Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there will be no more votes tonight. In consultation with the Republican leader and the managers of the bill, and Senator Reid, I do not believe we are in a position to come to any further conclusions on amendments tonight. So I do not expect there will be any additional rollcalls. There will be a rollcall vote on one of the two judicial nominations pending on the calendar tomorrow morning at 9:15. Then there will be an additional vote on the second judicial nomination on Monday at 6 o'clock. So Senators should be made aware that tomorrow morning we will have a vote on a judicial nomination. It appears that may be the only vote we will have scheduled tomorrow, unfortunately. Then, on Monday, we will have a second vote which may or may not be the only vote. We are not sure at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will continue to take this matter one step at a time. We are encouraging Senators to express themselves on campaign finance reform tomorrow, or on energy tomorrow. My hope is that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and other Senators who wish to be heard on their amendments, will offer them tomorrow, will debate them tomorrow, will make sure that we use the day we have available to us tomorrow to move the legislative process along. That is also true on Monday. We will come in at 3. We encourage Senators to offer amendments on the campaign finance reform bill on Monday. We will have further discussions, of course, with our colleagues with regard to the campaign finance reform bill. I will say, if there are amendments to be offered, we will have debate and further consideration of those amendments on Monday and Tuesday. It would be my expectation to file cloture on the bill for a cloture vote on Wednesday, as we currently expect it. That would then require the vote, as I have said on many occasions, no later than Friday, which would accommodate our schedule for the balance of next week. I have said, and will repeat, if there is a way we can resolve whatever other outstanding procedural questions between now and Monday, or between now and Wednesday, I am certainly more than ready to do so. But I appreciate at least this progress. We will have more to say beginning Monday. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. My hope is we can finish this bill sometime soon. It would be my desire to continue to work on it until we do so, with the exception, of course, of the campaign finance reform bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I move to proceed to H.R. 2356, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, as I indicated to Senator Lott and as I indicated yesterday to a joint leader meeting, we would be required to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the campaign finance reform bill today, this afternoon. We have been working patiently with our colleagues who have opposed campaign reform now for some time. I am still hopeful that perhaps we can reach an agreement which will allow us to vitiate this cloture motion, and if that can be done, we will vitiate the vote on cloture on Friday and we will move forward, but time has run out. It is essential we at least file cloture today on the motion to proceed in order to accommodate a worst case scenario on campaign finance reform. I have put all of our colleagues on notice that this is one piece of legislation that must be completed prior to the time we leave for the Easter recess. So we will have the cloture vote on Friday, if it is required. We will then be on the bill on Monday. I will notify our colleagues that we will file cloture on Monday for a Wednesday cloture vote, and assuming we get cloture on Wednesday, we will be in session all night Wednesday night, all night Thursday night, and we will then have our vote on Friday. So Senators should be aware, it may be unusual but we will be involved in an all-night session Wednesday and Thursday night in order to complete our work on the bill by Friday. Now again, it is my hope that perhaps we can reach some agreement with regard to the package of technical amendments. We have not been able to do it to date. I am concerned that time is quickly running out, but we are certainly more than willing to continue our discussions. I have run out of time in terms of our ability to assure we can have the cloture votes at a time that will accommodate completing our work by the end of next week. So I thank my colleagues. I especially thank the distinguished Senators McCain and Feingold for their extraordinary work and effort in getting us to this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues this morning in congratulating the officials and organizations that came together recently to negotiate a broad compromise agreement on the regulation of clean-burning fuels in the United States. This is truly an historic agreement that reconciles a variety of competing interests in order to meet several important national policy objectives. The fuels provision establishes greater flexibility in the Nation's gasoline regulations, protects air quality and nearly triples the use of domestic, renewable fuels over the next 10 years. And, significantly, it enjoys the support of the ethanol industry, the oil industry and environmental organizations, three segments of society that have not always agreed on transportation fuels issues. A number of organizations worked diligently to fashion this agreement and deserve a lion's share of the credit for its success. They include the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Corn Growers Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition and the American Lung Association. It is indeed testament to the spirit of compromise in the U.S. Senate that all these groups representing often divergent constituencies and interests can come together to create a product that benefits all. While these groups came to the negotiating table with the interests of their members firmly in mind, they also understood that the fuels component of any viable energy strategy must serve a variety of national goals. Without their embrace of this far-sighted approach, this balanced agreement would not have been possible. Among the Senators that I would like to thank, first and foremost is Senator Dick Lugar. The seeds of this agreement were planted a few years ago when Senator Lugar and I first introduced legislation to establish a renewable fuels standard and provide greater flexibility in producing reformulated gasoline. Senator Lugar's enthusiastic support gave this idea needed momentum and helped lay the groundwork for the agreement that was reached last week. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the involvement of the White House in crafting this agreement. Andrew Lundquist, who has a unique perspective gained as a former staff director of the Senate Energy Committee and Director of Energy Policy for the President, has been extremely helpful throughout the negotiation process, both in identifying effective policy and working with diverse parties to achieve it. Among those whose opinions I sought early in this effort and who always provide me with intelligent and helpful advice are Trevor Guthmiller and Bob Scott of the American Coalition for Ethanol, and Dave Hallberg, the first president of the Renewable Fuels Association who currently is developing an innovative ethanol plant and cattle feedlot in Pierre, SD. Their common sense, South Dakota counsel on these tough national fuels issues has never led me astray. This agreement could not have been fashioned without the leadership and advocacy of Red Caveney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, Bob Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, Jason Grumet, former executive director of the Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, Bruce Knight, president of the National Corn Growers Association, Tom Buis, executive director of the National Farmers Union, and Doug Durante, chairman of the Clean Fuels Development Corporation. I am deeply grateful for the hard work and focus of these dedicated individuals as well as for the valuable contribution of Todd Sneller, administrator of the Nebraska Ethanol Board, Larry Pearce, director of the Nebraska Energy Office, and Bill Holmberg, an original foot solider in our 20 year campaign to promote the use of renewable fuels in America. Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel deserve enormous credit for legislation they introduced to establish a very ambitious renewable fuels standard, and for their tireless work in promoting this concept. And there are many others Ben Nelson, Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, Mark Dayton, Paul Wellstone, Max Baucus, Dick Durbin, Kit Bond, and others-- who also deserve recognition for the progress we have made on this issue. Senator Nelson, for example, has, at my request, taken on the responsibility of managing this debate on the fuels provision. Chairman Jim Jeffords and Ranking Member Bob Smith also deserve tremendous credit for moving this legislation through the Environment and Public Works Committee and for bringing their expertise and steady demeanor to the negotiating table. Their involvement was critical to the successful brokering of this agreement. This agreement makes a number of important changes in Federal law based on the experience we have gained over the last 7 years of implementing the reformulated gasoline program. It eliminates the oxygen requirement from the reformulated gasoline program, a change that is very important to the efforts of States like California and New York, who are planning to eliminate MTBE from their gasoline supplies in the near future. But, in so doing, it also ensures that we preserve the hard-fought air quality gains that have resulted from the implementation of that requirement. The agreement establishes a renewable fuels program to nearly triple the use of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 years. It also provides special encouragement to biomass-based ethanol, which holds great promise for converting a variety of organic materials into useful fuel, while substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This will have substantial benefits for the environment and for rural economies, while helping to lower our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. It bans MTBE in 4 years and authorizes funding to clean up MTBE contamination and to fix leaking underground tanks. This section is particularly important to States like California that are struggling to clean up groundwater contaminated by MTBE. It allows the most polluted States to opt into the reformulated gasoline program, and provides all States with additional authority under the Clean Air Act to address air quality concerns. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge concerns about this program that have been expressed by my friends and colleagues from California, who in light of their recent experiences with electricity markets are understandably wary of new energy regulation in the fuels market. In response to their concerns, I and those participating in the development of this compromise have taken a number of steps to ease California's transition from MTBE to ethanol. Under the compromise, California no longer needs to meet the oxygen requirement of the reformulated gasoline program upon enactment; this is one year ahead of other States with reformulated gasoline programs. This modification was possible because of California's progressive State fuels program that ensures protection of air quality in the absence of the oxygen requirement. To address concerns that have been raised about ethanol supplies, prices and logistics, the compromise requires that during 2003, before the renewable fuels standard takes effect, the Department of Energy study these issues. If that study determines that there will be any problems with the ethanol program in 2004, then the EPA Administrator is directed to reduce the level of the mandate for 2004. Under the renewable fuels program, California and any other State can apply to EPA under separate provisions of the bill to request that the Administrator reduce the ethanol mandate in any year of the program, based on supply or economic concerns. The Congress will expect the Administrator to enforce this provision diligently. Moreover, the compromise allows California in 2004 to meet its ethanol requirement by blending ethanol only in the wintertime. This is very significant, because California is expected to use 300 to 400 million gallons of ethanol in 2004 to meet its wintertime carbon monoxide Clean Air Act requirements anyway, while the new renewable fuels program will require the use of less than 250 million gallons that year. In other words, California will use more than 100 million gallons of ethanol in 2004 than the new mandate requires. So the ethanol mandate that is in this bill should have no effect on California in 2004, and will substantially lessen California's ethanol requirements compared to current law unless the State decides not to implement its ban on MTBE. As with all compromises, this agreement is not ideal for anyone, but measured against maintaining the status quo, this agreement will provide considerable additional flexibility to California and other states in producing and using clean-burning gasoline. For example, if this compromise were not developed, California would need to meet the existing reformulated gasoline oxygen requirement and implement the ban on MTBE that the governor has stated will go into effect either at the end of 2002 or, if extended, at the end of 2003. This scenario would result in the need for California to use over 800 to 900 million gallons of ethanol in 2004, far more than the renewable fuels requirements of this compromise. Finally, under the bill, refiners in California and throughout the Nation can buy credits from refiners that use ethanol in other States to meet its requirement, rather than use actual gallons of ethanol. This ensures that ethanol will be used where it is most efficient and economical. In the development of this compromise, I have had numerous conversations with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and with California Governor Gray Davis and the director of the California Department of Environmental Protection, Winston Hickox, about the effect of a renewable fuels standard on their state. I respect their knowledge of their State's energy situation and their passion and tenacity in defense of their State's interests. No one wants to see price volatility in any regional market. The renewable fuels provision has been modified in response to California's concern about possible future energy scenarios, and, I believe, effectively protects the state against unintended consequences. In the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate, this agreement represents a careful balance of often disparate and competing interests. No member or organization got everything they wanted. But in the end, each participant won important victories that made this agreement stronger. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, the House and the White House to enact this important compromise this year. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to place a letter into the Record that I received yesterday from the Governor's Ethanol Coalition. The coalition has been a strong supporter of my efforts to enact a renewable fuels standard from the very beginning, and it gives me great pleasure to have worked closely with that organization for the last few years in this regard.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am very pleased to note that a recent Senate publication has won a prestigious award. At its forthcoming annual meeting, the Society for History in the Federal Government will present its George Pendleton Award to Senate Historical Editor Wendy Wolff and the Senate Historical Office for the book entitled Capitol Builder: The Shorthand Journals of Montgomery C. Meigs, 1853-1861. The Pendleton Award is given annually for ``an outstanding major publication on the Federal Government's history produced by or for a Federal history program.'' It commemorates former U.S. Senator George Pendleton, who sponsored the 1883 civil service reform act that bears his name. As an officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Montgomery Meigs supervised construction of the current Senate and House wings and the Capitol dome. During this project, Meigs kept a detailed journal of his activities, written in an obscure shorthand and only recently transcribed. This publication provides rich new information on construction of the Capitol extension, and on politics and life in mid- nineteenth-century Washington. The Meigs transcription and publication project has been a collaborative effort among a number of congressional offices over the past decade, including the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Library of Congress. William Mohr, a retired Senate Official Reporter of Debates, translated the shorthand, with financial support provided by the Senate Bicentennial Commission and the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. This project has been guided through to completion by the Senate's very able historian, Dr. Richard Baker, and his dedicated staff. The idea originated in 1991 when Joe Stewart was Secretary of the Senate. It was Joe Stewart who ensured that the resources were made available to bring this fascinating history to the American public. It should be noted that Dr. Baker is the first Senate historian and he has set a high standard indeed for every Senate historian who will follow in his footsteps. We in the Democratic Caucus have been pleased to listen to Dr. Baker's ``history minutes'' each Tuesday at the start of our regular weekly conferences. He has given us a deeper appreciation of the challenges previous Senators faced, the rich traditions of the Senate, and also the humor exhibited in past times. His stewardship of this project has been justly rewarded by the awarding of the George Pendleton Award to the Montgomery Meigs Journals. Copies of this 900-page book are available from the Government Printing Office and the Senate Gift Shop. I highly recommend it to my colleagues and to anyone else who treasures the Capitol.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today, Friday, March 8, until 2 p.m. for the introduction of legislation and the submission of statements.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 222, submitted earlier today by the two leaders.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I begin by asking unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 707 through 723, en bloc, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, any statements thereon appear at the appropriate place in the Record, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this morning, we had the opportunity to vote on the economic package that we have been working on now for some period of time. Our deliberations on this subject began almost 6 months ago. In fact, I do not think that the timing of this action is a coincidence. Monday will mark the 6-month anniversary of September 11. It will also be the days that workers who lost their livelihoods on September 11 will exhaust their unemployment benefits. Those who have until now opposed a bipartisan economic recovery bill, and the unemployment insurance extension it includes, have wisely decided to relent in their opposition before the anniversary of that awful day arrives. Two months ago, I proposed a common-ground economic recovery bill that contained only provisions supported by both parties. It included a 13-week unemployment extension, tax rebates for persons left out of last year's tax cut, business tax cuts to spur investment and create jobs, and fiscal relief for the states. In an attempt to break the logjam and bridge disagreements between the parties, Democrats agreed to give up the economic priorities we had pressed last year, but which were opposed by Republicans. In exchange, we proposed that Republicans give up their priorities which were opposed by Democrats--namely, repealing the alternative minimum tax for corporations, including Enron, and accelerating the rate cuts enacted last year. Regrettably, Senate Republicans blocked that measure, despite the fact that when votes were taken our consensus package received 56 votes, while the Republican bill had just 48 votes. The bill we have just approved is similar in its approach. Like the common-ground bill Democrats proposed in January, it leaves out the highly controversial proposals Republicans insisted on previously. And it includes a top priority for Democrats--an extension of unemployment insurance. For these reasons, I support this legislation--although I would point out one serious omission. As I said, our bill included one year of fiscal relief for the states through an increase in the match rate for Medicaid. Sixty-two Senators voted for an amendment to provide this relief for 2 years. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the House does not include this important measure. This fiscal relief provision is the top priority of the bipartisan National Governors Association. It would assist States with the serious revenue shortfalls they are experiencing as a result of the recession. Given the adamant opposition of some Republicans and the difficult time constraints under which the Senate is operating, it is not possible to address this issue in the time available to us this morning. I say to the opponents of State fiscal relief: Dropping this provision is a serious mistake, and one I believe they will regret. In the long run, I do not believe we can avoid dealing with this problem. There are other measures in this bill some of us might have written differently. Many of us would prefer a shorter time period for the bonus depreciation provision, for example, but on balance, the bill is a vast improvement over what Republicans and the administration advocated originally, and I believe it deserves the support it received this morning. I am grateful for its passage.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment and ask unanimous consent that the time until 9:30 this morning be for debate with respect to the motion to concur, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders; that the Democratic time be equally divided between the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, and the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House bill without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is exactly right, that is the intent of the legislation. As I understand it, the House chairman did clarify yesterday that his intent in drafting the legislation conformed to the Senator's view that the federal benefit start before any state-financed extended benefit. As the Senators from Washington know, the Senate put forward a bill in February that provided a simple 13-week extension to all States, which would begin immediately after the exhaustion of regular UI benefits. There are a number of States that did act in providing State-financed extended benefits before the House finally agreed to send us this compromise legislation, and those States deserve the maximum federal benefit. This is about giving workers a chance to get back on their feet. We have worked hard to recognize the technical concerns of the Senators from Washington and ensure that we were providing the maximum assistance to all States. So I will say clearly that it was the Congress' intent to provide the federal benefit immediately after regular UI and I will work with the Senators to ensure that the Department conforms with that intent.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, regarding a tax issue that I had hoped to clarify as part of this legislation, which will have serious economic ramifications for several important industries. Recently, some uncertainty has arisen regarding the proper tax treatment of residuals and participations under the income forecast method of depreciation. I would ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member if they could clarify this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank both of my distinguished colleagues for this important clarification. I understand that Treasury is considering this issue currently as part of its 2001 Priority Guidance Plan. For the record, I would note that Senators Baucus and Grassley previously sent a letter to Treasury Secretary O'Neill asking him to consider regulations that eliminate the current uncertainty by clarifying that participations and residuals may be included in a property's initial cost basis for purposes of the income forecast method of depreciation. I agree with my colleagues and urge Treasury to issue such regulations.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are pieces of business we need to accommodate prior to the end of the session today. All of these matters have the approval of the distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will be taking up other business before the end of the day, but until that time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 223, submitted earlier today by Senators Biden, Boxer, Dodd, and others.