Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, in July, less than a month and a half ago, the Senate voted unanimously on a resolution to declare there is a national crisis in agriculture, that we needed to take immediate action to address it. Following the unanimous passage of that resolution, we passed several amendments to the agricultural appropriations bill designed to address the problem. We passed an amendment to require mandatory price reporting for livestock. We passed a second amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, requiring the labeling of imported meat. And we passed an amendment offered by the two hard-working Senators from North Dakota to require at least a $500 million indemnity program for victims of multiple-year disasters. Unfortunately, we failed to pass my amendment to lift the cap on marketing loans and extend their term by 6 months--which is probably the single most effective way to address the problem of low prices and lost income among grain farmers. Since we considered those amendments, the farm crisis has deepened very seriously. Over the past 3 weeks, as I visited with farmers and ranchers and rural businesspeople from all over South Dakota, they told me the same story. Many of them simply will not survive the coming months unless circumstances change. Unless we can bring about a better farm economy, a more stable price in most of the commodities now being grown, we will see an attrition in agriculture the likes of which we have not seen in over a decade. Nick Nemec, a young farmer from Holabird, SD, who testified at a hearing on July 29 on the agricultural crisis, said that when prices go down, his family's everyday expenses go up proportionately. He said, ``If the Consumer Price Index was up 40% in one year, there would be riots in the streets of cities all across America. Out in farm country, we just have farm auctions.'' I heard that same sentiment over and over again when I was home these past few weeks. We have already seen too many auctions. Our farmers and ranchers are very concerned, frankly, about their survival. So the circumstances, Madam President, as I report to the Senate this afternoon, are, unfortunately, in worse shape and more precarious than they were just a month and a half ago when these amendments were offered. We must find ways to address the current crisis in American agriculture. So I put the Senate on notice this afternoon that we will again be offering our amendment to increase the loan rate, to establish some kind of a floor in agricultural grain prices, just as we have on minimum wage across this country now for generations. We need a minimum price, because if we do not have that, all of those stories and all of those concerns can only worsen. The farm auctions will become more frequent. So I hope we can find, in as bipartisan a fashion as is humanly possible this close to an election, legislation we can all agree upon that will allow us to address the price more effectively, that will allow us to deal with the issues we began to confront in July. We must pass and sign into law the mandatory price reporting legislation that passed in the Senate. We must pass and sign into law the labeling legislation that was passed in the Senate. We certainly must pass this indemnity legislation and sign that into law as quickly as we can. What is missing is what will help the grain farmers. And unless we pass that minimum floor, that increase in the loan rate, there is nothing out there that can help the grain farmers to survive what is the worst disaster they have experienced in now more than 15 years. So, Madam President, as we begin to consider what the agenda ought to be as we come back from a month in our States, I hope everyone understands and appreciates and empathizes with the circumstances confronting America's farmers. I hope that empathy will lead to a consensus about increasing the loan rate and providing the kinds of opportunities to farmers that they failed to achieve when we debated this matter just over a month ago.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, just before Congress left for the August recess, we suffered a staggering loss in our ``Capitol Hill family''--the deaths of Detective John Gibson and Officer J.J. Chestnut. Today, as we returned to our work here, we learned that we have suffered another loss in our family. This past Saturday morning, Kent Hall died in his sleep. Kent was chief of staff for my colleague and friend, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Outside of Congress, his beloved family, and his many friends, it's likely that few Americans ever heard Kent's name. But millions of Americans benefited from his years of hard and conscientious work in this body. Kent Hall was a rare man--a Renaissance man. He held a doctorate in economics and philosophy. He loved ideas. But he also loved the nitty- gritty of politics, and policy. And he loved this institution, this Senate. He was honored to work here. And we were honored to have him. He first came to the Hill to work for Tom Harkin. He joined Senator Conrad's staff as agriculture advisor in 1987, the year Senator Conrad came to the Senate. He later went on to serve as Senator Conrad's legislative director and eventually as his chief of staff. One of Kent's great passions was the federal budget. He believed America's budget should be balanced not only economically, but morally as well. So he fought for budgets that would enable working families to share in these good economic times, budgets that would extend the benefits of this economy beyond Wall Street, to Main Street. He fought for budgets that would allow working parents to take their children to a doctor when they're sick, budgets that would enable parents to find good, affordable day care, budgets that would allow parents to send their children to good schools--and after that, to send them on to college. Kent had a special place in his heart for people who live close to the land--farmers and ranchers and the people who grow up in the small towns of rural America. He grew up in one of those towns: a little farm town in Iowa-- population about 600. And though he left that town long ago, he still kept it close to his heart. Farmers and people in farm towns all over America have lost a good friend, and an extraordinary advocate. We are grateful for Kent's diligent work on: disaster relief and farm-crisis relief. And we extend our deepest sympathy to Kent's wife, Michelle, who works for Senator Harkin and to their two small children, 4-year-old Caitlin--``Caiti''--and 2-year-old Austin, both of whom he loved even more than he loved this place. We also offer our condolences to Kent's father, Ken, and his mother, Evelyn; his brothers, Mel and Michael; his sister Cheri; and his many nieces and nephews. Our thoughts and prayers are with them, and with all the members of the Conrad and Harkin staffs, who are feeling this loss more deeply than probably any member of the ``Capitol family.'' Like Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut, Kent Hall died too young. He was only 52 years old. But his legacy will live on--in his two little children and in the ideals he believed in so passionately, and fought for so hard, and helped transform into law. We will miss him.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have 6 weeks remaining in the Congress. Those 6 weeks will define our efforts as a Congress. And this is the last matter that I wish to raise before our colleagues this afternoon--the agenda for those remaining 6 weeks. Time is short. Distractions are many. Needless to say, we must focus on our priorities. Our success for the entire Congress will really depend on what we achieve in the next 6 weeks. It will depend on whether we are committed to accomplishing the people's business. What is the people's business? I think everyone understands what it is. The people's business is the business that we have before us. Appropriations bills must be completed. The Congress' first responsibility is to ensure stable Government operations. There must not be talk of a Government shutdown. I have heard some of our Republican leaders, especially on the other side, suggest that the President may shut the Government down. Today is the last day in August. The budget resolution was due in April. So far, neither body has delivered a budget resolution. So I call upon the Republican leadership in the House and in the Senate to do what the law requires, to do what is so essential to restore confidence, to do what really is required to set the framework for the priorities and the commitments that we must make in these next 6 weeks. I call on the Republican leadership to pass a budget resolution. Not one single appropriations bill has gone to the President. Republican poison pills appear throughout the appropriations bills. So if there is a danger of a shutdown, we all know where it originates. But it is incumbent upon all of us to keep the Government operating. It starts with the budget resolution. And it will be completed once we pass every one of those appropriations bills, which we must do. After we complete that task, we must turn our attention to managed care reform. The American people have said loudly and unequivocally that they want a comprehensible, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. They want to know that they can go to the nearest emergency room when they suffer a true health emergency. They want to know that they can see a specialist when they need one. They want to know that doctors-- not HMO bureaucrats--will decide which treatments are medically necessary. They want to know that managed care organizations, like everyone else in the health care environment, can be held accountable for decisions that result in serious harm or death to patients. What they do not want--what they do not want--is legislation that falls short on those or other key patient protections. They do not want legislation that claims to give them rights without providing them the mechanism necessary to enforce those rights. There are those who suggest there is not enough time to debate a Patients' Bill of Rights. I disagree. There are those who would, for whatever reason, try to gag the Senate as we debate this important issue. Let us eliminate the gag orders and the gag rules. Let us open up this important piece of legislation to a good, healthy debate. Democrats will be prepared to work 24 hours a day to assure that we can have that opportunity. But it is important we set it high on our agenda and our priority list as we complete our work in the 105th Congress. Other than the appropriations bills, there is nothing more important on our national agenda right now than that. The Republican bill, as everybody knows, is inadequate in many respects. We need to pass a bill that merits our support, that merits our signatures, that merits a broad-based, bipartisan commitment to real reform in managed care. We will have an opportunity to do that. And I must say that we will be offering this legislation with whatever determination may be required, and to whatever piece of legislation may be presented, in an effort to assure consideration of this legislation prior to the end of this Congress. The third issue, beyond the budget and appropriations first, and managed care second, is campaign finance reform. In spite of the Republican leadership's opposition, the House has now passed an important campaign finance reform bill that many thought was impossible to pass just a few months ago. And so the Senate now has the opportunity--a rare opportunity--to enact meaningful reform this fall. Madam President, we must seize the opportunity to stem the unrestricted flow of special interest money in Federal elections. There is no question that, given what the House has already done, attention will be focused on the U.S. Senate to see if we can live up to the expectations of the American people in this regard. I, frankly, cannot think of anything more important than to take up this legislation--the Shays-Meehan bill--and give it the kind of priority it deserves, to work in a bipartisan way to pass meaningful legislation within the next 6 weeks. Again, I will put my colleagues on notice that this issue is of such import to us that we will offer it in amendment form, if necessary. I hope that isn't necessary. I hope we can get a good opportunity and agreement to bring it up, to debate it, because it is now here. It has already been debated and passed in the House. Let's do it in the U.S. Senate. As I have often said, we can pass legislation the easy way or the hard way. I hope we will not be required to pass it the hard way. But Democrats will make every single effort that we have available to us to pass it--hard or easy. There are many other issues that we hope we can address in the short time that we have left. We must not ignore education. We must recognize that school modernization is essential. As I traveled through South Dakota, it was remarkable the number of times modernization needs came to my attention, the number of times school board members, school board presidents, teachers, superintendents and principals said, ``We hope you can pass legislation that will allow us to deal with our crumbling infrastructure.'' As we speak, young children are going back into unsafe school buildings, into environments that are not conducive to learning. School modernization must be addressed. I hope we can address it this year, this Congress. I hope we can address in this Congress this year the need for 100,000 additional teachers. So as children go back to school, as we consider all of the needs of our Nation, let us not forget the importance of the needs in education. We must look at Social Security. We must begin to consider very carefully what options are available to us. We must stop any action, whether it is on a tax bill--which I understand will be brought to the Senate floor--or elsewhere, which might jeopardize Social Security. There are those who, for short-term gain--either political or economic--would argue that we have to tap the so-called surplus. We have made the case--and I think everybody understands it--that there is no surplus unless you use Social Security trust funds. I hope that both sides of the aisle will come to the same conclusion about the inadvisability of doing that this year--or any year. We must look at juvenile crime. We certainly will have an opportunity to debate the minimum wage. The minimum wage is, without a doubt, one of the single most important actions we can take to improve the economic stability and viability of working families in many homes across our country. Madam President, those issues, too, must be examined and action taken before the end of this session. As we come back after being away 1 month, we also recognize our international obligations. Just this afternoon, the President left for a very important summit with the President of Russia. We wish him well as he departs. We know how precarious circumstances now are in economic and political terms in Russia. We know how difficult this trip will be. I hope I speak for everybody in this Chamber in expressing our hope for great success, with the realization that all we can have are limited expectations, given those circumstances. We must not overlook the need for IMF funding, especially in light of the Russian crisis. We should redouble our efforts to fulfill our obligations to the International Monetary Fund. Terrorism, again, became a very important aspect of foreign policy in the last several weeks while we were gone. We must support efforts to stem it and support military efforts to respond to it. Arms control issues in Iraq and North Korea must be addressed, and so the array of foreign policy challenges, not the least of which is an important question relating to funding in the United Nations, also must be high on our international priority list. Madam President, obviously, to accomplish all of these important objectives, we will need to use these 6 weeks wisely, to stay focused on our Nation's needs and priorities. I hope that we can do that. Earlier today, the majority leader suggested that Democrats want to stall legislative business. Nothing could be farther from the truth. To the contrary, we are anxious, as we have been for months, to get on with the Nation's agenda, the agenda that I have outlined. So speaking on behalf of my Democratic colleagues in the Senate, I welcome back both Republican and Democratic colleagues, and I urge them to work together to accomplish all of this and more. Time is short, the need is great, and our desire to achieve is high. I hope we can meet all of those expectations in the coming weeks. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we can play these games all night long, and there are a lot of people who are tired. This isn't the way to end what I thought was a fairly productive week. We are not going to object. Let's just quit playing these kinds of games. Let's just get on with it. Let's pass it. But let's all be aware of what we have done. You and I have a good relationship. We ought to keep it that way. I don't like being dealt with this way. I will accept it this time, but I wish we would work in the manner in which we have been working all week. This is a very serious, important issue. There are a lot of political ramifications, and we can play the political game. The fact is that there are a lot of people out there who want some help. This is going to be a little help. I wish we could pass the indemnity payment tonight. I don't see why we could not. The fact is that we would pass it unanimously, and that would be new money, $500 million in new money. I wish we could do that just as easily as we are going to agree to pass this thing that isn't going to mean that much. But we will pass it. But I must say, we shouldn't be doing it this way. I have been here all night. I haven't left the floor. Somebody could have come to me to say, look, we want to do this. Instead, what has happened is that this was sprung on me. Now, you don't have to apologize. Nobody has to apologize. It just isn't the way we ought to do business. So, Mr. President, we don't object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am one.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object again, I was consumed, I guess, in assisting the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in working down the amendments. We have been working on that tirelessly all day. The majority leader and I have worked throughout the day on a number of issues. Not once did he raise this issue with me. That explanation would have been welcomed, would have been appreciated 5 minutes ago, a half hour ago, 2 hours ago. But he surprises me at this hour after we cooperated all week on an array of issues working over these appropriations bills amendment after amendment. And I guess it is very, very disappointing to me. I ask unanimous consent that an amendment that would provide $500 million in indemnity payments to farmers and that was passed unanimously on the Senate floor during the debate on the agricultural appropriations bill be attached to the bill that is now under consideration, and for which the majority has asked unanimous consent. Would he accept that addition to the bill? Because, if he would, I am sure then that we could accommodate the majority leader and those who wish to pass this, as it was a surprise to the rest of us.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thought the majority leader and I were working on this. I am a little bit surprised he has chosen to call it up right now. We can object. But I would prefer that we continue to see if we can't resolve this matter. We have been cooperating all night. I guess I expected a little more reciprocation on the other side. I am disappointed that I was surprised in this manner, and at this hour under these circumstances it is uncalled for.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was not informed this was going to happen.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are objections on our side.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation designed to combat unfairly traded imports of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from Saudi Arabia. MTBE is an oxygenated fuel additive derived from methanol. Through the wintertime oxygenated fuels program to reduce carbon monoxide pollution and through the reformulated gasoline program to reduce emissions of toxics and ozone-causing chemicals, we have created considerable demand in this nation for oxygenated fuels, such as MTBE, ETBE and ethanol. It has been my hope that this demand could be met with domestically-produced oxygenates, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign imports and expanding economic opportunities at home. Unfortunately, this goal has not been achieved, in large part because of a substantial expansion of subsidized MTBE imports from Saudi Arabia. Mr. President, I am a supporter of free trade when it is also fair trade. However, there has been a marked surge in MTBE imports from Saudi Arabia in recent years that does not reflect the natural outcome of market-based competition. These imports appear to be driven by a pattern of government subsidies. Not only is this increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers, but it is unfairly harming domestic oxygenate producers and those who provide the raw materials for these oxygenates, such as America's farmers. The Saudi government has made no secret of its desire to expand domestic industrial capacity of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). In particular, several years ago, there were public reports that the Saudi government promised investors a 30% discount relative to world prices on the feedstock raw materials used in the production of MTBE. The feedstock is the major cost component of MTBE production, and the Saudi government decree has apparently translated into a nearly -30% artificial cost advantage to Saudi-based producers and exporters. Moreover, it appears that this blatant subsidy is in large measure responsible for the increase in Saudi MTBE exports to the United States in recent years. These exports have not only reduced the U.S. market share of American producers of MTBE, ETBE, and ethanol, but also has discouraged new capital investment, thereby depriving American workers, farmers, and investors of a significant share of the economic activity that Congress contemplated when it drafted the oxygenated fuel requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Mr. President, I believe it is high time for the United States government to respond to the Saudi government's subsidies. Saudi Arabia is a valued ally; however, our bond of friendship should not be a justification for turning a blind eye to an unfair element of our otherwise mutually beneficial trading relationship. Because it is not a member of the World Trade Organization nor a party to its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Saudi government may not feel constrained by the international trade rules by which we legally are required to abide. This does not mean, however, that we must stand idly by while foreign subsidies undermine an important sector of our economy. For this reason, my bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to self-initiate an investigation under Section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether a countervailable subsidy has been provided with respect to Saudi Arabian exports of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). If the Secretary finds that a subsidy has indeed been provided to Saudi producers, he would be required under the terms of our existing law to impose an import duty in the amount necessary to offset the subsidy. Because Saudi Arabia is not a member of the WTO, there would be no requirement for a demonstration of injury to the domestic industry as a result of the subsidy. Let's talk for a moment about what is at stake here for American consumers. Last year, I asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to assess the impact on U.S. oil imports of the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program that was created by Congress in 1991. The GAO found that the U.S. RFG program has already resulted in over 250,000 barrels per day less imported petroleum due to the addition of oxygenates like ethanol, ETBE and MTBE. That means, at an average of $20 spent per barrel of imported oil, we currently save nearly $2 billion per year due to domestically produced oxygenates. The GAO further found that, if all gasoline in the U.S. were reformulated (compared to the current 35%), the U.S. would import 777,000 fewer barrels of oil per day. That is more than $5.5 billion per year that would not be flowing to foreign oil producers and could be reinvested in the United States. This is not ``pie-in-the-sky'' theory. Ethanol production and domestically produced MTBE can reduce oil imports and strengthen our economy. In rural America, for example, new ethanol and ETBE plants will be built, so long as we wise up and create a level playing field against subsidized Saudi competition. Phase II of the Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline program (RFG) requires transportation fuels to meet even tougher emissions standards starting in the year 2000. That gasoline market is growing, with demand for ethanol, ETBE and MTBE in 2005 estimated to be 300,000 barrels per day. Unless we act to ensure that American-made oxygenated fuels can compete in American fuels markets, we stand to cede those markets to subsidized Saudi Arabian MTBE. Mr. President, I am hopeful that my legislation will help level the playing field for American producers of ethanol, ETBE and MTBE and add new economic vitality to their associated communities of workers, farmers, and business owners. I urge my colleagues to give it serious consideration and to enact it as soon as possible so that we may begin the process of bringing fairness back into the realm of international trade in oxygenated fuels. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the comments made by Senator Johnson. I, too, am hopeful that the mediation process will soon yield an agreement. Necessary repairs to these homes simply cannot be delayed any longer. I would also like to inform the Chairman and Ranking Member that we brought this situation to the attention of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would also like to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their assistance. This matter is extremely important to me, Senator Johnson and everyone at Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Air Force and HBC agreed to enter into an alternative dispute resolution in an attempt to resolve the construction and liability issues associated with the defective housing in the Centennial Housing Project at Ellsworth.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their indulgence. As both of you know, the Hunt Building Corporation (HBC) constructed an 828-unit military family housing complex, known as the Centennial Housing Project, at Ellsworth Air Force Base in 1990 and 1991. Unfortunately, within a year of the completion of construction, serious and often dangerous defects were found in many of the units. It is my understanding that over half of the units in the Centennial Housing Project constructed by HBC are currently uninhabitable.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just for purposes of clarification, this would lock into place the current situation. The pending amendment would be, of course, the McConnell amendment. Senators wishing to offer amendments in the second degree subject to recognition would be recognized as authors of amendments in the second degree. It is with that understanding that I do not object. I am sure the majority leader would clarify and would conform with that understanding.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation designed to combat unfairly traded imports of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from Saudi Arabia. MTBE is an oxygenated fuel additive derived from methanol. Through the wintertime oxygenated fuels program to reduce carbon monoxide pollution and through the reformulated gasoline program to reduce emissions of toxics and ozone-causing chemicals, we have created considerable demand in this nation for oxygenated fuels, such as MTBE, ETBE and ethanol. It has been my hope that this demand could be met with domestically-produced oxygenates, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign imports and expanding economic opportunities at home. Unfortunately, this goal has not been achieved, in large part because of a substantial expansion of subsidized MTBE imports from Saudi Arabia. Mr. President, I am a supporter of free trade when it is also fair trade. However, there has been a marked surge in MTBE imports from Saudi Arabia in recent years that does not reflect the natural outcome of market-based competition. These imports appear to be driven by a pattern of government subsidies. Not only is this increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers, but it is unfairly harming domestic oxygenate producers and those who provide the raw materials for these oxygenates, such as America's farmers. The Saudi government has made no secret of its desire to expand domestic industrial capacity of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). In particular, several years ago, there were public reports that the Saudi government promised investors a 30% discount relative to world prices on the feedstock raw materials used in the production of MTBE. The feedstock is the major cost component of MTBE production, and the Saudi government decree has apparently translated into a nearly -30% artificial cost advantage to Saudi-based producers and exporters. Moreover, it appears that this blatant subsidy is in large measure responsible for the increase in Saudi MTBE exports to the United States in recent years. These exports have not only reduced the U.S. market share of American producers of MTBE, ETBE, and ethanol, but also has discouraged new capital investment, thereby depriving American workers, farmers, and investors of a significant share of the economic activity that Congress contemplated when it drafted the oxygenated fuel requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Mr. President, I believe it is high time for the United States government to respond to the Saudi government's subsidies. Saudi Arabia is a valued ally; however, our bond of friendship should not be a justification for turning a blind eye to an unfair element of our otherwise mutually beneficial trading relationship. Because it is not a member of the World Trade Organization nor a party to its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Saudi government may not feel constrained by the international trade rules by which we legally are required to abide. This does not mean, however, that we must stand idly by while foreign subsidies undermine an important sector of our economy. For this reason, my bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to self-initiate an investigation under Section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether a countervailable subsidy has been provided with respect to Saudi Arabian exports of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). If the Secretary finds that a subsidy has indeed been provided to Saudi producers, he would be required under the terms of our existing law to impose an import duty in the amount necessary to offset the subsidy. Because Saudi Arabia is not a member of the WTO, there would be no requirement for a demonstration of injury to the domestic industry as a result of the subsidy. Let's talk for a moment about what is at stake here for American consumers. Last year, I asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to assess the impact on U.S. oil imports of the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program that was created by Congress in 1991. The GAO found that the U.S. RFG program has already resulted in over 250,000 barrels per day less imported petroleum due to the addition of oxygenates like ethanol, ETBE and MTBE. That means, at an average of $20 spent per barrel of imported oil, we currently save nearly $2 billion per year due to domestically produced oxygenates. The GAO further found that, if all gasoline in the U.S. were reformulated (compared to the current 35%), the U.S. would import 777,000 fewer barrels of oil per day. That is more than $5.5 billion per year that would not be flowing to foreign oil producers and could be reinvested in the United States. This is not ``pie-in-the-sky'' theory. Ethanol production and domestically produced MTBE can reduce oil imports and strengthen our economy. In rural America, for example, new ethanol and ETBE plants will be built, so long as we wise up and create a level playing field against subsidized Saudi competition. Phase II of the Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline program (RFG) requires transportation fuels to meet even tougher emissions standards starting in the year 2000. That gasoline market is growing, with demand for ethanol, ETBE and MTBE in 2005 estimated to be 300,000 barrels per day. Unless we act to ensure that American-made oxygenated fuels can compete in American fuels markets, we stand to cede those markets to subsidized Saudi Arabian MTBE. Mr. President, I am hopeful that my legislation will help level the playing field for American producers of ethanol, ETBE and MTBE and add new economic vitality to their associated communities of workers, farmers, and business owners. I urge my colleagues to give it serious consideration and to enact it as soon as possible so that we may begin the process of bringing fairness back into the realm of international trade in oxygenated fuels. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota raises a good question. I don't know what motivation there may have been to simply put the Senate on record one more time. As everyone recalls, we had this debate on the tobacco bill. We had two versions of the marriage penalty proposed--the Democratic version and the Republican version. There are some very considerable differences. But, voting against the tabling motion and then withdrawing it seems somewhat of a convoluted approach to legislating. I am unclear as to what the motivation may have been.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't want anyone to misinterpret the vote just taken. Obviously, there are a lot of motivations in offering amendments like this on the appropriations bill. As the Senator from Missouri just noted, this legislation would have been blue-slipped had it gone over to the House. I appreciate the actions just taken in withdrawing the amendment. So that there will be no doubt, we will be offering a similar marriage penalty amendment this afternoon--a marriage penalty amendment that will be paid for, that will be targeted, that will offer a far greater opportunity to address the real issue without using the Social Security surplus. The previous amendment would have, without question, used Social Security to pay for it's tax benefits. One hundred billion dollars over the next 5 years out of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus is something most Democrats are unprepared to support. We don't have to use the Social Security trust fund. We don't have to use the surplus. We don't have to use a broad-based, completely untargeted approach to marriage penalty relief. So we will have another opportunity this afternoon to vote on the marriage penalty in a reasonable and a direct and a far more responsible way. And I look forward to that debate as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Certainly, I will yield for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is correct. There was a motion to table the amendment at that time. They voted to do so at that time. Obviously, they will probably be voting again this afternoon to table a marriage penalty vote that we will be offering. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But, clearly, I think there was a political motivation as much as a substantive motivation on the part of our Republican colleagues. That was evidenced in the tobacco bill debate, and it will be evidenced again today.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. We don't have to use Social Security trust funds. We don't have to use the surplus to pay for a marriage penalty amendment. We can find an appropriate offset and delineate that offset, which is what I think is the responsible thing to do. There was no delineation of an offset in the previous amendment, so one has to assume that the Republican amendment was, again, more of a demonstration of rhetoric than genuine effort to provide responsibly-funded tax relief. The rhetoric we get from our colleagues on the other side that they will not use the Social Security trust funds. The facts are otherwise. For example, in this amendment, $100 billion in Social Security trust funds were likely to be used. There is a difference between our approaches to fiscal responsibility, protecting Social Security, and providing tax relief. I think that ought to be made clear in the Record. We will have an opportunity once more to debate that this afternoon.