[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16305-16314]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 16306]]

       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.
  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. Coal-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.

[[Page 16307]]

  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 
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

[[Page 16308]]

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 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

[[Page 16309]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 16310]]

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 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

[[Page 16311]]

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 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

[[Page 16312]]

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.
  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

[[Page 16313]]

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 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.

[[Page 16314]]

  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.

                          ____________________