Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. If we are unable to find the appropriate legislative mechanism to get this legislation passed, what is the Senator's opinion as to what States will be faced with doing, and what will the impact be for the citizens of States?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak until about 6 minutes after 10.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I introduce, with my good friend Senator Susan Collins, a new proposal to provide temporary fiscal relief to the states to help them address their severe budget crises. A few months ago, this body passed and the President signed into law, a bill to stimulate the economy and help workers. It was not a perfect bill, but few are. But the economy was hurting and it was time to act. However, there were unintended consequences of that bill. Not only did the economic stimulus bill fail to provide State fiscal relief, but by making some changes to federal tax law, the bill unintentionally added to revenue shortfalls that most States are experiencing. This, in turn, has put programs such as medical assistance to the most vulnerable individuals in this country at risk. While the national economy is recovering from the recession, States' budgets will take another 12-18 months to recover. The National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers this month found that over 40 States are facing an aggregate budget shortfall of $40 to $50 billion. Thirty-eight States have seen their revenues fall below previous estimates, some by dramatic amounts. Every State but one has to balance its budget, even in the midst of a recession. As a result, 41 States have been forced to reduce their fiscal 2002 enacted budgets by cutting programs across-the-board, tapping rainy day funds, laying off employees, and employing a variety of other cost-cutting measures. Some States have even had to raise taxes. According to the National Governors Association, Medicaid spending has been a particular struggle for States, since expenditures have risen by an average of 12 percent over the last 2 years, while State revenues rose a total of 5 percent. Medicaid spending has been driven higher by increases in health care costs nationwide, particularly the costs of prescription drugs, which has increased by 18 percent annually over the past 3 years, and by recession-related increases in the number of people eligible for Medicaid. States' Medicaid budget problems are exacerbated by scheduled reductions in Federal Medicaid payments to States. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 29 States had their Medicaid matching rates drop and 17 States will have matching rate reductions between fiscal years 2002 and 2003. To date, most States have been able to reduce Medicaid spending without cutting back eligibility significantly. As fiscal pressures mount, however, many States are likely to consider substantial reductions in eligibility that could leave hundreds of thousands more children, families, people with disabilities, and seniors uninsured. In other words, States have largely exhausted the usual ways of balancing their budgets. Given the projection of continued deficits, this means States will have to continue to reduce critical spending for health care, social services as well as other important priorities such as education. Most States' fiscal year begins in July, underscoring the need for the Congress to act expeditiously on this critical matter. Our proposal would provide a temporary 1.0-percent increase in the federal Medicaid matching rate. In addition, we hold the Federal matching rate for each State harmless for the remainder of this fiscal year and next. the bill also includes a temporary block grant to States that would help them pay for the rising demand in social services resulting from the economic downturn. Our bill would provide approximately $8.9 billion in total fiscal relief to States which would allow them to expand, not contract, Medicaid and other health and social services. The National Governors Association has endorsed our approach to fiscal relief because it represents a sound and reasonable, bipartisan approach to State fiscal relief, one that could be enacted expeditiously. Our bill blends several fiscal relief approaches previously supported in the Senate and in the House. As such, I believe this proposal can gain the widespread bipartisan support necessary to move forward. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in this effort and show the States that Congress is not indifferent to their budget problems and that we will step in and provide meaningful assistance at a time when governors need it most.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I introduce, with my good friend Senator Susan Collins, a new proposal to provide temporary fiscal relief to the states to help them address their severe budget crises. A few months ago, this body passed and the President signed into law, a bill to stimulate the economy and help workers. It was not a perfect bill, but few are. But the economy was hurting and it was time to act. However, there were unintended consequences of that bill. Not only did the economic stimulus bill fail to provide State fiscal relief, but by making some changes to federal tax law, the bill unintentionally added to revenue shortfalls that most States are experiencing. This, in turn, has put programs such as medical assistance to the most vulnerable individuals in this country at risk. While the national economy is recovering from the recession, States' budgets will take another 12-18 months to recover. The National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers this month found that over 40 States are facing an aggregate budget shortfall of $40 to $50 billion. Thirty-eight States have seen their revenues fall below previous estimates, some by dramatic amounts. Every State but one has to balance its budget, even in the midst of a recession. As a result, 41 States have been forced to reduce their fiscal 2002 enacted budgets by cutting programs across-the-board, tapping rainy day funds, laying off employees, and employing a variety of other cost-cutting measures. Some States have even had to raise taxes. According to the National Governors Association, Medicaid spending has been a particular struggle for States, since expenditures have risen by an average of 12 percent over the last 2 years, while State revenues rose a total of 5 percent. Medicaid spending has been driven higher by increases in health care costs nationwide, particularly the costs of prescription drugs, which has increased by 18 percent annually over the past 3 years, and by recession-related increases in the number of people eligible for Medicaid. States' Medicaid budget problems are exacerbated by scheduled reductions in Federal Medicaid payments to States. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 29 States had their Medicaid matching rates drop and 17 States will have matching rate reductions between fiscal years 2002 and 2003. To date, most States have been able to reduce Medicaid spending without cutting back eligibility significantly. As fiscal pressures mount, however, many States are likely to consider substantial reductions in eligibility that could leave hundreds of thousands more children, families, people with disabilities, and seniors uninsured. In other words, States have largely exhausted the usual ways of balancing their budgets. Given the projection of continued deficits, this means States will have to continue to reduce critical spending for health care, social services as well as other important priorities such as education. Most States' fiscal year begins in July, underscoring the need for the Congress to act expeditiously on this critical matter. Our proposal would provide a temporary 1.0-percent increase in the federal Medicaid matching rate. In addition, we hold the Federal matching rate for each State harmless for the remainder of this fiscal year and next. the bill also includes a temporary block grant to States that would help them pay for the rising demand in social services resulting from the economic downturn. Our bill would provide approximately $8.9 billion in total fiscal relief to States which would allow them to expand, not contract, Medicaid and other health and social services. The National Governors Association has endorsed our approach to fiscal relief because it represents a sound and reasonable, bipartisan approach to State fiscal relief, one that could be enacted expeditiously. Our bill blends several fiscal relief approaches previously supported in the Senate and in the House. As such, I believe this proposal can gain the widespread bipartisan support necessary to move forward. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in this effort and show the States that Congress is not indifferent to their budget problems and that we will step in and provide meaningful assistance at a time when governors need it most.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today it is my honor to share with my colleagues the life and achievements of Brigadier General William E. Albertson, a man who has served his country honorably and enthusiastically. Brigadier General Albertson is a distinguished graduate of the United States Army's Engineer Officer Candidate School. Over his thirty-four year career, Brigadier General Albertson has served as an individual mobilization augmentee in the U.S. Army Reserve, Office of the U.S. Army Assistant Chief of Staff Intelligence, the Pentagon, and the Air Force Reserve. For five years, Brigadier General Albertson served as the mobilization assistant to the director of intelligence at Offutt Air Force Base, the United States Strategic Command Headquarters in Bellevue, NE. He currently serves as the mobilization assistant to the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington, DC. His awards and decorations include the Aerial Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with two oak leaf clusters, Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with two oak leaf clusters and numerous service medals. He is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Cost Analyst, as well as a member of the Air Force Association, American Society of Military Comptrollers, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Air War College Alumni Association and University of Missouri Alumni Association. Brigadier General William E. Albertson has honored us with his dedication and on May 17, 2002, the day of his retirement, it is my honor to recognize him for his 34 years of service to our country.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my neighbor to the east from Iowa, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, for the opportunity to be here today and to rise in strong support of the farm bill conference report. I say to my friends and colleagues who oppose this bill, and appear to prefer nothing to something, if you like importing 50 percent of the energy needs of this Nation, you will love importing 50 percent of our food needs, if this measure fails and domestic agriculture as we know it fails. I am not sure whether I am pained more by the current state of the farm economy--which pains me greatly--or by many of the attacks on this farm bill, which I believe will set production agriculture on a course of financial stability over the next several years. This farm bill, by every measurement, is not perfect. It was not perfect when the Senate passed it in February by a vote of 58 to 40. Neither was the House bill that passed last year in September. But both the House and the Senate recognized, then, that their respective bills were a vast improvement over the so-called Freedom to Farm legislation that preceded it. And we passed it and sent it to conference. Granted, changes were made in conference, changes which I wish had not been made. But the overall bill is still a good piece of legislation. It will provide substantial new funding for commodity, conservation, and nutrition programs. The bill reflects many priorities that Nebraskans have asked for in this bill, including a reliable commodity program, higher loan rates, funding increases for popular conservation programs, a new incentive program for hard white wheat, and new funding for renewable energy initiatives, just to name a few. The farm bill includes a continuation of direct payments and a new countercyclical program. Direct payments are fixed over the life of the bill. Loan rates are fixed for 2002 and 2003 and reduced by 1.5 percent for the 2004 through 2007 crop years. Target prices will increase as loan rates are decreased. The bill will increase funding for conservation programs by 80 percent, providing $9 billion in additional funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and increasing enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program--a very popular CRP Program--from 36.4 to 39.2 million acres. It also establishes the new Conservation Security Program which offers incentives to producers for conservation on land under production. Media reports place the amount of 2002 subsidies available for Nebraska at $1.1 billion compared with $675 million under the 1996 law. That is a half a billion more dollars to Nebraska farmers. This is good for Nebraska's farmers, and it is good for Nebraska's economy. As I said throughout the long process of developing and considering and passing a new farm bill, we need this legislation to help the agricultural sector of the economy. It seems to me that agriculture is an afterthought for most policymakers in Washington, often left out of important tax and economic legislative initiatives, as well as an afterthought in many of our trade initiatives and agreements. Now, with this bill, I think we have changed that attitude. With the new farm bill, and with the energy bill's emphasis on ethanol production as an alternative to foreign oil dependence, and other renewable energy, we have taken steps to improve agriculture's position on the priority ladder. This bill must be looked at as not only food, but fiber and fuel. Again, as with any piece of legislation, this conference report isn't perfect. I am disappointed, in particular, that the final version was stripped of the Senate provision I cosponsored that required payment limitations to huge farming operations. But we can have that fight another day, and I hope it will be soon. On balance, the new farm bill is a giant step forward from where agricultural programs had been under the dramatic failure of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Program. It improves the efficiency of Federal programs and provides a higher level of assistance to our farmers. For this reason, I will vote for this legislation because I believe it is a vote in favor of fairness and stability for rural communities and the Nation's agricultural economy. Throughout the development of this bill, I have always sought ways to support our farmers and ranchers. And I have looked for reasons to vote for this bill at every opportunity. But it seems to me that some of my colleagues have looked for excuses to oppose it, and now they threaten to kill the conference report and cast our producers back into the disaster known as Freedom to Farm. It strikes me that many of those who oppose the bill were some of the same ones who supported Freedom to Farm. These are strong words, I know, but this is a very difficult time for agriculture. I am here today to tell you that nothing is not better than something. This bill represents an honest attempt to improve farm programs for our farmers. Sure, maybe we could have done even better-- and we probally could do better--but the conference report which is before us today is such a vast improvement over the past that we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good, particularly when our farmers need the support provided in this bill. And they need it now. In the final analysis, my decision to support this legislation was easy. The conference report provides the much-needed stability that farmers in Nebraska have lacked for the last 5 years. It is about time. It allows for major expansions of conservation, nutrition, rural development, and trade programs. It fits within the budget, and, on the whole, it is a good bill for Nebraska. I see positive reasons to vote in favor of this conference report which I think will be good for American agriculture. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to explain the reality of ethanol production in the United States and do so in opposition to the amendment to postpone the renewable fuels standard implementation date. There are currently 61 ethanol plants with the capability of producing 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol per year, the amount required by the current RFS on the starting date of January 1, 2004. Some opponents of the RFS claim ethanol plants operate at only 82 percent of capacity. We have tried to explain that production is below capacity because the market for ethanol at a fair price is below production capability. In previous testimony, I have explained that certain big oil and gasoline companies simply refuse to use ethanol even when wholesale price is well below the wholesale price of gasoline and ethanol's high octane number is a free benefit. The RFS will change that situation. However, to ease the concern of the RFS opponents, we have accepted their production number of 1.7 billion gallons in 2001--not the 2.3 billion gallon capacity. There are currently 16 new plants under construction that will add another 400 million gallons of capacity, raising the total to 2.7 billion gallons of ethanol by year's end. Again, taking our opponents numbers, total production is forecast at 2.2 billion gallons. From a review of proposed new ethanol plants in various stages of planning, design, engineering, permitting and financing, we can very conservatively estimate that another 300 million gallons of production capacity will come on line in 2003, to give us a total of 3 billion gallons capacity and 2.5 billion gallons of production, using the estimates of RFS opponents. I know ethanol plant operators; they will exceed nameplate capacity when the market is there and the price is fair. We should also have well over 70 million gallons of biodiesel production by 2004. This is equivalent to about 100 million gallons of ethanol, using the 1.5 to 1 ratio for biodiesel and cellulosic biomass allowed by the RFS. Consequently, without unforeseen obstacles, America will have the capability to produce about 3 billion gallons of ethanol when the RFS requirement is only 2.3 billion gallons to be used throughout 2004-- giving us still more construction time in 2004. If a disaster hits, there are safety features in the RFS to deal with the problem. I might add it is far more likely that a disaster in oil and petroleum product availability will occur than a shortage in the supply of ethanol. Should a fossil fuel disaster hit, ethanol supplies will be most welcome in keeping the price of gasoline down. I will add to the Record an op-ed article written by a professor of rural sociology and environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. It appeared in The Washington Post on April 4. It is titled ``Why We Can't Drill Our Way to Energy Independence.'' Professor Freudenburg ends his article with these thoughts: ``Only if we recognize the facts can we start to talk about a realistic energy policy. If the United States is ever to become energy-independent again, it won't be because of oil.'' The professor is right, and Senator Kerry was right when he said we have to create our way out of our dangerous dependence on foreign oil dependence. I wish my colleagues, determined to weaken the ethanol industry, would join the creative team by recognizing ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels are a big part of the solution. We are all patriots. We are clear-sighted and determined to protect our national interest abroad and homeland security in America. We seem, however, myopic in fully appreciating that transportation fuels do much more than move us to our jobs, our kids to school and goods to the market. They are absolutely vital to our economy, our well being--and to national and homeland security. Interrupt the flow of fossil fuels in our transportation sector and we are weakened in all of these sectors. We must break that direct connection between fossil fuel imports and the overall well being of America. We can do so through the biofuels provisions in the RFS. If we were real patriots, we would push beyond the goal of about 3 percent replacement by 2012 and set a goal of 10 percent or about 14 billion gallons by that year. In Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois we are already well above the 10 percent mark. For almost all States outside the Corn Belt, there are ample supplies of cellulosic biomass including agricultural and forestry crops and residues, rights-of-way, park, yard and garden trimmings and the biomass and fraction of municipal waste that is a disposal problem, and ends up in land fills and sewers. We are on the cusp of the science and technologies to cost effectively convert this biomass into biofuels, bioelectricity and biochemicals. That is why I am promoting a ``Manhattan'' type approach in order to rapidly move forward with large demonstration plants and then on to full commercialization. By working together and with adequate resolve, we can make the 10 percent goal and go beyond to the benefit of America's national, energy, and homeland security and its economy through new basic industries, quality jobs and an expanded tax base. The environmental benefits are equally important. If the Senator from California is concerned about ozone formation resulting from the introduction of ethanol, she should look to Chicago and Milwaukee where they have been essentially using ethanol blends for years with air quality steadily improving. If the California Senators are concerned about benzene in their ground water, they should call for reductions in benzene and other aromatics in gasoline. These other aromatics, toluene and xylene, partially break down into benzene, a potent carcinogen, in the combustion process, both in the engine and the catalytic converter. Ethanol can replace these aromatics to the overall benefit of the environment. California will ban MTBE in 2004. Yet, the California Senators oppose the introduction of ethanol to replace MTBE. They want to turn to the aromatics and alkylates to meet supply and octane needs. The availability and costs of alkylates are unknown. The adverse environmental and health effects of aromatics are well known. Therefore, to accept aromatics and to oppose ethanol is a disservice to the people of California. The opponents of ethanol bring up the possibility of price fixing by the ethanol industry. I believe bringing such unsubstantiated claims to the Senate, and used as arguments to damage the ethanol industry in its entirety while the future of ethanol is being debated, is regrettable. This sudden flood of media on this issue cast suspicion on the reality of these claims, and leads one to believe that enemies of ethanol are simply continuing their campaign to tarnish ethanol's reputation and the industry in its entirety. If there are concerns about the price of ethanol, the reality of the marketplace should provide needed comfort. At the wholesale level, ethanol prices are well below those for MTBE, ethanol-free gasoline, the aromatics and, we assume, alkylates, since wholesale prices for this gasoline component are not available. The RFS is the best option we have to reduce our dangerous dependence on imported oil and to gain other benefits I have already outlined. It is time to bring this debate to a close and to seriously move forward with national determination to lead the world in the production of biofuels, bioelectricity and biochemicals using cellulosic biomass and waste streams as feedstocks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the op-ed from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, one of the questions raised continuously throughout this debate, and it continues to be a question, is: Will there be enough volume, will there be enough production capacity to handle these requirements? Let me refer to the chart we have here that shows there are 61 plants today, plants that are in operation; 14 are under construction--and they claim 82 percent of capacity is in production. We can do better. Biodiesel is estimated to provide another 100 million gallons of ethanol equivalent. As you begin to see the capacity and production, you see that we have the additional capacity in excess of the production we have at the present time. So the whole question about whether or not we will have enough production, will there be enough ethanol, I think should be put to bed. The other point that needs to be made is, will this raise the price of gasoline because of the cost of ethanol? Frankly, by reducing the amount of gasoline used, because of the additive, it will drive down the supply of gasoline, which I think will also, if you will--and the use of ethanol as a part of that--not increase the cost of gasoline but will in fact decrease the cost of gasoline. The evidence really exists that this is what the marketplace has been doing over the last 10 to 20 years in many States across the country. I can understand the concern that has been raised. But I think we have to deal with the facts. If we are going to deal with concerns, the best way to deal with them is with facts. I think the facts have shown capacity, have shown prices, and haven't gone up. I think we can conclude that there will be enough capacity and that the prices will not go up as has been suggested. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

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

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I commend my colleague from New Mexico for his very able work on bringing forth an energy bill. It is with some sadness I find myself opposing his substitute amendment. The substitute amendment is essentially requesting a study in an area where we already know the results. I support studies when we don't know what the study will tell us and we don't know the results and we need to find out what the situation is. But in this case, we know what the situation is. We have a system that suffers from dispersed decisionmaking authority and an inability to balance competing values and a system that is certainly jeopardizing the relicensing of many of our hydropower facilities across the Nation. Nearly every State will have one or more and as much as 99.9 percent of its hydroelectric power facilities come up for the licensing review within the next 15 years. If they have the experience I have had in Nebraska, they won't have to have a study. They can simply look to see what has happened in Nebraska to tell them what the future holds for them. The future of Nebraska is dimmed because of the past experience we have had with the relicensing process. We spent $40 million for one hydroelectric powerplant in 14 years to realize this project--a project built in the 1930s. That experience can tell you that the system is lengthy, expensive, and it doesn't require any of that $40 million that was spent to go into the environment, habitat, wildlife retainment, or anything of that sort. It was money spent on application fees, filing of papers, lawyer's fees--$40 million to realize this one project in the State of Nebraska, taking 14 years. That was when we had both Senators from Nebraska, the congressional Representatives, and I, as Governor, supporting the effort to get it done in an expeditious fashion. That is expedition in reverse. The truth is, this system is not expedited; it is expensive, costly, and slow. We even had in our situation, nearly at the end of the process, after we had gone through the process with as many alphabet agencies in the Federal Government that I thought we would ever find, another agency that came in and said: All the work you have done is for naught, and we have a requirement we would like to impose at the tail end of the process. They could have done it at the beginning of the process. This will help alleviate and obviate that need. In the State of Washington alone, you are going to be facing the relicensing of 80 percent of your hydroelectric power in the next 15 years--21 projects. If you multiply that times $40 million, you can see what the cost really is. Multiply that times the number of staff years, in terms of what it is going to take, and you will see what the internal cost truly is to your power authorities. I would ordinarily support a study. But in this case, we don't need one. We have had the study, and the study is experience which tells us that we need to make this kind of correction, and we need to make it now, not wait until the study tells us what we already know. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I want to say that a study should ordinarily tell us something we don't know, bring us to conclusions that we have not yet reached, or provide facts that are not otherwise evidence. But there are no facts that are absent here. There are no conclusions that we cannot draw on the basis of what we know, and there certainly isn't an experience yet to be determined. So a study is unnecessary. It is very clear, though, action is necessary. Respectfully, I move to table the substitute second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I request that we set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment to title III dealing with hydroelectric license improvement. This is an issue of vital importance to the electricity consumers of Nebraska and I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3140.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, ordinarily I am in agreement with my esteemed colleague from California and certainly with my esteemed friend and colleague from New York, but this is one occasion where I could not be in more opposition to what was said and to the positions which are being held. Earlier this morning, I vented my frustration over the continuing attacks against ethanol and other biofuels that extend back almost a quarter of a century. In many instances, opponents simply have said that the marketplace will not permit the price to go to the bottom cost. Opponents have said this will actually create a challenge and increase gasoline prices at the pump. But the information being provided just simply isn't accurate. The RFS and the biorefinery concept will actually lead to the construction of many of the biorefineries now being planned in locations indicated by the red dots on this map I have. It is not simply concentrated within the Midwestern States, as has been suggested. This may be where it began, but, as in so many things, where things end does not always depend on where they began. This is a perfect example. I think Delaware is close to being included in part of that because biomass of all kinds, as well as animal waste, can be utilized in the development of ethanol and other fuels. I would like to move away from some of the negative things that have been said about ethanol to something which I think is more positive and provides some information. The RFS will not increase the cost of ethanol from 4 to 50 cents more than ethanol-free gasoline. Depending on which statistic is being provided, you simply have to ask this question: Which cost analysis do you believe? A consulting firm, working for the Oxygenated Fuels Association, whose members produce and market MTBE, 70 percent of which is imported--and the defeat of the RFS will keep MTBE markets alive--says it will increase the cost $4 to $9.75 per gallon. Do you believe those figures or do you believe the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration material which says the increase, at the most, is between a half a cent and 1 cent per gallon. If you do not believe our Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration calculation and cost estimate, then let's just go to marketplace reality, because that is where we will end up in any event. Twenty years' experience in Nebraska, 1 cent less than ethanol-free gasoline at the pump; 10 years' experience in Minnesota, 8 cents less than gasoline at the wholesale level; 1.5 years' experience in California, there is no essential difference to the public; 10 years' experience nationwide, no essential difference to the public. The question is, which numbers do you believe? It is always about that when you come to projections. Furthermore, the availability of ethanol blends has been shown to actually drive down the price of all gasoline as a result of market forces. If you take a look at the wholesale price of regular gasoline versus ethanol, as shown on the chart, you can see that ethanol, as indicated by the green line on this chart--and on one or so occasions spiked above regular gasoline, such as back in 1992--continues to trail regular gasoline at the wholesale price, as you see the amount of experience that we have had over this 12- or 10-year period. If you go to the next chart and take a look at the retail price of motor gasoline versus ethanol, you can see that that is a similar trend factor, so that ethanol has trended a lower cost than ethanol-free gasoline or, if you will, regular gasoline. So the question is, in many instances, which numbers do you believe? If you do not believe the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, and you want to believe another organization, that is fine, but what I think you should do, ultimately, is look at the marketplace reality of what has, in fact, happened to the price of ethanol. Further, as evidenced by these graphs, the cost of ethanol has been at or below the cost of gasoline. That cost advantage for ethanol has become more pronounced in recent months and is now nearly 30 cents a gallon lower than gasoline at the wholesale level. This is the principal reason we cannot delay implementation of the RFS. The smaller, newer ethanol producers urgently need fair market prices. Furthermore, ethanol production capacity by the end of 2002 is expected to be 2.3 billion gallons, the level required by the RFS in 2004. There will not be any shortages. For those who have suggested that somehow we will not be able to produce enough ethanol to meet the standards and requirements, the facts, once again--the marketplace reality and the production reality-- just do not show that. The bottom line is that history and realistic projections show that ethanol will be the least cost option for refiners to extend supplies and meet octane needs. Now, it also takes much less fossil-fuel energy to produce ethanol than it contains in a renewable form; and, consequently, there are major energy security benefits from its production and use. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol are even much better. If you take a look at the net energy balance of corn ethanol, it increased from 1.24 percent in 1995 to 1.34 percent in the year 2000. Since then--you can follow the chart--higher corn yields per acre and new technologies used to convert corn to ethanol have further improved the net energy savings or the net energy balance. So if you really take a look at the production of ethanol, it now consumes much less nonrenewable oil as the ethanol replaces. The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture report demonstrates that ethanol production actually has this positive balance that we have displayed on this chart. The bulk of the energy used in fertilizing the crops and to power ethanol production plants comes from natural gas or coal. Additionally, with farmers using more ethanol and biodiesel in their vehicles, the use of fossil fuels to produce biofuels could actually approach zero. The bottom line: Ethanol and other biofuels are America's best bet in cutting imports and advancing national and energy security. Everybody seems to be in agreement, we need to have less reliance on foreign oil. Homeland security also benefits because biorefineries will be much smaller than oil refineries and far more distributed, as the first chart demonstrated. We don't have the same concern about concentration when we talk about biorefineries and spreading the biorefinery concept across our Nation, with positive effects for energy security as well as for homeland security. Additives to gasoline such as aromatics and alkylates to replace MTBE and ethanol are not better and less expensive. Some have suggested that what we ought to do is find another way to go. We ought to find other additives, and they actually are best. When lead was phased out of gasoline in the early 1980s, the ethanol industry was hopeful that refiners would turn to ethanol to gain needed octane. Instead, they turned to aromatics, driving levels up to the point that they threatened engine performance and human health. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 actually put a cap on aromatics and an especially low cap on benzene, a potent carcinogen. A recent sampling in Nebraska revealed that in several instances aromatics in gasoline exceeded the cap and passed well into the danger area, threatening the environment and human health. What is not commonly known is that the other two aromatics, toluene and xylene, to some extent convert to benzene in the combustion process; therefore, both in the engine and in the catalytic converter. Furthermore, last week's prices demonstrate that on average the three aromatics I am referring to were selling about 52 cents a gallon higher than ethanol and again on average have an octane number about 10 points lower than ethanol. Bottom line: The aromatics are no match for ethanol in terms of cost, octane, human health, and the environment. Please recognize that the wholesale prices for aromatics on average last week were twice the cost of ethanol and are 10 points short in providing sought-after octane. Alkylates are a better bet. They have an octane number ranging from 92 to 95. Ethanol has an octane number of 113. They have a valuable blending pressure while ethanol's blending vapor pressure requires compensatory action. However, alkylates are the most valuable component in finished gasoline, at least the value of premium gasoline. Because they are so valuable and so clean burning, they are husbanded by refiners and are in short supply and not available on the open market. The other alternative being offered, alkylates--bottom line--they are valuable and clean burning, but their octane number is lower than ethanol, and they are destined to be much more costly than ethanol, as is the case with aromatics. There is another point. There will be no shortages. There has been the suggestion that somehow we might find ourselves short on the production of ethanol. There won't be any shortages of ethanol and other biofuels in the marketplace over the next 10 years. If you take a look at poster No. 1, you have already seen the map showing ethanol plants, biofuel plants that are, first, those that are under construction or expansion, those that are undergoing planning, and those that are actually operating. By the end of this year, there will be surplus supplies to meet the 2004 target, and the incentives of the RFS will keep supplies well ahead of the requirements in the standards. If that proves to be wrong, there are provisions in the RFS to protect consumers--in other words, a backup plan if all else fails. With the exception of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, there are no such provisions to protect consumers from rising foreign oil costs. Bottom line: The provisions of the RFS and biofuels provide the driving public with much greater protection against shortages, higher prices, and negative national security, as well as environmental consequences than MTBE, aromatics, and alkylates. In yet a better world, biofuels and all three of these gasoline components should work cooperatively to provide an optimum fuel-- optimum in considering the full spread of the Nation's needs. If you review the map and you review historic and current pricing structures, you see they not only provide assurance that there will be no biofuels shortages under the RFS that could drive prices up, but they also give evidence that it will not be the three big ethanol producers benefiting from the new public policies. Rather, the beneficiaries will be smaller producers of feedstocks and owners of biorefineries spread all across the country. Bottom line: We must in fact build a better and a new and more self- reliant energy policy in America. Another point: Ethanol biodiesel and other biofuels, their incentives and the RFS will actually save the taxpayer money. Study after study has shown over the years--this is the most recent study--that biofuels policies, programs, and incentives are real bargains to Americans and of great import to the strength of our Nation. Americans are the big winners with ethanol and other biofuels and even bigger winners when these renewable fuels have ready access to the transportation fuels market at fair prices. Some opponents of ethanol are simply wrong on their opposition. They have pointed out that the Iowa and Nebraska Legislatures were certainly trying to do something different than what we are proposing in this body. These were only exploratory regulatory efforts to increase the market for ethanol in both States and were in fact resolved in a positive manner that increased production and market share in Iowa and Nebraska. There was no effort to create a mandate but, rather, a standard for gasoline that would best serve the overall needs of the States. The effort, though not embodied in law, was in fact successful. Between our two States of Iowa and Nebraska, we have the capacity to produce 920 million gallons of ethanol annually--more than enough in an emergency to meet 20 percent of our gasoline requirements with enough left over to give New York and California an additional helping hand. By working together, we can find ways to make almost every State in the Union equally self-reliant when it comes to the additive to motor fuels gasoline. Just as the Senate passed the renewable portfolio standard for electricity that enjoyed the support of California and New York, structured to serve the overall electricity needs of the Nation, this standard is designed to help meet the overall transportation fuel needs of America. In terms of national energy security, we are not importing electricity from distant nations unfriendly to the United States. Ours is a liquid fuel program. Failure to support the renewable fuel standard in reality will mandate our Nation to continue our dangerous and declining path to foreign oil dependency which everyone opposes. In conclusion, it is clearly in the best interest of the United States for us to be able to pass this RFS. We in the Senate should band together to try to find ways that will help make the renewable fuel standard available for economic development and for the fuel security of all of our States. We need to advance a Manhattan-type project to ensure that we retake the world leadership in promoting biorefineries in order to increase energy, national and homeland security, create new basic industries and quality new jobs, while enhancing our environment.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Nevada for giving me this opportunity.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, we hope the cloture vote will move forward and that we will, in fact, pass the RFS. Thank you very much. Order of Business

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, as we proceed with the debate--and hopefully it will end with a cloture vote--on the renewable fuel standard in S. 517, it is important to clarify some of the main issues and to counter some of the misinformation that has been offered by opponents of ethanol and other biofuels and the RFS. In today's New York Times, one of our colleagues is quoted as saying that the renewable fuel standard may raise the cost of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon in New York. I am not sure how that number is achieved given the fact that the wholesale price of ethanol today in New York is about 30 cents per gallon less than gasoline. But it is frustrating. For 25 years, we have all worked to ward off the negative arguments presented by some of the opponents. The opponents are determined to maintain control over the transportation fuels market by excluding ethanol, by excluding reformulated fuels, and by excluding new opportunities for renewable resources. Yet because the ethanol industry is right for America and for our State, it has survived and expanded from essentially zero in 1977 to over 2 billion gallons a year capacity today. It has taken sound public policy to achieve this strength and it will take sound public policy to take the next leap forward in these days of dangerous and growing foreign oil dependency and mounting concerns about the environment including climate change. The RFS is the next sound and critical policy leap forward to more than double biofuels production in the next 10 years. In recent years, an enlightened sector of these industries ha accepted the benefits of ethanol blends. But the remaining and commanding sectors stand steadfast in their opposition. Old data, negative projections, and misinformation are their tools. They have convinced some to actively embrace their campaign to maintain a fossil-interest stranglehold on transportation fuels. For these companies, national energy, economic and environmental security of the United States is not part of their global calculus as they pursue their determined path against ethanol and other biofuels. These biofuels are becoming an international force. If opponents can delay the United States in its embrace of the biorefinery concept, they will succeed in sustaining the position and profitability of their industry. I will address the opponent's arguments issue by issue. It is my hope that, ultimately, an objective and thoughtful overview will lead to acceptance of the Renewable Fuel Standard. I would first like to stress the urgent needs for a ``Manhattan'' type project to commercialize the biorefinery industry in the United States. This industry will take agricultural and forestry crops and residues, rights-of-way, park, yard and garden trimmings as well as the clean portion of municipal wastes that are disposal problems or end up in the our land fills or sewers and convert these renewable resources into biofuels, biochemicals and bioelectricity. Poster 1 shows existing ethanol plants in gold, plants under construction in green, and other biorefineries in the planning stage in red. You can see that the dispersal of biorefineries will be nationwide, not limited to the Midwest, and not limited to any location or region within our country. Moving from planning to construction is largely contingent on implementation of the RFS since capitalization will not proceed without an assured and profitable market for their outputs. America needs a Manhattan-type project to accelerate this process and to ensure the development of smaller, fully integrated, community-based biorefineries bringing new basic industries and quality jobs to rural and urban communities with ownership/partial ownership and value-added benefits accruing to local people. The RFS is part of this approach because it expands the market for biofuels and provides a 1.5 credit for cellulosic biomass ethanol and biodiesel compared to 1 credit for corn-based ethanol; that is, each gallon of ethanol from cellulosic biomass will be worth 1.5 gallons of corn-based ethanol. This extra credit is an important driver in advancing technology so that California, New York, and other States can join the Midwest in benefiting from new industries, better jobs, and improved incomes.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, perhaps no issue related to the energy debate in the Senate has suffered more as a result of misinformation than the renewable fuels standard agreement. This historic agreement was arrived at after years of careful and considerate negotiation from all sectors of interest; environmentalists, fanners, oil industry representatives, and politicians included. Simply stated, it directs the gradual increased production and integration of ethanol and other biofuels--renewable fuel sources--into the U.S. fuel supply. The increase in available alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are sure to result in a cleaner environment, an ease on supply, and a reduction on the U.S. dependence on foreign oil--a national security imperative. Opponents of the renewable fuels standard have raised the specter of an increase in gas prices as a result of increased ethanol production. Some claim that motorists could pay as much as 4 to 9 cents extra per gallon. However, in parts of the Nation where ethanol constitutes a significant share of the market, over the past 10 years, there has been essentially no difference in price between ethanol and nonethanol gasoline. According to a consulting firm working for the Oxygenated Fuels Association, whose members produce and market MTBE, 70 percent of which is imported--the defeat of the RFS will keep the MTBE market alive--it is 4 to 9.75 cents per gallon. According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration it is 5 to less than 1 cent per gallon. The marketplace reality is: 20 years' experience in Nebraska-- $.01 less than ethanol-free gasoline at the pump; 10 years' experience in Minnesota--$.08 less than gasoline at the wholesale level; 1.5 years' experience in California--no essential difference to the public; and 10 years' experience nationwide--no essential difference to the public. The question is which numbers do you believe. Furthermore, the availability of ethanol blends has been shown to drive down the price of all gasoline as a result of market forces. Another false argument against ethanol's we've heard is that producing ethanol consumes nearly as much nonrenewable oil as the ethanol replaces. The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture report demonstrates that ethanol production has a positive energy balance of 1:1.34 and only 17 percent of that energy comes from fossil oil. The bulk of the energy used in fertilizing the crops and to power ethanol production plants comes from natural gas or coal. Additionally, with farmers using more ethanol and biodiesel in their vehicles, and the advance of biorefineries using cellulosic biomass including agricultural and forestry crops and residues, as well as other biomass and animal waste with disposal problems, the use of fossil fuels to produce biofuels could approach zero. Where opponents really miss the point is in their failure to recognize the threat posed to America's national, energy, and economic security by our dangerous dependence on oil imports. In 1999, America was importing over 55 percent of its oil and petroleum products. Just 2 years later, our dependency increased to over 59 percent--and part of those supplies are in jeopardy because of the unpredictability of Saddam Hussien and political instability in other oil-producing nations. Failure to provide an adequate market for ethanol is a major factor in preventing the emergence of biofuels made from cellulosic biomass. The renewable fuels standard is critical to advance biorefinery technology that will produce urgently needed refined, domestic, renewable, and clean burning biofuels. The biorefineries, very small compared to oil refineries, will be well disbursed throughout the country and much less prone to terrorists' attacks. Opponents wail about a monopoly in the ethanol industry and that only a small group of producers will benefit from the renewable fuels standard. This is inaccurate on two fronts. Essentially all the ethanol and biodiesel plants under construction and in planning phases are smaller plants owned by cooperatives and community enterprises. More importantly, the RFS will provide the impetus to launch the construction of biorefineries across the Nation. Some perceive the RFS as a targeted massive Federal Government subsidy to benefit only farm belt States. In fact, the renewable fuels standard will encourage technology advancements that could be located and employed in any region of the United States, not just the ``corn states.'' It will enhance the Nation's economy, surely in agriculture- based economies, but also through support industries, new jobs, research and development, and opening new markets for agriculture products. This may displays existing ethanol plants, plants under construction and ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuels plants under consideration. As you can see, with the renewable fuels standard, biorefineries will soon be operating in most State of the Nation. There is no question that the renewable fuels standard will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will slow the deterioration of the environment through the reduction of fossil fuel emission and spills, enhance national, energy and economic security, create a new industrial base with tens of thousands of new, high quality jobs, and strengthen homeland security by providing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of community-oriented biorefineries producing biofuels, biochemicals, and bioelectricity. There are those who believe that ethanol's current tax incentives are sufficient, and obviate the need for the renewable fuels standard calling for an expanding market for biofuels. For the past 10 years the price of ethanol was generally below the price of 87 octane at both the wholesale and the retail levels. At current capacity, there is a surplus of ethanol driving wholesale price of ethanol well below the wholesale price of gasoline. On April 11 of this year, the wholesale price of gasoline in New York was 84 cents while the national average cost of wholesale ethanol was 55 cents. If ethanol was available in New York City gasoline today, the price to the consumer should be considerably less than ethanol-free gasoline. I say should because the ethanol industry is always at the pricing mercy of the gasoline marketers. Routinely, the octane value of the ethanol accrues to the gasoline industry not to the ethanol producers. Again, historically, the availability of ethanol in the marketplace drives down the cost of all gasoline because of market forces. According to the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, The federal benefits afforded ethanol-blended fuels have been an important, pro-competitive influence on the nation's gasoline markets. By enhancing the ability of independent marketers to price compete with their integrated oil company competitors, this program has increased independent marketers' economic viability and reduced consumers' costs of gasoline. Then there is the issue of the overall cost of the ethanol industry. Opponents claim that the cost of the program exceeds the benefits. This is refuted by a recent study: the Economic Analysis of Legislation for a Renewable Fuels Requirement for Highway Motor Fuels, conducted by AUS Consultants. It will displace 1.6 billion barrels of oil over the next decade; reduce our trade deficit by $34.1 billion; increase new investment in rural communities by more than $5.3 billion; boost the demand for feed grains and soybeans by more than 1.5 billion bushels over the next decade; create more than 214,000 new jobs throughout the U.S. economy; and expand household income by an additional $51.7 billion over the next decade. The RFS in this bill represents a continuation of sound public policy supporting the biofuels industry that has brought benefits to the Nation over the past quarter a century. Two States are showing us the way--Minnesota and Nebraska. We can also look to the major advances being made in Europe and Brazil. I am unabashedly proud of what my home State has accomplished. The formation of the National Governors' Ethanol Coalition was one of the important steps. Nebraska and several other Midwestern States created this coalition that now consists of 26 States and one U.S. territory, as well as Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Sweden. Since its formation in 1991, the Governors' Ethanol Coalition has worked to expand national and international markets for biofuels. American firms are working with India, Thailand, Colombia, and other countries to help them establish biofuels industries. Within the State of Nebraska, during the period from 1991-2001, seven ethanol plants were constructed and several of these facilities were expanded more than once during the decade. Specific benefits of the ethanol program in Nebraska include: $1.15 billion in new capital investment in ethanol processing plants. 1,005 permanent jobs at the ethanol facilities and 5,115 induced jobs directly related to plant construction, operation, and maintenance. Average salaries at the ethanol processing facilities range from $38,000-$56,000 depending on geographic location. The permanent jobs generate an annual payroll of $44 million. More than 210 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum is processed at the plants annually. Economists at Purdue University and the USDA estimate that the price of corn increases from 9.9 cents-10 cents per bushel for every 100 million bushels of new demand. Local price basis increases in Nebraska range from 5-15 cents. The trend of marketing wet distillers grains for cattle feeding generates at least $41 million in increased economic activity annually according to a 1999 report by the University of Nebraska. Of the $41 million increase, 85 percent accrues to cattle feeders in the form of reduced costs and increased gains, and 15 percent accrues to the plants. Local tax bases are more diversified in areas where plants are located. Several smaller communities have experienced increases in housing construction and new business start-ups associated with services related to plant operations. Jobs among the skilled trades have increased. Pipe fitters, steamfitters, steel workers, and construction engineering trades are involved in plant construction. Value is added to grain processed at ethanol plants. Today, a $2.00 bushel of corn is processed into products worth at least $5.00. Gasoline purchased from refineries outside Nebraska is displaced by ethanol produced in the State, thereby retaining energy dollars in the local economy. These economic benefits have increased each year during the past decade due to plant expansion, employment increases, and additional capital investment. If each State followed the Minnesota and Nebraska models, which are different in several respects, and produced 10 percent of its own domestic, renewable fuels, America will have turned the corner and that noose of oil-import dependency and climate change will begin to loosen. I know there is doubt among my colleagues from States without farm crops about the ability to provide the needed starch, sugar, or oil seed crops to produce biofuels and other biorefinery products. There are more than adequate supplies of cellulosic biomass in each State to meet the 10 percent goal: agricultural and forestry crops and residues; rights-of-way, parks, yard and garden trimmings; and the clean portion of the biomass fraction of our municipal waste. A major resource commitment is needed in this country to ensure that, 10 years from now, we have established the commercial technology base to produce many billions of gallons per year of renewable fuels, in dispersed and decentralized installations around the nation. The feedstocks must be diversified with the end uses ranging from gasoline to diesel to aviation fuels. We also need to quantify the ``externality costs'' of our current imported oil dependence, in order to ensure we are not paying those costs 10 years form now. Over the past few days, we have learned that we cannot drill our way out of our dangerous oil dependency. We have decided to support a renewable energy portfolio standard that will increase our use of renewable resources like solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass to produce electricity. We sue very little oil to produce electricity. We use oil to power our transportation sector. That is where we are most vulnerable. The renewable fuels standard is absolutely necessary in order to expand the biofuels industry into the use of cellulosic biomass, which is in great abundance throughout the United States.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about a bill I plan on introducing later on today with my good friend Senator Susan Collins. I am pleased to say that our legislation could be considered the next step in economic stimulus. A little more than a month ago, this body passed and the President signed a bill to stimulate the economy and help workers. It was not a perfect bill, but few are. But the economy was hurting and it was time to act. One of the unintended consequences of the stimulus bill was a revenue loss for many states. The final package included a provision that will stimulate business development through tax incentives. Unfortunately, because the majority of states ``couple'' their tax rates to the federal tax rates, this benefit for businesses will mean an estimated $14 billion loss in state revenues. States can avoid the revenue loss by decoupling from the federal law, but this approach is not without its own traps and pitfalls. Decoupling makes the tax codes of states just that much more confusing. Many states have explored ways to decouple, or in simpler terms, they have searched for ways to hold their state harmless from the experienced revenue loss. In fact, the state Legislature in Nebraska is considering such a measure today, as it attempts to find a way out of it's expected $119 million budget shortfall. We must now take steps to alleviate the unintended impact of the tax reductions on state budgets. In previously debated stimulus packages, a provision was included that would have helped state governments by increasing the federal contribution of the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage, FMAP, by 1.5 percent. This provision enjoyed wide support. Unfortunately, and over the objections of the crafters of the Centrist stimulus plan, it was not included in the final package signed by President Bush. Even before the passage of the stimulus bill, Medicaid costs were rising at the same time state tax revenues were decreasing. States are now faced with the choice of either cutting Medicaid services or diverting funding from other essential programs to fund Medicaid. This ``choice'' is no choice at all either cut health care service to Medicaid recipients or cut funding for schools, roads, police and firefighters. In a time of economic turmoil this ``choice'' can stall the economic recovery the stimulus bill was meant to jump-start. Our bill would revive the FMAP provision this body earlier considered. It would provide a direct response to the false ``choice'' faced by states. This bill will alleviate state's Medicaid liabilities by increasing the federal government's contribution to the Medicaid program by 1.5 percent for this year and next. This would mean an additional $7 billion for states. In Nebraska, the savings would amount to an estimated $42.7 million. This more than offsets the $34 million that Nebraska is expected to lose if they comply with the business tax incentives in the stimulus bill and would in fact provide $8.7 million on top of what was lost. A month ago, we took steps to help the economy recover and to help workers. Today, we need to take an additional step to help states struggling with fiscal calamity. With this increase in federal Medicaid assistance throughout this year and next, states will be given some breathing room to deal with the difficult choices they face in balancing their budgets. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and I in this effort and show the states that Congress is not indifferent to their budget problems and that we will step in and provide meaningful assistance at a time when governors need it most.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. to consider the nomination of Paul A. Quander, Jr. to be Director of the District of Columbia Offender Supervision, Defender, and Courts Services Agency.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Capacity to Care: In a World Living with Aids during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism, of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. on examining Enron: Electricity Market Manipulation and the Effect on the Western States.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 10 a.m., in SD226. Tentative Agenda I. Nominations Terrence L. O'Brien to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Lance Africk to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Legrome Davis to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Mary Ann Solberg to be Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Scott Burns to be Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Barry Crane to be Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy; John Robert Flores to be the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of Justice; and John Brown III to be Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency. To be United States Attorney: Jane J. Boyle for the Northern District of Texas; James B. Comey for the Southern District of New York; Thomas A. Marino for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Matthew D. Orwig for the Eastern District of Texas; and Michael Taylor Shelby for the Southern District of Texas. To be United States Marshal: Warren Douglas Anderson for the District of South Dakota; Patrick E. McDonald for the District of Idaho; and James Joseph Parmley for the Northern District of New York. II. Bills S. 924, Providing Reliable Officers, Technology, Education, Community Prosecutors, and Training In Our Neighborhoods (PROTECTION) Act of 2001. [Biden/Specter]; S. 864, Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2001 [Leahy/Lieberman/ Levin]; S. 2031, Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2002 [Leahy/Brownback]; and S. 2010, Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 [Leahy/Daschle/Durbin]. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on the judiciary