STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - May 04, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S3514-S3543]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2503. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to authorize States to
regulate harmful fuel additives and to require fuel to contain fuel
made from renewable sources, to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
require that at least 85 percent of funds appropriated to the
Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund be distributed to States to carry out cooperative
agreements for undertaking corrective action and for enforcement of
subtitle I of that act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
renewable fuels act of 2000
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ten years ago I joined with two
distinguished colleagues, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and
Senator Tom Harkin, to introduce the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The RFG provision, with
its minimum oxygen standard, was adopted in the Senate by the
overwhelming vote of 69 to 30 and eventually signed into law by
President George Bush.
I am proud to say that this program has resulted in substantial
improvement in air quality around the country. It also has stimulated
increased production and use of renewable ethanol and other oxygenates
needed to meet the minimum oxygen standard.
Unfortunately, an unanticipated development involving the petroleum-
based oxygenate MTBE requires us to re-examine the many benefits of the
RFG program. The detection of MTBE in ground water around the country
has generated considerable debate in recent months over how to deal
with this fuel additive and the oxygen requirement of the reformulated
gasoline program. The resolution of this debate will have significant
consequences for the environment, for farmers and for the rural
economy.
The pace of activity to resolve the MTBE issue is accelerating
rapidly. Battlelines are being drawn as the state of California and its
allies focus on scrapping the oxygen requirement.
It is clear that Congress and/or the Clinton administration will
respond to the MTBE problem. My focus is on ensuring that that response
not only serves the environment, but also retains a prominent place for
ethanol--a place that assures long-term, predictable growth of the
industry.
I believe a comprehensive legislative solution is necessary in this
case--one that recognizes and preserves the important air quality
benefits of the RFG program, protects water supplies and leads the
nation away from greater dependence on imported oil.
I have worked for the last year with the ethanol industry, Republican
and Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the Governor's Ethanol
Coalition, environmental organizations and the administration in search
of a solution that gives states the tools they need to address MTBE
contamination, ensures the future growth of domestic renewable fuels,
and prevents supply shortages and price spikes in the nation's fuels
supply.
This process has led me to two basic conclusions.
First, the MTBE crisis has left the RFG oxygen requirement vulnerable
to legislative attack. Those who doubt this conclusion should reflect
on the following facts.
California refiners have shown that clean-burning gasoline can be
produced without oxygen.
EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel has recommended that the oxygen requirement
be repealed.
The RFG oxygen requirement is opposed by a diverse coalition that
includes the American Lung Association, the American Petroleum
Institute, the New England States Coordinated Air Use Management
agency, the State of California and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC).
Second, support for the oxygen requirement will weaken over time.
Improvements in auto emissions control technology will cause the air
quality benefits of oxygen in gasoline to decline and the justification
for the RFG oxygen requirement to diminish.
As one of the original authors of the reformulated gasoline
provisions of the Clean Air Act, I feel something of a proprietary
interest in the oxygen requirement. As a legislator, I recognize that
circumstances change, and obstinacy should not be allowed to become a
barrier to the achievement of important policy goals.
Ethanol advocates face a choice between defending the oxygen
requirement in the near term, realizing that its days ultimately are
numbered, or using the current MTBE debate to guarantee the future
growth of the ethanol industry based on important public policy goals,
such as energy security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and
domestic economic growth.
In my judgment, providing states with the flexibility to waive the
RFG oxygen requirement is a fair tradeoff for the establishment of a
renewable fuels standard. It represents the most effective way to
achieve the environmental and economic goals of governors and
consumers, while putting the ethanol industry on a steady growth path
well into the future and promoting ethanol production in new regions of
the nation.
Therefore, today, with Senator Richard Lugar, I am introducing the
Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. Under our
[[Page
S3515]]
legislation, EPA is directed to reduce the use of MTBE to safe levels,
and states can obtain waivers from the RFG oxygen requirement and
further regulate MTBE if they desire. This will allow the nation to
deal with the MTBE contamination issue responsibly and avoid gasoline
supply disruptions. The bill also includes provisions protecting the
air quality gains that have resulted from the use of oxygenated fuels.
To protect market opportunities for renewable fuels, the bill
establishes a renewable fuels standard for the nation's gasoline, which
begins in 2000 at 1.3 percent--roughly where renewable fuels production
stands today--and gradually increases over the next decade to 3.3
percent of the nation's gasoline in 2010. Considering the fact that
overall gasoline use is expected to increase over the next decade, this
standard will more than triple ethanol use over that period.
In meeting that requirement, our legislation stipulates that a gallon
of biomass ethanol counts as much as 1.5 gallons of starch-based
ethanol, thereby providing a strong incentive for the development of
biomass-based ethanol plans throughout the country. It also established
a renewable fuels standard for diesel fuels to promote the use of
biodiesel. These renewable fuels standards can be met through
nationwide credit trading, to allow for the most economomical use of
ethanol and biodiesel.
For those who are concerned about the potential impact of a drought
or other natural disaster on the ability of the renewable fuels
industry to supply this market, the legislation allows the EPA
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
waive the renewable requirement in any given year upon determination
that there is indequate domestic supply or distribution capacity, or
that the requirement would severely harm the economic or environment of
a State, a region, or the United States.
I also intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to establish a strategic corn reserve as a complement to the renewable
fuel standard. A properly managed strategic corn reserve could serve as
the equivalent of the strategic petroleum reserve and ensure stable
feedstocks for domestic ethanol producers in the event of weather
induced supply interruptions. Taxpayers would benefit as farmers could
receive fair market prices, thereby reducing the need for emergency
assistance each year.
It is important to recognize that under Senator Lugar's and my
approach, the oxygen requirement is not waived entirely. States can
decide for themselves whether to apply for a waiver from the RFG oxygen
requirement. We fully expect that RFG programs that currently are using
ethanol and have not experienced MTBE contamination, such as Chicago
and Milwaukee, will stay in the program. Moreover, the bill allows any
governor to apply to EPA to opt into the RFG program, thus expanding
its air quality benefits to new regions of the country. Those areas
that remain in the program or opt into it, and use ethanol, will
generate credits that can be sold to other regions of the country.
Finally, the bill prevents adverse effects on states' highway trust
fund tax allocations, with ``hold harmless'' language ensuring that
states reporting Federal excise tax receipts on gasoline are not
penalized for their ethanol blend sales.
Again, my goal in introducing this legislation is both to support
states that want to get MTBE out of gasoline and to ensure that this
effort does not adversely affect ethanol production. It is also to put
into place a program that will grow the ethanol industry steadily over
the next decade, thereby assuring the market stability necessary to
attract investment in the construction of new plants and significantly
increasing the market for corn and biomass. This approach not only will
get MTBE out of groundwater; it will do so without backsliding on the
air quality improvements generated by the RFG program while increasing
corn demand by 600 million bushels per year.
Mr. President, since first floating this concept in May of last year,
I have heard from numerous stakeholders in this complex debate. The
legislative concept that Senator Lugar and I unveil today has been
endorsed by diverse interests ranging from the American Coalition for
Ethanol (ACE) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the 24-state Governors'
Ethanol Coalition, to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) to Mr. Leo Leibowitz, chairman of Getty Petroleum.
I believe that we have struck a delicate balance between the interests
of farmers, consumers, state regulatory officials, refiners and those
concerned about the environment. This plan is a worthy successor to the
original 1990 RFG provision, preserving all of the good things it has
achieved and rectifying those elements that need fixing.
I look forward to working with Senators Smith and Baucus, the
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, to enact legislation resolving the MTBE issue. I hope that
other colleagues will join Senator Lugar and me in support of this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2503
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Fuels Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. STATE PETITIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR PROHIBIT
USE OF MTBE.
Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``any emission product
of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare,'' and inserting ``the fuel or fuel
additive, or an emission product of the fuel or fuel
additive, causes or contributes to air, water, or soil
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare or the environment,'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting ``or have other
environmental impacts'' after ``emissions'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i) and
(ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively, and indenting
appropriately to reflect the amendments made by this
paragraph;
(B) by striking ``(4)(A) Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C),'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Limitation on state authority with respect to fuels
and fuel additives.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Fuels and fuel additives.--Except as otherwise
provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph (5),'';
(C) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B)), by
inserting ``or water or soil quality protection'' after
``emission control''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) MTBE.--Notwithstanding clause (i), except as
otherwise provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph
(5), no State (or political subdivision of a State) may
prescribe or attempt to enforce, for the purpose of motor
vehicle emission control or water or soil quality protection,
any control or prohibition on methyl tertiary butyl ether as
a fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine.'';
(D) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or water or soil
quality protection'' after ``emission control''; and
(E) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by inserting ``or water or soil quality protection''
after ``emission control''; and
(II) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or, if the Administrator grants a petition of
the State under paragraph (5)''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``only if he'' and
inserting ``if the Administrator''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) State petitions for authority to control or prohibit
use of fuels or fuel additives for non-air quality
purposes.--
``(A) In general.--A State seeking to prescribe and enforce
a control or prohibition on a fuel or fuel additive for the
purpose of water or soil quality protection under paragraph
(4)(C) shall submit a petition to the Administrator for
authority to take such action.
``(B) Required elements of petition.--A petition submitted
under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) include information on--
``(I) the likely effects of the control or prohibition on
fuel availability and price in the affected supply area or
region; and
``(II) the improvements in environmental quality or public
health or welfare expected to result from the control or
prohibition; and
``(ii) demonstrate that the authority is necessary to
protect the environment or public health or welfare.
[[Page
S3516]]
``(C) Action by the administrator.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of receipt of a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall grant or deny the
petition.
``(D) Criteria for granting of petitions.--The
Administrator shall grant a petition submitted by a State
under subparagraph (A) unless the Administrator finds that--
``(i) the petition fails to reasonably demonstrate that the
authority is necessary to protect the environment or public
health or welfare;
``(ii) the control or prohibition is likely to have a
substantial and significant adverse effect on fuel
availability or price (including a State or regional effect)
that clearly outweighs any benefits associated with the
control or prohibition; or
``(iii) in the case of a petition submitted by a State
seeking the authority primarily to protect water resources,
the State has failed to take other appropriate and reasonable
actions to prevent contamination of water resources by fuels
or fuel additives, such as--
``(I) adoption of a prohibition on the delivery of gasoline
to noncompliant facilities with underground storage tanks; or
``(II) operation of a statewide monitoring and compliance
assurance system.
``(E) Effect of failure of administrator to act.--If, by
the date that is 180 days after the date of receipt of a
petition submitted under subparagraph (A), the Administrator
has not proposed to grant or deny the petition under
subparagraph (C), the petition shall be deemed to be granted.
``(F) Procedural requirements.--
``(i) Inapplicability of certain requirements.--Section
307(d) of this Act and sections 553 through 557 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply to actions on a petition
submitted under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Public notice and opportunity for comment.--The
Administrator shall provide public notice and opportunity for
comment with respect to a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A).
``(6) Limitation on mtbe content.--The Administrator shall
promulgate regulations applicable to each refiner, blender,
or importer of gasoline to ensure that gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce by the refiner, blender, or importer
on or after January 1, 2004, in an area has a content of
methyl tertiary butyl ether that is at a level that--
``(A) the Administrator determines may not reasonably be
anticipated to endanger natural resources and the public
health; and
``(B) does not exceed the annual average volume of methyl
tertiary butyl ether per gallon of gasoline used in the area
before 1995.''.
SEC. 3. WAIVER OF OXYGEN CONTENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``Within 1 year after the enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Not later than November 15, 1991,'';
(B) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and opt-in areas under paragraph
(6)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Adjustment of voc performance standard.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator may adjust the
volatile organic compounds performance standard promulgated
under subparagraph (A) in the case of a fuel formulation that
achieves reductions in the quantity of mass emissions of
carbon monoxide that are greater than or less than the
reductions associated with a reformulated gasoline that
contains 2.0 percent oxygen by weight and otherwise meets the
requirements of this subsection.
``(ii) Amount of adjustment.--The amount of an adjustment
under clause (i) shall be based on the effect on ozone
concentrations of the combined reductions in emissions of
volatile organic compounds and reductions in emissions of
carbon monoxide.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``The oxygen'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--The oxygen''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Waiver for certain states.--The Administrator shall
waive the application of clause (i) for any ozone
nonattainment area in a State if the Governor of the State
submits for such a waiver an application that--
``(I) demonstrates that the State is in full compliance
with Federal regulations concerning the control and
prevention of leaking underground storage tanks; or
``(II) provides a plan that outlines the measures the State
will take to fully comply with the underground storage tank
regulations by a date not later than 2 years after the
receipt of the application of the Governor.
``(iii) Effective date.--A waiver under clause (ii) shall
become effective on the later of--
``(I) January 1 of the calendar year immediately following
the calendar year during which the application for the waiver
is received; or
``(II) the date that is 180 days after the date on which
the application for the waiver is received.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Aromatics.--The aromatic hydrocarbon content of the
gasoline shall not exceed 22 percent by volume.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``25 percent'' and
inserting ``22 percent''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``Any reduction'' and inserting the
following:
``(iii) Treatment of greater reductions.--Any reduction'';
and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Anti-backsliding provision.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall revise performance standards under this
subparagraph as necessary to ensure that--
``(aa) the ozone-forming potential, taking into account all
ozone precursors (including volatile organic compounds,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide), of the aggregate
emissions during the high ozone season (as determined by the
Administrator) from baseline vehicles when using reformulated
gasoline does not exceed the ozone-forming potential of the
aggregate emissions during the high ozone season from
baseline vehicles when using reformulated gasoline that
complies with the regulations that were in effect on January
1, 2000, and were applicable to reformulated gasoline sold in
calendar year 2000 and subsequent calendar years; and
``(bb) the aggregate emissions of the pollutants specified
in subclause (II) from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline do not exceed the aggregate emissions
of those pollutants from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline that complies with the regulations that
were in effect on January 1, 2000, and were applicable to
reformulated gasolines sold in calendar year 2000 and
subsequent calendar years.
``(II) Specified pollutants.--The pollutants specified in
this subclause are--
``(aa) toxics, categorized by degrees of toxicity; and
``(bb) such other pollutants, including pollutants
regulated under section 108, and such precursors to those
pollutants, as the Administrator determines by regulation
should be controlled to prevent the deterioration of air
quality and to achieve attainment of a national ambient air
quality standard in 1 or more areas.''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)(B)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively, and indenting appropriately to
reflect the amendments made by this paragraph;
(B) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--The Administrator'';
(C) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B))--
(i) in subclause (I) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``, and'' and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subclause (II) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(I) by striking ``achieve equivalent'' and inserting the
following: ``achieve--
``(aa) equivalent'';
(II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(bb) combined reductions in emissions of ozone forming
volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide that result in
a reduction in ozone concentration, as provided in clause
(ii)(I), that is equivalent to or greater than the reduction
in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated gasoline
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3); and'';
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) achieve equivalent or greater reductions in
emissions of toxic air pollutants than are achieved by a
reformulated gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of
paragraph (3).''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Carbon monoxide credit.--
``(I) In general.--In determining whether a fuel
formulation or slate of fuel formulations achieves combined
reductions in emissions of ozone forming volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide that result in a reduction in
ozone concentration that is equivalent to or greater than the
reduction in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated
gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph
(3), the Administrator--
``(aa) shall consider, to the extent appropriate, the
change in carbon monoxide emissions from baseline vehicles
attributable to an oxygen content in the fuel formulation or
slate of fuel formulations that exceeds 2.0 percent by
weight; and
``(bb) may consider, to the extent appropriate, the change
in carbon monoxide emissions described in item (aa) from
vehicles other than baseline vehicles.
``(II) Oxygen credits.--Any excess oxygen content that is
taken into consideration in making a determination under
subclause (I) may not be used to generate credits under
paragraph (7)(A).
``(III) Relation to title i.--Any fuel formulation or slate
of fuel formulations that is certified as equivalent or
greater under this subparagraph, taking into consideration
the combined reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide, shall receive the same
volatile organic compounds reduction credit for the purposes
of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(2)(B) of section 182 as a fuel
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3).''.
(b) Reformulated Gasoline Carbon Monoxide Reduction
Credit.--Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
[[Page
S3517]]
7511a(c)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``An adjustment to the volatile organic compound
emission reduction requirements under section
211(k)(3)(B)(iv) shall be credited toward the requirement for
VOC emissions reductions under this subparagraph.''.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL OPT-IN AREAS UNDER REFORMULATED GASOLINE
PROGRAM.
Section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(k)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(6) Opt-in areas.--(A) Upon'' and
inserting the following:
``(6) Opt-in areas.--
``(A) Classified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) If'' and
inserting the following:
``(ii) Effect of insufficient domestic capacity to produce
reformulated gasoline.--If'';
(3) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``subparagraph (A)''
and inserting ``clause (i)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``this paragraph''
and inserting ``this subparagraph''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Nonclassified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon the application of the Governor of
a State, the Administrator shall apply the prohibition
specified in paragraph (5) in any area in the State that is
not a covered area or an area referred to in subparagraph
(A)(i).
``(ii) Publication of application.--As soon as practicable
after receipt of an application under clause (i), the
Administrator shall publish the application in the Federal
Register.''.
SEC. 5. RENEWABLE CONTENT OF GASOLINE AND OTHER MOTOR FUELS.
(a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (q); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
``(o) Renewable Content of Gasoline.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Regulations.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations applicable to each
refiner, blender, or importer of gasoline to ensure that
gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the United
States by the refiner, blender, or importer complies with the
renewable content requirements of this subsection.
``(B) Renewable content requirements.--
``(i) In general.--All gasoline sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by a refiner, blender, or
importer shall contain, on a quarterly average basis, a
quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source (including
biomass ethanol) that is not less than the applicable
percentage by volume for the quarter.
``(ii) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of clause (i), 1
gallon of biomass ethanol shall be considered to be the
equivalent of 1.5 gallons of fuel derived from a renewable
source.
``(iii) Applicable percentage.--For the purposes of clause
(i), the applicable percentage for a quarter of a calendar
year shall be determined in accordance with the following
table:
Applicable percentage of fuel derived from a renewable source:
`Calendar year:
2000.........................................................1.3 ....
2001.........................................................1.5 ....
2002.........................................................1.7 ....
2003.........................................................1.9 ....
2004.........................................................2.1 ....
2005.........................................................2.3 ....
2006.........................................................2.5 ....
2007.........................................................2.7 ....
2008.........................................................2.9 ....
2009.........................................................3.1 ....
2010 and thereafter..........................................3.3.....
``(C) Fuel derived from a renewable source.--For the
purposes of this subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be
derived from a renewable source if the fuel--
``(i) is produced from grain, starch, oilseeds, or other
biomass; and
``(ii) is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture used to operate a motor
vehicle.
``(D) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of this
subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be biomass ethanol
if the fuel is ethanol derived from any lignocellulosic or
hemicellulosic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis, including--
``(i) dedicated energy crops and trees;
``(ii) wood and wood residues;
``(iii) plants;
``(iv) grasses;
``(v) agricultural commodities and residues;
``(vi) fibers;
``(vii) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
``(viii) municipal solid waste.
``(E) Credit program.--
``(i) In general.--The regulations promulgated under this
subsection shall provide for the generation of an appropriate
amount of credits by a person that refines, blends, or
imports gasoline that contains, on a quarterly average basis,
a quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source or a
quantity of biomass ethanol that is greater than the quantity
required under subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Use of credits.--The regulations shall provide that
a person that generates the credits may use the credits, or
transfer all or a portion of the credits to another person,
for the purpose of complying with subparagraph (B).
``(2) Waivers.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, may waive the requirements of
paragraph (1)(B) in whole or in part on petition by a State--
``(i) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that
implementation of the requirements would severely harm the
economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United
States; or
``(ii) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that there is an
inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet
the requirements of paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) Petitions for waivers.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture--
``(i) shall approve or deny a State petition for a waiver
of the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) within 180 days after
the date on which the petition is received; but
``(ii) may extend that period for up to 60 additional days
to provide for public notice and opportunity for comment and
for consideration of the comments submitted.
``(C) Termination of waivers.--A waiver granted under
subparagraph (A) shall terminate after 1 year, but may be
renewed by the Administrator after consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture.
``(D) Oxygen content waivers.--The grant or denial of a
waiver under subsection (k)(2)(B) shall not affect the
requirements of this subsection.
``(3) Small refiners.--The regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under paragraph (1) may provide an exemption,
in whole or in part, for small refiners (as defined by the
Administrator).
``(4) Guidance for labeling.--After consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator shall issue
guidance to the States for labeling, at the point of retail
sale--
``(A) the fuel derived from a renewable source that is
contained in the fuel sold; and
``(B) the major fuel additive components of the fuel sold.
``(5) Reports to congress.--Not less often than every 3
years, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report
on--
``(A) reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants
listed under section 108 that result from implementation of
this subsection; and
``(B) in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
greenhouse gas emission reductions that result from
implementation of this subsection.
``(p) Renewable Content of Diesel Fuel.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator, after consideration of applicable economic and
environmental factors, shall promulgate regulations
applicable to each refiner, blender, or importer of diesel
fuel to ensure that the diesel fuel sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by the refiner, blender, or
importer complies with the renewable content requirements
established by the Administrator under this subsection.
``(2) Elements of program.--To the extent that the
Administrator determines it to be appropriate, the
Administrator shall by regulation establish a program for
diesel fuel that has renewable content requirements similar
to the requirements of the program for gasoline under
subsection (o) in order to ensure the use of biodiesel
fuel.''.
(b) Penalties and Enforcement.--Section 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``or (n)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``(n), or (o)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``or (m)'' and
inserting ``(m), or (o)''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking
``and (n)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(n), and
(o)''.
(c) Prevention of Effects on Highway Apportionments.--
(1) Surface transportation program.--Section 104(b)(3) of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under subparagraph (A)(iii) the
estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in a
State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the
Highway Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or
other fuels containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed
by section 4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating
to gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
[[Page
S3518]]
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
(2) Minimum guarantee.--Section 105(f)(1) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(1) In general.--Before'' and inserting
the following: ``(1) In general.--
``(A) Adjustment.--Before''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under this subsection the estimated
tax payments attributable to highway users in a State paid
into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the Highway
Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or other fuels
containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed by section
4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating to
gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
SEC. 6. UPDATING OF BASELINE YEAR.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``Within 1 year
after the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence;
(B) by striking ``calendar year 1990'' each place it
appears and inserting ``calendar year 1999''; and
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``such 1990 gasoline''
and inserting ``such 1999 gasoline''; and
(2) in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(ii) of paragraph (10), by
striking ``1990'' each place it appears and inserting
``1999''.
(b) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall revise the regulations promulgated
under section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k))
to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a).
SEC. 7. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
(a) Trust Fund Distribution.--Section 9004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991c) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f) Trust Fund Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Amount and permitted use of distribution.--The
Administrator shall distribute to States at least 85 percent
of the funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection
Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established by section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (referred to in this subsection as the `Trust Fund') for
each fiscal year for use in paying the reasonable costs,
incurred under cooperative agreements with States, of--
``(i) actions taken by a State under section 9003(h)(7)(A);
``(ii) necessary administrative expenses directly related
to corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1);
``(iii) enforcement by a State or local government of a
State program approved under this section or of State or
local requirements regulating underground storage tanks that
are similar or identical to this subtitle;
``(iv) State or local corrective actions pursuant to
regulations promulgated under section 9003(c)(4); or
``(v) corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks
regulated under this subtitle if, as determined by the State
in accordance with guidelines developed between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the States, the financial
resources of an owner or operator (including resources
provided by programs under subsection (c)(1)) are not
adequate to pay for the cost of a corrective action without
significantly impairing the ability of the owner or operator
to continue in business.
``(B) Nonpermitted uses.--Funds provided by the
Administrator under subparagraph (A) shall not be used by a
State to provide financial assistance to an owner or operator
to meet the requirements concerning underground storage tanks
contained in part 280 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subsection), except as provided in subparagraph (A)(v), or
similar requirements in State programs approved under this
section or similar State or local provisions.
``(C) Tanks within tribal jurisdiction.--The Administrator,
in coordination with Indian tribes, shall--
``(i) expeditiously develop and implement a strategy to--
``(I) take necessary corrective action in response to
releases from leaking underground storage tanks located
wholly within the exterior boundaries of an Indian
reservation or other area within the jurisdiction of an
Indian tribe, giving priority to releases that present the
greatest threat to human health or the environment; and
``(II) implement and enforce requirements regulating
underground storage tanks located wholly within the exterior
boundaries of an Indian reservation or other area within the
jurisdiction of an Indian tribe; and
``(ii) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of this subsection, and every 2 years thereafter, submit to
Congress a report summarizing the status of implementation of
the leaking underground storage tank program located wholly
within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation or
other area within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) Process.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case of
a State with which the Administrator has entered into a
cooperative agreement under section 9003(h)(7)(A), the
Administrator shall distribute funds from the Trust Fund to
the State using the allocation process developed by the
Administrator for such cooperative agreements.
``(B) Revisions to process.--The Administrator may revise
the allocation process only after--
``(i) consulting with State agencies responsible for
overseeing corrective action for releases from underground
storage tanks and with representatives of owners and
operators; and
``(ii) taking into consideration, at a minimum--
``(I) the total revenue received from each State into the
Trust Fund;
``(II) the number of confirmed releases from leaking
underground storage tanks in each State;
``(III) the number of notified petroleum storage tanks in
each State;
``(IV) the percentage of the population of each State using
ground water for any beneficial purpose;
``(V) the evaluation of the program performance of each
State;
``(VI) the evaluation of the financial needs of each State;
and
``(VII) the evaluation of the ability of each State to use
the funds in any year.
``(3) Distributions to state agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Distributions from the Trust Fund under
this subsection shall be made directly to the State agency
entering into a cooperative agreement or enforcing the State
program.
``(B) Administrative expenses.--A State agency that
receives funds under this subsection shall limit the
proportion of those funds that are used to pay administrative
expenses to a percentage that the State may establish by law.
``(4) Cost recovery prohibition.--Funds provided to States
from the Trust Fund to owners or operators for programs under
section 9004(c)(1) for releases from underground storage
tanks are not subject to cost recovery by the Administrator
under section 9003(h)(6).
``(5) Permitted uses.--In addition to uses authorized by
other provisions of this subtitle, the Administrator may use
funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency
from the Trust Fund for enforcement of any regulation
promulgated by the Administrator under this subtitle.''.
(b) Addition to Trust Fund Purposes.--Section 9508(c)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures)
is amended by striking ``to carry out section 9003(h)'' and
all that follows and inserting ``to carry out--
``(A) section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986); and
``(B) section 9004(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Renewable Fuels Act
of 2000).''.
(c) Studies.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct--
(1) a study to determine the corrosive effects of methyl
tertiary butyl ether and other widely used fuels and fuel
additives on underground storage tanks; and
(2) a study to assess the potential public health and
environmental risks associated with the use of aboveground
storage tanks and the effectiveness of State and Federal
regulations or voluntary standards, in existence as of the
time of the study, to provide adequate protection of public
health and the environment.
(d) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 9001(3)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``sustances'' and
inserting ``substances''.
(2) Section 9003(f)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)
and (d) of this section'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and
(d)''.
(3) Section 9004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``referred to'' and all that follows and inserting ``referred
to in subparagraph (A) or (B), or both, of section
9001(2).''.
(4) Section 9005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991d) is amended--
[[Page
S3519]]
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``study taking'' and
inserting ``study, taking'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``relevent'' and
inserting ``relevant''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Evironmental'' and
inserting ``Environmental''.
SEC. 8. PRIVATE WELL PROTECTION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may enter into cooperative agreements with
the United States Geological Survey, the Department of
Agriculture, States, local governments, private landowners,
and other interested parties to establish voluntary pilot
projects to protect the water quality of private wells and to
provide technical assistance to users of water from private
wells.
(b) Limitation.--This section does not authorize the
issuance of guidance or regulations regarding the use or
protection of private wells.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in
introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000.
In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in
Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive
in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public
concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These
trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using
Reformulated Gasoline.
The Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) has proven to be a success in
reducing smog and has exceeded expectations in reducing dangerous and
carcinogenic air toxics in gasoline. The second stage of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) will commence this summer and will
have an even greater effect in reducing ozone pollution and air toxics.
Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the
existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. The Governor of
California has called for a three year phase out of MTBE in California
and the California Air Resources Board has adopted regulations to that
effect. Environmental officials from eight Northeastern States have
proposed a phase down and a capping of the use of MTBE in gasoline in
their states. MTBE is being found in wells in the Midwest even in areas
that do not use reformulated gasoline.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will lead to about five billion
gallons of ethanol being produced in 2010 compared to one billion, six
hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic
ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in
determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a
particular year.
We are going to have spikes in oil that will disrupt our economy. It
may or may not be able to be controlled. It will happen before 2010. It
may happen again next week. Our problem in terms of national security
and the security of our whole economy revolves around our dependence on
petroleum-based fuels. We must be able to address this challenge.
Finding an environmentally sensitive way to resolve the MTBE crisis is
an important part of this challenge.
It is clear that MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of
legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that
legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental
and energy and national security issues involved.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will establish a nationwide Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) that would increase the current use of renewable
fuels from 1.3% in 2000 to 3.3% by 2010. Refiners who produced
renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other
refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS.
This bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to limit or
eliminate the use of MTBE in order to protect the public health and the
environment. It also gives states the ability to further regulate or
eliminate MTBE use if the EPA does not choose to eliminate it. It would
also establish strict ``anti backsliding provisions'' to capture all of
the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down or
phased out.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will be good for our economy and our
environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development
of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national
and economic security and stabilizing gas prices.
I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other
legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable
fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural
or plant materials.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bond, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Conrad, and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 2505. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide increased assess to health care for medical beneficiaries
through telemedicine; to the Committee on Finance.
telehealth improvement and modernization act of 2000
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my good
friend Senator Rockefeller in introducing legislation that will improve
upon the federal rules for reimbursement for telemedicine and help to
ensure that all of our citizens have access to our great health care
system. We are joined by a broad, bipartisan group of senators in this
effort.
In many ways we have the best health care system in the world. But
increasingly fewer and fewer Americans actually have access to it. I
recently introduced a tax-credit bill that will help some of these
Americans and I anticipate supporting future measures aimed at
increasing access to health care services.
One important area that demands our attention is the problem of
access for rural Americans. More than 25 percent of our Nation's senior
citizens live in areas underserved for modern health care services. At
the same time, telemedicine has come of age. We have moved beyond the
feasibility stage and proven that this technology can provide real
benefits to people in rural and underserved regions of our country.
In my own State of Vermont, nearly 70 per cent live in rural areas.
This is the highest percentage rural population of any state in the
nation. In Vermont, specialists in more than twenty-five disciplines
from Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington are made readily
available to patients even in the most rural areas. I want to see this
level of service expand and be made available to all Americans.
We in Washington have made some good faith attempts to allow for the
development of telehealth technologies but we have fallen short. In an
effort to restrain the expansion of these programs, the Health Care
Financing Administration's interpretation of the laws and its
cumbersome rules for reimbursement have all but guaranteed the demise
of current programs.
Federally-funded telemedicine projects exist in almost every State in
the Nation. These projects have proven that cost-effective, high-
quality care can be delivered using this technology. The provisions in
this bill will help to ensure that this care will be continued when the
federal grants end.
Why is this legislation needed now? Because current HCFA regulations
concerning payment are unworkable in the real world. Less than 6
percent of all telemedicine doctor-patient visits last year provided to
Medicare beneficiaries would qualify for reimbursement under HCFA's
current guidelines.
Now that we have more experience and understand better how
telemedicine can be used, it is time to enact several changes to the
law so that these programs can thrive and deliver on their promise of
providing cost-effective, high-quality healthcare where it is needed
the most.
Rural healthcare providers and patients are eager for this
legislation. Norman Wright, President of the Vermont Association of
Hospitals and Health Systems, recognized the potential of Fletcher
Allen's telemedicine program by describing it as one that ``provides
incredible opportunities for rural providers and their patients because
it links them to a network with access to the region's best authorities
for any given condition.''
I have indeed heard an outpouring of support from healthcare
providers across my own State on this issue. Gerry Davis, Professor of
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Fletcher Allen Health Care,
described ``appropriate and fair third party payment for
[[Page
S3520]]
telemedicine'' as ``essential in order to move this process beyond
education, and to make the service truly useful for patients in remote
locations.''
Telemedicine can be used in so many ways. It can be vital to a
pediatrician from a rural area with a sick baby who needs to consult
with a neonatologist from a tertiary care hospital in the dead of
winter and the middle of the night. It can be also be crucial for a
depressed senior citizen who desperately needs mental health services
available in their own rural county. And it can be much needed help for
a frustrated isolated primary care provider who longs to be able to
provide for access to specialty services for her patients in their own
community. All of these people need our help.
While the changes included in this bill are relatively minor in the
context of the Medicare program, the effect will be far-reaching. This
legislation will allow us to avoid arbitrarily denying access to health
care for our senior citizens and persons with disabilities just because
of where they live. It will allow for fair and reasonable reimbursement
for services that can be delivered appropriately in this way. It will
also encourage the incorporation of telehealth technology in the care
plans of home health agencies, an area that has already shown great
promise for the future in terms of cost-effective disease management.
In summary, it will allow us to begin to release the incredible
potential of telemedicine.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in bringing HCFA's
approach to the delivery of health care into the 21st Century. Any
Medicare reform must include progress on telemedicine for our Nation's
rural areas.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be here
today to introduce the Telemedicine Improvement and Modernization Act
with Senator Jeffords and many other of my Senate colleagues. This bill
incorporates two issues that I care about passionately--health care and
technology.
Telemedicine has the potential to bridge the gap that currently
exists between patients and providers. More than 25% of our Nation's
senior citizens live in areas where speciality care may not be
available. In states like my own where there are very few primary care
or specialty care resources and travel is difficult, telemedicine is
critical to ensuring that people in remote areas are getting health
care they need. By expanding access to health care through
telemedicine, we also improve the quality of care available to people
living in underserved areas. Personally, I believe that we are just
beginning to tap the enormous potential of technology to advance
quality health care, especially in rural areas.
Yet, Medicare's telemedicine program is inefficient in its current
form. These inefficiencies threaten the future of telemedicine
services. When we first created this program, our knowledge of the
potential of this new technology, or its practical applications was
very limited. Today we have a much better understanding of how
telemedicine actually works. With this new knowledge, we can repair the
inefficiencies of the current system and encourage the use of this
highly effective health practice. By accomplishing this goal, we can
ensure that quality health care is available to all seniors and
disabled Americans regardless of where they live.
There are 8 main elements of the bill:
(1) Eliminating the provider ``fee sharing'' requirement;
(2) Eliminating the requirement for a ``telepresenter'';
(3) Allowing limited reimbursement for referring clinics to recover
the cost of their services;
(4) Expanding telemedicine services to all non-MSAs;
(5) Expanding telemedicine services to direct patient care, not just
professional consultations;
(6) Making all providers eligible for HCFA reimbursement for services
delivered via telemedicine;
(7) Creating a federal demonstration project that permits
telemedicine reimbursement for ``store and forward'' consultations
(i.e., x-rays that are sent to another facility for consultation); and
(8) Permitting telehomecare.
While these changes are relatively minor in the context of the
Medicare program, the affect will be far-reaching. The modernizations
we are proposing will dramatically improve access to quality health
care in rural areas. This legislation will allow us to begin to release
the incredible potential of telemedicine.
On a final note, I'd like to thank Karen Edison for her expertise and
determination in working on this bill. Because Karen is a practicing
telemedicine physician, she has been invaluable in developing and
advancing this cause.
Thank you, Mr. President for your time today. I hope all of my
colleagues will join with me in passing this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2506. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect
to the Federal preemption of State law concerning the regulation of
marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation by States; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
legislation regarding marine and ocean navigation, safety, and
transportation
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, environmental protection and states'
rights were dealt a blow on March 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court
decided the case of United States vs. Locke. The Court, noting that
even though federal and international laws ``may be insufficient
protection,'' invalidated Washington laws, and potentially laws in
eleven other states, that provide protections against spills by oil
tankers. I disagree with the Court's decision, because I believe that
Washington state should be allowed to protect its shores as it sees
fit.
That is why, today I am pleased to introduce the ``States Prevention
of Oil Tanker Spills Act'' (SPOTS)-legislation that will reinstate the
right of all states to adopt additional standards beyond existing
federal requirements governing the operation, maintenance, equipment,
personnel and manning of oil tankers. While this legislation will apply
to all shoreline states, it is particularly
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - May 04, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S3514-S3543]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2503. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to authorize States to
regulate harmful fuel additives and to require fuel to contain fuel
made from renewable sources, to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
require that at least 85 percent of funds appropriated to the
Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund be distributed to States to carry out cooperative
agreements for undertaking corrective action and for enforcement of
subtitle I of that act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
renewable fuels act of 2000
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ten years ago I joined with two
distinguished colleagues, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and
Senator Tom Harkin, to introduce the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The RFG provision, with
its minimum oxygen standard, was adopted in the Senate by the
overwhelming vote of 69 to 30 and eventually signed into law by
President George Bush.
I am proud to say that this program has resulted in substantial
improvement in air quality around the country. It also has stimulated
increased production and use of renewable ethanol and other oxygenates
needed to meet the minimum oxygen standard.
Unfortunately, an unanticipated development involving the petroleum-
based oxygenate MTBE requires us to re-examine the many benefits of the
RFG program. The detection of MTBE in ground water around the country
has generated considerable debate in recent months over how to deal
with this fuel additive and the oxygen requirement of the reformulated
gasoline program. The resolution of this debate will have significant
consequences for the environment, for farmers and for the rural
economy.
The pace of activity to resolve the MTBE issue is accelerating
rapidly. Battlelines are being drawn as the state of California and its
allies focus on scrapping the oxygen requirement.
It is clear that Congress and/or the Clinton administration will
respond to the MTBE problem. My focus is on ensuring that that response
not only serves the environment, but also retains a prominent place for
ethanol--a place that assures long-term, predictable growth of the
industry.
I believe a comprehensive legislative solution is necessary in this
case--one that recognizes and preserves the important air quality
benefits of the RFG program, protects water supplies and leads the
nation away from greater dependence on imported oil.
I have worked for the last year with the ethanol industry, Republican
and Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the Governor's Ethanol
Coalition, environmental organizations and the administration in search
of a solution that gives states the tools they need to address MTBE
contamination, ensures the future growth of domestic renewable fuels,
and prevents supply shortages and price spikes in the nation's fuels
supply.
This process has led me to two basic conclusions.
First, the MTBE crisis has left the RFG oxygen requirement vulnerable
to legislative attack. Those who doubt this conclusion should reflect
on the following facts.
California refiners have shown that clean-burning gasoline can be
produced without oxygen.
EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel has recommended that the oxygen requirement
be repealed.
The RFG oxygen requirement is opposed by a diverse coalition that
includes the American Lung Association, the American Petroleum
Institute, the New England States Coordinated Air Use Management
agency, the State of California and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC).
Second, support for the oxygen requirement will weaken over time.
Improvements in auto emissions control technology will cause the air
quality benefits of oxygen in gasoline to decline and the justification
for the RFG oxygen requirement to diminish.
As one of the original authors of the reformulated gasoline
provisions of the Clean Air Act, I feel something of a proprietary
interest in the oxygen requirement. As a legislator, I recognize that
circumstances change, and obstinacy should not be allowed to become a
barrier to the achievement of important policy goals.
Ethanol advocates face a choice between defending the oxygen
requirement in the near term, realizing that its days ultimately are
numbered, or using the current MTBE debate to guarantee the future
growth of the ethanol industry based on important public policy goals,
such as energy security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and
domestic economic growth.
In my judgment, providing states with the flexibility to waive the
RFG oxygen requirement is a fair tradeoff for the establishment of a
renewable fuels standard. It represents the most effective way to
achieve the environmental and economic goals of governors and
consumers, while putting the ethanol industry on a steady growth path
well into the future and promoting ethanol production in new regions of
the nation.
Therefore, today, with Senator Richard Lugar, I am introducing the
Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. Under our
[[Page
S3515]]
legislation, EPA is directed to reduce the use of MTBE to safe levels,
and states can obtain waivers from the RFG oxygen requirement and
further regulate MTBE if they desire. This will allow the nation to
deal with the MTBE contamination issue responsibly and avoid gasoline
supply disruptions. The bill also includes provisions protecting the
air quality gains that have resulted from the use of oxygenated fuels.
To protect market opportunities for renewable fuels, the bill
establishes a renewable fuels standard for the nation's gasoline, which
begins in 2000 at 1.3 percent--roughly where renewable fuels production
stands today--and gradually increases over the next decade to 3.3
percent of the nation's gasoline in 2010. Considering the fact that
overall gasoline use is expected to increase over the next decade, this
standard will more than triple ethanol use over that period.
In meeting that requirement, our legislation stipulates that a gallon
of biomass ethanol counts as much as 1.5 gallons of starch-based
ethanol, thereby providing a strong incentive for the development of
biomass-based ethanol plans throughout the country. It also established
a renewable fuels standard for diesel fuels to promote the use of
biodiesel. These renewable fuels standards can be met through
nationwide credit trading, to allow for the most economomical use of
ethanol and biodiesel.
For those who are concerned about the potential impact of a drought
or other natural disaster on the ability of the renewable fuels
industry to supply this market, the legislation allows the EPA
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
waive the renewable requirement in any given year upon determination
that there is indequate domestic supply or distribution capacity, or
that the requirement would severely harm the economic or environment of
a State, a region, or the United States.
I also intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to establish a strategic corn reserve as a complement to the renewable
fuel standard. A properly managed strategic corn reserve could serve as
the equivalent of the strategic petroleum reserve and ensure stable
feedstocks for domestic ethanol producers in the event of weather
induced supply interruptions. Taxpayers would benefit as farmers could
receive fair market prices, thereby reducing the need for emergency
assistance each year.
It is important to recognize that under Senator Lugar's and my
approach, the oxygen requirement is not waived entirely. States can
decide for themselves whether to apply for a waiver from the RFG oxygen
requirement. We fully expect that RFG programs that currently are using
ethanol and have not experienced MTBE contamination, such as Chicago
and Milwaukee, will stay in the program. Moreover, the bill allows any
governor to apply to EPA to opt into the RFG program, thus expanding
its air quality benefits to new regions of the country. Those areas
that remain in the program or opt into it, and use ethanol, will
generate credits that can be sold to other regions of the country.
Finally, the bill prevents adverse effects on states' highway trust
fund tax allocations, with ``hold harmless'' language ensuring that
states reporting Federal excise tax receipts on gasoline are not
penalized for their ethanol blend sales.
Again, my goal in introducing this legislation is both to support
states that want to get MTBE out of gasoline and to ensure that this
effort does not adversely affect ethanol production. It is also to put
into place a program that will grow the ethanol industry steadily over
the next decade, thereby assuring the market stability necessary to
attract investment in the construction of new plants and significantly
increasing the market for corn and biomass. This approach not only will
get MTBE out of groundwater; it will do so without backsliding on the
air quality improvements generated by the RFG program while increasing
corn demand by 600 million bushels per year.
Mr. President, since first floating this concept in May of last year,
I have heard from numerous stakeholders in this complex debate. The
legislative concept that Senator Lugar and I unveil today has been
endorsed by diverse interests ranging from the American Coalition for
Ethanol (ACE) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the 24-state Governors'
Ethanol Coalition, to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) to Mr. Leo Leibowitz, chairman of Getty Petroleum.
I believe that we have struck a delicate balance between the interests
of farmers, consumers, state regulatory officials, refiners and those
concerned about the environment. This plan is a worthy successor to the
original 1990 RFG provision, preserving all of the good things it has
achieved and rectifying those elements that need fixing.
I look forward to working with Senators Smith and Baucus, the
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, to enact legislation resolving the MTBE issue. I hope that
other colleagues will join Senator Lugar and me in support of this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2503
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Fuels Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. STATE PETITIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR PROHIBIT
USE OF MTBE.
Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``any emission product
of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare,'' and inserting ``the fuel or fuel
additive, or an emission product of the fuel or fuel
additive, causes or contributes to air, water, or soil
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare or the environment,'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting ``or have other
environmental impacts'' after ``emissions'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i) and
(ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively, and indenting
appropriately to reflect the amendments made by this
paragraph;
(B) by striking ``(4)(A) Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C),'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Limitation on state authority with respect to fuels
and fuel additives.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Fuels and fuel additives.--Except as otherwise
provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph (5),'';
(C) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B)), by
inserting ``or water or soil quality protection'' after
``emission control''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) MTBE.--Notwithstanding clause (i), except as
otherwise provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph
(5), no State (or political subdivision of a State) may
prescribe or attempt to enforce, for the purpose of motor
vehicle emission control or water or soil quality protection,
any control or prohibition on methyl tertiary butyl ether as
a fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine.'';
(D) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or water or soil
quality protection'' after ``emission control''; and
(E) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by inserting ``or water or soil quality protection''
after ``emission control''; and
(II) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or, if the Administrator grants a petition of
the State under paragraph (5)''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``only if he'' and
inserting ``if the Administrator''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) State petitions for authority to control or prohibit
use of fuels or fuel additives for non-air quality
purposes.--
``(A) In general.--A State seeking to prescribe and enforce
a control or prohibition on a fuel or fuel additive for the
purpose of water or soil quality protection under paragraph
(4)(C) shall submit a petition to the Administrator for
authority to take such action.
``(B) Required elements of petition.--A petition submitted
under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) include information on--
``(I) the likely effects of the control or prohibition on
fuel availability and price in the affected supply area or
region; and
``(II) the improvements in environmental quality or public
health or welfare expected to result from the control or
prohibition; and
``(ii) demonstrate that the authority is necessary to
protect the environment or public health or welfare.
[[Page
S3516]]
``(C) Action by the administrator.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of receipt of a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall grant or deny the
petition.
``(D) Criteria for granting of petitions.--The
Administrator shall grant a petition submitted by a State
under subparagraph (A) unless the Administrator finds that--
``(i) the petition fails to reasonably demonstrate that the
authority is necessary to protect the environment or public
health or welfare;
``(ii) the control or prohibition is likely to have a
substantial and significant adverse effect on fuel
availability or price (including a State or regional effect)
that clearly outweighs any benefits associated with the
control or prohibition; or
``(iii) in the case of a petition submitted by a State
seeking the authority primarily to protect water resources,
the State has failed to take other appropriate and reasonable
actions to prevent contamination of water resources by fuels
or fuel additives, such as--
``(I) adoption of a prohibition on the delivery of gasoline
to noncompliant facilities with underground storage tanks; or
``(II) operation of a statewide monitoring and compliance
assurance system.
``(E) Effect of failure of administrator to act.--If, by
the date that is 180 days after the date of receipt of a
petition submitted under subparagraph (A), the Administrator
has not proposed to grant or deny the petition under
subparagraph (C), the petition shall be deemed to be granted.
``(F) Procedural requirements.--
``(i) Inapplicability of certain requirements.--Section
307(d) of this Act and sections 553 through 557 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply to actions on a petition
submitted under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Public notice and opportunity for comment.--The
Administrator shall provide public notice and opportunity for
comment with respect to a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A).
``(6) Limitation on mtbe content.--The Administrator shall
promulgate regulations applicable to each refiner, blender,
or importer of gasoline to ensure that gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce by the refiner, blender, or importer
on or after January 1, 2004, in an area has a content of
methyl tertiary butyl ether that is at a level that--
``(A) the Administrator determines may not reasonably be
anticipated to endanger natural resources and the public
health; and
``(B) does not exceed the annual average volume of methyl
tertiary butyl ether per gallon of gasoline used in the area
before 1995.''.
SEC. 3. WAIVER OF OXYGEN CONTENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``Within 1 year after the enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Not later than November 15, 1991,'';
(B) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and opt-in areas under paragraph
(6)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Adjustment of voc performance standard.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator may adjust the
volatile organic compounds performance standard promulgated
under subparagraph (A) in the case of a fuel formulation that
achieves reductions in the quantity of mass emissions of
carbon monoxide that are greater than or less than the
reductions associated with a reformulated gasoline that
contains 2.0 percent oxygen by weight and otherwise meets the
requirements of this subsection.
``(ii) Amount of adjustment.--The amount of an adjustment
under clause (i) shall be based on the effect on ozone
concentrations of the combined reductions in emissions of
volatile organic compounds and reductions in emissions of
carbon monoxide.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``The oxygen'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--The oxygen''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Waiver for certain states.--The Administrator shall
waive the application of clause (i) for any ozone
nonattainment area in a State if the Governor of the State
submits for such a waiver an application that--
``(I) demonstrates that the State is in full compliance
with Federal regulations concerning the control and
prevention of leaking underground storage tanks; or
``(II) provides a plan that outlines the measures the State
will take to fully comply with the underground storage tank
regulations by a date not later than 2 years after the
receipt of the application of the Governor.
``(iii) Effective date.--A waiver under clause (ii) shall
become effective on the later of--
``(I) January 1 of the calendar year immediately following
the calendar year during which the application for the waiver
is received; or
``(II) the date that is 180 days after the date on which
the application for the waiver is received.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Aromatics.--The aromatic hydrocarbon content of the
gasoline shall not exceed 22 percent by volume.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``25 percent'' and
inserting ``22 percent''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``Any reduction'' and inserting the
following:
``(iii) Treatment of greater reductions.--Any reduction'';
and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Anti-backsliding provision.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall revise performance standards under this
subparagraph as necessary to ensure that--
``(aa) the ozone-forming potential, taking into account all
ozone precursors (including volatile organic compounds,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide), of the aggregate
emissions during the high ozone season (as determined by the
Administrator) from baseline vehicles when using reformulated
gasoline does not exceed the ozone-forming potential of the
aggregate emissions during the high ozone season from
baseline vehicles when using reformulated gasoline that
complies with the regulations that were in effect on January
1, 2000, and were applicable to reformulated gasoline sold in
calendar year 2000 and subsequent calendar years; and
``(bb) the aggregate emissions of the pollutants specified
in subclause (II) from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline do not exceed the aggregate emissions
of those pollutants from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline that complies with the regulations that
were in effect on January 1, 2000, and were applicable to
reformulated gasolines sold in calendar year 2000 and
subsequent calendar years.
``(II) Specified pollutants.--The pollutants specified in
this subclause are--
``(aa) toxics, categorized by degrees of toxicity; and
``(bb) such other pollutants, including pollutants
regulated under section 108, and such precursors to those
pollutants, as the Administrator determines by regulation
should be controlled to prevent the deterioration of air
quality and to achieve attainment of a national ambient air
quality standard in 1 or more areas.''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)(B)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively, and indenting appropriately to
reflect the amendments made by this paragraph;
(B) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--The Administrator'';
(C) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B))--
(i) in subclause (I) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``, and'' and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subclause (II) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(I) by striking ``achieve equivalent'' and inserting the
following: ``achieve--
``(aa) equivalent'';
(II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(bb) combined reductions in emissions of ozone forming
volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide that result in
a reduction in ozone concentration, as provided in clause
(ii)(I), that is equivalent to or greater than the reduction
in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated gasoline
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3); and'';
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) achieve equivalent or greater reductions in
emissions of toxic air pollutants than are achieved by a
reformulated gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of
paragraph (3).''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Carbon monoxide credit.--
``(I) In general.--In determining whether a fuel
formulation or slate of fuel formulations achieves combined
reductions in emissions of ozone forming volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide that result in a reduction in
ozone concentration that is equivalent to or greater than the
reduction in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated
gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph
(3), the Administrator--
``(aa) shall consider, to the extent appropriate, the
change in carbon monoxide emissions from baseline vehicles
attributable to an oxygen content in the fuel formulation or
slate of fuel formulations that exceeds 2.0 percent by
weight; and
``(bb) may consider, to the extent appropriate, the change
in carbon monoxide emissions described in item (aa) from
vehicles other than baseline vehicles.
``(II) Oxygen credits.--Any excess oxygen content that is
taken into consideration in making a determination under
subclause (I) may not be used to generate credits under
paragraph (7)(A).
``(III) Relation to title i.--Any fuel formulation or slate
of fuel formulations that is certified as equivalent or
greater under this subparagraph, taking into consideration
the combined reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide, shall receive the same
volatile organic compounds reduction credit for the purposes
of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(2)(B) of section 182 as a fuel
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3).''.
(b) Reformulated Gasoline Carbon Monoxide Reduction
Credit.--Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
[[Page
S3517]]
7511a(c)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``An adjustment to the volatile organic compound
emission reduction requirements under section
211(k)(3)(B)(iv) shall be credited toward the requirement for
VOC emissions reductions under this subparagraph.''.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL OPT-IN AREAS UNDER REFORMULATED GASOLINE
PROGRAM.
Section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(k)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(6) Opt-in areas.--(A) Upon'' and
inserting the following:
``(6) Opt-in areas.--
``(A) Classified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) If'' and
inserting the following:
``(ii) Effect of insufficient domestic capacity to produce
reformulated gasoline.--If'';
(3) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``subparagraph (A)''
and inserting ``clause (i)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``this paragraph''
and inserting ``this subparagraph''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Nonclassified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon the application of the Governor of
a State, the Administrator shall apply the prohibition
specified in paragraph (5) in any area in the State that is
not a covered area or an area referred to in subparagraph
(A)(i).
``(ii) Publication of application.--As soon as practicable
after receipt of an application under clause (i), the
Administrator shall publish the application in the Federal
Register.''.
SEC. 5. RENEWABLE CONTENT OF GASOLINE AND OTHER MOTOR FUELS.
(a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (q); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
``(o) Renewable Content of Gasoline.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Regulations.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations applicable to each
refiner, blender, or importer of gasoline to ensure that
gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the United
States by the refiner, blender, or importer complies with the
renewable content requirements of this subsection.
``(B) Renewable content requirements.--
``(i) In general.--All gasoline sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by a refiner, blender, or
importer shall contain, on a quarterly average basis, a
quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source (including
biomass ethanol) that is not less than the applicable
percentage by volume for the quarter.
``(ii) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of clause (i), 1
gallon of biomass ethanol shall be considered to be the
equivalent of 1.5 gallons of fuel derived from a renewable
source.
``(iii) Applicable percentage.--For the purposes of clause
(i), the applicable percentage for a quarter of a calendar
year shall be determined in accordance with the following
table:
Applicable percentage of fuel derived from a renewable source:
`Calendar year:
2000.........................................................1.3 ....
2001.........................................................1.5 ....
2002.........................................................1.7 ....
2003.........................................................1.9 ....
2004.........................................................2.1 ....
2005.........................................................2.3 ....
2006.........................................................2.5 ....
2007.........................................................2.7 ....
2008.........................................................2.9 ....
2009.........................................................3.1 ....
2010 and thereafter..........................................3.3.....
``(C) Fuel derived from a renewable source.--For the
purposes of this subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be
derived from a renewable source if the fuel--
``(i) is produced from grain, starch, oilseeds, or other
biomass; and
``(ii) is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture used to operate a motor
vehicle.
``(D) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of this
subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be biomass ethanol
if the fuel is ethanol derived from any lignocellulosic or
hemicellulosic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis, including--
``(i) dedicated energy crops and trees;
``(ii) wood and wood residues;
``(iii) plants;
``(iv) grasses;
``(v) agricultural commodities and residues;
``(vi) fibers;
``(vii) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
``(viii) municipal solid waste.
``(E) Credit program.--
``(i) In general.--The regulations promulgated under this
subsection shall provide for the generation of an appropriate
amount of credits by a person that refines, blends, or
imports gasoline that contains, on a quarterly average basis,
a quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source or a
quantity of biomass ethanol that is greater than the quantity
required under subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Use of credits.--The regulations shall provide that
a person that generates the credits may use the credits, or
transfer all or a portion of the credits to another person,
for the purpose of complying with subparagraph (B).
``(2) Waivers.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, may waive the requirements of
paragraph (1)(B) in whole or in part on petition by a State--
``(i) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that
implementation of the requirements would severely harm the
economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United
States; or
``(ii) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that there is an
inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet
the requirements of paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) Petitions for waivers.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture--
``(i) shall approve or deny a State petition for a waiver
of the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) within 180 days after
the date on which the petition is received; but
``(ii) may extend that period for up to 60 additional days
to provide for public notice and opportunity for comment and
for consideration of the comments submitted.
``(C) Termination of waivers.--A waiver granted under
subparagraph (A) shall terminate after 1 year, but may be
renewed by the Administrator after consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture.
``(D) Oxygen content waivers.--The grant or denial of a
waiver under subsection (k)(2)(B) shall not affect the
requirements of this subsection.
``(3) Small refiners.--The regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under paragraph (1) may provide an exemption,
in whole or in part, for small refiners (as defined by the
Administrator).
``(4) Guidance for labeling.--After consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator shall issue
guidance to the States for labeling, at the point of retail
sale--
``(A) the fuel derived from a renewable source that is
contained in the fuel sold; and
``(B) the major fuel additive components of the fuel sold.
``(5) Reports to congress.--Not less often than every 3
years, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report
on--
``(A) reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants
listed under section 108 that result from implementation of
this subsection; and
``(B) in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
greenhouse gas emission reductions that result from
implementation of this subsection.
``(p) Renewable Content of Diesel Fuel.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator, after consideration of applicable economic and
environmental factors, shall promulgate regulations
applicable to each refiner, blender, or importer of diesel
fuel to ensure that the diesel fuel sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by the refiner, blender, or
importer complies with the renewable content requirements
established by the Administrator under this subsection.
``(2) Elements of program.--To the extent that the
Administrator determines it to be appropriate, the
Administrator shall by regulation establish a program for
diesel fuel that has renewable content requirements similar
to the requirements of the program for gasoline under
subsection (o) in order to ensure the use of biodiesel
fuel.''.
(b) Penalties and Enforcement.--Section 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``or (n)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``(n), or (o)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``or (m)'' and
inserting ``(m), or (o)''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking
``and (n)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(n), and
(o)''.
(c) Prevention of Effects on Highway Apportionments.--
(1) Surface transportation program.--Section 104(b)(3) of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under subparagraph (A)(iii) the
estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in a
State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the
Highway Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or
other fuels containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed
by section 4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating
to gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
[[Page
S3518]]
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
(2) Minimum guarantee.--Section 105(f)(1) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(1) In general.--Before'' and inserting
the following: ``(1) In general.--
``(A) Adjustment.--Before''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under this subsection the estimated
tax payments attributable to highway users in a State paid
into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the Highway
Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or other fuels
containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed by section
4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating to
gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
SEC. 6. UPDATING OF BASELINE YEAR.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``Within 1 year
after the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence;
(B) by striking ``calendar year 1990'' each place it
appears and inserting ``calendar year 1999''; and
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``such 1990 gasoline''
and inserting ``such 1999 gasoline''; and
(2) in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(ii) of paragraph (10), by
striking ``1990'' each place it appears and inserting
``1999''.
(b) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall revise the regulations promulgated
under section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k))
to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a).
SEC. 7. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
(a) Trust Fund Distribution.--Section 9004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991c) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f) Trust Fund Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Amount and permitted use of distribution.--The
Administrator shall distribute to States at least 85 percent
of the funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection
Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established by section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (referred to in this subsection as the `Trust Fund') for
each fiscal year for use in paying the reasonable costs,
incurred under cooperative agreements with States, of--
``(i) actions taken by a State under section 9003(h)(7)(A);
``(ii) necessary administrative expenses directly related
to corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1);
``(iii) enforcement by a State or local government of a
State program approved under this section or of State or
local requirements regulating underground storage tanks that
are similar or identical to this subtitle;
``(iv) State or local corrective actions pursuant to
regulations promulgated under section 9003(c)(4); or
``(v) corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks
regulated under this subtitle if, as determined by the State
in accordance with guidelines developed between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the States, the financial
resources of an owner or operator (including resources
provided by programs under subsection (c)(1)) are not
adequate to pay for the cost of a corrective action without
significantly impairing the ability of the owner or operator
to continue in business.
``(B) Nonpermitted uses.--Funds provided by the
Administrator under subparagraph (A) shall not be used by a
State to provide financial assistance to an owner or operator
to meet the requirements concerning underground storage tanks
contained in part 280 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subsection), except as provided in subparagraph (A)(v), or
similar requirements in State programs approved under this
section or similar State or local provisions.
``(C) Tanks within tribal jurisdiction.--The Administrator,
in coordination with Indian tribes, shall--
``(i) expeditiously develop and implement a strategy to--
``(I) take necessary corrective action in response to
releases from leaking underground storage tanks located
wholly within the exterior boundaries of an Indian
reservation or other area within the jurisdiction of an
Indian tribe, giving priority to releases that present the
greatest threat to human health or the environment; and
``(II) implement and enforce requirements regulating
underground storage tanks located wholly within the exterior
boundaries of an Indian reservation or other area within the
jurisdiction of an Indian tribe; and
``(ii) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of this subsection, and every 2 years thereafter, submit to
Congress a report summarizing the status of implementation of
the leaking underground storage tank program located wholly
within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation or
other area within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) Process.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case of
a State with which the Administrator has entered into a
cooperative agreement under section 9003(h)(7)(A), the
Administrator shall distribute funds from the Trust Fund to
the State using the allocation process developed by the
Administrator for such cooperative agreements.
``(B) Revisions to process.--The Administrator may revise
the allocation process only after--
``(i) consulting with State agencies responsible for
overseeing corrective action for releases from underground
storage tanks and with representatives of owners and
operators; and
``(ii) taking into consideration, at a minimum--
``(I) the total revenue received from each State into the
Trust Fund;
``(II) the number of confirmed releases from leaking
underground storage tanks in each State;
``(III) the number of notified petroleum storage tanks in
each State;
``(IV) the percentage of the population of each State using
ground water for any beneficial purpose;
``(V) the evaluation of the program performance of each
State;
``(VI) the evaluation of the financial needs of each State;
and
``(VII) the evaluation of the ability of each State to use
the funds in any year.
``(3) Distributions to state agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Distributions from the Trust Fund under
this subsection shall be made directly to the State agency
entering into a cooperative agreement or enforcing the State
program.
``(B) Administrative expenses.--A State agency that
receives funds under this subsection shall limit the
proportion of those funds that are used to pay administrative
expenses to a percentage that the State may establish by law.
``(4) Cost recovery prohibition.--Funds provided to States
from the Trust Fund to owners or operators for programs under
section 9004(c)(1) for releases from underground storage
tanks are not subject to cost recovery by the Administrator
under section 9003(h)(6).
``(5) Permitted uses.--In addition to uses authorized by
other provisions of this subtitle, the Administrator may use
funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency
from the Trust Fund for enforcement of any regulation
promulgated by the Administrator under this subtitle.''.
(b) Addition to Trust Fund Purposes.--Section 9508(c)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures)
is amended by striking ``to carry out section 9003(h)'' and
all that follows and inserting ``to carry out--
``(A) section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986); and
``(B) section 9004(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Renewable Fuels Act
of 2000).''.
(c) Studies.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct--
(1) a study to determine the corrosive effects of methyl
tertiary butyl ether and other widely used fuels and fuel
additives on underground storage tanks; and
(2) a study to assess the potential public health and
environmental risks associated with the use of aboveground
storage tanks and the effectiveness of State and Federal
regulations or voluntary standards, in existence as of the
time of the study, to provide adequate protection of public
health and the environment.
(d) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 9001(3)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``sustances'' and
inserting ``substances''.
(2) Section 9003(f)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)
and (d) of this section'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and
(d)''.
(3) Section 9004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``referred to'' and all that follows and inserting ``referred
to in subparagraph (A) or (B), or both, of section
9001(2).''.
(4) Section 9005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991d) is amended--
[[Page
S3519]]
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``study taking'' and
inserting ``study, taking'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``relevent'' and
inserting ``relevant''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Evironmental'' and
inserting ``Environmental''.
SEC. 8. PRIVATE WELL PROTECTION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may enter into cooperative agreements with
the United States Geological Survey, the Department of
Agriculture, States, local governments, private landowners,
and other interested parties to establish voluntary pilot
projects to protect the water quality of private wells and to
provide technical assistance to users of water from private
wells.
(b) Limitation.--This section does not authorize the
issuance of guidance or regulations regarding the use or
protection of private wells.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in
introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000.
In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in
Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive
in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public
concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These
trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using
Reformulated Gasoline.
The Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) has proven to be a success in
reducing smog and has exceeded expectations in reducing dangerous and
carcinogenic air toxics in gasoline. The second stage of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) will commence this summer and will
have an even greater effect in reducing ozone pollution and air toxics.
Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the
existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. The Governor of
California has called for a three year phase out of MTBE in California
and the California Air Resources Board has adopted regulations to that
effect. Environmental officials from eight Northeastern States have
proposed a phase down and a capping of the use of MTBE in gasoline in
their states. MTBE is being found in wells in the Midwest even in areas
that do not use reformulated gasoline.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will lead to about five billion
gallons of ethanol being produced in 2010 compared to one billion, six
hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic
ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in
determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a
particular year.
We are going to have spikes in oil that will disrupt our economy. It
may or may not be able to be controlled. It will happen before 2010. It
may happen again next week. Our problem in terms of national security
and the security of our whole economy revolves around our dependence on
petroleum-based fuels. We must be able to address this challenge.
Finding an environmentally sensitive way to resolve the MTBE crisis is
an important part of this challenge.
It is clear that MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of
legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that
legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental
and energy and national security issues involved.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will establish a nationwide Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) that would increase the current use of renewable
fuels from 1.3% in 2000 to 3.3% by 2010. Refiners who produced
renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other
refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS.
This bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to limit or
eliminate the use of MTBE in order to protect the public health and the
environment. It also gives states the ability to further regulate or
eliminate MTBE use if the EPA does not choose to eliminate it. It would
also establish strict ``anti backsliding provisions'' to capture all of
the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down or
phased out.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will be good for our economy and our
environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development
of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national
and economic security and stabilizing gas prices.
I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other
legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable
fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural
or plant materials.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bond, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Conrad, and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 2505. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide increased assess to health care for medical beneficiaries
through telemedicine; to the Committee on Finance.
telehealth improvement and modernization act of 2000
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my good
friend Senator Rockefeller in introducing legislation that will improve
upon the federal rules for reimbursement for telemedicine and help to
ensure that all of our citizens have access to our great health care
system. We are joined by a broad, bipartisan group of senators in this
effort.
In many ways we have the best health care system in the world. But
increasingly fewer and fewer Americans actually have access to it. I
recently introduced a tax-credit bill that will help some of these
Americans and I anticipate supporting future measures aimed at
increasing access to health care services.
One important area that demands our attention is the problem of
access for rural Americans. More than 25 percent of our Nation's senior
citizens live in areas underserved for modern health care services. At
the same time, telemedicine has come of age. We have moved beyond the
feasibility stage and proven that this technology can provide real
benefits to people in rural and underserved regions of our country.
In my own State of Vermont, nearly 70 per cent live in rural areas.
This is the highest percentage rural population of any state in the
nation. In Vermont, specialists in more than twenty-five disciplines
from Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington are made readily
available to patients even in the most rural areas. I want to see this
level of service expand and be made available to all Americans.
We in Washington have made some good faith attempts to allow for the
development of telehealth technologies but we have fallen short. In an
effort to restrain the expansion of these programs, the Health Care
Financing Administration's interpretation of the laws and its
cumbersome rules for reimbursement have all but guaranteed the demise
of current programs.
Federally-funded telemedicine projects exist in almost every State in
the Nation. These projects have proven that cost-effective, high-
quality care can be delivered using this technology. The provisions in
this bill will help to ensure that this care will be continued when the
federal grants end.
Why is this legislation needed now? Because current HCFA regulations
concerning payment are unworkable in the real world. Less than 6
percent of all telemedicine doctor-patient visits last year provided to
Medicare beneficiaries would qualify for reimbursement under HCFA's
current guidelines.
Now that we have more experience and understand better how
telemedicine can be used, it is time to enact several changes to the
law so that these programs can thrive and deliver on their promise of
providing cost-effective, high-quality healthcare where it is needed
the most.
Rural healthcare providers and patients are eager for this
legislation. Norman Wright, President of the Vermont Association of
Hospitals and Health Systems, recognized the potential of Fletcher
Allen's telemedicine program by describing it as one that ``provides
incredible opportunities for rural providers and their patients because
it links them to a network with access to the region's best authorities
for any given condition.''
I have indeed heard an outpouring of support from healthcare
providers across my own State on this issue. Gerry Davis, Professor of
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Fletcher Allen Health Care,
described ``appropriate and fair third party payment for
[[Page
S3520]]
telemedicine'' as ``essential in order to move this process beyond
education, and to make the service truly useful for patients in remote
locations.''
Telemedicine can be used in so many ways. It can be vital to a
pediatrician from a rural area with a sick baby who needs to consult
with a neonatologist from a tertiary care hospital in the dead of
winter and the middle of the night. It can be also be crucial for a
depressed senior citizen who desperately needs mental health services
available in their own rural county. And it can be much needed help for
a frustrated isolated primary care provider who longs to be able to
provide for access to specialty services for her patients in their own
community. All of these people need our help.
While the changes included in this bill are relatively minor in the
context of the Medicare program, the effect will be far-reaching. This
legislation will allow us to avoid arbitrarily denying access to health
care for our senior citizens and persons with disabilities just because
of where they live. It will allow for fair and reasonable reimbursement
for services that can be delivered appropriately in this way. It will
also encourage the incorporation of telehealth technology in the care
plans of home health agencies, an area that has already shown great
promise for the future in terms of cost-effective disease management.
In summary, it will allow us to begin to release the incredible
potential of telemedicine.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in bringing HCFA's
approach to the delivery of health care into the 21st Century. Any
Medicare reform must include progress on telemedicine for our Nation's
rural areas.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be here
today to introduce the Telemedicine Improvement and Modernization Act
with Senator Jeffords and many other of my Senate colleagues. This bill
incorporates two issues that I care about passionately--health care and
technology.
Telemedicine has the potential to bridge the gap that currently
exists between patients and providers. More than 25% of our Nation's
senior citizens live in areas where speciality care may not be
available. In states like my own where there are very few primary care
or specialty care resources and travel is difficult, telemedicine is
critical to ensuring that people in remote areas are getting health
care they need. By expanding access to health care through
telemedicine, we also improve the quality of care available to people
living in underserved areas. Personally, I believe that we are just
beginning to tap the enormous potential of technology to advance
quality health care, especially in rural areas.
Yet, Medicare's telemedicine program is inefficient in its current
form. These inefficiencies threaten the future of telemedicine
services. When we first created this program, our knowledge of the
potential of this new technology, or its practical applications was
very limited. Today we have a much better understanding of how
telemedicine actually works. With this new knowledge, we can repair the
inefficiencies of the current system and encourage the use of this
highly effective health practice. By accomplishing this goal, we can
ensure that quality health care is available to all seniors and
disabled Americans regardless of where they live.
There are 8 main elements of the bill:
(1) Eliminating the provider ``fee sharing'' requirement;
(2) Eliminating the requirement for a ``telepresenter'';
(3) Allowing limited reimbursement for referring clinics to recover
the cost of their services;
(4) Expanding telemedicine services to all non-MSAs;
(5) Expanding telemedicine services to direct patient care, not just
professional consultations;
(6) Making all providers eligible for HCFA reimbursement for services
delivered via telemedicine;
(7) Creating a federal demonstration project that permits
telemedicine reimbursement for ``store and forward'' consultations
(i.e., x-rays that are sent to another facility for consultation); and
(8) Permitting telehomecare.
While these changes are relatively minor in the context of the
Medicare program, the affect will be far-reaching. The modernizations
we are proposing will dramatically improve access to quality health
care in rural areas. This legislation will allow us to begin to release
the incredible potential of telemedicine.
On a final note, I'd like to thank Karen Edison for her expertise and
determination in working on this bill. Because Karen is a practicing
telemedicine physician, she has been invaluable in developing and
advancing this cause.
Thank you, Mr. President for your time today. I hope all of my
colleagues will join with me in passing this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2506. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect
to the Federal preemption of State law concerning the regulation of
marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation by States; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
legislation regarding marine and ocean navigation, safety, and
transportation
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, environmental protection and states'
rights were dealt a blow on March 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court
decided the case of United States vs. Locke. The Court, noting that
even though federal and international laws ``may be insufficient
protection,'' invalidated Washington laws, and potentially laws in
eleven other states, that provide protections against spills by oil
tankers. I disagree with the Court's decision, because I believe that
Washington state should be allowed to protect its shores as it sees
fit.
That is why, today I am pleased to introduce the ``States Prevention
of Oil Tanker Spills Act'' (SPOTS)-legislation that will reinstate the
right of all states to adopt additional standards beyond existing
federal requirements governing the operation, maintenance, equipment,
personnel and manning of oil tankers. While this legislation will apply
to all shoreline states, it is pa
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - May 04, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S3514-S3543]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2503. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to authorize States to
regulate harmful fuel additives and to require fuel to contain fuel
made from renewable sources, to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
require that at least 85 percent of funds appropriated to the
Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund be distributed to States to carry out cooperative
agreements for undertaking corrective action and for enforcement of
subtitle I of that act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
renewable fuels act of 2000
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ten years ago I joined with two
distinguished colleagues, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and
Senator Tom Harkin, to introduce the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The RFG provision, with
its minimum oxygen standard, was adopted in the Senate by the
overwhelming vote of 69 to 30 and eventually signed into law by
President George Bush.
I am proud to say that this program has resulted in substantial
improvement in air quality around the country. It also has stimulated
increased production and use of renewable ethanol and other oxygenates
needed to meet the minimum oxygen standard.
Unfortunately, an unanticipated development involving the petroleum-
based oxygenate MTBE requires us to re-examine the many benefits of the
RFG program. The detection of MTBE in ground water around the country
has generated considerable debate in recent months over how to deal
with this fuel additive and the oxygen requirement of the reformulated
gasoline program. The resolution of this debate will have significant
consequences for the environment, for farmers and for the rural
economy.
The pace of activity to resolve the MTBE issue is accelerating
rapidly. Battlelines are being drawn as the state of California and its
allies focus on scrapping the oxygen requirement.
It is clear that Congress and/or the Clinton administration will
respond to the MTBE problem. My focus is on ensuring that that response
not only serves the environment, but also retains a prominent place for
ethanol--a place that assures long-term, predictable growth of the
industry.
I believe a comprehensive legislative solution is necessary in this
case--one that recognizes and preserves the important air quality
benefits of the RFG program, protects water supplies and leads the
nation away from greater dependence on imported oil.
I have worked for the last year with the ethanol industry, Republican
and Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the Governor's Ethanol
Coalition, environmental organizations and the administration in search
of a solution that gives states the tools they need to address MTBE
contamination, ensures the future growth of domestic renewable fuels,
and prevents supply shortages and price spikes in the nation's fuels
supply.
This process has led me to two basic conclusions.
First, the MTBE crisis has left the RFG oxygen requirement vulnerable
to legislative attack. Those who doubt this conclusion should reflect
on the following facts.
California refiners have shown that clean-burning gasoline can be
produced without oxygen.
EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel has recommended that the oxygen requirement
be repealed.
The RFG oxygen requirement is opposed by a diverse coalition that
includes the American Lung Association, the American Petroleum
Institute, the New England States Coordinated Air Use Management
agency, the State of California and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC).
Second, support for the oxygen requirement will weaken over time.
Improvements in auto emissions control technology will cause the air
quality benefits of oxygen in gasoline to decline and the justification
for the RFG oxygen requirement to diminish.
As one of the original authors of the reformulated gasoline
provisions of the Clean Air Act, I feel something of a proprietary
interest in the oxygen requirement. As a legislator, I recognize that
circumstances change, and obstinacy should not be allowed to become a
barrier to the achievement of important policy goals.
Ethanol advocates face a choice between defending the oxygen
requirement in the near term, realizing that its days ultimately are
numbered, or using the current MTBE debate to guarantee the future
growth of the ethanol industry based on important public policy goals,
such as energy security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and
domestic economic growth.
In my judgment, providing states with the flexibility to waive the
RFG oxygen requirement is a fair tradeoff for the establishment of a
renewable fuels standard. It represents the most effective way to
achieve the environmental and economic goals of governors and
consumers, while putting the ethanol industry on a steady growth path
well into the future and promoting ethanol production in new regions of
the nation.
Therefore, today, with Senator Richard Lugar, I am introducing the
Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. Under our
[[Page
S3515]]
legislation, EPA is directed to reduce the use of MTBE to safe levels,
and states can obtain waivers from the RFG oxygen requirement and
further regulate MTBE if they desire. This will allow the nation to
deal with the MTBE contamination issue responsibly and avoid gasoline
supply disruptions. The bill also includes provisions protecting the
air quality gains that have resulted from the use of oxygenated fuels.
To protect market opportunities for renewable fuels, the bill
establishes a renewable fuels standard for the nation's gasoline, which
begins in 2000 at 1.3 percent--roughly where renewable fuels production
stands today--and gradually increases over the next decade to 3.3
percent of the nation's gasoline in 2010. Considering the fact that
overall gasoline use is expected to increase over the next decade, this
standard will more than triple ethanol use over that period.
In meeting that requirement, our legislation stipulates that a gallon
of biomass ethanol counts as much as 1.5 gallons of starch-based
ethanol, thereby providing a strong incentive for the development of
biomass-based ethanol plans throughout the country. It also established
a renewable fuels standard for diesel fuels to promote the use of
biodiesel. These renewable fuels standards can be met through
nationwide credit trading, to allow for the most economomical use of
ethanol and biodiesel.
For those who are concerned about the potential impact of a drought
or other natural disaster on the ability of the renewable fuels
industry to supply this market, the legislation allows the EPA
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
waive the renewable requirement in any given year upon determination
that there is indequate domestic supply or distribution capacity, or
that the requirement would severely harm the economic or environment of
a State, a region, or the United States.
I also intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to establish a strategic corn reserve as a complement to the renewable
fuel standard. A properly managed strategic corn reserve could serve as
the equivalent of the strategic petroleum reserve and ensure stable
feedstocks for domestic ethanol producers in the event of weather
induced supply interruptions. Taxpayers would benefit as farmers could
receive fair market prices, thereby reducing the need for emergency
assistance each year.
It is important to recognize that under Senator Lugar's and my
approach, the oxygen requirement is not waived entirely. States can
decide for themselves whether to apply for a waiver from the RFG oxygen
requirement. We fully expect that RFG programs that currently are using
ethanol and have not experienced MTBE contamination, such as Chicago
and Milwaukee, will stay in the program. Moreover, the bill allows any
governor to apply to EPA to opt into the RFG program, thus expanding
its air quality benefits to new regions of the country. Those areas
that remain in the program or opt into it, and use ethanol, will
generate credits that can be sold to other regions of the country.
Finally, the bill prevents adverse effects on states' highway trust
fund tax allocations, with ``hold harmless'' language ensuring that
states reporting Federal excise tax receipts on gasoline are not
penalized for their ethanol blend sales.
Again, my goal in introducing this legislation is both to support
states that want to get MTBE out of gasoline and to ensure that this
effort does not adversely affect ethanol production. It is also to put
into place a program that will grow the ethanol industry steadily over
the next decade, thereby assuring the market stability necessary to
attract investment in the construction of new plants and significantly
increasing the market for corn and biomass. This approach not only will
get MTBE out of groundwater; it will do so without backsliding on the
air quality improvements generated by the RFG program while increasing
corn demand by 600 million bushels per year.
Mr. President, since first floating this concept in May of last year,
I have heard from numerous stakeholders in this complex debate. The
legislative concept that Senator Lugar and I unveil today has been
endorsed by diverse interests ranging from the American Coalition for
Ethanol (ACE) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the 24-state Governors'
Ethanol Coalition, to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) to Mr. Leo Leibowitz, chairman of Getty Petroleum.
I believe that we have struck a delicate balance between the interests
of farmers, consumers, state regulatory officials, refiners and those
concerned about the environment. This plan is a worthy successor to the
original 1990 RFG provision, preserving all of the good things it has
achieved and rectifying those elements that need fixing.
I look forward to working with Senators Smith and Baucus, the
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, to enact legislation resolving the MTBE issue. I hope that
other colleagues will join Senator Lugar and me in support of this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2503
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Fuels Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. STATE PETITIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR PROHIBIT
USE OF MTBE.
Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``any emission product
of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare,'' and inserting ``the fuel or fuel
additive, or an emission product of the fuel or fuel
additive, causes or contributes to air, water, or soil
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare or the environment,'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting ``or have other
environmental impacts'' after ``emissions'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i) and
(ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively, and indenting
appropriately to reflect the amendments made by this
paragraph;
(B) by striking ``(4)(A) Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C),'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Limitation on state authority with respect to fuels
and fuel additives.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Fuels and fuel additives.--Except as otherwise
provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph (5),'';
(C) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B)), by
inserting ``or water or soil quality protection'' after
``emission control''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) MTBE.--Notwithstanding clause (i), except as
otherwise provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph
(5), no State (or political subdivision of a State) may
prescribe or attempt to enforce, for the purpose of motor
vehicle emission control or water or soil quality protection,
any control or prohibition on methyl tertiary butyl ether as
a fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine.'';
(D) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or water or soil
quality protection'' after ``emission control''; and
(E) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by inserting ``or water or soil quality protection''
after ``emission control''; and
(II) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or, if the Administrator grants a petition of
the State under paragraph (5)''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``only if he'' and
inserting ``if the Administrator''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) State petitions for authority to control or prohibit
use of fuels or fuel additives for non-air quality
purposes.--
``(A) In general.--A State seeking to prescribe and enforce
a control or prohibition on a fuel or fuel additive for the
purpose of water or soil quality protection under paragraph
(4)(C) shall submit a petition to the Administrator for
authority to take such action.
``(B) Required elements of petition.--A petition submitted
under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) include information on--
``(I) the likely effects of the control or prohibition on
fuel availability and price in the affected supply area or
region; and
``(II) the improvements in environmental quality or public
health or welfare expected to result from the control or
prohibition; and
``(ii) demonstrate that the authority is necessary to
protect the environment or public health or welfare.
[[Page
S3516]]
``(C) Action by the administrator.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of receipt of a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall grant or deny the
petition.
``(D) Criteria for granting of petitions.--The
Administrator shall grant a petition submitted by a State
under subparagraph (A) unless the Administrator finds that--
``(i) the petition fails to reasonably demonstrate that the
authority is necessary to protect the environment or public
health or welfare;
``(ii) the control or prohibition is likely to have a
substantial and significant adverse effect on fuel
availability or price (including a State or regional effect)
that clearly outweighs any benefits associated with the
control or prohibition; or
``(iii) in the case of a petition submitted by a State
seeking the authority primarily to protect water resources,
the State has failed to take other appropriate and reasonable
actions to prevent contamination of water resources by fuels
or fuel additives, such as--
``(I) adoption of a prohibition on the delivery of gasoline
to noncompliant facilities with underground storage tanks; or
``(II) operation of a statewide monitoring and compliance
assurance system.
``(E) Effect of failure of administrator to act.--If, by
the date that is 180 days after the date of receipt of a
petition submitted under subparagraph (A), the Administrator
has not proposed to grant or deny the petition under
subparagraph (C), the petition shall be deemed to be granted.
``(F) Procedural requirements.--
``(i) Inapplicability of certain requirements.--Section
307(d) of this Act and sections 553 through 557 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply to actions on a petition
submitted under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Public notice and opportunity for comment.--The
Administrator shall provide public notice and opportunity for
comment with respect to a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A).
``(6) Limitation on mtbe content.--The Administrator shall
promulgate regulations applicable to each refiner, blender,
or importer of gasoline to ensure that gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce by the refiner, blender, or importer
on or after January 1, 2004, in an area has a content of
methyl tertiary butyl ether that is at a level that--
``(A) the Administrator determines may not reasonably be
anticipated to endanger natural resources and the public
health; and
``(B) does not exceed the annual average volume of methyl
tertiary butyl ether per gallon of gasoline used in the area
before 1995.''.
SEC. 3. WAIVER OF OXYGEN CONTENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``Within 1 year after the enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Not later than November 15, 1991,'';
(B) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and opt-in areas under paragraph
(6)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Adjustment of voc performance standard.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator may adjust the
volatile organic compounds performance standard promulgated
under subparagraph (A) in the case of a fuel formulation that
achieves reductions in the quantity of mass emissions of
carbon monoxide that are greater than or less than the
reductions associated with a reformulated gasoline that
contains 2.0 percent oxygen by weight and otherwise meets the
requirements of this subsection.
``(ii) Amount of adjustment.--The amount of an adjustment
under clause (i) shall be based on the effect on ozone
concentrations of the combined reductions in emissions of
volatile organic compounds and reductions in emissions of
carbon monoxide.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``The oxygen'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--The oxygen''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Waiver for certain states.--The Administrator shall
waive the application of clause (i) for any ozone
nonattainment area in a State if the Governor of the State
submits for such a waiver an application that--
``(I) demonstrates that the State is in full compliance
with Federal regulations concerning the control and
prevention of leaking underground storage tanks; or
``(II) provides a plan that outlines the measures the State
will take to fully comply with the underground storage tank
regulations by a date not later than 2 years after the
receipt of the application of the Governor.
``(iii) Effective date.--A waiver under clause (ii) shall
become effective on the later of--
``(I) January 1 of the calendar year immediately following
the calendar year during which the application for the waiver
is received; or
``(II) the date that is 180 days after the date on which
the application for the waiver is received.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Aromatics.--The aromatic hydrocarbon content of the
gasoline shall not exceed 22 percent by volume.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``25 percent'' and
inserting ``22 percent''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``Any reduction'' and inserting the
following:
``(iii) Treatment of greater reductions.--Any reduction'';
and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Anti-backsliding provision.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall revise performance standards under this
subparagraph as necessary to ensure that--
``(aa) the ozone-forming potential, taking into account all
ozone precursors (including volatile organic compounds,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide), of the aggregate
emissions during the high ozone season (as determined by the
Administrator) from baseline vehicles when using reformulated
gasoline does not exceed the ozone-forming potential of the
aggregate emissions during the high ozone season from
baseline vehicles when using reformulated gasoline that
complies with the regulations that were in effect on January
1, 2000, and were applicable to reformulated gasoline sold in
calendar year 2000 and subsequent calendar years; and
``(bb) the aggregate emissions of the pollutants specified
in subclause (II) from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline do not exceed the aggregate emissions
of those pollutants from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline that complies with the regulations that
were in effect on January 1, 2000, and were applicable to
reformulated gasolines sold in calendar year 2000 and
subsequent calendar years.
``(II) Specified pollutants.--The pollutants specified in
this subclause are--
``(aa) toxics, categorized by degrees of toxicity; and
``(bb) such other pollutants, including pollutants
regulated under section 108, and such precursors to those
pollutants, as the Administrator determines by regulation
should be controlled to prevent the deterioration of air
quality and to achieve attainment of a national ambient air
quality standard in 1 or more areas.''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)(B)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively, and indenting appropriately to
reflect the amendments made by this paragraph;
(B) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--The Administrator'';
(C) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B))--
(i) in subclause (I) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``, and'' and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subclause (II) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(I) by striking ``achieve equivalent'' and inserting the
following: ``achieve--
``(aa) equivalent'';
(II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(bb) combined reductions in emissions of ozone forming
volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide that result in
a reduction in ozone concentration, as provided in clause
(ii)(I), that is equivalent to or greater than the reduction
in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated gasoline
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3); and'';
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) achieve equivalent or greater reductions in
emissions of toxic air pollutants than are achieved by a
reformulated gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of
paragraph (3).''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Carbon monoxide credit.--
``(I) In general.--In determining whether a fuel
formulation or slate of fuel formulations achieves combined
reductions in emissions of ozone forming volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide that result in a reduction in
ozone concentration that is equivalent to or greater than the
reduction in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated
gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph
(3), the Administrator--
``(aa) shall consider, to the extent appropriate, the
change in carbon monoxide emissions from baseline vehicles
attributable to an oxygen content in the fuel formulation or
slate of fuel formulations that exceeds 2.0 percent by
weight; and
``(bb) may consider, to the extent appropriate, the change
in carbon monoxide emissions described in item (aa) from
vehicles other than baseline vehicles.
``(II) Oxygen credits.--Any excess oxygen content that is
taken into consideration in making a determination under
subclause (I) may not be used to generate credits under
paragraph (7)(A).
``(III) Relation to title i.--Any fuel formulation or slate
of fuel formulations that is certified as equivalent or
greater under this subparagraph, taking into consideration
the combined reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide, shall receive the same
volatile organic compounds reduction credit for the purposes
of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(2)(B) of section 182 as a fuel
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3).''.
(b) Reformulated Gasoline Carbon Monoxide Reduction
Credit.--Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
[[Page
S3517]]
7511a(c)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``An adjustment to the volatile organic compound
emission reduction requirements under section
211(k)(3)(B)(iv) shall be credited toward the requirement for
VOC emissions reductions under this subparagraph.''.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL OPT-IN AREAS UNDER REFORMULATED GASOLINE
PROGRAM.
Section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(k)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(6) Opt-in areas.--(A) Upon'' and
inserting the following:
``(6) Opt-in areas.--
``(A) Classified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) If'' and
inserting the following:
``(ii) Effect of insufficient domestic capacity to produce
reformulated gasoline.--If'';
(3) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``subparagraph (A)''
and inserting ``clause (i)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``this paragraph''
and inserting ``this subparagraph''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Nonclassified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon the application of the Governor of
a State, the Administrator shall apply the prohibition
specified in paragraph (5) in any area in the State that is
not a covered area or an area referred to in subparagraph
(A)(i).
``(ii) Publication of application.--As soon as practicable
after receipt of an application under clause (i), the
Administrator shall publish the application in the Federal
Register.''.
SEC. 5. RENEWABLE CONTENT OF GASOLINE AND OTHER MOTOR FUELS.
(a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (q); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
``(o) Renewable Content of Gasoline.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Regulations.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations applicable to each
refiner, blender, or importer of gasoline to ensure that
gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the United
States by the refiner, blender, or importer complies with the
renewable content requirements of this subsection.
``(B) Renewable content requirements.--
``(i) In general.--All gasoline sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by a refiner, blender, or
importer shall contain, on a quarterly average basis, a
quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source (including
biomass ethanol) that is not less than the applicable
percentage by volume for the quarter.
``(ii) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of clause (i), 1
gallon of biomass ethanol shall be considered to be the
equivalent of 1.5 gallons of fuel derived from a renewable
source.
``(iii) Applicable percentage.--For the purposes of clause
(i), the applicable percentage for a quarter of a calendar
year shall be determined in accordance with the following
table:
Applicable percentage of fuel derived from a renewable source:
`Calendar year:
2000.........................................................1.3 ....
2001.........................................................1.5 ....
2002.........................................................1.7 ....
2003.........................................................1.9 ....
2004.........................................................2.1 ....
2005.........................................................2.3 ....
2006.........................................................2.5 ....
2007.........................................................2.7 ....
2008.........................................................2.9 ....
2009.........................................................3.1 ....
2010 and thereafter..........................................3.3.....
``(C) Fuel derived from a renewable source.--For the
purposes of this subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be
derived from a renewable source if the fuel--
``(i) is produced from grain, starch, oilseeds, or other
biomass; and
``(ii) is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture used to operate a motor
vehicle.
``(D) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of this
subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be biomass ethanol
if the fuel is ethanol derived from any lignocellulosic or
hemicellulosic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis, including--
``(i) dedicated energy crops and trees;
``(ii) wood and wood residues;
``(iii) plants;
``(iv) grasses;
``(v) agricultural commodities and residues;
``(vi) fibers;
``(vii) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
``(viii) municipal solid waste.
``(E) Credit program.--
``(i) In general.--The regulations promulgated under this
subsection shall provide for the generation of an appropriate
amount of credits by a person that refines, blends, or
imports gasoline that contains, on a quarterly average basis,
a quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source or a
quantity of biomass ethanol that is greater than the quantity
required under subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Use of credits.--The regulations shall provide that
a person that generates the credits may use the credits, or
transfer all or a portion of the credits to another person,
for the purpose of complying with subparagraph (B).
``(2) Waivers.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, may waive the requirements of
paragraph (1)(B) in whole or in part on petition by a State--
``(i) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that
implementation of the requirements would severely harm the
economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United
States; or
``(ii) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that there is an
inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet
the requirements of paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) Petitions for waivers.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture--
``(i) shall approve or deny a State petition for a waiver
of the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) within 180 days after
the date on which the petition is received; but
``(ii) may extend that period for up to 60 additional days
to provide for public notice and opportunity for comment and
for consideration of the comments submitted.
``(C) Termination of waivers.--A waiver granted under
subparagraph (A) shall terminate after 1 year, but may be
renewed by the Administrator after consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture.
``(D) Oxygen content waivers.--The grant or denial of a
waiver under subsection (k)(2)(B) shall not affect the
requirements of this subsection.
``(3) Small refiners.--The regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under paragraph (1) may provide an exemption,
in whole or in part, for small refiners (as defined by the
Administrator).
``(4) Guidance for labeling.--After consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator shall issue
guidance to the States for labeling, at the point of retail
sale--
``(A) the fuel derived from a renewable source that is
contained in the fuel sold; and
``(B) the major fuel additive components of the fuel sold.
``(5) Reports to congress.--Not less often than every 3
years, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report
on--
``(A) reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants
listed under section 108 that result from implementation of
this subsection; and
``(B) in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
greenhouse gas emission reductions that result from
implementation of this subsection.
``(p) Renewable Content of Diesel Fuel.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator, after consideration of applicable economic and
environmental factors, shall promulgate regulations
applicable to each refiner, blender, or importer of diesel
fuel to ensure that the diesel fuel sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by the refiner, blender, or
importer complies with the renewable content requirements
established by the Administrator under this subsection.
``(2) Elements of program.--To the extent that the
Administrator determines it to be appropriate, the
Administrator shall by regulation establish a program for
diesel fuel that has renewable content requirements similar
to the requirements of the program for gasoline under
subsection (o) in order to ensure the use of biodiesel
fuel.''.
(b) Penalties and Enforcement.--Section 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``or (n)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``(n), or (o)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``or (m)'' and
inserting ``(m), or (o)''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking
``and (n)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(n), and
(o)''.
(c) Prevention of Effects on Highway Apportionments.--
(1) Surface transportation program.--Section 104(b)(3) of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under subparagraph (A)(iii) the
estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in a
State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the
Highway Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or
other fuels containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed
by section 4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating
to gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
[[Page
S3518]]
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
(2) Minimum guarantee.--Section 105(f)(1) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(1) In general.--Before'' and inserting
the following: ``(1) In general.--
``(A) Adjustment.--Before''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under this subsection the estimated
tax payments attributable to highway users in a State paid
into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the Highway
Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or other fuels
containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed by section
4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating to
gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
SEC. 6. UPDATING OF BASELINE YEAR.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``Within 1 year
after the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence;
(B) by striking ``calendar year 1990'' each place it
appears and inserting ``calendar year 1999''; and
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``such 1990 gasoline''
and inserting ``such 1999 gasoline''; and
(2) in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(ii) of paragraph (10), by
striking ``1990'' each place it appears and inserting
``1999''.
(b) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall revise the regulations promulgated
under section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k))
to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a).
SEC. 7. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
(a) Trust Fund Distribution.--Section 9004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991c) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f) Trust Fund Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Amount and permitted use of distribution.--The
Administrator shall distribute to States at least 85 percent
of the funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection
Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established by section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (referred to in this subsection as the `Trust Fund') for
each fiscal year for use in paying the reasonable costs,
incurred under cooperative agreements with States, of--
``(i) actions taken by a State under section 9003(h)(7)(A);
``(ii) necessary administrative expenses directly related
to corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1);
``(iii) enforcement by a State or local government of a
State program approved under this section or of State or
local requirements regulating underground storage tanks that
are similar or identical to this subtitle;
``(iv) State or local corrective actions pursuant to
regulations promulgated under section 9003(c)(4); or
``(v) corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks
regulated under this subtitle if, as determined by the State
in accordance with guidelines developed between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the States, the financial
resources of an owner or operator (including resources
provided by programs under subsection (c)(1)) are not
adequate to pay for the cost of a corrective action without
significantly impairing the ability of the owner or operator
to continue in business.
``(B) Nonpermitted uses.--Funds provided by the
Administrator under subparagraph (A) shall not be used by a
State to provide financial assistance to an owner or operator
to meet the requirements concerning underground storage tanks
contained in part 280 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subsection), except as provided in subparagraph (A)(v), or
similar requirements in State programs approved under this
section or similar State or local provisions.
``(C) Tanks within tribal jurisdiction.--The Administrator,
in coordination with Indian tribes, shall--
``(i) expeditiously develop and implement a strategy to--
``(I) take necessary corrective action in response to
releases from leaking underground storage tanks located
wholly within the exterior boundaries of an Indian
reservation or other area within the jurisdiction of an
Indian tribe, giving priority to releases that present the
greatest threat to human health or the environment; and
``(II) implement and enforce requirements regulating
underground storage tanks located wholly within the exterior
boundaries of an Indian reservation or other area within the
jurisdiction of an Indian tribe; and
``(ii) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of this subsection, and every 2 years thereafter, submit to
Congress a report summarizing the status of implementation of
the leaking underground storage tank program located wholly
within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation or
other area within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) Process.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case of
a State with which the Administrator has entered into a
cooperative agreement under section 9003(h)(7)(A), the
Administrator shall distribute funds from the Trust Fund to
the State using the allocation process developed by the
Administrator for such cooperative agreements.
``(B) Revisions to process.--The Administrator may revise
the allocation process only after--
``(i) consulting with State agencies responsible for
overseeing corrective action for releases from underground
storage tanks and with representatives of owners and
operators; and
``(ii) taking into consideration, at a minimum--
``(I) the total revenue received from each State into the
Trust Fund;
``(II) the number of confirmed releases from leaking
underground storage tanks in each State;
``(III) the number of notified petroleum storage tanks in
each State;
``(IV) the percentage of the population of each State using
ground water for any beneficial purpose;
``(V) the evaluation of the program performance of each
State;
``(VI) the evaluation of the financial needs of each State;
and
``(VII) the evaluation of the ability of each State to use
the funds in any year.
``(3) Distributions to state agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Distributions from the Trust Fund under
this subsection shall be made directly to the State agency
entering into a cooperative agreement or enforcing the State
program.
``(B) Administrative expenses.--A State agency that
receives funds under this subsection shall limit the
proportion of those funds that are used to pay administrative
expenses to a percentage that the State may establish by law.
``(4) Cost recovery prohibition.--Funds provided to States
from the Trust Fund to owners or operators for programs under
section 9004(c)(1) for releases from underground storage
tanks are not subject to cost recovery by the Administrator
under section 9003(h)(6).
``(5) Permitted uses.--In addition to uses authorized by
other provisions of this subtitle, the Administrator may use
funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency
from the Trust Fund for enforcement of any regulation
promulgated by the Administrator under this subtitle.''.
(b) Addition to Trust Fund Purposes.--Section 9508(c)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures)
is amended by striking ``to carry out section 9003(h)'' and
all that follows and inserting ``to carry out--
``(A) section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986); and
``(B) section 9004(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Renewable Fuels Act
of 2000).''.
(c) Studies.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct--
(1) a study to determine the corrosive effects of methyl
tertiary butyl ether and other widely used fuels and fuel
additives on underground storage tanks; and
(2) a study to assess the potential public health and
environmental risks associated with the use of aboveground
storage tanks and the effectiveness of State and Federal
regulations or voluntary standards, in existence as of the
time of the study, to provide adequate protection of public
health and the environment.
(d) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 9001(3)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``sustances'' and
inserting ``substances''.
(2) Section 9003(f)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)
and (d) of this section'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and
(d)''.
(3) Section 9004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``referred to'' and all that follows and inserting ``referred
to in subparagraph (A) or (B), or both, of section
9001(2).''.
(4) Section 9005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991d) is amended--
[[Page
S3519]]
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``study taking'' and
inserting ``study, taking'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``relevent'' and
inserting ``relevant''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Evironmental'' and
inserting ``Environmental''.
SEC. 8. PRIVATE WELL PROTECTION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may enter into cooperative agreements with
the United States Geological Survey, the Department of
Agriculture, States, local governments, private landowners,
and other interested parties to establish voluntary pilot
projects to protect the water quality of private wells and to
provide technical assistance to users of water from private
wells.
(b) Limitation.--This section does not authorize the
issuance of guidance or regulations regarding the use or
protection of private wells.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in
introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000.
In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in
Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive
in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public
concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These
trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using
Reformulated Gasoline.
The Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) has proven to be a success in
reducing smog and has exceeded expectations in reducing dangerous and
carcinogenic air toxics in gasoline. The second stage of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) will commence this summer and will
have an even greater effect in reducing ozone pollution and air toxics.
Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the
existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. The Governor of
California has called for a three year phase out of MTBE in California
and the California Air Resources Board has adopted regulations to that
effect. Environmental officials from eight Northeastern States have
proposed a phase down and a capping of the use of MTBE in gasoline in
their states. MTBE is being found in wells in the Midwest even in areas
that do not use reformulated gasoline.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will lead to about five billion
gallons of ethanol being produced in 2010 compared to one billion, six
hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic
ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in
determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a
particular year.
We are going to have spikes in oil that will disrupt our economy. It
may or may not be able to be controlled. It will happen before 2010. It
may happen again next week. Our problem in terms of national security
and the security of our whole economy revolves around our dependence on
petroleum-based fuels. We must be able to address this challenge.
Finding an environmentally sensitive way to resolve the MTBE crisis is
an important part of this challenge.
It is clear that MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of
legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that
legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental
and energy and national security issues involved.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will establish a nationwide Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) that would increase the current use of renewable
fuels from 1.3% in 2000 to 3.3% by 2010. Refiners who produced
renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other
refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS.
This bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to limit or
eliminate the use of MTBE in order to protect the public health and the
environment. It also gives states the ability to further regulate or
eliminate MTBE use if the EPA does not choose to eliminate it. It would
also establish strict ``anti backsliding provisions'' to capture all of
the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down or
phased out.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will be good for our economy and our
environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development
of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national
and economic security and stabilizing gas prices.
I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other
legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable
fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural
or plant materials.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bond, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Conrad, and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 2505. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide increased assess to health care for medical beneficiaries
through telemedicine; to the Committee on Finance.
telehealth improvement and modernization act of 2000
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my good
friend Senator Rockefeller in introducing legislation that will improve
upon the federal rules for reimbursement for telemedicine and help to
ensure that all of our citizens have access to our great health care
system. We are joined by a broad, bipartisan group of senators in this
effort.
In many ways we have the best health care system in the world. But
increasingly fewer and fewer Americans actually have access to it. I
recently introduced a tax-credit bill that will help some of these
Americans and I anticipate supporting future measures aimed at
increasing access to health care services.
One important area that demands our attention is the problem of
access for rural Americans. More than 25 percent of our Nation's senior
citizens live in areas underserved for modern health care services. At
the same time, telemedicine has come of age. We have moved beyond the
feasibility stage and proven that this technology can provide real
benefits to people in rural and underserved regions of our country.
In my own State of Vermont, nearly 70 per cent live in rural areas.
This is the highest percentage rural population of any state in the
nation. In Vermont, specialists in more than twenty-five disciplines
from Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington are made readily
available to patients even in the most rural areas. I want to see this
level of service expand and be made available to all Americans.
We in Washington have made some good faith attempts to allow for the
development of telehealth technologies but we have fallen short. In an
effort to restrain the expansion of these programs, the Health Care
Financing Administration's interpretation of the laws and its
cumbersome rules for reimbursement have all but guaranteed the demise
of current programs.
Federally-funded telemedicine projects exist in almost every State in
the Nation. These projects have proven that cost-effective, high-
quality care can be delivered using this technology. The provisions in
this bill will help to ensure that this care will be continued when the
federal grants end.
Why is this legislation needed now? Because current HCFA regulations
concerning payment are unworkable in the real world. Less than 6
percent of all telemedicine doctor-patient visits last year provided to
Medicare beneficiaries would qualify for reimbursement under HCFA's
current guidelines.
Now that we have more experience and understand better how
telemedicine can be used, it is time to enact several changes to the
law so that these programs can thrive and deliver on their promise of
providing cost-effective, high-quality healthcare where it is needed
the most.
Rural healthcare providers and patients are eager for this
legislation. Norman Wright, President of the Vermont Association of
Hospitals and Health Systems, recognized the potential of Fletcher
Allen's telemedicine program by describing it as one that ``provides
incredible opportunities for rural providers and their patients because
it links them to a network with access to the region's best authorities
for any given condition.''
I have indeed heard an outpouring of support from healthcare
providers across my own State on this issue. Gerry Davis, Professor of
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Fletcher Allen Health Care,
described ``appropriate and fair third party payment for
[[Page
S3520]]
telemedicine'' as ``essential in order to move this process beyond
education, and to make the service truly useful for patients in remote
locations.''
Telemedicine can be used in so many ways. It can be vital to a
pediatrician from a rural area with a sick baby who needs to consult
with a neonatologist from a tertiary care hospital in the dead of
winter and the middle of the night. It can be also be crucial for a
depressed senior citizen who desperately needs mental health services
available in their own rural county. And it can be much needed help for
a frustrated isolated primary care provider who longs to be able to
provide for access to specialty services for her patients in their own
community. All of these people need our help.
While the changes included in this bill are relatively minor in the
context of the Medicare program, the effect will be far-reaching. This
legislation will allow us to avoid arbitrarily denying access to health
care for our senior citizens and persons with disabilities just because
of where they live. It will allow for fair and reasonable reimbursement
for services that can be delivered appropriately in this way. It will
also encourage the incorporation of telehealth technology in the care
plans of home health agencies, an area that has already shown great
promise for the future in terms of cost-effective disease management.
In summary, it will allow us to begin to release the incredible
potential of telemedicine.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in bringing HCFA's
approach to the delivery of health care into the 21st Century. Any
Medicare reform must include progress on telemedicine for our Nation's
rural areas.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be here
today to introduce the Telemedicine Improvement and Modernization Act
with Senator Jeffords and many other of my Senate colleagues. This bill
incorporates two issues that I care about passionately--health care and
technology.
Telemedicine has the potential to bridge the gap that currently
exists between patients and providers. More than 25% of our Nation's
senior citizens live in areas where speciality care may not be
available. In states like my own where there are very few primary care
or specialty care resources and travel is difficult, telemedicine is
critical to ensuring that people in remote areas are getting health
care they need. By expanding access to health care through
telemedicine, we also improve the quality of care available to people
living in underserved areas. Personally, I believe that we are just
beginning to tap the enormous potential of technology to advance
quality health care, especially in rural areas.
Yet, Medicare's telemedicine program is inefficient in its current
form. These inefficiencies threaten the future of telemedicine
services. When we first created this program, our knowledge of the
potential of this new technology, or its practical applications was
very limited. Today we have a much better understanding of how
telemedicine actually works. With this new knowledge, we can repair the
inefficiencies of the current system and encourage the use of this
highly effective health practice. By accomplishing this goal, we can
ensure that quality health care is available to all seniors and
disabled Americans regardless of where they live.
There are 8 main elements of the bill:
(1) Eliminating the provider ``fee sharing'' requirement;
(2) Eliminating the requirement for a ``telepresenter'';
(3) Allowing limited reimbursement for referring clinics to recover
the cost of their services;
(4) Expanding telemedicine services to all non-MSAs;
(5) Expanding telemedicine services to direct patient care, not just
professional consultations;
(6) Making all providers eligible for HCFA reimbursement for services
delivered via telemedicine;
(7) Creating a federal demonstration project that permits
telemedicine reimbursement for ``store and forward'' consultations
(i.e., x-rays that are sent to another facility for consultation); and
(8) Permitting telehomecare.
While these changes are relatively minor in the context of the
Medicare program, the affect will be far-reaching. The modernizations
we are proposing will dramatically improve access to quality health
care in rural areas. This legislation will allow us to begin to release
the incredible potential of telemedicine.
On a final note, I'd like to thank Karen Edison for her expertise and
determination in working on this bill. Because Karen is a practicing
telemedicine physician, she has been invaluable in developing and
advancing this cause.
Thank you, Mr. President for your time today. I hope all of my
colleagues will join with me in passing this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2506. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect
to the Federal preemption of State law concerning the regulation of
marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation by States; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
legislation regarding marine and ocean navigation, safety, and
transportation
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, environmental protection and states'
rights were dealt a blow on March 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court
decided the case of United States vs. Locke. The Court, noting that
even though federal and international laws ``may be insufficient
protection,'' invalidated Washington laws, and potentially laws in
eleven other states, that provide protections against spills by oil
tankers. I disagree with the Court's decision, because I believe that
Washington state should be allowed to protect its shores as it sees
fit.
That is why, today I am pleased to introduce the ``States Prevention
of Oil Tanker Spills Act'' (SPOTS)-legislation that will reinstate the
right of all states to adopt additional standards beyond existing
federal requirements governing the operation, maintenance, equipment,
personnel and manning of oil tankers. While this legislation will apply
to all shoreline states, it is particularly
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - May 04, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S3514-S3543]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2503. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to authorize States to
regulate harmful fuel additives and to require fuel to contain fuel
made from renewable sources, to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
require that at least 85 percent of funds appropriated to the
Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund be distributed to States to carry out cooperative
agreements for undertaking corrective action and for enforcement of
subtitle I of that act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
renewable fuels act of 2000
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ten years ago I joined with two
distinguished colleagues, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and
Senator Tom Harkin, to introduce the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The RFG provision, with
its minimum oxygen standard, was adopted in the Senate by the
overwhelming vote of 69 to 30 and eventually signed into law by
President George Bush.
I am proud to say that this program has resulted in substantial
improvement in air quality around the country. It also has stimulated
increased production and use of renewable ethanol and other oxygenates
needed to meet the minimum oxygen standard.
Unfortunately, an unanticipated development involving the petroleum-
based oxygenate MTBE requires us to re-examine the many benefits of the
RFG program. The detection of MTBE in ground water around the country
has generated considerable debate in recent months over how to deal
with this fuel additive and the oxygen requirement of the reformulated
gasoline program. The resolution of this debate will have significant
consequences for the environment, for farmers and for the rural
economy.
The pace of activity to resolve the MTBE issue is accelerating
rapidly. Battlelines are being drawn as the state of California and its
allies focus on scrapping the oxygen requirement.
It is clear that Congress and/or the Clinton administration will
respond to the MTBE problem. My focus is on ensuring that that response
not only serves the environment, but also retains a prominent place for
ethanol--a place that assures long-term, predictable growth of the
industry.
I believe a comprehensive legislative solution is necessary in this
case--one that recognizes and preserves the important air quality
benefits of the RFG program, protects water supplies and leads the
nation away from greater dependence on imported oil.
I have worked for the last year with the ethanol industry, Republican
and Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the Governor's Ethanol
Coalition, environmental organizations and the administration in search
of a solution that gives states the tools they need to address MTBE
contamination, ensures the future growth of domestic renewable fuels,
and prevents supply shortages and price spikes in the nation's fuels
supply.
This process has led me to two basic conclusions.
First, the MTBE crisis has left the RFG oxygen requirement vulnerable
to legislative attack. Those who doubt this conclusion should reflect
on the following facts.
California refiners have shown that clean-burning gasoline can be
produced without oxygen.
EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel has recommended that the oxygen requirement
be repealed.
The RFG oxygen requirement is opposed by a diverse coalition that
includes the American Lung Association, the American Petroleum
Institute, the New England States Coordinated Air Use Management
agency, the State of California and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC).
Second, support for the oxygen requirement will weaken over time.
Improvements in auto emissions control technology will cause the air
quality benefits of oxygen in gasoline to decline and the justification
for the RFG oxygen requirement to diminish.
As one of the original authors of the reformulated gasoline
provisions of the Clean Air Act, I feel something of a proprietary
interest in the oxygen requirement. As a legislator, I recognize that
circumstances change, and obstinacy should not be allowed to become a
barrier to the achievement of important policy goals.
Ethanol advocates face a choice between defending the oxygen
requirement in the near term, realizing that its days ultimately are
numbered, or using the current MTBE debate to guarantee the future
growth of the ethanol industry based on important public policy goals,
such as energy security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and
domestic economic growth.
In my judgment, providing states with the flexibility to waive the
RFG oxygen requirement is a fair tradeoff for the establishment of a
renewable fuels standard. It represents the most effective way to
achieve the environmental and economic goals of governors and
consumers, while putting the ethanol industry on a steady growth path
well into the future and promoting ethanol production in new regions of
the nation.
Therefore, today, with Senator Richard Lugar, I am introducing the
Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. Under our
[[Page
S3515]]
legislation, EPA is directed to reduce the use of MTBE to safe levels,
and states can obtain waivers from the RFG oxygen requirement and
further regulate MTBE if they desire. This will allow the nation to
deal with the MTBE contamination issue responsibly and avoid gasoline
supply disruptions. The bill also includes provisions protecting the
air quality gains that have resulted from the use of oxygenated fuels.
To protect market opportunities for renewable fuels, the bill
establishes a renewable fuels standard for the nation's gasoline, which
begins in 2000 at 1.3 percent--roughly where renewable fuels production
stands today--and gradually increases over the next decade to 3.3
percent of the nation's gasoline in 2010. Considering the fact that
overall gasoline use is expected to increase over the next decade, this
standard will more than triple ethanol use over that period.
In meeting that requirement, our legislation stipulates that a gallon
of biomass ethanol counts as much as 1.5 gallons of starch-based
ethanol, thereby providing a strong incentive for the development of
biomass-based ethanol plans throughout the country. It also established
a renewable fuels standard for diesel fuels to promote the use of
biodiesel. These renewable fuels standards can be met through
nationwide credit trading, to allow for the most economomical use of
ethanol and biodiesel.
For those who are concerned about the potential impact of a drought
or other natural disaster on the ability of the renewable fuels
industry to supply this market, the legislation allows the EPA
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
waive the renewable requirement in any given year upon determination
that there is indequate domestic supply or distribution capacity, or
that the requirement would severely harm the economic or environment of
a State, a region, or the United States.
I also intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to establish a strategic corn reserve as a complement to the renewable
fuel standard. A properly managed strategic corn reserve could serve as
the equivalent of the strategic petroleum reserve and ensure stable
feedstocks for domestic ethanol producers in the event of weather
induced supply interruptions. Taxpayers would benefit as farmers could
receive fair market prices, thereby reducing the need for emergency
assistance each year.
It is important to recognize that under Senator Lugar's and my
approach, the oxygen requirement is not waived entirely. States can
decide for themselves whether to apply for a waiver from the RFG oxygen
requirement. We fully expect that RFG programs that currently are using
ethanol and have not experienced MTBE contamination, such as Chicago
and Milwaukee, will stay in the program. Moreover, the bill allows any
governor to apply to EPA to opt into the RFG program, thus expanding
its air quality benefits to new regions of the country. Those areas
that remain in the program or opt into it, and use ethanol, will
generate credits that can be sold to other regions of the country.
Finally, the bill prevents adverse effects on states' highway trust
fund tax allocations, with ``hold harmless'' language ensuring that
states reporting Federal excise tax receipts on gasoline are not
penalized for their ethanol blend sales.
Again, my goal in introducing this legislation is both to support
states that want to get MTBE out of gasoline and to ensure that this
effort does not adversely affect ethanol production. It is also to put
into place a program that will grow the ethanol industry steadily over
the next decade, thereby assuring the market stability necessary to
attract investment in the construction of new plants and significantly
increasing the market for corn and biomass. This approach not only will
get MTBE out of groundwater; it will do so without backsliding on the
air quality improvements generated by the RFG program while increasing
corn demand by 600 million bushels per year.
Mr. President, since first floating this concept in May of last year,
I have heard from numerous stakeholders in this complex debate. The
legislative concept that Senator Lugar and I unveil today has been
endorsed by diverse interests ranging from the American Coalition for
Ethanol (ACE) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the 24-state Governors'
Ethanol Coalition, to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) to Mr. Leo Leibowitz, chairman of Getty Petroleum.
I believe that we have struck a delicate balance between the interests
of farmers, consumers, state regulatory officials, refiners and those
concerned about the environment. This plan is a worthy successor to the
original 1990 RFG provision, preserving all of the good things it has
achieved and rectifying those elements that need fixing.
I look forward to working with Senators Smith and Baucus, the
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, to enact legislation resolving the MTBE issue. I hope that
other colleagues will join Senator Lugar and me in support of this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2503
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Fuels Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. STATE PETITIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR PROHIBIT
USE OF MTBE.
Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``any emission product
of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare,'' and inserting ``the fuel or fuel
additive, or an emission product of the fuel or fuel
additive, causes or contributes to air, water, or soil
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare or the environment,'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting ``or have other
environmental impacts'' after ``emissions'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i) and
(ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively, and indenting
appropriately to reflect the amendments made by this
paragraph;
(B) by striking ``(4)(A) Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C),'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Limitation on state authority with respect to fuels
and fuel additives.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Fuels and fuel additives.--Except as otherwise
provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph (5),'';
(C) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B)), by
inserting ``or water or soil quality protection'' after
``emission control''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) MTBE.--Notwithstanding clause (i), except as
otherwise provided in subparagraph (B) or (C) or paragraph
(5), no State (or political subdivision of a State) may
prescribe or attempt to enforce, for the purpose of motor
vehicle emission control or water or soil quality protection,
any control or prohibition on methyl tertiary butyl ether as
a fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine.'';
(D) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or water or soil
quality protection'' after ``emission control''; and
(E) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by inserting ``or water or soil quality protection''
after ``emission control''; and
(II) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or, if the Administrator grants a petition of
the State under paragraph (5)''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``only if he'' and
inserting ``if the Administrator''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) State petitions for authority to control or prohibit
use of fuels or fuel additives for non-air quality
purposes.--
``(A) In general.--A State seeking to prescribe and enforce
a control or prohibition on a fuel or fuel additive for the
purpose of water or soil quality protection under paragraph
(4)(C) shall submit a petition to the Administrator for
authority to take such action.
``(B) Required elements of petition.--A petition submitted
under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) include information on--
``(I) the likely effects of the control or prohibition on
fuel availability and price in the affected supply area or
region; and
``(II) the improvements in environmental quality or public
health or welfare expected to result from the control or
prohibition; and
``(ii) demonstrate that the authority is necessary to
protect the environment or public health or welfare.
[[Page
S3516]]
``(C) Action by the administrator.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of receipt of a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall grant or deny the
petition.
``(D) Criteria for granting of petitions.--The
Administrator shall grant a petition submitted by a State
under subparagraph (A) unless the Administrator finds that--
``(i) the petition fails to reasonably demonstrate that the
authority is necessary to protect the environment or public
health or welfare;
``(ii) the control or prohibition is likely to have a
substantial and significant adverse effect on fuel
availability or price (including a State or regional effect)
that clearly outweighs any benefits associated with the
control or prohibition; or
``(iii) in the case of a petition submitted by a State
seeking the authority primarily to protect water resources,
the State has failed to take other appropriate and reasonable
actions to prevent contamination of water resources by fuels
or fuel additives, such as--
``(I) adoption of a prohibition on the delivery of gasoline
to noncompliant facilities with underground storage tanks; or
``(II) operation of a statewide monitoring and compliance
assurance system.
``(E) Effect of failure of administrator to act.--If, by
the date that is 180 days after the date of receipt of a
petition submitted under subparagraph (A), the Administrator
has not proposed to grant or deny the petition under
subparagraph (C), the petition shall be deemed to be granted.
``(F) Procedural requirements.--
``(i) Inapplicability of certain requirements.--Section
307(d) of this Act and sections 553 through 557 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply to actions on a petition
submitted under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Public notice and opportunity for comment.--The
Administrator shall provide public notice and opportunity for
comment with respect to a petition submitted under
subparagraph (A).
``(6) Limitation on mtbe content.--The Administrator shall
promulgate regulations applicable to each refiner, blender,
or importer of gasoline to ensure that gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce by the refiner, blender, or importer
on or after January 1, 2004, in an area has a content of
methyl tertiary butyl ether that is at a level that--
``(A) the Administrator determines may not reasonably be
anticipated to endanger natural resources and the public
health; and
``(B) does not exceed the annual average volume of methyl
tertiary butyl ether per gallon of gasoline used in the area
before 1995.''.
SEC. 3. WAIVER OF OXYGEN CONTENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``Within 1 year after the enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Not later than November 15, 1991,'';
(B) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and opt-in areas under paragraph
(6)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Adjustment of voc performance standard.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator may adjust the
volatile organic compounds performance standard promulgated
under subparagraph (A) in the case of a fuel formulation that
achieves reductions in the quantity of mass emissions of
carbon monoxide that are greater than or less than the
reductions associated with a reformulated gasoline that
contains 2.0 percent oxygen by weight and otherwise meets the
requirements of this subsection.
``(ii) Amount of adjustment.--The amount of an adjustment
under clause (i) shall be based on the effect on ozone
concentrations of the combined reductions in emissions of
volatile organic compounds and reductions in emissions of
carbon monoxide.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``The oxygen'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--The oxygen''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Waiver for certain states.--The Administrator shall
waive the application of clause (i) for any ozone
nonattainment area in a State if the Governor of the State
submits for such a waiver an application that--
``(I) demonstrates that the State is in full compliance
with Federal regulations concerning the control and
prevention of leaking underground storage tanks; or
``(II) provides a plan that outlines the measures the State
will take to fully comply with the underground storage tank
regulations by a date not later than 2 years after the
receipt of the application of the Governor.
``(iii) Effective date.--A waiver under clause (ii) shall
become effective on the later of--
``(I) January 1 of the calendar year immediately following
the calendar year during which the application for the waiver
is received; or
``(II) the date that is 180 days after the date on which
the application for the waiver is received.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Aromatics.--The aromatic hydrocarbon content of the
gasoline shall not exceed 22 percent by volume.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``25 percent'' and
inserting ``22 percent''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``Any reduction'' and inserting the
following:
``(iii) Treatment of greater reductions.--Any reduction'';
and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Anti-backsliding provision.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall revise performance standards under this
subparagraph as necessary to ensure that--
``(aa) the ozone-forming potential, taking into account all
ozone precursors (including volatile organic compounds,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide), of the aggregate
emissions during the high ozone season (as determined by the
Administrator) from baseline vehicles when using reformulated
gasoline does not exceed the ozone-forming potential of the
aggregate emissions during the high ozone season from
baseline vehicles when using reformulated gasoline that
complies with the regulations that were in effect on January
1, 2000, and were applicable to reformulated gasoline sold in
calendar year 2000 and subsequent calendar years; and
``(bb) the aggregate emissions of the pollutants specified
in subclause (II) from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline do not exceed the aggregate emissions
of those pollutants from baseline vehicles when using
reformulated gasoline that complies with the regulations that
were in effect on January 1, 2000, and were applicable to
reformulated gasolines sold in calendar year 2000 and
subsequent calendar years.
``(II) Specified pollutants.--The pollutants specified in
this subclause are--
``(aa) toxics, categorized by degrees of toxicity; and
``(bb) such other pollutants, including pollutants
regulated under section 108, and such precursors to those
pollutants, as the Administrator determines by regulation
should be controlled to prevent the deterioration of air
quality and to achieve attainment of a national ambient air
quality standard in 1 or more areas.''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)(B)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively, and indenting appropriately to
reflect the amendments made by this paragraph;
(B) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--The Administrator'';
(C) in clause (i) (as designated by subparagraph (B))--
(i) in subclause (I) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``, and'' and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subclause (II) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(I) by striking ``achieve equivalent'' and inserting the
following: ``achieve--
``(aa) equivalent'';
(II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(bb) combined reductions in emissions of ozone forming
volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide that result in
a reduction in ozone concentration, as provided in clause
(ii)(I), that is equivalent to or greater than the reduction
in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated gasoline
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3); and'';
and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) achieve equivalent or greater reductions in
emissions of toxic air pollutants than are achieved by a
reformulated gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of
paragraph (3).''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Carbon monoxide credit.--
``(I) In general.--In determining whether a fuel
formulation or slate of fuel formulations achieves combined
reductions in emissions of ozone forming volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide that result in a reduction in
ozone concentration that is equivalent to or greater than the
reduction in ozone concentration achieved by a reformulated
gasoline meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph
(3), the Administrator--
``(aa) shall consider, to the extent appropriate, the
change in carbon monoxide emissions from baseline vehicles
attributable to an oxygen content in the fuel formulation or
slate of fuel formulations that exceeds 2.0 percent by
weight; and
``(bb) may consider, to the extent appropriate, the change
in carbon monoxide emissions described in item (aa) from
vehicles other than baseline vehicles.
``(II) Oxygen credits.--Any excess oxygen content that is
taken into consideration in making a determination under
subclause (I) may not be used to generate credits under
paragraph (7)(A).
``(III) Relation to title i.--Any fuel formulation or slate
of fuel formulations that is certified as equivalent or
greater under this subparagraph, taking into consideration
the combined reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide, shall receive the same
volatile organic compounds reduction credit for the purposes
of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(2)(B) of section 182 as a fuel
meeting the applicable requirements of paragraph (3).''.
(b) Reformulated Gasoline Carbon Monoxide Reduction
Credit.--Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
[[Page
S3517]]
7511a(c)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``An adjustment to the volatile organic compound
emission reduction requirements under section
211(k)(3)(B)(iv) shall be credited toward the requirement for
VOC emissions reductions under this subparagraph.''.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL OPT-IN AREAS UNDER REFORMULATED GASOLINE
PROGRAM.
Section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(k)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(6) Opt-in areas.--(A) Upon'' and
inserting the following:
``(6) Opt-in areas.--
``(A) Classified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) If'' and
inserting the following:
``(ii) Effect of insufficient domestic capacity to produce
reformulated gasoline.--If'';
(3) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``subparagraph (A)''
and inserting ``clause (i)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``this paragraph''
and inserting ``this subparagraph''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Nonclassified areas.--
``(i) In general.--Upon the application of the Governor of
a State, the Administrator shall apply the prohibition
specified in paragraph (5) in any area in the State that is
not a covered area or an area referred to in subparagraph
(A)(i).
``(ii) Publication of application.--As soon as practicable
after receipt of an application under clause (i), the
Administrator shall publish the application in the Federal
Register.''.
SEC. 5. RENEWABLE CONTENT OF GASOLINE AND OTHER MOTOR FUELS.
(a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (q); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
``(o) Renewable Content of Gasoline.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Regulations.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations applicable to each
refiner, blender, or importer of gasoline to ensure that
gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the United
States by the refiner, blender, or importer complies with the
renewable content requirements of this subsection.
``(B) Renewable content requirements.--
``(i) In general.--All gasoline sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by a refiner, blender, or
importer shall contain, on a quarterly average basis, a
quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source (including
biomass ethanol) that is not less than the applicable
percentage by volume for the quarter.
``(ii) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of clause (i), 1
gallon of biomass ethanol shall be considered to be the
equivalent of 1.5 gallons of fuel derived from a renewable
source.
``(iii) Applicable percentage.--For the purposes of clause
(i), the applicable percentage for a quarter of a calendar
year shall be determined in accordance with the following
table:
Applicable percentage of fuel derived from a renewable source:
`Calendar year:
2000.........................................................1.3 ....
2001.........................................................1.5 ....
2002.........................................................1.7 ....
2003.........................................................1.9 ....
2004.........................................................2.1 ....
2005.........................................................2.3 ....
2006.........................................................2.5 ....
2007.........................................................2.7 ....
2008.........................................................2.9 ....
2009.........................................................3.1 ....
2010 and thereafter..........................................3.3.....
``(C) Fuel derived from a renewable source.--For the
purposes of this subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be
derived from a renewable source if the fuel--
``(i) is produced from grain, starch, oilseeds, or other
biomass; and
``(ii) is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture used to operate a motor
vehicle.
``(D) Biomass ethanol.--For the purposes of this
subsection, a fuel shall be considered to be biomass ethanol
if the fuel is ethanol derived from any lignocellulosic or
hemicellulosic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis, including--
``(i) dedicated energy crops and trees;
``(ii) wood and wood residues;
``(iii) plants;
``(iv) grasses;
``(v) agricultural commodities and residues;
``(vi) fibers;
``(vii) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
``(viii) municipal solid waste.
``(E) Credit program.--
``(i) In general.--The regulations promulgated under this
subsection shall provide for the generation of an appropriate
amount of credits by a person that refines, blends, or
imports gasoline that contains, on a quarterly average basis,
a quantity of fuel derived from a renewable source or a
quantity of biomass ethanol that is greater than the quantity
required under subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Use of credits.--The regulations shall provide that
a person that generates the credits may use the credits, or
transfer all or a portion of the credits to another person,
for the purpose of complying with subparagraph (B).
``(2) Waivers.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, may waive the requirements of
paragraph (1)(B) in whole or in part on petition by a State--
``(i) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that
implementation of the requirements would severely harm the
economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United
States; or
``(ii) based on a determination by the Administrator, after
public notice and opportunity for comment, that there is an
inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet
the requirements of paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) Petitions for waivers.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture--
``(i) shall approve or deny a State petition for a waiver
of the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) within 180 days after
the date on which the petition is received; but
``(ii) may extend that period for up to 60 additional days
to provide for public notice and opportunity for comment and
for consideration of the comments submitted.
``(C) Termination of waivers.--A waiver granted under
subparagraph (A) shall terminate after 1 year, but may be
renewed by the Administrator after consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture.
``(D) Oxygen content waivers.--The grant or denial of a
waiver under subsection (k)(2)(B) shall not affect the
requirements of this subsection.
``(3) Small refiners.--The regulations promulgated by the
Administrator under paragraph (1) may provide an exemption,
in whole or in part, for small refiners (as defined by the
Administrator).
``(4) Guidance for labeling.--After consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator shall issue
guidance to the States for labeling, at the point of retail
sale--
``(A) the fuel derived from a renewable source that is
contained in the fuel sold; and
``(B) the major fuel additive components of the fuel sold.
``(5) Reports to congress.--Not less often than every 3
years, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report
on--
``(A) reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants
listed under section 108 that result from implementation of
this subsection; and
``(B) in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
greenhouse gas emission reductions that result from
implementation of this subsection.
``(p) Renewable Content of Diesel Fuel.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Administrator, after consideration of applicable economic and
environmental factors, shall promulgate regulations
applicable to each refiner, blender, or importer of diesel
fuel to ensure that the diesel fuel sold or introduced into
commerce in the United States by the refiner, blender, or
importer complies with the renewable content requirements
established by the Administrator under this subsection.
``(2) Elements of program.--To the extent that the
Administrator determines it to be appropriate, the
Administrator shall by regulation establish a program for
diesel fuel that has renewable content requirements similar
to the requirements of the program for gasoline under
subsection (o) in order to ensure the use of biodiesel
fuel.''.
(b) Penalties and Enforcement.--Section 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``or (n)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``(n), or (o)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``or (m)'' and
inserting ``(m), or (o)''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking
``and (n)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(n), and
(o)''.
(c) Prevention of Effects on Highway Apportionments.--
(1) Surface transportation program.--Section 104(b)(3) of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under subparagraph (A)(iii) the
estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in a
State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the
Highway Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or
other fuels containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed
by section 4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating
to gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
[[Page
S3518]]
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
(2) Minimum guarantee.--Section 105(f)(1) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(1) In general.--Before'' and inserting
the following: ``(1) In general.--
``(A) Adjustment.--Before''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Determination of estimated tax payments.--For the
purpose of determining under this subsection the estimated
tax payments attributable to highway users in a State paid
into the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) in a fiscal year, the amount paid into the Highway
Trust Fund with respect to the sale of gasohol or other fuels
containing alcohol by reason of the tax imposed by section
4041 (relating to special fuels) or 4081 (relating to
gasoline) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as being equal to the amount that would have been so
imposed with respect to that sale without regard to the
reduction in revenues resulting from the application of the
regulations promulgated under section 211(o) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) and the following provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
``(i) Section 4041(b)(2) (relating to exemption for
qualified methanol and ethanol fuel).
``(ii) Section 4041(k) (relating to fuels containing
alcohol).
``(iii) Section 4041(m) (relating to certain alcohol
fuels).
``(iv) Section 4081(c) (relating to reduced rate on
gasoline mixed with alcohol).''.
SEC. 6. UPDATING OF BASELINE YEAR.
(a) In General.--Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7545(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``Within 1 year
after the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence;
(B) by striking ``calendar year 1990'' each place it
appears and inserting ``calendar year 1999''; and
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``such 1990 gasoline''
and inserting ``such 1999 gasoline''; and
(2) in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(ii) of paragraph (10), by
striking ``1990'' each place it appears and inserting
``1999''.
(b) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall revise the regulations promulgated
under section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k))
to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a).
SEC. 7. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
(a) Trust Fund Distribution.--Section 9004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991c) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f) Trust Fund Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Amount and permitted use of distribution.--The
Administrator shall distribute to States at least 85 percent
of the funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection
Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established by section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (referred to in this subsection as the `Trust Fund') for
each fiscal year for use in paying the reasonable costs,
incurred under cooperative agreements with States, of--
``(i) actions taken by a State under section 9003(h)(7)(A);
``(ii) necessary administrative expenses directly related
to corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1);
``(iii) enforcement by a State or local government of a
State program approved under this section or of State or
local requirements regulating underground storage tanks that
are similar or identical to this subtitle;
``(iv) State or local corrective actions pursuant to
regulations promulgated under section 9003(c)(4); or
``(v) corrective action and compensation programs under
subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks
regulated under this subtitle if, as determined by the State
in accordance with guidelines developed between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the States, the financial
resources of an owner or operator (including resources
provided by programs under subsection (c)(1)) are not
adequate to pay for the cost of a corrective action without
significantly impairing the ability of the owner or operator
to continue in business.
``(B) Nonpermitted uses.--Funds provided by the
Administrator under subparagraph (A) shall not be used by a
State to provide financial assistance to an owner or operator
to meet the requirements concerning underground storage tanks
contained in part 280 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subsection), except as provided in subparagraph (A)(v), or
similar requirements in State programs approved under this
section or similar State or local provisions.
``(C) Tanks within tribal jurisdiction.--The Administrator,
in coordination with Indian tribes, shall--
``(i) expeditiously develop and implement a strategy to--
``(I) take necessary corrective action in response to
releases from leaking underground storage tanks located
wholly within the exterior boundaries of an Indian
reservation or other area within the jurisdiction of an
Indian tribe, giving priority to releases that present the
greatest threat to human health or the environment; and
``(II) implement and enforce requirements regulating
underground storage tanks located wholly within the exterior
boundaries of an Indian reservation or other area within the
jurisdiction of an Indian tribe; and
``(ii) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of this subsection, and every 2 years thereafter, submit to
Congress a report summarizing the status of implementation of
the leaking underground storage tank program located wholly
within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation or
other area within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) Process.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case of
a State with which the Administrator has entered into a
cooperative agreement under section 9003(h)(7)(A), the
Administrator shall distribute funds from the Trust Fund to
the State using the allocation process developed by the
Administrator for such cooperative agreements.
``(B) Revisions to process.--The Administrator may revise
the allocation process only after--
``(i) consulting with State agencies responsible for
overseeing corrective action for releases from underground
storage tanks and with representatives of owners and
operators; and
``(ii) taking into consideration, at a minimum--
``(I) the total revenue received from each State into the
Trust Fund;
``(II) the number of confirmed releases from leaking
underground storage tanks in each State;
``(III) the number of notified petroleum storage tanks in
each State;
``(IV) the percentage of the population of each State using
ground water for any beneficial purpose;
``(V) the evaluation of the program performance of each
State;
``(VI) the evaluation of the financial needs of each State;
and
``(VII) the evaluation of the ability of each State to use
the funds in any year.
``(3) Distributions to state agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Distributions from the Trust Fund under
this subsection shall be made directly to the State agency
entering into a cooperative agreement or enforcing the State
program.
``(B) Administrative expenses.--A State agency that
receives funds under this subsection shall limit the
proportion of those funds that are used to pay administrative
expenses to a percentage that the State may establish by law.
``(4) Cost recovery prohibition.--Funds provided to States
from the Trust Fund to owners or operators for programs under
section 9004(c)(1) for releases from underground storage
tanks are not subject to cost recovery by the Administrator
under section 9003(h)(6).
``(5) Permitted uses.--In addition to uses authorized by
other provisions of this subtitle, the Administrator may use
funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency
from the Trust Fund for enforcement of any regulation
promulgated by the Administrator under this subtitle.''.
(b) Addition to Trust Fund Purposes.--Section 9508(c)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures)
is amended by striking ``to carry out section 9003(h)'' and
all that follows and inserting ``to carry out--
``(A) section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986); and
``(B) section 9004(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Renewable Fuels Act
of 2000).''.
(c) Studies.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct--
(1) a study to determine the corrosive effects of methyl
tertiary butyl ether and other widely used fuels and fuel
additives on underground storage tanks; and
(2) a study to assess the potential public health and
environmental risks associated with the use of aboveground
storage tanks and the effectiveness of State and Federal
regulations or voluntary standards, in existence as of the
time of the study, to provide adequate protection of public
health and the environment.
(d) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 9001(3)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``sustances'' and
inserting ``substances''.
(2) Section 9003(f)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)
and (d) of this section'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and
(d)''.
(3) Section 9004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``referred to'' and all that follows and inserting ``referred
to in subparagraph (A) or (B), or both, of section
9001(2).''.
(4) Section 9005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991d) is amended--
[[Page
S3519]]
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``study taking'' and
inserting ``study, taking'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``relevent'' and
inserting ``relevant''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Evironmental'' and
inserting ``Environmental''.
SEC. 8. PRIVATE WELL PROTECTION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may enter into cooperative agreements with
the United States Geological Survey, the Department of
Agriculture, States, local governments, private landowners,
and other interested parties to establish voluntary pilot
projects to protect the water quality of private wells and to
provide technical assistance to users of water from private
wells.
(b) Limitation.--This section does not authorize the
issuance of guidance or regulations regarding the use or
protection of private wells.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in
introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000.
In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in
Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive
in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public
concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These
trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using
Reformulated Gasoline.
The Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) has proven to be a success in
reducing smog and has exceeded expectations in reducing dangerous and
carcinogenic air toxics in gasoline. The second stage of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) will commence this summer and will
have an even greater effect in reducing ozone pollution and air toxics.
Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the
existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. The Governor of
California has called for a three year phase out of MTBE in California
and the California Air Resources Board has adopted regulations to that
effect. Environmental officials from eight Northeastern States have
proposed a phase down and a capping of the use of MTBE in gasoline in
their states. MTBE is being found in wells in the Midwest even in areas
that do not use reformulated gasoline.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will lead to about five billion
gallons of ethanol being produced in 2010 compared to one billion, six
hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic
ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in
determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a
particular year.
We are going to have spikes in oil that will disrupt our economy. It
may or may not be able to be controlled. It will happen before 2010. It
may happen again next week. Our problem in terms of national security
and the security of our whole economy revolves around our dependence on
petroleum-based fuels. We must be able to address this challenge.
Finding an environmentally sensitive way to resolve the MTBE crisis is
an important part of this challenge.
It is clear that MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of
legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that
legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental
and energy and national security issues involved.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will establish a nationwide Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) that would increase the current use of renewable
fuels from 1.3% in 2000 to 3.3% by 2010. Refiners who produced
renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other
refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS.
This bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to limit or
eliminate the use of MTBE in order to protect the public health and the
environment. It also gives states the ability to further regulate or
eliminate MTBE use if the EPA does not choose to eliminate it. It would
also establish strict ``anti backsliding provisions'' to capture all of
the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down or
phased out.
The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will be good for our economy and our
environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development
of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national
and economic security and stabilizing gas prices.
I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other
legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable
fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural
or plant materials.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bond, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Conrad, and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 2505. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide increased assess to health care for medical beneficiaries
through telemedicine; to the Committee on Finance.
telehealth improvement and modernization act of 2000
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with my good
friend Senator Rockefeller in introducing legislation that will improve
upon the federal rules for reimbursement for telemedicine and help to
ensure that all of our citizens have access to our great health care
system. We are joined by a broad, bipartisan group of senators in this
effort.
In many ways we have the best health care system in the world. But
increasingly fewer and fewer Americans actually have access to it. I
recently introduced a tax-credit bill that will help some of these
Americans and I anticipate supporting future measures aimed at
increasing access to health care services.
One important area that demands our attention is the problem of
access for rural Americans. More than 25 percent of our Nation's senior
citizens live in areas underserved for modern health care services. At
the same time, telemedicine has come of age. We have moved beyond the
feasibility stage and proven that this technology can provide real
benefits to people in rural and underserved regions of our country.
In my own State of Vermont, nearly 70 per cent live in rural areas.
This is the highest percentage rural population of any state in the
nation. In Vermont, specialists in more than twenty-five disciplines
from Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington are made readily
available to patients even in the most rural areas. I want to see this
level of service expand and be made available to all Americans.
We in Washington have made some good faith attempts to allow for the
development of telehealth technologies but we have fallen short. In an
effort to restrain the expansion of these programs, the Health Care
Financing Administration's interpretation of the laws and its
cumbersome rules for reimbursement have all but guaranteed the demise
of current programs.
Federally-funded telemedicine projects exist in almost every State in
the Nation. These projects have proven that cost-effective, high-
quality care can be delivered using this technology. The provisions in
this bill will help to ensure that this care will be continued when the
federal grants end.
Why is this legislation needed now? Because current HCFA regulations
concerning payment are unworkable in the real world. Less than 6
percent of all telemedicine doctor-patient visits last year provided to
Medicare beneficiaries would qualify for reimbursement under HCFA's
current guidelines.
Now that we have more experience and understand better how
telemedicine can be used, it is time to enact several changes to the
law so that these programs can thrive and deliver on their promise of
providing cost-effective, high-quality healthcare where it is needed
the most.
Rural healthcare providers and patients are eager for this
legislation. Norman Wright, President of the Vermont Association of
Hospitals and Health Systems, recognized the potential of Fletcher
Allen's telemedicine program by describing it as one that ``provides
incredible opportunities for rural providers and their patients because
it links them to a network with access to the region's best authorities
for any given condition.''
I have indeed heard an outpouring of support from healthcare
providers across my own State on this issue. Gerry Davis, Professor of
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Fletcher Allen Health Care,
described ``appropriate and fair third party payment for
[[Page
S3520]]
telemedicine'' as ``essential in order to move this process beyond
education, and to make the service truly useful for patients in remote
locations.''
Telemedicine can be used in so many ways. It can be vital to a
pediatrician from a rural area with a sick baby who needs to consult
with a neonatologist from a tertiary care hospital in the dead of
winter and the middle of the night. It can be also be crucial for a
depressed senior citizen who desperately needs mental health services
available in their own rural county. And it can be much needed help for
a frustrated isolated primary care provider who longs to be able to
provide for access to specialty services for her patients in their own
community. All of these people need our help.
While the changes included in this bill are relatively minor in the
context of the Medicare program, the effect will be far-reaching. This
legislation will allow us to avoid arbitrarily denying access to health
care for our senior citizens and persons with disabilities just because
of where they live. It will allow for fair and reasonable reimbursement
for services that can be delivered appropriately in this way. It will
also encourage the incorporation of telehealth technology in the care
plans of home health agencies, an area that has already shown great
promise for the future in terms of cost-effective disease management.
In summary, it will allow us to begin to release the incredible
potential of telemedicine.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in bringing HCFA's
approach to the delivery of health care into the 21st Century. Any
Medicare reform must include progress on telemedicine for our Nation's
rural areas.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to be here
today to introduce the Telemedicine Improvement and Modernization Act
with Senator Jeffords and many other of my Senate colleagues. This bill
incorporates two issues that I care about passionately--health care and
technology.
Telemedicine has the potential to bridge the gap that currently
exists between patients and providers. More than 25% of our Nation's
senior citizens live in areas where speciality care may not be
available. In states like my own where there are very few primary care
or specialty care resources and travel is difficult, telemedicine is
critical to ensuring that people in remote areas are getting health
care they need. By expanding access to health care through
telemedicine, we also improve the quality of care available to people
living in underserved areas. Personally, I believe that we are just
beginning to tap the enormous potential of technology to advance
quality health care, especially in rural areas.
Yet, Medicare's telemedicine program is inefficient in its current
form. These inefficiencies threaten the future of telemedicine
services. When we first created this program, our knowledge of the
potential of this new technology, or its practical applications was
very limited. Today we have a much better understanding of how
telemedicine actually works. With this new knowledge, we can repair the
inefficiencies of the current system and encourage the use of this
highly effective health practice. By accomplishing this goal, we can
ensure that quality health care is available to all seniors and
disabled Americans regardless of where they live.
There are 8 main elements of the bill:
(1) Eliminating the provider ``fee sharing'' requirement;
(2) Eliminating the requirement for a ``telepresenter'';
(3) Allowing limited reimbursement for referring clinics to recover
the cost of their services;
(4) Expanding telemedicine services to all non-MSAs;
(5) Expanding telemedicine services to direct patient care, not just
professional consultations;
(6) Making all providers eligible for HCFA reimbursement for services
delivered via telemedicine;
(7) Creating a federal demonstration project that permits
telemedicine reimbursement for ``store and forward'' consultations
(i.e., x-rays that are sent to another facility for consultation); and
(8) Permitting telehomecare.
While these changes are relatively minor in the context of the
Medicare program, the affect will be far-reaching. The modernizations
we are proposing will dramatically improve access to quality health
care in rural areas. This legislation will allow us to begin to release
the incredible potential of telemedicine.
On a final note, I'd like to thank Karen Edison for her expertise and
determination in working on this bill. Because Karen is a practicing
telemedicine physician, she has been invaluable in developing and
advancing this cause.
Thank you, Mr. President for your time today. I hope all of my
colleagues will join with me in passing this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2506. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect
to the Federal preemption of State law concerning the regulation of
marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation by States; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
legislation regarding marine and ocean navigation, safety, and
transportation
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, environmental protection and states'
rights were dealt a blow on March 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court
decided the case of United States vs. Locke. The Court, noting that
even though federal and international laws ``may be insufficient
protection,'' invalidated Washington laws, and potentially laws in
eleven other states, that provide protections against spills by oil
tankers. I disagree with the Court's decision, because I believe that
Washington state should be allowed to protect its shores as it sees
fit.
That is why, today I am pleased to introduce the ``States Prevention
of Oil Tanker Spills Act'' (SPOTS)-legislation that will reinstate the
right of all states to adopt additional standards beyond existing
federal requirements governing the operation, maintenance, equipment,
personnel and manning of oil tankers. While this legislation will apply
to all shoreline states, it is pa
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
