Energy Policy Act of 2003

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would modify the renewable fuels provision of this amendment and limit it to Petroleum Administration Defense Districts II and III where corn and ethanol are most naturally available.

The objection that those of us from the coasts and the Rocky Mountain areas have with this amendment is very simple. While corn is plentiful in the Middle West, as this chart shows, and ethanol will be a good additive for gasoline in terms of cleaner air, in terms of oxidation, it will not work on the coasts. First, we do not have the corn available. It has to be shipped. It has to be made into ethanol and then shipped. Since ethanol is combustible, shipping is expensive. It will raise prices for us. We do not know how much. There is a dispute. But when there is a better way to do it that will not raise any gasoline prices, there is no reason we should not be for this.

So this amendment would basically be very simple. It would say that PADDs II and III, the corn-growing areas of the country which produce most of the ethanol, would, indeed, still have the mandate before them, but it would allow PADDs I and IV and V to be exempt.

This body has no reason not to exempt. We have already exempted Alaska and Hawaii because they are far away. The issue is not the amount of water or land that must be traversed; it is how far the ethanol has to be transported, and it has to be transported quite a long distance to get to these other areas.

So I join with my colleague, Senator Clinton, to offer this amendment and to say the main reason we are against this is very simple: There are cheaper ways to do this. This will raise the price of gasoline, and it will be an unfair burden, an unfair tax, on many of the people who live in the two coastal areas of this country and in the Rocky Mountain States.

Every one of my colleagues from the PADD IV, PADD V, and PADD I areas are not representing their constituents unless they vote for this amendment because the benefit for the few corn growers in our area will be far exceeded by the detriment to every driver in the area in terms of increased gasoline prices.

Some say it will not raise prices much. Most of the studies are admittedly divided on that, but there is too much evidence that says they will. If there is a better way to do it that does not require a mandate, why not? I say to my free market colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is very hypocritical to be for the free market except when it benefits a product in their State. To force ethanol on areas that could do it better in other ways is not free market.

Ethanol is already subsidized dramatically. I have supported money for our corn growers, even though we have very few in New York. But if we are going to do it, it ought to come out of the Treasury, not out of the pockets of drivers throughout the Nation. We are going to be making a major mistake. We will come back 3, 4, 5 years from now, if we pass the Frist-Daschle amendment, and we will regret it.

Remember the catastrophic tax? This is the same type of thing. I do not want any of my colleagues to say they did not know, because we are giving them warning loudly and clearly that the chances that this will raise gasoline prices significantly are too high to risk it, particularly when there are other ways to require the clean burning of fuels other than ethanol.

So for my colleague from Tennessee and for my colleague from South Dakota, who are both fine people, we are not exempting their areas. If they want to do it there, that is fine. It is not going to cost them much. It will help their corn growers and not cost their drivers much. But for all the people on the east coast, the west coast, and the Rocky Mountain States, this makes a huge difference.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I conclude, first, one difference with this amendment—it has the support of the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which the others did not. Second, it affects all of the coastal States, not just one or two.

On the other amendments there was a general opt-out. Those who advocate ethanol would say every State could opt out and we would not have an ethanol program. Here, the main States that care about it in PADDs II and III, half of the States in the country or less, would not be allowed to opt out. It would be cheaper for them.

I say to my good friend, "mischief"? We are creating mischief with this amendment? My goodness, the amendment my good friend the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is creating affecting the drivers in more than half the country is enormous, all to help the corn growers and to help the ethanol industry. That is the kind of mischief that people do not like about Washington.

They are saying, you are telling me, Mr. John Q. Smith of New York, Miss Mary E. Jones of Oregon, Miss Young Teenager who just learned to drive from Denver, CO, they must use ethanol even if it costs more.

I see my good friend from Pennsylvania, one of the great upholders of free market principles—except when it comes to steel and corn.

Let's be realistic here.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator from New York would yield, if he checks my vote on the last 2 amendments he would find I am a great defender of the free market principle and have joined the Senator from New York in support of those.

Mr. SCHUMER. I retract my remarks. I should not have assumed the worst.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SCHUMER. I say to my friend from New Mexico who also upholds free market principles that this is not a free market bill. This is the opposite. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page has come out against this proposal.
Can't we form a nice little coalition of the States poorly affected, the States that are hurt by this, plus all those who believe in the great free market, like my good friend from Pennsylvania on the issue of corn?

Mr. DOMENICI. I remind the Senator, in response to the Senator from New Mexico and his remarks about this being more of the same and enough is enough and his comment, one thing is different, and that is that the ranking minority member of the Energy Committee was on his amendment, I remind the Senator that same Senator has offered his own amendment and it did not get enough votes. If you get as many votes as he got, you are doing quite well. I don't know that you can expect more by saying he is on it since he has tried his best and failed already.

Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, I simply say to my friend from New Mexico, the underlying is so bad and so egregious it is worth trying and trying again.

You know the old song: what made you think that ram could punch a hole in the dam? Everyone knows a ram can't punch a hole in the dam, but he had high hopes. He had high hopes, high, apple pie-in-the-sky hopes.

That is what we have here. We know if we persist, because we are right, we can do it, just like the ad, that could not move a banana tree plant in the same aforementioned song.

We are going to keep trying. We know it is an uphill fight. We do not think that is because we are wrong. We think that is because there is a lot of power on the other side. I guess our lack of strength and votes thus far is somewhat made up for in the passion we felt about this issue in these amendments.

If my colleague would like to conclude, I yield him whatever time remains.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am anxiously awaiting for you to decide you have used your time up. Have you?

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask the President if I have.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 54 seconds.

Mr. SCHUMER. In deference to my good friend from New Mexico, and in hopes that he will see the error of his ways, I yield back those 54 seconds.