THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senators know, the compromise fuels package in the Daschle energy bill, which includes my language to ban MTBE and clean up the contamination caused by this gas additive, will also dramatically increase the use of ethanol. This compromise came after lengthy negotiations with several members of the Senate. We all worked in good faith to reach this agreement.

[Page: S3153]  GPO's PDF

   However, the increase in ethanol use will, over time, have a negative impact on the highway trust fund due to the ethanol subsidy which exempts ethanol from a good portion of the gasoline tax that pays into the trust fund. This is a concern that virtually all members of the Environment & Public Works Committee share, and it is problem that we will have to address. I believe that reauthorization of TEA-21 is the proper place to fix the trust fund problems caused by the increased ethanol use.

   Between now and the time we introduce TEA-21 reauthorization , I would encourage all parties to work together, in a similar fashion to the way we reached the fuels compromise, in order to reach a consensus on the ethanol tax subsidy. If we work together in good faith, I have little doubt we will find a solution that can be included in reauthorization . I look forward to working my colleagues in that process.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Our Nation's vulnerability to foreign energy production has been brought into bold relief by the continuing turmoil in the Middle East. It is imperative that our Nation take greater strides to promote the use of domestic, renewable fuels as a means of reducing our dangerous dependence on imported oil and strengthening U.S. energy security.

   An aggressive program to produce and use more renewable fuel should be one of the pillars of our Nation's energy policy. And, as America uses more renewable fuel, we need to make sure that the financial soundness of the highway trust fund is not inadvertently undermined. That is why I strongly support Chairman BAUCUS' efforts to ensure that future use of ethanol will have no impact on the trust fund. I applaud his efforts in this regard and pledge to do whatever I can to see that we hold the highway trust fund harmless as we seek to make America more energy independent.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to support the efforts of Chairman BAUCUS and Ranking Member GRASSLEY to ensure that the tax package from the Finance Committee begins to reform our tax policies to provide equitable treatment for the highway trust fund, the only source of Federal revenues to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

   The Finance Committee's package ensures that revenue from the 2.5-cent excise tax on the sale of gasohol will be transferred to the highway trust fund.

   It has been my privilege to work closely with Senator Baucus as a senior member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works during the development of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. He has always been a steadfast partner on surface transportation issues, and once again, he is providing the necessary leadership to protect the solvency and purpose of the highway trust fund. All vehicles, regardless of whether they use gasoline or gasohol, cause the same damage to our roads. The highway trust fund is the only means to finance highway maintenance and expansion activities, and without the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act our States would receive less funding to improve our roads.

   Depositing the 2.5 cents into the highway trust fund, however, is an important first step, but only part of the solution. I have been working with Senator Baucus and others to offer an amendment to provide for the full transfer of 5.3 cents to the highway trust fund, but we have decided to reserve this issue for another time. I remain fully committed to restoring the integrity of the highway trust fund by recovering the entire 5.3 cent per gallon subsidy that gasohol currently receives.

   The bill before the Senate also contains other provisions which will contribute to further reductions in revenues to the highway trust fund. Depending on the final disposition of the renewable fuels provisions, revenues to the highway trust fund could significantly decrease as the renewable fuels mandate increases. I look forward to working with Chairman BAUCUS, Ranking Member GRASSLEY, and the leadership of both parties to fully restore revenues to the highway trust fund so that our national network of highways remains a premiere system.

   Mr. REID. I share my colleagues' concern about the losses to the highway trust fund that result from sale of ethanol-blended fuels. These losses to the highway trust fund have two causes. First, 2.5 cents of the existing tax on ethanol goes into the General Fund rather than the highway trust fund. Senator Baucus has introduced a bill to address this problem and I am a cosponsor of that legislation.

   Second, the trust fund loses revenue because the tax on ethanol-blended gasoline is lower than taxes on other fuels. With the mandate contained in this bill, this subsidy will have an increasingly negative impact on revenues into the highway trust fund.

   Next year we will reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. This Nation has tremendous transportation infrastructure needs that must be addressed if we are to keep our roads safe and our economy moving. As we begin work on this important legislation, I hope that we can address the significant losses to the trust fund that result from current ethanol policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other issues related to the reauthorization of TEA-21.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Once again, I would like to state my intention of dealing with the ``5.3-cent problem'' as soon as possible. I look forward to working with these Senators and others as we work to protect the highway trust fund our Nation's source of funding for our surface transportation system.

   Exhibit 1

   RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION,

   Washington, DC, March 22, 2002.
Hon. JAMES M. INHOFE,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATORS INHOFE, BAUCUS, SMITH, CONRAD, GRASSLEY, JEFFORDS, REID AND DASCHLE: The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) appreciates your leadership on including a ``Renewable Fuel Standard'' in the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 517). This program will provide significant energy, environmental and economic benefits for the Nation.

   At the same time, we recognize that an increase in the production and use of renewable fuels, including ethanol, will have an impact on Federal highway excise tax receipts. The RFA does not believe any state should be penalized by the use of renewable fuels. Sound transportation policy and sound energy policy should not be mutually exclusive. Thus, as Congress works to reauthorize highway and transportation funding next year, we wholeheartedly encourage Congress to work towards addressing the issues surrounding the Highway Trust Fund and other transportation trust funds as they relate to ethanol.

   Much has been made of ethanol's impact on Highway Trust Fund receipts in FY 2003, and at the appropriate time, prior to or during the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, we look forward to working with the United States Senate, the House of Representatives and the Administration, to create the appropriate program to address the needs of these programs.

   Additionally, we support transferring the 2.5 cents currently directed to the General Fund for deficit reduction, back to the Highway Trust Fund as is included in the ``Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2002'' (S. 1979), which has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year.

   Transportation funding issues are not simple, and we look forward to working with you on this important issue on a unified front to address the many needs of the transportation , petroleum, and renewable fuels industries.

   Sincerely,

   Bob Dinneen,
President.

   Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts by Chairman BAUCUS for correcting an oversight by Congress when it failed to shift from the general fund to the highway trust fund, 2.5 cents per gallon collected from sales of gasohol. Similar adjustments for other fuels were made by a previous Congress, but not for gasohol.

   I also want to thank the chairman for refraining from offering an amendment at this time that would require the general fund to contribute 5.3 cents to the highway trust fund for every gallon of gasohol sold.

   It is wise to wait until next Congress when we can look at the big picture. Next year, we need to analyze all revenue sources for the highway trust fund to determine if adjustments are appropriate.

   We also need to determine if adjustments are appropriate in the way we spend the Highway Trust Funds that are collected. For instance, we may determine that it makes better sense for mass transit subsidies to come from general funds instead of from the highway trust fund.

[Page: S3154]  GPO's PDF

   We may find that the subsidies for special motor fuels such as propane, methanol, and liquified natural gas should be paid from the general fund instead of the highway trust fund. These three fuels are not paying the full 18.3 cents per gallon. Propane receives a 4.7 cent subsidy, liquified natural gas receives a 6.4 cent subsidy, and methanol receives a 9.15 cent subsidy. Much needs to be addressed as we reauthorize the highway bill, and approaching this very important matter in a piecemeal fashion would be a mistake.

   AVIATION EMISSIONS

   Mr. BURNS. At this time, the General Accounting Office is working on a study--requested by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Aviation Subcommittee--to conduct a comprehensive overview of key issues associated with emissions from aviation activities. This study would cover the same subject matter as contemplated in Section 803 of H.R. 4. At this time of tight budget constraints, it is not a good use of limited resources to produce redundant studies. Accordingly, I urge Senator MURKOWSKI in conference on the Energy Bill to strike the language in H.R. 4 requesting an aircraft emissions study.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree that this study does appear duplicative.

   Mr. BURNS. In addition to the GAO study, I wish to bring your attention to a voluntary effort to address emissions from the aviation sector, known as the ``EPA/FAA Local Air Quality Initiative.'' As part of this voluntary initiative, the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, States, airlines, aerospace manufacturers, and environmental groups are working together to develop analyses that address the same subject matter detailed in H.R. 4.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree with my colleague from Montana that there is no need at this time for another study on this issue. The Senator has my assurance that I will work to remove this provision when we go to conference.

   CLIMATE CHANGE PROVISIONS

   Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the substitute for Title X of the Senate Amendment 2917, and title XIII, encompass significant bipartisan progress on the topic of climate change policy. This progress has been reached in discussions involving staff for many Senators with keen interests in this area, including myself and Senator MURKOWSKI on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senators BYRD and STEVENS, Senators KERRY and HAGEL, and the chair and ranking members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation . All these Committees that I just mentioned have important jurisdictional responsibilities under rule XXV related to the climate change provisions in this bill. There is one major area in the proposed changes to Senate Amendment 2917 that is still not in agreement, and that will be left to conference for further discussion, but will describe that in a moment. What has been agreed to, and for which there is commitment on the part of the co-sponsors of this amendment to advocate for here in the Senate and maintain in conference, is substantial.

   First, we have developed a streamlined set of findings and a Sense of Congress relating to climate change, the shared international responsibility to address the problem, and the role of the United States in that matrix of shared responsibility. Senate Amendment 2917 had, in effect, two sets of findings in this regard. Developing a single set of agreed-to-statements, on the part of a broad cross-section of Senators with active interests in climate change policy, is an important accomplishment.

   Second, we have taken the fundamental elements of S. 1008, introduced by Senators BYRD and STEVENS and agreed to nearly all of them. S. 1008 was introduced on June 8, 2001 and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. That committee held a hearing on the bill on July 18, and marked the bill up in a business meeting on August 2, 2001. It was ordered reported by voice vote, and the Committee's report, as well as additional views of some members, was filed on November 15, 2001. This legislative history should be relevant to those who will be responsible for implementing these provisions. One of the agreed-to elements brought in from S. 1008 is a requirement for the development of a National Climate Change Strategy, which will be updated every 4 years. That Strategy and its updates will be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, which will provide its findings and recommendation both to the President and to Congress. The Strategy will be the central focus for integrating, across the government, a consideration of the broad range of activities and action that can be taken to reduce, avoid, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States and in other countries. The development of the Strategy is also intended to draw on broad participation from the public, scientific bodies, academia, industry, and various levels of State, local, and tribal governments. Another agreed-to element from S. 1008 is the creation of an Office of Climate Change Technology in the Department of Energy, and authority for creation of other necessary offices to carry out the National Climate Change Strategy in other agencies. The DOE Office will have a special role in bridging the gap that now exists between the more conventional energy technology R&D programs now in place at DOE and the necessary research that is pointing the way to breakthrough technologies that could have a pronounced effect on our ability to meet the climate change challenge. The substantial increase in authorization for this function that was contained in S. 1008 is maintained.

   Third, we have come to agreement on how to improve the structure of coordination of climate change science and monitoring programs across government, including the creation of a mechanism to fill gaps in research efforts among the various agency programs. Substantial portions of a bipartisan Commerce

   Committee bill, S. 1716, the Global Climate Change Act of 2001, introduced by Senators KERRY, STEVENS, HOLLINGS, INOUYE and AKAKA, are included in these sections. This bill emerged from a series of hearings held by the Committee during the 107th Congress on the state of scientific knowledge of climate change and its impacts and possible technological means to address the problem. These Commerce Committee provisions include amendments to the Global Change Research Act, as well as language that ensures the programs and capabilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to monitor, measure, understand, and respond to climate change and climate variability.

   The one area of remaining disagreement in Title X relates to the proposed White House Office of National Climate Change Policy, in Section 1013 of the proposed text for Title X. I believe that it would be true to say that the co-sponsors of this amendment, at a minimum, all support having a locus of accountability for the development and implementation of climate change policy in the Executive Office of the President. All of us believe that it should be headed by a Senate-confirmed appointee. We did not, however, reach consensus on how this position should be structured and whether the appointee should be a new or existing position. We have agreed to move forward to conference with the language of S. 1008, with the expectation that we would be able to engage the White House at that point and come to a final resolution of how to provide for the central accountability in the Executive Office of the President that is acceptable to all parties.

   On all other issues in Titles X and XIII aside from Section 1013, though, we are in agreement. We recommend their acceptance to our colleagues here in the Senate and, if adopted, plan to support these provisions strongly in conference.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to thank my colleague for his statement and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. These two titles of Senate Amendment 2917 lay the foundation for a sensible approach to managing the risk of climate change while providing the energy we will need for continued economic growth. The elements contained in these titles--improved scientific research, investment in development of improved energy technology, transfer of these technologies to markets at home and overseas, and coordinated climate policy development--are the same elements that were contained in S. 882 and S. 1776 in the 106th Congress, and S. 1294

[Page: S3155]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. BYRD. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. I would also note the historic nature of what has been negotiated, refined, and supported by the Senate here today. The passage of a national climate change strategy, along with the improved integration of science and technology programs, is critical to our Nation's long-term energy policy. I appreciate that other Members also believe that, at a minimum, there needs to be a Senate-confirmed appointee in the White House to oversee climate change policy. While I understand that there is not full agreement on this issue at this time, I believe that it is important to have a new, separate office in the White House to serve as a focal point for this multifaceted, multidimensional, long-term issue. After further

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display