Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program, Incorporated, EKCEP, for their recent accomplishments at the 2007 Workforce Innovations Conference. The 2007 Workforce Innovations Conference provides the opportunity for State and local government officials, workforce and economic development officials, as well as private sector representatives to assemble and discuss new ideas about workforce development issues. During this conference, Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program's Coal Services Program was awarded the U.S. Department of Labor's Recognition of Excellence Award for ``Leveraging the Power of e3 Partnerships.'' The U.S. Labor Department's Employee and Training Administration presents Recognition of Excellence honors in five different categories. The e3 partnerships category presents value in projects that demonstrate sustained partnerships between employers, educators, and economic development leaders. The EKCEP's Coal Services Program uses a variety of services that tackle the needs of employers and job seekers, such as crucial training for new coal miners and seasoned miners who need new training to increase mine productivity. Training is easily accessible for miners through Kentucky Community and Technical College System locations as well as a mobile miner training unit equipped with a high-tech classroom that features a computerized three-dimensional mining simulator. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating the Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program for their achievements and commitment in helping Kentucky's largest industry and our Nation's largest energy source.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to authorize the National Park Service to conduct a comprehensive study to examine the extension of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the preparation or return phase of the expedition, commonly known as the ``Eastern Legacy.'' On May 14, 1804, Lewis and Clark, along with the Corps of Discovery departed from Camp Dubois, IL, to set out on voyage that would shed light on a landscape that had only been considered legend at the time. But this American tale of adventure, determination, and curiosity did not begin there. The 8,000-mile, 32-month expedition through the uncharted West and back to Washington, DC, started more than a year earlier in Virginia. In 1803, Meriwether Lewis traveled through Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia purchasing supplies and learning everything he could about botany, paleontology, navigation, and field medicine. The intrepid explorer and his growing crew then traveled down the Ohio River through Ohio and Indiana, meeting up with William Clark in Louisville, KY. Along this rich trail are many landmarks and sites that serve to honor and educate about this important event in American history. Whether it is commemorating the American spirit or teaching about the early Republic, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail is an enduring resource for education. A sea-to-sea trail would make it the largest and longest trail in the National Park System, guiding visitors from across the Nation to all parks and interpretive centers. This extension, a few years after the successful bicentennial celebration, will continue to raise the profile of the Lewis and Clark Trail and increase the potential for tourism revenue in States across the country. Including the eastern portion of the trail will garner greater Lewis and Clark interest east of the Mississippi and bring unity to this American expedition of East meeting West.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Bradley Butler of Paducah, KY, for his accomplishments in the 2007 SkillsUSA State Competition. SkillsUSA is a national partnership of students, teachers and industry, working together to ensure America has a skilled workforce. SkillsUSA chapters help students who are preparing for careers in technical, skilled and service occupations excel. Formerly known as VICA, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, SkillsUSA has more than 280,000 students and instructors as members annually. Mr. Butler, a student at Paducah Area Technology Center and a junior at Paducah Tilghman High School, completed this competition as a gold medalist with a first place finish in related technical math. His success serves as an inspiration for his peers to achieve academically and give back to society. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Butler for his remarkable achievement and commitment to his education.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the faculty and staff of Maysville Community and Technical College for their efforts in promoting student engagement, service learning, and community service. Maysville Community and Technical College is an exceptional venue for Kentucky students wishing to continue their education. M.C.T.C. offers several degree, diploma, and certificate programs to the surrounding region. They also offer several opportunities through the Kentucky Virtual University and degree programs in association with Morehead State University, Lindsey Wilson College, Midway College, and Northern Kentucky University. This year, Maysville Community and Technical College is working to increase levels of student engagement by promoting organized service activities and community-based partnerships in order to provide a valuable learning experience for its students. This initiative teaches students essential civic responsibility and critical networking skills, while improving the local community. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating the Maysville Community and Technical College for creating a solid foundation for the future of Kentucky and the United States.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to authorize the National Park Service to conduct a comprehensive study to examine the extension of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the preparation or return phase of the expedition, commonly known as the ``Eastern Legacy.'' On May 14, 1804, Lewis and Clark, along with the Corps of Discovery departed from Camp Dubois, IL, to set out on voyage that would shed light on a landscape that had only been considered legend at the time. But this American tale of adventure, determination, and curiosity did not begin there. The 8,000-mile, 32-month expedition through the uncharted West and back to Washington, DC, started more than a year earlier in Virginia. In 1803, Meriwether Lewis traveled through Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia purchasing supplies and learning everything he could about botany, paleontology, navigation, and field medicine. The intrepid explorer and his growing crew then traveled down the Ohio River through Ohio and Indiana, meeting up with William Clark in Louisville, KY. Along this rich trail are many landmarks and sites that serve to honor and educate about this important event in American history. Whether it is commemorating the American spirit or teaching about the early Republic, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail is an enduring resource for education. A sea-to-sea trail would make it the largest and longest trail in the National Park System, guiding visitors from across the Nation to all parks and interpretive centers. This extension, a few years after the successful bicentennial celebration, will continue to raise the profile of the Lewis and Clark Trail and increase the potential for tourism revenue in States across the country. Including the eastern portion of the trail will garner greater Lewis and Clark interest east of the Mississippi and bring unity to this American expedition of East meeting West.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Allen Thompson of Hickory, KY, for his accomplishments in the 2007 SkillsUSA State Competition. SkillsUSA is a national partnership of students, teachers and industry, working together to ensure America has a skilled workforce. SkillsUSA chapters help students who are preparing for careers in technical, skilled and service occupations excel. Formerly known as VICA, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, SkillsUSA has more than 280,000 students and instructors as members annually. Mr. Thompson, a student at Paducah Area Technology Center and a senior at Graves County High School, completed this competition as a gold medalist with a first place finish in board drafting. His success serves as an inspiration for his peers to achieve academically and give back to society. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Thompson for his remarkable achievement and commitment to his education.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, my amendment is simple. It strikes the exemption for New York and New Jersey to get Federal dollars for covering families above 300 percent of poverty. No other State in the country gets that kind of an exemption. New Jersey's SCHIP program covers families up to $72,000 a year, 350 percent. New York is planning on covering families making up to $82,000 a year. It has not yet been approved by HHS. Why should people in every other State subsidize Government health care for families in New York and New Jersey at these higher incomes? My amendment does not kick kids off SCHIP. The State can still cover them at their Medicaid matching rate. It is the State's choice. If people in these two States think this is a priority, then they should be willing to pay more for this type of benefit. I am sure New York and New Jersey are expensive areas to live. But those States have more resources and a larger tax base than others. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I offer this amendment to the SCHIP bill. This is the same amendment I offered during the Finance Committee's consideration of this legislation. I have heard a lot of talk about how the Baucus bill puts the focus for SCHIP back on low-income children--so much talk, in fact, that one would hardly know that the Baucus bill allows certain States to provide families making up to $70,000 or $80,000 a year in income with Government-run health care. Let's start from the beginning. The way the SCHIP and Medicaid Program work is States get Federal matching dollars to help fund their programs. The SCHIP match from the Federal Government is higher than a State's Medicaid match. This means for my State, the Federal Government's match for Medicaid is about 70 percent, while the State pays the remaining 30 percent. For SCHIP, the Federal match is 80 percent, while the State match makes up the remaining 20 percent. SCHIP was intended to help States provide health care coverage to children and families whose incomes were below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. These families were likely working but making too much money to qualify for Medicaid and couldn't afford private health insurance. I would like to note that 200 percent of the Federal poverty level is about $41,000 a year in income for a family of four. The Baucus bill allows States to expand their SCHIP programs and receive the higher SCHIP matching rate for families with incomes up to 300 percent of the poverty level, or almost $62,000 for a family of four. Personally, I think that in and of itself is too high, especially when the national median income in this country was about $46,000 a year in 2005. In the Baucus bill, States that choose to go above 300 percent of poverty would receive their Medicare matching rate for those families which, remember, is the lower reimbursement rate. However, the Baucus bill thinks families in New Jersey and New York deserve special treatment under SCHIP. The bill provides an exemption for States that have already gone above or are currently trying to go above 300 percent of poverty for SCHIP coverage. New Jersey already provides coverage for families up to 350 percent of poverty. New York is working to get approval to extend coverage up to 400 percent of poverty. I want to make sure everyone understands, 400 percent of poverty is $82,600 a year for a family of four; 350 percent of poverty is $72,275 per year. Are we really going to be providing Government health care for families making $70,000 to $80,000 a year? My amendment is fairly simple. It strikes the exemption the Baucus bill has given to just New York and New Jersey so they have to play by the same rules as every other State. If these two States want to provide health care coverage to families above 300 percent of the poverty level, they can do so--they just cannot get a higher SCHIP matching rate. They would get their Medicaid matching rate. That at least leaves the playing field level. There will be obviously some small savings from this if my amendment passes. My amendment would take these savings and provide additional money to outreach and enrollment grants. Some people will try to say it is more expensive to live in these two States than it is in other States, and that is probably true in certain areas. However, SCHIP is a Federal program, and all States should play by the same rules. Also, these two States can still cover these higher income families if they choose. They just have to get the lower Medicaid matching rate to do so. If New York and New Jersey feel so strongly about letting families making $70,000 or $80,000 a year have Government health care, then the States should be willing to pay a little more from their own tax revenue. The last time I checked, money doesn't grow on trees around here--or at least it very rarely does. The Baucus bill is requiring people in other States such as Kentucky, New Mexico, Florida, and Maine to pay more so New York and New Jersey can cover families at these higher income levels. To me, that is grossly unfair. Some people may also try to argue that New York is only thinking about going to 400 percent of the poverty level, and they would have to get a waiver or a plan approved by the Department of Health and Human Services for this increase. OK. So then why give them this special protection in the Baucus bill? Why create special rules for New York when they haven't even gotten approval yet? To me, it is outrageous that a program designed for lower income kids is being expanded to include families at 350 percent or 400 percent of the poverty level. That is too high, and it is unfair to ask people in other States to pay for these types of expenses. So with my amendment, you have two options: more money for outreach and enrollment efforts and requiring all States to play by the same rules or covering kids and families most of us probably don't consider low income--those making up to $72,000 or $82,000 a year for a family of four. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment when it is appropriate.

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I would like to talk about the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP. A few weeks ago, the Finance Committee passed the Baucus bill to reauthorize this program. I did not support this bill in committee and I will not be supporting it on the floor. Today, I would like to take a few minutes to explain my concerns with the Baucus bill. I would also like to talk about the SCHIP reauthorization bill I will be supporting this week and have helped to craft over the past couple of months--the Kids First Act. This bill is a good piece of legislation that reauthorizes this important program in a fiscally sound way and keeps the focus of the program on what it was originally for, which is low-income children. I have significant concerns with the budget gimmicks used, the SCHIP provisions, and the tax increases in the Baucus bill. The budget gimmick used to fund the Baucus bill is irresponsible, jeopardizes coverage under the program, and basically guarantees another tax increase 5 years from now. Under the bill, SCHIP spending in 2012 reaches $16 billion; however, the very next year, spending drops to $3.5 billion. While this strategy helps the drafters hide an additional $40 billion in spending, does any Member of the Senate really think that SCHIP spending in 2013 will be $3.5 billion? That is below the current spending level of $5 billion a year. Does any Member really think we will kick millions of kids off this program in 2013 to accommodate this lowered spending? Of course, the answer is no. That means Congress will have to come up with a significant amount of money to pay for the increased spending, which will likely mean reaching into the wallets of hard-working Americans again. I also believe SCHIP should be a program for low-income children. When Congress created the program in 1997, it was intended for children without health insurance who lived in families making less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty limit. For 2007, 200 percent of poverty is about $41,000 in income for a family of four. Not many people realize adults are now covered under SCHIP. Most people rightly think this is a program only for children since it is the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is its name. Over the years, the Department of Health and Human Services has approved expansions to the program to allow States to cover these adults. These expansions should not have been approved in the first place, and it is Congress's responsibility in the reauthorization to rein in these abuses. While the Baucus bill at least ends coverage for childless adults currently on SCHIP, it still allows other adults--specifically, parents--to stay on the program in certain States, and any State that currently covers parents can keep adding new parents to their programs. The Kids First Act, which I am supporting, responsibly reauthorizes the SCHIP program and keeps the focus on low-income children. This bill reauthorizes the program for 5 years at a cost of about $39 billion. This would still be a significant but responsible increase over spending in the first 10 years of the program. The bill would require States that want to cover children and pregnant women above 200 percent of the poverty level, or $41,000 for a family of four, to pay more from their State coffers than they do now to do so. The bill also takes steps to limit the number of adults on the SCHIP program. While we would not require States to remove any adults currently on the program from their rolls, we would reimburse States at a lower amount for the childless adults and parents they currently have on their programs. Also, States could not add any new childless adults or parents to their SCHIP rolls. If they want to cover these individuals, then they need to do it under their State Medicaid programs. The Kids First Act also stops the Department of Health and Human Services from approving any more waivers or demonstration projects for States that want to cover parents or childless adults. The Kids First Act is a good proposal that I hope will get full consideration on the Senate floor. It keeps SCHIP focused on low-income children, curtails States' ability to add new parents or childless adults to the program, and makes sense from a fiscal standpoint. Unfortunately, the Baucus bill falls short on these key points. Also, the tobacco tax in the Baucus bill is fundamentally unfair to my State and the surrounding States. I want to show you a chart I have here, which shows the 50 States. This illustrates the real problem. It is compiled from data drawn from a CDC database on tobacco consumption and projections by Families USA concerning SCHIP spending. You will see here that there are big winners in this program, and they are in dark green on the chart. You can see Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, and California, which is $2.564 billion. New York is $1.684 billion. It shows Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and particularly Florida; it shows those States as dead net losers--$703 million in Florida; $602 million in Kentucky; $517 million in Indiana; $536 million in North Carolina, and so on. It also shows States that are neutral, such as Oregon, Idaho, Nebraska, and some other States that are kind of in the middle, such as West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and so on. You can see from the chart that we pick big winners and big losers, some neutral and some lower losers, not big such as the ones in dark brown. It is very important that you realize that is a completely unfair reason and method of funding SCHIP. The problem with the tax is that the money comes from low-income smokers in my State and all of the dark brown States on this chart, and it is going to pay for an extravagant expansion of SCHIP in California, New York, Texas, and the States depicted in green. This bill will also, without any doubt, add an enormous boost to black-market tobacco smuggling and counterfeiting. The plan would be a tremendous gift to organized crime and the black-market kingpins, who will profit handsomely from it in future years. There is plenty of past evidence of this. In 2002, for example, New York City increased its tobacco tax from 8 cents per pack to $1.50 per pack. The city's revenue estimators predicted an additional $107 million in revenue. Do you know what they got? It brought in $43 million. What is more, the tax increase on cigarettes cost the State over $600 million in tax revenue due to lower sales at convenience stores throughout New York State. An economist found that most of the reduction was due to smuggling, cross border sales, Internet sales, and sales on Indian reservations. Even supporters of this bill acknowledge that the higher tax will have an impact on demand. It will reduce legal consumption of cigarettes. It is not likely to reduce total consumption, as the supporters of the bill say it will, because it will also increase smuggling. But legal consumption is what matters to the United States because that is the only part that is taxed. The revenue estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation shows this. Revenue is projected to decline by $700 million per year by the last year of the estimating window. That is right. Understand this now. Revenue is expected to go down over time as the number of legal sales of tobacco products declines. Whatever its other problems, the tobacco tax is a poor foundation for SCHIP. We are matching a declining source of revenue with a growing Federal problem. This does not make any fiscal sense. If we were honest and we truly wanted to fully fund SCHIP spending with a tobacco tax, the Federal Government would have to encourage people to smoke. That is what this next chart shows: additional smokers. The Federal Government would need an additional 22.4 million smokers by the year 2017. Of course, I don't support such an effort, but this highlights the budget gap, as you can see, from 2010 up to 2017. The revenue for this program is going to have to come from more tax increases down the road. We all say we oppose regressive taxes, but what we are considering today is a highly regressive tax. In fact, this tax is among the most regressive type of tax we could consider. In my State of Kentucky, the impact on low-income taxpayers will be compounded. It will hit low-income Kentuckians, Kentucky tobacco farmers, and every citizen in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Although there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount of tobacco farmers in my State due to the tobacco buyout, tobacco continues to play an important role in Kentucky's agricultural landscape. Tobacco barns and small plots of tobacco still dot the Kentucky landscape. Cash receipts for tobacco are projected to contribute between $300 million and $350 million to Kentucky's economy this year. An increase in the excise tax on tobacco will drive down demand for consumption, which will result in less tobacco being purchased from Kentucky tobacco farmers by manufacturers--both cigarette and non- cigarette. It will likely force the specialty growers in my State-- Kentucky burley leaf and Kentucky-Wisconsin leaf--completely out of business. These are small family farms in rural Kentucky that rely on these revenues for their crops. The money they get from the tobacco pays for their mortgages, puts their kids through school, and allows them to keep farming. The CBO has estimated that the SCHIP proposal will result in a 5 to 6 percent reduction in demand for tobacco during its first year in existence. This will likely cause a $5.4 million reduction in payments to rural farmers in my State under the master settlement agreement we signed a few years ago. Some people will say there is nothing wrong with all of this because it will force some people to quit smoking and we are using the money to help poor children. But who gets credit for this supposed act of charity? This plan would take money from one group of poor people and give it to another. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Baucus SCHIP bill and support the Kids First Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. To the Senator from Connecticut? That would be perfectly all right, just so long as I get the time that was allotted to me.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I object.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise tonight to play my small part in this pointless political play put on by the Senate majority leader. It is an insult to the brave men and women in our Armed Forces and to the American taxpayer that we are here tonight for no other reason than for a publicity stunt. Instead of following the script written by MoveOn, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I want to be honest and frank with the American people. I hear Democrats every day talk about public opinion polls on Iraq and on the President's approval rating. To some extent they are right. The American people are not satisfied with the war in Iraq and the President is at an all-time low in his approval rating. But I rarely hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about public opinion polls of Congress. It is obvious why. President Bush has a higher approval rating than the current democratically led Congress. I have never been accused of being a political strategist, but I have been around this town long enough--over 21 years--to know that the American people resent their leaders for so often taking the politically expedient path instead of doing what they think is right. The American people see right through this charade going on tonight. It is more political theater: phony images of cots, toothpaste, and sleepy politicians, meant to convince people that what goes on here at 3 in the morning may actually do some good. But it doesn't do any good. In fact, it does a lot of bad. Because this debate is more about a political show and placating the ``MoveOn'' folks, than it is about talking about the real issue at hand. It is appalling that we use a bill that provides vital funding of our Nation's military as a political smokescreen for Democrats to gain points in the polls. The safety and security of the brave men and women in our Armed Forces is not a game to me. Our troops should never be used as a basis to stage a cheap political stunt. If the Senate truly supported our troops, we would be here debating the nuts and bolts of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Instead, we find ourselves back debating whether to cut and run from Iraq, as we have done countless times before tonight. Democrats would like for you to believe that Republicans will not vote on the Reed-Levin amendment. Give me a break. I am happy to vote on the amendment right now. I plan to oppose it, as I have opposed a similar version Senator Levin offered 2 months ago. It is a bad amendment. It calls for a premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq before we have even had a chance to see the results of the surge. I wish to know how some of my colleagues know that the surge has already failed when it has only been in place for a month? I wish to know how they know the situation in Iraq better than our commanders on the ground? The ink is not even dry on the President's plan and Democrats are already declaring it a failure. This type of defeatist strategy is irrational and unfair. It is important to remember the dangerous effect our debate in Washington can have on the message we are sending our enemies. Make no mistake about it, our enemies are watching us. They are watching us and using our debate on the war in Iraq to strengthen themselves. This morning, the new National Intelligence Estimate declared the United States is at an elevated threat level. It said our biggest threat is al-Qaida, specifically al-Qaida in Iraq. This group is working to mobilize other extremist organizations in the region to mount a new attack against the United States. The report also found that al-Qaida will continue to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear materials for attacks; it will not hesitate to use them. While al-Qaida is working to plan this attack, U.S. forces are working hand in hand with Iraqi security forces to break up this organization and root it out and root this terrorist network out. This work is vital to our national security. We cannot forget the important lessons we learned from the tragedies of 9/11. There are still those out there who wish to do us harm. Wake up America. If we withdrew from Iraq, the terrorists will likely follow us home. Democrats would like for us to believe we can responsibly leave Iraq and the conflict will end. This is delusional. Make no mistake, if we leave Iraq prematurely, there will be widespread chaos in the Middle East. Iran will work with Syria to dominate the region, while Sunni States scramble to oppose them. They will use any means possible to acquire the resources to bolster their nuclear weapons program in an effort to combat and conquer the United States. The Kurds in Iran will form their own country, possibly with the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iran. This could lead to an armed conflict between the Kurds and the Turkish Government. There will be widespread attacks to wipe out Israel and to topple the democratic Government of Lebanon. These pillars of democracy in the Middle East that once stood as an example for freedom within the region will crumble. The Government of Iraq will fail, and there will be civil war within the country. This will result in massive civilian casualties and displacement. Most importantly, our national security will be in jeopardy. This afternoon, we passed, by a large majority, Senator Cornyn's amendment that said we should not leave a failed state in Iraq. It also said we should not pass any legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq. I ask my colleagues: What are we doing right now? We are debating Senator Levin's amendment that will, without a doubt, result in a failed state in Iraq. Let me be clear to my colleagues that believe they can support both amendments. The strategy of cut and run will lead to a failed Iraq and will undermine our military's mission. But Democrats have already decided the surge has failed before it has a chance to work. These are the same people who voted to overwhelmingly confirm General Petraeus and are now refusing to wait to hear his report in September. This is exactly the type of message our enemy wants to hear. Well, I, for one, am working hard to send our enemies a different message: The United States will not back down from this fight. I stand behind our troops and General Petraeus. I promised in person, in my office, to General Petraeus, that I would wait to hear his report this fall. I intend to keep my promise. I urge my colleagues to do the same. The safety and security of all Americans depends on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my strong feelings about our dialog in Congress on the war in Iraq. I am concerned not only with the defeatist message some of us are sending our brave men and women in our Armed Forces on a daily basis but also with the message being sent to terrorists and those who wish to harm us. Instead of focusing our attention this week on how to provide our Armed Forces with the best equipment possible to complete their mission, many in this body continue to play political games with the war. This political game is deflating troop morale and strengthening our enemies. Some of our colleagues believe they know the situation on the ground in Iraq better than my friend General Petraeus, the commander of the multinational force in Iraq. They believe we should begin a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The people who are best qualified to decide our troop levels are the commanders on the ground, not the politicians in Washington, DC. I wish to talk specifically to the Democrats who want to immediately withdraw. Contrary to what the base of the Democratic Party may think, this war is not a Republican war and it is not just a President Bush war; it is an American war. When we vote to send troops into battle, they fight under the American flag. If we win or lose in Iraq, the United States of America wins or loses--not the Republican Party and not just President Bush. I saw yesterday the Democratic Senatorial Committee is now running ads in selected States asking Republican Senators to vote to immediately bring our troops home from Iraq. I watched the ads. I played them on my television, and I played them on the computers in my office. Not surprisingly, they did not mention once what would happen if American forces withdrew quickly from Iraq. Nor did they mention that the head of the DSCC and the Senate majority leader voted to authorize the war. There is a shocker. If we take the advice of the political arm of the Senate Democrats and pull out of Iraq, chaos will rule the day in Iraq and spread throughout the Middle East, in spite of what some of our colleagues on the other side have said. That is why many of the Democrats who want to bring our troops home now don't talk about the harsh consequences of pulling out. This is precisely why we should not politicize war in 30-second sound bites. I also wish to briefly address my Republican colleagues who may be feeling the political pressure back home as we debate this war. Our constituents sent us to Washington, DC, to make tough decisions, not to cast votes based on public opinion polls. Many of you know the consequences of pulling out of Iraq. I know because we have talked about it in our conferences. But stay strong enough until September, when General Petraeus will brief us on the effects of the change in strategy. Let us all then reevaluate the changes we made. The changes we made have only been fully implemented for less than a month. I acknowledge that the signs of success have been slow and, yes, many mistakes have been made with past strategies. But that is how war is. Mistakes sometimes are made. We learned from our mistakes and we moved forward with a new strategy. This new strategy is now in place. General Petraeus is working, with the increase of thousands of American troops, to bring safety and stability to Baghdad and Anbar Province, putting insurgents on the run. The partnership between the United States and Iraqi forces against terrorist insurgents is increasing. Last month, more than 10,000 Iraqi tribes in the Baghdad area reached agreements with the United States and Iraqi forces for the first time to oppose al-Qaida. These tribe members fought alongside al-Qaida in the past, and they are now providing our troops with information about their former allies. We are at a critical point in our fight against al-Qaida and the extreme terrorist insurgents. I urge my colleagues to look at the long- term consequences of prematurely abandoning our mission in Iraq. Anyone who believes we can bring an abrupt end to our involvement in this conflict and still conduct successful counterterrorism operations in Iraq is wrong. Defeat in Iraq will come with a hefty price that will be paid by future generations of Americans. If the United States leaves, there will be a regional explosion of Islamic terrorism and extremism that will throw the entire Middle East into greater upheaval. The Iraqi Government may well collapse and throw the country into a state of chaos. Iran will dominate the Middle East, and our national security will be severely compromised. It is because of these consequences that we should allow General Petraeus and the troop surge the opportunity to succeed. We cannot pull the rug out from underneath him right after we give him more tools to try to succeed in his mission. That would be both irresponsible and unfair. We promised to give him until September to report back with the progress on the surge, and we should hold true to this promise. That is 2 months from now--2 months from now. Finally, I also wish to address the efforts made by some of my colleagues across the aisle to overturn effective policies that we have in place to fight against terrorism. I oppose changing the 2006 Military Commissions Act to give legal rights to suspected terrorists. Detained enemy combatants are not ordinary criminal defendants and are not entitled to a trial in a civilian court, or to habeas corpus review. Make no mistake about it, these terrorists are at war with us and we should treat them like it. We already have the mechanisms in place for detainees to challenge their enemy combatant status. These procedures are more protective of detainees' rights than any military commission in American history. I find it ridiculous that we are faced with debating this issue again. The Senate has already voted on four separate occasions in the past 2 years to ensure that suspected terrorists do not have automatic access to Federal courts to challenge the legality of their detention. How many more times are we going to be forced to vote on this issue? Let me be clear. I oppose weakening our current procedures. The changes being proposed will only end up strengthening the rights of terrorists. I also oppose efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I realize there have been several negative reports and stories in the media in the past about this facility. Let me set the record straight. The vision of Guantanamo Bay the media tries to portray to the American people is very different from the reality of the facility. I have personally visited the facility at Guantanamo Bay and found it to be nothing like what is described in the media. The facility includes air-conditioning, good meals, religious worship areas, and a top-notch hospital and health care facility. The terrorists there are treated with dignity while they show contempt for our troops. Don't forget that these terrorists are the worst of the worst. They are all extremely dangerous. The job our troops do there is critical to our war effort. If those terrorists stay locked up there, they cannot harm us and they cannot bomb and do all the things that are being done presently more effectively in Iraq by being detained in Guantanamo Bay. And they do provide us with intelligence. I applaud our troops for their efforts. They are working very hard to secure our freedom. It is thanks to their efforts and those made in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism that our Nation's freedoms remain protected. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces and their families sacrifice on a daily basis for our freedoms because they believe their mission is too great to fail. I ask my colleagues: Are we really ready to declare their mission already lost? Are we really ready to do that when we finally have discovered a new method of attack? I, for one, am ready to stand behind our troops and stand side by side with General Petraeus. I will vote against any amendments that restrict the flexibility of our military commanders to run this war or hurt our fight to end terrorism. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I so amend the request.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. About 5 minutes.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I said this before, but here we go again. Three weeks ago, a significant majority of the Senate rejected this flawed immigration bill and the flawed process that led to it. But now it is back. One of the key reasons the bill failed the first time around was the flawed process or the lack of process that led to the bill. In the Senate, an idea normally takes months, if not years, to become a bill and pass. But instead of letting the bill develop through the deliberative process, a few Senators and a few people from the administration wrote the bill in secret. They held no committee meetings, there were no hearings, there was no committee report. In fact, Senators did not even see the whole bill until several days into the debate. When those of us who were not part of the secret negotiations finally saw the bill, we found all kinds of problems. But we were told the bill had to be finished by a certain date. We were not even allowed an open debate on the floor. So with a few days looming before the Fourth of July recess, a few negotiators got back together and blessed another list of amendments to get votes. Apparently, they believe that 20 or more votes equals a full debate. What a joke. As if that were not bad enough, the majority leader is taking an unprecedented step to shut off the right of Senators to debate and amend the bill. That is not the Senate. The process is not the only thing that is flawed around here; the bill itself is flawed. In 1986--thank God I was not in Congress--Congress passed an amnesty bill that was promised to be the last of the amnesty bills. Here we are 20 years later, and the problem is much worse, much, much worse. The bill is no better. Instead of punishing illegal immigrants and employers who ignore the law, this bill is a get-out-of-jail-free pass. It gives those who broke the law their own VIP line to a green card and citizenship. For this bill to work as promised, the Government would have to process at least 12 million illegal immigrants in a matter of months. In short, the timeframe the Government would have to conduct these background checks, issue identification cards, and to build a system to check every employee in America to make sure they are legal, that is the timeframe. The Government would also have to implement new guest worker programs, eliminate the green card backlog, overhaul the green card system, and start issuing new visitor visas. But I do not believe it will work, and the American people certainly do not believe it will work. I am not talking about the far left or the far right; I am talking about middle America--middle America. I am talking about the people who are stuck in the lines in passport offices, waiting on the Government, waiting for them so they can go on a summer vacation. We are supposed to believe that the same Government that cannot even get passports into the hands of their people is going to complete background checks on from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants, give them a secure ID card, check every employee in the United States to verify their work status, and secure the borders. I don't think so. Unfortunately, this bill does not even secure the borders. The $4.4 billion included in the bill does not add any new border security. It only funds the trigger requirements of the bill which do not even require implementation of existing laws such as building the 700 miles of border fence and the 43,000 detention spaces. There are other problems, too. The bill does not require background checks to be completed of illegal immigrants getting amnesty before they get their visas. The bill gives Social Security credits to illegal aliens for work they did illegally. Illegal aliens with terrorist connections can get amnesty, and they do not have to pay all their back taxes or learn any English at least for 10 years. What a deal. The bottom line is the bill will not work. It is much worse than the status quo. Any chance of fixing it is being erased by the handful of negotiators and the majority leader. Instead of trying to fix the bill, the majority leader is using unprecedented tactics to ensure only a few blessed amendments are considered. We all have amendments, such as the Senator from Texas. None of them are going to be considered. I will not support amnesty. I will not repeat the mistakes we made 20 years ago. I will not be responsible for tens of millions more illegal immigrants coming into this country waiting for the next amnesty. I will not support this process or this bill. I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding me the time.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I also pay tribute to Carley Smith of Harrodsburg, KY, on being recognized as a winner of the Library of Congress's 2007 Letters About Literature competition. Letters About Literature is a reading and writing program sponsored by the Library's Center for the Book. Throughout the country more than 56,000 young readers in grades 4 through 12 participated in the program, which encourages young kids to read and write a letter to their favorite author, of any era, whose books inspired them. Carley chose to write about author Judith Guest's ``Ordinary People.'' She was one of two winners chosen this year in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Carley for her dedication and commitment to reading and writing. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must encourage more young people like Carley to read and write as often as possible. She represents Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the so-called Employee Free Choice Act which we defeated by cloture vote. But cloture votes don't necessarily kill a bill; they have a way of resurrecting themselves, as we are about to do with the immigration bill. Oftentimes in Congress, the people who write bills try to come up with some interesting titles for their bills, something they hope will make people remember it or tell them something about what it does. Many times, these titles can be somewhat misleading. This bill's title, the Employee Free Choice Act, takes this concept to a whole new level. The Employee Free Choice Act actually removes choice from the employees. It removes the right of a secret ballot in elections--a cornerstone of American democracy under current law. If a group of employees wants to form a union, they must collect petition signatures or sign cards known as card checks. If 30 percent of the workers sign in favor of creating a union, then they or their employer has a right to request a secret ballot election to decide on forming a union. This election is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, a neutral board of observers created by the Federal Government. The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would change all of this. This legislation would overturn 70 years of labor law and allow unions to form in workplaces without a private ballot election by the workers. Instead, if unions could twist the arms of just over half of the employees to sign cards expressing consent, then the union is automatically certified as the union for all of the workers. Unions would be allowed to collect signatures just about anyplace: at the workplace, at home, at grocery stores, and at other places. It is easy to see how union persuasion tactics could become harassment of those who do not wish to publicly declare support for union representation. What would politics be like if Senators and Representatives simply had to convince people to sign cards instead of voting secretly at the polls? Imagine if there were no private voting booths where people could vote their conscience privately. Small armies of campaign volunteers would hang around your house, drop by your children's school, or find you at church in the hopes of securing your signature. Then if you signed the card, your vote is made public for your employer, your neighbors or anyone else to see. This is why we currently use this secret ballot protection for union organizations in the first place. In the past, there were concerns that elections held without privacy would be observed by employers, and then if an employee voted to unionize, they would suffer some sort of reprisals. Apparently, my colleagues supporting this bill and their allies in big labor no longer fear employer reprisals. I think it is great that they now trust employers to observe how their workers vote to join a union. We have made a lot of progress in labor-management relationships, apparently. However, I don't think these ballot choices should be unprotected and out in the open for both union organizers and employers to see. Whenever privacy in elections is compromised, the door is open to intimidation and coercion. Why take a chance on that? It would seem that big labor feels they can increase union membership if they know how many employees are voting on organizing. I wonder what they plan to do with this information to achieve their goals of creating more unions. Americans enjoy the right to join a union, but the decision to join a union should be freely made in private and without intimidation or coercion. That is the only way to ensure that the choice is truly free and not forced. According to the National Labor Relations Board, drives to form unions are successful around 60 percent of the time under the rules in place now--60 percent of the time. That is the highest it has been in 20 years. Back then, the union success rate was under 50 percent. So there is no indication that it is more difficult now to convince workers to organize a union than before. So why does big labor want to change this system? They don't want to ever lose these elections. Even though they win most of these elections, union membership has declined significantly in the past few years. The percentage of employees in labor unions is down from 20 percent in 1983 to 12 percent today. Because labor unions simply are not as attractive to workers as they once were, labor bosses have come to Congress to demand a legislative mandate designed to circumvent private ballot elections. They want more dues-paying members. Throughout this debate, there is a clear example of hypocrisy in the argument in favor of the new card check system. Under current law, the process to certify a union is the same as the process to decertify a union. However, this bill and its supporters are silent on this matter. Apparently, they believe that when it comes to removing a union, workers will be best served by a secret ballot. But when it comes to forming one, they don't deserve that protection. This kind of logic and inconsistency is further proof that this proposal is half-baked and indefensible. Congress should not empower big labor bosses by depriving individual workers of their right to be free of intimidation. Taking away private ballot elections and subjecting workers to undue pressure and coercion goes against the basic principles on which this country was founded. The secret ballot election must be protected at the workplace. I understand the new majority in Congress feels they owe a great deal of debt to their allies in big labor for the success they enjoyed in November of 2006. That is why we are considering this flawed bill. As the majority, they can bring up any piece of legislation they choose. Fair enough. However, this bill is purely political payback in its worst kind of policy. I urge my colleagues--which they have done in the first instance--to vote against considering this piece of legislation, as they did when we had our cloture vote earlier today. This is a personal aside. In 1964, I was a professional athlete. We were forming a players' union at the time so we could compete with the owners on an equal basis when it came to negotiations. We acquired 30 percent of the signatures from our players and we had an election. But it was a private-ballot election and 85 percent of the ballots collected were in favor of forming that union. I think the same should go with every union that is trying to be formed under the circumstances in today's market. Not only did we form a union, we formed one of the most successful unions in the history of the United States of America. Now all players at the major league level are covered by that union and represented by that union. The benefits derived by that player union in major league baseball have been significant--the same as most unions would have when they do it correctly with a private ballot. I thank my colleagues for voting against cloture today. I urge them, if it comes back to the floor again, to do likewise. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 12 to 15 minutes.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I thank Senator Kyl for yielding. I rise in support of amendment No. 1733 that would prevent the tax increases in this bill from going into effect if the tax provisions raise gasoline prices or increase our dependency on foreign oil. I voted against these tax increases in the Finance Committee, and I strongly oppose all the tax increases in this bill. But there is one provision I oppose in particular. I am referring to the 13-percent severance tax on oil and gas leases. There are several reasons why the Federal Government will never see the $10.6 billion allegedly raised by this provision and why we should not, under the banner of tax law, confiscate property. Very simply, the United States should not break its contracts. A deal is a deal. The Clinton administration bid out these lease contracts in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998 and 1999, more than 1,000 of them. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, the small number of performing leases--about 20 of them-- look like a bad deal for the Government. That may be true. Some leases negotiated before and after the period in question have 12.5 percent royalty rates. These leases have a zero rate. On the other hand, the favorable terms that Senator Bingaman complains about encourage the oil companies to pay more at the outset to drill in deeper waters. Senator Bingaman knows he cannot tear up the contracts he does not like, so he has proposed an unprecedented and unusual targeted severance tax that falls almost exclusively on the current holders of these leases. This tax is so unusual, the Federal Government has never imposed a severance tax on resources, and we never have enacted a tax that can be offset by royalty payments. If there is any doubt about the purpose of this tax, Senator Bingaman cleared that up earlier today when he explained the tax will not impact future leaseholders. The only people who actually pay this 13 percent tax are the holders of the leases Senator Bingaman thinks are a bad deal. As Senator Bingaman explained, future leases are expected to have a royalty rate higher than the tax, and royalties can be used to offset the tax under Senator Bingaman's scheme. The problem with this is Congress cannot reverse contracts legislatively without paying compensation. The Supreme Court has said as much in two recent cases: Winstar and Mobil Oil. What is more, the Federal courts have said Congress cannot use its taxing power to break or modify a Government contract. But that is precisely what this measure aims to do. If we enact this legislation, we will cast a small degree of doubt on every contract the Federal Government ever writes. We will raise the cost of Government today and for generations because every contractor will wonder whether their Congress might step in to claw back the benefits of the deal. Here is a true story. During the savings and loan crisis, Federal regulators tried to encourage healthy thrifts to buy up failing thrifts to stabilize the savings and loan industry. They agreed to more lenient regulatory standards and tax benefits that would be available to the healthy thrifts. Later, when the cost of the savings and loan bailout became a concern, Congress enacted laws that took back some of these benefits. One of these laws was the Guarini amendment, a targeted tax provision. Similar to the Bingaman severance tax, the law seemed to raise revenue on paper. But in the end, the Federal courts reversed themselves, and the Federal Government paid out millions in damages for breach of contract. The same Federal court that decided these cases has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the 13-percent severance tax is legal. I am not optimistic. We should make sure this provision never becomes law by voting for the Kyl amendment. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It will raise gasoline prices across the board, not lower them, by imposing additional costs on the American oil and gas companies. Most of them are small companies that risk capital to search for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. 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.