Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wanted to make note of a very important fact with regard to judicial nominations. With the confirmation now of the two judges tonight, we have reached an even 50 so far since we have become members of the majority. Forty-one district judges and nine circuit judges have now been confirmed. We have now exceeded the number of judges confirmed in the first year of the Reagan administration, the first Bush administration, and the Clinton administration. We have done that in 10 months, not 12. We will do much more over the course of the next 2 months, but I think it is a record of which we can be very proud. It is a record about which we feel very strongly. It is a record we said we would deliver when we became members of the majority. It is a record I think bears some attention, especially now that we have reached 50 confirmations in this relatively brief period of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to take a moment to congratulate, first, the extraordinary effort made by the Chair of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman. I think he has put more time on the floor in the last few weeks than anybody in recent times. Were it not for his patience and extraordinary willingness to work with all of us, we would not be celebrating the successful conclusion of this work today. I know I speak for all Senators and congratulate him and commend him for the work and leadership he has shown and for the tremendous contributions he has made to public policy in energy today. I am grateful for his friendship, but I am especially appreciative of his leadership, and I think that ought to be recognized. I also congratulate the ranking member, the Senator from Alaska, for his efforts as well. I know there may not be any more important legislation from the Senator from Alaska than this one. He has demonstrated a resolve and an extraordinary persistence, and were it not for his efforts and the work he has done, especially in recent weeks, we would not be here as well. So he also deserves special commendation and recognition for the remarkable job he has done. Finally, as is the case in so many instances, the distinguished assistant Democratic leader deserves recognition. He does not like it when I do this, but I do think it is important for the historical record to note that his constant presence on the floor, his willingness to work with Senators in working through the amendment logjams on so many occasions was absolutely invaluable. So I thank him as well for his constant effort on the floor, but in particular on this bill. I thank all of our colleagues, and I appreciate very much the work that has been done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Briefly, I note the contribution of our staff. As is always the case, we could not do what we do were it not for them. On this particular bill, I think their contribution will never be fully calculable, but it was invaluable. I thank our floor staff profusely for their effort. As Senator Bingaman noted, Eric Washburn from my staff has been a remarkable contributor to our effort. Were it not for his daily counsel, I would not have been able to accomplish what we have.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have been in consultation with the distinguished Republican leader and our terrific chair of the committee, as well as others, with regard to finding some procedural arrangement to accommodate Senators and continue the effort to bring this bill to a close. I think we are making progress, but in order to accommodate further discussion, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote be postponed until 2:30.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I 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. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to just announce that we will be offering a unanimous consent request shortly that would propose that we limit the number of amendments to be taken post cloture to a certain number. I believe we are going to suggest seven on a side. But let me say, with or without that unanimous consent request, post cloture, Senators would still be eligible to offer amendments having to do with certain tax provisions or any other provisions of the bill. What we are simply trying to do is to find a way, at long last, to bring this bill to closure. I remind my colleagues that I laid this bill down on February 15. It is now April 23, and the only way we are going to bring this to conclusion so that we can move to other legislation is to either get this unanimous consent request that Senator Lott and I are about to propound or cloture. So I ask my colleagues for their cooperation in this regard. And failing the unanimous consent, as my colleagues may note, I have moved the cloture vote to 2:30 this afternoon. So one or the other will occur. Either we will get a UC or we will have a vote on cloture at 2:30 this afternoon. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, yesterday was the 1:30 p.m. filing deadline. The Baucus-Grassley amendment was not part of the substitute then so people couldn't draft amendments to that section. To be fair, I ask unanimous consent that Members have until 1 p.m. tomorrow to file first-degree amendments to the Baucus-Grassley title and that Members have until 10 a.m. Thursday to file possible second-degree amendments to those amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have noted on a couple of occasions this morning that it was our intention, in close consultation with the distinguished Republican leader, to see if we might find a way to bring closure to the bill, either with or without cloture. But I ask unanimous consent that immediately following cloture, notwithstanding the cloture vote, and notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate resume consideration of the energy bill with the opportunity of each leader or his designee to offer seven amendments which are either energy or tax related.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I certainly want to work with the distinguished Senator from California to accommodate her and other Senators who wish to be heard on the ethanol question. I know this is a very important matter for them. At this point, I would not be able to confirm that three of those seven amendments would be related to ethanol, although I would not want to assume that they would not be part of it. I think we would want to negotiate with all of our colleagues to accommodate as many Senators with an interest in offering amendments as possible. Keep in mind, as I said earlier, this is in addition to, cloture notwithstanding. Those amendments that are eligible to be offered postcloture, we anticipate they would still be offered. It could be, and I would guess most likely would be, the case that one or more of those amendments would be able to be offered without the inclusion in this unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for an outstanding statement and for the leadership he has shown on this issue for some time. He has been a stalwart advocate and an extraordinarily clear and strong voice on this issue. I congratulate him and thank him for all of his effort. As the Senator from Nebraska has noted, there have been a number of myths perpetrated about methanol and ethanol that need to be addressed as we consider this RFS. I want to take a couple of minutes--I know a number of my colleagues are on the floor and I know each one wants to speak--to address briefly these myths because they need to be knocked down. A myth stated often enough becomes fact in the minds of many. We do not want these myths to become fact in the minds of our Senate colleagues before they have the opportunity to vote on amendments as critical as this one. One myth is that this requires States to use ethanol. This does not require any State to use ethanol, not one drop, and I hope Senators will be clear about that point. Senators have heard that so frequently I am sure it is soon going to become fact in the minds of some, but because of the credit trading provisions, because of the waiver provisions in this legislation, there is no requirement that States use ethanol. So to begin with let's clarify that myth. The second myth, and the one I have heard so often expressed on the Senate floor, is that this RFS is going to somehow increase the price of fuel. That assertion is made on the basis of one study done by Hart/ IRI Research. That is the one cited by all of the opponents of RFS. What they do not tell you is that the Hart/IRI Research organization is funded in large measure by the methyl tertiary butyl ether industry, by the MTBE industry. One-half of the revenue that is used to support Hart/IRI comes from Liondel Petrochemical, which is the largest marketer of MTBE, methyl tertiary butyl ether, and the advocate. This is not, let me emphasize, an independent review. This is a very subjective review funded by the methanol industry to destroy the alternative energy fuels market. Their study, of course, advocates a position that is just not accurate and has no basis in fact. Their study projects that the price would increase 4 to 10 cents a gallon, and it is being used by our distinguished Senators from New York and California. The fact is, it is just wrong. The Department of Energy said that the RFS requirement would mean less than 1 cent a gallon, nationwide one-half cent per gallon. That is a Department of Energy study. The API study, the American Petroleum Institute study, said it would be a one-third of a cent increase--not 4 cents, not 10 cents. One would think the oil companies would be opposed to this. They support it. Why do they support it? Because they understand this has very significant opportunities for us to address the oxygenate market, the alternative energy market, the opportunities to deal with the challenges they are facing without MTBE. Their report, their review, their study says it would be a one-third of a cent increase, not 4 cents, not 10 cents, but one-third of a cent. We have the Department of Energy and the American Petroleum Institute saying this will be less than a 1 cent increase in the overall cost of fuel. Let us make sure that people understand. It is a myth, I say to my colleagues, it is a myth and do not let anybody tell you differently. There is no increase, no 4-cent, no 5-cent, no 10-cent increase. Who should know better than the Department of Energy and the American Petroleum Institute? It is clear, Hart/IRI would lose most of its business if they could not sustain the position they have advocated from the very beginning in this very subjected, distorted, and erroneous assertion that we are going to see the kind of increase in cost that they have advocated and that is often repeated in the Senate Chamber. There is another myth, and the myth is that somehow if we incorporate the renewable fuel standard, it is going to be disruptive to the petroleum market. I will tell you what is going to be disruptive, Mr. President. What is going to be disruptive is if we phase out MTBE--14 States have already done that--if we phase out MTBE and we do not have anything in its place. You want to see disruption, wait until we phase out MTBE and there is nothing there. We have no alternative. If you want to talk about the abrupt disruption of supply and the increase in cost, I cannot think of anything that will do that more effectively and in a more pronounced way than to simply do what we are scheduled to do right now: Phase out methyl tertiary butyl ether. The very best thing we can do for the consumers is to pass this bill, to pass this standard to allow this gradual transition that this bill contemplates in phasing in an alternative to this disruptive approach that will currently be contemplated if we do not have something to substitute in its place. That is the third myth, that we are subject to disruption if the bill passes. I would argue just the opposite. We are subject to major disruptions in supply and extraordinary increases in cost if this bill is not in place to address those disruptions now. There are two more myths, and I want to talk about those. One is that it is ethanol that will affect this cost, and to find some alternative to ethanol is one that will provide the panacea. I have heard some of my colleagues come to the Chamber and say: We do not really need ethanol. The oil companies can come up with alternatives to ethanol, and we ought to give them the opportunity to come up with those alternatives without mandating that ethanol be used. First, a large percentage of what the oil companies are going to have to use is either going to be imported or domestic. We know that. There is no other choice. The two alternatives to ethanol, in large measure, are imported product. We have alkylates and we have iso-octane. Both of those are imported. Both of those are far more expensive than ethanol. Both of those would cause the price hikes that our opponents continue to argue are the reason they oppose ethanol. The only domestic alternative is ethanol. The only domestic alternative where we can guarantee a supply is ethanol. The only domestic alternative where we know we are going to have some control on price is ethanol, if you look at DOE and API reports. So do not let anybody think that somehow we can import all these products and not be subject to dramatic increases in price. What is it about energy policy that would ever cause somebody to advocate more imported product is the answer? That is what some of our opponents are doing. I do not understand that. If they are concerned about price, if they are concerned about supply, if they are concerned about disruption, if they are concerned about all the ramifications of making sure their consumers are protected, the last thing they should do is depend more on imported product that we know is going to cost more than ethanol. The final myth is we do not have consumer protections in the bill. I am amazed some people make that assertion. They could not possibly have read the bill. There are a number of consumer protections beyond those I have already addressed. The first consumer protection is that DOE is required under this legislation to look at the ethanol market and the supply problems that exist. They have the opportunity written in the legislation--it is in writing; it is guaranteed--that the ethanol mandate will be reduced. The second guarantee is in subsequent years any State can apply and have the mandate reduced within a 90-day period, which is the day we have agreed to. We had a vote last week, and we acknowledged that the 240 days is long. We are prepared to go to 90 days. DOE and the EPA argue they would like to have more time, but we are going to insist they do it within 90 days so States can see their mandate reduced if they can demonstrate there is going to be some concern for disruption. Then we have what I said at the beginning, the credit trading provisions. Any refinery that uses more ethanol can trade the credits generated from the use of additional ethanol to those refineries that do not use ethanol or that come in at a lower level than what the mandate requires. We have credit trading, the waiver, and the overall review that is stipulated in the bill requiring EPA to reduce the mandate if disruptions can be proved. We offered, I might also say, another year prior to the implementation of the legislation, in exchange for banning MTBE on schedule, and at least to date our opponents have rejected that offer. That would have been a fourth consumer protection I thought would have sufficed in meeting some of their concerns, but they chose not to take that offer. It stands as we proposed it, and clearly Senators would have an opportunity to avail themselves of that offer if they chose to do it. There have been a number of myths, and I am disappointed the myths continue to be perpetrated without an adequate response. We are going to continue to respond to those myths and try to knock them down and clarify the record so all Senators are very clear about what these alternatives are prior to the time they have a chance to vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator will have the opportunity, but I think it would be preferable to do it on her own time, but I will answer one question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The credits in this bill allow you to get out from under the mandate without any intervention from DOE or EPA or anybody else. You are not required, in this legislation, with the RFS, to use one drop of ethanol.

Mr. DASCHLE. Of course you pay for it, but the credits are available.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from New York asks a very good question. My answer would be the same as I am sure he responded to Senator Levin about CAFE. Senator Levin said: Why not let the market work on CAFE? A lot of other Senators said: Why not let the market work on CAFE? I think the Senator disagreed, for good reason, because if we set goals oftentimes, as a country working within government and within the industry, we achieve them. Oftentimes, without the role of some goal-setting, we never achieve anything beyond where we are today. We did with CAFE in the past. I think we can do that with ethanol now. This is a goal, just as the Senator supported CAFE as a goal. We failed on that. I hope in this case we can achieve it. The Senator understandably is concerned about price hikes. As I said a moment ago, if we are concerned about price hikes, I think we ought to be concerned about what happens when we phase out MTBE in a vacuum, because that is where we are going to get price hikes. We are going to get serious price hikes when we start relying on these imported products for which we are not certain of supply and we are certainly not certain of price. As we phase in the RFS, we have an opportunity to do three things: First, require that DOE look at the supply and say, OK, if we need more time we are going to give it to you. We look at the States and we say, all right, if you want more time, you get an opportunity to ask us for a waiver and we will give it to you. And over all of that, we say beyond any other waiver or beyond a DOE review, we are going to say you can trade credits right now. You do not have to worry about any other decision. You can trade credits right off the bat. So we have three protections built into the price hike. With this, we have no protections built in if we do nothing.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield, but I know other Senators are waiting patiently. I came out of turn, but I would be happy to answer one question.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let us put this in the proper context. You pay an amount, but what are you going to pay when there is no alternative to MTBE? How much is that going to cost? If we phase out MTBE in California, and they are then forced to go to alkylates or iso-octane and you do not know what it is going to cost, you do not know whether a supply is going to be available and the people of California are forced to pay 30 or 40 cents more per gallon because that is the only available supply, I say the people of California would rise up in huge opposition. That is, of course, the choice of each of us has to make. What we are saying is we have a very careful and balanced approach in phasing out MTBE with ethanol in a way that gives every State an opportunity to fashion and to tailor its response to the circumstances they find themselves in, with credit trading, with the waiver opportunity, and with the DOE review, not to mention a delay of 1 year in the implementation should Senators wish to afford themselves of the opportunity we present. So there are tremendous protections for each one of these States should the Senators or should the States choose to use them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me just say, it is the intention of Senator Lott and me to offer the unanimous consent request shortly which would make in order a number of amendments pertaining to the energy bill that, hopefully, will bring us to closure. What we have done in this case is simply agree to a debate on the estate tax legislation sometime prior to June 28. Senators will have an opportunity to debate the estate tax bill. I know there is a great deal of interest on both sides of the aisle. We will also now entertain the Baucus amendment as it relates to the tax provisions of the energy bill. All Senators, of course, still retain their right to offer amendments on taxes prior to cloture. Madam President, I yield the floor and thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, throughout the morning we have attempted to find ways to move the process along. I thank a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation. We are at a point now where procedurally I think we are in a position to move forward. We will make a unanimous consent request following this one having to do with amendments to the energy bill. But that is a separate matter. This has primarily to do with the question of estate taxes. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers Calendar No. 33, H.R. 8, the estate tax bill, no later than June 28, the only amendments in order are as follows: Senator Gramm of Texas, an estate tax amendment; the majority leader, or his designee, an estate tax amendment which shall be subject to two second-degree amendments to be offered by Senator Daschle, or his designee, with Senator Daschle's amendment being the first one offered; that all of the above amendments deal solely with the subject of estate tax; that all of the above estate tax amendments be subject to a 60- vote Budget Act point of order and that no other amendments or motions be in order to the bill, except motions to waive the Budget Act; and that if any of the above amendments, after each has had its motion to waive vote, is adopted, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on final passage of the bill without any intervening action or debate, and that if none of the amendments achieve 60 votes to waive the Budget Act, the bill be placed back on the calendar; further, that there be 2 hours for debate on each of the above amendments equally divided in the usual form; further, that upon the granting of this consent, Senator Baucus be recognized to offer the Baucus-Grassley Finance Committee tax amendment to the energy bill, and that the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Our Nation's vulnerability to foreign energy production has been brought into bold relief by the continuing turmoil in the Middle East. It is imperative that our Nation take greater strides to promote the use of domestic, renewable fuels as a means of reducing our dangerous dependence on imported oil and strengthening U.S. energy security. An aggressive program to produce and use more renewable fuel should be one of the pillars of our Nation's energy policy. And, as America uses more renewable fuel, we need to make sure that the financial soundness of the highway trust fund is not inadvertently undermined. That is why I strongly support Chairman Baucus' efforts to ensure that future use of ethanol will have no impact on the trust fund. I applaud his efforts in this regard and pledge to do whatever I can to see that we hold the highway trust fund harmless as we seek to make America more energy independent.