Agricultural Protection and Prosperity Act of 2007

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the minority side be given an additional 5 minutes, and would note that Senator Domenici and Senator Craig are here to use that time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I will take 5 minutes. I know Senator Tester is here and wishes to speak. I understand Senator Kerry and many others wish to speak also.

The issue between the two amendments is what our focus should be, when we think about the future of coal, are we sure the best use of coal and the best future for coal is in the developing of transportation fuels? In my view, that is what the Bunning amendment concludes.

The Tester amendment, to the contrary, takes a broader view of the future of coal. I believe we want to enable the development of many potential uses of coal that are both environmentally and economically sound. We should not be focused on commercializing in large-scale uses of coal that do not make good sense in the marketplace.

First, let me say a couple of things about the Bunning amendment.

There are currently no large-scale coal-to-liquid plants in the United States. The price tag of a typical plant is in the billions of dollars.

The Bunning amendment purports to require that coal-derived fuels be 20 percent better than gasoline. But we have an apples-to-oranges comparison here because coal-to-liquids plants will produce primarily diesel fuel, not gasoline. The total greenhouse gas emissions from coal-derived diesels are likely to be greater by about 150 percent than the emissions from diesels that are powered from petroleum.

The Bunning amendment is technologically limiting, and such uses of coal as conversion to chemicals, to plastics, and to fertilizer are not permitted to benefit from the Bunning amendment.

Coal-to-liquids products mandated by the Bunning amendment have very large water requirements. Water requirements are estimated to be about 2 gallons for every gallon of coal-derived fuel produced. The Tester amendment, by contrast, is much more broad in the beneficial uses coal can be put to, whether to make fuels or fertilizers or plastics or chemicals.

There are industrial plants in the United States that do use coal commercially as a feedstock for chemical products.

I have a letter from the president of Dow Chemical which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

He states as follows in that letter:

On behalf of Dow Chemical Company, I write to offer my

strongest support for Senator Tester's ``Coal Innovation''

amendment.

Simply put, it will allow companies to build gasification

plants in the United States that run on coal, biomass and

other feedstocks, while helping to increase fuel and

feedstock diversity and demonstrate options for carbon

capture and storage. This will result in gasification plants

that are more efficient and help address climate change and

contribute to energy security.

Mr. President, I also have a letter that I want to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks from various unions--the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, the Industrial Union, the United Mine Workers, various others.

They strongly endorse the Tester amendment. They previously were part of a coal-to-liquids coalition which issued an earlier letter which has now been rescinded which spoke in favor of the Bunning amendment and against the Tester amendment, and they say in their letter that they strongly support the Tester amendment.

Clearly, I think the Tester amendment gives us the best chance of promoting the use of coal to meet our energy needs in the future, and I strongly support it and oppose the Bunning amendment. I hope my colleagues will do the same. I believe this is the right course for us to follow.

Exhibit 1

The Dow Chemical Company,

Midland, Michigan, June 18, 2007.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of The Dow Chemical

Company, I write to offer my strongest support for Senator

Tester's ``Coal Innovation'' amendment to H.R. 6, the energy

bill pending before the Senate. Simply put, it will allow

companies to build gasification plants in the United States

that run on coal, biomass and other feedstocks, while helping

to increase fuel and feedstock diversity and demonstrate

options for carbon capture and storage. This will result in

gasification plants that are more efficient, help address

climate change and contribute to energy security.

Dow is excited by the prospect of this legislation being

enacted. As you know, Dow is one of the world's largest

chemical companies and is heavily reliant in the U.S. on

natural gas and oil as raw materials for the products we

manufacture. High and volatile prices for these inputs have

caused the company's energy bill to swell three-fold since

2002, reaching $22 billion last year, and have forced us to

look to other parts of the world for our growth.

In an effort to address this problem, and to help sustain

our operations here, we have expressed interest in utilizing

industrial gasification technology and in leading a

consortium in the U.S. to demonstrate it on a commercial

scale. A company like Dow could be a major purchaser of the

syngas and/or the naphtha that these plants produce. As you

know, the military also has a high interest in taking syngas-

based liquid fuels.

Dow would be able to make virtually all of the products we

currently make from natural gas liquids by substituting coal,

biomass or a combination thereof. The ability to manufacture

products like plastics, fibers and coatings would help to

optimize the carbon footprint of a project, since a portion

of the carbon would reside in finished goods that are not

burned. However, one major hurdle for any would-be plant

sponsor is the financing. The direct loans in the amendment

would go a long way toward helping to get these types of

plants built, and help provide, in the long run, a lower cost

alternative to oil and natural gas.

In addition, Dow believes that the environmental standards

in the bill are achievable. The requirement that 75% of the

carbon dioxide generated is captured will ensure that all

companies prepare for long-term CO2 management. This will

help drive action to make carbon capture and storage a

reality sooner rather than later.

Thank you for your and your staff's attention to this

issue, which is critical to American manufacturing, the

economy and our energy security. Please let us know if there

is any way we can be of assistance on this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrew N. Liveris,

Chairman and CEO.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from Montana if he wanted to use the remaining 9 minutes or some lesser amount of that. We can go ahead and go to a vote whenever you are finished with your statement.

Madam President, I yield back the time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I strongly urge support for the Tester-Byrd amendment.

I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Tester.

Madam President, there is an old legal adage that says, hard cases make bad law. That seems to be the case here. No one likes OPEC. None of us like being put in a position of appearing to defend OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law. The Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.

Chief Justice Marshall said nearly two centuries ago:

The judiciary is not the department of the Government to

which the assertion of its interest against foreign powers is

confided. A question like this is more a political one than a

legal one.

There has been much talk in this Chamber over the years about the proper role of the judiciary. Nearly every time we are asked to confirm a judicial nomination, we hear speeches given on the Senate floor about the need for judges to confine themselves to the business of interpreting the law, not making the law. And this is exactly what the courts have done in this circumstance.

Here is a case where the courts have wisely recognized that OPEC's pricing policies are not something that should be litigated in U.S. courts but should instead be addressed by the political branches of the Government--the President, the executive branch, and the Congress. Senator Kohl's amendment would throw the issue of OPEC's

oil prices back into our courts and force the courts to address those issues.

The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws.

The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. On appeal, the appeals court affirmed the dismissal, though for different reasons. It dismissed the suit under the act of State doctrine. In the court's words:

The act of State doctrine declares a United States court

will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute which

would require the court to judge the legality of the

sovereign act of a foreign State.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the Court said:

Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence

of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country

will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of

another done within its own territory.

Senator Kohl's amendment overturns the act of state doctrine, at least so far as OPEC is concerned. It also creates a new offense under the Sherman Act to get at OPEC, it waives sovereign immunity for this new offense, and it amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to cover the new offense. In short, it sweeps away all of the legal defenses OPEC members have against antitrust suits in our courts.

Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is also very unwise. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained nearly 30 years ago:

To participate adeptly in the global community, the United

States must speak with one voice and pursue a careful and

deliberate policy.

The President can do this, the court said; the judiciary cannot.

Here is another quote from that same decision:

When the courts engage in piecemeal adjudication of the

legality of the sovereign acts of states, they risk

disruption of our country's international diplomacy. The

executive may utilize protocol, economic sanction,

compromise, delay, and persuasion to achieve international

objectives. Ill-timed judicial decisions challenging the acts

of foreign states could nullify these tools and embarrass the

United States in the eyes of the world.

In this case--

the granting of any relief would in effect amount to an order

from a domestic court instructing a foreign sovereign to

alter its chosen means of allocating and profiting from its

own valuable natural resources. On the other hand, should the

court hold that OPEC's actions are legal, this would greatly

strengthen the bargaining hand of the OPEC nations in the

event that Congress or the executive chooses to condemn

OPEC's actions.

In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will be the international repercussions when the United States starts awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets in this country? What sort of precedent will the amendment set in the international community? Will other nations start to view our trade policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of their antitrust laws?

The Bush administration has offered us answers to some of these questions. Its statement of administration policy on this bill, which we are considering here in the Senate, says that:

The consequent targeting of foreign direct investment in

the United States as a source of damage awards would likely

spur retaliatory action against American interests in those

countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S.

refiners. Not only would such a result substantially harm

U.S. interests abroad, it would discourage foreign investment

in the United States economy.

For these reasons, the administration concluded:

If a bill including such a provision is presented to the

President--

That is the bill we are considering right here on the Senate floor.

--his senior advisers will recommend that he veto the bill.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kohl amendment.

Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, if we could complete the debate on this amendment, and then if the Senator wishes to yield back time, we could proceed to debate on the next amendment.

Madam President, I think the Senator from Wisconsin should be given the chance to conclude

his remarks or close the argument. I will yield back the time in opposition and allow Senator Kohl to use whatever additional times he wants. Then we can close the debate on this amendment and proceed to the next amendment.

Madam President, I see Senator Whitehouse is waiting to speak on the Cardin amendment. Senator Thune is agreeable to letting him speak for 3 minutes or so on that before beginning discussion on the Thune amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that that be the order.

Madam President, Senator Thune's amendment makes a major change in a provision of the Federal Power Act that governs the siting of electric transmission lines. Until 2 years ago, the siting of electric transmission lines was under the exclusive control of the States. The Federal Power Act gave neither the Secretary of Energy nor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to site transmission lines.

The States tended to make their siting decisions in the best interests of their citizens, not necessarily in the best interests of the citizens of neighboring or even distant States that might benefit by the long distance transmission of electricity.

Two years ago, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I worked on with Senator Domenici, which amended the Federal Power Act to provide what is called the Federal backstop siting authority. Specifically, we directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a comprehensive national study of electric transmission congestion once every 3 years.

We then authorized the Secretary to designate, based on the study, any geographic areas experiencing electric transmission congestion as ``national interest electric transmission corridors.'' The Secretary completed the first congestion study last August, and he has begun proceedings to designate the first national interest corridors.

Designation of an area as a national interest corridor is likely to have serious consequences. Under the law we passed 2 years ago, a utility that wants to build an electric transmission line within the corridor can apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a permit, and the Commission can approve construction of the transmission line without the permission of or even over the objections of the State. Once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues the utility a permit, the utility can then go into Federal court and exercise the Federal Government's power of eminent domain and take private property to erect the transmission line.

I have heard speeches in the time I have served in the Senate from many of my colleagues about their concern over the exercise of the power of eminent domain. The passage of the Thune amendment substantially increases the likelihood that authority, that power of eminent domain, will be exercised against private property rights. Giving Federal officials and private utilities these powers was a major change in Federal law and a major departure from past practice. Nonetheless, we believed the step was warranted to ensure that the national interest in a national electric grid was protected. We believed that entrusting the Secretary of Energy with the task of studying congestion on a national basis and allowing the Secretary to designate only those areas which affected the national interest would prevent abuse of this Federal eminent domain authority.

Even though this authority is less than 2 years old, no corridors have yet been designated, no construction permits have been issued, and no private property has been taken. The authority is already, however, proving very controversial. There is major opposition to the use of this authority just west of here in northern Virginia and in other areas of the country. There has been talk of repealing the authority.

The Thune amendment will only add to the controversy. It makes a fundamental change in the current authority. The Thune amendment says that ``the Secretary may designate additional corridors . . . upon the application by an interested person.'' So even though the Secretary of Energy did not find that a particular area presented congestion concerns of national interest in conducting his congestion study last year and even though the Secretary of Energy did not see fit to propose an area as a national interest corridor, a utility that would like to make use of the Federal eminent domain authority to take private property can apply to the Secretary and the Secretary could then designate the area as a corridor under this new authority. This, as one of the authors of the provision we put in law in 2005, is a major expansion of that authority, and it is an unwarranted expansion.

In addition, the Thune amendment contains additional provisions on rates and recovery of costs which direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue new rules setting transmission rates for the recovery of the cost of transmission lines in national interest corridors. Frankly, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of these provisions are. I am not sure how these provisions affect the ratemaking authority the Commission already exercises under the Federal Power Act. They are either redundant or unnecessary or else they authorize the Commission to set up a new rulemaking standard that will apply in national interest corridors different from the standard the Commission applies elsewhere.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. We should give the program we created in the Energy Policy Act just 2 years ago a chance to work before we dramatically expand it in ways that are not entirely clear.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield back any additional time remaining in opposition.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1610

Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the concerns of my colleagues from Maryland, but I also rise to oppose their amendment.

Just 2 years ago, the Senate approved the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which contains this comprehensive approach to the siting of liquefied natural gas receiving terminals. In that bill, Congress gave FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the jurisdiction to approve the siting of LNG terminals that are located on shore.

FERC acts as the lead agency for NEPA compliance and also as a safety regulator. The combined NEPA and permitting process set forth in that legislation, EPAct 2005, fully recognizes the role of other Federal agencies and the role of State agencies acting under delegated Federal authority.

A project developer is not able to move forward unless all relevant permits are granted. FERC has addressed State concerns related to other LNG facilities through conditions placed on its approval certificate and it has denied a certificate due to safety concerns. So it is clear FERC is taking this authority and responsibility very seriously.

Moreover, this EPAct 2005 legislation also mandated the consideration of State concerns in the NEPA prefiling process which occurs very early in the siting process. The Governor of the affected State has a direct role in that process.

The Senators from Maryland describe their amendment as ``not affecting FERC authority,'' but the amendment would essentially trump FERC's authority to site the entire facility.

As my colleagues know, LNG is imported. It is delivered to this country by ship. Therefore, an absolutely essential piece of the LNG receiving facility is a place for the ship to moor and to unload its cargo; that is, a dock that is constructed in the navigable waters of the United States. The Senators' amendment would allow a Governor of an affected State--and there is a very broad definition of which States are affected; in fact, any State within 15 miles of the terminal would be an affected State under their definition--it would allow the Governor of an affected State to block the Corps' permit, Army Corps of Engineers' permit. Obviously, there is no point in building a terminal if the ship is not permitted to get near it.

Finally, all of us are aware of the high price of natural gas and the pressure that puts on electricity prices, home heating prices, and on the viability of domestic industries that rely on natural gas. The Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2030 the United States will need almost 21 billion cubic feet per day of regasified LNG to meet a total estimated demand of about 81 billion cubic feet per day. This means LNG will account for over 25 percent of our natural gas supply. We need a workable process to assure we have adequate capacity to meet this need.

So, Mr. President, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I know the Senator from Maryland wishes, I assume, to use the remainder of his time or to conclude his argument. Following that, I will yield back the remaining time in opposition.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, since I don't see anyone else here, let me speak in opposition to the amendment.

This is one of these feel-good amendments where you can tell your constituents you struck a blow for freedom by outlawing OPEC.

The truth is, this is terrible precedent for us to say we are going to drag foreign governments into our court system and allow them to be sued for antitrust violations. We have always stopped short of doing this. The precedent would be terrible because obviously they would do the same thing with us. If we can bring foreign governments into our courts and subject them to penalties here, they can bring our Government into their courts and do the same thing. The courts have stayed away from these issues. These are diplomatic issues and political issues the courts should stay out of.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this amendment does not just allow the States to participate in the decision; this amendment would give the States the ability to veto the issuance of any permit to the Army Corps of Engineers to build a terminal and would, in that way, cut us off from needed access to international supplies of liquefied natural gas, LNG. We are going to be more and more dependent upon these liquefied natural gas supplies from overseas. We need to have these terminals constructed. We have a provision in existing law that gives us good processes for including the States, but it is important that we not change existing law.

Senator Domenici, did you wish to speak?

Mr. President, who is the next person to speak?

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Bunning, et al., fuel amendment No. 1628. Senator Hatch has asked to be listed as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, for too long America has ignored its energy security. Many of us can remember the energy crisis in the 1970s. We were held ransom by a monopolistic oil cartel and forced to endure shortages, gas lines, and high prices. In the early 1980s, just as America began to invest in alternative fuels, the oil-producing states of the world crashed prices to make new technology uncompetitive. During most of the last 25 years, we have enjoyed low prices and plentiful supplies. But we have had to pay a price. Today, we find that America is addicted to oil.

September 11, 2001, and the hurricanes in the gulf region have shown the

fragile state of our energy markets. Domestic disasters and terrorism can send energy prices spiraling out of control. Our energy resources are stretched to the limit and small supply disruptions ripple throughout the entire economy. I believe all Americans, as they see continued instability in the Middle East, China, and India, and sustained gasoline prices around $3.50, $4 a gallon, can see an energy crisis on the horizon.

As you can see from the chart I have here, our production of energy has almost stayed completely flat and will stay completely flat until about 2025, unless we do something about it. On the other side, our consumption continues to escalate. So the difference between the two is the crisis at which we are now looking.

This year alone, we will send about $250 billion to foreign countries--mostly in the Middle East--to buy oil, adding to the $7 trillion we have already spent in the last few decades. America has become complacent and overdependent on imported oil. No matter what energy prices are, we need to take responsibility for our reliance on imported energy and develop a secure, domestic fuel source.

I believe part of that effort should be developing coal-to-liquid fuels. America happens to be blessed with significant coal reserves. Coal powers our homes and businesses. Fifty-two percent of our electricity is derived from coal. It has long been America's most abundant fuel resource and has driven our economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Coal-to-liquid technology lets America capitalize on a domestic resource. Every dollar invested in coal-to- liquid production will stay in America, grow our economy, and create jobs. By displacing payments to foreign oil companies with domestic investment, we will actually increase the amount of funding available for other alternative fuels. It will lower energy prices for American families, improve the environment, create thousands of jobs, and bring billions of dollars in new investment to our local communities.

Many of you may be asking one question right now: If this technology is so great and could replace expensive imports from the Middle East, why hasn't it been done already?

The answer is simple: Costs and market uncertainty. A typical size coal-to-liquid plant costs between $3 billion and $5 billion to construct. With complicated plans and environmental permits, a new plant could take 5 to 8 years to build. This is a challenge for even the biggest risk takers on Wall Street. Raising the capital needed to develop a new technology is always difficult, but the multibillion dollar investment scale of a coal-to-liquid plant has made it nearly impossible.

On top of this is the uncertainty of the price of oil. Yesterday, oil hit $69.09 cents a barrel--an all-time high. Soon we will be seeing $70 prices on a barrel of oil. We have seen this dramatic rise in the last few years. But investors are concerned that oil prices could drop to the low levels of the 1980s and make coal-to-liquid plants uncompetitive again.

But even if oil prices were to drop that low in the next few decades, I believe CTL would more than pay for itself by insulating us from supply shocks and providing a secure domestic fuel source for our military, businesses such as airlines and trucking, and the average American car.

The challenge for America is to leverage the private investment required for these large, expensive plants. U.S. investors remember the last time synthetic fuels were promoted in the 1970s, and remember the losses they took as oil prices collapsed in the 1980s. The scale of investment, uncertainty of oil prices, and a complicated environmental permitting process have prevented the industry from taking root in the United States.

We need to take aggressive steps now to ensure that America does not continue to face high heating and gasoline costs and rely so heavily on unstable and dangerous parts of the world for our energy. I believe the answer is to provide Government support to get coal-to-liquid technology off the ground. At least it is one of the things we must consider.

With modest initial investments, we can kick-start the industry and then the Government will get out of the way and let the marketplace take over. I would rather the Government not have any involvement in coal-to-liquids, but this industry needs assistance because of the threat of OPEC, oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez, and technology challenges.

While these are legitimate challenges facing coal to liquid, another issue has become more and more prominent during this debate. In the last few weeks, the environmental rhetoric has been strongly against coal fuels. Unfortunately, too many people have repeated it without checking the facts. The picture opponents of coal paint is far from the truth about our fight for energy independence. It shows the same misinformed biases found in anti-coal advertisements and environmental newsletters.

I want to tell you clearly and without reservation that coal-to- liquid fuel will be a clean part of our energy future.

I want to show you another chart. While some may remember urban diesel pollution problems, coal to liquid will be significantly cleaner than existing fuels in terms of air pollutants such as sulfur, particulate matter, nitrogen, and aromatics. Air Force tests, laboratory tests, and environmental reports all show that coal-to- liquid fuels will reduce the air pollutants that pose a threat to human health.

As you can see when you compare diesel and well-to-wheel urban emissions, compared to low-sulfur, petroleum-based diesels, you can see organic compounds, carbon monoxide, pollutants, particulate matter, and SOX, all decreasing in the coal-to-liquid area. But all of these improvements and the promise of energy security are wiped away by misleading claims that coal to liquid would produce twice as many carbon emissions as conventional fuel. That is not true.

The production of coal-to-liquid fuels does release carbon twice-- once during gasification and another when burned like conventional fuels in engines. But that does not mean coal-to-liquid plants have to release twice as much carbon emissions.

My amendment requires carbon capture--listen to this. I hope some people in their offices are listening to this. My amendment requires carbon capture, but recognizes that there are limits to this technology today. Carbon capture is only part of the emissions model. Nearly all of the developers we have worked with want to use biomass coal-blended feedstock to achieve emissions reductions.

Believe me, I have studied coal to liquid extensively. Reports from the EPA, DOE, Princeton University, and the Idaho National Laboratories has shown the coal-to-liquids lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate will vary dramatically based on the technology, feedstocks, and process used. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral. I will repeat that. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral--no carbon emissions. This is not pie-in-the-sky research. Using some of the same ideas, a planned plant in Ohio--one that will need some Government support to get started--will produce coal-to-liquid diesel that has 46 percent less carbon emissions than diesel fuel made presently from oil--46 percent less.

On chart 3, we show greenhouse gas emissions. This chart shows the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions of different kinds of fuel based on the analysis of the Idaho National Lab. On the left, we have diesel fuel, coal-to-liquid fuels with no environmental technology, coal to liquid that uses carbon capture, and coal to liquid that uses carbon capture and biomass. As we can see by the chart, coal to liquid can be very clean. That is our goal.

For comparison, I included gasoline and ethanol blends on the right. If we support coal to liquids and let the industry develop these carbon capture and biomass technologies, we will reduce emissions more than corn-based E85 and more than cellulosic E10. That is currently what everybody wants to do. E85 is the big savior. The new cellulosic ethanol, E10, is the big savior. As we can see by this chart, that is not true because the emissions at the end of the line with cellulosic E10 and corn E85 are all higher than the coal to liquids mixed with biomass. That is the truth. Those are facts.

The sector should be given time, just as everyone else, to develop the best technology and not rely on Congress to pick it for them. That is why my coal-to-liquid fuel amendment sets the environmental standard for coal to liquids at the same aggressive 20-percent life cycle reduction that Chairman Bingaman requires for biofuels. The very same reduction that Chairman Bingaman in his Energy bill requires of biofuels is the one I have in this amendment. Every gallon of coal to liquids made with the help of my amendment would meet this standard and would be a gallon of oil we do not have to buy from the Middle East.

While I have shown that limited Government support is necessary and coal-to-liquid fuels will be as clean as biofuels, another reason to support coal-to-liquid fuels is national security.

I want my colleagues to look at this chart because this is the most important part of coal-to-liquid technology, and putting it on this Energy bill.

The military is the largest single purchaser in this country, and the Air Force consumes 50 percent of this total. I have spoken many times with the Secretary of the Air Force, and I am proud to say he has taken the lead on developing this domestic resource.

Last year, the Air Force spent nearly $7 billion--$7 billion--alone on aviation fuels, which was over budget by $1.6 billion. For every $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil, it costs the Air Force about $60 million a year. That dramatic impact is 10 times worse for our commercial airlines.

As we can see, if we do it the right way, we can produce enough of our aviation fuel from this technology with a change in the way the Air Force buys their fuels. If we change it from 5 to 20 years in terms of the amount of time they can contract for, we can have this kind of dramatic impact for our military.

With this in mind, last summer, the Air Force tested jet fuel with a 50-percent mix of Fischer-Tropsch fuel--that is the coal-to-liquid process--in a B-52 bomber. The results of these tests so far are nothing short of outstanding. We already knew these fuels are nearly zero in sulfur and very low in nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions, but we are learning very new benefits.

During these tests, the Air Force demonstrated this fuel we are talking about burns significantly cleaner and burns significantly cooler than conventional jet fuel. These characteristics allow our jets to have a smaller radar profile and lower heat signature. And these advantages translate into better mileage, reducing both fuel costs, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

In light of this successful assessment, the Air Force plans to test this fuel in the C-17 cargo plane this year, and it is embracing the goal of certifying the entire fleet of aircraft by 2016.

By that time, the Air Force intends to meet 50 percent of its annual fuel needs, more than 1.3 billion gallons, with Fischer-Tropsch fuel. Coal-to-liquid fuel will provide a safety net for our military to ensure a stable fuel supply regardless of the global politics of oil, but only if we build a domestic industry to make the fuel for them.

Let me turn to the two amendments we will consider today. I am asking that my colleagues support the Bunning-Domenici amendment that I have offered with Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator Hatch. Our amendment is the only amendment that will help create a domestic coal-to-liquids industry, is a separate program that will not compete with biofuels in any way, requires coal to liquids meet the same 20 percent life cycle reduction of greenhouse gases that biofuels must meet--the rest of this bill requires that--requires coat-to-liquid facilities to capture carbon dioxide, and mandates only one-sixth as much fuel as the renewable fuel standard.

I am also urging my colleagues to oppose the Tester-Bingaman amendment. This amendment is not--and I emphasize this--is not a coal- to-liquid amendment. It sets an irresponsible environmental standard and will just kick Government support for this fuel into the future.

Their amendment is opposed by 23 members of the coal-to-liquid coalition, including industry, airlines, railroads, and others.

It sets strict technology mandates for emissions that will stifle innovation and prevent nearly all domestic coal-to-liquid plants from moving forward.

It limits the availability of the loan to 50 percent of the plant cost, making it less effective than the already existing DOE program that we passed in 2005.

It will take years in DOE rulemaking before the first dollar is ever allocated for a plant.

In the greatest deception of all, it does not require coal to be used in the coal-to-liquid process.

Let me say that again so everybody understands. The biggest deception of all is that the Tester-Bingaman amendment does not even require coal to be used in the coal-to-liquid process.

I am committed to the coal-to-liquid fuel as a secure domestic and environmentally sound fuel. The Tester amendment looks at coal to liquids as an afterthought. I think my proposal should be adopted for any one of a dozen arguments that we have made for coal-to-liquid fuels. It will create jobs, bring down the price of fuel, bring down the price of what we pay at the pump, fuel our military, but basically displace foreign oil, enhance our national security, add value to our coal resources, and improve our environment.

But my final and perhaps most important point is that coal-to-liquid fuels deserve fair treatment. I ask that my colleagues look at what we have done for biofuels in America and the benefits we have given to our farmers. Communities throughout the Midwest are uniting to invest in ethanol and biomass. Money from Wall Street is flowing into our rural communities, developing infrastructure and creating jobs. In many parts of America, I have seen new hope in agriculture and new ways for farmers to realize greater values for their crops.

It all started with the ethanol fuel mandate. My amendment will create the exact same mandate for coal-to-liquid fuel with the same environmental standards. I think our coal communities deserve the same support we gave our farm community.

Will you tell the Governors of the Southern States, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana that you oppose their efforts to bring coal-to-liquid plants to their States?

Will you tell the men and women who serve as coal miners, construction workers, truckdrivers, train conductors, and plant operators that they deserve less support than our farmers?

Will you tell all Americans that you would rather keep buying oil from the Middle East instead of making fuel in America?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think I have, what, 3 minutes remaining?

Thank you very much, Senator Larry Craig, for those comments.

Now, let me say we have a similar situation to the one we had here in the last 2 or 3 days on the 15-percent wind mandate--RPS. We have two amendments out here, and all of a sudden we find out neither of them is going to have the votes. I am afraid what has happened here is we have two amendments and neither is going to get the votes if the Senate doesn't consider the difference between these two bills and vote for the one that is most apt to accomplish the purpose we set out in a coal-to-liquid amendment.

The Tester-Bingaman amendment, No. 1614, in this Senator's opinion is only a long shot that we are going to get a lot of incentives for coal to liquid. There is $10 billion in direct loans. That is nice for everybody. We are going to have $10 billion to loan, but it is loanable on a number of things beyond coal to liquid. I predict the money is going to go to those other things because it is so hard to reach the calibration required in this amendment of coal to liquid.

In the Bunning amendment, there is a long time to work on it, until 2016, and a given amount of that liquid will be purchased and they can get ready for it to be purchased. But the standard is clearly achievable because it is the same 20 percent we are going to require of ethanol and of the other programs we are achieving, and we are saying do the same thing. They are not saying that in the Montana amendment-- do the same as we have done for the other fuels. I am afraid we are not going to get there and the money is going to get loaned for the wrong things before we are finished. In competing between the two, both are going to die. I suggest that colleagues vote against the amendment of the Senator from Montana and for the one of the Senator from Kentucky if you want to get coal to liquid started.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I looked around and didn't see anyone else, so I guess I will respond.

Fellow Senators, we defeated the best amendment to assure we would bring coal to liquid on board. Now what you have is an amendment that says a $10 billion direct loan program--not any other kind of loan but a direct loan--meaning the appropriators, without the White House, can approve in appropriations $10 billion. But the kicker is it does not have to go for coal-to-liquid technology, it can go for a number of technologies, and if you can't reach it in coal, you will reach it in the others. So you surely are voting for $10 billion in direct loans. You are not assuring that you are going to get coal to liquid because the standards are so high you may not be able to achieve them in the coal to liquid.

That is enough for me. I thank you for giving me some time, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe we have 8 minutes remaining in opposition, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

First, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves the floor, I wish to say I associate myself with her remarks as they pertain to both subjects, and in particular CERCLA, in which we both share a common interest. We have to get something done; we both know it. Those who are not letting us have a chance at getting a vote will find out sooner or later we are going to get a vote, and what is fair and reasonable will prevail. We are going to work hard to see that is done sooner rather than later.

Having said that, I want to talk about the No-OPEC amendment that would permit legal action to be brought in U.S. courts by the Department of Justice on alleged price-fixing and other anticompetitive behavior affecting petroleum product pricing, production, and distribution by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--OPEC.

While I can see at some level how this idea appeals to our sense of fairness and our frustration about oil prices, I must oppose this amendment and join with my chairman, because it is reality, not sentiment, that counts in public policy. The reality is this amendment would be unenforceable. OPEC producers would simply decide not to sell oil to us any longer. One-third of the oil used in the United States every day comes from an OPEC member. They would suffer the loss of some profits, but our entire economy could come to a grinding halt.

Another problem I have with the amendment is it is a major change in international law that has potential applications beyond the oil sector. The sovereignty of nations is put into question by this amendment. I know of no instance when the United States Government sued a foreign government.

I think if this amendment passes, we can expect a jittery oil market to become even more nervous. We can expect that. In reality, that means higher prices. We can expect less transparency from OPEC. In reality, that means higher prices. We can also expect less cooperation from OPEC in the future, and I think that, too, will lead to higher prices.

I believe this amendment should fail, but obviously, looking at the past and looking at the propensity of Senators to vote on this amendment without looking at the realities of it, I am not too hopeful. Nonetheless, that is the extent of my remarks.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I think Senator Bingaman yielded our time back.

Madam President, I wish to say to the Senator, I congratulate you on this amendment, the scope of the amendment and the rationale. It is something we need. From my standpoint, I am in favor of it. It will not require a rollcall vote. Hopefully, we can dispose of your amendment very shortly.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, because our very economic security is dependent on the availability of electricity, our Nation must reinforce its electric power transmission system.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress sought to establish national interest electric transmission corridors to make America's electricity grid more secure by ensuring there is enough capacity in essential areas.

In EPAct, we directed the Energy Department to identify regions where electricity reliability is threatened by transmission congestion and to designate national corridors. Congress further provided FERC with ``backstop siting'' authority for the construction of transmission facilities if the states involved are unable or unwilling to do so.

Just recently, DOE unveiled the following two draft corridor designations: the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, which runs from New York to Northern Virginia; and the Southwest Area National Corridor, which includes counties in southern California, western Arizona, and southern Nevada.

The amendment offered by Senator Thune would authorize the Energy Department, in designating national corridors, to consider transmission constraints or congestion that increases costs to consumers; limits resource options to serve load growth; or limits access to sources of clean energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

Now we just had a debate on the Senate floor last week on the use of renewable energy sources. We all support the increased use of renewable energy sources but there is often heated opposition to the siting of transmission facilities. This is not in the national interest.

I don't see how you can support a mandate for more renewable energy sources but then oppose the designation of national corridors to get the transmission built that is needed to move these renewable energy sources to market.

Yet as we consider this amendment to expand the work we began in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there are those in the House that are attempting to block the needed funding to implement the national corridors designations out of NIMBY concerns. Again, such attempts are not in the national interest.

The siting provision in EPAct literally provides a light at the end of the tunnel for parts of the country where the electricity grid is at risk due to congestion.

The Thune amendment simply seeks to allow national corridor designations to ensure the necessary transmission to access clean sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

I ask my colleagues to support the Thune amendment.

I congratulate Senator Thune for his amendment because it is just a rational extension and expansion of what we did in the Energy Policy Act. I happened to be part of that Energy Policy Act. As a matter of fact, I think I can say that for years before we got together and Senator Bingaman and I were carrying it, we couldn't get it through. But we did get it through. I believe we got it through because it was high time the United States decided that for most matters we could stand on States rights, but every now and then something percolated up that demanded that we take a serious look at a greater interest of the Federal Government.

That is all we are talking about here. If the development of our electric grid ran into situations where you couldn't go through because of the obstinacy of a State to your moving from one State to another or one property owner had a transmission line totally locked up, you could back that up with the Federal Government ending up saying: It has to go because it is a big national interest. You are just kind of piggybacking on that national interest already found in that law as we passed it. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that we pass this amendment tonight.

I yield back any time I have. I wonder if Senator Bingaman would so we could vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?

Well, I want to take 5 minutes and yield the rest of it to Senator Bingaman. But I do want to make a point that this country is going to need large amounts of natural gas over the next 15, 20, 30 years. One source is probably going to be LNG, liquefied natural gas. It is terribly important for our country that we have this available when we need it, and if the price is right that we be able to locate sites that serve the United States.

Now, frankly, when we passed the Energy Policy Act, there were three or four things that were very much on the minds of those who wanted to deliver energy to the United States. I say to my new friend, the new Senator from Maryland, one of those at that particular time happened to be liquefied natural gas and those around the world who were trying to figure out whether the United States was going to be a place where they could sell liquefied natural gas or was it going to be a place where they could be held up forever.

We had to decide, as we worked through this very gigantic, gargantuan bill, what we were going to do about the concern on the part of the LNG market that if you left the law as it was, every State's Governor would have a veto power, and in some instances mayors would have veto power over an LNG site. We decided that would not work.

Now, we did not take away everyone's power. As a matter of fact, we encouraged cooperation. We encouraged the involvement of the States and the local governments with the LNG company, and we said only when you get to the point where you cannot reach agreement does the Federal Government step in, and then they backstop it and make a determination, through FERC, what is in the interest of our Nation, what is fair, and what is right.

Frankly, I don't know the facts about the Maryland plant, and I do not believe we need to know them on the floor of the Senate, nor do the Senators. What we need to know is we have a good law now on the books that

gives involvement and participation to everyone who ought to have that, but it does not give a Governor veto power over the site.

I correct any implications or direct statements by my good friend, the new Senator from Maryland. There is no question the amendment which they offer seeks veto power on the part of the Governor, gives the ultimate control to the Governor of the State as to what happens to an application. I do not believe that is what we wanted when we overwhelmingly--as the occupant of the chair has said so many times--in a bipartisan manner passed the Energy Policy Act.

I do not think we intended the first time we had a problem that somebody would come to the floor and change that wonderful law that was clear as could be, that when it came to locating LNG plants, we were not going to revert back to where we were and take the power away from FERC, the Federal agency in charge, and reinvest it in the Governor of the State.

We all know how this happens. People get disgruntled about a site, they go to the Governor, we immediately have a political tussle, and, all of a sudden, the Governor, talking to 500, 600, 700 people at a meeting, cannot get out of it, and that puts the Governor in the position where he has to say: I am not going to let that happen.

We saw that over the years. We saw it in other areas. We were bold enough in that Energy Act to change that situation, not only when it came to this kind of LNG siting but we also changed it--just a while ago we were talking about it as it pertained to the grid--the occupant of the chair might recall, where we said, if the grid gets clogged up, where you cannot get things done, we are going to actually put power in the Federal Government to use its public powers to take that gorging and dislodge it through eminent domain.

We did that, and we did other things, all in the interest of what we knew was true; that you ultimately had to let energy sources and energy grids and energy plants--you had to let the Federal Government have the last say, especially where arbitrariness on the part of the local unit was entering the picture and they wanted their way, their way under all circumstances.

I thank the Chair for being aware that I am over a moment or so, but I am now finished and have left most of the time for Senator Bingaman because I think he will do a good job, and maybe we will not have to have a vote. But if we do, I urge Senators not to change the law they just voted for 77 strong. Do not change it the first time we get an amendment of this nature coming before us. Leave it there for a try. Let it get tried. It is going to work. It is not going to hurt anybody.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Bingaman. Just 2\1/2\ years ago, we decided we needed LNG so much in the future that we wanted an orderly process that did not give the Governors of each State the right to veto. This one is even broader. This gives Governors a 15-mile radius around the opportunity to veto.

I don't think we should change the law so quickly. I think we should leave it alone for a few years.

I object.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on either side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for 10 minutes in support of the Tester amendment, followed by 10 minutes for Senator Bingaman.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of amendment No. 1614, which is the amendment Senators Tester, Byrd, Rockefeller, Bingaman, and I are cosponsoring today. Before I make my prepared remarks, let me make a couple of introductory remarks.

The work we are doing today here on the floor of the Senate is perhaps the most important work we could be doing, because how we move from our current chaos on energy here in America to the reality of energy independence is the hallmark of the 21st century. It is an absolute imperative for us to get to the kind of energy independence that has been desired in this country for over 40 years and which has been the topic of much rhetoric and very little action. This is our opportunity, today and in the days ahead, as the Senate speaks out loudly and clearly about the importance of energy and how we will move forward in this world.

From my perspective, I believe we have no choice. I believe the inescapable forces of our civilization today require us to do nothing less than to embrace this concept of a clean energy future with the sense of moral imperative President Carter spoke about over 30 years ago. I believe there are three inescapable forces that are with us today.

First, there is national security. When we see the rockets that are raining down from Hezbollah and northern Israel, one has to ask, where is that money coming from that is funding those rockets; and where is that money coming from that is funding 10,000 members of the militia? We know it is coming from the $67 per barrel being paid today for oil that is imported from those countries. Today, indeed, when one looks at the fact that, for instance, in March it was 66, 67 percent of the oil we use in America that was imported from foreign sources, our national security requires us to make sure we move forward with this imperative before us today.

Secondly, there are environmental security issues in how we deal with climate change. I think it is finally a reality here in America that our world needs to deal with the issue of climate change in a realistic way. We need to do it now. We cannot wait. Even the President of the United States, who appeared to be a person who didn't believe in global warming, in his State of the Union speech as he addressed the Congress, said he wanted the Congress this year to address the issue of global warming.

The third and inescapable force which should compel us to move forward on the issue of energy has to do, again, with the economics of our Nation and making sure we are not subject to the volatility we have seen so often in the past. That is why I come to the floor to speak on behalf of the coal gasification amendment for which Senator Tester is the lead sponsor. What we are proposing fits very well into making sure we are adopting this clean energy future.

I am not against the development of coal. I know what coal is in the West, in places such as Montana and other places, places such as my own State of Colorado, where the coal miners in the mines on the western slope know the importance of coal and the importance of clean energy. The amendment we have introduced will help us reduce our independence on foreign oil by making better use of our vast coal resources here at home. Fuels, fertilizers, chemicals, and consumer products derived from coal, if produced responsibly with coal gasification technology, can replace much of the imported oil we use on a daily basis.

Coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. It is our most abundant domestic energy resource. It produces more than 50 percent of our electricity. As a nation, we have enough coal to last more than 200 years. Until recently, however, coal has not been a legitimate replacement for oil. With old technologies, coal gasification resulted in high CO2 emissions, which caused global warming. Without carbon capture technology, CO2 emissions from liquid coal, a product of the coal gasification process, are twice that from conventional fuels. This poses an unacceptable risk to our environmental security. So as we try to deal with CO2 emissions, we ought not embrace a policy or technology that will increase our problems with respect to CO2 emissions.

Fortunately, we have new technologies, and those new technologies offer us a way to use coal in our transportation sector and other sectors of our economy in an environmentally responsible manner. Not only can we sequester the carbon produced in the gasification process, but we are able to produce a wide range of materials that are currently being made from oil and natural gas, including diesel fuel, plastics, fertilizer, chemicals, and a wide range of household items.

Senator Tester and I and the other cosponsors of this amendment have included in this amendment a framework for how we proceed with coal gasification in a responsible manner. Our amendment has four main components.

First, it provides $10 billion in direct loans for the construction of low emission coal gasification plants.

Secondly, our legislation will establish a grant program that will help spur construction of a new generation of coal gasification plants. The grants will be up to $20 million for any one project or $200 million nationwide. They will be awarded to projects that use a variety of feedstocks such as coal and biomass and which have carbon emissions that are 20 percent lower than conventional baseline emissions.

The third component of our amendment is a set of studies that will help us determine the opportunities that might be provided with greater use of coal and moving forward with liquid production of coal. The amendment commissions a study of the benefits of maintaining coal-to- liquid products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It also requires the administrator of the EPA to examine the emissions of coal-based products that are used as vehicle and aviation fuel.

Fourth, the legislation also provides additional funding for the Air Force research lab to continue its development and testing of synthetic fuels for use in jets.

The amendment that Senator Tester, myself, and others are proposing is a reasoned way of making better use of our vast coal resources here at home. It recognizes that coal can replace much of the imported oil, but it also creates a rigorous carbon emission standard for these new coal gasification projects to meet in order to get Federal support. We simply cannot afford to dump excess carbon into the atmosphere, and this amendment ensures we won't.

I once again thank Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their leadership on the overall bill.

Before I conclude, I want to make a comment with respect to a statement made on the other side with respect to a competing amendment. The essence of the competing amendment is to say it is the end of the world for coal if we don't adopt the amendment that is being proposed by my good friend from Kentucky. As I said earlier, we are not anti- coal. Both of us who are sponsoring amendments are from coal-producing States. We believe coal is very much an item that has to be in our portfolio in the future.

I have a letter, however, in which Dow Chemical says they are fully supportive of Senator Tester's amendment, and one of the conclusions they reach, in support of the amendment is that:

Dow Chemical believes the environmental standards in the

bill are achievable.

It says:

The requirement that 75 percent of the carbon dioxide

generated is captured will ensure that all companies prepare

for long-term CO2 management. This will help drive

action to make carbon capture and storage a reality sooner

than later.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of amendment 1614 because it is the most responsible way to proceed as we deal with energy independence as well as dealing with the issue of high emissions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be temporarily set aside so I can

offer an amendment incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy tax package.

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I don't know why there is objection. I note while there is objection, I will talk about it until we get the objection cleared. This is a Finance Committee amendment passed out of committee. It is very straightforward. We have a copy. The Senator from Wyoming objected?

You will have time to look at it. We are not going to vote on it for a while. You will have lots of time to look at it. You will have time to look at it, believe me. This is a formality. It is good to bring it up now so we move the process along so the Senator and other Senators have time to look at it.

I inform the Senator I am only asking the amendment be brought up. There will be plenty of time. In fact, the Senator could speak as long as he wants and other Senators could speak as long as they want as we look at the amendment.

The ordinary course is the amendment is brought up. This has been fully vetted in the Finance Committee. Senators on both sides of the aisle passed it by a vote of 15 to 5. Members on the Republican side voted for it in committee.

I hope we can at least get the amendment up, and then we can work the usual Senate will.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy tax package.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1704.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Grassley, Bingaman, Lincoln, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, and Salazar be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I have a long statement here which I am not going to read. Essentially this is the Finance Committee amendment. It goes a long way to help create incentives for renewables and for carbon sequestration, which is so important. It is a $20-billion-plus amendment over 10 years. It is fully offset. It is all paid for. It passed out of the Finance Committee by a vote of 15 to 5 earlier today. We spent a lot of time on this amendment and I think it is one of which the Senate can be very proud.

Basically, we are building on the strong foundation we already have with respect to tax incentives in our country. We continue our commitment to clean energy and renewables. We extend existing tax incentives for solar power, wind power, fuel cells, and energy- efficient homes and buildings. We create a tax incentive for transmission projects related to renewable energy projects and provide more than $3.6 billion over 10 years for renewable energy bonds. I might say this will benefit all of the States and also is of particular interest to my home State of Montana, and I know also to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

But we are going further than all that. We are also trying to extend the frontier in three areas that are critical to our Nation's energy future. One is cellulosic ethanol. We give significant incentives for cellulosic ethanol development; hybrid cars, significant incentives for the purchase of hybrid cars as well as plug-ins for hybrids; and third, carbon sequestration.

We propose a $1.11 per gallon tax credit for up to 60 million gallons of cellulosic fuel produced from sawgrass, agricultural wastes, and other biomass.

Hybrid cars provide an opportunity to make transportation cleaner-- high-mileage cars with almost no emissions. I think it is worth exploring. The amendment calls for a new credit for plug-in vehicles for $2,500 to $7,500.

We are also trying to take advantage of the vast reserves of coal we have in our country. We clearly also have great concerns about global warming. I think it is imperative that we use our coal to help meet our energy needs, but we also have to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere.

There are various provisions here with respect to carbon sequestration. It depends upon whether it is known as a clean coal facility, but we use tax credits provided in this mark, which must capture and sequester at least 65 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. That is with respect to power that is used to generate electricity. The utility industry tells us we can't go higher than 65 percent sequestration or captured sequestration for the utility industry. But we are going higher in other areas, and one is the coal- to-liquids sequestration. We extend the current 50-cent rate for coal- to-liquids to the year 2012. We also provide for a 75-percent capture of carbon for coal to liquids. This provision generated some controversy in the committee--some wanted it much higher, some wanted it lower. We felt that 72 percent is a pretty good compromise and a good place to begin.

I will also add that we provide 50 percent bonus depreciation for new dedicated pipelines that will be used to transport carbon dioxide from an industrial source to a geological formation for permanent disposal.

There are many other provisions in this amendment which I will not mention, except to say that this is a very great addition to the underlying package. We are turning the corner here. We are enacting legislation which will help move America away from the past and more toward the future. The future is renewable energies, alternative energies. It is conservation provisions which we also have in this bill. It is utilizing our coal reserves in the same way; that is, making sure the carbon is sufficiently captured. It is all paid for, and it is paid for by closing some loopholes in the coal and gas industry and also by repealing the reduction for section 199 for the major oil companies. This applies only to the five majors.

We also propose a tax on gulf oil production. Some will say: Gee, aren't we discouraging domestic production by doing that in America with those provisions? But I must point out that since section 199 was enacted several years ago, the actual domestic production in the United States has declined. A few years ago when that provision was enacted, the price of gasoline was much lower than it is now. It is much higher today. In addition to that, the projected profits for the oil and gas industry for the next 10 years are projected to be $1 trillion. If you look at the profits, if you look at how much gasoline prices have risen, and if you look at the decline in domestic production in this country over the last several years, even with those very high profits, it is pretty clear this offset will

not in any way diminish our prospects of domestic production and will not cause gasoline prices to increase. In fact, there is a study by the Joint Tax Committee which makes that very point; namely, since these provisions were put into effect a couple or 3 years ago, domestic production has not increased. It has not helped increase domestic production in the United States. Actually, domestic production has decreased.

So we feel this is a good package. It is paid for properly. It passed the committee by a vote of 15 to 5. I recommend this Finance Committee package to the full Senate. We will work our will on it over the next several days, but I think it is an excellent start.

I yield the floor.