George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, development of the Coastal Plain will bring up to $350 billion into the U.S. economy and create up to 735,000 jobs at home. In my state of Ohio, the number of jobs created is estimated at 52,000 for the petroleum industry and 31,000 for other jobs, such as oilfield and pipeline equipment manufacturing, telecommunications and computers, and engineering, environmental and legal research. These are real jobs for the people in my State, in spite of the fact we are so far away from Alaska. The economic impact for oil development in Alaska is not a surprise; we are experiencing it even today. It has meant a great deal to our State and to many other States. I also wish to point out that we have the support of Alaska's citizens and elected officials. We have heard from both of Alaska's U.S. Senators. We have heard from the Inupiat Eskimos who live and own 92,000 acres of Coastal Plain. Twenty years ago, they were opposed to this, but now are for it. We cannot continue to rely on unstable foreign sources to meet our energy needs. The events of September 11 made it clear who our enemies are, yet we continue to do business with them and support their terrorist activities by buying oil from them. We know we have the resources domestically to reduce our addiction to foreign oil. Now is the time to tap them. This amendment is economically sound, it is environmentally responsible, and it responds to our long-term national security needs. It is my fervent hope that my colleagues will recognize these facts and support this amendment to allow for oil exploration in ANWR, just as they did in 1995 and 1980. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of permitting oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Permitting oil production in ANWR will help ensure that the United States is better able to meet our growing energy needs in an environmentally sound manner, create and retain hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost our domestic economy, and protect our national security. America's need to continue to fuel our economic recovery and guarantee future success will require us to produce ever greater amounts of energy to keep up with the demand. You can see from this chart, according to the Department of Energy, we have a huge gap between our domestic energy production and our overall energy consumption right now. What's more, between now and 2020, we will have to increase energy production by more than 30 percent just to keep up with growing demand. This looming energy crisis requires us to enact a comprehensive energy policy, the likes of which we have never had before in this country: a policy that harmonizes energy and environmental policies, acknowledging that the economy and the environment are vitally intertwined; a policy that won't cause prices to spike, hurting the elderly, the disabled and low-income families as we experienced in the winter of 2000-2001, particularly in the Midwest; a policy that won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield future environmental protection technologies, technologies that can be shared with developing nations that currently face severe environmental crises; and, most importantly, a policy that protects our national security and prevents market volatility by increasing domestic energy production. The current situation in the Middle East and the resulting price increases we have seen at the pump give us a taste of how badly we need an energy policy and how much we need to turn towards domestic sources to meet that goal. However, as we rely on our own strengths for the answers to the coming energy crisis and though we are blessed with large reserves of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear fuel, as well as access to renewable sources of energy, we must remember that no single source of domestic energy is sufficient to meet all our Nation's energy needs. That means we have to broaden our base of energy sources and not put all our eggs in one basket. If we were some other nation, diversifying our energy supply might be a great challenge, but God has blessed the United States of America with resources to solve this problem. Conservation has proven successful in reducing energy demand. So often people say: We aren't doing enough to conserve. We are. By incorporating technology breakthroughs into the production of energy-efficient automobiles, high-efficiency homes, more efficient appliances and machinery, conservation has succeeded in saving us millions of dollars while simultaneously improving our environment. Let's look at this chart. According to the 1995 DOE report, the most recent data available, from 1972 to 1991 the United States saved more than $2.5 trillion through conservation. That is a lot of foreign oil that we didn't have to buy. It is safe to say that we have saved much more money since then, underscoring that conservation efforts deserve our continued attention. We currently rely very little on renewable sources of energy. In fact, wind and solar together make up less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our current total energy production. Additionally, they are expensive and heavily subsidized. In fact, the average cost per kilowatt hour of electricity from a newly installed windmill is 5 cents compared to 2 cents per kilowatt from a coal-fired facility. On top of this, wind and solar cannot be stored, creating reliability problems and making it difficult to spread our costs out predictably over time. Currently, total renewables production, which includes geothermal, solar, wind, hydro and biomass, reaches only 8 percent of our overall domestic energy production. We should work to increase that, however, since these forms of energy are environmentally friendly and because they can help reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources. However, we also must be realistic about our challenge. Because renewables make up such a small piece of our overall energy picture today, they don't have the capacity to meet our needs in the timeframe we are facing. A sudden, forced shift in these sources would severely strain their underdeveloped capacity, causing shortages and price spikes that would hurt our economy. For example, the requirement in the Daschle bill that utilities generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources of energy is estimated to increase the cost of electricity nationwide by 5 percent and a whole lot more in a State such as Ohio. Just as we develop new sources of electricity generation, we should continue to encourage development of new energy sources for transportation. In the 1970s, the United States recognized the need for diverse energy supply by expanding the use of natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydropower, and other renewables, and decreasing the use of oil for non-transportation uses. In 1978, non-transportation uses of oil in this country accounted for almost 50 percent of our oil consumption. Today, these non-transportation uses account for about one-third of our oil consumption. Though home heating oil use remains high in certain regions of the country, particularly in the Northeast, consumers have increasingly sought other sources such as natural gas to heat their home. In addition, oil-fired powerplants are virtually nonexistent today in the United States. Crude oil prices and policy priorities encouraged substituting oil with other fuels for our non-transportation needs, but oil products still make up 95 percent of the energy used for transportation in the United States. This number will not decrease unless fuel cells and hybrid vehicles become more economically viable. But their day is coming. In fact, in a recent meeting I had with General Motors executives in Detroit, I was told that the company sees fuel cell technology becoming a viable power source in the next 10 to 15 years. We are talking reality. It is not science fiction to think that our children and grandchildren will see a time when the roads are traveled by cars that run on hydrogen and give off only water. An amendment from the Finance Committee will help encourage the development of these new technologies, providing an estimated $2.1 billion in tax incentives for the use of alternative vehicles and alternative motor fuels. We are doing a lot right now to try and move away from the use of oil in this country and bring down our demand for it through research, incentives, and many other things. Encouraging these new fuel sources is worthwhile, but until they become more widely adopted and cost effective, we will need to continue relying on oil to move people across town and across the country and to move raw materials and finished goods. As I have mentioned, much of this oil comes from foreign sources. We must increasingly compete against other nations for this oil. As demand grows in response to the expanding world economy, the world economy is growing. For example, at one time, China produced enough oil to meet their domestic needs and still have some left over to export. Today, they import oil. What if there was an opportunity in the United States to greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by using domestic sources of oil? Fortunately, with the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski, we have that opportunity. For over 40 years, Congress has debated whether or not to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. Senator Stevens' words yesterday were eloquent and very informative on the history of ANWR. I suggest that those who did not hear the Senator, take the time to read his remarks in the Congressional Record. His remarks should help them to make a better decision on this amendment. As Senator Stevens reminded us, this debate is about our national and economic security, but, sadly, the reality of ANWR has always been misconstrued and used as a political tool. I have to say, those who are opposed to allowing a small portion of ANWR to be used to help meet our energy needs have done an admirable job in trying to sway public opinion. Unfortunately, they have incorrectly painted this as a wholesale abandonment of the Alaskan wilderness. Thus far, they have had vast success in muddying the facts. Today, though, I will make clear what ANWR is, what we are talking about, and what limited, precise oil exploration in ANWR means for our Nation. Created in 1960, ANWR was expanded to 19 million acres in 1980 by the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act. While designating 8 million of the original acreage as wilderness, Congress treated the 1.5 million acres of ANWR's Coastal Plain very differently. I am sure Senator Stevens may remind us again, but back in 1980 Congress debated the same subject. At that time, Mark Hatfield, the ranking minority member and Henry Jackson, Chairman of the Energy Committee, wrote a letter urging their colleagues to support exploration in ANWR because, and I quote: One-third of our known petroleum reserves are in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the exploration of the Arctic Wildlife Range, a ban sought by one amendment, is an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our Nation in this time of energy crisis. They also said that the issue: . . . is not just an environmental issue, it is an energy issue. It is a national defense issue. It is an economic issue. It is not an easy vote for one constituency that affects only a remote, faraway area. It is a compelling national issue which demands the balanced solution crafted by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I agree with the points raised in this letter. This is a national security issue as well as an economic security issue. When President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act in 1980, he stated this legislation: . . . strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska's vital oil and gas and mineral and timber resources. Section 1002 of the Act mandated a study of the Coastal Plain, or 1002 area, and its resources. After almost 7 years of researching the wildlife and the impact of oil development, the study recommended full development and described the area as ``the most outstanding petroleum exploration target in the onshore United States.'' The report recommended full development of this area while also stating that it is the most biologically productive part of ANWR. This means that in 1987, when the report was issued, it was believed that proper environmental steps, combined with technology, which is now 15 years old, would not significantly harm the wildlife. However, the report did say that if the entire area were leased and oil were found, then there would be major effects on the wildlife. But no one here is talking about that. We are talking about 2,000 acres for oil exploration--2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres. That is less than one-half of 1 percent of the total area. This is one of the biggest misrepresentations about this debate. The entire area of ANWR's Coastal Plain is about the size of the State of South Carolina. To the casual observer, he or she thinks drilling means drilling throughout the entire refuge, but it is really just a 2,000- acre site. That is about the size of Dulles International Airport. If you look at this map, you can see just how small the area is compared to the vast wilderness of the Alaska wilderness and ANWR. The two major concerns of the ANWR debate--and the issues that divide the two sides--are the environment and oil. While we know a lot about the wildlife and impact of oil development, we only have estimates about oil because the prohibition on drilling prevents a definitive answer to the question. We know that the central Arctic caribou herd has grown from 3,000, when development began at Prudhoe Bay, to as high as 23,000 caribou. We know that development on Prudhoe Bay, which was discovered in 1967, would be 64-percent smaller if built today. We know that a drill pad that would have been 65 acres in 1977 can be less than 9 acres today. We know that Alaskan oil companies now build temporary ice pads, roads, and airstrips instead of using gravel. We know that the pictures in the commercials and magazines refer to ANWR as ``America's Serengeti.'' They must not be talking about the Coastal Plain, for this area is a winter wasteland, where temperatures regularly reach 70 degrees below zero for 9 months of the year, with 58 consecutive days of darkness. We also know that the Coastal Plain is along the same geological trend as the productive Prudhoe Bay, and it is the largest unexplored, potentially productive onshore basin in the United States. But nobody knows for sure what is under there because we are prohibited from finding out. In addition to the initial 1987 report, the Department of the Interior has issued assessments in 1991, 1995, and 1998 based on updated data from the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the USGS, it is estimated that the Coastal Plain holds between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, with an expectancy of about 10.3 billion barrels. The Coastal Plain can hold more than that, though. For example, the North Slope, was originally thought to contain 9 billion barrels of oil, but it has produced 13 billion barrels to date. What if there isn't any oil? We know that technology is so advanced for Arctic drilling that there can be hardly, if any, environmental damage from exploratory drilling. For example, an exploratory well drilled in 1985 in the area adjacent to the Coastal Plain did not affect the wildlife. If the area does have as much oil as estimated, the benefit could be great. To put the numbers in perspective, Texas has proven reserves of 5.3 billion barrels. There is a 95-percent chance that ANWR will yield more oil than all of Texas and a 5-percent chance that there is three times as much oil as in Texas. One of the half-truths being spread by those opposed to this amendment is that there is only 6 months of oil in the Coastal Plain. This is misleading because it assumes no other sources of oil--no imports, no other domestic supply--except from ANWR. The real truth is that, according to the Department of Energy, ANWR's oil supply would last between 30 to 60 years. Last week, Iraq, one of the ``axis of evil'' nations, announced a suspension of oil exports. Iraq supplies more than 9 percent of the 8.6 million barrels of oil we import every day. It is a longstanding U.S. policy not to allow oil to be used as a political weapon. We cannot be held hostage to external interests or pressures. Iraq's embargo last week shows there are some countries that still think they can apply pressure in this manner. I am not upset at the fact Iraq shut its spigot because I have little doubt we will make up whatever dropoff occurs from other sources. Frankly, I think it is incredible that we send $24 million a week and $4.5 billion a year to a nation that is clearly an enemy of the United States and over which our military flies regular combat missions. It doesn't make sense. Iraq's action puts the embargo card back on the table as a weapon to try to shape American opinion and Government policy. Who is to say other leaders in the Middle East might not take the same step in the future? We know who they are today. But who are they going to be tomorrow, particularly in light of growing Muslim extremism. Some of my colleagues may say since all our oil does not come from the Middle East, we can look to other nations. That is true, and one such supplier, Venezuela, is currently undergoing political and labor strife which has a tremendous impact on its oil industry. Indeed, reports by Venezuela's Industrial Council earlier this week indicated that 80 percent of the country's oil industry has been shut down. When Chavez retook the Presidency, oil prices went up almost 5 percent out of fear he will keep a tight rein on the production volume. It is not out of the question to say our Nation may once again face the long lines we experienced during the 1973 oil embargo. You would have thought we would have learned our lesson and worked to develop other oil. However, we have seen our oil imports rise from 35 percent in 1973, and we are now at 58 percent. We have made very little progress in achieving our energy independence in the nearly three decades since the 1973 embargo. We had the chance to make significant progress in 1995 when the Senate approved exploratory drilling in ANWR. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the bill. Had he not, the Energy Information Administration estimates that oil could have been flowing to us by as early as next year. When ANWR is developed, the Energy Information Agency projects that peak production rates could range from 650,000 barrels to 1.9 million barrels per day. The lowest of this estimate would replace the 613,000 barrels per day we imported from Iraq in 2000. The highest estimate would replace 76 percent of the 2.5 million barrels a day we import from the Persian Gulf in 2000. It is very simple: We need to break our dependence on unreliable foreign energy sources. If the enemies of America are willing to take out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, does anybody doubt that if they had a chance to impact our energy supply, they would do it? Shouldn't we be able to at least find out how much oil is in ANWR especially with this commonsense environmentally sensitive amendment? The amendment includes many environmental protections, such as seasonal limitations, reclamation of land to its prior condition, use of the best available technology--including ice roads, pads, and airstrips for exploration, and more. Our dependency on foreign nations also threatens our economic security. Price shocks and manipulation from OPEC between 1979 to 1991 are estimated to have cost the U.S. economy about $4 trillion, while petroleum imports cost the United States more than $55 billion a year and account for over 50 percent of our trade deficit.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be recognized to speak in morning business.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I would like to spend a few minutes today talking about an amendment that I filed on the energy bill, amendment No. 3116. It is titled the ``Integrated Review of Energy Delivery Systems Act of 2002.'' This amendment, which Senator Landrieu has cosponsored, will streamline the siting process for energy pipelines and transmission lines. As my colleagues know, one of the biggest challenges we face in ensuring that we have a consistent energy policy is ensuring we get energy to where it is needed. One of the problems we have had in previous winters has been the inability of energy supply to meet the demand solely because of bottlenecks in the distribution system. Unless we address the situation, each winter places such as the northeastern part of the United States will continue to face high spikes in prices because their electric power grid and their pipeline system are both severely overtaxed. Removing this bottleneck will help stem huge potential problems down the road. The Presiding Officer knows that one of the concerns we had last year was whether or not we would be able to get electricity into New York, into the Presiding Officer's part of the country, because of the issue of transmission lines. We were fortunate last summer was not that hot and the demand was not up, so there were not any brownouts or blackouts. But it is very important we move forward with siting these transmission lines so we can get power into the areas that need them. The amendment Senator Landrieu and I have written would require all Federal agencies to coordinate the environmental reviews of energy pipelines and transmission lines so that the reviews take place simultaneously and a decision can be reached quickly on whether to move forward with the projects. This amendment does not change underlying environmental statutes, nor does it change the environmental standards used for approving these projects. All current and future environmental laws are not changed by the amendment. Let me repeat that: Current and future environmental laws are not changed. This amendment is based on a bill I introduced last year, S. 1580, the Environmental Streamlining of Energy Facilities Act of 2001, which would have applied to all energy facilities. The idea for this amendment is from the environmental streamlining provisions of the highway bill, TEA-21. In that legislation, an amendment offered by Senators Wyden, Graham, and Bob Smith required the Transportation Department to coordinate all environmental reviews for highway projects so that the reviews would take place at the same time, saving years on major highway projects. What we are trying to do today is apply this same concept to the building of pipelines and transmission lines. Today we are facing a shortage of pipelines, and it is becoming more difficult every day to site transmission lines. While this amendment would not change the laws of eminent domain or the environmental standards, what it will do is help expedite the review process. I would like to briefly outline the provisions of my amendment. First, we designate one lead agency to coordinate the review process. To eliminate the duplication efforts by agencies with oversight for the construction, operation, and maintenance of pipelines and transmission lines, a single Federal agency would be identified to coordinate all required paperwork and research for the environmental review of a proposed pipeline or transmission system. The agencies involved in this process would include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, FERC, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety. Agencies with partial oversight for a project would provide information from their area of expertise, while the lead agency would be responsible for establishing the deadlines, facilitating communication between the agencies, and defining the role of participating agencies during the environmental review process. The lead agency, along with the Governor of the State where the application for the facility has been made, would work together to provide early notification to the public in order to identify and address any environmental concerns associated with the proposed system. If there appears to be an environmental concern related to the permitting, the Council on Environmental Quality, in conjunction with the heads of the lead agency and participating agencies, would work together to resolve the matter within 30 days. The problem is, when differences of opinion arise, it can take forever for these differences to be resolved. What we are suggesting in this legislation is that they would be brought to the Council on Environmental Quality, and they would sit down with the lead agency and participating agencies, and they would work together to get a resolution within 30 days. The amendment directs coordination between the Federal, State, and local governments on particular projects. After a lead agency is appointed, it would be required to coordinate the environmental review process with input from Federal, State, and local governments. This includes the preparation of environmental impact statements, review analysis, opinions, determinations, or authorizations required under Federal law. The amendment also allows for Federal delegation to the States. At the request of a Governor, and with the agreement of the applicant, a State agency may assume the role of lead agency. The Federal agency would delegate to the State agency the authority to prepare the Federal environmental impact statement or other environmental assessment following the procedures for a Federal lead agency. Where there is a delegation of authority to the State, the lead agency continues to provide guidance and participation in preparing the final version of the environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. The lead Federal agency must also provide an independent evaluation of the statement or assessment prior to its approval. Finally, the standard of review under State and Federal laws relating to the siting or construction or operation of a pipeline or transmission line would not be preempted, and the lead Federal agency is authorized to provide funding to the State when they assume the Federal responsibility. It is vital that we act on the problem of expediting the siting of pipelines and transmission lines. This is a problem that plagues the entire country, including my home State of Ohio. However, in my view, the region which probably needs this provision the most is the Northeast. According to a study by ISO New England Corporation, the nonprofit operator of New England's power grid has said that New England is increasing its natural gas demand from 16 percent in 1999, to a projected 45-percent demand in 2005. Unfortunately, they lack the local pipelines to distribute that gas to their markets. The study says that there is no worry about any blackouts, unless nothing has changed one year from now. Three of the changes they need are: New gas-fired plants should be allowed to develop the ability to burn oil as a backup. The second is the regional pipeline system has to be expanded. And third, new compressors need to be added to existing pipelines to increase delivery capacity. So there is a genuine need there to move forward with providing pipelines so they can get gas into the Northeast, s ISO stated in its report issued in January of last year. The chairman of the ISO New England, Mr. William Berry, said: The long and complicated federal permitting process for building new interstate pipelines is a greater obstacle than the technical construction work. The amendment Senator Landrieu and I introduced will help speed up, as Mr. Berry calls it, ``the long and complicated federal permitting process,'' and it will do so without jeopardizing any environmental protections and without changing any of our current environmental laws. This amendment is supported by the American Gas Association, the American Chemistry Council, the Edison Electric Institute, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the Association of Oil Pipelines, and the National Association of Manufacturers. This is a commonsense approach to requiring our Federal agencies to work together to get the permitting decisions considered at the same time. According to the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the United States will need 49,500 miles of new natural gas transmission lines between now and 2015. That is just to keep up with the large projected increase in demand for natural gas. It is also projected that our demand for natural gas will increase by 50 percent by the year 2020. We need to act today to ensure that our energy can be delivered to American homes tomorrow. I hope this amendment will be accepted and we can move forward with providing both industry and American consumers the confidence that the Federal Government will not be an obstacle to the delivery of energy and that this can be done without changing or undermining our environmental laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, we've heard all too often of situations in cities and towns across the country in which concerns over racial profiling are creating serious divisions between communities and law enforcement agencies. Despite the shared interest each have in fighting crime and making neighborhoods safer, mistrust and wariness stands in the way of cooperation. Today I introduced a bill entitled the ``Racial Profiling Education and Awareness Act of 2002'' that I believe will put us on the road to preventing problems caused by racial profiling and help begin reconciliation in communities torn apart by racial unrest connected to police-community relations. Rooted in the belief that education and dialogue are the most effective tools for bridging racial divides, my bill establishes a program within the Department of Justice to educate city leaders, police chiefs, and law enforcement personnel on the problems of racial profiling and the value of community outreach, as well as to recognize and disseminate information on ``best practice'' procedures for addressing police-community racial issues. My experience as mayor of Cleveland and governor of Ohio has taught me that reaching the hearts and minds of people is the most effective means of dealing with intolerance and the problems that result. As mayor of Cleveland I established the city's first urban coalition, the Cleveland Roundtable, to bring together representatives of the city's various racial, religious and economic groups to create a common agenda. I also established a one-week sensitivity training course for all Cleveland police officers and created six police district community relations committees to open lines of communication between police officers and community members. As governor, I launched efforts to increase community outreach by law enforcement in order to foster a cooperative, rather than adversarial, relationship between citizens and law enforcement. Through my ``Governor's Challenge,'' I worked to bring members of local communities together with law enforcement officials and members of the business community in order to educate and break down barriers that lead to intolerance. Outstanding communities were recognized for their efforts. On Friday, April 12, 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft is scheduled to travel to Cincinnati, Ohio to endorse a settlement agreement between the Cincinnati Police Department and the Department of Justice. The settlement is in reference to a Federal lawsuit, filed last March that alleges a 30-year pattern of racial profiling by the department. Just one month after the suit was filed, riots broke out in the city of Cincinnati after a white officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in a foot chase. The riots prompted Mayor Luken of Cincinnati to invite the Justice Department to review the practices and procedures of the Cincinnati Police Department and make recommendations for improvement. What results is a settlement, endorsed by all parties, including the local Fraternal Order of Police chapter and the local ACLU chapter, which sets forth several recommendations for the department, including revising procedures governing the use of deadly force, choke holds and irritant spray; increasing training requirements; and keeping a database of all citizen-reported positive interactions with police. Most importantly in my eyes, however, is the requirement that the department works to improve relations between communities and the police. I firmly believe that Cincinnati can become a model for turning around a difficult situation and building good community-police relations. And I believe that if other cities and towns throughout the country can open the lines of communication between their communities and law enforcement as Cincinnati is doing, they can prevent problems from ever happening. The overwhelming majority of State and local law enforcement agents throughout the Nation discharge their duties professionally and justly. I salute them for their committed efforts in what is one of America's toughest jobs. It is unfortunate that the misdeeds of a minute few have such a corrosive effect on the police-community relationship. Through education and dialogue we can help turn situations around so that groups who once thought they had little in common can realize how much they actually have to gain by working together to make our communities safer places to live. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, we've heard all too often of situations in cities and towns across the country in which concerns over racial profiling are creating serious divisions between communities and law enforcement agencies. Despite the shared interest each have in fighting crime and making neighborhoods safer, mistrust and wariness stands in the way of cooperation. Today I introduced a bill entitled the ``Racial Profiling Education and Awareness Act of 2002'' that I believe will put us on the road to preventing problems caused by racial profiling and help begin reconciliation in communities torn apart by racial unrest connected to police-community relations. Rooted in the belief that education and dialogue are the most effective tools for bridging racial divides, my bill establishes a program within the Department of Justice to educate city leaders, police chiefs, and law enforcement personnel on the problems of racial profiling and the value of community outreach, as well as to recognize and disseminate information on ``best practice'' procedures for addressing police-community racial issues. My experience as mayor of Cleveland and governor of Ohio has taught me that reaching the hearts and minds of people is the most effective means of dealing with intolerance and the problems that result. As mayor of Cleveland I established the city's first urban coalition, the Cleveland Roundtable, to bring together representatives of the city's various racial, religious and economic groups to create a common agenda. I also established a one-week sensitivity training course for all Cleveland police officers and created six police district community relations committees to open lines of communication between police officers and community members. As governor, I launched efforts to increase community outreach by law enforcement in order to foster a cooperative, rather than adversarial, relationship between citizens and law enforcement. Through my ``Governor's Challenge,'' I worked to bring members of local communities together with law enforcement officials and members of the business community in order to educate and break down barriers that lead to intolerance. Outstanding communities were recognized for their efforts. On Friday, April 12, 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft is scheduled to travel to Cincinnati, Ohio to endorse a settlement agreement between the Cincinnati Police Department and the Department of Justice. The settlement is in reference to a Federal lawsuit, filed last March that alleges a 30-year pattern of racial profiling by the department. Just one month after the suit was filed, riots broke out in the city of Cincinnati after a white officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in a foot chase. The riots prompted Mayor Luken of Cincinnati to invite the Justice Department to review the practices and procedures of the Cincinnati Police Department and make recommendations for improvement. What results is a settlement, endorsed by all parties, including the local Fraternal Order of Police chapter and the local ACLU chapter, which sets forth several recommendations for the department, including revising procedures governing the use of deadly force, choke holds and irritant spray; increasing training requirements; and keeping a database of all citizen-reported positive interactions with police. Most importantly in my eyes, however, is the requirement that the department works to improve relations between communities and the police. I firmly believe that Cincinnati can become a model for turning around a difficult situation and building good community-police relations. And I believe that if other cities and towns throughout the country can open the lines of communication between their communities and law enforcement as Cincinnati is doing, they can prevent problems from ever happening. The overwhelming majority of State and local law enforcement agents throughout the Nation discharge their duties professionally and justly. I salute them for their committed efforts in what is one of America's toughest jobs. It is unfortunate that the misdeeds of a minute few have such a corrosive effect on the police-community relationship. Through education and dialogue we can help turn situations around so that groups who once thought they had little in common can realize how much they actually have to gain by working together to make our communities safer places to live. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. You have just stated that many States have already implemented greater RPS standards than required in your amendment. In my statement, I said 14 already have RPS standards. But this bill does mandate a 10-percent renewable requirement on all the States. In a State like Ohio, we are currently generating less than four-tenths of 1 percent of our electricity with non-hydro renewable power sources. We are also facing some dramatic increases in electric generation costs to reduce the pollution from coal-fired plants by using clean coal technology. About 85 percent of our plants use coal today. I can't believe an RPS in Ohio will reach 10 percent because in all probability, the utilities that serve my State, if this goes in as a mandate, will buy credits and then the cost of those credits will be passed on to Ohio ratepayers.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to encourage the use of renewable electricity generation. I agree that renewable energy is an important part of the future and should be developed. I also strongly believe renewable energy sources are vital as this country seeks to diversify energy supplies and decrease our dependence on foreign sources to meet our energy needs. However, I cannot support the renewable portfolio standard included in the underlying amendment because it mandates unrealistic levels of renewable usage in a short period of time at the virtual expense of all other sources of electricity generation. Instead, I believe the amendment of the Senator from Arizona is a reasonable approach to making renewable energy a greater piece of our overall energy mix. One point that seems to get lost in the debate over the use of renewables is America relies very little on renewable sources of energy right now and will for the foreseeable future. This chart shows a breakdown of how our electricity is generated today. Coal contributes 52 percent; nuclear energy is 20 percent; natural gas is 16 percent. For all electricity generation by renewables nationwide, and that includes geothermal, hydro, biomass, as well as wind and solar, the total generation is only 9 percent. When that is broken down, hydro is 7.3 percent of the renewables; biomass, wood, waste, and others is 1.1 percent; geothermal is .4 percent; and wind and solar is .2 percent. This last number is important, since a number of my colleagues have put quite a bit of faith in solar and wind power. However, the American consumer does not appear to share that enthusiasm which is evidenced by the fact that wind and solar combined make up only .2 percent of our current electricity generation. Another startling but little known fact is, if you do not include existing hydropower as renewable, which the underlying amendment does not, again, renewables are only 1.7 percent of our electricity generation. Although the amendment includes incremental hydropower prospectively, it still will make up a very small portion of the electricity generation in our country. Now, when you factor what the Department of Energy believes our electricity usage will be over the next 20 years, you see that the use of coal will continue to rise, natural gas will rise dramatically, nuclear fuel remains fairly level and hydropower remains steady. At the bottom is petroleum, and just above that, non-hydro renewables increase slightly. These projections show, renewables will make up a very small portion of the production of energy in this country for the next 15 to 20 years. However, the underlying amendment says, regardless of market forces, America is going to dramatically increase its use of renewables. In fact, the underlying amendment stipulates we must develop a mandatory minimum standard for renewable energy of 10 percent for our electricity generation by the year 2020. The only way I can see that we can accomplish this mandate, if it is implemented, is for energy-producing companies to take a dramatic turn toward using renewables. That means they have to cut back on clean coal technology, put the brakes on natural gas, which is the current energy source of choice in America, and restrict the further development and use of nuclear power. This will have a particularly dramatic impact on energy producers in regions of our country that do not currently rely on a tremendous amount of renewable resources. For example, in my home State of Ohio, our use of renewable energy is much lower than the national average. Renewables, including hydropower, generate 1 percent. Remove hydro from this number and the State of Ohio generates less than .4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. This is predominantly biomass power which comes mostly from wood-burning boilers in woodworking and paper manufacturing industries. However, there are many other States which rely on renewable sources for electricity generation. According to 1998 data from the Energy Information Administration, at least 10 percent of the electricity generated in 16 States comes from renewable power sources. Of these 16 States, 5 States receive more than 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, and the primary source is hydroelectric power. Four of the five States--Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington--rely on hydroelectric power for more than 60 percent of their electricity. Maine is the only State east of the Mississippi to rely on more than 50 percent of electricity generation from renewables, 30 percent coming from hydro and 30 percent coming from other renewable fuels. Regions, and even individual States, that currently have a high percentage of renewable energy sources would be less impacted by the requirements of the underlying provisions. However, forcing a mandatory minimum will unduly burden States such as Ohio. I don't want my colleagues to misunderstand me. I do believe we need to continue to invest in renewable forms of energy. They are environmentally friendly and contribute to meeting the requirement of national energy self-reliance, and as the technology gets better, have the potential to become inexpensive. Right now, electricity from renewable energy sources is very expensive. However, we need to realize that the current research and development costs make a practical national application of a mandatory minimum renewable standard very difficult. Renewables simply do not have the capacity to meet our needs in the timeframe established in the underlying amendment. Their growth will come, however, and we should support research funding that will get us to the point where renewables are a viable energy option. In fact, over the past 5 years, Congress has provided more than $7 billion in tax incentives and other programs to assist renewables. Recently, we extended a renewable energy tax credit for $1 billion, and the Finance Committee has reported legislation that provides an additional $3 billion. However, I believe it is not prudent for the Senate to mandate a renewable standard. The amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, on the other hand, lets the free market decide. If the demand for energy derived from renewable sources exists, then I have no doubt that energy suppliers will respond to their customers and satisfy the demand, just as they are doing in Cleveland, OH. Last year, the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council made an agreement with Green Mountain Energy Company in Texas to supply customers in eight northeast Ohio counties with electricity. Green Mountain Energy Company uses a blend of sources including wind, water, and solar energy. Customers in these counties were able to make the decision themselves if they wanted to purchase the power instead of being mandated to purchase green power. Having spent 10 years as Mayor of Cleveland, and as mayor I ran a municipally-owned utility, and 8 years as Governor, I have developed some very strong beliefs regarding federalism and the role of our various levels of government. The Kyl amendment lets the States decide whether a mandatory renewables program is something they would want to implement for their residents. Right now, 14 States have already implemented mandatory RPS programs. This is consistent with the policy of the National Governors' Association, which states that any Federal legislation should: . . . allow a State to decide what mix of renewable technologies should be included in any renewable portfolio package implemented in a State. The amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico does eliminate the original language which would require that larger municipally owned utilities meet the RPS standard, but it still does not address the fact that this mandate will ultimately be paid for by ratepayers. In Cleveland, and in many of our cities and communities nationwide, a lot of these ratepayers are poor and a lot of them are elderly and it would be hard for them to afford the cost of this standard. If you look at this chart, the people who seem to be left out are the ratepayers. They seem to be left out so often from debates we have here on the floor of the Senate. These are the least of our brethren, the ones who were the most affected a year ago when the demand for natural gas in this country went way up and their utility bills skyrocketed. If you look at people with annual income under $10,000, you see that almost 30 percent of their income goes for energy costs. If you are in an income bracket between $10,000 and $24,000, you spend 13 percent on energy costs; and of course if you make over $50,000, only 4 percent of your income is spent on energy. There are a lot of people in this country who can afford that. But I have to tell you, there are a lot of people in this country who cannot afford it. Last winter, in the midst of the heating cost increase, I held a meeting in Cleveland with Catholic Charities, Lutheran Housing and the Salvation Army and heard first-hand the effects of the high energy costs were having on the people who could least afford it. Many of them were just hanging on trying to stay in their own homes. I am concerned about them and I think that the Senate should be concerned about them as well. I honestly believe if the decision to implement a Renewable Portfolio Standard is left to the discretion of the Governors in the States, many of them will go forward with it. Some states will not go as fast as other ones, but overall we will probably achieve the goal of the sponsors of the Bingaman amendment, but do it without mandating it throughout the country in each and every State. Renewables and conservation need to be a bigger part of our energy policy-- I agree with that. But we have to be realistic about our challenge. These two strategies do not have the capacity to meet our growing energy needs in the timeframe mandated in the underlying amendment. I have to say, anyone who says renewables are going to take care of the energy needs of this country by the year 2020 just is not being intellectually honest in terms of what renewables can do. We are going to need more coal, we are going to need more nuclear power, we are going to need more natural gas, we are going to need more hydropower and other renewables, we are going to need more conservation. We are going to need it all. I think the Senator from Arizona is on the right track with his amendment and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment. It encourages the use of renewable power without mandating it and meets our energy, environmental and economic needs in a responsible way. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Kyl. I ask unanimous consent I be made a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues, Senators Feingold, DeWine, Levin, and Warner that will allow States to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into States like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Our bill, the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act, gives State and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other States and manage their own waste within their own States. Each year, Ohio receives well over one million tons of municipal solid waste from other States. Over the last four years, annual levels of waste imports have been steadily increasing, and estimates for 2000 indicate that Ohio imported approximately 1.8 million tons of municipal solid waste. While these shipments are not near our record level of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe an import level of nearly two million tons of trash is still entirely too high. Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, communities in a number of States have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to be landfilled in States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop. Many State and local governments in importing states have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other States. We saw limited relief. However, Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly, particularly in light of last year's closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have prevented States from enacting laws to protect our natural resources from being utilized as landfill space. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other States, both importing and exporting, have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn. Quite frankly, State and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, States that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, I set up a comprehensive recycling program when I was Governor that was meant to reduce the waste-stream and help protect our environment. However, the actions of other States have worked to undermine our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other States' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of-state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses. Ohio and many other States have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal from other States has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the Commerce Clause requires us to service other states at the expense of our own citizens' efforts. A national solution is long overdue. When I became governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh now Senator Bayh, of Indiana, Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon, of Pennsylvania--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation. In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked by congressional leaders to reach an agreement with Governor Whitman of New Jersey and Governor Pataki of new York on interstate waste provisions. The importing States quickly came to an agreement with Governor Whitman of New Jersey--the second largest exporting State--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill. The bill that my colleagues and I are introducing today reflects the agreement that Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania reached with then-Governor Whitman. For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for states to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a State to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a State could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility. These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other States that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, in 1996, Ohio EAP had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the State and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible. In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other States until local governments approve its receipt. States could also freeze their out-of-state waste imports at 1993 levels, while some States would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2006. This bill also allows States to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent beginning in 2007. States also could impose up to $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide States with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs. Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, we are not asking for outright authority for states to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor are we seeking to prohibit waste from any one State. We are merely asking for reasonable tools that will enable state and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other states. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around our own states' needs. I believe the time is right to consider and pass an effective interstate waste bill. The bill we are introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting States--States that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution. States like Ohio should not continue to be saddled with the environmental costs of other States' inability to take care of their own solid waste. We in Ohio have worked hard to address our own needs. We are actively recycling and working to reduce our waste-stream to preserve our environment for future generations. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as co-chairman of the Senate Auto Caucus, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator Bond, in offering this CAFE standards amendment to the energy bill. This is truly an important issue; one that impacts upon our Nation's economy, our environment and the safety of the traveling public. There is no doubt that each of us wants the automobile industry to make cars, trucks, SUVs and minivans that are as energy efficient as possible. Not only is it good for the environment, it also means more money in the pocket of the American consumer because they spend less at the gas pump. However, I am deeply concerned that the extreme Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard included in the pending energy bill will have a devastating effect on public safety, as well as put a severe crimp in the manufacturing base of my state of Ohio. For the first time in American history, new vehicle sales of trucks, SUVs and minivans in 2001 outpaced the sale of automobiles. This remarkable result can be attributed to a number of factors, but one reason that is often cited is the fact that these vehicles are seen as safer. Indeed, when asked why they bought their particular vehicle, truck, SUV and minivan owners overwhelmingly stated that they simply felt safer than they would have in a regular sedan or compact car. Overall, Mr. President, our roadways are safer. In fact, safety statistics show that the numbers of automobile fatalities are at historic lows while total vehicle highway miles traveled has risen. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were 1.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2000, while in 1999, the rate was 1.6 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Ten years earlier, in 1990, the rate was 2.1 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Part of the reason traffic fatality rates have continued to drop can be attributed to the fact that vehicles are being made safer. However, some in this body are indirectly proposing that we give up the safety accomplishments we have attained in order to achieve an arbitrary fuel efficiency standard for automobile vehicles. As my colleagues know, the provision included in the energy bill sets the CAFE standard at a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2015. Under current law, light truck fleets and passenger cars make up two separate fleet distinctions with different mile-per-gallon requirements for each. The existence of two separate fleets recognizes that passenger cars and light trucks are different vehicles that require different capabilities. However, the enactment of a combined fleet average would ignore this distinction. We also need to ask what the scientific basis is for the 35 mile-per- gallon threshold? What rational explanation is there for the magic number ``35,'' or was that number simply fabricated? To achieve this standard, the auto industry would have to modify their manufacturing base, and produce an automotive fleet that will in all likelihood require greater use of lighter materials. Lighter materials will definitely help increase fuel efficiency, however, it will also make those automobiles less safe. The provision in the bill also will be damaging to auto manufacturers that produce a large number of light trucks because a combined fleet average will factor in both the fuel efficiency averages of passenger cars and light trucks by a manufacturer. And, because truck, SUV and minivan demand is not expected to decrease anytime soon, automakers that are meeting this demand will either have to manufacture and sell a high-gas mileage vehicle that likely does not exist now, or cut the production of the trucks, the SUVs and the minivans that American consumers want. This will only increase prices for the safe vehicles America wants. Ohio is the number two automotive manufacturing state in America, employing more than 630,000 people either directly or indirectly. I've heard from a number of these men and women whose livelihood depends on the auto industry and who are frankly very worried about their future. I have met with members of the United Auto Workers, and executives from the major automobile manufacturers about the CAFE proposal and there is genuine concern that the provision in the bill could cause a serious disruption in the auto industry resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across the Nation. The Levin-Bond-Voinovich amendment is a rational proposal that will keep workers both in Ohio and nationwide working, allowing these men and women to continue to take care of their families and educate their children while also encouraging greater fuel efficiency and safer vehicles. Our amendment calls for the Department of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards based on the following factors: The need to conserve energy; Economic practicability; The effect of other government motor vehicle standards on fuel economy; The desirability of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil; The effect on motor vehicle safety; The effects of increased fuel economy on air quality; The adverse effects of increased fuel economy standards on the relative competitiveness of manufacturers; The effect on U.S. employment; The cost and lead-time required for introduction of new technologies; The potential for advanced technology vehicles (such as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles) to contribute to significant fuel usage savings; The effect of near-term expenditures required to meet increased fuel economy standards on the resources available to develop advanced technology; Technological feasibility; and The report of the National Research Council, entitled ``Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,'' issued in January 2002. I believe this is a much more responsible approach than picking a number arbitrarily--literally, it seems, out of thin air. Our amendment also requires that the Department of Transportation complete the rulemaking process that would increase fuel efficiency standards within 15 months for light trucks, and 24 months for passenger cars. If the Administration doesn't act within the required timeframe, Congress will act, under expedited procedures, to pass legislation mandating an increase in fuel economy standards consistent with the same criteria that the Administration must consider. The amendment will also increase the market for alternative powered and hybrid vehicles by mandating that the federal government, where feasible, purchase alternative powered and hybrid vehicles. This mandate is nothing new. The federal government, under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, is already required to maintain a covered fleet of 75 percent of alternative fuel vehicles. This amendment will simply increase the amount to 85 percent for covered fleets and require the purchase of hybrid vehicles for fleets that currently are not covered. There are waivers that allow the federal government to purchase traditional fueled vehicles where necessary. However, I believe that this guaranteed market will encourage the auto industry to increase their investment in research and development with an eye towards making alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles more affordable, available and commercially appealing to the average consumer. Additionally, a federal fleet of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles will result in an improved infrastructure for these vehicles and encourage a commercial growth in such infrastructure as well. Our amendment will not cause shifting within the auto manufacturing industry. It does not pretend that Congress has the scientific expertise to determine the best mile-per-gallon increase for both light trucks and passenger cars, a number which currently would unfairly punish the auto companies and auto workers who build what consumers want--larger cars and trucks. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. It meets our environmental, safety and economic needs in a balanced and responsible way, contributing to the continued and needed harmonization of our energy and environmental policies.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the ethanol provision that has been included in the Energy Policy Act. I was pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Daschle, Bob Smith, Hagel, Bond, Brownback, and Ben Nelson, in developing a policy on ethanol that addresses the concerns of a variety of stakeholders in the energy debate while providing a tangible benefit for the American people. I believe the inclusion of this provision is a key element in our effort to construct a viable energy policy. As I have often stated, we face an incredible challenge in putting together an energy policy for our Nation. In my view, the Senate's final product has to be a policy that harmonizes energy and environmental policies, acknowledging that the economy and the environment are vitally intertwined. It has to be a policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable prices, and protect America's security. It has to be a policy that won't cause energy prices to skyrocket, which would unfairly affect the elderly, the disabled, and low-income families. Finally, it has to be a policy that won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield future environmental protection technologies. The Senate is currently working to address these challenges, and I believe the inclusion of an ethanol provision in this bill will help the environment, protect public health, promote fuel efficiency, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, boost the economy, and create and retain jobs for Americans, all at the same time. As the ranking member of the Senate Clean Air Subcommittee, I am especially pleased that expanding the use of ethanol will help reduce auto emissions, which will clean the air and improve public health. Becuase of the events of September 11, perhaps our greatest energy challenge is to lessen our reliance on foreign sources to meet our energy needs. As my colleagues know, the United States currently imports about 58 percent of our crude oil. For both national security reasons, particularly now, and as part of a comprehensive energy policy, it is crucial that we become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and look more to domestic sources to meet our energy needs, and ethanol is an excellent domestic source. Ethanol is a clean burning, home-grown renewable fuel upon which we can rely for generations to come. Creating a greater market for ethanol is good for our Nation's economy and, in particular, good for Ohio's economy. Ohio is one of the Nation's leading consumers of ethanol, with 40 percent of the gasoline consumed in the State having an ethanol content. Ohio has placed a tremendous importance on expanding the use of ethanol, so much so, we are actively pursuing an opportunity to get ethanol production plants built in Ohio. In addition to consumption of ethanol, Ohio is also a major producer of the main component of ethanol, corn. In fact, Ohio is 6th in the Nation in terms of corn production, and an increase in the use of ethanol across the Nation means an economic boost to thousands of farm families across my State. Finally, I am also pleased that the tax package reported out of the Finance Committee to accompany the energy bill includes a provision that would transfer the 2.5 percent per gallon of the federal tax on ethanol-blended fuels from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund. This provision is similar to the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act, a bill that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and I introduced last summer. As my colleagues may know, 2.5 cents of 13.1 cents-per-gallon ethanol tax presently goes straight to the Treasury. That is more than $400 million for transportation improvements lost per year, including $50 million to Ohio. The Finance Committee provision ensures that the money is used for our roads, the purpose for which it was collected in the first place, and keeps ethanol viable by restoring people's faith that the taxes they pay on this clean fuel are used properly. I am delighted that the Senate was able to come together and craft a bipartisan agreement on the treatment of ethanol. It is my hope that the spirit of bipartisanship will continue throughout the energy debate so we can finally put in place a comprehensive national energy policy.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to offer the Price- Anderson reauthorization bill as an amendment to the Energy Policy Act. Last year, as the former chairman of the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I introduced the Price-Anderson reauthorization bill, S. 1360, that reauthorizes the insurance program for commercial nuclear reactors. The Price-Anderson Act was first passed back in 1957 and has been renewed three times since then. The current authorization expires on August 1 of this year. This amendment provides the insurance program for commercial nuclear powerplants and Department of Energy contractor employees. In my State of Ohio, this is very important for the contractor employees who are currently working at the Mound and Fernald facilities, former sites of nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. This is the type of must-pass legislation that keeps the trains of Government running on time. I think it is important to note that during the previous administration, both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued reports to Congress recommending the reauthorization of Price-Anderson. The DOE and the NRC reports also called for a doubling of the annual premium paid by the nuclear reactors from $10 million to 20 million. This recommendation was made prior to the relicensing process. At that time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission projected that up to half of our nuclear reactors would be retired instead of being relicensed. We have something like 103 nuclear reactors out there. However, thanks to regulatory improvements made in the process, largely due to the oversight of the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, the NRC believes that most of our nuclear reactors will be in fact relicensed. Therefore, the NRC issued a statement last year revising their projections and recommending that the annual premium not be increased. This amendment follows those recommendations. It is important for the American public to understand how the Price- Anderson liability program works. First of all, it is important to understand it is not a Federal subsidy. The nuclear industry actually funds the program. Each nuclear powerplant purchases liability insurance to cover the first $200 million from private insurers for immediate response in the case of an accident. If the costs exceed $200 million and additional funds are needed, all the other nuclear reactors--and there are 103 of them--contribute up to $88 million each. That totals $9.3 billion. These funds are contributed by other reactors in increments of $10 million per year. If more than the $9.3 billion would be needed, Congress could then go back to the industry and demand a larger contribution. I know of no other industry in which all of the competitors agree up front to pay for the mistakes or acts of God that impact upon any one company. In addition, I know of no facilities of any type anywhere in the country which are insured for $9.3 billion. It is incredible. It is also important to note for the American public that the industry does something else that is very unusual. It waives its traditional tort defenses so that the fund begins making payments immediately instead of fighting out claims in the courts. If we had some kind of a nuclear disaster somewhere, as we did at Three Mile Island, immediately the insurance companies start paying out claims. As a matter of fact, after Three Mile Island, claims offices were on the site within 24 hours. It provides more insurance coverage for Americans and provides the coverage up front. America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 percent of our energy, while fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, provide the bulk of the remainder. Nuclear energy is particularly used in the northeast part of the United States. Nuclear power is a safe and reliable energy source. It is also a zero-emission source of energy. As I discussed in the Senate on Tuesday, just since the nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone, from being released into the atmosphere. It has probably contributed more to a reduction in emissions than any other source of energy but for solar and wind and hydroelectric. This has had a tremendous positive effect on the environment and public health. In my view and in the view of many, coal and nuclear power have been inappropriately demonized over the last few years. These characterizations are patently unfair if we look at the record. Both are efficient and cost-effective sources of energy, and given our current energy consumption rates, we are going to be dependent upon them for the foreseeable future. The truth is, we are not meeting our energy needs currently domestically. And if we look at 20-year projections, we are going to need another 30 percent production of energy if we are going to be competitive. We are taking steps to make coal a cleaner burning fuel. We should also do whatever we can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry for our Nation and encourage the development of new nuclear reactors such as modular reactors which we have been discussing of late. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction. I thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this amendment: Senators Bingaman, Bob Smith, Inhofe, Murkowski, Domenici, Landrieu, Hagel, Crapo, Thomas, Bond, Campbell, and Frist. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. This should not be something that is extremely controversial. It is long overdue. It is something we have had since 1957. We should get on with it and make it part of Senator Daschle's energy legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I think it is significant, Mr. President, that the two Senators from New Mexico--one a Republican and one a Democrat--are both cosponsors of this amendment. I do not believe there is anyone in this country who speaks out more eloquently on behalf of nuclear power than Senator Domenici. This has been a cause of his for many years. I think it is important that he underscored the fact that not only does this deal with the nuclear power industry, but it also deals specifically with the cleanup of over 100 DOE facilities; that without this legislation the contractors would not be willing to go forward with the work they are now doing at those facilities. And it also provides a situation so that in the event that new reactors come on board--that is, more nuclear power facilities are built--that it would include those new facilities. Before I conclude on this amendment, I would like to point out and clarify the fact that the $10 million this bill continues to be asked for is adequate to get the job done. With the Presiding Officer's permission, I would like to read from the testimony of William F. Kane, who is the Deputy Executive Director for Reactor Programs because I think, in a nutshell, he can clarify to our colleagues just exactly what this is about. In his testimony on January 23rd, he said: Further developments in the electric generating industry since the 1998 report to Congress have led the Commission to review its 1998 recommendations and to reevaluate its recommendation that Congress consider increasing the annual installment to $20 million. There is now a heightened interest in extending the operating life for most, if not all, of the currently operating power reactors, and some power companies are now examining whether they wish to submit applications for new reactors or complete construction of reactors that have been deferred. As a result, contrary to our former recommendations, the commission does not believe there is now justification for raising the maximum annual retrospective premium of $10 million. The level is adequate and does not need to be changed. He went on to say: In summing up, I would like to leave these thoughts with you: To date, the United States Government has not paid a penny for claims against nuclear power licensees. In the event a serious accident were to occur, over $9 billion would be available to pay compensation for any personal injury or off-site property damage. The money will come from insurance policies bought by the industry and from retrospective premiums that will be paid by the industry. If these funds are inadequate, Congress will be called upon to decide what action is needed to provide assistance to those harmed. We believe the public is protected by the broad base of prompt funding. The Price-Anderson Act further aids the public by establishing important procedural reforms for claims arising from nuclear accidents. It channels liabilities to the licensee, establishes a single Federal form for all claims, eliminates the need to prove fault, requires waivers of other significant defenses, makes prompt settlements possible, and if litigation is needed, establishes the legal management process to assure fairness and equity and distribution of damages. That lays it out in a nutshell in terms of why it is that we need to reauthorize Price-Anderson. It is my understanding the Senator from New Mexico will be introducing another amendment. For the Members of the Senate, those who still would like to speak on Price-Anderson will be able to continue to do that, as well as those who will be supporting Senator Bingaman's amendment.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I will mention that I have the highest regard for Senator Reid. Much of what he just discussed came up in the committee hearing we had. Perhaps the Presiding Officer was at the meeting.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may need to read my opening statement on the underlying bill that will provide a national energy policy for our country.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, we are facing a problem that every other nation that we share the planet with hopes it will have some day. That is, our country's economic growth will soon outpace our supply of available energy. The growth of both the high tech and advanced manufacturing sectors in America has created jobs and has created enormous opportunity for our people, and they have created a new demand for energy. One reason these industries have flourished in America is because we have the fuel they need to succeed. We have the ``people'' fuel, the skilled workers with committed hearts and hands; we have the ``idea'' fuel, the smart minds that dream big and can take ideas from the drawing board on to the street; and we have ``good old-fashioned'' fuel, inexpensive, reliable sources of energy that literally make everything move and connect and work. Other nations have some of these pieces, but they rarely have all of them. That won't always be the case. The world is shrinking, and our competitors, strategic and otherwise, are in hot pursuit. What will we do to stay ahead? What will we do to fuel America's continued success? Our future success will require us to produce more energy to keep up with the growing demand for it. How big will that demand be? Big. You can see from this chart that there is a large gap currently in terms of the domestic production of energy and consumption. In other words, this open space on this chart is a gap between what we produce domestically and what we consume. According to the Department of Energy, we are going to have to increase by 30 percent the amount of energy produced by 2015 in order to meet the demand of this great Nation. In 2000, America used more than 3.8 billion megawatt hours of electricity. The Department of Energy estimates that by 2020, the demand will rise to 5.43 billion megawatts a year, an increase of 1.63 billion. To meet that new demand, the DOE says it will take 1,300 new power plants or, quite simply, the lights will begin to dim on the American dream for a lot of people. Let's remember, needing more energy is a great problem to have. It means we are creating jobs and we are creating opportunity. The American dream is our country's economic success. It is a gift bequeathed to this generation by generations of men and women who toiled before us. We are the stewards of this gift. History will judge us based on what this generation of Americans does right now with this gift. Will we keep America's light of opportunity shining, or will we sleep through our watch and let the light flicker out? I am thankful to the Majority Leader for keeping his word and bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate. However, I disagree with the way it came to the Senate, since the bill should have been considered and voted out of the Energy Committee, instead of being written on the floor of the Senate. Still, the bill presented before us at least starts the process by laying the foundation and beginning the debate. It has many things worthy about it and many things that we can build upon. This bill is a good start because, among other things, it encourages greater use of renewable sources of energy, sources which have little or no impact on the environment. The bill also encourages the use of ethanol, a renewable gasoline additive that helps reduce auto emissions and makes the air cleaner for us and our children to breathe. It starts the needed debate on reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act, which is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear energy industry. But there is much more that we need to do. I have introduced legislation to expand the Price-Anderson reauthorization to include commercial nuclear reactors, as it must, and I hope that we will be able to include it in this bill. What concerns me about this bill, however, is it raises false hopes. It creates the expectation that it will solve our future energy crises, protect our energy security, and sustain American opportunities. In reality, it doesn't do this. The bill does start in several good directions, but then falls short and is silent on several other key issues, such as energy infrastructure and the need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The majority's bill doesn't fully deliver what America needs, and I would have to oppose it in its current form. I hope that, as we amend it, it is something that I can support and a majority of the Senate can support. Our energy challenge demands from us the enactment of a comprehensive energy policy, the likes of which we have never seen before in this country. I think the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, did a very good job in talking about the need for an energy policy. I have wanted one ever since I was mayor of the city of Cleveland in 1979, but in administration after administration, we never got one. Today, we have this golden opportunity to have an energy policy for the United States of America. It has to be a policy that harmonizes energy and environmental policies, acknowledging that the economy and the environment are vitally intertwined, a policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable prices, and protect our national security--a policy that won't cause prices to spike, hurting particularly the elderly, disabled, and low-income families, and which won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield future environmental protection technologies-- technologies that can be shared with developing nations who currently face severe environmental crises. In terms of energy security, we need to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. As I pointed out, the gap between what we consume and what we produce is being met by imports--imported oil, imported gas, and other energy sources that we bring into the United States. As we have all learned in ways too horrific for words, the enemies of freedom will go to extreme lengths to attack our country. As we seek to protect our Nation's freedom of opportunity, we should not do it in ways that make America more vulnerable to these enemies of freedom. We must do everything we can to provide for our energy need from within our Nation's borders. We are already far too dependent on foreign energy sources. Oil imports have risen from 1973, when we imported 35 percent of our oil, to 58 percent last year. Today, we even import oil from Iraq--750,000 barrels a day. Seven percent of our oil comes from Iraq--the same country over which we fly regular combat missions. Think about that: 7 percent of our oil comes from a country that the President has described as one of the three countries in the Axis of Evil. The political climate in the Middle East region today is more volatile than at any other time in my memory. For the United States to be so dependent on this part of the world to meet such a large portion of our energy needs makes us extremely vulnerable to being held hostage for oil. If the enemies of our country were willing to take out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, does anyone doubt that if they had a chance to cut off, or even just disrupt, our energy supply, they would do it? There is no doubt. They would do it and we know it. As we rely on our own strengths for the answers to the coming energy crisis, we see that no single source of domestic energy is sufficient to meet all of our Nation's needs. Though we are blessed with large reserves of coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, and nuclear fuel, no single energy source can single-handedly solve our problem. That means we have to broaden our base of energy sources. We simply cannot put all of our eggs in one basket. If we were some other nation, diversifying our energy supply might be a great challenge. But we have been blessed. God has blessed us with the resources to solve this problem. One of our great untapped resources is nuclear energy. Over the past 40 years, we have seen how safe and reliable nuclear energy can be. We currently get 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear energy plants. But this is far below what some countries do. France derives 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; Sweden gets 39 percent; South Korea gets 41 percent; and Japan gets 34 percent. What nuclear energy brings to the table, which is so positive is that it produces zero harmful air emissions. In fact, 40 years of solid waste from all of our Nation's 103 nuclear facilities would fit on a football field to a height of only 10 feet. Since 1973, the use of nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons of sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone, from being released in the atmosphere. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson program, which provides needed liability protection for the public's benefit, updating an outdated, duplicative licensing process and creating a permanent repository for nuclear waste, will make it possible for us to take full advantage of the incredible potential this clean energy source provides us. I am going to offer an amendment to help improve the licensing process to facilitate the construction of new nuclear facilities and also address the human capital crisis that is impacting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I will be joined by the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in this effort. The other energy source we should turn to more is coal. It is by far our most abundant and cheapest energy resource. Right now, we have enough coal to meet our country's energy needs for the next 250 years. Because coal is so inexpensive, we can provide our vital manufacturing sector with the electricity it needs at prices low enough so that after businesses pay their energy bills, they will still have something left over for other important needs like innovation and research. Just as nuclear energy's challenge is waste storage--and I am glad we are going to debate the issue of nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain--coal's challenge is air emissions. Coal today is cleaner than ever before, but we need to make it even cleaner. We have the technologies available to do so. Coal's low cost makes research and installation of clean coal technology a viable investment. In addition, these technologies can be shared with emerging nations that are largely dependent on coal for electricity. We can help them learn from our experience and spare them future environmental challenges. With clean coal technology, and the incentives to guarantee it will be used, we can ensure that the more than two centuries worth of coal that we have available today can be used as an energy source. Let's talk about natural gas. It is a key component in meeting our current and future energy needs as some 60 million American homes now use natural gas for heat. Natural gas also provides 15 percent of this Nation's electric power and nearly one-quarter of our total energy supply. These percentages are increasing because natural gas burns cleanly and because it is easier to achieve permits from the EPA for natural gas-powered electric generation facilities. In fact, it is estimated that nearly 95 percent of all new power plants are going to be using natural gas. Even with this increased usage, production of natural gas has remained fairly stable, and to accommodate the growing demand, imports of natural gas have risen from 4.3 percent of consumption in 1981, to around 16 percent today. To reduce our reliance on imports, we need to tap the estimated 40 percent of undiscovered natural gas that is located on lands owned by the Federal and State governments. Without this, we face steep price increases in natural gas at a time when we are becoming increasingly dependent upon it. We saw what can happen with natural gas during last winter's especially cold temperatures. A sudden high demand caught us unprepared when supplies were low and prices shot through the roof, devastating the poor and the elderly. I will never forget holding a meeting in Cleveland with Catholic Charities, Lutheran Housing, and the Salvation Army where they presented the dramatic impact that high natural gas prices were having on the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. We also need to be mindful that changes we make on energy policy that affect demand for natural gas directly impact on our competitive position in the world marketplace for plastics and fertilizer. In fact, the Ohio Corn Growers Association told me that the high cost of natural gas was impacting the cost of their fertilizer. They said that many of their farmers did not plant as much corn last year because of the high cost of fertilizer. Right now in America, oil remains the primary source of energy. From heating people's homes to firing energy plants to running our automobiles, it makes up the largest portion of our energy portfolio which keeps our economy humming. Demand for oil is expected to grow at a constant rate of 1.5 percent per year through the year 2020. To meet that demand, we need to maximize the use of the more than 22 billion barrels of proven oil reserves the United States possesses. We also need to make oil extraction from mature oilfields more economical. The Senator from Oklahoma spoke very eloquently a few minutes ago about the oil that is available if we could only find an economical way to get at it. Of course, during the consideration of this bill, we will debate an amendment to allow oil exploration in ANWR. We have the technology today to both use our Alaskan oil and protect the region's environment. The potential for new job creation is great, up to 735,000 jobs in a variety of fields, and the added production will help strengthen our energy self-reliance. Let's turn to conservation. Conservation has proven very successful in reducing energy demand. By incorporating technological breakthroughs into the production of energy-efficient automobiles, high-efficiency homes, and more efficient appliances and machinery, conservation has succeeded in saving us tremendous amounts of money. I get a little concerned when I hear people say we have not done enough in the area of conservation. This chart shows that through energy conservation, we have had enormous savings of some $2.5 trillion from 1972 to 1991. This is according to a 1995 Department of Energy report, which is the most up- to-date data we have available. One can see that we have committed this country to conservation, and it is making a big difference. Legislation that I am working on with Senator Levin would encourage continued fuel conservation efforts in automobiles without the devastating blow to our automobile manufacturing jobs that a competing bill would cause. Our proposal would let the technical work of establishing new fuel conservation standards be completed by researchers at the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration. These new standards would be established only after scientific analysis of the safety, environmental, economic, and efficiency factors involved, which is a more responsible approach than picking an arbitrary number out of thin air. In the end, we can expect to see greater fuel efficiency without sacrificing safety or a devastating loss of auto worker jobs upon which the economies of many States depend. I can tell my colleagues that the economy in my State depends on it given the amount of auto manufacturing that goes on in Ohio. I have heard from the United Auto Workers and from the major automobile manufacturers that the language in the majority's bill could actually cause disruption in the economy of that industry. There is another way to put in place standards that will still get the job done in terms of conservation. Another avenue to focus on is renewable energy sources. We currently rely very little on renewable sources of energy. In fact, wind and solar together make up less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our current energy production, but they are expensive and they are heavily subsidized. Nevertheless, we need to continue to invest in these forms of energy because they are so environmentally friendly and they contribute to meeting the requirement of national self-reliance. On the other hand, we must also be realistic about our challenge. While a savings through conservation has reached more than $2.5 trillion over 30 years, the inherent problems of renewable sources make it impossible for them to realize similar savings or fill the growing gap between demand and supply. In addition, because renewables make up such a small piece of our overall energy picture today, we do not have the capacity to meet our needs in the timeframe we are facing. Right now, as this chart shows, they will not get the job done. However, their growth will come, and should continue to be supported with research funding. The point I am making is renewables currently make up only about 8 percent of our consumption. Even if we protect them for 20 years, they by themselves will not get the job done in meeting our energy needs. When I am talking about renewables, I am talking about solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, waste, and wood. In a recent meeting I had with General Motors in Detroit, I was told the company sees fuel cell technology becoming a viable source in the next 10 to 15 years. It is not science fiction to think that our children and grandchildren--it will probably be our grandchildren--will see a time when the roads are traveled by cars run on hydrogen and give off only water. The majority's bill mandates minimum consumption requirements for renewables and civil penalties if those minimums are not met. We should not be clubbing people for noncompliance. We should be doing everything we can to encourage the adoption of new energy technologies. Renewables and conservation need to be a bigger part of our new energy policy, but we must also be realistic about our challenge. These two strategies do not have the capacity to meet our growing energy needs in the timeframe we are facing. Anyone who says otherwise either does not know what they are talking about or they are being intellectually dishonest. Too often I hear people say: All we need to do is use more solar and wind power and it will take care of the problem. Here are the facts. Here is solar and wind--less than one-tenth of one percent currently. If we project it, solar and wind alone will not get the job done. We are going to need coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and other sources of energy to meet the demands of the United States of America. Another important issue we must address is infrastructure. As we develop these new energy sources, we must make sure we can get them to where the people need them. We saw this firsthand 2 years ago when prices for gasoline in the Midwest spiked. The freak combination of a shuttered refinery and a temporarily downed pipeline created a bottleneck that midwesterners paid for all summer long. Low-income Americans were hit especially hard at the pump, and trucking companies and airlines took a big beating. That is why I introduced legislation last year to help streamline the permitting process for new energy facilities. I hope my legislation, S. 1590, can be added to this bill because I think it would enhance it and make it better. The problem of distribution is especially critical to the northeastern States as they try to get additional natural gas supplies into their homes and businesses to meet a growing demand. I encourage my colleagues from that part of the country to take a close look at my provision because I think it is something they should get behind. The same technology which is helping to drive the demand for more energy has also equipped us with tools to provide that energy. Advanced slant drilling, super-efficient power plants, hyper-accurate seismic research, we have all of these because of our innovative high-tech research. Technology has also given us new tools to protect our environment and public health, and we must take full advantage of these opportunities because we must be good stewards of what we have been given. I reject the arguments from those on either side of the debate who say we have to choose between the environment and the economy. We now know the success of each is linked. As I have said before, we have to harmonize our energy needs and our environmental needs if we are going to have an energy policy. Only with a thriving economy can we fund the research that will find new ways to protect the environment--the cradle for every living thing on this planet--and the world's ecosystems cannot sustain us if we do not have clean air and clean water. A growing American economic capability is the only way we can do such things as fight our war on terrorism, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors, save Social Security from bankruptcy, eliminate our national debt, and meet other financial challenges facing our country. We need to have a growing economy. We know the challenge. We must provide more energy to keep America going. We know we cannot keep relying on unstable foreign sources to do this. We know we have the resources domestically to meet our needs. We also know that doing this in an environmentally responsible way is critical. We know we have the technological know-how to meet these challenges. The question that remains is whether or not Congress is going to stand in the way of this country's future success or whether we are we going to be part of the solution. As we seek to provide our country the power to succeed, does this body have the power to resist the temptation of partisanship and prove wrong those who say this debate will not end in the successful passage of a good bill? Do we have the courage to work together and do something good for our country and leave the partisan jabs and the hollow victories on the table? I do not think it is going to be easy, but I think we can do that. I ask my colleagues to join in the constructive work of this body. Let us make it happen. I pray that the Holy Spirit inspires us to do it, for ourselves, for our children, our grandchildren and, yes, the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, with the votes that have been cast this afternoon, we have once again shown the American people that we have put politics before their needs. Quite frankly, I think this body should be ashamed that we could not rise above our party differences and give the American people a stimulus package that will help secure our economy, put people back to work and respond to the human suffering that is occurring as a result of the recession. Too often, it seems to me, we spend more time trying to score political points than addressing the needs of real people. And I can tell you, there are real needs in the State of Ohio. Despite claims that an economic turn around is just around the corner, the citizens of my State are still suffering the effects of this recession. Many more are ``shaking in their boots,'' wondering if they are going to be laid- off and the next to join the unemployment line. Since the first week of December, we have had 320 companies in Ohio announce their intention to lay-off workers, affecting nearly 70,000 people. Right now, we have some 191,000 people receiving unemployment benefits, and each week, thousands file for initial benefits. Also each week, around 3,000 people exhaust their benefits without having found another job. In 2001, initial unemployment claims in my state jumped by 41.5 percent compared to 2000--the highest since 1992. While the U.S. Department of Commerce reported a two tenths of a percent increase in the economy in the fourth quarter, I consider it anemic economic growth, which is providing little benefit--if any to the men and women of Ohio. We need robust growth, and a balanced stimulus package is critical to getting us there. The President was right on target in his State of the Union address last week when he called for an economic stimulus. He did not advocate for a partisan stimulus measure, trying to maximize his political advantage, but rather he elected to press for the stimulus proposal that was initially proposed by the Senate Centrist Coalition. I am a member of the Centrist Coalition, and I was proud to work with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, Breaux, Miller, and Ben Nelson on a bipartisan measure that would be fair, would help stimulate the economy and would respond to basic human needs. This proposal does not have everything I, the other members of the coalition, nor the President want. In fact, it includes items I might not necessarily support as freestanding legislation. However, this proposal is the embodiment of compromise, and this is how it should be in an evenly divided Senate. That is why I cannot believe that members of this Senate have allowed economic stimulus to fail. If we are to have any progress this year, we must work together as our constituents elected us to do. I voted in favor of cloture on both versions of the stimulus package, since I felt it necessary to move the process along and not demagogue the issue just to score a political victory. I had hoped to move something along to a conference committee. I think if we all had simply agreed to the majority leader's stimulus package when he proposed it 2 weeks ago, we could have gone to conference with the House, hashed out our differences, and today we could possibly be voting on a compromise stimulus bill. Conversely, if the majority leader had recognized the bipartisan nature of the Centrist Coalition package--crafted by members of his own party here in the Senate and passed by the House--we could possibly be at a bill signing ceremony today. However, the process has degenerated into a political fight. The Senate could pass a stimulus bill. Senator Grassley proposed a very good compromise by offering the Centrist Coalition package, which should have been adopted because it gets the job done. In fact, I believe if the Senate was given the opportunity to cast a straight ``up or down'' vote on the Grassley amendment, it would pass by a large margin since many in this Chamber actually want to pass a meaningful stimulus bill. However, that is not the way things sometimes work around here, and the American people are the ones who suffer because they will not get the economic relief they need. In the end, the only person who got what he wanted was the majority leader. He did not want a bill, and he got his wish. Still, I think the American people deserve to know what the Senate could have passed and what the Centrist Coalition package could have provided in the way of economic stimulus to illustrate the good policy that too often falls victim to partisan politics in this Chamber. One thing the Centrist Coalition proposal would do is provide a real boost to roughly 38 million low-income workers who did not qualify for rebate checks last summer and fall. Those rebates would mean $13.5 billion would go into the pockets of those individuals to help them through these difficult times. And I am sure it would help stimulate the economy because they would likely spend that money rather than save it. The Centrist Coalition package would also lower the marginal tax rate on individual income from 27\1/2\ percent down to 25 percent. That means single people who make between $28,000 and $68,000 a year, and married couples who make between $47,000 and $113,000 a year would find additional money in their pockets. About one-third of the taxpayers in this nation, 36 million people, would benefit with these rate reductions. Add the 38 million beneficiaries of the rebate checks, and the 36 million who would benefit from the reduction in marginal rates, and the Centrist Coalition package would help a majority of the roughly 100 million American households that file taxes. The thing I would really like to concentrate on is the part of this package that deals with health care. When we got started debating the stimulus package, the House passed a package that had something like $3 billion for health care. Likewise, the President's package also had $3 billion. The Democratic Finance Committee proposal was $16.7 billion. At the end of the day, the Centrist Coalition and White House compromise package had $21 billion in it for dislocated workers' health care, and money for the States for national emergency grants, including $4 billion to the States for Medicaid funding. This is a tremendous amount of help for the needy. The Centrist Coalition proposal would also assist displaced workers by providing an extension of 13 weeks of unemployment benefits-- benefits that would be available to those who became unemployed between March 15, 2001, and December 31st of this year. An estimated 3 million unemployed workers would qualify for benefits averaging about $230 a week. Those extended benefits would be 100-percent federally funded at a cost of about $10 billion to the Federal Government, so States would not have to pick up the tab. The bill would allow states to accelerate the transfer of $9 billion from State unemployment trust funds so they could distribute that money earlier than now possible. This transfer of money, which already belongs to the states, would help state treasuries, which are in dire straits today. With respect to health care benefits, the Centrist Coalition and White House compromise proposal would provide $19 billion in health care assistance for all dislocated workers who are eligible for unemployment insurance with a refundable, advanceable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance--not just individuals who are eligible for COBRA coverage. This is an important distinction since the credit is available to unemployed people who do not have access to coverage through COBRA, since their employers did not provide health insurance or their employer went out of business. Under this bill, these individuals would have been able to get a 60-percent subsidy of their health insurance costs without any cap on the dollar amount of subsidy. The proposal also would include reforms to ensure that people have access to health insurance coverage in the individual market. If a person has 12 months of employer-sponsored coverage, rather than 18 months as under the current law, health insurers are required to issue a policy and not impose any preexisting condition exclusion. The Centrist and White House proposal also includes $4 billion in enhanced national emergency grants for the States which Governors could use to help all workers--not just those eligible for the tax credit. They could use this to pay for health insurance in both public and private plans. In other words, we would be paying $4 billion out to the States so they can reach out and help people in their respective States who are not covered by some of the particular provisions in the stimulus package. The Centrist Coalition package would also provide a $4.6 billion, one-time grant to assist States with their Medicaid programs. Our States are in deep budgetary trouble because, unlike the Federal Government, they have to balance their budgets every year. The money isn't there for them to take care of the many needs they face. This $4.6 billion grant would go out to the States to help them provide Medicaid for the neediest Americans. In many States, they are going to cut Medicaid payments because they simply do not have the money since their State treasuries are in such deep financial trouble. All in all, I believe the Centrist Coalition and White House compromise package was a good proposal, one that should have passed easily in the Senate before Christmas and which should have easily passed today. There are a lot of concerned Americans, men and women who have lost their jobs, and who do not know where they are going to get health care for themselves and their families. We have an obligation to help. At the very least, we have provided an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to our constituents who are out of work. It is only a fraction of what we should have done, but it will give some assistance to those who need it. Still, I believe we must address our unfinished business. I believe that there is still time to set aside our differences, put the needs of the American people ahead of politics and pass the Centrist Coalition proposal. It is fair, it is balanced and it is bipartisan and I believe it is the best thing we can do to restores people's faith in the economy and restore people's faith that we do care about them.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that the Senate did not have an opportunity today to vote on the White House and Senate Centrist Coalition compromise on the economic stimulus package to aid dislocated workers. I think the stimulus package, if passed, would have made a real difference for the American people. It would have helped individuals and families. It would have helped create jobs, or at least maintain jobs. And it would have responded to the needs of laid-off workers and their families. Early this fall, when it became clear to me that our nation was in recession, I decided to get actively involved in developing and advocating a stimulus package. I recognized the package that was coming out of the House could not get through the Senate because it wasn't balanced. So I gathered together with my other colleagues in the Centrist Coalition. Six of us from the Coalition were the ones who really were the nucleus of it--I was one of them with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and on the Democrat side there was John Breaux and two of my colleagues who were former Governors, Zell Miller, who was a former Governor of Georgia, and Ben Nelson, the former Governor of Nebraska. We decided we would try to put something together that would be fair, and that would respond to the need to stimulate the economy, and at the same time, respond to the human needs that we see throughout this country. We wanted to try to work something out, and see if we could get something through Congress and particularly through the Senate. We worked very conscientiously on that package. We finally were able to get the ear of the White House and got them to be part of this compromise package. Yesterday we were able to convince the leadership in the House of Representatives that it was a fair package, although a far cry from the package they had adopted. We had hoped that, somehow, miraculously, maybe, we would have had an opportunity to vote on that package in the Senate. The Republican leader, Senator Lott, talked about the fact that maybe during the period of time we are in recess, pressure will build up and maybe we will get a bill passed. Or maybe the pressure will not be out there and we will not need to pass a piece of legislation. However, I am here to tell you that this legislation is needed now. This afternoon I met with about 50 steelworkers from Cleveland, OH, from LTV steel. That company is in bankruptcy. Their jobs are gone and they are displaced. They are petrified because they do not know how they are going to be able to take care of their medical costs. Their company had a health plan, but COBRA is no longer an option because the company is out of business. They are worried about how they are going to provide health care for their families. They will get their unemployment benefits, but they are really concerned about how to pay for their health care coverage. I pointed out to them that the stimulus package the Centrist Coalition put together would subsidize their health care to the tune of 60 percent. They were pleased to learn that their was hope that someone would help them, that they could get insurance for their families to get them over this very difficult period. I can tell you: they are frightened. I think so often when we talk about stimulus packages, we get caught up in the dollar amounts and we don't talk about real people. That is what this is about. For example, the rebate program that is in our stimulus package would provide help to some 38 million low-income workers who didn't qualify for rebate checks the last time around. Those rebates would mean $13.5 billion would go into the pockets of those individuals to help them with their problems. And I am sure it would help stimulate the economy because they would likely spend that money. Some describe the reduction in marginal rates as an awful thing because of the fact that we would reduce the marginal rate from 27\1/2\ down to 25 percent. I would like to point out that we are talking about single people who make between $28,000 and $68,000, and married couples who make between $47,000 and $113,000. That is about one-third of the taxpayers in this country, some 36 million people, who would have benefitted if we had gone forward with these rate reductions. Between the 38 million beneficiaries of the rebate checks, and the 36 million who would benefit from the reduction in marginal rates, a total of 74 million Americans would have been able to take advantage of this package. The thing I would really like to concentrate on is the part of this package that deals with health care. When we got started debating the stimulus package, the House passed a package that had something like $3 billion for health care. Likewise, the President's package had also had $3 billion. Our centrist package had $13.5 billion. The Democratic Finance Committee proposal was $16.7 billion. At the end of the day, the Centrist Coalition and White House compromise package had $21 billion in it for dislocated workers' health care, money for the States for national emergency grants, including $4 billion to the States for Medicaid funding. Now I would like to talk about what we do for displaced workers. First of all, we include an extension of 13 weeks of unemployment benefits--benefits that would be available to those who became unemployed between March 15, 2001, and December 31 at the end of next year. An estimated 3 million unemployed workers would qualify for benefits averaging about $230 a week. Those extended benefits would be 100-percent federally funded at a cost of about $10 billion to the Federal Government, so States wouldn't have to pick up the tab. The bill would allow states to accelerate the transfer of $9 billion from State unemployment trust funds so they could distribute that money earlier than now possible. This transfer of money, which already belongs to the states, would help State treasuries, which are in dire straits today. This proposed advance would provide the States with the flexibility to pay administrative costs, provide additional benefits for part-time workers, adopt alternative base periods, and avoid raising their unemployment taxes during the current recessionary times. Next, let us look at health care benefits. The Centrist Coalition and White House compromise proposal includes $19 billion in health care assistance for dislocated workers. It provides a refundable, advanceable tax credit to all displaced workers, who are eligible for unemployment insurance, for the purchase of health insurance--not just individuals who are eligible for COBRA coverage. Individuals with access to health insurance through a spouse wouldn't be eligible and couldn't get the credit. However, the credit is available to unemployed people who do not have access to coverage through COBRA, since their employers did not provide health insurance or their employer went out of business. Under this bill, these individuals would have been able to get a 60-percent subsidy of their health insurance costs without any cap on the dollar amount of subsidy. The proposal also includes reforms to ensure that people have access to health insurance coverage in the individual market. If a person has 12 months of employer-sponsored coverage, rather than 18 months as under the current law, health insurers are required to issue a policy and not impose any preexisting condition exclusion. In other words, if someone has a preexisting exclusion for which they would ordinarily be disqualified from getting health insurance, this reform requires that they be able to obtain health insurance. The Centrist and White House proposal also includes $4 billion in enhanced national emergency grants for the States which Governors could use to help all workers--not just those eligible for the tax credit. They could use this to pay for health insurance in both public and private plans. In other words, we would be paying $4 billion out to the States so they can reach out and help people in their respective States who are not covered by some of the particular provisions in the stimulus package. Last if not least, the centrist package provides a $4.6 billion, one- time grant to assist states with their Medicaid programs. I worked with the National Governors Association and the Bush administration to try to get them to understand that the State governments are not like the Federal Government. States are in deep budgetary trouble because they have to balance their budgets every year. The money isn't there for them to take care of the many needs they face. This $4.6 billion grant would have gone out to the States to help them provide Medicaid for the neediest of our brothers and sisters. In many States they are going to have to cut Medicaid payments because they simply don't have the money since their State treasuries are in such deep financial trouble. I hope my colleagues understand that this is not some kind of a game. We are talking about real human beings. This morning at a press conference, one of the reporters said to me: I understand the problem with this stimulus bill is that the majority leader has a problem with the philosophy of it. I said that this bill responds to most of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. Think about it. When was the last time Congress gave serious consideration to providing health care to unemployed workers? I don't ever recall such consideration before. But this time, we have been able to get a Republican administration and a Republican House of Representatives to consider providing health insurance to unemployed workers. That was a breakthrough in terms of dealing with the unemployed and displaced workers in this country. I happen to believe that if this proposal had come from the other side of the aisle and not from the centrist coalition and the White House, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have been very much in favor of this proposal. I am hoping, as we all go home and look into the eyes of the people who will come and see us because they have lost their jobs, and are panicked about health care for themselves and their families, that we start to understand we have an obligation to touch their lives. And to do this, the first thing we need to do when we come back to this chamber is pass a stimulus package that addressed the needs of unemployed men and women. We need to restore people's faith in their economy and restore people's faith that we do care about them. The thing that really bothers me about our failure to pass a stimulus package, is that so many people anticipated we would do so. They really did. They were counting on us, as did the financial markets. I think from a psychological point of view, we have really done a disservice to the American people, particularly at a time when we are all going home to celebrate Christmas and the holidays. What a lousy Christmas present we are giving to the people of America. Shame on us. I hope when we come back in January that we will make it up to them. They need our help. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks, the Senate has engaged in what is probably a first in the history of this body: it has worked to complete a task before a deadline. Even as appropriations bills remained unfinished 3 months into the fiscal year, we have, for the past couple of weeks, debated a farm bill a full 9 months before the current authorization lapses. As admirable as it is to work ahead of schedule, this has been an unnecessary exercise. There is no reason that the Senate has had to debate the farm bill when these programs don't expire until the end of the fiscal year. I joined in the successful effort here in the Senate to postpone debate on the farm bill until next year. It is my hope that we will do a better job at writing a bill that will address the needs of our farmers in a fiscally responsible way, rather than rushing a bill through Congress for the sake of passing a bill. The only reason we have debated this bill a year ahead of schedule is because some fear that the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution won't have enough room in it to load up whatever farm bill the Senate considers with all the spending the majority desires. Indeed, according to an article in the December 8th edition of Congressional Quarterly, ``lobbyists fear that if Congress waits until 2002, when the current authorization bill expires, then the $73.5 billion in new spending for agriculture programs over the next 10 years that was set aside by this year's budget resolution might vanish.'' Senator Kent Conrad, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who clearly must understand our country's financial condition, has said, ``the money is in the budget now. If we do not use the money . . . it is very likely not going to be available next year.'' That does not sound like ``need'' to me, it sounds like opportunism, and opportunism is not sufficient reason for the majority to rush through a bill this important and this expensive. I agree with the analysis of Senator Lugar, the Agriculture Committee's Ranking Member, who correctly stated on the Senate floor last Tuesday, December 11, that, ``Proponents of the bill, S. 1731, fastening on to a budget resolution adopted earlier this year, said we have pinned down $172 billion over 10 years, $73.5 billion over baseline, over the normal expenditures that have been occurring year by year in the agriculture bills . . . I and others have pointed out that [the money] really is not there.'' Now, I take a back seat to no one in terms of my concern for the American farmer. When I was governor of Ohio, agribusiness was my number one economic development initiative. Many people, even Ohioans, don't realize that food and agribusiness means more than $73 billion to Ohio's economy each year. In fact, one in six Ohioans is employed in one aspect of agriculture or another. I gave agriculture more attention and priority than any governor in memory, and I continue my close relationship with Ohio's agribusiness community. Nevertheless, I could not support the majority's farm bill as written, and honestly, I am disappointed at the apparent lack of respect some of my colleagues seem to have for the American farmer. Every farmer worth his salt knows that if he or she wants to stay in business, they have to be fiscally responsible and make tough choices. They know that the United States has to do so as well. They understand that the majority's farm bill did not focus on proper planning and making the right choices, but rather ``getting while the getting is good.'' Some here in Washington think that viewpoint epitomizes the American farmer, but for anyone in this body to think that the American farmer is only concerned about ``what's in it for him,'' is an insult to their patriotism and their own understanding of fiscal responsibility. Let me make it abundantly clear, this bill was written and has been debated without any regard for the other obligations our nation now faces. It is heedless of America's national security needs and it does nothing to acknowledge the long-term fiscal responsibilities of our Nation. Instead, the Majority's Farm Bill really just helps the nation's agricultural conglomerates. When Congress passed the last farm bill in 1996, it did so with the intention that it would gradually phase out the heavy reliance on subsidies characteristic of previous farm bills and move towards a more market-oriented approach. That bill was named Freedom to Farm. However, had S. 1731 passed, it would have increased federal spending by over $70 billion over ten years, putting us back to where we were prior to Freedom to Farm, when farmers were more dependent on the federal government. I remain supportive of market-based farm policies, but I believe important improvements must be made to the current system that will allow our farmers to adapt to a global marketplace. Unfortunately, that same marketplace has kept U.S. prices and income low for the past three to four years due to ever increasing world supplies coupled with low export demand. The cost has been outrageous, with Congress appropriating more than $32 billion in emergency spending since Fiscal Year 1999 to offset low prices and assist farmers who suffered losses due to natural disasters. I have to ask: What happened to Freedom to Farm? I have opposed these emergency measures, not only because they were not offset, which has added to our current budget crisis, but also because ``stop gap'' emergency measures only meet a temporary need, and do nothing to help the long-term outlook for the American farmer. Unfortunately, the majority, in their bill, attempted to rectify this situation by making these emergency payments essentially permanent. In a December 14 editorial titled ``A Piggy Farm Bill,'' the Washington Post labeled S. 1731 ``obscene,'' and pointed out that billions indeed have been made available in the past few years in ``emergency'' payments, however, the Post goes on to say ``the effect of the new bill would be to regularize those [payments], thereby abandoning the five-year experiment in supposed market reform.'' Another contention that I have with the majority's bill, is that passage of S. 1731 as written could very well have put the U.S. in violation of our obligations under the World Trade Organization and weakened our demands that Europe and other countries cut subsidy payments to their agricultural producers. In an article that appeared in the December 18 edition of the Financial Times, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy, noting Congress' apparent willingness to abandon a market-based approach to agriculture, stated ``It's very awkward. Here we are involved in a global effort to reduce subsidies, and this [bill] flies in the face of that effort.'' Current Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, said in the same article that the legislation would ``exacerbate overproduction and perpetuate low commodity prices,'' which would undermine our ability to expand into new foreign markets. That's because the majority's farm bill would put in place counter- cyclical payments, which pay farmers a subsidy as the price of their commodity falls. This approach most assuredly would run afoul of the WTO treaty. What's more, the subsidies under the majority's proposal would go to millions of farmers and quite a few wealthy individuals and even some Fortune 500 corporations. Again, the Financial Times article references an organization known as The Environmental Working Group, which has on its web-site a compilation of more than 2.5 million farmers who receive subsidies. Of that total, the largest farms get the most amount. To quote the news article, ``just 1,290 farms have each received more than $1 million in the past five years; Tyler Farms of Arkansas, which grows cotton, rice and soybeans, led the list at more than $23 million. In addition, 11 Fortune 500 companies, including Chevron and International Paper, also received farm subsidies. In contrast, the average farm in the bottom 80 percent got just $5,830.'' While I would have voted against the bill proposed by the majority, the Cochran-Roberts Amendment that was considered on Tuesday provided a workable alternative. Instead of creating a counter-cyclical program, the Cochran-Roberts Amendment would have created farm savings accounts for producers to participate in on a voluntary basis, with matching funds provided by the USDA. This money would help farmers make ends meet during the lean years and would be a great improvement over the current practice of relying on touch-and-go so-called ``emergency'' supplemental farm spending bills. While I am still concerned with the expense of the Cochran-Roberts Amendment, it evenly divides its spending over the first and last five years, and is thus more fiscally responsible than the Majority's proposal which frontloads $45.3 billion of their $73.5 billion bill in the first five years. Unfortunately, the Cochran-Roberts amendment was defeated along party lines. So we were left with the bill pushed by the majority with a price tag we cannot afford. It will most assuredly exceed the $73.5 billion, 10- year spending increase allowed by the fiscal year 2002 Budget Resolution. As we near the end of this year, we find ourselves facing challenges that could never have been predicted a year ago. An economic slowdown that began in the spring of 2001 has now been deemed a full-fledged recession; a recession that was exacerbated by the events of September 11. As Americans have responded generously to the needs of the victims and their families, the federal government has acted quickly and significantly as well. We've passed a $40 billion emergency supplemental bill, as well as $5 billion in grant funding to help prevent the collapse of the airline industry. In addition, we could spend another $100 billion for an economic stimulus package soon after we return from recess. Add all that to the $25 billion that Appropriators and the White House agreed this summer to spend over and above the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution that Congress passed, and we could spend some $170 billion over the budget resolution. To put that in perspective, $170 billion represents 30 percent of all the regular discretionary spending Congress enacted in fiscal year 2001. Given this amount of spending, the Senate is poised to spend every last tax dollar, all of the Medicare surplus and the entire $174 billion projected Social Security surplus. Even that won't be enough. To cover all of this spending, including the spending in the majority's farm bill if it passed, the federal government would have to issue tens of billions of dollars in new debt this fiscal year depending on the size of the stimulus bill, any additional defense spending we pursue, plus the inevitable emergency supplementals Congress will pass between now and the end of the fiscal year. It's amazing that a few months ago, people here were worried we would run out of debt to repay. Now, we are in a far different situation. In fact, Treasury Secretary O'Neill sent a letter to the Majority Leader last week requesting that the government's debt ceiling be raised. The Secretary indicated that the current borrowing limit of $5.95 trillion will be reached by February and that the administration requests that the national debt ceiling be raised to $6.7 trillion. As recently as August, the administration projected that the current borrowing limit would not be reached until September 2003. This is disturbing. I am pleased we are not going forward with a farm bill that we cannot afford at a time of fiscal crisis, and that we are not going forward with a bill that is frankly not in the best interest of our farmers and definitely not in the best interest of the American people. It is unfortunate, though, that we spent two weeks debating the majority's farm bill, when there are three other pieces of legislation that I believe we should have been considering instead. Our number one priority should be an economic stimulus bill, or ``jobs bill'' as it should be called. Just last week, I was part of a six-member bipartisan group of senators who were invited to the White House by the President to discuss the stimulus bill and the package that the Centrist Coalition has been working on for the past seven weeks. After the meeting, President Bush announced his support for our stimulus package; a package that responds to the needs of those who are currently unemployed by extending benefits and health care coverage. It also provides rebate checks to those Americans who pay Social Security taxes but who did not qualify for rebate checks earlier this year. It would truly be a wonderful holiday present for the working men and women of America as well as the nation itself since people would receive extra cash to help pay their holiday bills, and their spending would help spur the U.S. economy. The bill also contains other stimulus functions, including 30 percent depreciation bonuses to encourage investment; a reduction in the 27 percent tax rate to 25 percent; and tax incentives to encourage small business owners to increase investment. I won't sugarcoat the fact that it will take a lot of money to jumpstart our $10 trillion economy, and our approach may cost up to $100 billion. However, I believe that it is necessary to get our nation out of the recession we're in. That's why I am somewhat dismayed that the Majority Leader did not bring the stimulus bill to the floor for consideration during these past couple of weeks. Early this morning the House passed a responsible bill based on the Centrist package which the President has agreed. It's a compromise package that reflects much of what the Majority Leader has said he wanted. However, that wish list seemed to shift when it became clear that a genuine willingness to compromise existed. The American public have expected us to pass such a bill, and I am disappointed that we have not yet done so. The second bill we should consider is a terrorism reinsurance bill. This legislation would provide government backing to help cover the costs of damages incurred in the event of an act of terrorism. Without it, we are going to see many businesses with enormous increases in their insurance costs. And that's for companies that can get insurance. As a result, projects that are on the table or in the planning process will not go forward and the economy will suffer. There is a bipartisan proposal that is being worked on, and I can see no reason why we should not have pushed to get this bill onto the floor of the Senate before the end of the year. The third bill is a comprehensive energy bill, one that will help our economy and harmonize our energy needs with our environmental needs. While national energy policy is being held hostage to the demands of environmental groups, the United States must continue to rely on energy sources in the Middle East. Surely I don't have to remind my colleagues of the political instability that exists in this area of the world. The most glaring example of how the lack of an energy policy is affecting us is the fact that we currently rely on Iraq for more than 750,000 barrels of oil per day. As my colleagues know, Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism, and I have no doubt the manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction, run by a man who would dearly like to inflict pain upon the United States if given the ability. We have to put the interests of the American people in front of politics and special interest groups. I say to my colleagues that it is better to be able to know that we can rely upon ourselves to meet our energy needs than to rely on Saddam Hussein. We need to stand up and do the right thing and pass a comprehensive energy policy now, and to me, it is incredible that the Majority Leader placed it on the back-burner in favor of a farm bill that we can consider later this fiscal year. Our farmers understand the need to enact these three bills because they use energy, because they feel the pinch of a soft economy, and, because farmers know the right thing to do. It is my hope that we will be able to address these three issues quickly when we return next year and that we will do a better job of prioritizing all of the necessary work this body undertakes. There was no compelling reason why we needed to consider the Farm Bill one week before Christmas. In fact, with one year left on the authorization of the Freedom to Farm Act, we will have almost all of 2002 to work on this legislation. When we return next year, and after we take up the critical issues like energy, stimulus and terrorism insurance, we should follow the President's suggestion and sit down with real numbers and put together a farm bill that is fair to America's farmers, the men and women who really need help; fair to the American taxpayer; and fiscally responsible. I also would encourage my colleagues to take a look at other farm bill alternatives, such as Senator Lugar's proposal, and the proposal put forth by Senators Cochran and Roberts. I believe they are on the right track. Right now, we are facing tough times that affect all Americans, including farmers, and the Senate needs to make tough choices because that is what our constituents have elected us to do. The majority's farm bill, S. 1731, was the wrong bill at the wrong time. We shouldn't have wasted precious time on flawed legislation. Our farmers deserve a bill that has been fully vetted, following a thoughtful and comprehensive debate. Sadly, S. 1731 offered our farmers precious little in that regard as the majority focused more on getting a bill done than getting the right bill done. It is my hope that in the months ahead, we will craft a Farm Bill that will help farmers succeed while reflecting the other pressing fiscal needs that also face our nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact such legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.