RFS is critical to the process of reducing our dependence on oil 
imports through the advancement of domestically dispersed renewable and 
environmentally benign technologies that will generate new industries, 
high-quality jobs, economic activity, and rural development, while at 
the same time expanding national and local tax bases. This is, in fact, 
a win-win for everyone in America.
  Ethanol opponents claim that it takes more energy to make ethanol 
than is contained in the fuel. This is simply not the case. The most 
recent USDA report shows an increase in the net energy balance of corn 
ethanol from 1.24 in 1995 to 1.34 in 2002, and that new technologies 
continue that improvement. Furthermore, only 17 percent of the energy 
that goes into farming and ethanol plant operations is from liquid 
fuels, and with the advent of biodiesel and advanced farming practices, 
this number continues to drop and will continue to do so into the 
future.
  Some opponents also claim that the price of gasoline could double. 
The issue of consumer cost is clearly important to all sectors of our 
Nation, certainly to the Midwest as well as to the West and the East. 
But historically, ethanol serves as a buffer to higher prices. It does 
so by actually extending supplies. It provides an alternative to costly 
imported oil and leverage for independent gasoline marketers to compete 
against the larger, more powerful integrated oil companies.
  According to the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of 
America:


[[Page 4426]]


       The Federal benefits afforded ethanol-blended fuels have 
     been an important pro-competitive influence on the Nation's 
     gasoline markets. By enhancing the ability of independent 
     marketers to price compete with their integrated oil company 
     competitors, this program has increased independent 
     marketers' economic viability and reduced consumers' costs of 
     gasoline.

  On April 8 in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the New York 
metropolitan areas, the price of ethanol-blended premium midgrade and 
regular ranged from .0133 to .0327 cents per gallon. So availability is 
not going to be a problem and neither is price.
  Today and into the near future, ethanol will be in abundant supply 
because of market conditions and all the new plants that will be coming 
online.
  This chart shows the past, present, and predicted growth of the 
ethanol capacity, and one can see that as it goes into this new 
century, the incline is rather steep. Some worry about ADM's control 
over the market and their ability to control prices, but their 
influence is dissipating, being replaced by farmer, rancher, and 
community-owned plants. It is not concentrated within only one industry 
or within one producer. It is widely spread out over all kinds of 
operations, from the small to the medium size to the large.
  To attack some other myths, there are some claims that ethanol does 
not contribute to cleaner air, and that is not true. There is no 
question that ethanol blends reduce carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, 
but most areas with polluted air are worried about ozone.
  The good news is that 3 years of clean air quality data in the 
Chicago/Milwaukee area show that it is possible to effectively reduce 
ozone emissions while using ethanol blends. These blends also reduce 
air toxins, such as the carcinogen benzene.
  The defeat of the renewable fuels standard in S. 517 would be a great 
loss to the national energy and economic security of the United States. 
The real tragedy would be a further loss to the Europeans as they 
advance their biorefinery technology to produce biofuels, 
bioelectricity, and biochemicals from a wide range of biomass, 
including much of which is wasted or ends up in landfills.
  If there is a myth that somehow this is going to simply affect our 
food supply by providing alternative use, it is very clear to 
understand that ethanol can be made from any kind of biomass, including 
that which is waste, that which is garbage, that which is discarded and 
ends up in landfills.
  As technology continues to increase, we will have more and more 
sources for a renewable resource that will come from those production 
sources that currently have other means of disposal. Unfortunately, 
some of them are disposed only in landfills.
  The RFS provides a credit of 1.5 for biofuels made from cellulosic 
biomass, oilseeds, tallow, animal fat, and yellow grease compared to 1 
credit for ethanol made from starch and sugar crops; that is, every 
gallon of these fuels is equal to 1.5 gallons in meeting the renewable 
fuels standards. In fact, it does go to other kinds of biomass. 
Consequently, the RFS will provide the stimulus and the market for 
biofuels needed to produce the next generation of biorefineries.
  In the past, it has always been the question of how you can create 
the demand or whether you create the supply and hope, in fact, it will 
create the demand. This bill with the RFS in it creates both the demand 
and the opportunity and the incentive for more supplies in a cost-
effective and a very environmentally friendly and very economic 
friendly manner.
  During my two terms as Governor, I watched firsthand as the private 
sector invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new community-based 
ethanol plants. We went from one operating plant to more than seven 
when I left, and there continues to be more plants built around the 
State and a great deal of interest in further expanding the plants, 
depending on the passage of S. 517.
  These investments occurred primarily in response to the demand 
created by the Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirements. Not one of those 
plants is owned by AD in Nebraska. Farmers and ranchers own most of 
them.
  The ethanol industry in Nebraska has been one of the few bright spots 
in an otherwise underperforming agricultural economy, thereby creating 
quality jobs, increasing farm income, and, in some instances, maybe 
providing the only farm income by adding value to farmers' products and 
expanding local tax bases.
  This is, in fact, sound public policy, and we should be doing more, 
not less, of it. If we are going to eliminate the oxygen requirement 
that has been proposed, then we must be sure to put in its place the 
renewable fuels standard in S. 517. The RFS is sound public policy. The 
provision will increase gasoline supplies and consequently serve to 
lower gasoline prices. It will have a positive impact on the Farm Belt 
economy and also reduce energy costs for other areas of the country. 
This is truly a national plan to control costs, spur economic activity, 
and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  I ask my colleagues to vote to preserve the historic agreement 
manifested in the RFS. To do otherwise will certainly face us in the 
wrong direction, a step backwards, into deeper dependence on imported 
oil.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. If I still have time left, I am happy to use 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, earlier today, my colleagues 
from California and New York quoted extensively from an Energy 
Information Agency report which they said indicated the RFS would 
result in gasoline price increases from 4 cents to almost 10 cents per 
gallon.
  We have read this report, and it is difficult for us to understand 
how they arrived at those cost figures when our reading of the report 
sets the increase at prices up to 1 cent per gallon for reformulated 
gasoline and up to a half a cent per gallon compared to the referenced 
case. This is with the reformulated fuel standard without the MTBE ban.
  When there is an MTBE ban, there would then be a greater demand for 
gasoline that would drive prices up. The availability of ethanol to add 
volume as an additive and boost octane would put downward pressure on 
prices, which is what has been shown elsewhere in the country. So we 
are at a loss as to how that was arrived at.
  There also was a suggestion there might be the possibility that 
ethanol-blended gasoline could extend the benzene plume and contaminate 
the ground water in the event of leaking tanks or spills.
  Nebraska is the home of ethanol. It was first called gasohol. It has 
been used extensively for the past 20 years. I have used it for as long 
as I can recall. There is absolutely no evidence of benzene-
contaminated water supplies resulting from the use of ethanol in 
Nebraska, and we are not aware of anywhere else where ethanol has been 
used extensively or even modestly where there has been an increase in 
benzene.
  It is going to boost the octane of gasoline, and I think most people 
looking at science will conclude it permits the reduction of aromatics, 
including benzene. We found that ethanol-blended gasoline in Nebraska 
has considerably less aromatics than unblended gasoline, and we do not 
understand nor do we follow the logic or the facts that have been 
presented.
  I think it is important to consider the fact we must, indeed, reduce 
our reliance on foreign sources of oil, and we must, in fact, expand 
the opportunity for renewable resources so we are not reliant on 
foreign sources of oil. When we can do this in an environmentally 
friendly way, and at the same time have the economics of the country 
advanced, it seems only too sound of logic to conclude we should go the 
other way. We must, in fact, move forward with the RFS.

[[Page 4427]]

  So I call on those who would have other information to return and let 
us debate the issue on the facts as they are.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Feinstein amendment 
for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, in the wake of September 11, America and the rest of 
the free world now face dramatic new challenges as certainly evidenced 
by our Secretary of State being in the Middle East today. There are 
serious consequences to these great challenges. Energy independence is 
one of these challenges.
  Today, less than 1 percent of America's transportation fuel comes 
from renewable sources. In the energy bill we are debating today 
renewable fuel would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total 
transportation fuel supply by 2012.
  A few weeks ago, the Senate approved the renewable portfolio standard 
for electricity which mandates that 10 percent of all electricity must 
come from certain renewable sources. I note that my colleagues from 
California and New York in particular voted in favor of that renewable 
electricity mandate which the Department of Energy has estimated will 
cost the ratepayers of America about $88 billion through 2020.
  I note also that my colleagues from California and New York voted for 
a 20-percent renewable electricity standard. Yet, as I heard this 
morning, they oppose a 3-percent renewable fuel standard. What is the 
difference between the renewable fuel standard and the renewable 
electricity standard?
  Here is the difference.
  Today, we spend about $300 million per day on foreign oil imports. We 
are nearing 60 percent of the total use of our oil coming from other 
nations. We spend $12 million a day on Iraqi oil alone--we used to. We 
did until Saddam Hussein announced this week that Iraq would halt its 
exports of oil for a month.
  With Iraq capping its production, Venezuela imploding, and other 
producers such as Iran, Libya, and Nigeria sending very troubling 
signals to the world, America must develop an accountable, responsible, 
relevant, and workable energy policy that will replace the oil we now 
import with alternative fuels and renewable fuels produced here in the 
United States.
  Despite the regional differences that sometimes arise, this renewable 
fuel standard is good for all America. That has been highlighted by the 
fact that this standard has broad bipartisan support in the Congress. 
It has been endorsed by a majority of Governors, Democrat and 
Republican; the Bush administration; agricultural and environmental 
groups; and the oil and gas industry.
  Consider that this standard would replace 66 billion gallons--1.6 
billion barrels--of foreign crude oil by 2012. It would reduce the U.S. 
trade deficit by as much as $34 billion.
  The renewable fuel standard in the energy bill we debate today would 
also bring a needed boost to our economy. This single provision would 
create 214,000 jobs nationwide--not in the Midwest but nationwide. It 
would create $5.3 billion in new investment nationwide. It would 
increase household income by $52 billion nationwide. It would increase 
net farm income by $6.6 billion a year, reducing the amount spent on 
the farm price support program that we are now debating in a conference 
committee, trying to resolve the differences between the House and 
Senate agriculture bills. Unfortunately, since this landmark agreement 
was announced, the opponents of renewable fuels have distorted facts 
and tried to undermine our bipartisan compromise.
  My colleagues from California and New York stated this morning that 
the renewable fuel standard would result in substantially higher prices 
at the gas pump. However, they fail to mention that the report by the 
Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy stated 
that over 90 percent of any increased costs would come from the 
phaseout of MTBE.
  They also failed to note that the recent reports by the Energy 
Information Administration and the GAO did not take into account the 
important fact that 13 States have already banned the use of MTBE. The 
fact is, any increased cost at the pump would be very minimal at most--
perhaps a half cent a gallon--if there is an increased cost.
  This standard does not require a single gallon of renewable fuel be 
used in any particular State or region. The additional flexibility 
provided by the credit trading provisions will result in much lower 
cost to refiners, and thus, to consumers. Renewable fuels will be used 
where they are most cost effective.
  Others claim since renewable fuels are largely produced in the 
Midwest, this standard will require substantial investments in 
increased transportation costs. Again, not true. Ethanol has already 
transported cost effectively from coast to coast via barge and railcar. 
An analysis completed in January by the Department of Energy concluded 
that no major infrastructure barriers exist to expanding the U.S. 
ethanol industry to 5.1 billion gallons per year, which is comparable 
to the renewable fuel standard in the energy bill.
  I also would like to point out that it is 7,666 miles direct from 
Baghdad to Los Angeles. It is 1,150 miles from Hastings, NE--home of 
two ethanol plants--to Los Angeles. If we can transport oil that we pay 
Saddam Hussein for from Iraq to the United States, we can surely 
transport ethanol across the United States cost effectively and 
certainly in the best security interests of our country.
  Some have claimed there are not adequate supplies of renewable fuel 
to meet the demand created by this standard. That is not true. One look 
at the ethanol industry shows that it has been growing substantially in 
recent years. It has been growing in anticipation of the phaseout of 
MTBE--particularly in California.
  According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 16 new ethanol plants--
14 of them farmer-owned cooperatives, not big companies, which I heard 
this morning as well, not big companies, but individuals, small farmers 
banding together, small businesspeople banding together to build 
cooperatives--several of these expansions have been completed and new 
ones are being built. Thirteen additional plants are now currently 
under construction.
  A survey conducted by the California Energy Commission concluded that 
the ethanol industry will have the capacity to produce 3.5 billion 
gallons a year by the end of 2004, and that capacity could double by 
the end of 2005. With the standard beginning in 2004 at 2.3 billion 
gallons, that means there will be an adequate amount of renewable fuel 
to provide the additional volume needed.
  Even with those assurances, we have included in this amendment 
additional safeguards. If the standard is likely to result in 
significant adverse consumer impacts, then the EPA Administrator has 
the authority to reduce the volumes. Also, upon the petition of a 
State--any State--or by EPA's own determination, the EPA may waive the 
standard, in whole or in part, if it determines the standard would 
severely harm the economy or the environment of a State, a region, or 
the country.
  Even more ludicrous is this claim by some who say the phaseout of 
MTBE will result in a shortage of fuel supplies. That is not true. 
Remember this agreement calls for a 4-year phaseout of MTBE.
  The large expansion of the renewable fuel industry will easily cover 
the loss of MTBE, given this 4-year notice. As an example, in 
California, where polls show that more than 76 percent of the people of 
California support a ban on MTBE, the fuel industry is ready to make 
the transition from MTBE to renewable fuel. Why in the world do we

[[Page 4428]]

think the oil companies agreed to this standard if they thought it 
could not be met?
  All six California refiners are ready to use ethanol now, today. Both 
the ethanol industry and the California refining and transportation 
system have spent billions of dollars preparing to use ethanol.
  I also keep hearing references to ethanol as an untested fuel. 
Ethanol has been used across this country successfully for more than 20 
years. It is hardly untested. But I also note that the California 
Environmental Protection Agency completed a comprehensive analysis of 
ethanol's environmental and health impacts, giving it a clean bill of 
health, before approving ethanol for use as a replacement to MTBE.
  Ethanol has helped the Chicago area become the only ozone 
nonattainment area in the country to come into compliance with the 
national ozone standard. Ethanol has been tested, and it has passed. 
And one of the reasons that Chicago has found itself in that unique 
position is because of its use of ethanol.
  President Bush has proclaimed the promise of renewable fuels by 
saying recently:

       Renewable fuels are gentle on the environment, and they are 
     made in America so they cannot be threatened by any foreign 
     power.

  As former President Clinton said during his administration:

       Ethanol production increases farm income, decreases 
     deficiency payments, creates jobs in America, and reduces 
     American reliance on foreign oil.

  Both Presidents Clinton and Bush are absolutely right. This renewable 
fuel standard is good for all of America.
  I, again, ask my colleagues to support the renewable fuels agreement 
in the Senate energy bill that we debate today. I do oppose any 
amendments that would undermine this carefully crafted agreement.
  In conclusion, before I yield the floor, I wish to respond to a 
comment I heard this morning from one of my colleagues from New York. I 
believe he mentioned something to the effect that an ethanol bill in 
Nebraska failed. I am not sure what his point was. But, for the record, 
and for the edification of all who heard that, and especially my 
colleague, last year the Nebraska Legislature tried to mandate that 
every gas station--every gas pump--in the State sell an ethanol blend. 
Now, that is a bit different--completely different--if that was the 
parallel attempted to be drawn from this standard, this bipartisan 
standard that we have agreed to that is currently in the present energy 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for 
his leadership in opposition to this amendment, and more importantly 
for his leadership over the last several months in bringing together 
unity on this issue that is both bipartisan as well as across industry 
and economic sectors.
  Madam President, there was a time when the States of New York and 
California were represented by Senators who supported requiring the use 
of ethanol and other domestic alternative fuels.
  In fact, there was a time, less than 3 years ago, when two of the 
current California Senators and the senior Senator from New York, voted 
in favor of replacing MTBE with ethanol.
  What has changed to cause these Senators to reverse themselves? I 
frankly don't know.
  But there is one thing that has changed since the time New York and 
California were represented by Senators who supported replacing foreign 
fuel with domestic alternative and renewable fuels.
  Today, more than ever, our national security is at risk because of 
our dependence upon foreign energy.
  Today, more than ever, the Middle East oil and MTBE producers, have 
us literally, over the barrel.
  More than ever. That is the biggest change since the time California 
and New York Senators supported replacing Middle East oil and MTBE with 
home grown renewable and alternative fuels.
  Yet, today, they come to the floor of the Senate, to offer an 
amendment which will help assure that Middle East oil and MTBE 
producers maintain and increase their grip over the United States.
  Today, 75 percent of the MTBE California uses, is produced by 
foreigners.
  Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of California MTBE.
  In March of 1999, California's Governor, Gray Davis, issued an 
executive order, stating that by the end of 2002, all MTBE would be 
banned from California.
  In August of 1999, Senator Boxer of California introduced a Senate 
resolution, calling for MTBE to be replaced by renewable ethanol. With 
the help of Senator Feinstein and Senator Schumer, that resolution was 
adopted by the Senate. That resolution underscored that renewable 
ethanol should replace MTBE. Why? It specifically stated that ethanol 
should replace MTBE to reduce our dependence upon foreign energy. It 
also stated that renewable ethanol should replace MTBE because MTBE was 
polluting drinking water.
  Patriotic American farmers and ethanol producers, in direct response 
to these two initiatives by California's elected officials, invested 
$1.4 billion of their hard earned money to increase ethanol production 
by 1 billion gallons a year.
  By the end of this year, when MTBE was supposed to be banned in 
California, our Nation's farmers and ethanol producers will be able to 
produce 400 to 500 million gallons more than is necessary to replace 
all of California's MTBE.
  The California Energy Commission conducted a survey and concluded 
that by the end of 2004, U.S. ethanol production capacity will reach 
3.5 billion gallons a year.
  The renewable fuels standard, which these Senators want to gut, 
requires only 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol to be used starting in 
2004. So even by the California Energy Commission's admission, the 
United States will be producing 1.2 billion gallons above and beyond 
what is required under the renewable fuels standard.
  We are awash in ethanol produced in America's Midwest, yet 3 weeks 
ago, the Governor of California announced that MTBE can be used for 
another whole year. It doesn't make sense. Some elected officials would 
rather force their consumers to use MTBE from the Middle East, instead 
of ethanol from America's Middle West. They can't seriously be worried 
about motor fuel prices. How can increasing and diversifying your 
sources of energy, increase the price of your product?
  Today, California has only seven refiners, and its two largest 
sources for MTBE are foreign. In sharp contrast, there are 61 ethanol 
plants in 19 States in the United States--two of which are in 
California.
  The California Energy Commission has determined that fuel without 
oxygenates, such as MTBE or ethanol, will actually be more expensive.
  In a recent report, the commission explained and I quote--``non-
oxygenated reformulated alternatives are not necessarily easier to 
produce (than ethanol RFG), would involve significant capacity loss, 
and would require even more complex logistics.''
  A recent poll of Californian opinion, conducted by the California 
Renewable Fuels Partnership, found that 76 percent of likely voters 
support banning MTBE because we can't afford the pollution caused by 
MTBE. Only 13 percent of those polled thought that it was a bad idea to 
ban MTBE because of potential higher gasoline prices.
  The concerns expressed by opponents of the renewable fuels standard 
don't stand up to the facts.
  So it boils down to this: If you want to take a positive step toward 
helping our Nation become less dependent upon foreign energy and the 
Middle East and to encourage the development of jobs and family income 
here in the United States, then join me in defeating this attempt to 
gut the renewable fuels standard.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 4429]]

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to address the amendment 
introduced by my colleagues from New York and California to do away 
with the renewable fuel standard. I think it is important that we 
correct some of the misunderstandings, misapprehensions, and 
misstatements of fact that have gone on in this debate.
  First, what does the bill do and what does it not do? The fact is 
that S. 517 does not require that a single gallon of renewable fuels be 
used in any particular State or region. The additional flexibility 
provided by the RFS credit trading system provisions of S. 517 will 
result in a much lower cost to refiners and thus to consumers. The 
credit trading system will ensure that ethanol is used where it is most 
effective.
  Now, according to one of the lead-
ers in the petroleum industry, Chev-
ronTexas:

       The free market will not allow a California price 
     differential of 20-30 cents a gallon to be sustained. The 
     market will always find a way to take advantage of a much 
     smaller differential.

  Furthermore, a nationwide Federal MTBE ban provides certainty for 
investments and eliminates the greater use of boutique fuels, thereby 
lowering gasoline prices. The continuation of current policy whereby 
States may ban MTBE without any regard to regional coordination is more 
costly than a uniform Federal ban.
  Increasing the use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, 
diversifies our energy infrastructure, making it less vulnerable to 
acts of terrorism and increases the number of available fuel options, 
increasing competition, and reducing consumer costs of gasoline.
  A review of the publicly available price information demonstrates 
that ethanol has been consistently less expensive per gallon in net 
cost to refiners than MTBE for the last 3 years. In fact, the March 4 
issue of Octane Week quotes MTBE at 89 cents per gallon and ethanol at 
just 60 cents per gallon. Instead of higher prices, ethanol would lower 
pump prices. While this is undeniably true in conventional gasoline, it 
is also true in RFG areas. Refiners do incur a small cost per gallon to 
produce the RFG ethanol blendstocks, but the lower ethanol price more 
than makes up for the difference. Thus, replacing MTBE with ethanol 
should lead to reduced, not increased, consumer gasoline prices.
  In other words, it is not accurate to say that the price in Missouri 
will rise 5.9 cents per gallon or 4 cents per gallon in Wyoming.
  My good friend and colleague from New York tells me that in my home 
State of Missouri, gas prices as a result of the RFS will increase by 
5.9 cents per gallon. He went on to tell us all that the increase is 
based on the unavailability of ethanol, the inability of us to get 
ethanol in Missouri.
  I want to assure the senior Senator from New York that we produce a 
lot of corn in Missouri, and our friends seem to be ignoring all of the 
residual economic benefits of ethanol use.
  For example, ethanol production increases personal and business 
income and results in a net savings to the Federal budget of $3.6 
billion annually.
  Ethanol also adds over $450 million to State tax receipts. Ethanol 
production reduces the taxpayer burden for unemployment benefits and 
farm deficiency payments.
  When you raise the price of corn by increasing the demand, it cuts 
down on the amount of payments that are made under existing farm 
programs to people who raise corn.
  Ethanol production reduces the unfavorable U.S. trade balance in 
energy by $2 billion annually.
  Ethanol production increases net farm income by $4.5 billion, adding 
30 cents to the value of every bushel of corn.
  Ethanol reduces the consumer cost of gasoline by extending supplies, 
providing an alternative to more costly imported oil, and leverage for 
independent gasoline marketers to compete against the larger, more 
powerful, integrated oil companies.
  A recent study found that doubling ethanol production would create 
nearly 50,000 new jobs, $1.9 billion in economic development, and 
increase household incomes by $2.5 billion.
  Some may say: Isn't the ethanol program just corporate welfare? The 
simple answer is no. The ethanol tax credit is provided to gasoline 
marketers and oil companies, not ethanol producers, as an incentive to 
blend their gasoline with clean, domestic, renewable ethanol.
  It is a cost-effective program that actually returns more revenue to 
the U.S. Treasury than it costs due to the increased wages, taxes, 
reduced unemployment benefits and, most importantly, reduced farm 
deficiency payments, while at the same time holding down the price of 
gasoline and helping the American farmer.
  In summary, I encourage those who support the amendment against the 
renewable fuels standard to come out to the heartland where the 
occupant of the chair and I live to see Nebraska, to see Missouri, and 
see what the industry is all about. They can learn the benefits of 
ethanol, soy diesel, biodiesel, the home-grown renewable fuels to the 
environment and to the communities and our economy, particularly our 
rural economy.
  Come down to my State and see what the Missouri Corn Growers 
Association has done to provide value-added opportunities for Missouri 
farmers. The Missouri Corn Growers Association and the Missouri Corn 
Merchandising Council provided support for two groups of Missouri 
farmers seeking to add value to their corn production by processing 
corn into ethanol. In 1994, Golden Triangle Energy of Craig, MO, and 
Northeast Missouri Grain Processors of Macon, MO, organized as new 
generation cooperatives.
  The latter, known as NEMOGP, broke ground for their plant on April 
17, 1999. I was pleased, proud, and excited to be there. It is now 
producing 22 million gallons of ethanol per year, and they are in the 
process of doubling the capacity to make over 40 million gallons.
  Similarly, the prospects at Craig are also very promising, and other 
groups of farmers are looking to build ethanol plants and to build soy 
diesel plants. We are growing it, we are processing it, we are 
producing it, and we are ready to sell it. It is going to be good for 
our trade balance, for our farmers, for our economy, and for the 
environment.
  I believe when one goes to a station that offers the E85 plan--there 
are 100 of them nationwide: 1 in Kansas City, 2 in St. Louis, 2 in 
Jefferson City, MO, and they are expected to have more around the 
country. One can find out about the closest station by checking the Web 
site of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. One will find one can 
get good cleaner burning ethanol blended gasoline, and it is available.
  Before we decide we are going to back off from this very wise, 
multiple-benefit usage of renewable fuels, come see in the heartland 
what a positive deal this is and come see why we in Missouri--I assume 
my neighbors in States around us--are proud to be using E85 ethanol and 
B20 soy diesel.
  I yield the floor. I urge my colleagues not to support the amendment. 
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those 
who support the ethanol provisions in this legislation. Ethanol is one 
of our most promising renewable resources. By blending ethanol with 
gasoline, we can reduce oil imports and reduce the environmental damage 
of vehicle emissions.
  As America struggles to meet its growing energy needs, ethanol 
provides extraordinary opportunities. The product is made from corn. It 
can be produced in abundance, unlike other fossil fuels.

[[Page 4430]]

  The more ethanol we use to fuel our cars and trucks, the less oil we 
need to import from hostile countries such as Iraq. Rather than looking 
to the Mideast for energy, we would be far better served to look to the 
Midwest.
  This legislation lays out a plan for increasing the amount of ethanol 
Americans use to meet their transportation fuel needs.
  I find it absurd that some claim these provisions are included in 
this bill simply for the benefit of ethanol producers. Ethanol is an 
environmentally safe and economically efficient way to reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of oil.
  In short, additional use of ethanol to meet our needs for 
transportation fuel will be good for our environment, good for our 
economy, and good for our national security interests. Not only do I 
support the renewable fuels standard we are debating today, I look 
forward to supporting an amendment that will be offered by the Finance 
Committee. That amendment incorporates several aspects of legislation 
that I introduced last year.
  Specifically, it will expand eligibility for the tax credit available 
to small producers of ethanol. These changes will ensure that farmer-
owned cooperatives are eligible to receive a tax credit. It will also 
encourage small producers to expand the size of their operation to meet 
increased demand. These changes will help us meet the demand for 
ethanol envisioned by the bill.
  Ethanol is truly a win-win solution to our energy needs. The 
increased use required by this legislation represents a positive step, 
one for our farmers, for our environment, and for our energy 
independence. I support the compromise in this bill that will lead to 
increased uses of ethanol, and I urge my colleagues to support it as 
well. The renewable fuels standard included in this bill is an 
important part of a balanced energy policy that we need.


                    Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel

  Mr. President, on a separate topic, I would like to discuss an 
amendment I will be offering next week. Two years ago, the Department 
of Energy proposed to send a shipment of foreign spent nuclear fuel 
through Missouri. The route selected went through the heavily populated 
areas of St. Louis, Columbia, and Kansas City, along a major highway, 
Interstate 70, that was undergoing major repairs. Governor Carnahan 
intervened, and an alternate, more rural route was selected. The 
shipment was completed without incident.
  Then last year, Missouri was asked to accept another shipment through 
the State. Governor Holden raised the same objections that had been 
discussed the year earlier. And after he did, a curious thing happened: 
The Department of Energy held up shipments from a reactor inside 
Missouri. This reactor produced isotopes used in cancer treatment. If 
these shipments did not go forward as scheduled, the reactor would have 
to be closed, halting production of needed medicines for bone cancer 
patients.
  I insisted these two matters--the shipments from the reactor in 
Missouri and the transport of spent nuclear fuel through the State--be 
delinked, and they were.
  Eventually, Governor Holden worked out a safety protocol with the 
Department and the foreign spent fuel shipment went forward. Although 
the shipment was completed, we encountered some problems with the 
timing of its passage through Missouri.
  Our experience in Missouri over the past 2 years suggests the 
Department of Energy's route selection process deserves careful study. 
How we deal with spent nuclear fuel in this country may be a matter of 
great controversy, but regardless of one's position on this topic, 
everyone ought to be able to agree that when spent fuel has to be 
transported we want it to be done in the safest possible way.
  One of the key components in ensuring safe transport of spent fuel is 
the process for selecting the safest route. My amendment would 
commission the National Academy of Sciences study of the Department of 
Energy's route selection process for shipments of spent nuclear fuel. 
The National Academy would examine the way DOE picks potential routes, 
the factors it uses to evaluate the safety of these routes, including 
traffic and accident data, the quality of roads and the proximity to 
population centers and venues where people congregate, and the process 
it uses to compare the risks associated with each route.
  There are a number of reasons why it makes sense to commission this 
study now. First, the responsibility for this program is divided among 
multiple agencies. The Department of Transportation sets the 
regulations for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has oversight responsibility and the Department 
of Energy makes the final decision in consultation with these 
organizations.
  A study will help ensure these agencies are working together and are 
properly performing their function.
  Secondly, these agencies are using regulations drafted in the 1990s. 
The devastating events of September 11 have taught us we have to 
rethink all of our security procedures, and while I understand the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued some additional guidelines 
since that date, I believe a complete review is in order and an NSA 
study will help us ensure that our agencies are focused on the 
appropriate safety factors.
  Finally, Congress will be considering a highway bill next year. If 
there are safety problems on routes that are likely to be used for 
cross-country shipments of spent nuclear fuel, we ought to address them 
in the highway bill. We need to start the study now, however, if we 
want to have the information in time for a debate on the highway bill.
  This amendment is not intended to take sides on the controversial 
issue that will soon be before this Senate. Its purpose is to get a 
neutral, nonpartisan review of an important public safety function that 
has received very little scrutiny.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3094, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the pending business be an amendment 
offered yesterday by Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I send a modification to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3094), as modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a Consumer Energy Commission to assess and 
    provide recommendations regarding energy price spikes from the 
                       perspective of consumers)

       At the appropriate place in title XVII, insert:

     SEC. 1704. CONSUMER ENERGY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment of Commission.--There is established a 
     commission to be known as the ``Consumer Energy Commission''.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be comprised of 11 
     members who shall be appointed within 30 days from the date 
     of enactment of this section and who shall serve for the life 
     of the commission.
       (2) Appointments in the senate and the house.--The majority 
     leader and the minority leader of the Senate and the Speaker 
     and minority leader of the House of Representatives shall 
     each appoint 2 members--
       (A) 1 of whom shall represent consumer groups focusing on 
     energy issues; and
       (B) 1 of whom shall represent the energy industry.
       (3) Appointments by the president.--The President shall 
     appoint 3 members--
       (A) 1 of whom shall represent consumer groups focusing on 
     energy issues;
       (B) 1 of whom shall represent the energy industry; and
       (C) 1 of whom shall represent the Department of Energy.
       (c) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Act, the Commission shall hold the first 
     meeting of the Commission regardless of the number of members 
     that have been appointed and shall select a Chairperson and 
     Vice Chairperson from among the members of the Commission.

[[Page 4431]]

       (d) Administrative Expenses.--Members of the Commission 
     shall serve without compensation, except for a per diem and 
     travel expenses which shall be reimbursed, and the Department 
     of Energy shall pay expenses as necessary to carry out this 
     section, with the expenses not to exceed $400,000.
       (e) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a nationwide study 
     of significant price spikes since 1990 in major United States 
     consumer energy products, including electricity, gasoline, 
     home heating oil, natural gas and propane with a focus on 
     their causes including insufficient inventories, supply 
     disruptions, refinery capacity limits, insufficient 
     infrastructure, regulatory failures, demand growth, reliance 
     on imported supplies, insufficient availability of 
     alternative energy sources, abuse of market power, market 
     concentration and any other relevant factors.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commissions, the Commission shall submit 
     to Congress a report that contains the findings and 
     conclusions of the Commission; and recommendations for 
     legislation, administrative actions, and voluntary actions by 
     industry and consumers to protect consumers and small 
     businesses from future price spikes in consumer energy 
     products.
       (g) Consultation.--The Commission shall consult with the 
     Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission, the Department of Energy and other Federal and 
     State agencies as appropriate.
       (h) Sunset.--The Commission shall terminate within 30 days 
     after the submission of the report to Congress.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on or in 
relation to this amendment at 3:45, with the time prior to that time 
equally divided, and there be no amendments in order prior to that 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor to the majority leader.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 3525 and ANWR

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am waiting to propound a unanimous 
consent request having to do with border security. I will not do that, 
of course, until the Republican leader returns.
  My preference, as I said before on several occasions, and Senator 
Lott has said, is that we take up the ANWR amendment. We have even said 
we are prepared to offer it ourselves in order to move this process 
along. I am told the sponsors of the amendment still are not prepared 
to offer this amendment. So I have no choice, under these 
circumstances, as much as I would like very much to be on it right now, 
but to postpone consideration of the ANWR amendment and to make the 
most of what time we have available to us.
  I have consulted with the distinguished Republican leader. I know the 
administration believes, as we do, to move the border security 
legislation along is something in everyone's interest.
  The House has passed a bill. It is my hope that we can pass the 
border security bill as well. The House has passed two different 
versions of border security, one involving the so-called 245(i) 
provisions, and one without those provisions included. What we are 
doing this afternoon would be to take up a bill that does not include 
245(i), but I have indicated publicly, and indicated to Senator Lott 
and to my colleagues, that it is my desire to bring up the 245(i) 
provisions.
  I know there is opposition--I am told on both sides of the aisle. But 
we must address the issue. It is an important issue. It is one that 
should be resolved. It is one on which the Senate has acted on several 
other occasions. So there will come a time when we will do that.
  But in order to at least pass those pieces of border security that we 
all agree on, I will ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3525, the border security 
bill, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration on Friday, April 
12, at 11:30, and that no call for the regular order serve to replace 
the bill; and that, upon resumption of the energy bill, S. 557, Senator 
Murkowski be recognized to offer his ANWR amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Daschle will yield, I did not 
object because I think, all things considered, this is a good way to 
proceed at this time.
  I, too, would prefer we go ahead and begin consideration of the ANWR 
amendment with regard to oil exploration in that area of Alaska. But we 
have other amendments that are pending. Work has continued to be done 
on those issues this afternoon and perhaps, I assume, some in the 
morning, even while a process is worked out as to exactly how to 
proceed with the ANWR amendment.
  One of the problems I understand--it is a legitimate one--is that the 
amendment Senator Murkowski would like to offer has some provisions 
that need to have some scoring done. I think that is legitimate. They 
want to know what it might cost. I think Members are entitled to know 
that. I presume he could have offered the amendment and had the scoring 
done over the weekend, but I think both sides were a little bit 
hesitant to have it offered and just have it kind of hanging out there, 
not knowing what the final form would be--whether, if it would be 
modified, we would get into a fuss over second-degree amendments. So I 
think this is a good way to go. Hopefully, we will be ready to go back 
to this on Tuesday, deal with the ANWR provisions, deal with the tax 
provisions, and finish the amendments we have remaining. I still think 
it is absolutely essential for our country that we get an energy bill.
  I understand there is a need to complete our work next week on that 
issue so we can move on to other issues. We are pressing Senator 
Daschle to take up other issues, including this border security and the 
245(i) immigration issue and the trade legislation--other issues.
  By doing it this way, we can dispose of a bill that is needed. Border 
security needs to be dealt with. It has bipartisan support. The 
administration supports it. We can do that by taking it up tomorrow, 
being on it Monday, and I hope we can be done with it sometime early on 
Tuesday, and then go back to ANWR.
  I have checked this out with the sponsors of the border security bill 
and with Senator Murkowski and it seems this is agreeable to all 
parties and this is the way we can get some work done while we work out 
the process on the other amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation in the effort to move this legislation along. As I say, my 
choice would have been to have completed our work on ANWR already. We 
have now been on the bill about a month. We have been on it 20 
legislative days, but over a month of calendar days.
  There is no reason why we should continue to wait for an amendment 
that I thought might have been the first out of the box.
  Having said that, I urge my colleagues to come down to the floor. We 
are about to have a vote on the Durbin amendment. There are other 
amendments pending on which we can have votes. And there are other 
amendments to be offered that we should have votes on as quickly as 
possible.
  I ask my colleagues to offer amendments this afternoon. The floor is 
open for additional business. This does not preclude additional 
amendment consideration this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me underscore what the majority 
leader has said, and also the Republican leader, and indicate that I 
also believe we can complete action on this energy bill fairly quickly 
once we come back to it and once we have the ANWR-related amendment 
offered by Senator Murkowski and the other proponents of that 
amendment.
  I regret that we are not able to begin dealing with that today. But 
we are not. Therefore, I support the majority leader's decision to move 
to this other legislation beginning tomorrow.

[[Page 4432]]

                           Amendment No. 3094

  Let me say a few words about the Durbin amendment. The Durbin 
amendment was offered yesterday. It would establish the Consumer Energy 
Commission. It provides for an 11-member Commission which would have 
the job of doing a 180-day study of a variety of issues related to the 
generation of electricity in our country and the potential failures of 
the system.
  I think it is a good amendment. I think it is one which has the 
prospect of improving our understanding of this issue.
  This board is to be concluded after 180 days and report back to the 
Congress within 30 days. At the end of the 180 days, the group goes out 
of existence 30 days later.
  I don't think there should be any substantial objection to this. To 
my mind, it is a meritorious amendment. I said yesterday that I thought 
it should be approved. I certainly believe that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that in a moment we 
will vote on my amendment. I certainly thank the chairman, Senator 
Bingaman, for his kind words of support. A number of my colleagues are 
cosponsors of this amendment to create a Consumer Energy Commission: 
Senator Smith, Senator Schumer, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Stabenow.
  In this bill involving energy policy in America, there are many 
worthwhile issues to be considered. But I think there is one position 
that needs to be filled with this amendment. It is time for us to 
invite consumers from across America to be part of this conversation 
about America's energy future--the families who have to pay the heating 
bills, the hard-working people who have to pay for gasoline to get back 
and forth to work, the individuals and small businesses that may find 
because of price hikes they cannot keep their employees on the job, the 
farmers who are worried about aspects of energy price fluctuations and 
what that means to their lives.
  This Commission is a short-term effort of limited duration and 
limited expense to try to invite that conversation so the consumers, 
small businesses, and family farmers will be part of our national 
strategy for energy security. We do not believe that the GAO, as good 
as it is, can really speak from that human and real perspective. They 
cannot provide the kind of study of which we are asking. The GAO and 
the IEA have provided plenty of studies and data on a variety of energy 
issues. However, they haven't brought the analysis, industry, and 
consumer groups together to consider particularly the problem of price 
spikes.
  I have a chart that shows gasoline retail prices. You can see why a 
lot of people in the Midwest, for example, call me and call the 
President from time to time to ask: What is going on at the gasoline 
station? Today it is $1.30 a gallon and the next day it is $2 a gallon. 
Why would that happen? Has war broken out in the Middle East? No. It is 
just the Easter surprise that you have every year in the Midwest. 
Gasoline prices have gone out of control. For months at a time, 
families find they are spending extraordinary amounts for gasoline. 
Businesses cut back on their employees. Whether it is trucking 
companies, delivery services, we find a lot of sacrifices are being 
made.
  I do not know that this Commission is going to come up with the 
direct answer to it, but what is wrong with inviting the consumers of 
America into this conversation? What is wrong with asking families and 
small businesses to join us in this effort?
  That is why I hope we can bring all the stakeholders to the table. 
That is why I think we need to give consumers and small business a 
voice. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in strong 
support of this amendment creating a Consumer Energy Commission.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Gramm
       
  The amendment (No. 3094), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3114

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to amendment No. 3114, offered by Senator Feinstein, and that 
the time until 4:35 p.m.--for the next 20 minutes--be equally divided 
in the usual form, and at 4:35 the Senate vote on or in relation to the 
amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
believe there is objection on this side. I am happy to check on that 
and respond.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Feinstein 
amendment on the renewable fuels standard.
  The Senate energy bill contains a landmark renewable fuels standard 
that is an essential part of a sound national energy policy. The bill 
provides for an orderly phase-down of MTBE use, removal of the oxygen 
content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) and the 
establishment of a nationwide renewable fuels standard--RFS--that will 
be phased in over the next decade. The standard has strong bipartisan 
support and is the result of long and comprehensive negotiations 
between farm groups, the American Petroleum Institute, and coastal and 
Midwestern states. It is the first time that a substantive agreement 
has been reached on an issue that will reduce our dependency on foreign 
oil and greatly improve the nation's energy security.
  Moreover, the renewable fuels standard in S. 517 provides a 
nationwide, cost-effective solution to address the concerns over MTBE 
use. Although individual states are banning or considering banning 
MTBE, the states are still left with meeting the federal oxygenate 
standard for reformulated gasoline. The provisions of S. 517 address 
both of these issues in a balanced manner and do so without mandating 
individual states to meet specific levels of renewable fuels production 
or use.

[[Page 4433]]

  I have spoken in the past about the benefits of renewable fuels. 
These home-grown fuels will improve our energy security and provide a 
direct benefit for the agricultural economy of South Dakota and other 
rural states. The new standard is largely based on legislation that I 
introduced with Senator Chuck Hagel. The leadership of Senators Daschle 
and Bingaman resulted in the consensus legislation on this issue.
  The consensus package would ensure future growth for ethanol and 
biodiesel through the creation of a new, renewable fuels content 
standard in all motor fuel produced and used in the U.S. Today, ethanol 
and biodiesel comprise less than one percent of all transportation fuel 
in the U.S.--1.8 billion gallons is currently produced in the US. The 
consensus package would require that 5 billions gallons of 
transportation fuel be comprised of renewable fuel by 2012 nearly a 
tripling of the current ethanol production.
  I do not need to convince anyone in South Dakota and other rural 
states of the benefits of ethanol to the environment and the economies 
of rural communities. We have many plants in South Dakota and more are 
being planned. These farmer-owned ethanol plants in South Dakota, and 
in neighboring states, demonstrate the hard work and commitment being 
expended to serve a growing market for clean domestic fuels.
  Today, 3 ethanol plants--Broins in Scotland and Heartland Grain Fuels 
in Aberdeen and Huron--produce nearly 30 million gallons per year. With 
the enactment of the renewable fuels standard, the production in South 
Dakota and other states could grow substantially, with at least 2000 
farmers owning ethanol plants and producing 200 million gallons of 
ethanol per year or more.
  I understand the concerns raised by the senators from California and 
New York. This is a major a major change in the makeup of our 
transportation fuel. The goal of the agreement that has been reached on 
this title is to phase in the renewable fuels standard in a manner that 
is fair to every region of the country. It also bans MTBE and 
eliminates the oxygenate standard, two changes that Californians have 
sought for years. The goal of this agreement is not to raise gas 
prices, but to diversify our energy infrastructure and increase the 
number of fuel options. This helps to increase our energy security, 
increase competition and reduce consumer costs of gasoline.
  The new standard does not require that a single gallon of renewable 
fuel must be used in any particular state or region. Moreover, the 
language includes credit trading provisions that gives refiners 
flexibility to meet the standard's requirements. In no way is this 
intended to penalize California, New York or any other region in the 
country.
  In addition, there are allegations of huge price increases at the 
pump should the standard be enacted. This concern is unfounded and the 
analysis that the figures are based upon is flawed. Two recent reports 
by the Energy Information Administration--EIA--and the General 
Accounting Office--GAO--have raised some concerns about higher gasoline 
costs as well supply implications of the renewable fuels standard. 
These reports failed to take into account several factors, resulting in 
conclusions that are incomplete.
  The EIA report notes that 90 percent of the costs associated with the 
provisions of the bill are because of the ban on MTBE, not the 
inclusion of the renewable fuels standard. The report also states that 
the RFS without the MTBE ban would raise prices up to one cent a gallon 
for reformulated gasoline and up to .5 cents a gallon for all gasoline. 
However, the report failed to account for the provisions of the 
legislation that allow for credit banking and trading, which would 
lower any increase in prices.
  The GAO report only evaluated a California ban on MTBE but assumed 
the continuation of the federal oxygenate standard. Because S. 517 
eliminates the oxygen standard, the high costs in the GAO report are 
exaggerated. The American Petroleum Institute analysis of the effect of 
the RFS on gasoline costs, including the trading program and the 
elimination of the oxygenate standard, indicates that there are almost 
no additional costs.
  The renewable fuels standard in S. 517 addresses the difficulties 
that states have encountered in meeting the makeup of federal gasoline 
standards, while promoting the use of home-grown fuels that will reduce 
the nation's dependency on foreign oil. Any attempts to reduce or 
eliminate the standard should be opposed so that we can move forward 
and improve the nation's energy security.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. Well, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
3114. The clerk will call the roll.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous 
order be amended to allow 15 minutes for the parties to debate and, as 
indicated, the vote occur at 4:35 p.m; that the Senate resume 
consideration of amendment No. 3114, and the time before 4:35 p.m. be 
controlled equally and in the usual form; and that at 4:35 p.m. the 
Senate vote on or in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree 
amendment prior to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thought we were going to be given 20 
minutes, 10 on each side.
  Mr. REID. That will be fine.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. I object.


                           Amendment No. 3114

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 3114. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) and 
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Wellstone

[[Page 4434]]



                                NAYS--36

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     McCain
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gramm
     Gregg
     Miller
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader has authorized me to 
announce there will be no more rollcall votes tonight. As per the 
agreement we made earlier this afternoon, there will be no rollcall 
votes tomorrow. There will be rollcall votes on Monday, for the 
information of all Senators.
  This has been a difficult week, but we have made significant 
progress. We have completed election reform. We have gotten permission 
to move to the port security bill which we will start debating 
tomorrow. Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski have slogged their way 
through this amendment process. I think we have made significant 
progress on the list of amendments we have. Although we have not gotten 
unanimous consent to agree to a finite list, each side has worked on 
amendments. We had a period when there were about 250 amendments. We 
are down now to probably 40 or so. Not all of those could be referred 
to as serious amendments. There is still a long way to go.
  The amendment agreement entered into by the two leaders earlier today 
indicates we are going to finish the border security legislation, 
hopefully, by Tuesday. At that time, the Senator from Alaska will offer 
his amendment on ANWR. We are not going to take up the energy bill 
until the ANWR amendment is ready. When that is done, we will take it 
up.
  It is my understanding in speaking with the Senator from Alaska, and 
several others, and also the Republican leader that they are very close 
to having an amendment which they feel good about and will offer. I 
hope that can be finalized by Tuesday.


        Amendments Nos. 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, and 3123 En Bloc

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the 
desk and ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes 
     amendments numbered 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, and 3123 en bloc.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3119

 (Purpose: To ensure the safety of the nation's mines and mine workers)

       On page 564, after line 2, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1506. FEDERAL MINE INSPECTORS.

       ``In light of projected retirements of Federal mine 
     inspectors and the need for additional personnel, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall hire, train, and deploy such 
     additional skilled mine inspectors (particularly inspectors 
     with practical experience as a practical mining engineer) as 
     necessary to ensure the availability of skilled and 
     experienced individuals and to maintain the number of Federal 
     mine inspectors at or above the levels authorized by law or 
     established by regulation.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3120

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on the 
     effect of natural gas pipelines and other energy transmission 
  infrastructure across the Great Lakes on the Great Lakes ecosystem)

       At the end of title XVII, insert the following:

     SEC. 17___. STUDY OF NATURAL GAS AND OTHER ENERGY 
                   TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS THE GREAT 
                   LAKES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Great lake.--The term ``Great Lake'' means Lake Erie, 
     Lake Huron (including Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake 
     Ontario (including the Saint Lawrence River from Lake Ontario 
     to the 45th parallel of latitude), and Lake Superior.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     representatives of appropriate Federal and State agencies, 
     shall--
       (A) conduct a study of--
       (i) the location and extent of anticipated growth of 
     natural gas and other energy transmission infrastructure 
     proposed to be constructed across the Great Lakes; and
       (ii) the environmental impacts of any natural gas or other 
     energy transmission infrastructure proposed to be constructed 
     across the Great Lakes; and
       (B) make recommendations for minimizing the environmental 
     impact of pipelines and other energy transmission 
     infrastructure on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
       (2) Advisory committee.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into 
     an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to 
     establish an advisory committee to ensure that the study is 
     complete, objective, and of good quality.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that describes the findings and recommendations 
     resulting from the study under subsection (b).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3121

  (Purpose: To promote the demonstration of certain high temperature 
                     superconducting technologies)

       On page 408, line 8, strike ``technologies.'' and insert 
     ``technologies; and
       ``(3) the use of high temperature superconducting 
     technology in projects to demonstrate the development of 
     superconductors that enhance the reliability, operational 
     flexibility, or power-carrying capability of electric 
     transmission systems or increase the electrical or 
     operational efficiency of electric energy generation, 
     transmission, distribution and storage systems.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3122

 (Purpose: To authorize a study of the way in which energy efficiency 
                       standards are determined)

       On page 301, after line 22, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 930. STUDY OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.

       ``The Secretary of Energy shall contract with the National 
     Academy of Sciences for a study, to be completed within one 
     year of enactment of this Act, to examine whether the goals 
     of energy efficiency standards are best served by measurement 
     of energy consumed, and efficiency improvements, at the 
     actual site of energy consumption, or through the full fuel 
     cycle, beginning at the source of energy production. The 
     Secretary shall submit the report to the Congress.''
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3123

     (Purpose: To encourage energy conservation through bicycling)

       On page 213, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 8  . CONSERVE BY BICYCLING PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish a Conserve By Bicycling pilot program that shall 
     provide for up to 10 geographically dispersed projects to 
     encourage the use of bicycles in place of motor vehicles. 
     Such projects shall use education and marketing to convert 
     motor vehicle trips to bike trips, document project results 
     and energy savings, and facilitate partnerships among 
     entities in the fields of transportation, law enforcement, 
     education, public health, environment, or energy. At least 20 
     percent of the cost of each project shall be provided from 
     State or local sources. Not later than 2 years after 
     implementation of the projects, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall submit a report to Congress on the 
     results of the pilot program.
       (b) National Academy Study.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall contract with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a study on the feasibility and benefits 
     of converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips and to 
     issue a report, not later than two years after enactment of 
     this Act, on the findings of such study.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation 
     $5,500,000, to remain available until expended, to carry out 
     the pilot program and study pursuant to this section.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the recent debate shows the challenges our 
country faces in balancing environmental protection with our Nation's 
energy security. Containing nearly 95 percent of our countries surface 
fresh water, the Great Lakes are a natural treasure which we must work 
to protect. Today I offered an amendment which would request that the 
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with representatives of the 
appropriate Federal and State agencies and the National Academy of

[[Page 4435]]

Science, conduct a study of the transmission of natural gas and 
electricity across the Great Lakes and report back to Congress within 
365 days regarding the impacts of such lines and recommendations for 
minimizing their environmental impact.
  As the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas will play an increasingly 
important role in addressing our nations energy demands. Even today, 
natural gas consumption is forecasted to increase at over 2 percent per 
year. However, the infrastructure for transporting natural gas is 
already strained.
  To address this problem, a number of companies have applied for 
permits to place pipelines and electric transmission lines across the 
Great Lakes. One such project is a pipeline which would transport up to 
700 million cubic feet of natural gas per day to New York and the 
northeast. The pipeline would cross the bottom of Lake Erie for 93.8 
miles, from Port Stanley, Ontario to Ripley, NY. This pipeline will be 
constructed using a new technique called jet trenching, which will 
suspend two and a half million cubic yards of sediment in Lake Erie. 
Much of this sediment may be contaminated and the effects of its 
redistribution are at best, unknown. Further, no one has analyzed the 
capacity of the Lakes to handle suspended sediments.
  It is obvious that energy transmission infrastructure is important, 
but it is critical that we understand the impacts of placing this 
infrastructure across the lake beds. It is also imperative that we 
develop a long term strategy for their placement. This amendment would 
require the Department of Energy to examine these questions and make 
recommendations on how to assure that these incredible bodies of water 
are protected for future generations.
  This amendment is simple, but its role in addressing the challenges 
we now face is essential. I want to thank my colleagues in supporting 
this amendment.


                       ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINES

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers this nation's 
future energy policy, we would like to discuss the intent of the 
amendment that the Senate will adopt regarding the planning and 
coordination of energy transmission lines in the Great Lakes.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. 
Bingaman and Mr. Murkowski, for working with us to authorize the 
Department of Energy, in consultation with Federal and State agencies, 
to study the anticipated growth of energy transmission infrastructure 
in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes ecosystem is complex, so it's 
important to understand how to minimize the possible impacts that the 
various energy transmission infrastructure proposals may have on the 
Great Lakes ecosystem.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues' concerns and 
agree that a comprehensive study that considers the environmental 
impacts of energy transmission infrastructure in the Great Lakes will 
be useful, as will any recommendations on ways to minimize any possible 
impacts.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is our intent that this amendment 
require the Secretary of Energy to complete a study that will include a 
review of the expected energy demand--including the geographic 
distribution of the demand--in the Great Lakes States and northeastern 
States for a 10-year period; a review of the proposed locations for new 
natural gas-fired electric generation facilities; a review of the 
locations and capacity of interstate and intrastate natural gas 
transmission pipelines in all Great Lakes states and other energy 
transmission infrastructure across the Great Lakes in existence or 
proposed as of the date of the completion of the study; a review of the 
potential environmental effects that could result from the construction 
of pipelines and other energy transmission infrastructure across the 
Great Lakes.
  When reviewing the potential environmental effects of construction, 
the Secretary should consider contaminated sediment deposits, Areas of 
Concern as designated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 
highly sensitive fisheries, and highly sensitive nearshore and coastal 
habitat. The Secretary should also include an analysis of potential 
environmental benefits of new natural gas-fired electric generation 
facilities and reduced consumption measure that could be undertaken; an 
analysis of the capacity of the Great Lakes to handle suspended 
sediment; takes into consideration the impacts of accommodating the 
energy transmission infrastructure on land use along the coasts of the 
Great Lakes; and takes into consideration the emergency response time 
for accidents in the energy transmission infrastructure. Not later than 
180 days after enactment of the underlying bill, the Secretary should 
report his findings and recommendations for the coordination of the 
development of natural gas and other energy transmission infrastructure 
that would minimize the aggregate negative environmental effects on the 
Great Lakes ecosystem.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senators from Michigan and Ohio and our colleagues from the Great Lakes 
states for clarifying the intent of their amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass by voice vote 
an amendment to the energy bill that would establish a Conserve by Bike 
Pilot Program in the Department of Transportation, as well as fund a 
research initiative on the potential energy savings of replacing car 
trips with bike trips. This program would fund up to 10 projects 
throughout the country, using education and marketing to convert car 
trips to bike trips. The research would document the energy 
conservation, air quality improvement, and public health benefits 
caused by increased bike trips. The goal is to conserve energy 
resources used in the transportation sector by turning some of our gas 
guzzling miles into bike rides.
  There is no single solution for our nation's energy challenges. Every 
possible approach must be considered in order to solve our energy 
problems.
  It would be unrealistic to expect most Americans to make a 
substantial increase in the number of trips they make by bicycle. But 
even a small percentage of bike trips replacing our shorter car trips 
could make a significant difference in oil and gas consumption.
  Right now, less than one trip in one hundred--.88 percent--is by 
bicycle. If we can raise our level of cycling just a tiny bit: to one 
and a half trips per hundred, which is less than a bike trip every two 
weeks for the average person, we would save over 462 million gallons of 
gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million. That's one day a year we 
won't need to import any foreign oil.
  In addition to conserving our energy, an increased number of bike 
trips can improve our air quality. Significant declines in vehicle 
emissions would follow from increased bike trips. A study in New York 
City showed that bicycling spares the city almost 6,000 tons of carbon 
monoxide each year. A reduced number of trips made by cars would 
increase this number and help to clean our nation's air.
  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 60 percent of all 
automobile trips are under five miles in length. And these short trips 
typically emit more pollutants because cars during these trips run on 
cold engines. Engines running cold produce five times the carbon 
monoxide and twice the hydrocarbon emissions per mile as engines 
running hot. These cold engine trips could most easily be replaced by 
bike rides.
  Americans would experience additional advantages from increased bike 
usage. The decreased number of cars on our nation's highways would help 
reduce traffic and parking congestion. Congestion costs have reached as 
much as $100 billion annually according to the Federal Highway 
Administration. A reduction in cars on the roads will decrease the high 
costs associated with congestion.
  The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will also improve public health. 
The exercise from more frequent bike trips would help improve our 
physical well-being. Biking has proven to be effective in the 
prevention of heart disease, our

[[Page 4436]]

nation's number one killer. And, biking also has been shown to help 
individuals who are trying to give up health-impairing behaviors such 
as smoking and alcohol abuse.
  The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment will help America take a simple 
but meaningful step in energy conservation. It will help fund up to 10 
pilot projects that will use education and marketing to facilitate the 
conversion of car trips to bike trips, and document the energy savings 
from these trips. These projects will facilitate partnerships among 
those in the transportation, energy, environment, public health, 
education, and law enforcement sectors. There is a requirement for a 
local match in funding, so that these projects can continue after the 
Federal resources are exhausted. In addition, this amendment will fund 
a research initiative with the National Academy of Sciences to examine 
the feasibility and benefits of converting bike trips to car trips.
  It is imperative that Americans are fully informed of the entire 
range of benefits from biking in terms of energy conservation, air 
quality, and public health. We also need to provide the best resources 
in bike safety and convenience.
  We have been spending a modest amount of Federal, State and local 
funds on bicycle facilities since 1991. This amendment will leverage 
those investments and help people take advantage of the energy 
conservation choices they have in getting around their communities. I 
am pleased that this amendment will be accepted by the Senate as part 
of the energy bill that Senators Daschle and Bingaman have brought to 
the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I am proud to join my colleague from 
Illinois in offering an amendment to recognize and promote bicycling's 
important impact on energy savings and public health.
  With America becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil, it is 
vital that we look to the contribution that bike travel can make 
towards solving our Nation's energy challenges. This amendment would 
establish a Conserve By Bike pilot program that would oversee up to 10 
pilot projects throughout the country designed to conserve energy 
resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car 
trips to bike trips. By replacing even a small percentage of short car 
trips with bike trips, we would save over 462 million gallons of 
gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million.
  While more bike trips would benefit our energy conservation efforts, 
they would also contribute to the public's health. According to the 
U.S. Surgeon General, less than one-third of Americans meet Federal 
recommendations to engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate physical 
activity at least five days a week. Even more disturbing is the fact 
that approximately 300,000 U.S. deaths a year currently are associated 
with being obese or overweight. By promoting biking, we are working to 
ensure that Americans will increase their physical activity.
  Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to meet with a delegation 
representing the Bicycle Coalition of Maine. This group has done an 
outstanding job of advocating bicycling safety, education, and access 
throughout the State. As a result of the work of the Bicycle Coalition 
of Maine, people living in and visiting Maine will have accessible and 
safe conditions where they may comfortably and responsibly bicycle. The 
``Conserve by Bike'' amendment has received support from this group and 
many others on the national, State, and local level, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these five amendments have been cleared 
on both sides. They include an amendment by Senator Rockefeller to 
ensure the safety of the Nation's mines and mine workers, one by 
Senator Levin to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on 
the effects of natural gas pipelines in the Great Lakes, one by Senator 
Schumer to promote the demonstration of certain high-temperature 
superconducting technologies, one by Senator Smith of Oregon to 
authorize a study of energy efficiency standards, and one by Senator 
Durbin to encourage energy conservation through bicycling.
  I believe there is no objection to any of these amendments. I urge 
the Senate to adopt them at this time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, speaking from the standpoint of the 
minority, we have worked with the majority on these amendments and find 
them agreeable. They have been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, and 3123) were agreed to 
en bloc.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want the body to note that on our 
side there are about 10 or 14 amendments. I have no idea what the 
situation is on the majority side with regard to amendments.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reiterate what the Senator from Nevada 
said earlier, which is that we have a few more than that on the 
Democratic side. But we have been making very good progress in reducing 
the number of amendments. We are optimistic that after we conclude the 
debate on the amendment which the Senator from Alaska is going to offer 
next week, we will be able to move to complete other amendments and 
complete action on the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on a note of levity and in the spirit 
of Senator Durbin with the authorization of a study on the use of 
bicycles as a pilot program, I am going to pilot my program home 
tonight on my girls' bicycle which I bought for $20. It is one which I 
don't have to lock up because nobody would bother to steal it. It gets 
me here a lot faster than driving.
  I recall one day being behind an automobile of the junior Senator 
from New York which was stalled in the drive, and they had to push it 
out. I certainly recommend the amendment proposed by Senator Durbin, 
which suggests obvious benefits of bicycling. It is much easier to get 
through security, and when the dogs come around you only have to worry 
about one thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska are printed in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join with 
my colleagues in talking about the very difficult choices that are 
being foisted upon some of our States and all of our consumers because 
of the renewable fuels provisions in the energy bill now under 
consideration.
  Now, these renewable fuels provisions do accomplish some very 
important goals. First, they ban the use of MTBE, which has resulted in 
serious ground water pollution all over our country. They revoke the 
oxygenate requirements that led so many States to make such heavy use 
of MTBE in the first place. And they do keep in place the same 
stringent air pollution standards mandated by the Clean Air Act.
  My State has, unfortunately, experienced firsthand the effects of 
MTBE contamination in our drinking water sources.
  While the full health and environmental impacts of MTBE are still 
unknown, we do know that it smells bad, it tastes bad, and the bottom 
line is that people do not want to be drinking MTBE-contaminated water 
any more than they want to be drinking water with arsenic or some other 
contaminant in it.

[[Page 4437]]

  As many of my colleagues know, because of poor air quality in certain 
areas of the country, we are required to meet something called an 
``oxygenate requirement'' under the Clean Air Act.
  New York City and surrounding counties constitute one of those areas. 
This requirement requires that consumers use gasoline additives that 
aid in reducing harmful air pollution. The additives available at this 
time are primarily MTBE and ethanol. So those of us in the Northeast, 
who need to meet this oxygenate requirement, have been adding MTBE to 
our gasoline because we have no readily accessible, affordable, 
available sources of ethanol in places such as New York.
  The unfortunate consequence is that, as a result of leaking 
underground storage tanks, other leaks, and runoffs, we are now 
experiencing MTBE contamination in our underground water sources.
  This has been a big problem in our State, particularly on Long 
Island, which has an aquifer that provides drinking water that runs the 
full length of the island. In Suffolk County alone, MTBE has been found 
in both private and public wells in all 10 of the towns in that county.
  This is a serious problem and the costs of cleaning up this MTBE 
contamination are significant. While having clean air to breathe is 
critically important, so is having clean water to drink. We should not 
have to trade off air for water. We should be able to figure out how to 
provide both clean air and clean water.
  That is why New York State took the very bold step of banning MTBE by 
January 1, 2004--less than 2 years from today. In fact, I believe that 
about 13 States--including my own--have made the decision to restrict 
or ban the use of MTBE in the next couple of years.
  I agree that phasing out MTBE is exactly the right thing to do from a 
drinking water perspective and from an overall environmental 
perspective. That is why, in the last session, the Environment and 
Public Works Committee voted out S. 950 by voice vote, the provisions 
of which are incorporated in the renewable fuels provisions that we are 
now discussing.
  S. 950 includes a phaseout of MTBE and a repeal of the Federal 
oxygenate requirement, as recommended by the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on 
Oxygenates in Gasoline. I strongly support these provisions, and I 
commend the bipartisan leadership of the EPW Committee for their work 
on this important issue. But the committee-passed bill did not include 
the ethanol mandate that we are here to discuss.
  Now, I am not here--I want to make this absolutely clear--to oppose 
ethanol. I believe in ethanol. I think it is a great step forward for 
renewable fuels. And I know that it is an important use of the products 
that are grown in many parts of our country. It is a new market. And I 
believe that it does take us in the right direction.
  And phasing out MTBE, even with a repeal of the oxygenate 
requirement, will still lead to an increase in the use of ethanol in 
our country. That is why a Federal mandate is not needed to ensure a 
continuing market for ethanol. And that is why I and my senior 
colleague from New York, and my colleagues from California, and others, 
are opposing the ethanol mandate that is included in this bill.
  The energy bill we are currently debating includes what I can only 
describe as an astonishing new anticonsumer Government mandate: that 
every refiner in our country use an ever increasing volume of ethanol 
or pay for ethanol credits.
  At first when this was described to me, I thought there had to be 
some mistake because I, and I guess the majority of my colleagues, 
support ethanol. But to be told it has to be used, and the amount of it 
has to increase over time, struck me as exactly the opposite of what we 
are trying to achieve in this new energy policy. Because regardless of 
the market, and whatever the demand would be for ethanol, this bill 
requires the use of ethanol or the purchase of ethanol credits at a set 
amount, an amount that will eventually exceed 5 billion gallons.
  Currently U.S. refiners use approximately 1.7 billion gallons of 
ethanol. Starting in 2004, the Nation's refiners would be required to 
use 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol. And that number would ratchet up to 
5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. And the use of a constant 
percentage of ethanol per volume of gasoline would be required every 
year thereafter no matter what kind of new breakthroughs we had in 
making gas both more efficient and cleaner. It would not matter. We 
would have a big brother, big-hand Federal Government mandate: You have 
to use it no matter what.
  This means that from 2012 on, the Nation's ethanol producers would 
have a Government-guaranteed annual market of at least 5 billion 
gallons, or perhaps even more.
  Now, oil refiners could, in a competitive market, find smarter, 
cleaner, and less expensive ways to reformulate gasoline, but they 
would be forced to keep using billions of gallons of ethanol annually 
nonetheless.
  Refiners in States outside the Corn Belt that lack the infrastructure 
to transport and refine ethanol would nonetheless be forced to pay for 
ethanol credits. The credits would result in rising gas prices and the 
transfer of funds from hard-pressed consumers in one part of the 
country to ethanol-rich areas in the rest of the country, while doing 
nothing to improve air quality. In other words, consumers in every 
State would be forced to pay for ethanol whether they used it or not.
  Make no mistake about it, this is tantamount to a new gas tax. This 
will cause the price of gasoline to go up anywhere from 4 cents to 10 
cents a gallon. Others who spoke earlier today discussed specifically 
what would happen in their own States. I believe for New York this 
would mean more than 7 cents per gallon at the pump.
  The reasons for these cost increases are manyfold. There are costs of 
production issues. Ethanol simply costs more to produce than gasoline 
or MTBE. Since ethanol is primarily made from corn, if there is a bad 
corn crop one year, we can expect not only food prices but gas prices 
as well to increase under this bill.
  There are also supply issues. According to a recent report by the 
Congressional Research Service, in the short term ethanol is unlikely 
to be available in sufficient quantity. If the supply is not there, the 
gasoline supply can't be there, and prices will inevitably rise as a 
result.
  There are transportation distribution issues, as has been discussed 
earlier. The cost of using ethanol is also influenced by the fact that 
almost 90 percent of ethanol production occurs in just five States: 
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Indiana. The geographic 
concentration of ethanol production is an obstacle to its use on either 
the east or west coasts, particularly because ethanol-blended gasoline 
cannot travel through petroleum pipelines and, therefore, it must be 
transported by truck, rail, or barge which significantly increases its 
per-unit cost.
  As has already been mentioned, ethanol production is also 
concentrated among a few large producers. The top 5 companies that 
produce ethanol account for approximately 60 percent of production 
capacity, and the top 10 companies account for approximately 75 percent 
of production capacity. ADM alone markets about half of the ethanol 
produced in the country.
  All of this is going to mean higher prices for the American consumer, 
particularly on the east and west coasts. There will be other costs to 
consumers as well.
  As many know, ethanol already gets a tax break in terms of the 
gasoline tax. Every gallon of gas with ethanol gets a 5.4-cent Federal 
subsidy. The subsidy is currently costing $600 million in Federal 
highway funds at today's ethanol use level. That means that with a 5-
billion-plus-gallon-a-year ethanol mandate, we will have even less 
dollars for much needed transportation projects in all of our States, 
resulting in more traffic congestion, less safe roadways, and other 
consumer costs.
  Another cost to consumers will be the potential environmental cost of 
an increased use of ethanol, not to mention the safe harbor from 
liability that is included in this bill.

[[Page 4438]]

  I have to give it to the sponsors and authors of this provision; they 
have thought of everything: subsidies; put a tax on everybody else who 
has to use it; make it even less likely that the environmental costs 
are going to be in any way taken care of because the environmental and 
public health impacts of ethanol are still not fully understood.
  Studies have indicated that while reducing carbon dioxide emissions, 
ethanol may increase emissions of smog-producing and other toxic 
compounds.
  Despite the questions on its environmental and public health impacts, 
this bill also includes a renewable fuels safe harbor provision. What 
does that mean? It gives product liability protection against consumers 
and communities that may seek legal redress from the manufacturers and 
oil companies that produce or utilize defective additives in their 
gasoline. That is adding insult to injury. First, we are going to tax 
you and, second, we are going to make it impossible for you to get any 
kind of redress if what we are making you buy makes you sick or 
pollutes the environment.
  This means companies have less incentive to ensure that the additives 
they manufacture and use are safe, eliminating an important 
disincentive to pollute.
  What is the net result? We are providing a single industry with a 
guaranteed market for its products--subsidies on top of subsidies on 
top of subsidies and, on top of that, protection from liability. What a 
sweetheart deal.
  If the average American consumer tunes in on this debate and realizes 
what is happening, there will be a revolt. I dare predict that voting 
for this bill, which will raise gas prices in 45 of our States, will be 
a political nightmare for the people who end up voting for it. Higher 
gas prices at the pump, reduced Federal assistance for much needed 
transportation projects, possible negative air quality, and public 
health impacts, to say nothing of raiding the Federal Treasury to give 
this giveaway to these large producers, makes it impossible to 
understand why any proconsumer, prohealth, pro-environment, 
antigovernment mandate Member of this body would vote for this 
provision.
  For consumers, the ethanol mandate is a one, two, three, four punch. 
First, consumers will pay more at the pump to meet arbitrary goals that 
boost the sale of ethanol, whether we need it or not. Second, consumers 
will face reduced Federal assistance for transportation projects 
because the money is going to be going to the ethanol producers, not to 
fix your roads or your bridges. Third, consumers may experience 
potential environmental and public health impacts. But guess what. You 
are barred from seeking redress. Who needs tort reform, just stick this 
in the energy bill and forget about ever getting any kind of liability 
against anybody who may be intentionally or negligently causing health 
or environmental harm. And fourth, you can't sue the manufacturers and 
the oil companies.
  There are some very positive aspects of these provisions to phase out 
MTBE and eliminate the oxygenate requirement. We have long fought for 
this. There are many in this body who have been working on this a lot 
longer than I have. I applaud those Members for doing everything 
possible to ban MTBE and eliminate this oxygenate requirement. With 
about 13 States having already taken such action, this is an issue that 
needs to be addressed. But this is the wrong way to do it.
  New York and California are on the front lines of this battle because 
California had originally banned MTBE as of January 1, 2003, although 
the Governor was forced to push the date back a year. Now California 
and New York, with millions and tens of millions of consumers, are in 
the same boat because New York has also banned MTBE. But Arizona has 
also taken final action to ban MTBE. Colorado has mandated a phaseout, 
Connecticut has also phased it out as of 2004, and even Illinois has 
banned the use, sale, distribution, blending, or manufacturing of MTBE 
as a fuel additive, along with Kansas and Michigan. And Minnesota has 
prohibited the sale of gasoline containing more than .3 percent volume 
by weight of MTBE and required the phaseout by July 2005.
  There are many States that have taken actions. They have actually 
passed laws. There are numbers of others who are trying to take action 
to phase it out.
  We do need Federal action. My colleagues from New York and California 
and I understand that we need to pass provisions that will work. But 
that does not mean we should pass a 5-billion-gallon, anticonsumer, 
gas-price-increasing ethanol mandate.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that calmer heads will prevail in this 
debate, that we will understand the important role of ethanol, provide 
an opportunity for that market to grow, but not mandate it, not 
interfere with the operation of the market, not provide subsidies, not 
require consumers to buy it whether we need it or not, and not protect 
the producers from public health and environmental liability.
  What is going on here? Any business or any sector of the economy 
would love to have a mandated tax increase directly into their 
pocketbooks. That is not the purpose of having an energy bill that puts 
us on the path to self-sufficiency. I certainly don't think the tens of 
millions of consumers who may be following this debate think at the end 
of the day they are going to be transferring hard-earned money out of 
their pockets into the pockets of ethanol manufacturers, whether it 
helps or not.
  So I really hope my colleagues will consider the impact of this 
policy and join with those of us who are looking at this from the 
longer term perspective to come up with an amendment that provides the 
kind of support for ethanol we all believe would be in our best 
interest, without the damaging mandates that this approach would 
require.
  Again, I don't think anybody in this body came to this energy debate 
thinking they were voting to raise this gas tax, but indeed if we pass 
this as currently written, that is exactly what we are going to do. 
Those people who are going to pay that increased cost, starting in a 
few years, are going to turn around and say: Why is this happening?
  It is going to be hard for us to explain. There is no reason for us 
to make this decision when there are alternatives and we can work 
together and make it possible for us to have a much better approach 
without the damaging impact this amendment on ethanol would cause to 
our entire country.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand we have the regular order, and the Senator 
who is supposed to speak is not here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There is no order for 
speakers. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________