Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7 at 3:00 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Airland Programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I come to the floor today to recognize the accomplishments of an outstanding public servant, Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan. While it is a great loss to the Federal Government that he is leaving the Directorship of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is through his successful 26 years of public service that we have a healthier nation and world today. I have come to know Dr. Koplan over the past 3\1/2\ years, during which he has so admirably led our country's premier disease prevention agency. I can say without reservation that you could not find a person with greater conviction and integrity. Dr. Koplan was the founding Director of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. As such, he led the nation to recognize the critical need for strong public health programs to address these leading causes of death and disability. During his tenure, CDC has worked with a myriad of partners to raise and sustain immunization coverage levels to unprecedented levels. That effort has resulted in the lowest number of vaccine-preventable disease cases ever recorded for many diseases. In fact, during Dr. Koplan's watch, measles transmission in the United States was interrupted for the first time ever. I do not have the time to list all of Dr. Koplan's accomplishments, but these few highlight the reasons that Senator Specter and I have worked so closely with Dr. Koplan in funding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He has been a model of cooperation between all levels and types of government working together to meet the needs of the nation. On the personal side, I have come to know Dr. Koplan as: A man of great integrity and a scientist of great distinction; always putting the protection of people's health first--willing to make difficult decisions and take action on the basis of the best science available; recognizing the global dimensions of health--that infectious diseases, environmental hazards, bioterrorism, and chronic illnesses cross all borders--so we must learn from other countries and lend our support to them; and well known for his quick wit, extensive grasp of health issues, and complete dedication to CDC and its mission of protecting the health and safety, not only of all Americans, but the people of the world. It is with regret and admiration that I say farewell to Dr. Koplan. He will be a hard act to follow.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have long been interested in providing a modification in the tax law allowing a historic hotel in my State to be restored and used as housing for lower income elderly people. Unfortunately, as the chairman knows, the tax laws often determine the viability of the project and this modest sized project is more complex then most of its size.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the last decade there has been a significant recognition of the importance and increase in funding of women's health research, including the establishment of Offices of Women's Health throughout various government agencies. Women's health issues and women, as participants, are now routinely included in research studies. Despite this progress, many gaps still exist. In particular, there is a troubling lack of research on pregnancy-related health issues. Too often we take pregnancy for granted; we do not view pregnancy as a woman's health issue with short and long term health consequences. Safe motherhood is a woman's ability to have a safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery. Of the 4 million women who give birth in the U.S. each year, over one-third--or one out of every 3--have a pregnancy-related complication before, during, or after delivery. These complications may cause long-term health problems or even death. Unfortunately, the causes and treatments of pregnancy-related complications are largely unknown and understudied. If fact, the United States ranks only 20th in maternal mortality rates out of 49 developed countries--that is barely better than the 50th percentile, behind Cyprus, Singapore and Malta. Every day, two to there women die from pregnancy related complications. And despite the fact that maternal mortality was targeted in 1987 as part of Healthy People 2000, the maternal mortality rate in this country has not decreased in twenty years. The scariest part of this problem is we can't answer the most basic questions--what causes the complications, what can we do to prevent them, and how can we treat them? One example of this problem is preeclampsia, or high blood pressure. Yes, we know some indicators that place some women at greater risk than others for this complication. And yes, we know some steps that can be taken to reduce a women's risk. But we know shamefully little, with the exception of inducing labor, of how to really prevent or treat this problem. Yet 5 percent of all pregnancies are affected by this complication, which can cause blindness or even death and there has been a 40% increase in the incidence of preeclampsia over the last 10 years. Likewise, we know almost nothing about which prescription drugs are safe for the fetus and effective for the mother. Most prescription drugs women take during pregnancy are necessary to maintain health. But only 1% of FDA approved drugs have been shown in controlled studies to show no risk to pregnant women and their babies. And 80% of FDA approved drugs lack adequate scientific evidence about use in pregnancy. That means that pregnant women are essentially forced to take these medications with little or no knowledge about their impact on the fetus. Of course, we don't want pregnant women placed at risk by putting them in early stage clinical trials. But the fact is that pregnant women with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, asthma, or epilepsy, need to take medication to maintain their health and support the growth of the fetus. And even pregnant women who don't have chronic health conditions need across to safe and effective prescription drugs. And while people in Washington tend to throw around statistics to make a point, it is important to remember that behind each of these statistics is a real person and family. And yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to a group of moms from my State of Iowa. Without exception, these moms talked about their frustration with a health care system that continues to fail to meet some of the most basic needs of pregnant women. They all rely on a group call Sidelines, that provides support and guidance to pregnant women on bed rest. While it is great that a group like Sidelines is there for our mom's, sisters, and daughters, it is shameful that there isn't more accurate and more widely available information to women and their providers. That is why earlier today, I, along with some of my colleagues, introduced the Safe Motherhood Act for Research and Treatment, or, SMART Mom Act. The SMART Mom Act will address these concerns by: Increasing research and data collection to learn how to prevent, treat, and cure pregnancy related complications; providing comprehensive information to pregnant women, practitioners, and the public; and, improving information about medication and medical device for pregnant women. Pregnancy is a natural and wonderful occurrence in a woman's life. The SMART Mom Act takes a critical step towards ensuring pregnancies and healthy outcomes for America's women.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the last decade there has been a significant recognition of the importance and increase in funding of women's health research, including the establishment of Offices of Women's Health throughout various government agencies. Women's health issues and women, as participants, are now routinely included in research studies. Despite this progress, many gaps still exist. In particular, there is a troubling lack of research on pregnancy-related health issues. Too often we take pregnancy for granted; we do not view pregnancy as a woman's health issue with short and long term health consequences. Safe motherhood is a woman's ability to have a safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery. Of the 4 million women who give birth in the U.S. each year, over one-third--or one out of every 3--have a pregnancy-related complication before, during, or after delivery. These complications may cause long-term health problems or even death. Unfortunately, the causes and treatments of pregnancy-related complications are largely unknown and understudied. If fact, the United States ranks only 20th in maternal mortality rates out of 49 developed countries--that is barely better than the 50th percentile, behind Cyprus, Singapore and Malta. Every day, two to there women die from pregnancy related complications. And despite the fact that maternal mortality was targeted in 1987 as part of Healthy People 2000, the maternal mortality rate in this country has not decreased in twenty years. The scariest part of this problem is we can't answer the most basic questions--what causes the complications, what can we do to prevent them, and how can we treat them? One example of this problem is preeclampsia, or high blood pressure. Yes, we know some indicators that place some women at greater risk than others for this complication. And yes, we know some steps that can be taken to reduce a women's risk. But we know shamefully little, with the exception of inducing labor, of how to really prevent or treat this problem. Yet 5 percent of all pregnancies are affected by this complication, which can cause blindness or even death and there has been a 40% increase in the incidence of preeclampsia over the last 10 years. Likewise, we know almost nothing about which prescription drugs are safe for the fetus and effective for the mother. Most prescription drugs women take during pregnancy are necessary to maintain health. But only 1% of FDA approved drugs have been shown in controlled studies to show no risk to pregnant women and their babies. And 80% of FDA approved drugs lack adequate scientific evidence about use in pregnancy. That means that pregnant women are essentially forced to take these medications with little or no knowledge about their impact on the fetus. Of course, we don't want pregnant women placed at risk by putting them in early stage clinical trials. But the fact is that pregnant women with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, asthma, or epilepsy, need to take medication to maintain their health and support the growth of the fetus. And even pregnant women who don't have chronic health conditions need across to safe and effective prescription drugs. And while people in Washington tend to throw around statistics to make a point, it is important to remember that behind each of these statistics is a real person and family. And yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to a group of moms from my State of Iowa. Without exception, these moms talked about their frustration with a health care system that continues to fail to meet some of the most basic needs of pregnant women. They all rely on a group call Sidelines, that provides support and guidance to pregnant women on bed rest. While it is great that a group like Sidelines is there for our mom's, sisters, and daughters, it is shameful that there isn't more accurate and more widely available information to women and their providers. That is why earlier today, I, along with some of my colleagues, introduced the Safe Motherhood Act for Research and Treatment, or, SMART Mom Act. The SMART Mom Act will address these concerns by: Increasing research and data collection to learn how to prevent, treat, and cure pregnancy related complications; providing comprehensive information to pregnant women, practitioners, and the public; and, improving information about medication and medical device for pregnant women. Pregnancy is a natural and wonderful occurrence in a woman's life. The SMART Mom Act takes a critical step towards ensuring pregnancies and healthy outcomes for America's women.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry, how much time remains?

Mr. HARKIN. Whatever the Senator wants.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his comments. I support him in favor of a 12 SEER standard instead of a 13. I join with my friend from Mississippi. I thank him for his strong support of this amendment. It always sounds nice. You do a 13, you are going to save a lot of energy and can quote from EPA and that stuff. But the fact remains, No. 1, the Department of Justice in the last Administration had real concerns about a 13 standard and this administration said this would be harmful to small businesses, this would not be competitive. No. 2, the professionals in the Department of Energy in both the past administration and in this one have said a 12 standard is the best standard. What happens if you go to a 13? The cost of these air-conditioners will be higher. The elderly, modest-income people, people who live in manufactured homes, will be less able to afford them. What they will do is they will keep their old air-conditioners, and those are less energy efficient. They will not move to the new ones. The cost of going from 10 to 13 will be more than $700 per air- conditioner. To go to a 12, it is about $407. Keep in mind, under the rules the Department of Energy has to abide by, they have to look not just at the energy use, they have to look at the impact it has on certain subgroups, such as those of modest means. Under the 13 that is in this bill, it will mean a lot of low-income people in this country are going to be harmed. It will mean the elderly who need air-conditioning, when it really gets hot, their health and their well-being, will be unable to have the air-conditioning they need. Is this what we want to do around here? When Senators come to vote on this issue, I hope this is not some kind of a knee-jerk reaction: 13 is higher than 12 and we want to have a higher energy efficiency standard, so we will vote for 13, without thinking about what the implications will mean, what it will mean to consumers, the elderly, the low-income people all over this country. Last, what is it going to mean to jobs? We have thousands of jobs in my State of Iowa that are in jeopardy, dire jeopardy if the standard of 13 stays in this bill. These are companies that produce good quality equipment. You have all heard of Lennox. It is a great company. But I can tell you right now, if it goes to 13, Lennox will be squeezed and jobs will be lost in my state of Iowa. Any way you cut it, the 13 standard that is in the substitute amendment now before this body is not going to achieve the goals of lower electric energy use people hope for. Instead, it is going to hurt our elderly, our low income, and especially the jobs of the people who work in these industries today. I reserve the remainder of my time, however much it might be.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside temporarily and call up amendment No. 3195.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) contained in the Senate energy bill, S. 517. This historic agreement will be a milestone in the efforts to develop renewable fuels. This agreement will dramatically increase the Nation's production of domestic, renewable fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, from U.S. agricultural commodities and residues over the next decade. The renewable fuels standard will create a steady market for American agriculture, and provide significant economic benefits throughout rural America. Importantly, it will also increase U.S. fuel supplies, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect the environment. Some have questioned whether the renewable fuels standard as contained in the bill is too aggressive, and whether there is enough ethanol to meet the requirement. I am here to tell you there is more than enough ethanol production capacity today to meet the needs of the program when it goes into effect in 2004! In fact, the U.S. ethanol industry has undergone significant growth in recent years in anticipation of the phase out of MTBE, particularly in California. In the past 2 years alone, since California Governor Davis' original Executive Order phasing out MTBE use in the State by December 31, 2002, 16 new plants have opened and several expansions to existing plans have been completed. As a result, the ethanol industry has the capacity to produce 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol per year right now, the amount needed to satisfy the renewable fuels standard in 2004. The 13 plants under construction will bring total capacity to 2.7 billion gallons by the end of this year, more than the volume of ethanol required under the agreement in 2005. A survey by the California Energy Commission projects U.S. ethanol production capacity to double to more than 4 billion gallons by the end of 2003. Clearly, with the RFS beginning in 2004 at 2.3 billion gallons per year, there will be more than adequate supplies of ethanol to meet the requirement while providing additional volume to fuel supplies. Importantly, the driving force behind the growth in ethanol production over the past 5 years has been farmers seeking to capitalize on the value-added benefits of ethanol production directly through ownership in ethanol plants. Today, farmer-owned ethanol plants make up more than a third of all U.S. ethanol production, with the capacity to produce a billion gallons of ethanol. Fourteen of the 16 ethanol plants opened in the past two years are owned by farmers, and 10 of the 13 under construction today are farmer-owned. In Iowa today, we have nine operating ethanol plants. In addition, five new plants are under construction, all of which are farmer-owned. By the end of this year, half of all U.S. ethanol production facilities will be farmer-owned. Ethanol production facilities across America serve as local economic engines, providing high-paying jobs, capital investment opportunities, increased local tax revenue and value-added markets for area farmers. With commodity prices very low, investment in value-added ethanol processing by America's farmers provides a critical opportunity for increased farm income and rural economic development. In these communities, largely untouched by the economic expansion of the last decade, the increased prices for corn in the radius around a plant stimulates very real economic development, and the value-added benefits of ethanol mean a $2 bushel of corn is converted into $5 of fuel and feed co-products. Ethanol is the third largest use of corn. Last year, 700 million bushels of corn were used to produce ethanol and feed co-products, boosting corn prices and rural income. According to a study by AUS Consultants, the RFS will increase demand for grain by an average of 1.4 million bushels annually, increasing net farm income by nearly $6 billion per year. It will also create $5.3 billion in new investment, much of it in rural America. The Renewable Fuels Standard will create demand for 5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012. Importantly, these fuels can be produced throughout the United States, from grain and agricultural biomass residues. Iowa alone produces nearly 500 million gallons of ethanol a year. The Nation will produce nearly 2.2 billion gallons of ethanol in 2002. Even as Iowa and other Midwest States stand ready to supply ethanol to California, the State can also produce much of the ethanol it will consume. For example, the California Energy Commission recently concluded the State of California has the potential to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol per year from cellulose such as rice straw and forestry wastes by 2005 and 400 million gallons per year by 2010. This later number represents well over half of the estimated supply that would be needed to satisfy the state's oxygenate requirement. Opportunities also exist for grain-based ethanol production in California. A California based ethanol industry would provide significant economic and environmental benefits to the State. Ethanol production would provide rice growers with an alternative to burning or other costly forms of rice straw disposal. It could also help reduce the frequency and intensity of forest fires with the removal of forest debris for ethanol production. It is estimated in-state ethanol production could provide the State with more than $1 billion in economic benefits. These same benefits can be achieved in the southeast, northeast and northwest, establishing new biofuels industries across the Nation. As we look to a future of increased production and use of domestic, renewable biofuels, we should also consider their role in future transportation applications such as fuel cells. Extracting hydrogen from renewable sources such as ethanol will benefit the environment, rural America and energy security. Demonstrations with ethanol have shown that reforming ethanol into hydrogen provides higher efficiencies, fewer emissions, and better performance than other fuel sources, including gasoline. And ethanol used to power a fuel cell vehicle would count toward the Renewable Fuels Standard. Clearly, the Renewable Fuels Standard represents a momentous opportunity to benefit rural America, improve the environment and enhance our Nation's energy security. The 5 billion gallons of renewable fuels that would be required in 2012 would replace gasoline we currently get from foreign oil. American farmers can be producers as well as consumers of energy. They are willing and able to supply fuel as well as our food and fiber. Farmers are on the front lines in the battle for energy independence, and their efforts will make a bold statement about our Nation's commitment to reduce oil imports and build domestic energy supplies that may one day make us truly energy independent. Farmers are ready, willing and able to lead the way toward energy independence. The time is right for a Renewable Fuels Standard that takes advantage of farmer's ability to produce renewable, domestic fuels to increase fuel supplies, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and increase the U.S.' ability to control its own energy security and economic future.

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield to get a clarification.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I did not hear the unanimous consent request. I am standing here, and I have an amendment that I have been wanting to offer. I would like to know what the unanimous consent request is, if the Chair could so inform me.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, has the clerk reported the amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senators Cochran, Grassley, Lincoln, and myself. I yield the floor to the Senator from Mississippi for any comments he may wish to make.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, there was a little bit of confusion on the floor. What is the pending matter now?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. He said very precisely what this really is all about. I am going to give a lengthier statement, but as long as he is still on the floor, I want to thank him. He hit it right on the head. This is really about, No. 1, the loss of jobs in a number of States. We will lose many jobs in Iowa, too, I say to the Senator from Mississippi. Secondly, it is about whether or not a significant number of low-income people and the elderly will be able to afford to have air-conditioning. In some parts of the country it gets hotter than up in my area, but still, up in my area in the summer, it gets pretty darn hot. And the elderly need that air-conditioning. It is a health matter for them. They have to have air-conditioning. It is probably for a shorter period of time in Iowa than in Mississippi or Florida or Georgia, or places like that; nonetheless, there are periods of time in the summer when it is a health matter for the elderly to make sure they have air- conditioning. And some will not be able to afford the purchase price of an air-conditioner with this 13 seasonal energy efficiency ratio, SEER, that is in the bill. Basically, what this amendment does is strikes the language in the bill that mandates this. First of all, I don't think we ought to be mandating appliance standards. This is something that ought to be within the purview of the Department of Energy to let them review all the data and then come up with a standard. If we don't like it, maybe we might want to override it. But for us to just come in and mandate a standard which, quite frankly, has been proven not to be workable--I will get into that in a second--is the wrong way for the Senate to proceed. Again, for the record, when we talk about the SEER numbers, it is the measure of energy efficiency. The higher the number, the more energy efficient the product. On first blush, people say: We want the most efficient machine possible. Well, let's take a look at that. The Department of Energy is required by law to set standards that are ``economically justified and technologically feasible.'' The current standard is 10. The bill would raise that to 13. Our language simply requires the Department of Energy to issue a revised standard which must be higher than the current 10 standard and issue it within 60 days. And basically on the basis of not only the present administration's analysis but a lot of work done by staff in the previous administration, they would set that at 12 within 60 days. Again, there has been some confusion about my amendment. Some have said this is a rollback. We are going to roll back the 13. That is not true. There is no 13 right now. It is at 10. So it is not a rollback. I see my colleague from Iowa is here. He, too, is a strong supporter of this. I thank him for his strong support in trying to bring some reason to this. But in the past my colleague and I have worked together on appliance standards with the DOE back in 1995 and 1996 to establish a fair and balanced system, one that balances conservation, competition, and the needs of consumers in an interpretative rule, really what the law requires. The rule under which we are operating requires that consumers be looked at, not just as an average, uniform group, but as subgroups such as those within various income and age levels. That is what the rule requires. Again, if you just look at it as a uniform rate, a uniform average group, perhaps you would come to some different conclusion. The rule doesn't say that. The rule says you have to look at it as subgroups of the population. Under the rule, DOE's responsibilities must look after the consumer and make sure that these subgroups would be looked at. We need to see how a change in appliance standards will impact various kinds of people, such as the elderly, low-income people, and renters. Unfortunately, the last administration, the Clinton administration, effectively did not properly look at this important requirement. They lumped everybody together. And so the different subgroups were not properly considered under the Clinton administration. When the professional staff recommended a 12 standard in 2000 under the Clinton administration, that recommendation by the professional staff in the Department of Energy was changed in the Office of the Secretary of Energy. The required analysis of the economic impacts on these subgroups required by the process was not properly done to reach that SEER 13 level. I also understand the Department of Justice in the Clinton Administration had considerable concerns about the negative impacts on competition of a 13 SEER requirement. That is a very important question, particularly for those who want to keep the price to the consumer low and who want competition. The imposition of this 13 standard would have a serious impact on both consumers and the industry. The Department of Justice is opposed to this, the Small Business Administration, the National Association of Home Builders, and the Manufactured Housing Institute. It is economically damaging, especially to senior citizens, lower and fixed- income families and, as we said earlier, employees in the industry. As the SEER ratings rise, the cost of the machines rise. The Senator from Mississippi already pointed out that going from a 10 to a 13 will cost more than $700 per air-conditioner. By comparison, the cost of going to a 12 is only an estimated $407. So when you go up above that 12, it becomes really expensive. Again, if you make it that expensive, what would a consumer do if they have an old energy-inefficient air- conditioner? Would they go out and buy this new one? Will they ever be able to recoup the cost, especially if they live in Michigan or in Iowa where we need our air-conditioners for short periods of time. They would never recoup the money, if they could even afford it. What many will do is, particularly a lot of modest homeowners, people who live in manufactured housing who have higher costs still with a SEER 13 because that machine will not fit in the space provided for in many manufactured homes? What many will do is they will say: It is cheaper for me to stay with the old one. That doesn't help the environment. It means more energy use in those homes. And so we have accomplished far less than many believe if we go to a 13? There has to be some reason in this. We can't underestimate the impact that going to this standard would have on lower income people and senior citizens. You will hear arguments tomorrow about the average consumer out there, what this might cost the average consumer. I have often said to people, if you took me and Bill Gates and you averaged our income, I would be a billionaire on my salary here. Imagine that. You can't just look at an average like that. What you have to look at-- and the rule says you have to look at--is those subgroups such as the elderly and low income, which they haven't done and which this 13 rating doesn't properly take that into account. Senior citizens rely on air-conditioning for their health as well as for their comfort. Sometimes it is not a luxury in the summer months. The elderly need that. Again, if they only use it in the summer, 2 or 3 months in Iowa or Michigan, they would never be able to recover the higher cost of a 13. Furthermore, renters will also be affected by this. It is expected that the increased cost of a new air-conditioner would be passed on in the form of higher rents to 34 million renter households where the median income is $24,400. So, again, if you add that 13 and the landowners have to replace it, they will pass it on in higher rents to renters or they simply will decide not to replace it. Then what have we accomplished? Recently, the Energy Information Administration conducted an independent review of the impact of imposing a nationwide standard of 13 for air-conditioners compared to a 12. The EIA review stated that a 12 standard would save the Nation $2.3 billion, while a 13 standard would cost the Nation $600 million in additional costs. So a 12 standard--this is the Energy Information Administration--would save the Nation $2.3 billion; a 13 would cost us $600 million. Again, it is because the impacts of a 13's higher cost. I haven't gotten into the size. It is quite a bit larger than 12. Therefore, people who live in manufactured housing, where the space for the air conditioner is preset, would not be able to get a new air conditioner without retrofitting their home so those people lose if we go to a 13. We lose jobs--the Department of Energy said 20,000 jobs by the year 2006. I see my colleague from Iowa on the floor. I know he wants to speak on this. I know, at first blush, for people who say they are environmentalists, I think I have a pretty good environmental record; but this is not the direction in which to go. This will hurt the elderly and low-income people because many won't be able to afford an air conditioner. Plus, it will cost a heck of a lot of jobs in my State and, I know, in a number of other States. Madam President, I have more to say on this, but I want to respect my colleague from Iowa who is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Grassley for his strong support not only on this amendment but in previous years, and for bringing some reason to how we address this SEER standard. He is right on target. Again, we have to keep in mind the differences about which we are talking. If we look the first 15 years after the rule is implemented, from 2006 to 2020, the difference between the 13 and 12 is four- hundredths of a percent of the cumulative U.S. generating capacity-- four-hundredths of a percent. I am all for saving energy--we all are-- but what is this going to do to our elderly and low-income people in between time and the loss of jobs? I am not saying we should never go to a 13. I am not saying that. What I am saying that the appliance standards should be staged, looking at the economic effects and the technology over time. Again, look at the impact going from a 10 to a 13 would have on jobs, on people of low income, on our renters, and our elderly. A 13 standard would also have an impact on competition in small business. It would eliminate 84 percent of all new central air-conditioning models on the market today and 86 percent of all new heat pumps. Nearly half of the original equipment manufacturers selling air-conditioners in the United States today do not offer products at 13. A lot of those, mostly small manufacturers may be forced out of business. There is a large company, one of the biggest. They are for the 13? They are for the 13. Interesting. I can see a scenario whereby a lot of the smaller manufacturers--they are doing a good job. I can see a scenario where they simply would be forced out of the business, and I can see this great big company coming in and buying them up. Then what happens to the competition? It is a lot less. It is interesting to note that one, the largest company in this business, is for the 13 standard. Again, we ought to ask the question about what we are trying to do? They are trying to acquire market share from the small companies who will have difficulty retrofitting their factories to make 13 SEER machines. To the extent we go to 13 and we force the change, I do not know what the elderly are going to do and what low-income people are going to do. They cannot recoup their investment, and it will be an additional $700 for an air-conditioner. On that issue, I just mentioned the competition. That may be why the Department of Justice in the last administration had serious concerns about a SEER 13 standard. And why this administration opposed this on the basis of competition. That is why the Small Business Administration opposes it. Again, they are concerned about smaller manufacturers being able to remain in this line of business. One last thing I have not talked about--I should have my chart. I do not this evening. Maybe I will bring it in the morning. The size of the air-conditioners with a 13 standard is substantially larger than a 12. Not one-twelfth bigger, but maybe a third again as big. They are huge. That would create enormous retrofitting problems for many manufactured homes, especially manufactured homes because these homes have a precisely set space for central air-conditioners. They could not likely be replaced without considerable retrofitting. That is why the American Housing Institute supports a 12 standard where that would fit in the same place where a 10 fits right now. They expressed their concern about what would happen to families on limited incomes. The National Association of Homebuilders opposes the 13 standard, not because they are opposed to 13, but for each $1,000 added to the cost of a new home takes out 400,000 buyers. We do want to build more homes. We do want more people to own their own homes, a key part of the American dream. I am all in favor of efficient appliances. Reducing our energy consumption is important to reducing air pollution, global warming, reducing price spikes, but it has to be reasonable, and it has to be something where we do not end up worse than we are. I suppose sometime down the pike if we go to a 13 standard--I mentioned over the first 15 years the standard will be in effect, the difference is four-hundredths of a percent in cumulative energy use in the United States--four-hundredths of a percent--but at what cost will that come to the elderly, people of low income, working families, jobs, and competition in the industry? I will have more to say about this tomorrow. I hope people who have not thought much about this and say, gee, 13 is higher than 12, it must be better, more energy efficient, will stop to think about whether or not we are going to get the energy savings we want if we go to the 13 standard and people cannot afford it so they stick with the older ones that use more energy, that they will pollute more. If we adopt the 12, it can be used, it is reasonable in cost, it fits into the spaces, and we can move to it in a reasonable fashion. Certainly 12 is better than 10, and 10 is what the standard is right now. I hope when we get to this vote tomorrow people will take a look at the end result and not just be swayed by the fact that 13 looks better, looks more energy efficient than a 12. The rule says we have to look at its economic effect on subgroups. If this body is in the position of mandating--this amendment says we do not mandate it, we leave it up to the regulatory body, but the rule under which they have to operate says they have to look at the impact, not just on the general population but on certain subgroups--low income, working families, the elderly. Our amendment will allow the Department of Energy to implement a 12 standard, which I believe is much more reasonable at this time than going to a 13 right away. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his strong leadership in working to secure the integrity of the highway trust fund and promote the use of ethanol and other renewable fuels like biodiesel. I also commend the hard work of Senator Warner to preserve the trust fund. There is no question that a strong highway system is vitally important to the efficiency of our economy. Poor roads mean higher costs to move goods, raising prices to consumers and making us less competitive in a world marketplace. It also means inconvenience to our citizens. The use of fuels containing ethanol or soy is both extremely important to the economy of rural America and good for the environment. The Federal Government wisely promotes ethanol as a fuel through the Tax Code and in other ways. But, on the negative side, against the logic of our country's need, current law provides that increased use of ethanol in fuel means a reduction in the highway trust fund and fewer dollars being spent to repair and improve our roads and bridges. I would note that mass transit currently is not adversely impacted under the law. I was very pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 1306, Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act, which provides for the shifting of the excise taxes on alcohol fuels from the general fund to the highway trust fund starting on October 1, 2003. I am very pleased that the measure has been included in the package of tax measures that the Finance Committee proposed to be added to the energy bill along with the very important legislation on biodiesel. Enacting the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act is the first step. The next step is to provide that the highway trust fund be made truly whole for the 5.3 cents not collected for gasohol. We have agreed to not offer a proposal to accomplish that goal during the floor debate of this measure. However, it is my intention to work with Senator Baucus, Senator Warner and others to try to accomplish the goal of passing legislation to fully reimburse the highway trust fund from the general fund as soon as possible.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to say a word about an amendment to the energy bill that I filed today and about a couple tax provisions on which I have been working. As my colleagues know well, I have long sought to promote hydrogen and fuel cells as clean, efficient energy technologies that also will enable an economy based on domestic renewable energy sources. There are a number of provisions in the energy bill that help move us in this direction. I am pleased that the bill includes the Hydrogen Future Act I introduced in the Senate to reauthorize DOE hydrogen energy programs. The energy tax provisions intended for the bill include strong tax credits for both stationary fuel cells and fuel cell vehicles, as well as for hydrogen and hydrogen fueling appliances. However, I believe more Federal action is needed to accelerate the commercialization of fuel cell technologies and bring their benefits to our country. In particular, the Federal Government needs to take bolder action to bring about the introduction of fuel cell passenger vehicles and of a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Thus my amendment would create a federal fuel cell vehicle pilot program. In this program the Department of Energy would work with other federal agencies to identify several Federal fleets that would be suitable for demonstrating fuel cell vehicles under a variety of real-world conditions. DOE would help install the necessary fueling infrastructure at those sites; this infrastructure could also be used for a stationary fuel cell at the same location and be made available to other fuel cell vehicles. DOE would purchase several hundred fuel cell vehicles, and DOE and the companies that make the vehicles would assist the federal fleets to operate and maintain these vehicles in normal service. Data would be collected both to improve the next generation of vehicles and to assist fleet operators in incorporating fuel cell cars, and there would be regular reporting to Congress. The amendment also requires at least a 50 percent cost share from non-federal sources, as in most DOE demonstration programs. The total authorization for the program over six years would be $350 million. This amendment includes a second provision for a study of the potential of stationary fuel cells in federal buildings. Even before fuel cell vehicles are commercially available, fuel cells have a great potential for providing distributed, highly reliable power for buildings, as well as heat. This study would look at what should be done to incorporate fuel cells into new federal buildings, so that planning for the buildings from the first stages can optimize the use of fuel cells and so that appropriate incentives can be put in place to encourage Federal purchase of stationary fuel cells. Again the Federal Government can become a lead consumer to foster commercialization of fuel cells and to demonstrate their benefits. We also need to build a hydrogen fueling infrastructure. I am working with the Finance Committee to make two important changes to the excellent alternative fuel provisions that are in their package, in order to make the provisions effective for hydrogen fuel. The first would extend the credit for installation of hydrogen fueling property through 2011. This would simply match the credit for the fuel cell vehicles themselves, and recognizes that it will be several years before commercial fuel cell vehicles are readily available and there is significant demand for hydrogen fuel. The second change would alter the definition of refueling property so that not only storage and dispensing of hydrogen but also production of hydrogen from natural gas and other alternative fuels would be included. This is necessary because unlike natural gas, for example, today you can't just pipe in the hydrogen to a fueling station. You need to make the hydrogen on- site, most likely be reforming natural gas. This amendment would clarify the definition to be sure that such equipment is covered. Finally, on the tax provisions, I hope to extend the tax credit and the exemption from the excise tax for biodiesel. Biodiesel is a renewable product made from soy beans that can be mixed with diesel roughly like ethanol is mixed with gasoline. Its use would cut our use of diesel and thus our consumption of petroleum, and also cut associated emissions. The tax provisions include a three-year tax credit for biodiesel. While this credit could be very helpful to establishing a strong biodiesel industry, three years is not enough to ensure return on investment in a new biodiesel plant. Both the investors and the creditors need a longer planning horizon to be confident of a stable market for the biodiesel. Thus I hope we will be able to extend this important new incentive in order to maximize its effectiveness. With these provisions, and many others in the bill and the tax package, I look forward to a bright, clean, domestic, renewable energy future.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the need to rebuild our Nation's crumbling schools is clear. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that it would cost $127 billion to repair, modernize, and renovate U.S. schools. Fourteen million U.S. students currently attend schools that report a need for extensive repair. And a study by the American Society of Civil Engineers concludes that public schools are in worse condition than any other sector of our national infrastructure. And yet the Federal Government is doing far too little to help. That is why I am introducing the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act of 2002. I am pleased to have Senators Clinton, Carnahan, and Feinstein join with me as co-sponsors. This legislation allows States to create ``infrastructure banks'' for public schools and libraries. Modeled after State revolving funds, which have been used successfully to finance transportation projects, these banks would offer low-interest loans to school districts for building or repairing public schools, and to public libraries for building or repairing libraries. As the loans are repaid, the bank funds would be replenished, and the banks could make new loans to other schools and libraries. Once the banks got rolling, they would sustain themselves, without any need for ongoing Federal appropriations. After more than a decade of fighting to rebuild our Nation's deteriorating schools, I am well aware that this bill is just one part of the solution. Two years ago, as the ranking member on the Senate Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I led the effort to provide $1.2 billion in grants to schools that urgently need repairs. Last year, the Senate approved another $925 million on a bipartisan vote, but unfortunately that funding was eliminated during conference negotiations with the House. I also introduced the America's Better Classrooms Act, which would provide tax credits to subsidize $25 billion in new construction. That legislation is still pending, and I am hopeful that it will succeed. The Investing for Tomorrow 's School Act is the final piece of the puzzle. If the nicest buildings our kids see in their hometowns are shopping malls, sports arenas and movie theaters, and the most rundown place they see is their school, what kind of signal are we sending? We can and must do better for our children. The Investing for Tomorrow's School Act should be a critical part of our strategy to improve education, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the need to rebuild our Nation's crumbling schools is clear. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that it would cost $127 billion to repair, modernize, and renovate U.S. schools. Fourteen million U.S. students currently attend schools that report a need for extensive repair. And a study by the American Society of Civil Engineers concludes that public schools are in worse condition than any other sector of our national infrastructure. And yet the Federal Government is doing far too little to help. That is why I am introducing the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act of 2002. I am pleased to have Senators Clinton, Carnahan, and Feinstein join with me as co-sponsors. This legislation allows States to create ``infrastructure banks'' for public schools and libraries. Modeled after State revolving funds, which have been used successfully to finance transportation projects, these banks would offer low-interest loans to school districts for building or repairing public schools, and to public libraries for building or repairing libraries. As the loans are repaid, the bank funds would be replenished, and the banks could make new loans to other schools and libraries. Once the banks got rolling, they would sustain themselves, without any need for ongoing Federal appropriations. After more than a decade of fighting to rebuild our Nation's deteriorating schools, I am well aware that this bill is just one part of the solution. Two years ago, as the ranking member on the Senate Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I led the effort to provide $1.2 billion in grants to schools that urgently need repairs. Last year, the Senate approved another $925 million on a bipartisan vote, but unfortunately that funding was eliminated during conference negotiations with the House. I also introduced the America's Better Classrooms Act, which would provide tax credits to subsidize $25 billion in new construction. That legislation is still pending, and I am hopeful that it will succeed. The Investing for Tomorrow 's School Act is the final piece of the puzzle. If the nicest buildings our kids see in their hometowns are shopping malls, sports arenas and movie theaters, and the most rundown place they see is their school, what kind of signal are we sending? We can and must do better for our children. The Investing for Tomorrow's School Act should be a critical part of our strategy to improve education, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by my Republican colleague, Senator George Allen of Virginia, in introducing the Terrorism Victim's Access to Compensation Act of 2002. Senators Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Schumer, Nickles, Clinton, Warner, Mikulski, Burns, and Craig are also original co- sponsors of this much-needed, bipartisan legislation. The war against terrorism must be fought and won on multiple fronts. And we cannot forget that terrorist acts are ultimately stories of human tragedy. The dedicated, professional woman from Iowa, Kathryn Koob, seeking to build cross-cultural ties between the Iranian people and the American people only to be held captive for 444 days in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The teenage boy from Iowa, Taleb Subh, visiting family in Kuwait, terrorized by Saddam Hussein at the outbreak of the Persian Gulf War. The U.S. aid worker from Virginia, Charles Hegna, tortured and killed in 1984 by Iranian-backed hijackers in order ``to punish'' the United States. These are only a few of the people we know; Americans in all 50 States have suffered. What do we say to these families, the wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters? We believe that those who sponsor as well as those who commit these inhumane acts must pay a price. In 1996, the Congress passed a significant law without partisan divide, and with the support of the U.S. State Department. This law allows Americans to pursue justice in U.S. Federal courts. The idea behind this law is to make the terrorists and their sponsors pay an immediate price for attacks against Americans abroad. For example, the money of foreign sponsors of terrorism and their agents that we hold here in the United States could be used to compensate innocent Americans who are victimized by their attacks for their pain, suffering and losses. Make the bad guys pay. This law only applies to ``terrorist states'', currently a list of seven foreign governments officially designated as state sponsors of terrorism (i.e. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba). It is those state sponsors of international terrorism, not the American taxpayer, who must be compelled to pay these costs first and foremost. Currently, the U.S. Treasury Department lawfully controls at least $3.7 billion in blocked or frozen assets of these seven state sponsors of terrorism. But officials of the U.S. Treasury and State Departments oppose using these funds to compensate American victims of terrorism who have brought lawsuits in Federal courts, won their cases on the merits, and secured court-ordered judgments and compensation awards against the rogue governments that are responsible for the attacks upon them and their families. To summarize, these American victims have been encouraged to pursue justice in U.S. Federal courts, have complied with existing U.S. law, but have been denied what little justice they were encouraged to pursue. Unelected bureaucrats, instead, want American taxpayers apparently to foot the bill for what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, in the pending case involving the 53 Americans taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and held in captivity for 444 days and their families, U.S. Justice and State Department attorneys have gone into Federal court in recent months to have their lawsuit dismissed in its entirety, thus de facto siding with the Government of Iran. This policy is wrong-headed and counterproductive for at least three reasons. First, paying American victims of terrorism from the blocked and frozen assets of these rogue governments and their agents will really punish and impose a heavy cost on those aiding and abetting the terrorists; this tougher policy will provide a new, powerful disincentive for any foreign government to continue sponsoring terrorist attacks on Americans, while also discouraging any regimes tempted to get into the ugly business of sponsoring future terrorist attacks. Second, making the state sponsors actually lose billions of dollars will more effectively deter future acts of terrorism than keeping their assets blocked or frozen in perpetuity in pursuit of the delusion that long-standing, undemocratic, brutish governments like those in Iran and Iraq can be moderated. Third, the American wives, husbands, sons, and daughters will have a sense of justice, they will have the public condemnation by the U.S. Government and statement of guilt, but they will have also made those terrorists responsible for the attacks and their sponsors pay a price. In his last days in office, former President Clinton signed a law endorsing a policy of paying American victims of terrorism from blocked assets, while simultaneously signing a waiver of the means to make this policy work. But the Bush administration hasn't registered an opinion yet on this crucial test of our nation's resolve to fight state- sponsored terrorism. That is why we are pushing bipartisan legislation to establish two new policy cornerstones in our Nation's war against terrorism. First, we seek to require that compensation be paid from the blocked and frozen assets of the state sponsors of terrorism in cases where American victims of terrorism secure a final judgment in our Federal courts and are awarded compensation accordingly. Second, we will provide a level playing field for all American victims of state- sponsored terrorism who are pursuing redress by providing equal access to our federal courts. American victims of state-sponsored terrorism deserve and want to be compensated for their losses from those who perpetrated the attacks upon them. The Congress should clear the way for them to get some satisfaction of court-ordered judgments and, in so doing, deter future acts of state-sponsored terrorism against innocent Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.