John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, as in executive session, that at 2:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 221, the nomination of J. Ronnie Greer to be a U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District of Tennessee; provided that the Senate then proceed immediately to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate; provided, further, that immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 222, the nomination of Mark Kravitz to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut; that there then be 5 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees; and that following the use of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nominees. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Shelby, my committee chairman on the Banking Committee as well, in opposing the Feinstein amendment. This amendment was debated at length about a year ago during the previous Senate Energy bill debate. At that time, Senator Phil Gramm raised a number of issues, a number of concerns with the legislation. He said a great many wise and commonsense things. One of the perspectives that he pointed out that stuck with me was noting that, in raising concerns about failures, companies that had gone bankrupt such as Long Term Capital Management, or perhaps closer to home for the Senator from California, the bankruptcy of Orange County, CA, that involved to a certain extent derivatives and then called for regulation--we were, in effect, blaming the instrument itself, blaming the derivative, which is a little bit like blaming a thermometer for a warm day. That is not the right approach for legislation and I think it will lead us to bad conclusions in trying to structure legislation that will strengthen financial markets. As the Senator from Alabama indicated, at the root is our concern that we not pass legislation that has unintended consequences, not pass legislation that is counterproductive, and rather than strengthen the markets or increase confidence in markets, actually has the opposite effect. This legislation would give a great deal of new power to FERC, which is a concern to me because that would be power given over to the FERC not just to regulate but really to arbitrate, to refer claims to different regulatory authorities. On its face, I ask whether FERC has the expertise or the knowledge in all of these sophisticated markets to make such decisions. It is, perhaps, a power best not given to FERC. But it is also a power, in referring and making these decisions as to which regulatory body a particular claim or complaint would go, that would have the effect of creating uncertainty, uncertainty as to which organization had regulatory oversight. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and FERC already coordinate their enforcement with respect to the energy markets. The CFTC has subpoena power. I think, as a number of other speakers indicated, in the year 2000 there was a Commodity Futures Modernization Act that was passed that was a good piece of legislation. A lot of work went into that. It drew from recommendations made by the President's working group. In particular, it strengthened the CFTC's hand in regulation in a number of areas. I certainly do not think offering an amendment at this time on this particular bill is the appropriate way to modify that legislation, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, that was a product of extended negotiations. The piece of legislation such as being offered by the Senator from California ought to go through the regular committee process. We ought to have hearings on it and certainly we ought to have an opportunity to debate it in the key area of the Banking Committee and Agriculture Committee jurisdictions. Of particular interest as well is the fact that this amendment is opposed by a number of organizations, a number of the regulators themselves who are most concerned with stability and confidence in the markets--by the Fed, by the SEC, and by the CFTC. Even though this bill gives additional powers to the CFTC, they still oppose it. It is not often in Washington you have someone opposing an effort to give them more power and more jurisdiction, but these very organizations are worried every day about safety and soundness, about regulatory clarity, about ensuring a greater degree of stability and solvency in the marketplace. Why would they oppose this effort, to give more regulatory power to them or to their sister organizations? I believe it is in part because of their concern that this might have unintended consequences, that this, unfortunately, might add uncertainty to the markets, that this might stifle transactions that so often act to reduce the risk in the marketplace. Particularly telling is the fact that an amendment is being offered to strike the coverage of various metals from this provision. Obviously, someone recognizes that this might not be good, might not be healthy for a particular area of our economy, of the derivatives exchanges, and therefore wants to protect them from the uncertainty and the instability I have described. Unintended consequences, we have to be so careful about exactly in an example such as this. These derivative markets are so complicated so the potential to have unintended consequences is effectively magnified by our collective lack of knowledge. There are some Senators who know more than others about these markets. The Senator from California has spent more time than others debating and discussing these issues. But any time we venture into an area of such complexity we enhance the risk that a piece of legislation will have unintended consequences. I certainly do not fault the intentions or question the intentions or the motives in offering the legislation. We share the goals of ensuring that we have good regulatory agencies with appropriate enforcement powers, but we also should be careful that we not disturb a market which I believe functions extremely efficiently. As complex as it is, and as large as it is--I have seen estimates of the size of the global derivatives market as high as $75 trillion--as large as that market is, it works very effectively. These are not products that are sold on any exchanges and there is a reason for that. The principal reason is that they are unique. They are unique to the organizations that seek them out. The vast majority of these organizations seek out a particular swap or derivative transaction in order to reduce the risk they are exposed to at any given day. That is why these instruments were developed and exist in such great numbers in the first place. Companies, institutions, financial service companies, banks--they seek out these derivatives to reduce their exposure to risk. When they are able to do that, they ensure greater stability, they ensure greater certainty for their investors, and it has the effect of, obviously, making our markets stronger. And helping our economy to grow. We have exercised great caution before stepping forward and trying to substitute some kind of new regulatory regime when a market is functioning this effectively and arguably enforcing its own level of discipline in the way that it functions. What kind of discipline is that? If I am going to engage in an interest rate swap, or some other derivative transaction with a financial institution, rest assured that I as an investor or as a counter-party to that transaction am going to want to know a great deal about the solvency, the exposure to other risks, exposure to interest rate changes, and exposure to different portions of our economy with which that institution I am engaging with in a transaction is dealing. There is a level of inspection and a level of due diligence that takes place in this marketplace every single day, which I might argue is more detailed and more thorough and more consistent than any government regulatory agency could ever provide. I believe we should oppose this amendment because it hasn't gone through the regular order because it attempts to impose a level of regulation that might well be counterproductive, that might increase the level of uncertainty in certain areas where jurisdiction is concerned, and that springs from a concern that somehow the derivatives themselves--the instruments themselves--are to blame rather than managers who have made some very bad decisions. Derivatives didn't cause the energy crisis in California. Derivatives didn't cause the collapse of Enron. Managers making bad decisions did. In some cases, managers engaging in fraudulent behavior did. Certainly the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has the power to go after cases where fraud or price manipulation are concerned. They are completely empowered to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his support for our amendment. I will pick up a little bit where he left off talking about the issue of subsidies across a range of areas. The distinguished chairman of the committee spoke earlier about the clean coal subsidy, the $2 billion in clean coal subsidy. He suggested that supporters of this amendment also supported that subsidy. I just want to be clear. I do not support $2 billion for clean coal. I have, in my service in the House of Representatives, opposed the clean coal technology program. In addition to that, I oppose the fossil fuel research and development fund that is in this bill because they effectively provide a subsidy for research and development in the areas of fossil fuel, areas where private companies operate in a very profitable and successful way. It is not to hold anything against those fossil fuel firms or those coal firms, but it is to stand up for some of the concerns expressed by the Senator from Arizona that we should try to be as consistent as possible in striking these unnecessary subsidies. The suggestion was made earlier on the floor--in fact, the statement was made specifically--that this loan guarantee program is ``not a subsidy.'' I reject that out of hand. If this was not a subsidy, then it would convey no benefit to those who sought the loan guarantee. And if there were no benefit, then people should have no objection to removing it from the bill. But, of course, there is a lot of objection to removing this from the bill because there is a big benefit to be gained by having a federally subsidized loan guarantee for the construction of new nuclear plants. It was also suggested that perhaps this is an attack on nuclear power. Let me close by reemphasizing that is simply not the case. I support the Price-Anderson provisions in the bill. I supported the effort to establish a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain that could be operated for the long-term, safely for our utilities and energy industries. In an effort to suggest this is an attack on nuclear power, the big guns have also been rolled out: there's been a suggestion that Alan Greenspan, of all people, might somehow harbor some support for this loan guarantee program. Let me say, clearly, like Alan Greenspan, I am a proponent and supporter of the concept of using nuclear power to help meet our energy needs, but I do not believe, for a moment, that means Alan Greenspan is a supporter of federally guaranteed loans to private industry. And if someone can produce testimony from Alan Greenspan supporting a Federal loan guarantee program for private industry to build nuclear powerplants, I will quite literally eat my hat. I simply do not believe that to be the case. I join with the Senator from Oregon in support of this amendment to strike one provision from this very large Energy bill; and that will protect taxpayers by preventing them from being exposed to $14 or $16 billion in loan guarantees to private industry. I do not think we need it. I look forward to a vote on this amendment. I certainly ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from Oregon would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague from Oregon for his work on this amendment. I am pleased to join as a cosponsor. As he pointed out, this is ultimately about what kind of an energy policy we want, what kind of an economic policy makes sense, and whether we can do the right thing and protect taxpayers from being exposed to the potential liability and cost that Senator Wyden described. This provision we are trying to strike in this bill guarantees 50 percent of the construction costs of up to six nuclear powerplants. Those plants could cost anywhere from $2 to $4 billion. And any taxpayer out there can simply do the math as to what kind of exposure this would provide. It has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from Oregon. We are going to get into the substance of this debate and the details of this debate over the next couple of hours, but at this time I yield the floor to the Senator from Nevada, who has been a very strong voice on this and other matters having to do with energy.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, for his comments and his very well-reasoned argument on behalf of our amendment. As I indicated in my earlier comments, this is part and parcel of a debate as to what an energy policy really should be in our country. I support a number of initiatives that I think would help ensure access to stable, reliable sources of energy for our country's economy so it can continue to grow. That means conservation, and we just had an amendment that sets a target of conserving some 1 billion gallons of gasoline in our automotive industries over the next decade. We also need to make sure we have good, sound infrastructure for transporting electricity or natural gas across State lines and around the country. We want a good strong electricity title. That has been the effort and the work of the Energy Committee. We need to make sure we streamline and reduce unnecessary regulations. I will come back to this point shortly, but that is one of the real problems the nuclear industry faces right now: uncertainty due to complexity in the regulatory environment where the process of building or licensing a plant can be halted multiple times throughout the licensing process. Of course, I believe, as I hope most Americans do, that we need access to new energy sources and new energy reserves, and that is why I supported exploration in the northern slope of Alaska. At the same time, we need to be careful that our energy policy is not about trying to pick winners and losers in the energy markets; that we not digress toward a subsidy ``arms race.'' We heard people argue if we give a subsidy to this industry, we should give it to another, tax credits there or how about a subsidy here. We should not have a subsidy ``arms race'' where we burden the taxpayers because that is who is paying for all of this policy, giving out subsidies to industries that are favored at a particular point in time. And we certainly should not single out an industry, as unfortunately a portion of this bill does, for an unprecedented loan guarantee, unprecedented taxpayer guarantees for the construction of new powerplants. Whether this is targeted at the coal-fired electricity industry or natural gas-fired plants or, as in this case, nuclear plants, I think it is questionable public policy to provide such loan guarantees. We are putting the taxpayer at risk, and we can call five different economists to try to estimate the size and scope of that risk, but the provision of the bill we seek to strike allows the Secretary of Energy to provide loan guarantees for up to half the cost of up to six plants. That is 50 percent of the cost for six plants, each perhaps costing between $2 billion and $4 billion. That is a $10 billion to $15 billion subsidy. The Congressional Research Service, which is about as nonpartisan as you can get, states that the maximum Federal cost will be in the range of $14 billion to $16 billion in 2002 dollars. The Congressional Budget Office states that the risk of default on these guarantees would be quite high, well above 50 percent. It is difficult to forecast risk. It is difficult to forecast cost. Whether these were guarantees for 25 percent of the cost or 50 or 100 percent or for one plant or for 71 plants, my concerns and I think the concerns of the Senator from Oregon would still be the same: this sets a bad precedent in singling out one industry for this type of a construction loan guarantee. It sets a bad precedent because in all likelihood other areas of private industry would, in the long run, seek to be treated in the same way. Of course, it sets a bad precedent in that it is an unprecedented sum, an unprecedented guarantee. I would very much like to see a strong and revitalized nuclear industry, and I credit the chairman of the Energy Committee for focusing on this issue in his bill, extending Price-Anderson, investing in basic research, physics and nuclear technologies, and pushing forward scientific and research initiatives that he has included in the bill. I disagree on some of the slight nuances of those provisions, whether they are exactly the right size or targeted to the right areas, but I give him a lot of credit for focusing on strengthening our nuclear power industry. I simply do not believe this kind of a guarantee is right for any industry. Equally important, perhaps more important, I do not believe this kind of a taxpayer subsidy is right for the men and women of our nation who are working long and hard, sending their taxes to Washington, and expecting them to be used fairly and equitably. There is a lot of uncertainty in the energy markets and in the nuclear power industry in particular, and we can ask the question why are not more plants being built, why have we not had a new plant licensed in over 20 years? I think the answer can be found in the uncertainty and the risk created by the regulatory markets, created by the litigious society that we live in and the fact that the licensing process can be brought to a dead halt time and again. Whether or not we have the technology that would allow us to build a nuclear powerplant for $100 million or $500 million versus $2 billion, this uncertainty is enough to discourage capital markets from lending to the large private companies that are engaged in the nuclear power industry. I think we will not find private resources being attracted to the nuclear industry, and we should not find taxpayer resources subsidizing the industry, until something is done about that uncertainty and that regulatory complexity. We have an interest rate environment right now that benefits anyone building anything just about anywhere in our country, the lowest interest rates in 40 years. That is about as big as an incentive as one could possibly have for undertaking new construction projects. I certainly do not believe we need to put the taxpayers on the hook in order to provide even more incentive. We are reaching out trying to protect the taxpayers, trying to do the right thing, I think trying to make this bill better and trying to set a good precedent. Again, I thank Ron Wyden, the Senator from Oregon, for his work. We have bipartisan support for this amendment, three Republican and three Democrat cosponsors. As we move toward a vote, I think we will see bipartisan support for the amendment. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee for being thoughtful enough to work with us so we could get a consent agreement to bring this amendment up today, to have a fair and thoughtful debate, and to be able to have a straight up-or-down vote on the amendment at the conclusion of the debate. I reserve the remainder of our time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, in the concerns he has expressed regarding this amendment. I am intrigued and as interested as any Member of the Senate, including the Senator from North Dakota, in this new technology, the potential to use hydrogen-based fuel cells for power storage, energy storage, and the impact that can have on our automotive industry. There are, and ought to be, concerns with an amendment that attempts to set a specific target for using such a future technology by a specific date. I remember some 10 years ago being told that everyone in America would be watching a high-definition TV by 1995; 1996 at the absolute latest. That was a technology prediction regarding television, something with which I think every American is quite familiar. We couldn't even get that future scenario right. To suggest that we know the future of fuel cell technology or even the automotive industry 10-- and I think as this amendment goes almost 20--years from today is an enormous mistake. It is a mistake for a couple of reasons. First, as the Senator from Tennessee pointed out, the current cost of these vehicles is $2 million or so, wildly out of the reach of anyone in the country who would be using these vehicles on a day-to-day basis. The private sector is putting a lot of money into this area. That is another reason to try to strike some balance in the bill. But even more basically, despite the fact that the Senator from North Dakota points out that this is just a target, what it does is suggest that a target for this technology is somehow better or more important than a target for any other technology. What about solar power? What about photovoltaics? What about hybrid combustion technology? The highest fuel efficiency cars out there today often use a combination of electricity and traditional gasoline combustion engines to try to get their fuel efficiency up to 60, 70, 80 miles per gallon. There is certainly tremendous potential there if it can be made cost effective for the average consumer to immediately begin saving energy for our country and for the world sooner rather than later. We should not prejudge which technologies will win out in a competition of ideas, a competition of cost or a competition for consumer interest in the marketplace. This amendment does just that. It tries to predict where the future will take us rather than trying to create a level playing field where different ideas can compete. Certainly money will be put into a lot of leading edge technologies, fundamental technologies regarding energy, and the Senator from Tennessee listed a lot of those. I don't think we should try to predict which ones will make the greatest impact in the automotive industry or in any other industry. While I am as interested as the Senator from North Dakota in this new technology--I believe it may well prove to be a very important source of energy storage in our future--I think it would be a mistake to try to prescribe exactly how it needs to be implemented on behalf of the automotive industry and the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments in this debate on the Energy bill to talk about an amendment that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden and I will offer next week. He is the lead sponsor on the amendment. I certainly hope we can win strong bipartisan support for what will be an effort to make this Energy bill better, to improve it, and improve it in a way that does justice for the taxpayers by eliminating what I think is an inappropriate and unnecessary subsidy for the energy industry in general, and for the nuclear power industry in particular. Our amendment will strike one small section of the bill. It is a section that provides federally backed loan guarantees for new nuclear powerplant construction. I strongly believe we should have a diversified energy supply in this country. We should have competitive energy markets, and nuclear power is a very important part of that mix. Nuclear power has proven itself time and again. It has been cost effective and environmentally sound. We have worked through tough, but important, legislation to deal with the nuclear waste issue in the last session of Congress. In my own State of New Hampshire, we have a powerplant at Seabrook that has had an outstanding record, an excellent record for both efficiency and safety, and it continues to generate a very substantial portion of the electricity used not just in New Hampshire but throughout New England. At the same time, nuclear power, like coal-fired electricity or gas- fired power, wind, solar, or hydroelectric power ought to be competing in the marketplace on a level playing field. However, there is a provision in this Energy bill that provides Federal loan guarantees to pay for up to half the cost of as many as six new nuclear powerplants. That is a pretty significant financial commitment, and a level of support will have to be made by the taxpayers of the United States. If we look at the estimated cost of six plants--perhaps $3 billion per plant, maybe a little bit less, maybe a little bit more--and take a look at half the cost of the plant in the Federal guarantee, we could conceivably be looking at a long-term cost of $10 billion or $15 billion. That is a cost that American taxpayers should not be asked to bear. That is one of the reasons Senator Wyden and I are offering our amendment. A second concern is the simple precedent this would set: providing Federal loan guarantees for any private powerplant construction. Again, my concern is not directed at the fact that the loan guarantees are for nuclear powerplants, or for large powerplants. It is about private plant production. If it were gas-fired plants, coal-fired plants, or new hydroelectric plants for which we were giving Federal guarantees, I would have the same concerns. We are setting a bad precedent in public policy when we offer this kind of tax subsidy. We have to ask time and again, Are we being fair to the taxpayers? Are we being fair to the marketplace? I do not believe we are. I think this kind of a program, this kind of a tax subsidy would distort our energy markets and would distort the performance of our capital markets where private companies go out to borrow week after week, month after month, and year after year. We need an energy policy in this country that promotes a strong diverse supply of energy and promotes competition. Sometimes that means making sure the Federal Government treads very lightly in the marketplace. This provision in the bill does not do that by any stretch. The amendment we will offer is a commonsense amendment, and in the long run, our energy markets and even our nuclear power industry will be better served by striking this unnecessary subsidy. If we are going to have a healthy and strong nuclear power industry, what that really means is we have to have commonsense regulations. We need to work hard to streamline and to extend some of the relicensing capabilities so those plants that have performed well can continue to operate for an extended period of time. And, of course, we need to deal with the issue of nuclear waste, which we have begun to do through our efforts last year, and which I support. The amendment that will be offered by Senator Wyden and me is an amendment that has support from the National Taxpayers Union, from Citizens Against Government Waste, and a number of groups that have quite a reputation for looking out for taxpayer interest. It also has support from a number of environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters and USPIRG, groups that have tried to look out for environmental interests that raise concerns for them as well. It is a broad coalition of groups coming at this from different perspectives, but all recognize this section of the bill is not good public policy, this is not the right kind of approach if we want to have competitive energy markets, and it certainly is not the right kind of approach for taxpayers. I thank Senator Wyden for working with me on this amendment. We are working on an agreement that will allow us to bring this amendment forward on Tuesday with at least 2 hours of debate and an up-or-down vote on the amendment. I thank Chairman Domenici for working with us on that agreement and allowing us to get this important amendment to the floor, give us a vote, and see if we can save the taxpayers a lot of money and help improve this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman amendment and I thank my colleague for allowing me to work with him on this initiative. I have expressed concerns about the ethanol mandate in this energy bill before, and the concerns this amendment tries to address are obviously an extension of those concerns. As we have debated this Energy Bill prior to today, in the work I have done in the House, and the visits I've had back home with the people of New Hampshire, I have always emphasized that to the extent we are debating an energy bill, it ought to be about price and access. It should be about making sure we have available, stable, reliable sources of energy and a diversified supply for consumers, because those stable, reliable sources of energy are so central to economic growth. At the end of the day, this debate ought to be about access and price. What this amendment attempts to do is to ensure that where the gasoline markets are concerned, consumers are protected on access and on price. We need to make sure that we have, as the Senator from New Mexico described, a safety valve--a way to ensure that if and when the very significant fuels mandate proposed for this bill is imposed on cities, towns, and States across America, there will not be major disruptions in supply that would lead to price spikes, and that consumers not be subjected to higher fuel costs unnecessarily. There is a waiver provision in the underlying amendment. But we ought to be concerned about that waiver provision because of the 90-day window described by the Senator from New Mexico. This would allow the President and Secretary to act if there is economic harm, but it would allow up to 90 days to do so. Ninety days can be a very long time, as anyone who sat through the price spikes two summers ago will tell you. Gasoline prices spiked up, 25, 50 cents, spiking well over $2 in some places. To the extent that those price spikes could have been avoided, many people would argue the President or the Secretary of Energy should have taken steps to avoid them. That is exactly what this kind of an amendment will allow. If the cost of ethanol drives those prices up more than 10 cents a gallon, then the President can act with the Secretary and suspend the mandate for 30 days. It is a safety valve. It doesn't take away from the mandate, although I am one who would like to see more done in terms of eliminating the mandate. But, our amendment is a safety valve that allows the President to act. It does not force the President to act, and it does not require him to act. Instead, it gives the President and the Secretary the opportunity to take steps to protect consumers from unreasonable price spikes. Supporters of the ethanol program, those who would like to see the mandate imposed no matter what the constraints, might say: Well, it is highly unlikely such spikes will occur. We can look at the graph presented by the Senator from New Mexico. It is highly unlikely we would see significant price spikes. Maybe this amendment is unnecessary. But, Mr. President, we can't predict the future. We don't know with certainty what will or will not happen to the cost of fuel with the 5- billion gallon mandate on ethanol that has been proposed, but we should be prepared. That is what we are trying to accomplish with this amendment. We could certainly see problems with ethanol production. We don't have the capacity to produce 5 billion gallons today. If the mandate were imposed, we would like to believe we could double the production capacity in a brief amount of time, but we don't know that for sure. We could have problems with ethanol production. Frankly, we are likely to have problems with ethanol distribution. They may not be huge problems, but ethanol has to be trucked or shipped around the country. It cannot be distributed through the existing pipeline system we use for gasoline in parts of the country. So there are going to be new demands on the logistics governing our distribution system for gasoline. That could certainly have a big impact on prices. The Senator from New Mexico talked about the issue of importing gasoline from places such as Venezuela--there is no certainty that we would be able to continue to import finished gasoline; we might have to import the raw blend stock to be mixed with ethanol in the United States. There is no guarantee of the reliability of those imports. And, of course, we may have unusual spikes in demand because of the MTBE bans that are likely to go into effect if and when this legislation becomes law. I come from a State where there has been strong support for banning the use of MTBE. Even more important, I would certainly like to see a provision in the bill--one that was proposed the other day by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein--to allow States to waive the requirement for this mandate, so that States could be free to meet the Clean Air Act without having to use MTBE or without having to use ethanol. But the point is, there are uncertainties about the future price of gasoline. Those uncertainties are made greater by the potential 5- billion-gallon ethanol mandate in the bill. Our amendment would provide a safety valve so that if there were price spikes, the President and the Secretary could act in consumers' interests. Despite my concerns about the mandate and all the other concerns I might have about this Energy bill, I think at the end of the day we should be looking to ensure that the bill protects consumers. This amendment does that. I think it is common sense. I say to my colleagues, you can support the ethanol program and still support this amendment that protects consumers. Also, you can certainly oppose the ethanol program and support this amendment that protects consumers. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Bingaman and me in doing the right thing for taxpayers and for consumers by supporting this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. If the Senator will yield slightly further, that is precisely the point I was making--that ethanol will not be subject to excise taxes. It will require taking money from the general fund to pay for this tax and putting it into the trust fund, so that the trust fund won't be depleted as a result of the fact that ethanol is not subject to the full 18.3 cent tax. If we treat the two equally, we should subject them both to an 18.3-cent tax. If you give ethanol the subsidy, what you are forced to do--exactly what you described--is move general fund money into the trust fund to cover that loss of revenue.

Mr. SUNUNU. Gasoline is subject to a Federal excise tax of 18.3 cents per gallon. The Senator's description suggests that ethanol will now be taxed at 18.3 cents a gallon as well and that revenue will go into the highway trust fund.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from California, the second-degree amendment, that I think injects a level of fairness in the underlying amendment. I respect the work of my colleague from Ohio and his appreciation for the effort that went into crafting the underlying amendment that doubles the ethanol mandate. Yet, I think that amendments can be offered to make this Energy bill as a whole, and this ethanol provision, a lot more sensible, make it a lot more fair to taxpayers, make it fair to States, and even improve the environment. I want to touch on a few of those points. Certainly we will hear from a lot of Senators from States that benefit from the ethanol program and will benefit from an expansion in the ethanol program. They see its economic impact, perhaps, at the local level with their farmers or at the corporate level with some of the very big agribusiness concerns that benefit from this program. But I think we need to take a balanced approach. I think we need to weigh the impact on consumers. I think the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, has done an exceptional job of laying out the importance of reacting to the needs of those consumers, and the importance of taking a balanced approach. She has been a great leader on this issue, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of her amendment. As she indicated, doubling the ethanol mandate will have very significant costs. It will impose a burden on the States. There may well be an ethanol coalition of Governors, many of whom have economies in their home States that will benefit from the ethanol mandate. But we cannot escape the fact that this mandate does represent a burden on States, a burden on industry, and a burden on consumers. I think there are very questionable benefits outside a few of those farm-driven economies that I mentioned. On the environment, the Senator from California has offered an amendment that in no way exempts States from their obligations under the Clean Air Act, and in no way exempts them from having to meet the standards that any other State would meet in cleaning up the air we breathe. What it would do, simply, is to allow States to decide how to go about meeting those tough standards and would give States the chance to opt out of this ethanol mandate if they could otherwise meet those clean air standards. This does nothing to diminish our commitment to the Clean Air Act. This does nothing to diminish our commitment to the environment. So one has to ask the question: Why then mandate the use of this product, ethanol, on all 50 States? Although it has been pointed out that it is not actually 50 States, it is 48 States, as two States are already exempt from this requirement. I certainly believe you wouldn't exempt States from this mandate unless you recognized that it did have costs associated with it, and very significant costs at that. This amendment offered by the Senator from California protects every bit our commitment to the Clean Air Act and to the environment. But it does reflect new costs to consumers--new costs from the logistics and shipping that is going to be required to move ethanol around the country. As has been pointed out, ethanol cannot move through the gas lines which already exist in this country. It has to be trucked and shipped and blended on the spot. As the Senator from Ohio pointed out, we can do this. We have infrastructure that can accomplish this task. I would offer no disagreement there. Yes, we have trucks, ships, logistics, planners, and computer software to get it to where it needs to be, whether it takes a week or 2 or 3 weeks. That kind of a system is more susceptible to interruption and, therefore, price spikes. But we have the technology and capability to ship this mandated product around the country in order to blend it. But we are just fooling ourselves if we pretend it wouldn't cost the consumer extra--and it will. We can have a debate as to whether or not a mandate will increase consumer prices 2 cents, or 4 cents, or 5 cents, over what amount of time, and why. But those newly imposed logistic requirements will cost money. I think we are going to address this cost issue. I know the Senator from New Mexico is working on an amendment that will highlight the concern we should all have--that a mandate such as this increases the price to all consumers in the country. But we have to be wary of the costs. We also have to be aware of the fundamental fairness: Why give exemptions to two States and not allow other States to opt out of this program? I trust the States. I trust the Governors. I trust State legislators to take good steps that are in their self- interest to protect the environment in their States, to serve their consumers, and to ensure that they have an energy system that serves their States. The Senator from Ohio said specifically that there is a lot of room in this legislation for States to do what is in their best interests. But then he suggested that to allow States to opt out would somehow encourage them to take steps that would make the system too complicated and actually raise prices back home in their States. I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't say States will take steps in their best interests, but then suggest that if we gave them the opportunity to opt out of this program, they would take steps that weren't in their best interests. I think they will do the right thing. Certainly, when it comes to meeting the tough requirements of the Clean Air Act, I think States will do the right thing. And where ethanol makes sense environmentally and economically, States will move quickly to use it to the greatest extent possible. From the standpoint of the environment, the Feinstein amendment does not weaken any legislation. From the standpoint of costs, the underlying amendment certainly increases the cost to the consumer. It is equally important from the standpoint of basic fairness that we treat all the States equally. If we allow some to opt out, we should allow them all to opt out if they so choose. Given these facts, why would we force this mandate on the States? I don't know for sure what the answer is. But I think in part we are forcing this subsidy on the States to benefit some big, profitable companies. We can argue whether the five or six largest ethanol firms control 60 percent of the market or 70 percent of the market. But these are good, strong, profitable companies. They have great employees, and good leadership, I hope. But they ought not to be given a subsidy on the backs of consumers all over the country. We should not be providing a subsidy to these six or seven large firms and increasing the cost to consumers, while at same time we could be depleting $2 billion a year from the Highway Trust Fund when this mandate is phased in. The Senator from Ohio pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office has said this will reduce direct spending by $2 billion. That is because it is going to suck $2 billion out of the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, the result is more likely than not to be moving general fund money over into the Highway Trust Fund. That is not something I think we should be doing. I think we need to be honest to the voters and honest to the consumers that when they pay taxes at the pump, it goes into the Highway Trust Fund and gets spent on infrastructure in this country. Ethanol is given an enormous, significant tax subsidy. I guess it depends on what you consider enormous. Is $1 billion or $2 billion enormous? It is certainly in my State. Some people would argue it is only a few cents, or 2 pennies. But $2 billion is real money where I come from. To take $2 billion a year out of the Highway Trust Fund, I think, is a mistake. The reason we have heard a subsidy was justified in the past was that we needed the subsidy to get consumers to use the product. This legislation mandates that consumers use the product. You can't have it both ways. You can't mandate that they use it and then continue to give it a subsidy. I suggest one or the other has to go. Either we have to allow States to opt out of this program and let the taxpayers in those States who think it is a good idea subsidize it, or we ought to get rid of the tax subsidy altogether. The Senator from California has put together a good, thoughtful amendment that respects rights and lets States opt out of this program. I think this is the right approach. I support her amendment and I look forward to working with her further on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU. Is the Senator suggesting that ethanol under this legislation be subject to the exact same excise tax to which gasoline would be subject?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, today I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Medicare Vision Rehabilitation Services Act of 2003. This is legislation I introduced in the Senate this past week to deal with vision impairment, one of the most common disabilities affecting seniors today. Millions of Americans currently have impaired vision. The number of people in the United States with vision impairments continues to increase. The vision impairment is a loss of vision that is not correctable by standard glasses, contact lenses, medicine or surgery. One of the leading causes of vision impairment and blindness in the United States is age-related disease and that is why it is important we begin to deal with this serious illness under our Medicare system. Vision rehabilitation assists individuals with this serious vision loss so they can safely navigate in their own homes and within their local environments. Vision rehabilitation services help people avoid medication errors, help them cook and use kitchen utensils safely, and help avoid burns and falls; in short, help them to be more independent in their own community and enable them to enjoy a better quality of life. Importantly, vision rehabilitation services promote safety and that all-important independence for our elderly. This legislation would ensure that Medicare coverage for vision rehab services would be made available to all of our elderly citizens in the United States. It would make the coverage available nationwide. It would establish strict qualifications in the Medicare Program for specially trained vision rehabilitation professionals who operate under physician supervision and allow them to provide the highest possible quality services in the home when deemed medically necessary. One in five older Americans, over 7 million people, report some degree of serious vision impairment. More than 700,000 older Americans are legally blind. According to the CDC, falls among older people cost the Government more than $20 billion a year, and vision problems were specifically cited as one of the leading causes of these falls. If only one in five of the hip fractures due to vision impairment were prevented, each year the annual cost savings would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Nearly anyone suffering from vision loss can benefit from vision rehabilitation services that can help patients make the most of whatever vision they do have remaining. Specifically, this bill takes a number of important actions. It establishes national coverage under Medicare for the provision of rehabilitation services. It defines rehabilitation services as services provided to a person with a vision impairment under a plan of care developed by a physician, allowing these services to be furnished both in-office and in a patient's home. It defines a vision rehabilitation professional as well as setting out the educational criteria these providers must have. This legislation ensures payment under the existing physician fee schedule. That is important. There was an awful lot of work put into developing this legislation, so we did not have to create a new or separate physician fee schedule. The legislation also requires the patient care plan be developed by a physician in order to receive reimbursement under Medicare. That plan has to attest that vision rehabilitation services are medically necessary, and is a plan that periodically is reviewed by a physician. It is a strong, focused program that provides coverage for these very important services under Medicare. In over a 5-year period, the independently estimated cost is less than $10 million--less than $10 million, to begin to address one of the leading causes of accidents that disable our elderly citizens in their homes. It is less than $10 million over a 5-year period to increase independence, to increase quality of life, and to provide a better quality of care in a home setting. I think this is an important piece of legislation that can make an enormous difference for millions of older Americans under Medicare. I do thank the cosponsors who have already agreed to support this legislation--Senator Stevens, Senator McCain, Senator Collins, Senator Bunning, Senator Specter, Senator Burns, Senator Allen, Senator Kerry, Senator Lincoln, Senator Miller, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Cantwell, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Landrieu. It is a strong, bipartisan coalition that will work throughout this year to see that this legislation is signed into law, making a difference by adding vision rehabilitation services to Medicare and making that difference in the lives of millions of elderly Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly great American community, the city of Keene, NH, which will celebrate its 250th Anniversary during a week of festivities beginning Tuesday, May 27 and culminating on Saturday, May 31, 2003. On September 18, 1734, a group of eight individuals eager to expand the growing colonies settled on the outer edge of New Hampshire in an area that was then called Upper Ashuelot. In 1753, when the colony of New Hampshire granted a new township in the southwest section of the province, the Royal Governor, Benning Wentworth, named the town ``Keene'' out of gratitude and respect for his friend and business associate, Sir Benjamin Keene, a career diplomat and one time British Ambassador to the court of Spain. Although agriculture was an important part of the region's early economy, Keene gained a reputation as an important glass producing center. In 1814, the New Hampshire Glass Factory was founded, producing mostly window glass for the New England region for nearly 40 years. Other glass manufacturers soon opened, making bottles and flasks that are now known as ``Keene Glass,'' and which remains highly valued today. With the arrival of the railroad in 1848, Keene's stature as an economic center grew. Rail lines between Boston and New York allowed Keene to thrive and by the end of the 1850s, Keene had seen the addition of some 100 buildings. During the 19th century, such industrial commodities as flannel, pottery, and furniture were being produced in Keene, and at the beginning of the 20th century, Keene even made automobiles. As Keene's economic growth expanded, so to, did its population. At the beginning of the century, the population was about 1,650 people. by 1850, there were nearly 3,400 people in Keene and by 1870, that number expanded to almost 6,000. In 1874, the citizens of Keene passed a measure which established the city of Keene--9 years after the New Hampshire State legislature voted to allow Keene to become a city and after the citizens had twice voted down the idea. Today, more than 125 years later, Keene is still a vibrant city, home to many diverse industries, well renowned institutions of higher learning, and an acclaimed performing arts community. Each year, students from across the State and the Nation flock to southwest New Hampshire in order to expand their horizons at Keene State College, founded in 1909, and Antioch New England Graduate School. These and other quality institutions of higher learning throughout the region educate some of America's premier students. Culturally, Keene thrives, boasting the Redfern Arts Center on Brickyard Pond at Keene State College as well as the non-profit Colonial Theater on Main Street and numerous singers and musicians who perform at a number of other locations in Keene. The region's largest newspaper, the Keene Sentinel, is also the Nation's fifth oldest. Having been in publication since 1799, it continues to serve as a vital source of news and information for the people of Keene. Surrounded by mountains, lakes, and forest, in terms of quality of life, Keene is a community that has it all. In fact, the National Trust for Historic Preservation recently named Keene one of America's Dozen Distinctive Destinations, which is no surprise since the Elm City is often times described as the ``suburb without the big city next door.'' With its commitment to historic preservation, attractive architecture, and diversity of businesses, Keene epitomizes the quaint New England municipality it has grown to be. I congratulate Keene, New Hampshire on its 250th anniversary, and I extend my best wishes to its more than 22,000 citizens in celebration of this splendid milestone.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate this year's winners of the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. The ``ED''ies are awarded to those individuals, schools and educational programs that have made significant contributions to public education and have met the highest standards of excellence. Educators and schools are measured on criteria, including curriculum and instruction, teaching and learning process, student achievement, leadership and decision-making, community and parental involvement, and school climate. On June 7, 2003, 35 individuals and 5 schools will be recognized for their leadership and outstanding achievements in preparing New Hampshire students for success in the 21st century, and I believe I represent my State well in conveying our appreciation and respect for the professionals they are and the sacrifices and contributions they make every day in classrooms throughout the Grantie State. The ``ED''ies are presented in various categories of excellence, such as art education, world languages, school nursing, counseling and technology. The specific criteria for the ``ED''ies, which is developed by the board of directors for the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards, has been applied to elementary, middle, and secondary schools, along with teachers, administrators, and other education professionals performing at each of these levels, as well as higher education. Selection committees are charged with the responsibility of applying these standards and evaluating nominees, and consist of some of New Hampshire's finest educators and community leaders. The committees carefully review nominees, study school applications and conduct assessments through on-site visitations. I have very fond memories of so many teachers that had a profound impact on my life. Their work that created a positive learning environment and provided me with the direction necessary to succeed, made an enormous difference in my growth as a person and as a public servant. They allowed me to appreciate the importance of a sound public education, as well as the need for individuals to make a contribution to their community. In my most important job--that of being a parent--I realize how delicate the task of educating can be, and understand more now than ever the vital resource our schools and teachers provide to the parents in the towns and cities of New Hampshire. Similar to the classroom heroes I knew growing up in Salem, the group of educators chosen this year for the ``ED''ies have demonstrated superior dedication and service to their students, schools and communities, and deserve this prestigious honor for the important roles they play in helping our children reach their goals and succeed in school. The teachers, principals, counselors, librarians, and other school leaders being commended this year have provided students with the tools they need to become productive and engaged citizens, and have been some of our State's most treasured role models--setting positive examples for the children that surround them, teaching personal responsibility and hard work, and shaping the character of young minds. For these achievements, our State and our country owe them a great deal of gratitude. I am proud of the strides that the President and Congress have made in working to reform our Nation's public education system. Since first elected to Congress in 1996, I have made improving education a legislative priority of mine. However, I am cognizant of the fact that the men and women on the front lines of our classrooms tackle the toughest of challenges and enable our country to realize the promise of leaving no child behind. The State of New Hampshire's education system is a true model to be highlighted, and I am confident that the success we enjoy in our State is due in large measure to the contributions and leadership of the many educators and schools being recognized here today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of the 2003 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners be printed in the Record.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I support S. Res. 133, a resolution expressing the Senate's condemnation of acts of bigotry and violence against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South-Asian Americans, and Sikh Americans. I am pleased to join the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, in sponsoring this resolution in the Senate. I would like to thank them for their leadership on this issue, along with the other Senators from both sides of the aisle who have joined us as cosponsors. And I would also like to thank Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Leahy, and the members of the Judiciary Committee for their favorable action on the resolution. Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South-Asian Americans, and Sikh Americans contribute greatly to American society. Many serve honorably in the armed services and as law enforcement officials. Like all law- abiding Americans, they deserve respect for their civil rights and civil liberties. This resolution condemns bias-motivated acts against members of these communities and calls upon Federal and local law enforcement to prosecute any criminal violations. Regrettably, after the September 11 attacks and more recently after the start of military action in Iraq, acts of bigotry and violence against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South-Asian Americans, and Sikh Americans have increased. President Bush has condemned such incidents on more than one occasion, and it is appropriate for the Senate to join him and citizens across the country in expressing outrage over these acts. I applaud the Senate's passage of this resolution, and I again thank the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for working with me on this important issue.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, for the work they have done to bring before the Senate a Defense authorization bill that will serve as a blueprint to ensure the U.S. Armed Forces have the resources they need in the upcoming fiscal year and beyond. The Department of Defense faces many challenges in carrying out its various missions across the globe. This legislation authorizes critical funds to make sure our troops have the weapons systems and munitions they need to continue to do the outstanding work they do every day for our freedom, allowing for $75.6 billion in procurement funding. The legislation does right by these men and women and their families by providing them with a pay raise of 3.7 percent. Moreover, it mandates a $100 a month pay incentive for military personnel in North Korea, increases the family separation allowance $150 a month, increases hostile fire and imminent duty pay by an additional $175 a month, and doubles the death gratuity retroactive to September 11, 2001. S. 1050 not only addresses the short-term needs of the military but gives equal consideration to the long-term challenges facing the services. The $63.2 billion authorized in the bill for research and development is critically needed to make sure our troops will continue to have access to the most advanced equipment to keep them safe and one step ahead of those who would do us harm. We have seen on countless occasions over the last several months how investments in research and development lead to a fighting force capable of unprecedented precision and mobility, which saves lives and allows for decisive military victories. This legislation addresses some important nonfinancial policy issues as well. S. 1050 strikes a balance between environmental protection and the need to provide our troops with important training. It allows for the examination and evaluation of weapons and countermeasure systems to make sure current and future Presidents and military leaders have all options available to them when making decisions pertaining to military action and national security. The bill also provides tens of millions of dollars to aid in homeland defense initiatives such as the Chemical and Biological Installation/Force Protection Program, and the WMD civil support teams. I recognize this measure is not perfect and there are some funding and policy provisions on which Senators may disagree. For example, I am very concerned by the committee's decision to cut the President's request for the procurement of 22 F/A-22 Raptors. Yet I know these and other issues will continue to be addressed by both the committee and the administration as this bill moves forward and should not be cause to delay passage of this important piece of legislation. I am pleased to support S. 1050, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this week we began debate on the energy bill, a vast and complex piece of legislation, arguably an important piece of legislation, that deals with an issue that touches every American in some way, shape, or form. Access to stable, reliable sources of energy is central to the strength of our economy. I have real concern, as we take up this bill, that it not simply be a piece of legislation where we look to include every element, every fragment, every idea ever considered that might, in fact, alter energy markets around the country or around the world. I am concerned that in our effort to craft an energy policy, we simply look for ways to aid or to assist particular businesses, industries, or areas of research. This bill currently includes very substantial loan guarantees to successful private corporations around the country; it includes research subsidies for investment in fossil fuel research, oil and gas development; and it includes a very complex and sizable tax package, some of which I think is questionable as to whether it will achieve the kind of fairness, equity, and efficiency in the energy markets we would like to see. This morning, however, I wish to speak about one particular provision that is before us in the form of an amendment, an amendment that has been offered to dramatically increase the size and the scope of the Federal ethanol program. It not only expands the size of the ethanol program in America, but it effectively makes it mandatory, taking us from a 2-billion-gallon-a-year ethanol program to some 5 billion gallons a year over the next 8 years. I can understand there are a lot of supporters of the ethanol program in this Chamber. A lot of the Members of the Senate have farm economies back home and see income or productivity that comes from this Federal program. But I do not think it is right to provide a subsidy at the taxpayers' expense for a program that cannot stand on its own feet. Among the concerns I have with the current program, first and foremost is the supposed environmental benefits of ethanol. It is true, as an oxygenate, ethanol reduces the volatile compounds that are emitted into the atmosphere from fuel, from gasoline, but it does not do anything substantively to reduce the level of NOx in the atmosphere that contributes to the ozone problem, to the smog problems. I think as this debate goes forward, we will hear a lot of discussions from some of those Senators who represent urban parts of the country that have tough, real problems with ozone and smog. They have grave concerns about this program that provides a huge taxpayer subsidy without dealing with those important environmental issues. From an energy perspective, we will hear a lot of discussion about the amount of energy that will be produced from this renewable resource because it is corn based, but from most proponents we will not hear a lot of discussion about the energy it takes to produce this ethanol in the first place. It takes nearly a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of fuel. So at the end of the day, you may have ethanol that you can blend in gasoline and put in your car, but you have used quite a bit of energy to get there in the process. From an energy perspective, energy efficiency, energy independence, even then, in the best case, the benefits are marginal, if they exist at all. Finally, of real concern is the subsidy itself. There is an enormous taxpayer subsidy that is used to provide viability to this industry. As everyone goes to the pump, they pay 18.3 cents in tax for every gallon of gas they put in their car. If that gallon is blended with 10-percent ethanol, it is exempt from 5.3 cents of that gas tax. That represents a 53-cent-a-gallon subsidy for the ethanol itself--53 cents. At the end of the day, that means a billion dollars less going into our highway trust fund. We are going to deal with the highway reauthorization bill later this year, and there are a lot of supporters of highways who are pushing for more money. I think we need to take a long, hard look at what the right amount to spend on infrastructure is in this country. But we certainly do not need to be subsidizing a questionable effort such as this ethanol program in a way that takes money out of our highway trust fund, a billion dollars a year today, and with this expansion that will go to $2 billion a year by 2012. That means $2 billion a year lost from the highway trust fund. Now, for years the argument that was made by House Members, Senators or legislators all across the country to support this subsidy, was that we need the subsidy in order to encourage people to use the ethanol fuel. That is why we have the subsidy. We need it if we are going to get people to use this fuel. That subsidy has not been very successful in getting people to use that much of the fuel. So now they are going to go to a mandate. Well, I can understand why one would want to force a mandate on the American people if they are determined to force them to purchase the fuel. But if it is going to be mandated, why is the subsidy still needed? That is one of the central issues we are going to have to deal with in this debate, and we need to at least put people on the record as to why they think we still need to subsidize this industry, in many ways a very concentrated industry. There are about half a dozen very large, successful businesses, that are responsible for about 70 percent of the ethanol produced in this country. Why do we ask taxpayers to continue to subsidize this industry when we have a mandate in place that forces them to buy the product? That makes no sense. I do not think it is fair in the first place to force them to buy the product, but I certainly do not think it is fair to force them to subsidize the product at the same time. It has got to be one or the other. If a subsidy is to be provided because it is the only way to get people to purchase the product, at least that is a rational argument--not one I support but it is a rational argument. If the only way to get them to buy the product is to mandate it, to force them to buy it, that is also a rational argument, although not one that I support. But it cannot be both ways. A subsidy cannot be forced on the American people, the money cannot be diverted from the trust fund and have the mandate at the same time. If the mandate is going to be that 5 billion gallons of this fuel has to be purchased every year, the least we can do is then treat it the same way we treat any other fuel in this country with an appropriate, fair, and well-thought-out excise tax. The American people deserve consistency and fairness in this matter. I think it is a shame that we have a program such as this ethanol program that really has not proven its worth, that unfortunately channels huge taxpayer subsidy to a small number of very successful, profitable companies around the country. I would rather see a bill that did not have this taxpayer subsidy in it in the first place, but if we are going to take up this issue, let us at least be fair and equitable in the way we deal with it. We need a good, thoughtful energy policy in the United States. This kind of subsidy ought not to be part of that program and that policy. I have a number of other concerns with the legislation before us, but I hope when the time comes we can work to craft an amendment that would right this wrong, that would ensure that ethanol is treated the same as any other fuel that we have in the country, and that would improve the quality of this legislation before it passes the Senate, if it is able to do so. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess or adjournment, committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters on April 24, 2003, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.