Floor Statements

Madam President, I congratulate our dear colleague, Senator Dick Lugar from Indiana, for his remarkable service to our country in many ways, not just through his leadership and years and votes in the Senate; prior to his time in the Senate, his service to our country in the U.S. Navy and all the other contributions he has made. It is a remarkable morning for our country to recognize this remarkable individual.

Madam President, I rise this morning to join my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the new Homestead Act. We have heard from Senator Dorgan as to why many believe this issue, this challenge, needs attention. He laid some of those reasons out rather clearly.

Senator Dorgan and I and others introduced this legislation last year. The intent of this legislation is simple. It aims to help reverse the trend of population decline in rural areas and provide growth and opportunities in rural America. Many communities in rural America have not shared in the boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. Instead, this out-migration of individuals and resources is taking a high toll on rural America. Over the last 50 years, nonmetropolitan counties in the Nation lost more than a third of their population, about 34 percent. Contrast this with the fact that during the same period the number of people living in metropolitan areas grew by over 150 percent.

Today, Nebraska is one of the States hardest hit by out-migration. Of 93 counties in Nebraska, 56 have lost at least 10 percent of residents due to out-migration over the past 2 years. According to the University of Nebraska report, most of these counties will see similar population losses over the next 2 decades without an expansion of nonagriculture industry.

Why are people leaving rural America? It is rather simple: For jobs and opportunities. One of the main provisions of our legislation addresses this issue by providing incentives to small businesses and other enterprises to locate and expand in rural areas. Small businesses are a critical element of the rural economy, as they are to all of America, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all rural jobs.

Our legislation builds upon the same spirit of the Homestead Act of 1862 which gave land to individuals who were willing to live and work in unsettled areas of the country. In fact, the

first claim made under this act was just outside Beatrice, NE.

Our bill targets three different categories: Individuals, businesses, and capital formation. For individuals who live in or move to high out- migration counties, the legislation provides, as Senator Dorgan mentioned, three basic things: The college loan repayments and home tax credits, individual homestead accounts, rural investment tax credits, and a venture capital fund.

Last year, in the Senate Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus called the bill a big idea. Indeed, it is a big idea. But it is the kind of big idea we need to help reverse the decline of rural America--not just the Midwest--but all of rural America.

I am proud of the fact our bill has the bipartisan support of 10 cosponsors and it has the endorsement of a diverse coalition of organizations across this country, all kinds of organizations. I am pleased again to be working with my friend, Senator Dorgan, in reintroducing this legislation. I ask my colleagues in this body to learn more about the aim, the specifics of this legislation, and that they would help and join us in addressing the challenges facing rural areas across our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to support the resolution of ratification of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions--or, as we call it, the Moscow Treaty--now before the Senate.

The Moscow Treaty represents a shared commitment by the United States and Russia to step back from the cold war policies of nuclear confrontation and enter into a new era of cooperation. This is to assure that our nuclear weapons no longer threaten either our peoples or our civilization.

It was the bold vision of President Ronald Reagan, 17 years ago, at the Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik that set in motion this effort to make dramatic reductions in the nuclear weapons arsenals of the United States and then the Soviet Union. President Reagan's vision, once considered by some a fantasy or a negotiating ploy, is becoming the standard by which we should measure our success in arms control.

The Moscow Treaty avoids the strategic gamesmanship and pitfalls of the SALT treaties, the ABM Treaty, and other negotiations of the cold war.

The simplicity of this treaty, only three pages in length, betrayed its historic significance for United States-Russian relations and for global security. Its strength is the power of its objective, to dramatically reduce American and Russian strategic weapons.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush announced that the United States would reduce its strategic nuclear arsenal by two-thirds, from approximately 6,000 nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons by December 31, 2012. The President made this determination independent of what Russia would do, knowing that these reductions would be in the overall strategic interest of the United States.

President Putin determined that comparable reductions would also be in his country's own national security interest. On May 24, 2002, Bush and Putin agreed that their commitment to these reductions would take the form of a legally binding treaty.

The negotiations over the Moscow Treaty did not fall into the traps of previous arms control agreements negotiated with the Soviet Union during the cold war. That is as much a testimony to the new spirit of U.S.-Russian relations and the realities of today's threats as it is to the strength of the treaty. For example, it took the United States Senate 3 years to ratify the START II treaty. It took the Russian Duma 7 years for ratification. And both sides put conditions unacceptable to the other side on the respective ratification agreements. As a result, that agreement never went into force.

Instead of years of back and forth negotiations, with each side seeking a strategic advantage, the Moscow Treaty illustrates a turning point in America's relationship with Russia. It should provide an environment conducive to future arms control negotiations.

The Resolution of Ratification before us today introduces just two straightforward conditions that complement rather than complicate the treaty. First, the administration must report to the Senate annually on how the United States plans to reach the required reduction goals. While this resolution does not set a rigid timetable, these reports will allow the Senate to oversee the implementation of this treaty.

The second condition deals with the Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar programs. Russia is committed to meeting these reductions, but the question remains if Russia has the resources to meet them. The Nunn-Lugar program has been successful in assisting the former states of the Soviet Union to help reduce their nuclear arsenals. The Resolution of Ratification rightly includes Nunn-Lugar programs as instrumental in achieving lasting and durable arms reduction.

The Moscow Treaty should not be considered as the final chapter in U.S.-Russian arms control, but it is an important and historic step forward. The United States and Russia must do more to prevent the proliferation of dual use technology and weapons of mass destruction to Iran, North Korea, and other countries. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction programs are crucial to our shared security interests in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destructions. For us to succeed in making a safer world, Washington and Moscow must be strategic partners, not strategic adversaries.

The Bush Administration, Chairman Lugar, Senator biden, and others who have framed the Treaty and the Resolution of Ratification deserve credit and thanks for their leadership and steady focus. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution without amendments, for the very reasons Senator Biden articulated just minutes ago, and to understand the broader context and significance of this treaty for U.S.-Russian relations and global security. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak briefly about an important, comprehensive fuels bill that I will introduce today, along with Senators Daschle, Lugar, Johnson, Voinovich, Grassley, and others. This bill aims to enhance air and water quality, reduce supply and distribution challengers in the gasoline market, and increase energy security by expanding the use of clean, domestically produced renewable fuels.

Specifically, our bill follows the advice of the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates by repealing the Federal oxygenate mandate and phasing out the use of MTBE nationwide. It also contains a reasonable Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, which would gradually increase the nation's use of renewable fuel to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. All of this while protecting the environmental gains already made by the reformulated gasoline program.

This legislation mirrors the bipartisan fuels agreement in last year's Senate energy bill, which gained the votes of 69 Senators. This year, we have worked to build an even broader, bipartisan coalition of cosponsors.

Much has happened since the Senate passed its energy bill last year. The renewable fuels industry has expanded considerably to meet growing demand. The ethanol industry opened 12 new plants last year, with 10 additional plants now under construction. Sixteen of these new plants are farmer-owned co-operatives. By the end of 2003, annual ethanol production capacity is expected to exceed 3 billion gallons. In December the ethanol industry wrapped up a record year--2.13 billion gallons in 2002, up by more than 20 percent over 2001.

Also, ChevronTexaco announced last month that it will switch from blending MTBE to blending ethanol in the southern California market-- making Chevron the last of the large California refiners to make the switch to ethanol. This means that more than 80 percent of California's federally-reformulated gasoline will be blended with ethanol by May 2003.

We should not forget that biodiesel, made primarily from soybeans and still a developing fuel technology, has grown enough that it is now used in more than 200 State and Federal automobile fleets--using a 20- percent blend or higher.

Today, 16 States have already banned MTBE. With State MTBE bans will come increased challenges to fuel distribution and supply. The national phase-down of MTBE proposed in this bill will help us meet these challenges.

And a national Renewable Fuels Standard with a credit and trading program will ensure that renewable fuels are used where they make the most sense. In fact, according to a recent analysis, enacting this fuels bill would even reduce refiner costs, .2 cents, per gallon compared to current law.

The Standard in our legislation is a fair and workable compromise new crafted nearly a year ago--after months of work the American Petroleum Institute, the environmental community, the Northeast air directors, agricultural groups, DOE, EPA and others. Senator Daschle and I helped facilitate those talks. We crafted the language of last year's fuels agreement--the same language in this bill.

This is not a per-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level of compliance in places where compliance may be difficult.

Our Nation needs a broader, deeper and more diverse energy portfolio. Today, less than one percent of America's transportation fuel comes from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply--tripling the amount of renewable fuel we now use.

Today, America imports nearly sixty percent of the crude oil it consumes. This amount is estimated to climb to 70 percent by 2002. Almost a fourth of America's oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. Last year, the United States imported nearly half-a-million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. Overall, petroleum imports cost the United States more than $100 billion a year--around 25 percent of our trade deficit.

This country consumers more than 300 billion gallons of crude oil a year--of that, 165 billion gallons is refined into gasoline and diesel. Our legislation says that by 2012, not less then 5 billion gallons of that 165 billion gallons shall come from renewable sources. By enacting this legislation, we would replace 66 billion gallons of foreign crude oil by 2012; reduce foreign oil purchases by $34 billion; create more than 200,000 jobs nationwide; and boost U.S. farm income by more than $6 billion a year.

As the new Congress prepares to resume deliberations on a new national energy plan, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider this legislation--which will assist our efforts to modernize the Nation's transportation fuel system and address the environmental, energy and security concerns for today and tomorrow.

Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak briefly about an important, comprehensive fuels bill that I will introduce today, along with Senators Daschle, Lugar, Johnson, Voinovich, Grassley, and others. This bill aims to enhance air and water quality, reduce supply and distribution challengers in the gasoline market, and increase energy security by expanding the use of clean, domestically produced renewable fuels.

Specifically, our bill follows the advice of the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates by repealing the Federal oxygenate mandate and phasing out the use of MTBE nationwide. It also contains a reasonable Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, which would gradually increase the nation's use of renewable fuel to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. All of this while protecting the environmental gains already made by the reformulated gasoline program.

This legislation mirrors the bipartisan fuels agreement in last year's Senate energy bill, which gained the votes of 69 Senators. This year, we have worked to build an even broader, bipartisan coalition of cosponsors.

Much has happened since the Senate passed its energy bill last year. The renewable fuels industry has expanded considerably to meet growing demand. The ethanol industry opened 12 new plants last year, with 10 additional plants now under construction. Sixteen of these new plants are farmer-owned co-operatives. By the end of 2003, annual ethanol production capacity is expected to exceed 3 billion gallons. In December the ethanol industry wrapped up a record year--2.13 billion gallons in 2002, up by more than 20 percent over 2001.

Also, ChevronTexaco announced last month that it will switch from blending MTBE to blending ethanol in the southern California market-- making Chevron the last of the large California refiners to make the switch to ethanol. This means that more than 80 percent of California's federally-reformulated gasoline will be blended with ethanol by May 2003.

We should not forget that biodiesel, made primarily from soybeans and still a developing fuel technology, has grown enough that it is now used in more than 200 State and Federal automobile fleets--using a 20- percent blend or higher.

Today, 16 States have already banned MTBE. With State MTBE bans will come increased challenges to fuel distribution and supply. The national phase-down of MTBE proposed in this bill will help us meet these challenges.

And a national Renewable Fuels Standard with a credit and trading program will ensure that renewable fuels are used where they make the most sense. In fact, according to a recent analysis, enacting this fuels bill would even reduce refiner costs, .2 cents, per gallon compared to current law.

The Standard in our legislation is a fair and workable compromise new crafted nearly a year ago--after months of work the American Petroleum Institute, the environmental community, the Northeast air directors, agricultural groups, DOE, EPA and others. Senator Daschle and I helped facilitate those talks. We crafted the language of last year's fuels agreement--the same language in this bill.

This is not a per-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level of compliance in places where compliance may be difficult.

Our Nation needs a broader, deeper and more diverse energy portfolio. Today, less than one percent of America's transportation fuel comes from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply--tripling the amount of renewable fuel we now use.

Today, America imports nearly sixty percent of the crude oil it consumes. This amount is estimated to climb to 70 percent by 2002. Almost a fourth of America's oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. Last year, the United States imported nearly half-a-million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. Overall, petroleum imports cost the United States more than $100 billion a year--around 25 percent of our trade deficit.

This country consumers more than 300 billion gallons of crude oil a year--of that, 165 billion gallons is refined into gasoline and diesel. Our legislation says that by 2012, not less then 5 billion gallons of that 165 billion gallons shall come from renewable sources. By enacting this legislation, we would replace 66 billion gallons of foreign crude oil by 2012; reduce foreign oil purchases by $34 billion; create more than 200,000 jobs nationwide; and boost U.S. farm income by more than $6 billion a year.

As the new Congress prepares to resume deliberations on a new national energy plan, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider this legislation--which will assist our efforts to modernize the Nation's transportation fuel system and address the environmental, energy and security concerns for today and tomorrow.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I rise in support of drought disaster aid for America's drought-stricken agricultural producers and to support the Cochran amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill.

I wish to also express my thanks to Chairman Stevens, Chairman Cochran, and their staffs for their hard work and especially for finding the necessary critical funding to offset the spending in the bill.

Those of us in drought-stricken States have known for many months that our farmers and ranchers needed assistance. Unfortunately, in a year when 80 percent of U.S. counties were declared a disaster, the House and Senate adjourned last November with neither Chamber having passed 2002 drought aid.

There is no doubt that disaster relief is justified. In Nebraska, only the Dust Bowl years of 1934 and 1936 were dryer than what the State experienced last summer. Since autumn, conditions have only worsened throughout much of the Plains, as well as most of the West and Southwest. This has been one of the driest winters in these regions in more than 100 years.

Nebraska officials are becoming increasingly concerned about irrigation resources for the upcoming growing season. The water level at Lake McConaughy, Nebraska's largest reservoir, is 60 percent below capacity.

With the Federal budget deficit projected to balloon near $300 billion in this fiscal year, Congress must demonstrate fiscal responsibility. The days of budget surpluses are gone, but at the same time we must turn our attention to this much-needed drought assistance.

Under this proposal, the Cochran amendment, disaster payments would get more attention more quickly than under the old crop disaster formula, and we would help a larger number of farmers and ranchers.

Months ago, the President made it clear that any disaster aid for agriculture must be offset. Last week, White House agriculture adviser Chuck Conner reiterated this requirement, telling farm groups that all disaster aid proposals would be judged upon three criteria: One, cost; two, available budget offsets; and, three, whether farmers would be more self-reliant in the end. The Cochran amendment complies with the President's request.

I urge my colleagues to support the proposal of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I yield the floor.