Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I understand S. 1323 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Perhaps I should want to do another 30 minutes or so. I am kidding. I had all the time I needed, and I appreciate the suggestion.

Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's comments. I remind him that I have only recently come over from the House and am used to speaking in 3-, 4-, and 5-minute bites where necessary. I will try to adhere to the old standard. I know many people want to speak on this important bill. Many have important amendments they want to offer. I will not delay the Senate very long. I wanted to come down and speak about this, in part, because this is a problem which has existed for a long time and has hurt a lot of people, and which I am just very encouraged and pleased to say I believe this Congress will finally solve. I went into the House of Representatives in 1992 and, as many Members do, I often went to parades in the communities I represented. I enjoyed walking in them and shaking hands with folks. There was one couple with whom I got to shake hands virtually every parade in the city of Hazelwood. They would sit in the garage watching the parade. I would run up the driveway and visit with them. Every year, we would visit about this issue. They would take a minute--not too long because the parade was going by--and tell me of the struggles they were going through because there was no prescription drug feature to their Medicare coverage. They were making the choice that many senior citizens in the State of Missouri have to make every day between the cost of their prescription drugs and the cost of other necessities of life. That choice hurts all of us. It hurts them, hurts their families who worry about them, and it hurts all of us because they often resolve that dilemma against buying the prescription drugs. Those drugs are often medicine they need to stay healthy. It is one of the things that is so self-defeating about our current policy because if folks cannot take the drugs they need, they get sick, and then Medicare covers the treatment and it costs a lot more than if we had simply helped them stay healthy in the first place. We should not interpret any of this as a slap at Medicare. Medicare is a program which has provided important medical care for tens of millions of people for a generation. But it was devised in 1965 when nobody had prescription drug coverage. Prescription drugs were not a major feature of ongoing medical care in those days. Since then, it has become a very common feature of health insurance to have some kind of prescription drug coverage. But we have not updated Medicare to keep pace with those changes. We have not strengthened and improved Medicare as we should have. But now we are going to. That is the good news. That is really the message I wanted to come down here and deliver. To me, the legislation is all about the principles and, yes, of course, it is about the details, but first you have to try to do the right thing, and then you have to check the details to make certain you are trying to do the right thing. We need coverage that goes into effect, at least partially, right away. Seniors have waited long enough. We have been promising long enough, and now we need to deliver. We need coverage that is permanent, not one that sunsets a few years from now. We need voluntary coverage in the sense that you don't have to change your coverage if you have another method you like better. This bill qualifies on that count. We need coverage that targets the bulk of its relief for the people who need it the most. This is something that in townhall meetings all over Missouri seniors have said this to me. The folks with the lowest income and the highest prescription drug costs should get the most relief. This bill makes efforts to achieve that, and I think it largely does. We need legislation that has a reasonable system of copays and deductibles for those who can afford them because that is the way we control overutilization, and overutilization can be bad for everybody. If too much money that we don't need to spend has to be spent in the prescription drug area, that is less money for care for heart patients or kidney patients or maintaining the standards at our teaching hospitals, which is so important to the quality of Medicare. We need a bill that provides choices for people, one that competes for the business of these seniors, to make certain they are getting the highest quality at the lowest cost that we are capable of providing. There are going to be many amendments offered to this bill. I am going to vote for some of them. There is one I believe we will see today that will help make certain that local pharmacies are able to participate. I think that is a great idea. I will vote for that amendment. I will vote against some. Some will undoubtedly carry and some will fail. It is my intention to vote for this bill on final passage--almost no matter what. I don't want to sign a complete blank check here, but I cannot imagine changes that would be made to the bill that would keep me from voting to send this bill on, to move this process forward, to begin keeping the promise we have made over and over and over again in the last few years to that generation of Americans who won the Second World War, who set up the architecture of containment that won the cold war, and built this country by their work, faith, sweat and, effort. That is what this bill represents to me. I congratulate the Finance Committee, the chairman, and the ranking member for producing this bill. It is, at minimum, a noble effort, a good first step. I think it is probably better than that, but, at minimum, it is that. We cannot get to the end if we don't take the first step. That is what this bill represents. I am pleased to be here supporting it. I hope we can strengthen and improve the bill as we strengthen and improve Medicare, and I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the floor. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the renewable fuels standard that is the subject of the Frist-Daschle amendment, and specifically with regard to a report released today by the National Corn Growers which contains yet another round of good news regarding ethanol. For decades, those of us who care about energy in the United States and care about energy independence, who care about jobs and the creation of jobs, who care about the future and how we are going to have enough energy for this economy to expand throughout the 21st century have looked for alternative sources of energy. The Energy bill we are debating is a great progrowth, projobs Energy bill across the board. It encourages the production of traditional forms of energy, and it should. It encourages the production of oil and natural gas and nuclear energy. I support all of that. I think most of us in this Senate do. But all of us are concerned about the fact that the traditional forms of energy tend to be nonrenewable. There is a point at which we are in danger of running out. We import a lot of oil from foreign countries. About 59 percent of what we use in the United States we import. We have all wanted and have talked about for decades the possibility of renewable sources of energy, particularly that we can make here. I go around Missouri and I talk with our corn growers and other agricultural producers about what a great day it will be when we can grow our own fuel effectively and when we don't have to worry about running out and being dependent on other countries. As the Frist-Daschle amendment indicates, that day, if it is not here, is fast approaching. We are close to being able to grow our own fuel. That fuel is ethanol. It is a great day when that means more jobs for America. It will mean a greater measure of energy independence for our country and a greater measure of energy security for our country. It will mean support for and new markets for our family farmers and our agricultural producers. It is a good thing. I am glad Senator Frist and Senator Daschle have offered this amendment. I am a strong supporter of it. In fact, I am a cosponsor of it. I am proud of the fact that ethanol will be the subject of one of the first genuine bipartisan efforts in this country, and I hope that amendment passes. The Corn Growers issued a report today designed to rebut some of the concerns that people have expressed. It is kind of ironic that we are now approaching this day when we actually have access to renewable sources of energy and alternative fuels. And some are getting nervous about it. Their report issued today indicates what common sense already tells us. First of all, blending ethanol with gasoline at a 10-percent level, which is what the renewable fuels standard calls for, will reduce the retail price of conventional gas by 5 percent or 6.6 cents per gallon based on national average 2002 prices. This translates into an annual savings to consumers of $3.3 billion. The report says that. They have studied it for a long time. It really is a matter of common sense because when you increase the supply, the price goes down. The more ethanol we produce, the more we can rely on renewable sources we can grow and the greater the supply of energy. The report also indicated that using corn and other grains to produce the 5 billion gallons of ethanol required by the renewable fuels standard will have an insignificant impact on consumer food prices. In other words, the price of corn and other items is not going to go up because we have tremendous productive capacity in this country. As a matter of fact, we are not using the capacity we have. As a matter of fact, the price to consumers is going to go down because as our producers are able to grow corn and turn it into a value-added commodity, a valuable commodity, ethanol, the price of future farm bills is going to go down. I was impressed very much when I was in Macon, MO, visiting our ethanol plant there. One of the producers who owns that plant pulled me aside and said: Senator Talent, the real good thing about this is when the price of corn goes down, I make more money on the ethanol. I thought to myself: Yes, that is one of the keys to ethanol. It will help smooth out some of the cycles of commodity prices, the ups and downs of commodity prices worldwide, which will mean that farm bills will become less challenging every 5 years. It will also mean more money for the transportation trust fund once we have adopted the tax changes that the Finance Committee has worked out and which will accompany or follow shortly after this Energy bill. It is a good thing for America. It is a good thing for our producers. It is a good thing for the creation of jobs. I am glad this amendment is being offered. I want to address briefly the amendment of the Senator from California. I know it is an amendment offered in good faith. It is an amendment to exempt California from the renewable fuels standard. It is a little hard for me to understand because the standard is not a mandate for the States. It is a mandate for the refineries. They have to have 5 billion gallons of ethanol refined and into circulation by the year 2012. That should not be difficult. The use of ethanol is growing all over the country, precisely because of the advantages it offers, which I have outlined. Exempting States doesn't make any sense. California is already using ethanol. By this summer, 60 to 70 percent of the gasoline sold in California will be an ethanol blend. I suspect that maybe States such as California think: we don't produce ethanol here; we don't want to have to import energy from other States. If you do not import energy from other States, and if you do not import ethanol from other States, you are going to have to import something from someplace in order to run the automobiles. I would a whole heck of a lot rather have States in this country importing ethanol, which is good for the environment and jobs in the United States, from other States in the U.S. than the alternative, which is to import gasoline, which is not as good for the environment and which does not mean jobs for our country, from Venezuela or from the Arab States or from some other place in the world. They are taking one of the tremendous virtues of the renewable fuels standard and trying to turn it into a vice. It will reduce our dependence on foreign countries. There is really no danger to the United States being dependent on fuel that we produce in the United States. It is a good thing to be dependent on fuel we produce in Missouri or Minnesota or North Dakota or South Dakota or Illinois or any of the number of States that produce ethanol. I understand the uneasiness. The use of ethanol is growing very fast. Its future is coming on us very fast. Sometimes change is difficult to deal with. I was in a Breaktime convenience store in Columbia, MO, where they are selling ethanol at the pump for the same price they have traditionally sold gasoline. I went to this place, stood out next to the pump, talked to the proprietors, and said: This is the future. It is a good future. It is a national future for the United States. This is a national energy policy. We have one Union, not just 50 different States. We have one national economy, and we ought to have one renewable fuels standard for everybody, and we ought to have confidence in it. I think this 5-billion-gallon standard will be very easily attained. I think we will be above that. States all over the country and consumers all over the country are using ethanol to their benefit and to the benefit of the Nation as a whole. This is a pro-jobs, pro-growth Energy bill, and the Frist- Daschle amendment is a very important pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-energy security and independence part of it. Let's adopt that amendment. We do not need these weakening amendments. Let's face the future with confidence. One of the reasons we can do that is because the Nation will increasingly rely on fuel that we produce in this country in the 50 States. I thank the Senate for its attention, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I spoke on this last night, and my friend and colleague from Missouri has covered the ground well, but I wish to say a couple things that I think are important to emphasize. The first is, it is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone around the world that there is no reason, other than market protection, not to permit a biotech product into Europe. It is not bad for the environment. It is good for the environment. In 2001 alone, biotechnology reduced the application of pesticides by 46 million pounds in addition to reducing soil erosion and creating an environment more hospitable to wildlife. It would be good for the environment of Europe and the world to allow a biotech product there. It would be good for them, frankly, to start using it in raising their own product. It is also increasingly obvious that there is no safety hazard. Practically everybody in America has eaten biotech corn or product made from biotech soybeans. There has not been a single case or suspicion of anybody being hurt by it. And, of course, there would not be because producers have been adjusting plant genetics for decades and decades and decades. This is just a new way of doing a very old and a time- honored thing that is very important to the production of the agriculture and to the advancement of human welfare. I congratulate the administration on filing this WTO action. It is, if anything, overdue. I congratulate my friend and colleague for his comments. I hope the Senate can get behind the resolution just as quickly as possible and support the administration in this effort. I know the support for biotech is bipartisan in this Chamber. I believe very strongly that it is overwhelming. I know we have tried to do this quickly this week, and maybe too quickly. Maybe we will not get it done today but I hope we can get it done soon and the Senate can go on record. I close by saying, it is not just a question anymore of fairness and fair trade and the truth prevailing--as important as all those issues are. It is a question of hunger in the world. To me, the turning point was when the European Union countries not only refused to take the biotech product themselves, which I don't even think is defensible, but then they began trying to convince African countries that are in danger of famine to turn down shipments of safe, nutritious U.S. humanitarian biotech food aid. This is now a question of trying to get food to people who are starving. That is too much, even for the European Union. I think it is time we said it. That is the point of this WTO action. That is the point of our resolution. That is the reason my colleague from Missouri has spoken on this important issue late at the end of this week. That is the reason I wanted to come down to the floor and join him in his comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bunning be added as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT

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

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I am looking forward to voting for the jobs and growth package when it comes out of conference and reaches the Senate floor. One of the lessons of the last few years is that we cannot do anything that any of us want to do without prosperity. We cannot do education the way we would like; we cannot improve the quality of health care the way we want to; we cannot protect our Nation's borders the way we would like to; and we cannot provide for our defense the way we would like to without prosperity. Prosperity means jobs. The way to get jobs, among other things, is to put more money into the hands of people who save, spend, and invest, and that means tax relief. That is what the jobs and growth package is about. It is not the only way, though, to increase jobs and create economic growth in our country. Another way to do that is by opening up markets abroad. One of the ways we do that is by getting our competitors to end tariffs, end the nontariff obstacles they have placed on importing our products. For too long we have let the European Union get away with illegal, unwarranted, and protectionist trade policies regarding agricultural biotechnology. I strongly support the President and the administration in the case before the WTO against the European Union. I want to take a few moments to talk about that situation this evening. For the past 5 years--half a decade--the European Union has effectively blocked our agricultural trade into Europe through their moratorium on the approval of new biotechnology products entering the European market. Since its implementation in October 1998, the moratorium has blocked more than $300 million annually in U.S. corn exports to the European Union countries. When you look at the total cost of the moratorium, our corn producers have lost $1.5 billion in exports to the European Union. This moratorium clearly violates WTO rules requiring measures regulating imports to be based on ``sufficient scientific evidence'' and mandating countries to operate regulatory approval procedures without ``undue delay.'' And as far as sufficient scientific evidence is concerned, they have zero standing. Moreover, their policies are holding back products that hold tremendous promise for improving the food supply, advancing human health and preventing famine in the developing world. The actions of the EU not only violate laws established by the WTO, but also, the EU is violating its own laws requiring science-based regulatory decisionmaking. The EU policy decisions on biotechnology are being driven by people disdainful of science and its capacity for solving problems facing mankind and critical of the leading role of the United States in scientific advancement. It is likely that nearly every American has eaten a meal made with corn and soybeans enhanced through biotechnology. These products have been sold and served in restaurants, local grocery stores and farmers' markets for years, without any adverse health consequences ever being reported. Additionally, agriculture biotechnology, contrary to what the EU may say, is good for the environment. In 2001 alone, biotechnology reduced the application of pesticides by 46 million pounds, in addition to reducing soil erosion and creating an environment more hospitable to wildlife. However, the facts have not stopped the EU from propping up their moratorium on a flimsy foundation. In addition to their anti-American policies, the EU has more recently pursued policies to undermine the development and support of genetically engineered products around the world, including in countries facing famine, and that was the turning point in this case. About 40 million people in Africa's famine-stricken nations are at risk of starvation and diseases brought about by incessant hunger. Additionally, 800 million children are starving worldwide. Ongoing droughts and famines have devastated these countries, leaving them without options, and much too often, without hope. Last fall, three African countries--Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique-- were pressured to turn down shipments of safe, nutritious, U.S. humanitarian biotech food aid by the EU. The EU even threatened their export markets if they accepted biotechnology food aid. To do that to a country threatened with famine is nothing less than extortion. This is the same food that we eat here in the United States. It is unconscionable to me that the EU would promote these anti-humanitarian, anti-development policies. The EU should try honesty for once. They should try explaining the real reason they do not like American biotechnology: they want to protect their market from competition. They want to protect European markets by ignoring the scientific evidence, which makes clear the safety and nutritional advantage of biotechnology. Our agriculture producers are leading the biotech revolution and providing us with the most affordable, most abundant and safest food supply in the world. And Missouri's producers are among the leaders in the country. When the U.S. wins this lawsuit, it will be a victory for our producers who have lost more than $300 million annually in corn exports, and also for science, the environment and everyone who wants to win the war against famine and world hunger. I applaud the President for filing this suit in the WTO. In doing so, he is once again demonstrating the kind of leadership and courage we have come to expect from him I appreciate our leadership working so quickly on this important issue. Senator Bond and I, along with several others, have submitted a resolution in support of the action in the WTO against the European Union. I urge my colleagues to consider this resolution expeditiously, to support it, and to give the administration the ammunition they need to prosecute this lawsuit successfully. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I too thank the Senator from Maine for her advocacy on this issue, not just this year but in past years. I also thank our distinguished chairman and ranking member because I understand they have cleared this amendment and will accept it. There is not anything more important we can do for small business in a procurement issue than what we are doing with this amendment. I do not think there is very much more we can do that is important to taxpayers and important to quality in defense procurement than this issue. Bundling is choking small business. It is hurting the taxpayer. It is hurting quality. This amendment is a major step forward to limiting it to cases where it is truly appropriate. From 1992 through 2001, 44.5 percent of DOD procurement dollars were in bundled contracts and therefore essentially off limits to small business competition. So in each one of those, there were fewer competitors. There was a tendency to have higher price and poorer quality for the taxpayers. And small businesses, which are supposed to have preferences under the statutes, actually were foreclosed from bidding. The kind of contract I am talking about is this, and this is an engineering contract that was recently let: Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity. This means whoever wins this contract has to be able to be prepared to provide any or all of the following in indefinite amounts in terms of services at any time the Government wants it: Planning, environmental services, inspections, operations, maintenance, family housing services, relocatable facilities and structures, public works supply management, demolition, architecture, and engineer and task order management. The Government says, yes, we are very open to small business. You can bid on this if you are a small business. You just have to be able to provide all of that at any time we want it in whatever quantity we need it. Naturally, small business is cut off. It is hurting the taxpayer. It is hurting the small businesspeople. It has a disproportionately negative impact on minority small business. It needs to be stopped. The Senator from Maine quoted Angela Styles from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. It cannot be said better than she said it: When small businesses are excluded from Federal opportunities through contract bundling, our agencies, small businesses, and the taxpayers lose. That is the short of it. I am glad this amendment is evidently going to go into this bill. I hope it stays in in conference. I thank the Senator from Maine for her advocacy. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT. Reserving the right to object, since I understand this follows the Collins amendment and I think the Senator had mentioned 5 minutes for that, there are three of us here to speak on the amendment. We want to see if we can get another couple of minutes so we have some time to actually say something. If this UC is dependent on that, I raise that issue.

Mr. TALENT. I thank the chairman.

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I was going to suggest that to the Senator from New Mexico and the Chair.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Missouri for his kind comments. It is a great pleasure to be here today to talk on behalf of such an important amendment and to recognize that we certainly have come a long way. For many years, our Nation has needed a sound and balanced energy policy that includes a renewable fuels standard. For many years, we have all talked and talked about alternative energy, about renewable energy, and today with the first bipartisan leadership amendment of this Congress, the Republican and Democratic leaders have introduced the renewable fuels standard legislation as an amendment to S. 14. I believe what has happened today stands on the shoulders of the work by many of the most distinguished Members of this body in the last decade. We heard from the senior Senator from Missouri. We are going to hear from the Senator from Nebraska and the compromise, if you will, in the last Congress. The renewable fuels standard is the biggest single reason I sought to get on the Energy Committee. I am proud to be one of the cosponsors of the amendment and to be associated with what is going to happen today. I know there are going to be many chances to come to the floor and fend off various second-degree amendments from opponents of renewable fuels. So I will keep my initial comments brief today. I look forward to future opportunities to discuss other aspects of the amendment. I note also at the outset that this legislation is supported by a historic coalition. When you get a coalition that ranges from the Farm Bureau to the American Petroleum Institute, it tells you the consensus that has been created finally on behalf of this idea. It is because it is a good idea. It is because it is the right thing to do. It is at the crux of so much we all want for Americans. It is at the crux of economic growth in jobs. It is at the crux of energy security. It is at the crux of environmental quality and value-added agriculture and family farming. An article ran on April 23 in the Daily Statesman, which is the daily paper in Dexer, MO. The headline was ``Missouri Job Loss Rate Number One in the Nation.'' Last year, Missouri lost 77,000 jobs. The enactment of the renewable fuels standard will, first and foremost--and right away--bring thousands of jobs to Missouri, and tens and tens of thousands of jobs--hundreds of thousands of jobs--to the country. We are talking about long-term good jobs in agriculture, in trade, in transportation, in energy, and in food processing. We are talking about jobs on the farm. We are talking about construction jobs to build these plants and maintain them. We are talking about jobs for the suppliers of these ethanol plants. We are talking about jobs for those who buy the ethanol and the by-products. We are talking about transportation jobs in shipping the ethanol. We are talking about trade opportunities for the United States. It will happen as a result of what I believe the Senate is going to do today. A recent study found that increasing ethanol production to 5 billion gallons annually would create 214,000 jobs in the country, $5.3 billion in new investment, and increase household income by $51 billion. I want those benefits for this country, and I want those benefits for Missouri. These increasingly modern ethanol plants are equipped to produce 40 million gallons of ethanol a year. I have visited the plants, as has my colleague, Senator Bond, in Missouri, plants we already have in Craig and Macon. The economic benefits of one of those plants are significant. They include an increase of household income for the community, the county in which these plants are operated; many of these counties have been struggling economically. It includes an increased household income of $20 million for these counties annually. Additional farmer cooperatives around the State of Missouri are organizing funding in an effort to produce even more ethanol in Missouri. I know this is happening in Nebraska. It is happening all over the Midwest. It is going to continue happening. Ethanol is also at the crux of energy security for America. Ethanol, biodiesel, and other renewable fuels are going to be playing an increasing role in reducing the need for imported oil. This is an area where I have to respectfully disagree with the opponents of the renewable fuels standard. I am very strongly in support of providing incentives for increased exploration and recovery of oil reserves in this country. And we have a progrowth, proenergy energy bill, largely because of the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee. I have supported every effort to increase the amount of oil reserves we have in the United States and that we can practically explore and recover. But it is clear that we cannot just drill our way out of our dangerous oil dependency. We have to have other alternatives, and ethanol and biodiesel are the alternatives we have now--not 5 years, not 10 years, not 15 years from now, but now--to reduce our dependence on oil imports. I do not ever want to be in a situation again where we are sending $4 billion a year to somebody like Saddam Hussein to buy oil, and depending on regimes like that one for the health of our national economy. Ethanol is a key to energy independence for the United States. The United States is increasingly dependent on imported energy to meet our personal, transportation, and industrial needs. As a domestic, renewable source of energy, ethanol can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase the United States' ability to control its own security and economic future. Our energy policy should first and foremost promote domestic, renewable fuels, not foreign oil imports. This is an area where I respectfully disagree with the opponents of renewable fuels standard. It is clear that we cannot drill our way out of our dangerous oil dependency--especially without access to the oil in Alaska's ANWR. America's national, energy, and economic security are vulnerable due to 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. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration projects the U.S. will import nearly 70 percent of its petroleum. Something must be done. It is absolutely necessary that we take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Over the next decade the RFS will reduce crude oil imports by an estimated 1.6 billion barrels. In addition to the establishment of a national ethanol standard, the amendment has other important provisions that include an orderly phase- down of MTBE use and removal of the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. That is very important, and it is very important to the environment. I am sure that over the coming weeks we are going to have a lot of opportunities to debate things such as climate change and CAFE standards. I remind opponents of this amendment that ethanol is one of the best tools we have to fight air pollution from vehicles. I encourage all proenvironment organizations to score this amendment as a vote in favor of America's air quality. The use of ethanol-blended fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12 to 19 percent compared with conventional gasoline. The American Lung Association of Chicago credits ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline with reducing smog-forming emissions by 25 percent since 1990. Again, this is an alternative which we have today to protect the environment. The chairman's energy bill contains many exciting opportunities for the development of clean hydrogen vehicles. I support that. But those technologies are a long way off. My children may drive hydrogen cars. Today I can drive a car fueled by ethanol. A couple weeks ago, I visited a Break Time convenience store in Columbia, MO, that is selling ethanol at the same price that it is selling regular gasoline. Renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel provide a solution to our air quality problems that we can use now. Today you could fill your car with an ethanol blend or a biodiesel blend--without any changes to your vehicle. The chairman's energy bill contains many exciting opportunities for the development of a clean, hydrogen vehicle, but we all know these technologies are a long way off. My children may be driving these hydrogen cars, but today I can drive a car fueled by ethanol. Fleet vehicles in Missouri can run on ethanol or biodiesel without any costly engine upgrades--today. The use of these renewable fuels will bring environmental benefits in the short term while we continue to explore long-term opportunities such as hydrogen cars and other technologies. As I said, I recently toured both of the ethanol plants in Missouri and visited an ethanol fueling station during the April recess. I have to tell you, this is an exciting and innovative way to add value to traditional commodities. The use of grain for ethanol production adds up to 30 cents to every bushel of corn. Not only do farmers benefit from the higher price but also by joining cooperative and building ethanol production facilities. They are able to directly take advantage of the value-added market through ownership of the plant. They continue to make money during times of price volatility. 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 emissions, enhance national, energy and economic security, create a new industrial base with tens of thousands of new, high quality jobs, and add value to traditional commodities. I am happy to join Senate Leadership in offering this amendment. It is time that we make the RFS a part of our national energy policy. Mr. President, I want to say how pleased and proud I am to be a part, in a small way, of this effort. I am especially pleased that this is the first bipartisan amendment that is being offered on the Senate floor. It will strengthen this energy bill we put together under the leadership of Senator Domenici. It is something we can all stand up and support. I hope we will get a thumping, bipartisan majority in support of this amendment. Again, it is a key to jobs. It is a key to energy independence. It is a key to environmental quality. And it is a key to value-added agriculture and the family producers in Missouri and around the country. I am pleased to speak in favor of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a roundtable entitled ``SBA Re-Authorization: Credit Program, Part I,'' and other matters on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in Room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a nominations hearing on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Panel I: [Senators]. Panel II: John G. Roberts, Jr., to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Panel III: David G. Campbell to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, and S. Maurice Hicks, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana. Panel IV: William Emil Moschella to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, United States Department of Justice.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent thta the Committee on Indian affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 2 p.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 519, the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on ``U.S. Energy Security: Russia and the Caspian.''

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., to consider comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on the Fire Research Act in SR-253

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding, and I congratulate him for his great work in getting this bill together. It is very much needed. We cannot operate a modern college or university today without being up to date with information technology. The range of uses and needs for that kind of technology are almost unlimited. They cover everything from long distance learning to access to research for students to the ability to teach your students about information technology. Of course, most jobs include a requirement that you be up to date in that kind of technology. Another important use for universities is helping the communities around them. I will talk about an example of that in just a few minutes. Most modern colleges and universities, whatever their background, are networking very close to the communities which they serve. As centers of excellence in information technology there is a wide variety of ways to make a difference. That is an important contribution that historically black universities and minority institutions make. It is important to understand these institutions are not just important for the students who attend. That is their primary function, but they are very important centers of achievement and community activities in the communities of which they are a part. That is the reason this bill is so important and why I am pleased to cosponsor it and pleased to speak for just a few minutes today on its behalf. Most of the background has been given here and I appreciate very much the work of the chairman and Senator Allen in supporting this bill and assembling this information. They had a great hearing. Let me talk about a couple of historically black colleges in Missouri that would benefit from this bill. One is Lincoln University in Jefferson City. Lincoln was founded in 1866 by former officers and soldiers of the Union Army. It has 2,500 undergraduates, 200 graduate students. David Henson, the president of Lincoln University, told us that the passage of the bill would give Lincoln the opportunity to acquire equipment, networking capability, digital network technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure to develop and provide educational services to its students, its faculties, and its staff, and also give Lincoln students universal access to campus networks around the country. Another historically black college is Harris-Stowe State College with a rich tradition in the St. Louis area. Henry Givens, Jr., the president of Harris-Stowe State College, said this would enable their students and faculty to take advantage of a variety of sources, such as distance learning, online services, and continuing education. I mentioned before that the colleges are very important parts of the communities they serve. Harris-Stowe helps educate young kids from the community. This kind of a grant would benefit the local public elementary school. It sends its children ranging from first to fifth grade to learn at the Southwestern Bell Library and Technology Resource Center at Harris-Stowe College. Harris-Stowe got a grant to build the center, but the technology is now very much out of date. This is another aspect that this bill will help address, and I think it is important. Of course, most historically black colleges and minority-serving institutions have not had a lot of money and do not have access to a lot of money to build these kinds of information technology centers in the first place. But even when they can get the money to do that, it is extremely difficult for them to maintain and upgrade and update that technology. There is no area where it is more important to be up to date than the area of information technology. That is the situation with Harris-Stowe. Their resource center is 5 years old. It is greatly in need of a technology upgrade. Without Federal legislation of this type, as a practical matter that is simply not going to be possible on an ongoing basis. But with this support it will be possible, not only because of the Federal dollars we can help provide but also because the Federal dollars will be leveraged by these institutions with foundations, with State money, and will be an important way for them to gather resources from around the community and help serve their students and their communities with information technology. I am grateful the Senator from Virginia has taken up this legislation and pushed it. A lot of what we do here is an attempt to directly fund or subsidize what some people are doing. It works so much better when we work through institutions that already have strong records of performance and strong records of service to constituencies around the country. That is what this bill does. I am very pleased to support it.