[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7846-S7854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependence on
foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative
energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies,
developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in
alternative energy, and for other purposes?
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
Reid (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1537 (to Amendment No.
1502), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
Klobuchar (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1573 (to Amendment
No. 1537), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
Bingaman (for Klobuchar) amendment No. 1557 (to Amendment
No. 1502), to establish a national greenhouse gas registry.
Kohl amendment No. 1519 (to Amendment No. 1502), to amend
the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels
illegal.
Kohl (for DeMint) amendment No. 1546 (to amendment No.
1502), to provide that legislation that would increase the
national average fuel prices for automobiles is subject to a
point of order in the Senate.
Corker amendment No. 1608 (to amendment No. 1502), to allow
clean fuels to meet the renewable fuel standard.
Cardin amendment No. 1520 (to amendment No. 1502), to
promote the energy independence of the United States.
Domenici (for Thune) amendment No. 1609 (to amendment No.
1502), to provide requirements for the designation of
national interest electric transmission corridors.
Cardin amendment No. 1610 (to amendment No. 1502), to
provide for the siting, construction, expansion, and
operation of liquefied natural gas terminals.
Collins amendment No. 1615 (to amendment No. 1502), to
provide for the development and coordination of a
comprehensive and integrated U.S. research program that
assists the people of the United States and the world to
understand, assess, and predict human-induced and natural
processes of abrupt climate change.
Domenici (for Bunning-Domenici) amendment No. 1628 (to
Amendment No. 1502), to provide standards for clean coal-
derived fuels.
Bingaman (for Tester) amendment No. 1614 (to amendment No.
1502), to establish a program to provide loans for projects
to produce syngas from coal and other feedstocks while
simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reliance
of the United States on petroleum and natural gas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be up to
2\1/2\ hours of debate with respect to amendment No. 1628, offered by
the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, and amendment No. 1614, offered
by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, with the time equally divided
and controlled between Senator Bunning, Senator Tester or their
designees.
The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak to amendment No. 1614,
sponsored by Senators Byrd, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Salazar, Webb, and
myself.
[[Page S7847]]
The Energy bill we have been debating is going to bring us greater
energy independence and clean up our energy supply to help combat
climate change.
This bill is clean and green and it will make great strides in
developing clean energy sources and increasing efficiency. But we must
admit we have done little in the bill to address America's largest
energy resource and also one of our largest polluters--coal.
Coal supplies over half of our electricity generation, it drives our
economy and manufacturing and can be turned into a liquid
transportation fuel to replace foreign oil. Coal is relatively cheap
and easily accessible. We now have enough coal for 250 years if we keep
using it at the same rate we are using it now.
Not only are we going to keep using coal, but most energy experts
predict we are going to use more of it into the future. We have to
start doing better when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions from coal.
I do not believe the Government has been providing the right
incentives to move the coal industry in the right direction. The
amendment that I--and others I spoke of earlier--am offering today will
provide Government grants for engineering and design of coal-to-liquid
and coal gasification facilities.
It will authorize direct loans for facilities if they reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the petroleum equivalent,
which, by the way, is the same requirement we use for biofuels. To
qualify, a facility must show that it can and will both capture and
store 75 percent of its carbon dioxide. We need these parameters
because we need to start doing things better than we have done in the
past if Government is going to be supporting these projects.
There has been a lot of discussion in the last couple of days about
coal-to-liquid fuels. I would rather get our energy from States such as
Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, or Colorado than from the oil cartels in
the Middle East. Unfortunately, the production of coal to liquids
without capturing carbon dioxide emits over twice the amount of carbon
dioxide than does petroleum, and climate change is as big a threat as
the unstable countries where we buy our oil. When carbon is captured
and safely stored, coal-to-liquid facilities and coal gasification
plants can achieve carbon dioxide levels that are closer or better than
a petroleum equivalent. If you combine the coal with biomass at the
same facilities, you can reach emission levels that are far less than
petroleum.
The National Mining Association recently ran an editorial in the New
York Times identifying the benefits of clean coal technologies and its
implications for national security. The editorial is on this chart. In
a nutshell, what Kraig Naasz, president and chief executive of the
National Mining Association, said was that a coal-to-liquid facility
with carbon capture and sequestration combined with the use of biomass
could achieve life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions 46 percent below a
petroleum equivalent. That is good news indeed.
I believe our fuel sources are a national security concern, and we
need to explore all safe and clean energy options to help break our
addiction to foreign oil. Coat-to-liquid fuel is a part of that
equation, and this amendment makes coal cleaner than petroleum when it
comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change is an issue I take very seriously. I want to leave
this world for my children and grandchildren in as good of shape or
better than my parents left it for me.
Climate change is real. Our oceans are rising, our glaciers are
melting, and wildly shifting weather patterns are causing more frequent
hurricanes, dramatic snowstorms, and prolonged drought. I am a dryland
farmer, and I have spent my entire life on the same piece of ground in
Big Sandy, MT. As a farmer, you notice every little detail about the
weather--moisture, temperature, when the plants bud, when they are
ready for harvest. In recent years, something hasn't been right. The
climate we have today is not the one that was there when I was a kid.
We plant earlier than we used to, we harvest earlier, rain comes at
different times, and the summers have become so hot and dry in Montana
that the sky is filled with smoke from forest fires hundreds of miles
away.
Steps can be taken to reverse the effects of climate change and
improve the energy options we have available. Coal is cheap, we have a
lot of it, and I think we should use it. But we must learn lessons from
how we have developed coal in the past. The Department of Energy says
that there are 151 new or proposed coal powerplants on the way by 2030,
and some of those are coal gasification facilities. I am committed to
finding ways to make the next generation of coal plants better than the
last.
This bill encourages research and development of carbon capture and
storage technologies. Carbon capture and storage may be our best option
to reduce carbon emissions from coal. We even include a cost-share
provision for carbon capture equipment that I sponsored with Senator
Bingaman in the Energy Committee.
But we have done little to give industry the incentives to employ
these technologies on a large scale. Wall Street really has no interest
in loaning money for clean coal facilities because there is no economic
incentive to reduce emissions. This amendment provides direct loans for
100 percent of the equipment used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and up to 50 percent of the total project cost.
Coal gasification technology is our best opportunity to prove the
capture of CO2 on a massive scale and safely store it
through an industrial process that gives us the products we need, such
as fertilizers, plastics, electricity, and fuel. Carbon dioxide can be
captured at a gasification facility, then compressed, piped away, and
stored in geological formations, including oil and gas fields where
they can increase the production of petroleum or CO2 can be
used in products that facilities produce, such as fertilizers,
chemicals, plastics, and fuel.
The Syntroleum plant in North Dakota has been capturing their
CO2 for 20 years and piping it 205 miles into Canada for
enhanced oil recovery. They capture 5,000 tons of CO2 a day
and sell the carbon to produce more oil. In Colorado, one company
actually mines CO2 from carbon deposits in the ground and
pipes it to Texas for enhanced oil recovery, and, I should add, this is
done for profit.
The amendment being offered today is a technology driver to move this
industry into the next phase and help get the first few new generation
facilities on the ground.
Government should only provide backing to the best technologies to
help spur a clean industry that can demonstrate an overall societal
benefit.
To be clear, industry will move forward with coal gasification
projects and coal-to-liquid projects regardless of congressional
actions, and plants have already been announced. But this is our
opportunity to encourage these facilities to be clean and push the
development of carbon capture and storage on a commercial and
industrial scale.
Coal-to-liquid projects have been proposed for Illinois, Ohio,
Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and the list goes on.
These companies have proposed these projects without Government
financing, but the emissions from these facilities are yet to be
determined.
The timing of this Energy bill and this amendment is critical because
designs could be modified to fit the parameters of this amendment, and
we can be assured that these projects move forward with the cleanest
technology available. Industry will benefit if we set clear guidelines
as to the standards we expect to be met for Government backing.
Luckily, we have the science to back up our goals. A recent study
from the Idaho National Labs proves that coal to liquids, when produced
with carbon capture and biomass, can achieve life-cycle greenhouse gas
reductions of over 40 percent from a petroleum equivalent. We see the
bar graph with petroleum diesel being the baseline. If we look across
at the fourth column, if we combine coal with 30 percent biomass to
perform coal to liquids, we can see a tremendous reduction in
CO2.
Coal gasification with carbon capture and biomass is a vast
improvement over our current use of coal. Congress is at a crucial
point where we can help drive these facilities toward the best
[[Page S7848]]
technology available. This amendment is a challenge to industry, but it
is a challenge that is technologically available and can and should be
met.
Rentech, one of the strongest advocates of coal-to-liquid technology,
proved my point in front of the Senate Finance Committee last April
when they showed the members of the committee the potential of the
technology on which they are working. What they said was that they
agree that as carbon capture reaches the levels we spell out in this
bill, combined with biomass, coal to liquids is far better than what we
are doing currently.
I believe this amendment will drive a new, clean, and green coal-to-
liquids industry toward startup and help offset our foreign dependence
on imported oil. Besides fuel, it will make cheaper fertilizers,
chemicals, and plastics.
Adopting this amendment will be a technology driver that is good for
industry and is good for this country. I urge this body to support
clean and green coal development.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Byrd.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if it is in order or appropriate, I ask
unanimous consent, to establish my position following Senator Byrd,
when he is finished, that the Senator from New Mexico will be
recognized for his comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The senior Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, during my half century of service in this
great body, I have seen too many energy shortages and too many half-
hearted efforts by the Federal Government to respond. A geopolitical
crisis erupts and oil prices rise. All too quickly, our economy is
destabilized. Our national security is undermined. Americans become
alarmed. Politicians promise solutions. Once the crisis passes, oil
prices decline, public attention fades, and nothing happens to cushion
the Nation from the next energy shock. All the while, our dependence on
foreign oil grows with ever-worsening implications for our economic and
national security.
About 40 percent of the energy we use in the United States comes from
petroleum. The majority of this oil is imported from chronically
unstable countries. It is shocking to think that our transportation
system and so many sectors of our economy are dependent on a constant
flow of energy from these dangerous and politically unstable lands. The
very security of this great and powerful Nation is vulnerable to the
whims of fanatical despots. The well-being of our country is always in
threat of a government coup in Nigeria, a typhoon in the Persian Gulf,
or a terrorist attack on oil shipments in the Middle East.
We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In a speech I made more
than two decades ago in this Chamber, I warned the Reagan
administration against cutting back on our energy programs. I pointed
out that there is no national security without energy security and that
we have neither as long as we are dependent on foreign oil. It seems as
though some things never change. As we should have learned too many
times during the past quarter century, leaving the security of our
country so dependent on the vagaries of the free market is too
simplistic, too unrealistic, and too dangerous.
Our dependency on foreign oil strikes at the very heart of our
national security. Indeed, oil dependence is the Achilles' heel of our
Armed Forces. The Pentagon itself has pointed out that our military's
ever-increasing reliance on oil makes its ability to respond to crises
around the world ``unsustainable in the long term.'' The Air Force pays
about $5 billion per year for its fuel, with the Army and Navy close
behind. Even more troubling, the United States now spends an estimated
$44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.
The money we spend on foreign oil too often finds its way into the
pockets of terrorists determined to attack the United States. As former
CIA Director James Woolsey put it, in buying foreign oil, ``we are
funding the rope for the hanging of ourselves.'' Saudi Arabia, Iran,
and Sudan have experienced a boom in oil revenues as the price per
barrel of oil has gone through the roof. Reports are that some of these
profits have been used to finance training centers for terrorists, pay
bounties to the families of suicide bombers, and buy weapons and
explosives for the groups attacking U.S. soldiers and marines. For
years now, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting
terrorists while at the same time we have provided countless sums of
money to our enemies through our foreign oil purchases. This is sheer
madness. It must end.
It is no longer acceptable for Congress to seek piecemeal, short-term
solutions that become irrelevant as soon as the price of oil declines.
We need a long-term strategic commitment to the development of clean,
domestic-based energy technologies. We must dedicate ourselves to the
developing of sources of energy that will move us away from oil
dependence and provide better energy options. Chief among those must be
coal, our Nation's most abundant source of energy. The United States
has 27 percent of the world's coal reserves. We are the Saudi Arabia of
coal, and then some. Thirty-three States have recoverable coal
reserves. This means 66 Senators have a vested interest in promoting
the use of coal. Our coal supplies are large enough to last for
generations, fueling the electricity needs of our homes and our
businesses. We don't have to ask someone else for this cheaper and
abundant energy source; it is right here, like acres of diamonds, under
our feet. It is there, there in the ground, for the taking. Coal can be
burned cleaner and coal can be more efficiently burned today than at
any time in our previous history. With the right kind of investments in
clean coal technology, coal can become our lifeline. Coal can save us
from foreign oil, from OPEC, from volatile summer gas prices, and from
a disastrous foreign policy that revolves around protecting our oil
interests abroad.
Through Federal funding, Federal research and development projects,
and tax incentives, we have made great strides--great strides--both in
increasing the efficiency of our coal-fired powerplants and reducing
their emissions. Even with our currently underfunded clean coal
technology programs, we will continue to make progress.
I know that a vocal minority would have us believe differently. They
are the oil and natural gas producers who try to convince the American
public that coal is not the answer. Don't believe it. No, don't believe
it. They want Americans buying their more expensive oil and gas, not
cheaper coal. They are interested in their profits and not the prices
you and I pay at the pump or for our home energy bills.
The vast majority of Americans already use the cheap electricity
provided by coal. They demand it. But with the proper support, coal
could be providing other forms of cheap energy. The American military
recognizes the hope that coal offers, which is why the Air Force is
experimenting with using coal-to-liquids technology to fuel their
aircraft. Coal has to be part, coal must be part of our energy strategy
if we are ever, ever, ever to break our dependence on foreign oil. The
American military recognizes it, the American people recognize it, and
it is time that the Congress recognized it.
For several months now, I have been engaged in serious discussions
with a bipartisan group of Senators to develop a program to promote the
use of coal for transportation fuels and as a feedstock for our
chemical industry. I thank those Senators and their staffs for their
hard work in an attempt to reach our own version of a grand compromise
on the future use of coal in this country. I particularly thank Senator
Bingaman and the majority leader for their assistance with this
proposal.
Even though there are significant challenges to the development of a
coal-to-liquids industry in the United States, our dependence on
foreign oil and the resulting cost to the country have created an
economic environment that is favorable--favorable--for the industry to
blossom. With a combination of tax incentives, loan guarantees, and
regulatory support, along with technology-driven advances in
environmental protection, we can reduce the risks associated with the
construction of coal-to-liquid plants and stimulate private investment.
We can and we must create a vibrant domestic marketplace for
alternative fuels.
The added advantage of this proposal would be that the production of
this
[[Page S7849]]
clean-burning fuel would provide opportunities to commercialize carbon
capture and storage technologies. I believe that carbon capture and
storage can help advance clean coal technologies, but we must
provide both considerable funding and the key Federal guidance to
hasten the arrival--in the ground--of carbon capture and storage
projects that begin to implement the technology.
I hope my fellow Senators will stop, stop, stop and give serious
thought to this proposal. I hope we have finally learned the lessons
from the past, and that we will now seize the moment by the forelock.
Our Nation confronts an enormous challenge in breaking our dependence
on foreign oil. For all too many years, we have denied--we have
denied--the problem. We have delayed taking action. We have conducted
endless studies--endless studies--and largely kicked the problem on
down the road. We have separated it along regional and political lines
and done and said everything but solve the problem.
Of course, the Senate is performing its constitutional function by
debating these issues, and making sure the interests of the people and
the States we represent are being protected. When the debate is over,
however, it is also the responsibility of the Senate to find a workable
solution. It is here that regional interests must blend into the
national interest.
We have studied the matter, we have debated the issues, we have
talked about the solutions, and now we must act. Now we must act. True
energy independence at a time when our Nation no longer is dependent on
the energy resources of unstable areas and rogue regimes will require
give and take from all sides. In fact, in this most significant
national quest, there can be no single winner, whether it be coal,
whether it be oil, whether it be natural gas, or any environmental
interest. If any one special interest wins, then the American people
will lose. The American people will win if, and only if, we put aside
our parochial interests, our partisan politics, and our petty
differences and work together and compromise together for the national
good. The time for bold action is here. Let us start to put American
ingenuity to work for the benefit of America's future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is it appropriate for the Senator from
New Mexico to speak now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Amendment No. 1628
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a few remarks as ranking member
of the committee. I am going to speak first in favor of amendment 1628,
the Bunning amendment, with reference to coal to liquids. Later on
today--later on today, Senator Byrd--and I don't say this because you
need to be on the floor or anything like that, but later in the day,
when some other people have finished speaking in favor of this
amendment, I will speak against your amendment and be very specific and
precise as to why.
I do say to you and your very excellent staff that I think you will
be interested in my reasoning, because I am not trying to be vindictive
or pick one over another, but I think your amendment, when we finish
talking about it, you ought to be worried about whether you have set
standards in it that will never commit coal to be turned to liquids.
Mr. BYRD. I hope not.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think you have done that, by mistake or otherwise.
The environmental requirements are too high for it to be achieved.
So the money can be used for things other than coal to liquid. That
is what it will go for over time, because you cannot achieve the
environmental standards. I don't know how I can do it later, but I will
talk with you seriously about it.
For now I am going to speak to the Bunning amendment, and later I
will do that other one, and if I have to do it in writing, because of
my great admiration for Senator Byrd, I will write it up and show it to
you, because I do not think you are going to get coal to liquid the way
someone has drawn the standards for you. I do not know who drew those.
I rise today, in the absence of Senator Bunning--I hope everyone in
the Senate and those who are wondering why this distinguished Senator,
who is so strongly in favor of this coal to liquids, is not here, let's
make sure everybody knows that what is going on right now is a very
important aspect of this energy bill. It is the tax portion, and
Senator Bunning is on the Finance Committee. They are writing the tax
portion, Senator Byrd. So Senator Bunning can't be here because he is
there writing this giant tax provision that is going to be affixed to
this bill.
First, I ask unanimous consent that the letter Senator Bunning and I
received this morning in support of this amendment that we have be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Headwaters Incorporated,
South Jordan, UT, June 19, 2007.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Bunning,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Domenici and Bunning: Headwaters Incorporated
supports adding your coa1-to-liquid (CTL) transportation fuel
amendment to energy legislation currently being debated on
the Senate floor (H.R. 6).
Headwaters is a New York Stock Exchange company with deep
roots in CTL technologies. Our company has licensed direct
coal liquefaction technology to facilities currently under
construction in China and we are conducting feasibility and
engineering studies in The Philippines and India. In the
United States, we are actively developing a project in North
Dakota in concert with North American Coal Company and Great
River Energy. We are also conducting feasibility studies with
CONSOL Energy Inc. in several other states.
Your amendment strikes the appropriate balance between
enhancing our nation's energy security and advancing
technologies to deal with climate change. To accomplish the
greenhouse gas emissions standards required in your
amendment, CTL providers will utilize carbon capture and
storage technologies at a scale not previously deployed. This
will do much to develop capabilities that will be used by
many industries in the years to come.
It is time for America to keep more of its energy dollars
at home, creating jobs making clean fuels from America's most
abundant energy resource--coal. These fuels will work in our
existing distribution systems and vehicles and will create a
more secure bridge to the next generation of transportation
fuels.
Sincerely,
John N. Ward,
Vice President,
Marketing & Government Affairs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Now I would look to repeat once again my opposition to
the Tester-Bingaman amendment on coal to liquid fuels. I believe it
does little to advance the domestic coal to liquid fuels industry, and
could, in fact, harm that effort. But I will return to the floor later
today and speak to it in more detail.
I wish to provide some context for my colleagues as we move forward
to vote this afternoon on the issue of coal to liquids, because it is
so important for our country that we create a situation which will
generate incentives so those who will invest money and try innovative
technologies will do so for coal to liquid.
We have an abundance of coal. We have an abundance of need for
liquefied coal. We have a lot of people who do not want to see this
happen because they are fearful of the environmental consequences of
this transition.
First, we must increase our national energy security by decreasing
our reliance on foreign resources of crude oil. Second, we must ensure
that the fuels available to American consumers are affordable. Third,
we must seek to improve the environmental performance of the energy
resources we consume.
I believe coal to liquid fuels will allow us to accomplish all three
goals, and that the Bunning amendment puts us on the right path to get
there. In terms of the opportunities for increased energy security that
are created by coal to liquids, the case to be made is a convincing
one. Our country accounts for 26 percent of the world's proven
reserves, 26 percent of the coal.
We have enough coal right here in America to meet our needs for more
than 200 years. In every authoritative forecast of domestic and world
energy consumption, coal use is projected to increase, not decrease. No
matter what people say, you know they don't want coal because it is not
clean, every projection says there will be more coal used, not less, in
the next 10, 20, 30 years.
[[Page S7850]]
What we have to do is be sure that since we have so much in America,
we are pushing that and pursuing that with a hand on the accelerator,
that makes sure what we come out with is a fuel that is clean enough to
sustain itself among the fuels we are permitted to use, where it is as
good as any we are promoting for the American people for their future.
Here in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we often talk
about our Nation's increasing reliance on foreign sources of crude oil.
We have included provisions in this bill that represent significant
progress toward reversing this trend. I believe we should go further,
however, and make better use of coal as our most abundant, secure, and
affordable resource.
The facts in support of coal to liquid as a path to greater energy
security don't only rely on the sheer abundance of this resource within
our borders. It is because of this secure supply, but also due to the
characteristics of coal to liquids as a fuel that the Department of
Defense has undertaken an aggressive program to test, certify, and
ultimately transition to meeting much of their demand with coal to
liquid alternatives.
I want to repeat what I have just said about the fact that we are so
abundantly blessed, and it is here and it is ours, and it is to be used
by us. Because of this, the Department of Defense has undertaken an
aggressive program to certify, ultimately to test and certify, to meet
much of their demand with coal to liquid alternatives.
Last year the Air Force went through over 3 billion gallons of
aviation fuel. That amount represents more than half of the fossil
fuels consumed by the Federal Government. That is amazing. Half of all
the fossil fuels consumed by the Federal Government was the 3 billion
gallons of aviation fuel.
The goal of the Air Force is to certify their entire fleet by 2010,
with a 50-50 mix of jet fuel with coal to liquid fuels and meet 50
percent of their demand for fuels with coal to liquids by the year
2016.
We must be encouraging progress along these lines, and the Bunning
amendment is a step in the right direction. Coal is affordable. If we
consider historic price trends, based on nominal dollars per million
Btu's between 1980 and 2005, the cost of petroleum fluctuated between
$6 and $16; natural gas fluctuated between $2 and $10; retail
electricity fluctuated between $14 and $24; and coal between $1 and $3.
Is that not incredible? Now, if we can find a way through our
technological advances and technological genius to make more coal
usable, think of that, we will inject into this stream of usable
resources that are used in the place of energy a fuel that is the
cheapest and most stable fuel we have. I told it to you in incredible
numbers. These are accurate. Coal, between $1 and $3 during the same
period that retail electricity has been $14 to $24. You got that, my
good friend from Montana? Incredible.
Petroleum fluctuated from $6 to $16, and here is that good old coal,
$1 to $3. The problem is, we haven't figured out ways to use it for
enough of the uses for which these energies I ticked off are used. Coal
is secure. But it represents one of our most stable and affordable
energy sources.
It should be our policy to ensure that this feedstock shares an equal
footing with others that are available for production of alternative
fuels. Of course, we must ensure that we continue to reduce the
environmental impacts associated with energy resources we consume.
Here, too, the ability of coal-to-liquid fuel to achieve this
significant improvement is impressive. By virtue of the process coal
must undergo in producing a liquid fuel, nearly all of the criteria
pollutants are removed by virtue of the processes coal must undergo in
the process of liquid fuel. I am repeating it. Nearly all the criteria
pollutants are removed.
This represents a significant improvement relative to conventional
diesel and includes a reduction in unburned hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and others.
I wish to direct the attention of my colleagues to the chart behind
me which represents an average of the findings on the national
renewable energy laboratories and other Government entities. It shows
the percentage reductions achieved in the categories I have mentioned,
by using coal-to-liquid fuels instead of conventional diesel.
Fuels are virtually sulfur free and dramatically reduced the
emissions of other harmful pollutants. There it shows it to you right
on the chart. Environmentally, what remains is a concern about the
emissions of greenhouse gases. This too can be effectively addressed by
coal-feeding biomass, utilizing a plant's carbon dioxide for enhanced
oil recovery or through future efforts to achieve reliable and safe
geological sequestration.
Those seeking to build coal-to-liquid fuel plants believe they can
meet the same standard of 20 percent better than gasoline that is
included in the underlying bill for ethanol. I believe no single one of
the priorities I laid out as important to the consideration of the
fuels legislation should overshadow the other. Coal to liquid meets all
three priorities.
On this basis alone, I believe the Bunning amendment is the right
approach. Now, some may ask, if this alternative fuel is such a good
idea, why have we not already begun to produce it? The Department of
Energy has testified that as long as the price of oil remains above
roughly $50 to $60 a barrel, the first few gallons of coal-to-liquid
operations will be economically viable. So as long as energy remains at
that high price, from there, commercialization will further improve the
competitiveness of coal-to-liquid fuels. It is a concern that oil-
producing nations will increase production to lower oil prices, thereby
undercutting the viability of alternative fuel production. That has
created an unwillingness in the private sector to finance these plans.
I believe the most proven approach to addressing concerns of
alternative fuel developers is to provide a guaranteed market and
assurances that the market for these fuels will remain present. This is
what the Bunning amendment does. This is all it does. This is all we
need to do. Specifically, and starting in the year 2016, it will
require that three-quarters of a billion gallons--that is all, three-
quarters of a billion gallons--are produced a year. That gets us to a
level of 6 billion gallons by 2022. Now, I would remind my colleagues
that biofuels are mandated at a level of 36 billion gallons that same
year under the base bill. We have required that coal-to-liquid fuels
have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 20 percent
better than gasoline. That is how we make sure that greenhouse
implications are not something we need to worry about.
This is the same standard required of biofuels in the base text of
the legislation that is currently before the Senate. We have seen the
utility of a mandate in the current success of ethanol. In fact,
currently the use of ethanol has even exceeded the mandates set forth
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I believe the time has come to embark
upon a similar success story in coal-to-liquid fuels.
If the environmental obligations are the same as the mandate for
biofuels--and the coal-to-liquids mandate is one-sixth the size of a
biofuel mandate--there is no reasonable basis to vote no on the Bunning
amendment. The choice given by the amendment is coal from Wyoming, West
Virginia, Connecticut, and North Dakota versus oil from the Middle East
or Venezuela. The choice is an easy one. I encourage colleagues to vote
for amendment No. 1628. It is not a huge amount of production we are
going to assure the use of, but it will push producers and inventors,
technocrats and people with money that they will all be working toward
a new way to do it because by that point in time, they want to be able
to say: Ours is ready. Please buy it. That is what the law says you are
supposed to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the two amendments before
us. I have some grave concerns. I am afraid this Energy bill could
easily turn into an antienergy bill. If it does, we will have
decreasing supplies of fuel and ever-increasing prices. I don't think
that is where we intend to go.
I rise to give strong support to amendment No. 1628 offered by my
colleagues, Senator Jim Bunning and ranking member Pete Domenici. The
amendment establishes a fuel mandate
[[Page S7851]]
program for coal-to-liquid fuel that is identical to the renewable fuel
standard we are implementing with this legislation. I know originally
the two amendments had some similarities and were being worked on as
one with a bipartisan group. That is what we ought to do. But somehow
it got polarized and shifted into two separate amendments. One could
have phased into the other and wound up with much stronger
requirements. That was where I was hoping it would go, on a phased-in
basis, so that we could actually have coal-to-liquid technology and
that infant industry could then grow into one that would meet the
strict standards that technologically cannot be met at the present
time.
If we discourage all development of coal to liquids, we will not have
clean coal to liquids. We will not have an adequate fuel supply or we
will have a fuel supply that is very expensive, and that will curtail
the economy.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the Governor of my State, Dave Freudenthal, who talks about a glidepath
we need to get the infant industry started and into place.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The State of Wyoming,
Office of the Governor,
Cheyenne, WY, June 18, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Hart Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: I want to commend you and your
committee for taking up the matter of Coal-to-Liquids
technology as part of the consideration of national energy
policy. As you know, if we can construct the proper policy
framework for this technology, the benefits are many. The
country will be able to make use of an abundant fuel source
to begin to mitigate our dependence on imported fuels.
Capital investment and job creation will also be a
significant benefit for America.
My view is that with the exception of operations in South
Africa, CTL is an emerging technology. Clearly not all the
design, engineering and performance issues are determined as
would be expected in the case of a mature industry. There is
much work to be done with respect to environmental behavior
and operational efficiency.
Given the emerging nature of this promising technology, it
seems prudent and appropriate to set goals that stretch the
technology, represent a step forward and would result in a
better environment. However, setting requirements that are
likely not achievable in the near term with the first plants
may only serve to discourage the kind of technical and
financial investment required to bring the CTL technology
forward to commercialization.
A `glide path' that would require continuous improvement of
environmental performance with a starting point better than
existing alternatives seems a reasonable position for the
first CTL plants. This would allow policy makers to keep the
ultimate targets intact but acknowledge the evolving nature
of the technology. It seems this would be a much better
signal to send to the country. This should serve to stimulate
rather than discourage the kind of market behavior on the
part of cleaner energy entrepreneurs and technologists we
need to help us solve these complex energy and environmental
challenges.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Dave Freudenthal,
Governor.
Mr. ENZI. I have listened for the past week as my colleagues have
discussed the importance of domestic fuels. They argue that it is
essential for us to reduce our dependence on foreign energy barons and
that the mandate that this bill lays out for 36 billion gallons of
biofuels is an important step in being energy independent. I agree with
my colleagues and their assessment that we need to produce more
domestic fuel, and the amendment I am speaking in support of does just
that. By mandating that we use 6 billion gallons of fuel derived from
coal, we will use our Nation's most abundant energy source to help
break America's addiction to oil.
Coal to liquids technologies are not new. The technology has been
around since the 1940s. There is no question that it can be used today
in transportation markets that currently exist. It can be transported
in pipelines that currently exist. Because it comes from coal, our
Nation's most abundant energy source, it can be produced at home by
American workers without some of the international interference. Coal
to liquid plants are being developed in China. They understand the need
for the economy to have the fuel to operate on. They are buying up
resources. In Canada, they tried to buy resources in the United States.
They know the future of their country depends on having sufficient
fuel, particularly for transportation.
Coal to liquid plants are already being developed in China. They are
being developed in other major industrialized nations. But they are not
being developed in the United States. I am concerned that as we sit on
the sidelines, other nations will take advantage of our inaction, and
our economy will suffer. That is why I am speaking in support of the
amendment offered by my colleagues from Kentucky and New Mexico. The
amendment they have introduced is the right approach to moving this
issue forward in a way that will truly help the coal to liquids
industry. In doing so, it will truly benefit the American people.
There is a competing proposal from my colleague from Montana that I
will discuss in a moment, but I first want to discuss why this is the
right approach, if we are to spur investment in the coal to liquids
industry. Simply put, if our goal is to create a market for a new
energy source, mandates work. We have seen it with other current
renewable standards. Since passage of the RFS as part of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number of
ethanol plants that exist, and there is no sign that industry is
slowing down. That was the mandate we placed. It is being met. We have
an opportunity to do so today for coal to liquids. However, we will do
so on a smaller scale, requiring just 6 billion gallons of coal-derived
fuel as opposed to 36 billion gallons mandated for biofuels in the
bill. We will do so with additional environmental standards.
Like the underlying legislation, we require the 20-percent life cycle
greenhouse gas reduction language. However, unlike the underlying bill,
the amendment requires coal to liquid plants to operate with technology
to capture carbon dioxide emissions. In general, I am not a fan of
mandates. I have struggled with this issue. However, if our goal is to
reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources and to produce
more fuel domestically, the current renewable fuels mandate has proven
that it is an approach that works. In direct contrast to the success of
a mandate is the failure of the loan guarantee programs which have
issued exactly zero loans almost 2 years after the program was created
in the Energy Policy Act. The approach of the Senator from Montana of a
direct loan program is different than the approach taken in the Energy
Policy Act. Although that is the case, I am concerned that his
legislation will simply create another loan program that never happens.
A direct loan program requires that the Federal Government loan
taxpayer money to private companies to move forward. In the very tight
appropriations climate we are currently experiencing, my colleagues are
kidding themselves if they think we will spend the kind of money it
takes to build one of these plants through a direct loan.
How do I know about that? There is one proposed in southern Wyoming.
The company is a coalition of companies to put the money together for
one of these plants. It is a huge refinery. That is what a coal to
liquids plant is. It changes our low-sulfur coal into diesel, and that
is what we are requiring trucks to use now, diesel without coal. It is
going to be between the little town of Hannah and Medicine Bow. Hannah
was a coal mining town. The coal was deeper so it wasn't useful or
economical for them to mine it anymore. It shut down. People are there
with houses they can't sell and jobs they don't have. They are retired.
But this plant is coming into that area.
The reason it is coming to that area is, first, there is the coal
resource but, more importantly, there is a pipeline there. This is one
of the fuels, unlike ethanol, that can be put into a pipeline and
transported. They have already sold all of the fuel they can build.
They put $2 or $3 billion worth of money together to build what will be
the first refinery built in the United States in 30 years. It will
solve a huge economic problem in that part of the State. I have to say,
the requirements in the amendment of the Senator from Montana will
probably stop this because the technology isn't there. People
[[Page S7852]]
aren't going to venture $2.3 billion on the possibility that the
technology might be there. I would hope we would put some research
money into technology on carbon sequestration and carbon capture. I
have encouraged the University of Wyoming to do that with some of the
abandoned mine land money. But that is down the road and should be
phased in so that plants like this can be built.
In addition to my concerns about the loan program, I am also
concerned that the amendment of the Senator from Montana sets forth
environmental standards that are technologically unachievable. We have
devoted an entire title of this bill--title III--to the research and
development of carbon sequestration technologies. I have faith that
this research will help us to advance carbon sequestration efforts, but
I don't believe we are there yet. As such, the Tester amendment's
requirement for 75 percent sequestration--and it is not phased in--
seems unreasonable. I am not a technical expert. I have spoken to the
people who are planning the coal to liquids facilities. None of the
developers I have questioned have suggested they can achieve the 75
percent mandated by the Tester amendment. Both of the Democratic and
Republican proposals will reduce greenhouse gases in a major way. Both
of these amendments require a 20-percent improvement, but the
Democratic proposal goes too far and sets standards that aren't
technologically achievable.
My colleagues are faced with a choice. The amendment offered by
Senators Bunning and Domenici takes a proven approach of mandating that
we use a domestic fuel. It adds responsible and reasonable
environmental standards, and it will work to spur development of a
domestic coal to liquids industry. I wish the bipartisan group could
have gotten together and actually worked out something, but there are
some other things playing in this whole process. Sometimes we get so
wrapped up in making a political point that we wipe out progress for
the United States. I hope that something can be done on that yet, but
we will vote on two different amendments. The Bunning-Domenici one has
the potential for actually providing some facilities and additional
fuels. If we truly want to see coal to liquids plants built in the
United States, only one of the approaches before the Senate works. That
approach is the one offered by Senators Bunning and Domenici. I hope
all of us will support that amendment and see that coal to liquids and
fuel independence happens.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the
Bunning coal to liquid fuel amendment. This was an amendment
cosponsored and championed by our dear late friend, Senator Craig
Thomas. If we could adopt this amendment and pass it into law, I think
it would be a fitting tribute to the memory of this very fine servant
of the people of Wyoming and of the United States.
We have plenty of Members of the Senate who would like to reduce our
involvement in the Middle East. Maybe they supported our gulf and Iraq
wars; maybe they did not, but they would sure like us to reduce our
current involvement, and they certainly would like us not to have to go
over there every time there is trouble. Count me in as one of that
broader group.
There is another group of Senators, and I would be included in those
as well, that would like us to improve the environment by reducing
greenhouse gases. They support reducing the lifecycle greenhouse gases
emitted during the production of fuels. Indeed, we are considering
provisions to require biofuels produce 20 percent less lifecycle
greenhouse gases during their production.
So I ask those Senators--all of you who support reducing our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil, all of you who support requiring
fuels to produce less greenhouse gases--please support the Bunning-
Domenici coal to liquid fuel amendment that will do both.
Domestically produced fuel made from coal will reduce our dependence
on Middle Eastern oil. Every barrel of oil we produce from America is a
barrel of oil we do not need to import from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq
or Venezuela. Every barrel of oil we produce from America will reduce
our need by that much to intervene in local Middle Eastern disputes.
Domestically produced fuel made from coal will improve the
environment. Coal to liquid fuel, with its sequestration of pollutants,
will be lower in acid rain-causing sulfur and soot-producing
particulate matter. The Bunning amendment will also cut greenhouse gas
emissions compared to gasoline production by mandating 20 percent less
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. No coal to liquid plant will
receive a cent of Government money unless it can meet this greenhouse
gas reduction requirement.
Domestically produced fuel from coal will improve our health. Too
many children and elderly suffer from asthma, an acute condition caused
by air pollution. Coal to liquid fuel is lower in ozone-causing
nitrogen oxides, soot-producing particulate matter, as I mentioned, and
toxic emissions from volatile organic compounds.
Domestically produced fuel made from coal will improve the
performance of our military. Coal to liquid fuel provides significant
performance advantages for military jets and aircraft. The Air Force is
most interested in signing long-term supply contracts that will enable
them to provide a market for the clean coal to liquid fuel which is
envisioned in this amendment. CTL fuel burns at a lower temperature,
burns cleaner, and performs better at both lower and higher
temperatures. That is good for our war fighters who need every
advantage they can get.
Domestically produced fuel made from coal is good for our existing
infrastructure. Coal to liquid fuel can go right into our existing
pipelines, gas tanks, and engines without any cause of problems. We
will not need new pipelines, new storage or new pumps as with biofuels.
Domestically produced fuel made from coal is also good for consumers.
Coal to liquids offer long-term supply guarantees without the fear of
supply shocks from external forces in other countries. Do you ever
wonder why gas prices jump up every time some Middle Eastern radical
shoots off a rocket in his neighbor's territory? That would not happen
to the fuel we are producing from coal to liquids.
Domestically produced fuel made from coal is also good for taxpayers.
Coal to liquids offers the ability to lock in long-term price cut
guarantees. I think all of us realize that Southwest Airlines used this
long-term fuel supply hedging to save billions of dollars and avoid
bankruptcy. Other airlines lost millions and fell into bankruptcy
paying for high-priced fuel on the spot market. At the same time,
Southwest produced profits in part from the savings from their long-
term contracts to buy fuel. We can use this same strategy to benefit
all Americans with coal to liquids and specifically by supplying that
fuel to the Air Force and other Government users. I would hope the
other users of fuel would realize the advantage, but we can do
something now to start that market and to assure that technology goes
into production.
So I urge my colleagues to give a hard look to the Bunning-Domenici
coal to liquid fuel standard amendment. I would say, I would add Craig
Thomas's name to that list as well. Sponsors have trimmed back the
amendment to require more modest and realistic amounts of CTL fuel.
Sponsors have also included the same 20-percent lifecycle greenhouse
gas reduction mandate and a requirement for coal to liquid plants to
operate with technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions.
We can use the carbon dioxide, so captured, to pump into previously
depleted oil wells to generate more production or we can pump it into
substructures, geological formations, which will capture and keep that
CO2 sequestered.
I urge my colleagues to support the Bunning-Domenici amendment. Our
future in terms of energy independence, our future in terms of a
cleaner environment depends on it.
[[Page S7853]]
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 12 minutes
of Senator Tester's allotted time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is the right subject, this issue of
alternative fuels. I commend all my colleagues for being here to talk
about this important issue.
I have mentioned often on the floor of the Senate, we live on this
little planet of ours, and on this planet we circle the Sun, and we
happen to live on a little patch on this planet called the United
States of America. A substantial amount of oil is used here. We use
one-fourth of all the oil that is pulled out of this planet every
single day. About 84 million gallons of fuel is pulled out of this
planet every day, and we use one-fourth of it in this country.
Unfortunately, much of the resources--the oil resources--exist
elsewhere. Over 60 percent of that which we use in oil comes from off
our shores, much of it from very troubled parts of the world: Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and so on. In a circumstance
where we have such a prodigious appetite for energy--oil in this case--
and so much of it exists off our shores, it makes us very vulnerable--
extraordinarily vulnerable.
If tomorrow, God forbid, terrorists should somehow interfere with the
pipeline of oil to the United States of America, we would be flat on
our back. Our economy would be flat on its back because we get up every
single morning in this country and we pull the switch, we start the
engine, we do all these things that heat the water for the shower and
air-condition our home. We have such an unbelievable appetite for
energy.
With respect to oil itself, we are held hostage by having so much of
it coming from off our shores. Therefore, the question is, how do we
become less dependent or how do we become independent of the Saudis or
the Kuwaitis or others who have so much oil?
Is it a good thing for us to try to become independent? I think it
is. So how do you do that? Well, you do that in a lot of ways, one of
which--an important ``one of which''--is to develop renewable
alternative fuels.
So we are talking about the biofuels. We are talking about ethanol.
We are talking about a lot of different issues--cellulosic ethanol.
Today on the floor of the Senate, we now talk about coal to liquid.
Coal to liquid means taking coal and producing from it diesel fuel.
That coal to diesel is another way of producing alternative fuels.
It is very important, however, for us, as we proceed down this road,
to do this the right way. There is, perhaps, an easy way and a harder
way to do it or a right way and a wrong way to do it, but all of us who
come here talking about alternative fuels, I think, are talking about
the right subject.
This issue of coal is very important. Coal is the most abundant
resource that exists in this country. It is our most abundant. It is
our most secure. It is here. It is the lowest cost American resource.
It is estimated we have over 600 billion barrels of oil equivalent in
coal. Compare that, for example, to the largest oil reserves in the
world, which are held by the Saudis, estimated at about 260 billion
barrels of oil. Again, the Saudis have the largest repository of oil we
know of, estimated at about 260 billion barrels. Our coal has an oil
equivalent of about 600 billion barrels.
Well, the question is: How do we use coal? Because coal has a carbon
footprint, it has an impact on our environment. I am chairing the
Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. In the accounts I am
now working on with my colleagues, I am going to put a great deal of
money into clean power and into clean coal technology so we can unlock
the mysteries and find ways to continue to use our coal, our most
abundant resource, without in any way injuring our environment. I
believe we can do that. I am going to tell you in a minute an example
in North Dakota that is occurring that holds great promise, in my
judgment.
But we have a lot of experience in burning coal for electric
generation to produce electricity. We have a good understanding of the
challenges we face as a result of that with respect to carbon reduction
in those plants, the coal-fired electric generating plants. We also
have some experience turning coal into synthetic natural gas. The only
plant in the United States in which lignite coal is taken out of the
ground--coal is extracted from the ground and put in a processing plant
to turn coal into synthetic natural gas the only circumstance in the
country where that occurs is on the prairies of North Dakota. It is
interesting that the coal gasification facility is really a technical
marvel--a technological marvel, I should say. It is producing synthetic
gas in a way that is exceeding expectations. It produces very valuable
byproducts, and it does, in fact, produce CO2.
So in this coal gasification plant, with the production of
CO2, which we don't want to admit in great quantities into
the atmosphere because of climate change, we have done something that
is really pretty interesting. We capture 5,500 tons a day of
CO2 in that plant, put it in a pipe, and in that pipeline it
is transported 205 miles north into Canada, where it is invested into
the ground in Canadian oil wells to make marginal oil wells more
productive. So we have beneficial use of sequestration of
CO2 by piping it to Canada and investing it into the ground
to essentially make their oil wells more productive. It has sequestered
about 7 million tons of CO2 into the Weyburn Field since the
start of the project in the year 2000. It has doubled the field's oil
recovery rate and extended the life of the oilfield by 15 to 20 years.
So you talk about beneficial use of CO2--first of all,
capturing it, keeping it from escaping into the atmosphere, and second,
using it for beneficial use. I think this is the largest example--the
largest demonstration of that--in the entire world.
Now, the question before us today will be a couple of different
presentations on coal to liquid. I support coal to liquid. I believe it
is part of an alternative fuel strategy that makes sense for this
country. But we come to an intersection with energy and climate change,
energy and the environment. It is an intersection a lot of people would
prefer not to approach, but nonetheless we are there. We can't pretend
one doesn't exist. They both exist. They coexist. They have an impact
on each other. The question of how we do coal to liquids is a very
important question in the context of how we continue to use our
abundant coal resource.
Some say the most beneficial use of coal is coal to synthetic natural
gas. I have just described how that is being done. Some say another
beneficial use of coal is coal to plastics. There are many ways and
many approaches to use coal for beneficial use at the same time as we
protect the environment.
We have examples in amendments being offered today of the requirement
of not only life-cycle reductions in emissions--and I believe both of
the amendments have equivalent life-cycle reductions in emissions, but
only one has a carbon capture requirement, which I think, frankly, is
going to be required as we move forward with coal to liquids. We might
debate about where that carbon capture requirement ought to be
established, under what conditions can it be met, but I don't think
there is much choice that we, as we proceed with coal to liquids,
establish a carbon capture standard. I believe the Tester amendment
does that in a way that says, I think for many of us, we fully support
coal to liquids. We also support all of the other technologies that
provide for the beneficial use of coal, which includes, as I have just
described, coal to plastics and coal to synthetic natural gas, and so
on. But as we proceed with coal to liquids, it is very important that
we capture and sequester CO2, just as we do in North Dakota
with this synthetic natural gas plant.
Let me also point out that we have other ways of using coal--biomass
co-fed with coal to produce liquids. We can actually take
CO2 out of the atmosphere with that process. The plants
would capture the CO2 as they grow, and that CO2
would be captured in the gasification process, along with the
CO2 from the coal. So it could be permanently sequestered in
that circumstance. As a result, the overall carbon footprint for coal
biomass to liquids would be better, for example, than with petroleum.
So there are so many different applications and different ways that I
believe coal can play a very important
[[Page S7854]]
role in this country's future. As I indicated, I am going to be adding
substantial funding with respect to clean coal technology and the
research that is necessary to unlock the capability, the scientific
capability, and technology to be able to continue to use our abundant
coal resources long into the future.
It makes little difference if we have the equivalent of 600 billion
barrels of oil in coal resources if we can't use them. To say we have
reserves equivalent to 600 billion barrels of oil, if you can't use
that coal, it means very little to this country's future. I believe,
when you take a look at the most abundant resource, we need to be able
to use it, but I also understand and believe we need to be able to use
it in circumstances where we can produce in the future a coal-fired
electric generating plant that is a zero-emission plant. I believe that
is possible. Now, can we do it tomorrow? Probably not. But I believe
that through technology, we can accomplish these things.
The same is true with respect to coal to liquids. I don't believe the
debate among those of us who have spoken on this subject today is
whether coal to liquids makes sense. It will contribute as a part of
our alternative fuels to make us less dependent on foreign sources of
oil, and that is something we should all aspire to have happen. But it
will also, as we proceed in this direction, require us to have carbon
capture and sequestration in a manner that is meaningful.
One of the amendments today will establish a 6-billion-gallon
requirement. I believe essentially the same amendment a couple of weeks
ago said it should be 21 billion barrels as a mandate or requirement. I
don't know where those numbers come from. I just believe, as I think
most who have spoken believe, that we have to move in the direction of
making coal to liquid work in a way that is compatible with this
country's environmental needs.
So I am going to support the Tester amendment. I hope that at the end
of the day, we will have received a message here from the debate in
this Congress that says: Yes, alternative fuels make sense; coal to
liquids makes sense; so, too, do carbon sequestration and carbon
capture.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use Senator
Tester's time for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Employee Free Choice Act
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a moment on the
Employee Free Choice Act, the legislation we will be considering this
week and legislation which will, frankly, help to build the middle
class. That is something I know the Presiding Officer spoke about in
Pennsylvania often in the last year, as I did in Ohio.
We know what has happened to manufacturing jobs in this country, many
of them good-paying union jobs. In my State, we have lost literally
hundreds of thousands of them--more than 3 million in the last 5 years
nationally. We know what has happened as profits and wages have gone up
in this country--excuse me--as profits and top executive salaries have
gone up. We know that for most Americans, their wages have been
stagnant. Part of that is the decline of unionization. Poll after poll
after poll shows that most people in this country, if presented with
the opportunity, would like to join a union, but most are denied that
opportunity because of the kind of workplace they are in oftentimes but
oftentimes simply because management--employers--is able to beat back
any kind of unionization effort.
That is the importance of the Employee Free Choice Act. Let me
illustrate by an example. The Presiding Officer and I sit on the
Agriculture Committee together and one day back in February, our first
month on the job--roughly the first month--we heard from a woman from
southwest Ohio who came and testified on food stamps. The food stamp
benefit in this country on the average is $1 per person per meal. She
and her son, as a result, get about $6 a day in food stamps. She works
full time. She is a single parent with a 9-year-old son. She is the
president of the local PTA of her son's school. She teaches Sunday
school, and she volunteers for the Cub Scouts for her son. She works
full time making about $9 an hour. She is a food stamp beneficiary. She
occasionally makes her son pork chops, which he likes to eat once or
twice at the beginning of the month. During the first couple of weeks,
she takes him to a fast-food restaurant once or twice. Almost
invariably, the last couple of days of the month, she sits at the
kitchen table with her son, just the two of them, and she says she
doesn't eat.
He says: Mom, what is wrong?
She says: I am just not feeling well today, son.
She has run out of money. It happens almost every month. She is
playing by the rules. She works hard. She is doing almost everything we
ask. She is involved in the community.
My belief is that, through talking to people like her, if she had the
opportunity to join a union, she would see several things happen. She
would see a higher wage. She would be more likely to have health
insurance to build toward a pension. All the things everybody in this
institution has, everyone who sits in the U.S. Senate--everyone who
works in this institution, on that side of the Capitol or on this side
of the Capitol, has health care, has a decent wage, and has a decent
pension.
The single force that gives people an opportunity for health care, a
decent wage, and a decent pension is unionization. We know that. If you
trace the numbers of people joining unions and you draw a graph about
wages in this country, the lines are almost parallel. We are a more
productive workforce than we have ever been. Yet wages have not kept up
with productivity. When you measure, for decades and decades in our
country, as productivity went up, wages went up. But during the last
few years, as productivity has gone up sharply, wages have continued to
remain stagnant. That is in large part because of the decline of
unionization.
That is the importance of the Employee Free Choice Act. That is why
it matters to our country. That is why it matters for building a strong
middle class. That is why the Senate this week should pass the Employee
Free Choice Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, there be
60 minutes remaining for debate with respect to the Bunning and Tester
amendments, that the time be equally divided and controlled, and that
the remaining provisions of the previous order remain in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________