Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. This is a tremendous bill for Minnesota, and on behalf of our farmers I thank Senator Harkin. I want to pay tribute to my colleague Senator Wellstone who had a huge role in this. He has had a longtime friendship with the committee chairman. I see his fingerprints, his hard work, and his effectiveness in the Senate all over the bill that went out of the Senate committee, the bill that was passed on this floor and has now been incorporated into the conference report. There was an article yesterday in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, one of our leading newspapers, that said, by an independent analysis, the bill would bring $1.16 billion a year into the Minnesota economy. That is a huge increase in dollars coming out of the agricultural sector of our State and into our entire State economy. That means school districts, that means city budgets, that means church contributions, that means so much in the lifeblood of Minnesota that will be increased and improved as a result of this bill. I want to pay tribute to Senator Wellstone for his leadership in bringing that about. Would that these dollars would come out of market prices. I believe as this bill unfolds with the counter-cyclical aspect to it, and some of the other features, that more of this bill will be paid for in the marketplace, not out of tax revenues. As I say, though, without it, frankly, there would not be any farms in Minnesota for anybody to be supporting. As others have said, in terms of conservation, another one of the chairman's initiatives, in terms of energy, combined with the energy bill which was passed in the Senate, the funds that are going now in the initiatives for biofuels, for ethanol, for soy diesel, and other products, which I am convinced over the next 10 to 20 years is going to be essential to this Nation weaning itself from complete reliance on oil-based fuels, it is tremendously important. This bill and the energy bill combined will lead us into that direction. In the area of dairy, Senator Harkin, and Senator Leahy from Vermont, have succeeded in accomplishing something that I think dairy producers in America would have thought heretofore was truly impossible, and that is to create one market for the entire country, to make available across the Nation the same terms, the same pricing supports, the same formula for price support levels from the Federal Government. That has not existed in the 16-plus years of Federal dairy policy and that is an extraordinary accomplishment in itself. This bill is not perfect, as others have said, but it is awfully good. It is so much better than what it is replacing, and given the conditions which it is stepping in to replace, to be picking at a penny here or a day or a week of something, when this bill is in place and, yes--when this bill is fully in place, Minnesotans in terms of prices for soybeans, for wheat, for dairy are going to be so much better off than they would have been if present law had been continued. I, again, thank the chairman of the committee. I urge my colleagues to do as I will do, which is to vote in favor of this conference report. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I return the compliment. He has been a stupendous leader of the committee most of the time I have been there. We actually have two Minnesotans on the Senate Agriculture Committee--my senior colleague, Senator Wellstone and I. Heretofore, for a few years, we did not have any representation on the committee. I believe this farm bill is a better bill for Minnesota and it is a better bill for America as a result of our efforts. Without the chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin, we would not have accomplished any of this. His leadership has been extraordinary. I hear some of my colleagues raising objections to certain measures in this bill. In the context of what we walked into in January of 2001 when I joined the Senate and that committee and the previous conditions in the agricultural sector, there is a disconnect between what they seem to be objecting to and the circumstances that existed--which, frankly, I was not a part of--when I came on the committee in January of 2001. The Senator from Iowa was not even the chairman of the committee at that time. He was the ranking member. Our distinguished ranking member, Senator Lugar, was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Republicans had been in charge of the Senate for the previous 6 years. There had been a Republican chairman of that committee for that period of time. This means that the 1996 farm bill, if my recollection is correct, was constructed and passed by that committee, and the full Senate and House, both under Republican leadership. There was a Democratic President, but they undertook that initiative. I traveled the State in the year 2000 campaigning for office and listening to farmers all over Minnesota. The chairman of the committee was kind enough to join me for the day. I heard from farmers in Minnesota that they were in desperate condition. I looked at the market prices then in Minnesota, and commodity prices were lower in the year 2000 than they were when I ran for the Senate for the first time in 1982. That was not even inflation adjusted. This is just nominal dollars. The prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, and milk were lower in Minnesota in the year 2000 than they were in 1982. None of the many products farmers have to buy to stay in business-- such as tractors, diesel fuel, equipment, feed--have stayed at the same price. In fact, they have gone up quite significantly. When we came into the majority in the Senate and I was joined by my colleague, Senator Wellstone, on the committee, the Minnesota farm economy was in very desperate straits. In many areas of Minnesota, the farm economy is the economy. It is not just farmers. It is every person, every business owner, every employee of a business, every school board member--everybody in Greater Minnesota, the majority of our State, knows their livelihood, the lifeblood of their communities, of their churches, of their schools depends on a healthy agricultural economy, which depends on a market price, which depends on the ability to sell your product in the marketplace and make a profit, make enough money to feed your family, buy what you need, and those dollars multiply through the local economy. We have not seen that kind of prosperity in Greater Minnesota, in the agricultural economy of our State, for many years. The Federal Government has stepped in, as it had to, given the failure of Freedom to Farm, with supplemental payments, with double AMTA payments. If it had not, we would not have farms anywhere in Minnesota or they would be few and operating under large corporate auspices. The real people, the farmers would not be there. Those who criticize us for going back, as they say, to a Federal role in agriculture should be reminded, in fairness, if they had their way as the architect of this bill in 1996, there would not have been any supplemental payments; there would not have been any disaster relief. There would have simply been a total reliance on the marketplace and with prices that were going down through the floor and into the subbasement with no supply management whatsoever. Another one of the criticisms I heard in the last couple of days is we are encouraging overproduction. The 1996 farm bill took all the caps off production individually and collectively: Produce whatever you can; produce what you must to survive. Once again, they are criticizing something that is very much their own creation. Another criticism I have heard recently is we are somehow putting too much of the taxpayers' money into the farm program. Again, coming from a farm State, I know how vital this Federal role in agriculture is to the economic lifeblood of Minnesota. I wish we did not have to put this much money into supporting and keeping our farmers alive. I wish they could get every dollar they need in the marketplace. If we had had a good farm program over the last number of years in this country, frankly, that is where they would be getting their price today. But that is not the case. In fact, the farm index for this country is now at the lowest level it has been since the Great Depression. That is the price we get for all farm commodities in America divided by the cost of producing all those commodities. It has dropped from 100 percent in the years 1990 to 1992, which was the baseline, to 80 percent today. In 10 years, in just one decade, the prices farmers receive all across this country as a percentage of the cost of producing all of those products has dropped by 20 percent. It dropped below the break-even point, which is why so many farmers have gone bankrupt, and why, without these initial payments, thousands of farmers across America will go bankrupt. This is the situation the chairman of this committee inherited, and I think his leadership has been nothing short of miraculous and magnificent. The title of the movie ``Miracle Worker'' really applies to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. To put this bill together with all the differences of view, diversity, forms of agriculture, sizes, and different philosophical and political perspectives, it is a true miracle, one that was extraordinarily well done, one that would have been done--if the chairman had been assisted by everybody involved-- some time ago. Another criticism I heard in the last couple of days is that this bill should have been passed already. Farmers have been chafing from uncertainty and lenders have been chafing from uncertainty. I have heard that from Minnesota bankers and farmers all over the State, but I am thinking to myself: Despite the crisis that September 11 brought on all of us, despite anthrax, which I believe drove the Senator from Iowa and his staff out of their office in the Hart Building, the Agriculture Committee conducted its hearings, marked up a bill, and had it on the Senate floor last December so that we had 2\1/2\ weeks before our break to debate it and pass it and send it on to conference with the House. If we had done that expeditiously at the very beginning, we would have had that bill in conference. It could have been conferenced and signed by the President Christmas Eve or before. Instead, some would not permit that to happen. We, Senator Daschle, the majority leader, tried three times to invoke cloture. Three times we had the majority of the Senators voting to do so but we could not get the 60 votes necessary. So we left. We came back, just before the time of the President's State of the Union, without having passed a farm bill. So now I am hearing from people who voted against cloture in December three times, who delayed it by 5 weeks, that somehow it is somebody else's fault that we did not have a bill in March or February. We could have had a bill, we should have had a bill, and they ought to take responsibility. To come back today or yesterday and say that it is somehow the chairman's fault or somebody else's fault, I think is irresponsible. We have a bill that fortunately is well worth waiting for. It did not have to be waited for, but it was really well worth it in terms of the State of Minnesota. I inquire of the Chair how much more time I have available.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I second the comments of the senior Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to say that I welcome the amendment by Senator Cantwell and others that greatly strengthens the amendment that I previously brought to the floor. I compliment the Senator from Washington, who has done an extraordinary amount of work on this measure, for her leadership in bringing together Senators, consumer groups, and others who would be affected by this legislation. I think her work has been extraordinary. I know from my own observation that her work behind the scenes over the last days and weeks has been phenomenal. She has put countless hours into bringing this coalition together, bringing these amendments together, and bringing them to the floor for our consideration today. Again, I want the Record to show that the Senator from Washington has been extraordinary in her efforts to bring this to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Killeen, the former Subregional Director for Minnesota of United Auto Workers of Region 10. Bob has been a good friend of mine for the last 25 years. And even though his doctors say that he is in a tough battle, knowing Bob, and knowing his courage and his heart, I would not be surprised to see him bouncing back tomorrow. I do want to take this opportunity on the Senate floor to pay tribute to him for the leadership he has given to the United Auto Workers in Minnesota over the past decades, to thank him for his enlightened leadership on behalf of working men and women in Minnesota, and to recognize him as a leader and a teacher for those who have followed in his footsteps, such as myself. Senator Wellstone, I know, joins with me in these remarks. Bob is courageous in his convictions. He is always true to those convictions. But he has proceeded as a gentleman in the best sense of that word. He is respected by his friends and his supporters, and even by those who may have sat on the other side of the bargaining table. Bob has treated everybody with the same kind of respect and regard. That is why so many people love him, as I do, and care for him as a human being, and respect his convictions and his principles. I say to Bob and to the members of the Killeen family how indebted all of us in Minnesota are to all of you for lending your spouse, and your father, to us during these years. I know it took many hours and nights away from his family for Bob to do the work that he was committed to doing. I know he would not have wanted it any other way, and I know his family would not have wanted it any other way as well. To Bob, I wish you Godspeed. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the gifts of your wisdom and your principles that you have bequeathed to me. I say to you: You have done a remarkably wonderful job for Minnesota, Bob. Thank you very much.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak as in morning business for a period of up to 5 minutes.

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

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the desire of the Senators from New York and California to protect their States and their constituents. I think it is unfortunate that so much misinformation about ethanol exists today. It has been distributed and is being distributed even as we speak. There is so much misunderstanding about what ethanol's role is, and also ethanol's potential in our energy future. Today, the United States consumes 25 percent of all the oil that is produced in the world. One out of every four barrels of oil produced in the world is consumed in the United States. Given the significance of the transportation sector in this country, one out of every seven barrels of oil goes into American gasoline. If those who continue to oppose any kind of alternative have their way, the policy of this country is going to be basically hang on and hope-- hang on to the status quo, hang on to the present consumption of oil and gasoline, hang on to the present energy consumption patterns of this country and hope nothing changes. I find it disappointing that we focus on these alternatives as though they are somehow going to impose something more onerous and more expensive on the American people when, in fact, if you look realistically at the future, 10, 20 years from now, the most expensive policy for the American consumer is for us to do nothing. The notion that we will be able to continue to consume one-fourth or more of the world's oil production, the notion that prices will remain the same as today's prices, that there won't be disruptions, and to put ourselves in a situation where we will be faced with either supply disruption or price increases of major proportions, I think is putting our head in the sand and hoping for something that goes beyond what is realistic. Despite the efforts of the manager of this bill, basically the position of the Senate on this bill is to do nothing in terms of bringing about any real reduction in the consumption of oil and gasoline or the development of real alternatives. We said no to the CAFE standards. We said no to basically any meaningful change or development of any alternative. Why? Because, as the opponents say, any alternative, any change in our practice, involves some dislocation and some price increase on a temporary basis--not nearly what this proposes. They may involve some need to refigure our supply. Anything that changes the status quo, therefore, changes some aspect of this system that we keep treating as though it is in place and it is secure for years to come. How long, realistically, do we think we are going to be able to continue to have all the oil that we wish to consume, at the prices we are paying today, with no disruptions, and no price spikes? In fact, if we don't start developing alternatives, such as ethanol and other biofuels, we are going to guarantee that we are in the same predicament 10 years from now or 20 years from now. I guarantee you that those prices will not continue to be stable. In Minnesota, we have been practicing an alternative for the last 5 years mandated by the Minnesota Legislature, which is a 10-percent blend of ethanol in every gallon of gasoline sold in the State of Minnesota. That ethanol is blended. Ten percent is used by every vehicle that puts gasoline into its tank. It requires no change in engines produced by General Motors, Ford, or any other company, foreign or domestic. In fact, the engines in vehicles that use 10 percent ethanol requires no modification whatsoever. They have no supply problems. The cost of a gallon of gasoline in Minnesota today is 20 cents less than a gallon of gasoline in California. It is a penny more than in New York. It is 5 cents a gallon less in Illinois, and it is less in our surrounding States that don't have this mandate. That is just the beginning. My office leases a vehicle, a Chrysler Suburban, that travels around Minnesota. It consumes 85 percent ethanol--a fuel that is blended 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. That is priced 20 cents less than a gallon of unleaded fuel in Minnesota today--meaning 40 cents less than a gallon in California, 10 cents less than a gallon of gasoline in New York, and so on. Yes, this is a subsidy. Yes, this is an incentive provided to make the conversion to this kind of fuel. Again, if we don't provide some kind of incentive, we will have no alternative form of energy which is going to be competitive with what it is today. On the other hand, if we don't follow the direction in this legislation that we begin to make this transition to having a supply of ethanol that will actually not just displace MTBE--that is far too limited a view of the future of ethanol. Ethanol could not only supplant MTBE, as this legislation encourages, but also ethanol could supplant gasoline itself. As I said, right now in Minnesota, 10 percent of the gasoline has been supplanted by ethanol. That could be 20 percent if we had the supplies available that could be applied across this country. And 85 percent of ethanol can be used in 2 million vehicles across the country. Imagine what it would do 10, 20 years from now to the energy independence of this country if we were using 20 percent, 40 percent, 60 percent ethanol instead of gasoline. As I say, these changes are not going to happen overnight. We are not going to be able to find ourselves in an energy crisis down the road and be able to make these kinds of changes immediately. If we do not start now, if we do not have a goal of 10 years from now reaching a manageable amount of product that will encourage others to get into the market--for example, I hear criticism that one company now controls 41 percent of the market for ethanol in this country. Twenty-five years ago that same company controlled 99 percent of the ethanol in this country, and that number has gone down every single year thereafter as more and more producers have gotten into the ethanol market. The production concentration in that industry is diminishing. It will continue to diminish with or without this mandate, but it will certainly accelerate the reduction in concentration as more and more producers get into the market. We hear about supply difficulties and questions about supply which cannot be answered today for a market that will exist 10 years from now. But to think we are transporting oil and oil products from the Middle East, from South America--thousands of miles to our ports--to States such as California, which is now importing 75 percent of their MTBE by barge from Saudi Arabia, and we are saying that the supplies cannot be transported from the middle section of this country to either coast at a competitive transportation price boggles the mind and defies imagination. Furthermore, I guarantee you, with this kind of mandate, the agricultural sector in California, which is enormous, and the agricultural sector in New York, which is very substantial, will move to producing the kinds of crops which can then be converted into ethanol. I guarantee producers and refineries will sprout in those States and elsewhere across this country to supply this additional product. So this is not a static situation. It is a dynamic one, and one which--with this mandate, with this encouragement--has tremendous opportunity over the course of the next decade and thereafter to meet a significant part of our energy needs, our consumption of gasoline. Finally, in terms of liability protection, I happen to agree with those who are concerned about that. I am willing to have that stripped from the bill. But this amendment, as it is proposed, does not just deal with some of these flaws; it would eliminate the entire ethanol provision entirely. So if there are particular concerns, let's deal with those particular concerns. But I think just to wipe this out entirely is shortsighted and, as I say, will result in American consumers paying higher prices for gasoline or gasoline products. Finally, I wish to make one last comment on the highway trust fund. Again, I agree with the critics of this measure who say our actions will result in less dollars going into the highway trust fund. That is true. But anything that results in the lessening of the consumption of gasoline in this country results in fewer dollars going into the highway trust fund. If you follow that logic, then, it means, in order to maximize dollars going into the highway trust fund--which is important to Minnesota and every other State--we ought to lower the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, we ought to drive them more miles, and we should do whatever we can to burn more gasoline because that results in more dollars going into the highway trust fund. I suggest we are better off to reconsider that policy, to reconsider whether we want the highway trust fund to be dependent on the number of gallons of gasoline consumed, when we know what the effects of that are on our economy elsewhere. So I say it is better to change the policy over time, better to change the supplement, the funding mechanism of the highway trust fund, rather than sacrifice a sound alternative energy policy on that altar. Again, in conclusion, if we do not start this now, if we do not start encouraging this transition, we are going to be nowhere in 10 years, we are going to be nowhere in 20 years, except where we are today with our energy dependency. And I guarantee we will have no solution to our energy predicament. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, like most of my colleagues, I have lived through a number of the energy crises which have afflicted our country. I was living and working on the East Coast during the first oil crisis in 1973 and 1974. People lined up at gas stations, starting at 3 or 4 in the morning to purchase a few gallons before the day's scarce supplies ran out. In January 1977, during one of the coldest winters ever recorded in Minnesota, I serve as the Energy Policy Adviser to our State's Governor, when he declared Minnesota's first official energy emergency. From 1983 to 1987, I served as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, where I was constantly monitoring the State's energy supplies. I will never forget one Christmas Eve, which I spent trying to locate a refinery that would reopen and provide desperately needed home heating oil to people in northern Minnesota who had run out of their own supplies. From these experiences, I have become a hard-headed realist and a pragmatist about energy policy. I am well aware of the fragility of our country's energy supplies, pipelines, transmission lines, and refineries, where even a small disruption can trigger major dislocations which quickly create a crisis. In a cold-weather State like Minnesota, the consequences of a disruption in energy supplies can be very serious and even fatal. I have viewed ``renewable'' or ``alternative'' forms of energy with hope but also reservations. While sometimes viable on a small scale, most of them are not capable of supplying the large-scale energy needs of our vast and complex society and our economy. That is why the percentage of U.S. energy consumption from renewable sources has remained essentially the same for the last 40 years. In 1960, renewable provided 6.6 percent; and in the year 2000, renewable energy provided 6.9 percent of our country's total energy consumption. Why, despite their promise, despite the encouragement and the financial assistance they have received, has the usage of renewable energy sources in this country not increased in 40 years? It is because none of them can compete in price, supply, or public acceptance with the traditional energy sources of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. As long as sufficient supplies of these fuels remain reliably available at current, stable prices, they will be preferred over the alternatives. They cost less per BTU; they can be supplied in the quantities necessary for our large and diverse economy; and their production, transportation, and distribution systems are all well established. Thus, our Nation's de facto energy policy has been for many years and continues to be to maintain the status quo. Despite all the warnings and dire predictions, despite the occasional, but so far short-lived crises, the status quo has been the right short-term policy during the last 30 years. However, the question before us now is: Will these primary fuels continue to be as less expensive, as available, and as reliable during the next 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years? If there is sufficient doubt, are we willing to design and implement a transition willing to design and implement a transition over the next 10 or 20 years to include a viable alternative? That is what a national energy policy should do. From my personal and professional experience, I know that the so- called ``bio-fuels'' or ``renewable fuels,'' such as ethanol, soy- diesel, and other fuels derived from agricultural commodities could be used in this country today to replace 10 percent, 20 percent, or soon 50 percent or more of the gasoline used on our Nation's roads and highways. Presently, the United States consumers 25 percent of the world's entire oil production. About 44 percent of it is produced domestically, and 56 percent is imported from other countries. Although the United States is currently the second largest producer of oil, our domestic production, either with or without ANWR, will not be able to supply even half the amount we consume. Since most of our remaining oil supplies are more costly to extract, it will be less expensive for us to buy more of our oil from other countries. That equation means we will continue to become more dependent upon imported oil. The only way to reduce significantly the amount of foreign oil we need is to reduce the amount of oil we consume. Seventy percent of the oil we produce or import is used in our transportation and most of that goes into our cars, SUVs, trucks, and other motor vehicles. In fact, about 1 of every 7 barrels of oil produced in the entire world goes into an American gas tank. So, if we are ever going to reduce the amount of oil we consume, motor fuel consumption is the place to start. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we are going in the other direction. As a Nation, we are using more gasoline, not less. More people are driving more vehicles greater distances than even before. And more of their vehicles are less fuel efficient. In fact, last year the total fleet fuel efficiency in this country dropped below that in 1980. What are we doing about it? Nothing. Government-mandated fuel efficiency standards have not changed since 1985, and an amendment to increase them in this bill was defeated by a two-thirds majority. Then light trucks were removed entirely from future mileage standards review. Light trucks and SUVs, are the fastest growing segments of the U.S. market, and they are among the least fuel efficient vehicles. Some people advocate a significant increase in Federal or State gasoline taxes, to reduce fuel consumption to encourage the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles, and to increase the amount of money going into the Highway Trust Fund. How many Members of Congress who voted for a 10 cent per gallon, of 20 or 30 cent per gallon tax increase, would survive their next election? So, barring a severe jolt to the world market, barring a large and lasting jump in gasoline prices, everything points toward increased gasoline consumption, which means increased oil consumption above the 25 percent of all the world's oil supply production that we now consume. Everything points in that direction except for ethanol and other biofuels. Ethanol is now made mostly from corn, although other commodities such as sugar beets, sugar cane, wheat, and even wood chips have been converted into ethanol. Ethanol has been around for many years. Many Minnesota farmers have distilled some of their grains, drank the best of it, and refined the rest into ethanol, which they put in their trucks, tractors, and even cars. With a few adjustments to the carburetors, they worked just fine. Until recently, however, ethanol could not be used in most conventional American engines, because it burned too cleanly and acted as a solvent which dislodged the grime attached to the walls of engines. Finally, the combustion process in modern engines improved so that ethanol could be blended with gasoline. That is how it has been used, and that is how it is viewed in the debates this week and last week--as an additive to gasoline. In fact, ethanol's potential goes far beyond that. It is not just an additive to gasoline; it is an alternative to gasoline. An alternative which today could be substituted for 20 percent of all the gasoline consumed in the United States, and with the near-term potential to substitute for over 50 percent of the oil-based gasoline used in this country. Imagine reducing the motor consumption of gasoline in this country by more than half, with no change in the types of cars, SUV's, and light trucks on the road. It would require only slight engine modifications which have been made to 2 million vehicles already sold in the United States. How do I know this? I know it because 5 years ago, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law which mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in our state be comprised of at least 10 percent ethanol. It was very controversial then, and opponents used the same scare tactics we have witnessed in this debate: Prices would increase; supplies would be inadequate and unreliable; engines would be damaged; lives would be disrupted. Today, in Minnesota, it is a total non-issue. Most people have forgotten it is even in every gallon of gas they buy. Last week, the price of a gallon of regular, unleaded gasoline in Minnesota was 20 cents less than in California, a penny more than in New York, two cents less than in Wisconsin, and almost a nickel less than in Illinois. We have heard of a study, referred to here, which is misunderstood and has been presented as predicting that this legislation would cause a 4-cent to 9-cent increase in the cost of a gallon of gasoline. That study by the Energy Information Administration, isolating the effect of ethanol, the ethanol mandate in the legislation, actually found the price of a gallon of gasoline would go up by less than 1 cent. But let us set aside the study and conflicting opinions about what that study says because that is projecting into the future. I am talking about current reality. What I am talking about is the price of 10 percent blended ethanol in today's gasoline in Minnesota compared to other parts of the country. Again, that is just 10 percent ethanol blended with 90 percent gasoline. I lease a Chrysler Town & Country, which has the ``flexible fuel'' modification to the regular engine, and it travels throughout most of Minnesota on E85 fuel. E85 is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. It has now been driven over 20,000 miles, in all kinds of weather, through all four seasons, and we have had no trouble with it whatsoever. The price of a gallon of E85 in Minnesota last week was $1.24, 21 cents less than a gallon of regular unleaded in Minnesota--forty-two cents less than a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in California; 20 cents less than in New York; and 26 cents less than in Illinois. That price differential is not as good as it seems. First, a gallon of ethanol contains fewer BTUs than a gallon of gasoline. Second, ethanol benefits from a federal subsidy. As I said earlier, no alternative fuel is less expensive per equivalent BTU as our traditional energy supplies. But ethanol is already close. And at higher levels of production, the price will go down. As car and truck manufacturers better adapt their engine to ethanol, fuel efficiency will improve. And, trust me, we have plenty of corn, beets, and sugar cane, and other agricultural commodities suitable for ethanol conversion all across this country. However, for ethanol production and consumption to increase enough to cause a significant reduction in the amount of gasoline consumed in this country, it needs what Minnesota provided--a mandate; a mandate such as this bill contains; a gradual, graduated, achievable increase over a decade. With that mandate, ethanol providers and would-be providers will know there is a reliable and growing market nationwide for ethanol. Opponents have made much of the fact that one company--Archer Daniels Midland--produces 41 percent of this country's ethanol. What they don't tell you is that 25 years ago ADM produced almost 100 percent of this country's ethanol. ADM's market share has gone down every year for the last 25 years, and it will continue to go down as more companies, and farm Coops, make it possible and profitable to produce ethanol. For unlike gasoline, ethanol's raw products are available all over this country. They can be grown in most parts of this country. Where there are large markets, like California or New York, refineries will locate there. Just as California, as it population grew, declined to depend on milk and cheese from Minnesota and Wisconsin, and developed its own instate industry which supplies, actually oversupplies, its State's entire need. If ethanol must be transported by truck, or tanker, or rail from one part of this country to another, it is far shorter and thus less expensive than importing oil, gasoline, and MTBE from all over the world. Seventy-five percent of California MTBE currently arrives by barge, the majority of it from Saudi Arabia. That is why the price per gallon increases which have been used on this floor defy common sense. And they are wrong. The alternative to doing nothing with ethanol is doing nothing at all--nothing except increasing our national consumption of gasoline and oil. If world prices remain the same as today, and if world and domestic supplies can reliably satisfy our nation's ever-growing demand, then that ``continue the status quo'' strategy will continue to be less expensive than a transition to 10 percent or 20 percent or 50 percent ethanol. But those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Those who want to bet this Nation's entire transportation sector on the status quo continuing indefinitely are taking a big gamble. Anyone who believes the United States can continue to get 25 percent of the world's entire oil production at today's prices are making a hugely optimistic assumption. Yes. There will likely be an incremental cost to a transition to ethanol nationwide. There is always a short-term cost to diversification. A business that has one produce line incurs a cost to developing a second or a third product. As long as the first product continues to sell, overall profits will be slightly down. But when that product falters, and the others come on line, the company will prosper and grow, rather than decline. Someone who owns only one stock incurs a short-term cost diversification. But someone who is betting their entire future on that one stock is a foolish person to do so. For the United States to bet our country's entire energy future on uninterrupted consumption of our ever more traditional energy sources is to make a very unwise bet. We can afford the small incremental costs of transition if they lead to really substantial alternatives. That is what ethanol and biodiesel would do--replace 20 percent of today's diesel fuel over this entire country. I am a Senator from a corn- and soybean-producing State. Is ethanol production an economic boon to many Minnesota farmers? Yes; it is. I hope it will continue to raise market prices for these agricultural commodities, which will reduce the need for and the amount of taxpayer subsidies. However, I would not stand on the floor of the Senate today and advocate ethanol as an alternative fuel for the entire country if I did not believe--if I were not certain--that it would be good for the entire country. It will take the decade which this bill uses to increase ethanol production to an amount where it can be used as a consistent 10 percent blend nationwide. That is what Minnesota uses today. That would be 10 percent less oil-based gasoline. And that is twice as much oil alternative as ANWR would produce at that point in time. It will take another decade to increase ethanol production to replace up to 50 percent of our current gasoline consumption. We should hope we have that long as a nation before a significant increase in the price of gasoline or a lack of supply causes a serious disruption in our economy and in our lives. If, however, at that point in time we are using 50 percent less gasoline, we will have a real alternative fuel at a lower cost and a more reliable supply based right here in the United States. If we don't undertake this transition, then we will have nothing-- nothing that we can do. That is what the amendment that strips this bill of any fuel alternative will leave this country in the future-- nothing, no alternative. That is a very bleak future. Thank you. I yield the floor. (The remarks of Mr. McConnell and Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 2194 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DAYTON

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

Mr. DAYTON. I send to the desk amendment No. 3097.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON. I am pleased, along with Senator Wellstone, to present this amendment. I certainly want to thank the chairman of the committee and the manager of the bill, Senator Bingaman, for his extraordinary efforts over the last weeks in regard to this regulation. It is difficult because it reflects the varied interests of different parts of the country and, frankly, within my own State of Minnesota some very different perspectives on how utility policies should be directed. The electricity title is one that is of concern to the smaller utilities in Minnesota, particularly the municipal and cooperative electric utilities because of its repeal of PUHCA and then because of the lack of any regulatory oversight and control over the mergers of these utilities. I remember when I was a youngster playing the game of monopoly, the utility companies existed because they were monopolies and also that they were regulated because they were monopolies. I am concerned and have been for some time--I saw this starting when I was Commissioner of Energy and Economic Development in Minnesota--as the regulations are taken off, they still, in many respects, have the same monopoly control over markets and geographical regions they had before. Because of the lessons of Enron, it seems to me we are going in the opposite direction if we are saying we are now going to remove any Government oversight before these mergers take place. We have seen in the instance of telephone companies, the mergers of smaller companies into larger local companies. I called my local telephone company in Minnesota and asked for a number in Bloomington, meaning Bloomington, MN, and they asked me: What State? I am asking for directory assistance. That is hardly your local telephone company. We have seen in Minnesota a merger of our largest utility, formerly Northern States Power, with another company, to make Xcel Energy. We see these utilities having more and more control over the markets, and we do not have a way, if we eliminate PUHCA, of looking out for the public interest and the consumer interest. These mergers ought to go forward if they are going to benefit the public interest, but we have learned over and over again that the lack of competition inevitably works against the consumer interest, and that is where this amendment steps in. If this bill were to pass in its present form, it would mean the repeal of PUHCA. That is why this amendment, which I coauthored with my colleague Senator Wellstone, would improve the language in the bill, in my view, because it requires that these proposed utility mergers advance the public interest. It spells out specific standards for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider in determining if a proposed merger advances the public interest. It says FERC shall find at a minimum that, first, the merger enhances competition in wholesale electricity markets; second, that the merger produces significant gains in operational and economic efficiency; and, third, that the merger results in a corporate and capital structure that facilitates effective regulatory oversight. In the aftermath of Enron, I think it is particularly important that we know this entity that is going to be coming out of this merger is one which still exists in a way that can be overseen in a regulatory way, and that it is a genuine company; that it has a genuine financial underpinning for the sake of investors, for the sake of consumers. I think this amendment will fill a void which otherwise leaves this title decidedly neglectful of the protection of many of the residents in Minnesota, businesses, and particularly those in more rural parts of our State who still depend upon the smaller electricity and other energy providers that, in this case, run the risk, if we are not careful, of being swamped, driven out of business, and then underserved by those that come in as very large entities to take their place. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am here today with my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota. It is a very special and exciting occasion for us to talk about three national championship teams in Minnesota: the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers hockey team won the men's national championship for the first time in 23 years last Saturday night. It was one in which over 19,000 fans in St. Paul's Excel Center were able to enjoy. I think about 19,002 of them were Minnesota fans. But the University of Maine put on a spirited contest. We are very fortunate that the one North Dakotan on the team, a non- Minnesota man, scored the winning goal in overtime to lead Minnesota to the national championship. Also, we are delighted that the University of Minnesota Duluth women's hockey team was also in the national championship for the second consecutive year--the only winner of that tournament--which has now been held for 2 years--in the history of this country. We are very proud of their accomplishment as well. We are ideally constituted because I am a hockey player from high school and college, and my distinguished colleague is a member of the Wrestling Hall of Fame in the United States. So he is going to carry on the honors for the next resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my assistant, Erin McGuire, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of amendment No. 3097.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Thomas for his acquiescence. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley.

Mr. DAYTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Nevada and New Mexico for making the time available. I am pleased to offer today, along with my very distinguished colleague from our neighboring State of Iowa, Senator Grassley, an amendment that will significantly increase the use of ethanol and soy diesel fuels across our country. Our amendment requires all Federal Government vehicles to use 10- percent ethanol-blended gasoline where it is available or whatever lesser percent of ethanol blend is available in that particular locale. Our amendment also requires Federal vehicles which run on diesel fuel to use at least a 2-percent biodiesel blend or higher by the year 2007, and a 20-percent biodiesel blend by the year 2012. If we want to improve our Nation's energy security, provide cleaner air, boost farm income, and strengthen many rural communities across this country, increasing the use of ethanol and soy diesel is a golden opportunity. Both of these fuels have come into their own as better alternatives to blend with regular gasoline and diesel fuel than the oil-based additives which currently predominate across the country. Regular car and truck engines can use up to 10-percent ethanol with no modifications required, and centrally fueled trucks and other vehicles can similarly use up to 20-percent biodiesel blend even more efficiently and effectively than other diesel blends today. In fact, my Minnesota office leases a regular Chrysler minivan that travels all across Minnesota burning fuel which is 85-percent ethanol. That van has had no problems whatsoever in its performance and, fortunately, we have had no problem finding this 85-percent ethanol throughout my State. One of the reasons ethanol is so readily available in Minnesota is that our State legislature had the foresight 7 years ago to pass a law requiring that a 10-percent ethanol blend be available to all gas stations across the State. Just 3 days ago, the Minnesota Legislature passed a similar mandate which, if signed by the Governor, will require stations to provide a 2-percent blend of biodiesel fuel. When people have positive experiences using these blends and then become confident they can obtain them wherever they travel, the usage of these alternative fuels sores. By the end of this year, it is estimated that our country's ethanol production capacity will reach 2.7 billion gallons. If this amount of ethanol were used in cars and trucks across our country, it would displace approximately 9 percent of all the foreign oil imported into our Nation this year. Of all the measures being considered in this legislation and of all the measures that are being discussed or implemented in America today, nothing can reduce our dependency on foreign oil or increase our domestic energy production but ethanol and biodiesel fuels. Increasing the use of these fuels is what I call the grand slam: No. 1, it boosts the prices of corn and soybeans and other suitable crops in the marketplace and, thus, both raises farmers' incomes and reduces taxpayers' subsidies; No. 2, it improves the local economies and communities throughout agricultural America; No. 3, it reduces U.S. dependence on foreign oil; and No. 4, it provides cleaner air. The Federal Government ought to be leading the way in expanding these markets for these renewable fuels, but, unfortunately, the Federal fleet consumption of these fuels is currently only 2 percent, despite several Executive orders signed by President Clinton during his two terms. Thus, our amendment is essential to requiring that the 600,000 vehicles in the Federal fleet do their part in expanding the utilization of ethanol and soy diesel. When I was commissioner of energy and economic development for the State of Minnesota back in the 1980s, ethanol was being produced and touted as just this kind of alternative fuel blend for this Nation. Unfortunately, like so many other forms of alternative energy which have been around for years or even decades, it has been sadly underutilized. I believe as a nation we are utilizing less than 5 percent of our potential for alternative sources of energy, energy conservation, and other economically and ecologically sound measures to improve our energy security. We have been taking these small baby steps when we could have and should have been progressing by leaps and bounds. This energy bill is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. Senator Daschle and Senator Bingaman have performed a great service to all of us and to our entire country by bringing before us this bill which makes so many important contributions to a balanced national energy policy. Senator Grassley and I believe our amendment is another important contribution, and I respectfully urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my staff, Jennifer Havrish, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of amendment No. 3008.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, voting is an essential and indispensable right of citizenship in a democracy. Throughout our Nation's history, a task of the Senate and the House has been to remove the barriers to this right to vote. We have made great progress beyond gender exclusion, poll taxes, literacy tests, and other historical barriers. Yet our society is ever changing, and this work is never complete. I applaud the authors of this legislation, Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member McConnell, and Senator Bond for their excellent leadership and their hard work to bring this important bipartisan legislation before us today. They have performed a great service to our Senate and to our Nation. In our national election of the year 2000, only 51 percent of America's voting age population participated. Although this participation rate was a 2 percent improvement over the previous national election, it remains very troubling that only half the eligible citizens in our country took the time and made the effort to help choose their leaders. I am always curious when people say their vote does not count. When possible, I like to ask, ``Your vote counts one, the same as everyone else's. How much do you think your vote should count?'' A democracy is a democracy because every person's vote counts the same as everyone else's. How much do you think your vote should count? They miss the essential point, that a democracy is a democracy precisely because every person's vote counts the same as everyone else's. When a society reaches a point where some people's votes start counting more than others, either officially or unofficially, a country is usually sliding toward rule by a political and economic elite. When only one person's vote counts, it is a dictatorship. However, there are still real reasons why some people cannot vote. In Ely, MN, the City Clerk, Terry Lowell, recognized a problem which senior citizens and people with disabilities sometimes encounter. A mail-in ballot is frequently the only way a home-bound citizen can exercise the right to vote. Yet, something as simple as a postage stamp can stand in the way. While the cost of mailing a ballot may seem small, it can also become a matter of practicality--when a person has difficulty getting out of bed or going to the kitchen, just ``running out to get a stamp'' is not a simple task as for most of us. There are also many senior citizens in Minnesota, and probably elsewhere, who literally watch every penny they must spend. With the costs of their prescription medicines ever rising beyond their control, they have not enough money left for food and utilities. Every additional expenditure, of any amount, is perceived as a burden. Plus, the way they look at it and the way I look at it, it is a matter of principle. Voting should be free. Voting is free for able- bodied citizens. It should be free for everyone else, as well. My amendment would create a one-time, pilot project in the 2004 national election, to be designed and implemented by the Postal Service with consultation with the Federal Election Commission. Postage-free absentee ballots would be provided in one State for that one election. This pilot project will measure the effect of postage-free absentee ballots on voting participation by elderly, disabled, and other citizens. We can then consider whether it would be worthwhile to expand their use in future elections. This amendment's passage will also demonstrate that a citizen, anywhere, can have a good idea and through an elected representative, actually see that idea turned into law. For that, I salute Terry Lowell, in Ely, MN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment, No. 2898, to S. 565, the election reform legislation.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.