Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The amendment was cleared, I believe. We actually offered it twice, but I believe it was cleared.

Mr. DORGAN. We would like, if necessary, a rollcall vote on the amendment and I thank you for your consideration. As I said, Senator Conrad will take the remaining time, so at this point I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2135, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, my colleague Senator Conrad, and my colleague Senator Salazar. My understanding is we will vote on this amendment in the morning. I don't know whether there has been a unanimous consent order on that matter, but my understanding is it will be voted on at 9:30. I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about what this amendment is. Let me begin by pointing out the following. It has been nearly 6 years since Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida ordered an attack on our country on 9/11/2001. Thousands of Americans were killed, innocent Americans murdered by Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida. Nineteen terrorists with box cutters using commercial airliners loaded with fuel attacked this country. Thousands died. Six years later, Osama bin Laden is still free. He has not been brought to justice. Six years later, we are told in reports by senior officials in the newspapers--and I will read some of them--that al-Qaida is stronger than it has been in years. Six years later, we are told that al-Qaida and the Taliban are rebuilding terrorist training camps in northern Pakistan and the region between northern Pakistan and Afghanistan. Six years later, we are told that the leadership of al- Qaida has a secure hideout in Pakistan. Six years later, we are told that al-Qaida, with its leadership, remains the greatest terrorist threat to our country. All of this after 6 years, two wars in two countries, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent at home and abroad, thousands of American soldiers dead, and tens of thousands wounded. That is a failure. The fact that those who attacked us on 9/11 have not been brought to justice and, in fact, are now planning additional attacks against this country and other countries and doing so in secure and safe harbors in northern Pakistan, the fact that that exists is a failure. We have troops going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war. Yet the leadership of al-Qaida, the greatest terrorist threat to this country, is apparently living free in a safe harbor in northern Pakistan. Let me describe some of the reasons I bring this discussion to the floor. This is testimony by John Negroponte, then-Director of National Intelligence on January 11, 2007, before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan. Think of that, 6 years after 9/11, after they engineered the murder of innocent Americans, our Director of National Intelligence says the leadership of al-Qaida ``continues to plot attacks against our homeland'' from their ``secure hideout in Pakistan.'' Further, the Director of National Intelligence, in the same testimony said this: Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the homeland. That is from the Director of National Intelligence. Al-Qaida is the greatest terrorist threat to our country. He said that in January of this year. Let me fast forward. The McClatchy newspapers, June 26, 2007. Senior U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials in this administration said: While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to al Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaida, its allies in Afghanistan's Taliban movement and Pakistani radicals ``have free rein there now,'' said Marvin Wenibaum, a former State Department intelligence analyst. That is last month. July 11, ``Officials Worry of Summer Terrorist Attack.'' . . . Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune that he had a ``gut feeling'' about a new period of increased risk. The next day, July 12: Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al- Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks. The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, is titled ``Al-Qaida Better Positioned To Strike the West.'' We have seen some of this before. Mr. Chertoff says he has a gut feeling. The fact is, we have a lot of intelligence-gathering capability. Mr. Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security, has a gut feeling. Let's go back 6 years to August of 2001, from the President's daily briefing. I have it in my hand. It was released in 2004. In August of 2001 the intelligence gave the President a document titled: ``Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.'' On 9/11, bin Laden and al-Qaida struck the U.S. with devastating effect. July 2007, secret intelligence assessment from the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center: Al Qaeda better positioned to strike the west. Six years ago, the President's daily briefing said bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, and he did. Six years later: Al Qaeda better positioned to strike the west. So much money spent in lives, in treasury. So much done, so much action in Iraq, where US troops, now go door to door in Baghdad. What has happened to the leaders of those who continue to plan attacks against our country? What has happened to the leaders of the organization who our National Intelligence Director says represent the greatest terrorist threat to our country? They live free, able to speak to the world. Al Zawahiri last week spoke to the world. They live free. They are creating new terrorist training camps, and they are talking to the world about their plans to inflict damage and to attack other parts of the world. That is called failure. Let me go back again a few years, September 15, 2001. I will not ever forget sitting in the Chamber of the House of Representatives in a joint session of Congress when President Bush came to speak. This country was one at that point. They weren't Republicans and Democrats. This was a country that had been victimized by a devastating attack by terrorists who were perfectly content to give their own lives as long as they could kill innocent others. The President came and spoke to a joint session of Congress. Here is what he said: We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them. On August 31, 2006, at the American Legion National Convention, the President said: We have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists. You are an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account. The question most people ask is: What has happened in 6 years that those who planned and executed the attacks against this country now live free and apparently have reconstituted their strength and are planning further attacks against us? We have committed 150,000 or so American troops over a long period of time, so far a period of time longer than the Second World War lasted, and they are now going door to door in Baghdad in a civil war, where Shia are killing Sunnis and Sunnis are killing Shia, and they are both killing American troops. Sometime, we are going to leave Iraq. That is not the question. The question isn't whether. The American people and this Congress are not going to allow American soldiers to be in the middle of a civil war in Iraq for years ahead. That is not going to be the case. The question isn't whether we leave Iraq. The question is when and how. But even as we discuss and debate that--and we will this week and next week and perhaps the week after--even as we deal with those issues, the American people have a right, through this Congress, to ask the President: Why is it that those who engineered the attacks are still able to engineer and plan further attacks? Why is it that those who engineered the attacks of 2001 are still active, are still apparently in safe harbors, immune to whatever efforts might or might not have existed to bring them to justice? The President was asked about this at one point, and the President said: I don't think much about Osama bin Laden. Well, he should. We should. The amendment we offer is very simple. Six long years later, this amendment would require the President every 3 months, every single quarter, to send a classified report to this Congress telling us what has been done in this administration, what has been done to apprehend and bring to justice the leadership of al-Qaida. If, in fact, this is the greatest terrorist threat to our country--if that is the case--and that does not come from me, that comes from the head of intelligence in this country, John Negroponte, in January of this year--if that is the case, why isn't this our primary objective and our most important objective? This amendment says the following: It doubles the reward money for the apprehension of Osama bin Laden. It also requires a quarterly classified, top secret report to be provided to Congress to tell us what is being done to attempt to make this a priority and apprehend the leadership of al-Qaida. I understand it is much easier to recognize failure than to recognize success. I understand that. But it does not take much looking to understand this failure. Now, Senator Conrad and I have offered this amendment before, and it passed the Senate before and then was quietly dropped in conference by those who do not want this amendment to survive. But it seems to me we ought to as a country understand, if we are waking up in the mornings these days and reading, as I read this morning in the newspapers--and yesterday morning and the morning before--that our Homeland Security Secretary has a ``gut feeling'' about this, that or the other thing, and there is a meeting down at the White House to assess these increased risks--we need to understand it is all about al-Qaida. It is all about the leadership of al-Qaida planning additional attacks. It is about the reconstitution of terrorist activities in training camps with the Taliban and al-Qaida. And--guess what--we are going door to door in Baghdad trying to figure out how we deal with the Sunnis and the Shias. Yes, there are some al-Qaida in Iraq, but those who tell us that is the central fight against terrorism are wrong, and they ought to know it. Go have a secret briefing upstairs. I tell you, if you believe that is the central fight against terrorism, go have a classified, secret briefing, and then you come back and tell me that is what you heard. You will not hear that. An honest, level look at what is going on in Iraq will describe, unfortunately, a civil war in Iraq. Yes, there is some al-Qaida in Anbar Province and some other al-Qaida influences, but the principal issue in Iraq is sectarian violence or a civil war, and this Congress, at some point, is going to tell this President we are not going to keep American soldiers in the middle of a civil war for any great length of time. But we will insist that we make a priority as one of our significant objectives to bring to justice those who murdered thousands of Americans on 9-11-2001, and we will insist that those who are now planning additional attacks from a secure hideaway--as Mr. Negroponte points out, a secure hideaway--we will insist that some effort be made in this country to deal with that issue. Let me ask one question. I do not want five reasons or three reasons. I want somebody to give me one good reason why there ought to be any secure hideout anywhere on this Earth for the people, the leaders of al-Qaida who committed this atrocious act against this country in 2001 and who are now planning additional attacks against this country. I do not need five reasons. Is there any reason there ought to be a secure hideout anywhere on this planet for these people? The answer ought to be no. Getting the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 has not been our objective, in my judgment. We have gotten sidetracked. It has not been our objective to make this the central issue, and I believe it ought to be the central issue. Senator Conrad believes that. Senator Salazar and others believe it. I expect and hope that tomorrow, when we have a vote at 9:30 in the morning, the Senate will go on record saying it is time--long past the time--for this country to demand that the leadership of al-Qaida be brought to justice and that we interrupt the opportunity of those to be in a secure hideout in Pakistan, planning additional destruction and planning additional deaths against innocent Americans in attacks on our homeland. That is the amendment. It is simple. No one can misunderstand that amendment. No one can misinterpret it. My hope is, at the end of the vote tomorrow, the Senate will have expressed itself as forcefully as I hope it can on this subject. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Transportation Issues in Indian Country. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the debate we are having in the Senate on the Employee Free Choice Act is about workers' rights. It is about the plight of the American worker. It is about workers being able to organize. And my guess is that the Senator from Illinois, the Presiding Officer, perhaps even the Senator from Utah, was in the Chamber of the House some years ago when a man from Poland came to speak to us. I want to recount that today because I want to recount how strongly our country felt then and how much we admired the man from Poland who spoke to a joint session of Congress and what it means symbolically for workers to be able to organize. It was interesting to watch from afar an organization called Solidarity in Poland, a group of workers organized under the banner of Solidarity. Well, one day, in a joint session of Congress, we heard from a foreign leader. The joint session is full of pageantry. The House and the Senate are gathered together in the Chamber of the House, and the Doorkeeper announces the Supreme Court, then announces the Cabinet Secretaries, then the Senate Members, and then everyone is in the Chamber. And usually they announce the President of the United States as he comes to give a State of the Union Address, or perhaps, on rare occasions, a special message. On even rarer occasions, they will announce a foreign leader. On this day, the Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives announced Lech Walesa from Poland, and this rather short, chubby man came forward, with a handlebar mustache. He came to the dais in the House of Representatives. The applause began and continued and continued and continued. This man, Lech Walesa from Poland, began speaking, and he gave an enormously powerful speech. Here is what he said. He reminded us that it had been 10 years prior to that time, on a Saturday morning in a shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, that this man had been fired as an electrician in that shipyard. He was leading a strike of Polish workers in that shipyard against the Communist government. He recounted that on that Saturday he was seized by the Communist secret police and beaten, and he was beaten badly. He was taken over to the side of the shipyard and was hoisted on top of and thrown over the barbed-wire fence, and he lay on the ground face down, bleeding, outside of that shipyard wondering what to do next. What should this man, this unemployed electrician who had now just been beaten by the Communist secret police and thrown over the barbed- wire fence at the shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, what should he do next? He lay face down on the ground wondering. The history books tell us what he did next. He pulled himself up off the dirt, brushed himself off, and climbed back over the fence into the same shipyard to continue leading the strike. And 10 years later, he was announced at the back door of the House of Representatives as the President of the country of Poland. This man, Lech Walesa, was not an intellectual, not a soldier, not a businessman, and not a diplomat. He was an unemployed electrician leading an organization called Solidarity, which is an organization about working people. These workers risked everything in pursuit of one central idea--that people ought to be free to choose their own destiny. And because of Solidarity and because of the work they did, they threw off the yoke of communism, the heavy boot of communism that existed in Poland, and Poland became free. Then it happened in Czechoslovakia, and then Romania, and East Germany. They lit the fuse that caused the explosion that got rid of communism in Eastern Europe. Here is what Lech Walesa said about what happened inside that shipyard and the years following. He said: You know, we didn't have any guns--the Communist government in Poland had all the guns. We didn't have any bullets--the Communist government had all the bullets. We were a bunch of workers armed with an idea that people ought to be free to choose their own destiny. And he said: My friends, ideas are more powerful than guns. This country loved Solidarity. Ronald Reagan, the American people, the Congress--we embraced these workers of Poland--Lech Walesa and the courageous workers who followed him, workers organizing under a banner called Solidarity. The ability to form labor organizations, the development of what those organizations mean to people, was key to defeating communism and to the cause of freedom. Think of what labor meant to Eastern Europe. It was the spark. Yes, workers organizing represented the spark that defeated communism in Eastern Europe. These were ordinary people with extraordinary courage, uncommon valor. When Lech Walesa spoke from the dais in the House of Representatives 10 years after he was beaten in that shipyard, 10 years after laying face down in the dirt wondering what to do next, he showed up at the door of our legislative Chamber as the President of this country saying: Ideas are more powerful than guns. Now, fast-forward to today, a time when workers in this country all too often are left behind, especially workers who are working hourly jobs. Workers who are going to work wondering whether they will have a job tomorrow because their employers are becoming bigger and stronger and more powerful. Employers that have decided that the bottom line is what is important and that they can actually increase their profits by moving jobs overseas. So, they think, we will just tell our workers: You know what. You are just like wrenches. We can use you and throw you away, and we will move the job to Sri Lanka, to Bangladesh, to India, or to China. So American workers are told: You don't matter much. I have been on the Senate floor 100 times talking about all of these companies that have decided they want all the benefits America has to offer, but they don't want to hire Americans. They want to produce their products elsewhere, where they can pay pennies an hour. What has happened in recent years to the American workers is downward pressure on their income, fewer retirement benefits, fewer health care benefits, the threat of seeing their jobs moved overseas. One might ask, if labor organizing is so effective, why is this occurring in this country? Why can't workers get together to represent the countervailing power against big companies so workers get their fair share of the income? The answer is the deck is stacked against them at this point. That is why there is legislation on the floor of the Senate today being considered to try to see if we can't give people the opportunities to organize effectively once again. Do you know that in nearly one-half of the cases in this country, 2 years after workers have already voted to form a union they still don't have a contract because the employer refuses to bargain with the union--2 years after the employees voted to form a union and they have not yet been able to form a union. Let me say that again. In almost one-half the cases where they have already decided to vote to form a union, 2 years later workers do not have a contract. Why would that be the case? Because there are a dozen ways for employers to fight it and prevent it. This legislation is legislation that says let's try to even up the score a little bit, provide some balance, provide some opportunity for workers to get together to organize. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. The income of workers who have the capability of organizing is significantly different. Cashiers at grocery stores and other stores earn 46 percent more if they are union than if they are nonunion. Union food preparation workers earn nearly 50 percent more than nonunion workers. Union maids and housekeepers earn 31 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Union workers are twice as likely to have employer-sponsored health benefits and pensions at work. They are four times more likely to have a secure defined benefit pension plan than nonunion workers. Those facts are pretty clear--they are the benefits of workers being able to organize. The legislation we have before us is legislation that says we think the right of people to organize is very important. I have talked at length on the floor about these issues as well. I spoke about James Filer many times. James Filer died, I said, of lead poisoning. He was shot 54 times, I guess that is lead poisoning. In Ludlow, CO, shot 54 times. Do you know why James Filer was shot 54 times? Because he believed people who were sent down underground to dig for coal, to mine for coal, ought to be able to have two things: No. 1, work in a safe workplace and, No. 2, be paid a fair wage. Because James Filer spent his life working for that, believing that workers who go underground ought to get a fair day's pay and ought to work in a safe mine, he was killed. I could give you other names of those who have fought for workers' rights, risked their lives fighting for workers' rights. This country has been better and moved forward as a result of workers being able to organize. Yes, we need entrepreneurs, we need capitalists, we need investors, we need incentives--we need all the things that come together in this society to succeed. But we need workers. Workers are not disposable. The American worker is not disposable. Workers represent one of the significant building blocks of progress in this country. In recent years, what has happened to us is we have decided American workers should compete against a different standard. The standard is someone in China working for 30 cents an hour. If you can't compete against that, tough luck, you lose your job. I will not go through all the stories. I could stand here for hours telling stories, company after company, about that. But the fact is, American workers have struggled. The struggle in this country has taken place for a century, to lift our standards up: Safe workplace, child labor laws, wage-and-hour laws, minimum wages, the right to organize. For a century, we went through that process and we lifted America up and expanded the middle class dramatically. That has been the success of this great country. Now we are seeing, brick by brick, that foundation being taken apart. This legislation is one piece of the remedy. It says, if we care about and stand for and believe in the right of workers to organize, then that right has to be a right we expect to be available to workers, rather than a right that is abrogated by employers who do not want to have anything to do with workers who organize. The stories are endless about the bad things that happen to workers who try to organize. One in five active union supporters is illegally fired during union-organizing campaigns--20 percent are fired. In 78 percent of the elections, employers require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to the workers whose jobs they pay and control. In 51 percent of the elections, employers force workers to attend closed- door, anti-union meetings, and they threaten to close the workplace if employees vote for union representation. These are a few of the one-sided election rules that tilt the playing field in favor of the management of the company. The worker hardly stands a chance. That is what is happening. For all of the hyperbole that is trying to scare people about it, this legislation is very simple, and it is very democratic. If the majority of employees in a workplace sign up to decide they want to organize as a workplace, then this country ought to respect that. That is why we need legislation. I started by talking about Lech Walesa and Solidarity. It is not only foreign workers who organize whom we should respect. We should respect the right of workers in this country who organize as well. I would like to hear someone on the floor of the Senate stand up--I have not heard that yet--but stand up and say Circuit City is a wonderful example of where we ought to head in this country. Circuit City announced one day, in a newspaper account, that they decided to get rid of some 3,400 of their workers. Their CEO apparently authorized that announcement to be made. The CEO was making $10 million a year and 3,400 workers were to get fired because they were making $11 an hour, and that was too much money to be paying American workers. So Circuit City said--again with a CEO and other executives making millions of dollars a year--we will fire 3,400 people and rehire people at $8 an hour and save money. I suppose you can save money that way. I am not sure that is a particularly good message to American workers: Come work here, get some experience here and by the time you get some experience, we think we can find somebody who will work for less money than you. That's the message: we prefer to have inexperienced workers rather than experienced workers, we think $11 an hour is too much for you and your family. What kind of a message is that? I didn't hear anybody talk about that much. It was one big yawn around here with that sort of thing. That kind of approach, that I think devalues the workforce in this country, is something I think we ought to care about. The underlying legislation we are talking about is something we ought to care about as well because it stands up for American workers. It says, in this country, we live free. If you want to organize, you have a right to organize and the rules ought to be fair. The deck ought not be stacked against you. That is why we have legislation being considered today and I am pleased to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on discussion draft legislation regarding the regulation of class III gaming. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Hawaii, the chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, for sponsoring this amendment that was added to energy legislation last evening. This energy legislation seeks to expand the Nation's supply of renewable biofuels and to begin moving our base of transportation fuel toward renewable energy. Across America, including in my State of North Dakota, American farmers have the ability to grow abundant supplies of corn and energy crops from which ethanol and other transportation biofuels can be manufactured. However, our Nation's ability to produce an abundant supply of transportation biofuels will be of no use if we are not able to transport these biofuels to the population centers where they are needed. Today, due to the special qualities of biofuels, there are no pipelines that can move them to market. Thus, transportation is dependent primarily on trucks and rail, except in those rare cases where water transportation is available between the areas where the biofuels are produced and consumed. Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report entitled ``Biofuels--DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs.'' The summary of the report states, in the second paragraph: Existing Biofuel distribution infrastructure has limited capacity to transport the fuels and deliver them to consumers. Biofuels are transported largely by rail and the ability of that industry to meet growing demand is uncertain. If our Nation is to realize the potential of sustainable, domestically produced transportation fuels, we can have no uncertainty concerning whether the rail industry can transport the amount of biofuels that the Nation will be producing. Therefore, Senator Inouye and I have joined in this amendment which calls for a joint study by the Secretaries of Energy and Transportation. The study will consider two primary issues and a number of related issues. First, will there be sufficient railroad infrastructure to move the amount of biofuels the Nation will be producing? Second, will that railroad transportation occur in a competitive environment in which the cost is reasonable and the service is reliable? Ensuring adequate, reliable, and cost-effective rail transportation for ethanol and other transportation biofuels that will become so important to the Nation is an essential element of the Nation's policy to move toward sustainable, domestic supplies of energy. I thank my friend from Hawaii, the chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, for joining with me to pursue this study, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that our national rail system is adequate, reliable, and competitive.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the floor is available for some discussion while we are waiting for the managers to work on amendments and perhaps clear amendments, and I wanted to take a few minutes along with my colleague Senator Craig to talk about some information in a piece of legislation we have previously introduced called the SAFE Energy Act, Security and Fuel Efficiency Energy Act. That legislation represents legislation trying to reduce the oil intensity of the American economy. The calculation of where we are with respect to oil in this country is that we are dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil, dangerously dependent on oil that comes from very troubled parts of the world--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, and more. That dependence now is over 60 percent. In other words, over 60 percent of the oil we need to run this country's economy comes from other parts of the world, much of it very troubled. If, God forbid, tomorrow a terrorist were to interrupt the supply of oil coming to this country, our economy would be flat on its back. So how do we reduce the oil intensity in this country? Well, you do a lot of things. I mentioned that 60 percent plus of our oil comes from outside of our country. About 70 percent of the oil we use in this country is used in vehicles. So while 60 percent comes from other countries, 70 percent is running through a carburetor or fuel injector to make our vehicle fleet go, and we are in a hopeless pursuit of becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy if we don't make our vehicle fleet more efficient. So that is one. You have to make your vehicle fleet more efficient. We have just passed a piece of legislation that moves in that direction. But you need a lot of things: You need efficiency, you need conservation, you need renewable energy, you need additional production of energy; yes, even fossil fuels, but done in an environmentally acceptable way. So conservation. We misuse, we waste, an enormous amount of energy in this country. The cheapest form of energy available to us is through conservation. There is no question about that. Efficiency. Almost everything we do in this country, from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed at night, we are using all kinds of appliances that require energy. We flip on a switch and a light bulb turns on. We plug in a razor and shave and use electricity. We jump in the shower and that water is heated by electricity or perhaps natural gas. But the fact is everything we do can be made more efficient. There are strange terms, such as SEER 13 standards for air conditioners. Some don't know what that means. I know it is kind of an arcane language, talking about SEER 13 standards, but it means much more efficient air conditioners. We fought for a long time about that and finally got a SEER 13 standard, and it is going to use much less electricity and be much more efficient. So conservation, efficiency, renewables. The bill on the floor of the Senate is a significant piece of legislation dealing with renewable energy, solar energy, biomass, wind energy, and then the biofuels, including ethanol, biodiesel, and all of these issues that deal with renewable energy. That is another significant step toward being less dependent on foreign sources of oil. Conservation, efficiency, renewables. But there is another piece that has received too little notice, in my judgment, too little notice on the floor of the Senate, and that is additional production. We are going to use additional coal. As chairman of the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee that funds those energy accounts, we are going to use clean power and clean coal technology to, I hope one of these days, be able to have a coal-fired electric generating plant that is a zero-emission coal-fired electric generating plant. I believe we can get there through technology and better science. We have all these issues we are working on. With respect to fossil fuel, coal, oil, and natural gas, we need to find additional ways to produce additional quantities of oil here as well. As I look at this issue, and my colleague Senator Craig and I have evaluated this issue, there are quantities of oil offshore--yes, in Alaska and on the west coast, in the gulf--and the largest quantity is in the Gulf of Mexico. We know we have passed some legislation in the last 2 years, within the last year and a half or so, opening up what is called lease 181. It was modified, through the work of the Senators from Florida and others, in a way that was acceptable to them. We opened up a portion of the Gulf of Mexico for additional production. Senator Craig and I believe there are additional tracts and significant tracts that can be open for additional production of oil, oil and natural gas, and that such production can be done without destruction of our environment. That production can be done by expanding the supply, which must be part of the answer to addressing this energy problem we have. The oil intensity in our country makes us dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil, and so as we look at how we deal with that, we deal with it in a lot of ways, but one of those ways must, in my judgment, include some additional production with proper and certain environmental protections. That can be done. That should be done, in my judgment. Now, Senator Craig and I understand that portion of the plan we introduced here in the Senate that deals with offshore production is controversial. We understand when you try to do something such as that, people come to the floor and put up a pretty vigorous fight. I might say the Presiding Officer, being from Florida, has been very active and very aggressive in protecting his State's interests, and very effective at protecting his State's interests. Both Senators from Florida have been active and involved in that. We understand that. We also understand it is not likely at this point that we have the votes here in the Senate at this moment to expand the kind of production we wish to expand in the Gulf of Mexico, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be discussing and considering how at some point in the future we access those significant additional quantities of oil and natural gas our country needs, and how we access them with the kind of certain protections for our economy and our environment that would be necessary to accompany that. That is why Senator Craig and I introduced a piece of legislation that has this production side to it, and we feel it has not been much discussed on the floor of the Senate. Everything else has been-- conservation, efficiency, renewables--all of which I support, all of which I am excited about, all of which I think advance this country's interest, but the production side has not been discussed in as significant a way as I believe it should. So I wanted to simply take this moment to say that the proposal offered by my colleague from Idaho and myself is one that believes that whether it is now or in the future, the construct of how we put together a comprehensive energy plan to reduce the dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of oil must include some additional production, and the most likely place, with the greatest potential, if you look at all of the potential areas, is in the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. President, I yield the floor so my colleague from Idaho can express himself as well.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the last great wave of homesteading upon the prairies of America. Mr. President 1907 was the high water mark of the western boom, the last real chance for entrepreneurs and pioneers to capture 160 acres of free land. Homesteading was one of those singular inventions that proved a triumphant success--one that gave families of modest means a genuine opportunity to share in the American dream. Among the tens of thousands who surged west to take part in this great enterprise was a family of Bohemian emigrants--the Svihovecs. They are particularly intriguing because seven brothers homesteaded side by side. While it was not unusual for family groups to homestead near each other, the uniqueness of seven brothers doing so was unprecedented in homesteading history. Although only two decades removed from their near feudal farm existence in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Svihovecs were shrewd enough to strategically locate their homesteads to nearly surround a section of railroad-owned land, thereby protecting it for their own use and future purchase. These brothers and their equally hearty Czech spouses were Frank and Rose Svihovec, Charles and Anna Svihovec, Vincent and Anna Svihovec, Joseph and Annie Svihovec, Emil and Barbara Svihovec, and two single brother, James, and Louis. Their homesteads were in southwestern North Dakota, along the Hettinger and Adams County line. Two more brothers, Rudolph--and his wife Nellie--and Edward--and his wife Terezie--opted to become businessmen, one in Minneapolis and other in the New York City area. The homesteaders' beginning was inauspicious. There was a train wreck on the way west. Upon their arrival, they were met by the blackened desolation of one of the great western prairie fires which had burned the expected winter feed for their livestock. Snowbound the first winter, they ran out of food. There were other setbacks and tragedies, but a life was created for themselves and almost 40 offspring, so many children that the school became known as the Svihovec School. A hundred years later, descendants of these Svihovec pioneers are scattered from London to Los Angeles. A number still remain near the homesteads, in the communities of Mott and Hettinger, and one couple, John and Arlyce Frieze, still actively farm and ranch part of the original homestead lands. Most of the original homesteads, in fact, remain in the ownership of one of the Svihovec families. It is a remarkable saga, a tale of grit and courage, one that illustrates the kind of strength of character and hardy determination that has served America so well for so many years. The Svihovec tribe has a proud, vital, and continuing legacy that I am honored to acknowledge and salute today in the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the bill on the floor of the Senate deals with energy. While there are many important things we discuss in Congress these days, energy ranks right near the top, in my judgment. I have indicated previously that most of us take energy for granted. We get up in the morning and turn on the hot water, and that comes from energy. We flick a light switch, and that comes from energy. We get in the car and turn the ignition key, and that comes from energy. I told a story a while back about John Glenn and energy. I was on a trip with John Glenn, the former astronaut and former Senator. I was a young boy when John Glenn orbited the Earth in Friendship 7. Late one evening on what was the old Air Force One, a group of us were flying to Asia, and John Glenn was with the group. We were meeting with heads of state in several governments, Vietnam and China and so on. We were flying over the Pacific late at night in this little cabin in this Air Force 707. I leaned forward and began to ask John Glenn about his first space flight. I pumped him with a lot of questions. One of the questions I asked him about was whether he actually saw Perth, Australia. The history that has been written about this, and I recalled as a kid, was when John Glenn, up there alone in this tiny little capsule orbiting the Earth in Friendship 7, was orbiting the Earth and went to the dark side of the Earth, the town of Perth, Australia, decided they would all turn on their lights. All the lights in Perth, Australia were to be turned on to greet this astronaut flying alone, orbiting the Earth. I asked him if he saw the lights of Perth, Australia, and he said he did. On the dark side of the Earth in this little capsule orbiting the Earth all alone, John Glenn looked down and the sign of human existence on Earth was the product of energy, the product of lights, radiating that beam to that astronaut, saying a hello--greetings. It comes from energy. It is what we do to produce energy and use energy to make our lives better. They are better in many ways. One part of this energy issue we are debating in the Energy bill deals with oil. Oil is an interesting debate because on this little planet of ours that circles the Sun, there are about 6.4 billion of us. We have a lot of neighbors who are in tougher shape. About half of this planet's population lives on less than $2 a day. Half of them have never made a telephone call. On this planet there is a little spot called the United States of America and we are blessed through divine providence to be here, to live here. But it is interesting that while we have created a standard of living that expands the middle class and creates an increased standard of living, we do not have the quantity of oil that exists elsewhere on Earth. We use 25 percent of the oil that is needed every single day; 25 percent of all the oil used on this Earth is used in this country. Yet most of the oil is produced elsewhere--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, and other countries. Over 60 percent of the oil we use comes from outside of our country. God forbid something should happen that would interrupt that, because if it did, this country would be flat on its back with respect to its economy. It would dramatically impact the way we live. Over 60 percent of our oil comes from other countries, much of it from troubled parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East. Many of us believe we need to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil. We are dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil and we need to become less dependent. How do we do that? One point is this. Seventy percent of all the oil we use in America is used in vehicles, where we run it through the carburetors and fuel injectors in the form of gasoline. Seventy percent of the oil is used through vehicles. So we have to find a way to make vehicles more efficient. That brings me to the debate about what are called the CAFE standards or the standards that require greater efficiency for automobiles. Now I serve on the Commerce Committee. I and Senator Feinstein, Senator Inouye and others included from the Commerce Committee a provision that requires vehicles to be more efficient. I know the auto industry is very aggressive in trying to see if they can jettison that provision in the underlying Energy bill that comes from the Commerce Committee. They do not want these increased efficiency standards. They believe they are pernicious, they will injure the auto industry. I think that is untrue. Now, they make the point, and in my judgment they deliberately misrepresent the point, in full page advertisements in my State and others and direct mail pieces to constituents, they make the point that what we are trying to do is to say: You must make automobiles or vehicles more efficient, and you do it on a fleet average, as CAFE has always been done. If you are making too many pickup trucks and not enough small cars, you have to make more small cars and fewer pickup trucks, so, therefore, you have an increase in fuel efficiency and, therefore, this approach threatens to take your pickup truck away. Well, that is not true. It is not accurate. But that is what is being alleged. This is a different approach. This standard says that for each class of vehicle, the class itself must be made more efficient. I come from North Dakota. We in North Dakota have, on rare occasions, I emphasize only rare occasions, some harsh weather. When it is 30 below zero and a 40-mile-an-hour wind, you do not want to drive in a Chevette out to check the calves during calving season in March, you want a vehicle, a four-wheel drive vehicle that has some weight, that has some power. That is what we use. I am not interested in full efficiency standards that discriminate against larger vehicles, but I also believe this: All of the vehicles, including pickup trucks, including larger vehicles, should be made more efficient. For 25 years, there has not been one change in the standard. For 25 years in this Congress, we said: No, no. The auto industry doesn't want an increase in the efficiency requirement, therefore, we will not do it. I say ``we.'' I was part of that. But at some point, you have got to say to the industry: Look, they are making more efficient vehicles elsewhere. They ought to make them here. I mean, I have described the position of the industry in opposition to this as ``yesterday forever.'' I guess it is wonderful if you have romantic feelings about yesterday and you want it to continue forever with respect to your vehicles and the lack of a requirement to make them more efficient. But it does not help this country, it retards this country's ability to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. That is what this vote is about: Do you believe we ought to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil? If so, then you better belly up and you better begin to support this kind of thing, or do you believe that we are not dangerously dependent? If it is fine for us to have 60 percent, heading toward 65 and 69 percent, we are told of our oil coming from off our shores, if you think that is fine, if you are perfectly content going to sleep at night saying it doesn't matter how much we get from overseas, it doesn't matter how troubled those areas are, let's hang our future, our economic future, on our ability to keep getting oil from troubled parts of the world, if that is how you feel, then, in my judgment, it ignores the reality. If you are one of those, as I am, who believes that we are too dangerously dependent on foreign sources of energy, then it seems to me you have to come to the floor and be supportive of CAFE standards, or at least greater efficiency standards for vehicles We have established a system in the underlying bill that establishes eight classes of vehicles. And you have to make them more efficient by class. Should not those who drive pickup trucks expect to have a more efficient pickup truck as well; better mileage on those vehicles as well? The answer is, yes, in my judgment. Now, my hope would be that someday, in some way, we will be able to find a way not to be dependent on oil itself. But I cannot see that in the near term. We are going to continue to use fossil fuels. I have described too many times for my colleagues that my first vehicle I bought for $25 as a young kid, it was a 1924 Model T Ford that had been in a grainery for some decades. I bought it for $25 and restored it lovingly as a young boy when I was in high school. So I ended up with a Model T that was decades and decades old. But I sold it later because you cannot, as a young boy, you cannot effectively date in a Model T; nobody wants to ride with you. But the point of the Model T is that in 1924 they made a car, and it is interesting. You put gasoline in that car exactly the same way you put gasoline in a 2007 or 2008 vehicle. Exactly the same way. You go to the gas pump, stick a nozzle in the tank, and start pumping gas. Nothing has changed. Everything else about the car has changed. Computer technologies. More computer technology in a new car than existed on the lunar lander that put Neil Armstrong on the Moon. Better cup holders, keyless entry, iPod holders, heated seats, you name it. But let me ask you, do you think there has been an increase in the efficiency standards for those vehicles? The answer is no. The answer is no. I ask you to take this test. Go back and look 10 years ago at any model of car and then look at today's identical model and see how much has changed with respect to miles per gallon that are estimated for that vehicle. What you will discover is almost no change. Those of us who support the standards in the Commerce Committee have brought a bill to the floor that is a good bill. Now there are some in this Chamber who do not support it, and the auto industry itself is furiously working to get the votes to defeat our increased efficiency standard. The problem is, there is no amendment coming to the floor of the Senate that I can see. I mean, it seems to me, we have an underlying provision that I support, it is in the bill. Having had the bill now on the floor for some while, it is time to say: If you want to try to amend it, let's have an amendment on the floor, let's vote, let's have a thorough discussion and debate and let's have a vote. I am not someone who suggests the underlying amendment is the only amendment that has merit or has worth; there are, perhaps, other ideas. But I was in a meeting last evening and have been at some meetings today. It appears to me that the effort is simply, by the industry, to say: Let's not do this. Well, you know, we have been through that time and time and time again. When they say to the Congress: Let's not do this, the Congress salutes and says: Let's not do this. But we have come to a different intersection, it seems to me, with respect to the future of this country and the energy security of this country. That intersection requires us now to do what we must do to make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. If we do not find a way to be independent, or at least less dependent on foreign sources of oil that come from troubled parts of the world, we are in deep trouble. Someday, I would hope, perhaps we can develop hydrogen fuel cars that are commercially available. I hope that our children and their grandchildren will be able to get in a vehicle that is a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I authored the legislation 2 years ago that established the title on hydrogen fuel cells. You know, interestingly enough, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will have twice the efficiency of power to the wheel of the vehicle and put water vapor out the tailpipe. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? The fact that hydrogen is ubiquitous, is everywhere--I had this wonderful experiment going on in North Dakota that I established in the Appropriations Committee of using a wind tower, a more efficient wind turbine, take energy from the wind, use the electricity that you take through the turbine, you take energy from the wind in the form of electricity, use the electricity in the process of something called electrolysis, and separate hydrogen from water with a process of electrolysis. So you actually take an intermittent power source of wind and produce hydrogen, store the hydrogen for vehicle use. I believe we can get to the point of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which will make us much less dependent on foreign sources of oil. We will not need foreign sources of oil if we do what we can with this fleet. But that will not happen in 3, 5, or even 10 years from now. There has to be interim steps in which we take action to reduce our dependence, even as we continue to use the internal combustion engine, as we continue to use nearly 70 percent of all our oil through our vehicles, even as we import over 60 percent of the oil from overseas, we must take some interim steps to begin to address that. That is why this issue is so important, the efficiency of our vehicles. Finally, let me say this. I want our auto industry to succeed. I want this industry to succeed. I do not want to be a part of something that says to them, that, you know, you have been asleep at the switch, and so, therefore, we don't care about you. That is not my point. My point is, this industry will succeed, in my judgment, if they are under the gun and under some pressure to produce more efficient vehicles. Other companies in other countries are doing it and so too should ours. I wish to be helpful to our industry. One final point. There is a discussion about a couple provisions in the underlying Commerce Committee bill. One is the second 10 years, the 4 percent efficiency a year, which was part of my offering, and the second was Senator Cantwell's offering of standards for the production of flex-fuel vehicles. We are building a 36-billion-gallon biofuels requirement in this bill. We are going to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol, biofuels. Where are you going to use all of that if you do not have the flex- fuel vehicles on the road so you can move that through those carburetors or fuel injectors. You have got to be able to have a flex- fuel standard, so that when the automobile industry is producing cars, they are producing flex-fuel vehicles so they can run either the E85 or the regular gasoline. But if you are producing 36 billion gallons of biofuel and do not have flex-fuel vehicles on the road to be able to take those fuels and be able to run E85 through a vehicle, we are going to see this ethanol market collapse. That is why the flex-fuel provisions in the underlying bill from Commerce are so important. I wish to make the point that my hope is this afternoon, those who wish to try to amend the underlying provision in the Commerce Committee bill would come to the floor, let's have a debate about it. I believe the Commerce Committee provision is a thoughtful provision, that finally aggressively represents change and reform on automobile efficiency. I think the standards are achievable. I think they will be good for the industry. They certainly will be good for the driving public in this country, and, most especially, they will move us in the direction of being less dependent and move us in the direction toward being independent of foreign sources of oil, which I think is important to this country's economic well-being. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 12 minutes of Senator Tester's allotted time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is the right subject, this issue of alternative fuels. I commend all my colleagues for being here to talk about this important issue. I have mentioned often on the floor of the Senate, we live on this little planet of ours, and on this planet we circle the Sun, and we happen to live on a little patch on this planet called the United States of America. A substantial amount of oil is used here. We use one-fourth of all the oil that is pulled out of this planet every single day. About 84 million gallons of fuel is pulled out of this planet every day, and we use one-fourth of it in this country. Unfortunately, much of the resources--the oil resources--exist elsewhere. Over 60 percent of that which we use in oil comes from off our shores, much of it from very troubled parts of the world: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and so on. In a circumstance where we have such a prodigious appetite for energy--oil in this case-- and so much of it exists off our shores, it makes us very vulnerable-- extraordinarily vulnerable. If tomorrow, God forbid, terrorists should somehow interfere with the pipeline of oil to the United States of America, we would be flat on our back. Our economy would be flat on its back because we get up every single morning in this country and we pull the switch, we start the engine, we do all these things that heat the water for the shower and air-condition our home. We have such an unbelievable appetite for energy. With respect to oil itself, we are held hostage by having so much of it coming from off our shores. Therefore, the question is, how do we become less dependent or how do we become independent of the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or others who have so much oil? Is it a good thing for us to try to become independent? I think it is. So how do you do that? Well, you do that in a lot of ways, one of which--an important ``one of which''--is to develop renewable alternative fuels. So we are talking about the biofuels. We are talking about ethanol. We are talking about a lot of different issues--cellulosic ethanol. Today on the floor of the Senate, we now talk about coal to liquid. Coal to liquid means taking coal and producing from it diesel fuel. That coal to diesel is another way of producing alternative fuels. It is very important, however, for us, as we proceed down this road, to do this the right way. There is, perhaps, an easy way and a harder way to do it or a right way and a wrong way to do it, but all of us who come here talking about alternative fuels, I think, are talking about the right subject. This issue of coal is very important. Coal is the most abundant resource that exists in this country. It is our most abundant. It is our most secure. It is here. It is the lowest cost American resource. It is estimated we have over 600 billion barrels of oil equivalent in coal. Compare that, for example, to the largest oil reserves in the world, which are held by the Saudis, estimated at about 260 billion barrels of oil. Again, the Saudis have the largest repository of oil we know of, estimated at about 260 billion barrels. Our coal has an oil equivalent of about 600 billion barrels. Well, the question is: How do we use coal? Because coal has a carbon footprint, it has an impact on our environment. I am chairing the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. In the accounts I am now working on with my colleagues, I am going to put a great deal of money into clean power and into clean coal technology so we can unlock the mysteries and find ways to continue to use our coal, our most abundant resource, without in any way injuring our environment. I believe we can do that. I am going to tell you in a minute an example in North Dakota that is occurring that holds great promise, in my judgment. But we have a lot of experience in burning coal for electric generation to produce electricity. We have a good understanding of the challenges we face as a result of that with respect to carbon reduction in those plants, the coal-fired electric generating plants. We also have some experience turning coal into synthetic natural gas. The only plant in the United States in which lignite coal is taken out of the ground--coal is extracted from the ground and put in a processing plant to turn coal into synthetic natural gas the only circumstance in the country where that occurs is on the prairies of North Dakota. It is interesting that the coal gasification facility is really a technical marvel--a technological marvel, I should say. It is producing synthetic gas in a way that is exceeding expectations. It produces very valuable byproducts, and it does, in fact, produce CO2. So in this coal gasification plant, with the production of CO2, which we don't want to admit in great quantities into the atmosphere because of climate change, we have done something that is really pretty interesting. We capture 5,500 tons a day of CO2 in that plant, put it in a pipe, and in that pipeline it is transported 205 miles north into Canada, where it is invested into the ground in Canadian oil wells to make marginal oil wells more productive. So we have beneficial use of sequestration of CO2 by piping it to Canada and investing it into the ground to essentially make their oil wells more productive. It has sequestered about 7 million tons of CO2 into the Weyburn Field since the start of the project in the year 2000. It has doubled the field's oil recovery rate and extended the life of the oilfield by 15 to 20 years. So you talk about beneficial use of CO2--first of all, capturing it, keeping it from escaping into the atmosphere, and second, using it for beneficial use. I think this is the largest example--the largest demonstration of that--in the entire world. Now, the question before us today will be a couple of different presentations on coal to liquid. I support coal to liquid. I believe it is part of an alternative fuel strategy that makes sense for this country. But we come to an intersection with energy and climate change, energy and the environment. It is an intersection a lot of people would prefer not to approach, but nonetheless we are there. We can't pretend one doesn't exist. They both exist. They coexist. They have an impact on each other. The question of how we do coal to liquids is a very important question in the context of how we continue to use our abundant coal resource. Some say the most beneficial use of coal is coal to synthetic natural gas. I have just described how that is being done. Some say another beneficial use of coal is coal to plastics. There are many ways and many approaches to use coal for beneficial use at the same time as we protect the environment. We have examples in amendments being offered today of the requirement of not only life-cycle reductions in emissions--and I believe both of the amendments have equivalent life-cycle reductions in emissions, but only one has a carbon capture requirement, which I think, frankly, is going to be required as we move forward with coal to liquids. We might debate about where that carbon capture requirement ought to be established, under what conditions can it be met, but I don't think there is much choice that we, as we proceed with coal to liquids, establish a carbon capture standard. I believe the Tester amendment does that in a way that says, I think for many of us, we fully support coal to liquids. We also support all of the other technologies that provide for the beneficial use of coal, which includes, as I have just described, coal to plastics and coal to synthetic natural gas, and so on. But as we proceed with coal to liquids, it is very important that we capture and sequester CO2, just as we do in North Dakota with this synthetic natural gas plant. Let me also point out that we have other ways of using coal--biomass co-fed with coal to produce liquids. We can actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere with that process. The plants would capture the CO2 as they grow, and that CO2 would be captured in the gasification process, along with the CO2 from the coal. So it could be permanently sequestered in that circumstance. As a result, the overall carbon footprint for coal biomass to liquids would be better, for example, than with petroleum. So there are so many different applications and different ways that I believe coal can play a very important role in this country's future. As I indicated, I am going to be adding substantial funding with respect to clean coal technology and the research that is necessary to unlock the capability, the scientific capability, and technology to be able to continue to use our abundant coal resources long into the future. It makes little difference if we have the equivalent of 600 billion barrels of oil in coal resources if we can't use them. To say we have reserves equivalent to 600 billion barrels of oil, if you can't use that coal, it means very little to this country's future. I believe, when you take a look at the most abundant resource, we need to be able to use it, but I also understand and believe we need to be able to use it in circumstances where we can produce in the future a coal-fired electric generating plant that is a zero-emission plant. I believe that is possible. Now, can we do it tomorrow? Probably not. But I believe that through technology, we can accomplish these things. The same is true with respect to coal to liquids. I don't believe the debate among those of us who have spoken on this subject today is whether coal to liquids makes sense. It will contribute as a part of our alternative fuels to make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil, and that is something we should all aspire to have happen. But it will also, as we proceed in this direction, require us to have carbon capture and sequestration in a manner that is meaningful. One of the amendments today will establish a 6-billion-gallon requirement. I believe essentially the same amendment a couple of weeks ago said it should be 21 billion barrels as a mandate or requirement. I don't know where those numbers come from. I just believe, as I think most who have spoken believe, that we have to move in the direction of making coal to liquid work in a way that is compatible with this country's environmental needs. So I am going to support the Tester amendment. I hope that at the end of the day, we will have received a message here from the debate in this Congress that says: Yes, alternative fuels make sense; coal to liquids makes sense; so, too, do carbon sequestration and carbon capture. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it was 125 years ago that pioneers created the city of LaMoure, ND. LaMoure and its surrounding territory got off to an unexpectedly strong start due to the work of a fellow named MAJ H.T. Elliott. He was employed by a real estate firm whose financial fortunes depended upon the prosperity and success of homesteaders and town builders in the LaMoure area. To ensure that region boomed, Major Elliott was sent to the nearest railroad station to meet incoming emigrants. If they appeared to be bright, industrious, honest folks with adequate financial resources, Elliott directed them to the region around LaMoure. But if they were of a suspect type, Elliott sent them off in the opposite direction. Elliott himself was the county's first citizen but had the misfortune to establish the town of Grand Rapids which immediately found itself in a fight with LaMoure over which should be the county seat. When Grand Rapids lost that election, LaMoure's citizens armed themselves and trooped across country in the dead of night to seize the governmental records. They were met at Grand Rapids by barricaded doors and rifles bristling from the courthouse windows. But with the aid of a battering ram, they smashed their way in and the Grand Rapids defenders slipped away. LaMoure had its first triumph. There have been many more since then--some headline making like State championship sports teams, installation of a Coast Guard radar site serving mariners and pilots all around the globe, a national award as an All-America City, home to U.S. Senator Milton Young. But many more of its successes never garnered headlines. They were the quiet but meaningful stories of strong families, vibrant businesses, prosperous farms, good kids, and the warmth of citizens who cared about each other. LaMoure is both a wellspring and a repository of what is best about America--old-fashioned values of honesty, decency, hard work, faith, and family. Its foundation is solid, and its people will continue to create a community where dreams are turned into reality.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it was 125 years ago that pioneers in Dakota Territory created the community that is now Rutland, ND. Those pioneers included hopeful immigrants from Norway, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, Poland, England, and Scotland, seeking new homesteads on the unbroken prairie; hard-driving businessmen and railroad workers from the Eastern States finding opportunity on America's frontier; and the Wahpeton-Sisseton band of the Dakota people, adapting to changing times and preserving ancient traditions as their world changed around them. These pioneers built a solid foundation of family, faith, and education for their community, establishing farm homes, churches, and schools first. When the Great Northern Railway built its line through the territory, the community was given its name in honor of Rutland, VT, the hometown of many of the pioneer railroaders. The green hills of the Coteau de Prairie south of the town, reminded them of their home in the Green Mountains. In those early years, the pioneers of the Rutland community endured drought, harsh winters, and economic exploitation, but their faith, independent spirit, and cooperative attitude carried them through the tough times and made the good times better. It has been said that Rutland could be renamed Phoenix because, like that mythical bird, the city's business district has twice risen from the ashes of devastating fires to rebuild better and stronger each time. One of the business buildings destroyed by the second fire, back in 1941, was a unique combination of economic enterprises, perhaps a forerunner of today's megamalls. The second floor was a hotel, providing rest and refuge for weary travelers, while three businesses occupied the ground floor: In the front was a harness and shoe repair shop, keeping Rutland folks either afoot or on horseback, and they always knew which; at the center of the building was a cream station, where farm produce including chickens, eggs, cream, and butter was bought and sold; and at the rear of the building was a funeral parlor, which had a double life as an illicit gambling casino, when a paying customer was not laid out in somber repose. That building and those businesses went up in smoke many years ago, but this week, another new business, the Rutland General Store, has opened its doors on Rutland's Main Street, showing that the spirit of optimism that inspired our pioneer ancestors is still alive and thriving in the community they built. The optimism and patriotism of Rutland citizens is reflected in the fact that men and women from the community have served in the Nation's military service in every conflict from the Civil War to the current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the past 125 years, Rutland has been noted for many accomplishments: The home of one of North Dakota's outstanding amateur baseball teams, the Rutland Roosters; the Rutland Rockets and Sargent Central Cadets High School sports teams always tough and usually victorious; location of the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, conserving and preserving our Nation's natural heritage; an award as a National Bicentennial Community in 1976; an award as a North Dakota Centennial Community in 1989; home to Obed Wyum, a national leader in the establishment of rural electric and rural telephone cooperatives; and making it into the ``Guinness Book of World Records'' with the world's largest hamburger, a 3,591-pound whopper, as part of the community's centennial celebration in 1982. But many more of Rutland's successes never garnered headlines. They were the quiet but meaningful stories of strong families, vibrant businesses, prosperous farms, good kids, and the warmth of citizens who cared about each other. Rutland is both a wellspring and a repository of what is best about America--old-fashioned values of honesty, decency, hard work, faith, and family. Its foundation is solid, and its people will continue to create a community where dreams are turned into reality.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, one of North Dakota's oldest communities celebrates its anniversary this week. Abercrombie and the nearby fort after which it is named date their origins back 150 years. Fort Abercrombie is famous for having been the site of one of the most prolonged battles in the American West between Native Americans and U.S. soldiers. Fresh from their triumphs in a Minnesota uprising, Dakota warriors quickly moved to secure their gains by attacking the last military post between the decimated, burning white settlements and the wide open Great Plains. The defenders of the fort were in a desperate pinch. The fort had no protective palisade and little else in the way of defense, it was several hundred miles from the nearest help, and, worst of all, rifle ammunition was critically low. For a month the soldiers, and the citizens who had rushed to the protection of the fort, held off Little Crow's warriors. What saved them was the discovery that the metal balls with which the fort's cannon shells were packed were identical to what their rifles required for ammunition. Fort Abercrombie has a storied history. Military trails radiated out to Fort Wadsworth, Fort Ransom, and Fort Totten. It was here that wagon trains embarked for Montana's gold fields, that the 1870 peace treaty between 900 Dakota and Chippewa delegates was signed, that oxcart caravans from Canada to the Twin Cities overnighted. Fort Abercrombie is quiet now but houses a handsome State park and historical center. The adjacent community, however, continues to hum. In 1936, an observer called it ``an enterprising, live, wide-awake community.'' That is still an honest description, especially this weekend. A street dance, military ball, school reunion, parades, wagon train, history tours, and a multitude of other events will fill the days. Although I expect the activity will be as intensive as it was in 1862, it will not be as desperate. Instead, it will be a classic festival of small town America--one of remembrance and homecoming, of neighbors and family, of heritage and pride. I send its citizens birthday greetings and a salute for its proud and singular history.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Stevens and Inouye, the Travel Promotion Act of 2007. We seek with this bill to increase travel to the United States and rebuild the country's place in the global travel market. After 9/11, the number of overseas travelers to the United States decreased dramatically and has still not recovered. Travel and tourism are a crucial part of our export industry, but other countries have gained market share to our detriment. Foreign travelers are going elsewhere. The absence of federal leadership in travel promotion has resulted in States having to step in to fill that void. An example is the effort made by my home State of North Dakota, where tourism is the State's second largest industry, with visitors spending $3.36 billion in 2004. The investment that North Dakota made to encourage travel and tourism has reaped enormous benefits, with the State getting a return of investment of almost $82 for each dollar spent on travel promotion. While States have made inroads to attracting travelers, the lack of a coordinated federal campaign creates a comparative disadvantage with countries that have centralized ministries or offices to encourage international travel to their countries. The example of North Dakota should be a lesson for the entire country. The United States offers unique and diverse destinations for travelers--a small investment in national coordination has the potential to create a significant windfall for our economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2007 will promote travel to the U.S., including areas not traditionally visited, highlighting the United States as a premier travel destination. The bill will improve communication of United States travel policies and perceptions of the process. Negative perceptions can often deter foreigners from traveling to the United States. Our communities will benefit from growth of this multi-billion dollar industry. With an increase in visitors they will experience an increase in jobs and expansion of local economies. The bill initiates a nationally coordinated travel promotion campaign established in a public-private partnership to increase international travel to the United States. It creates a Corporation for Travel Promotion, an independent, nonprofit corporation, to run the travel promotion campaign. The program will be funded equally by a small fee paid by foreign travelers visiting the U.S. and matching contributions from the travel industry. This is a great country, and we should welcome visitors to our shores to meet our people and experience our culture. I thank the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for joining with me to develop this campaign and promote travel to our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Stevens and Inouye, the Travel Promotion Act of 2007. We seek with this bill to increase travel to the United States and rebuild the country's place in the global travel market. After 9/11, the number of overseas travelers to the United States decreased dramatically and has still not recovered. Travel and tourism are a crucial part of our export industry, but other countries have gained market share to our detriment. Foreign travelers are going elsewhere. The absence of federal leadership in travel promotion has resulted in States having to step in to fill that void. An example is the effort made by my home State of North Dakota, where tourism is the State's second largest industry, with visitors spending $3.36 billion in 2004. The investment that North Dakota made to encourage travel and tourism has reaped enormous benefits, with the State getting a return of investment of almost $82 for each dollar spent on travel promotion. While States have made inroads to attracting travelers, the lack of a coordinated federal campaign creates a comparative disadvantage with countries that have centralized ministries or offices to encourage international travel to their countries. The example of North Dakota should be a lesson for the entire country. The United States offers unique and diverse destinations for travelers--a small investment in national coordination has the potential to create a significant windfall for our economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2007 will promote travel to the U.S., including areas not traditionally visited, highlighting the United States as a premier travel destination. The bill will improve communication of United States travel policies and perceptions of the process. Negative perceptions can often deter foreigners from traveling to the United States. Our communities will benefit from growth of this multi-billion dollar industry. With an increase in visitors they will experience an increase in jobs and expansion of local economies. The bill initiates a nationally coordinated travel promotion campaign established in a public-private partnership to increase international travel to the United States. It creates a Corporation for Travel Promotion, an independent, nonprofit corporation, to run the travel promotion campaign. The program will be funded equally by a small fee paid by foreign travelers visiting the U.S. and matching contributions from the travel industry. This is a great country, and we should welcome visitors to our shores to meet our people and experience our culture. I thank the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for joining with me to develop this campaign and promote travel to our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on law enforcement in Indian Country. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on rules and administration

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on a couple of issues dealing with the Energy bill this morning. We will be back on the Energy bill starting on Monday. Before I do, I wish to mention as well the Washington Post column by Robert Novak yesterday entitled ``Dorgan's Poison Pill.'' Mr. Novak once again stops just about a page or two short of good research. He has the opportunity on the op-ed page of a major paper to make his case, and we are so seldom offered that same opportunity by the Washington Post that I thought I would at least use the floor of the Senate to describe accurately what Mr. Novak was trying to write about. He talks about an amendment I offered to the immigration bill. He calls it a ``poison pill'' in the title, and then he says: Dorgan pushed his ``killer amendment'' by voicing the Great Plains populism of his own State. That is sort of sniffing down your nose at the Great Plains populism that exists in some parts of this country. Let me describe what this amendment was. The immigration bill is a bill that is complicated, it is controversial, it is a very large bill, and it has a lot of moving parts to it. One part of the bill deals with the issue of bringing in guest workers--people who aren't now here, who are living elsewhere in other parts of the world--bringing them in to take American jobs. Now, I have great difficulty with the immigration bill as it is written. My feeling about immigration is we have a problem with illegal immigration. That is true, we certainly do, and we ought to try to address that problem. I think the first way and the thoughtful way to address that problem is to decide we are going to provide border security and border enforcement--just do first things first. First of all, provide border enforcement, and then we can do the other things. That is not what this bill does. This bill brings in about six or eight moving parts, and in order to sign up support for it--for example, in order to get the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to support it, they also include a temporary or guest worker program that says we have people who are not now in this country whom we want to bring into this country to take American jobs because we don't have enough American workers, they claim. In fact, they put together this Byzantine approach that says guest workers will come in, they will be able to bring their family with them and stay for 2 years. They have to go home for 1 year, take their family home, and then they can come back for 2 more years, then go home for 1 year and come back for 2 more years. So they can be here a total of 6 years, with 2 years gone, and their family with them their first or second tour. And by the way, no one knows whether they are going to go home once they get here. Who is going to keep track of people coming in three times in 6 years for 2-year periods each of the three occasions? I offered an amendment on that particular issue of guest and temporary workers who would come in to take these jobs. My amendment was very simple. It said: Let's sunset that provision after 5 years and try to understand what has happened as a result of it, what has happened to American workers as a result of bringing in all these temporary workers. Is there downward pressure on American wages? Has this hurt American workers? My guess is it will. What if 80 percent of the people who come in under the temporary worker program never leave? Then they are here as illegal immigrants. Maybe that ought to matter. Maybe we should sunset this in 5 years and take a look at it. That was my amendment. It passed by one vote on the floor of the Senate and is described by Mr. Novak as the ``poison pill,'' the ``killer amendment.'' That is unbelievable. I know where he got the language. He got the language from my colleagues here who were part of the ``grand bargain''--a group of 14, I think it was, who went into a room, reached a grand bargain putting together this Byzantine immigration bill, brought it to the floor, and behaved as if they were the only people out of 100 Senators who had any ideas. There are 14 of us who have this idea, they believed, and anybody who offers amendments would not have an idea that would be worthy of improving it; therefore, we must resist and oppose all amendments. That is the way this immigration bill went on the floor of the Senate. But it was not a poison pill or a killer amendment or anything of the sort. It was a kind of commonsense approach to try to say: Why don't we do this the right way? Mr. Novak points to my colleague, Senator Kyl from Arizona, in his column. It is interesting. Mr. Kyl was part of the grand compromise and, of course, described my amendment, I think, as a ``poison pill.'' Mr. Kyl voted for the identical amendment 1 year ago. I offered the identical amendment 1 year ago, and Senator Kyl voted for it then. But those are just facts that Mr. Novak missed because, as I said, when you stop one page short of good research, you are not going to have the entire story. Energy Mr. President, let me now talk just a bit about the Energy bill. This is important. We live on this little old planet, we circle the Sun, and we have about 6.4 billion neighbors. We live in this little portion of the planet called the United States, and we have built an economy that is extraordinary. We have expanded the middle class, created an economic engine that is almost unparalleled on this Earth. In this planet we stick little straws and suck out oil. We suck out about 84 to 85 million barrels of oil every single day. One-fourth of that oil must come to the United States and be used here because we need it. We use one-fourth of all the oil every day that is pulled out of this earth, and 60 percent of the oil we use in this country comes from outside of our country. So we use one-fourth of the oil on the Earth every day, and over 60 percent of it comes from elsewhere. It comes from the Saudis--Saudi Arabia--Kuwait, Iraq, and Venezuela. Some troubled parts of the world--very troubled parts of the world--produce a substantial portion of the oil we need for our economy to work. If, God forbid, one morning we woke up and terrorists had interrupted the pipeline of oil to our country from troubled parts of the world, our economy would be flat on its back, and that is reason we have an energy bill on the floor of the Senate. I think this is the first time we have debated the Energy bill in which we have come to an intersection in understanding that energy and climate change are intertwined, energy and climate change meet at the same intersection. So we discuss all of these things. We discuss renewable electricity standards. Should we require that 15 percent of all electricity produced in this country be produced with renewable energy--wind energy, biomass, geothermal, solar energy? I believe the answer is yes. I feel very strongly about that. We will have a vote on that next week, and I think it will be very close. Standards that would increase the efficiency of automobiles, we will have a vote on that, and it will be very close. We haven't had a change in the CAFE standards for automobiles for 25 years--25 years. Everything else about an automobile has changed. There is more computing power in a new automobile than there was on the lunar landing that put Neil Armstrong on the surface of the Moon. There is more computing power in one new car than was in the lunar landing. Everything has changed--cup holders, music systems, keyless entry-- everything has changed about these vehicles except efficiency. My wife purchased an automobile some years ago. She purchased an automobile that had a certain mileage standard on the window sticker. After 10 years, she was going to buy another car, and she looked at the new version, the new car version of exactly what she purchased 10 years earlier. The mileage standard on the new car, 10 years later, was identical to the mileage standard of the car she had purchased, identical. Everything about the car had changed--the color, the look, I am sure the springs, the suspension--almost everything was changed, and it has cup holders and a better music system and keyless entry. By the way, all those car companies opposed seatbelts and airbags and have always opposed CAFE standards. But the point is, regarding efficiency, nothing is changing. So the question is this: If we are consuming all of this oil--much of it from troubled parts of the world--because we have such an oil-intensive economy and we want to be less dependent on the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and others, and 70 percent of our oil is used in vehicles, then don't we have to insist that this change and that vehicles become more efficient? The automobile industry is doing full-page newspaper ads in my State--and I assume other States as well--telling people things about the proposal on the floor of the Senate that just aren't true--just not so. I think it was Will Rogers who said: It is not what he knows that bothers me so much, it's what he says he knows for sure that just ain't so. Well, some of the advertising that is going on around the country is just wrong. They have these screaming ads saying somebody is going to take your pickup truck away. It is not true. The new CAFE standards--or any efficiency standards--aren't like the old ones where if you produce too many pickup trucks, you have to cut back on pickup trucks and produce far more subcompacts. That is not the case. These new approaches say that for every class of vehicle--and there are eight, including the big, heavy trucks--every class of vehicle must have efficiency. You must have increased efficiency for each class, not measured against another class. You must have increased efficiency in that class, and, yes, that includes pickup trucks. But those who are buying pickup trucks--and a lot of people are--ought to expect more efficiency. It is not a case where someone is going to say that you are not going to be able to find a pickup because we have to produce more subcompacts. In my part of the country, it does occasionally--only on rare occasions--get cold. In North Dakota, when a rancher is going out in late March, and there is a blizzard and the wind is blowing 40 miles an hour and the temperature is 30 below, and he or she is out checking on the calves because it is calving season and they are trying to figure out what is going on--they don't want to go out in 40-mile-an-hour winds, with temperatures 30 below; that rarely happens, but occasionally--they do not want to go out driving in a Chevette or some subcompact car trying to figure out where they are going to move in the pasture to find those cattle. They want a substantial vehicle. So they want four-wheel drives and pickup trucks, and I understand that. That is why this CAFE or this automobile efficiency standard has been changed and changed in the right way, requiring all classes of vehicles to be more efficient. We don't measure them against other classes. Every class is required to meet greater efficiency standards. So that will be debated next week. I know there are people who will come and oppose it because the automobile industry is taking a position of: Yesterday forever; let's just keep doing what we have been doing, and that will be just fine. It is not just fine as a matter of public policy for this country. This country needs a changed agenda with respect to energy, and part of that changed agenda is increased efficiency for automobiles and for vehicles. With respect to the renewable energy standard, the renewable electricity standard, I regret and I have said from time to time that my political party--we are not as good at developing titles and labels as the other party. No matter what they come up with, they are good. They come up with something that is probably going to even cause more pollution, and they call it Clear Skies. They come up with something that will cut down trees, and they call it Healthy Forests. They are good at labeling. We come up with something called renewable portfolio standard. We talk like twits. So we need to improve that. I call it homegrown energy or renewable electricity standards. Let me describe what that means. It means we produce a lot of electricity, and we use it. We get up in the morning and the first thing we do is turn on a switch and that switch makes all things possible for us. It allows you to get hot water from a hot water heater, it allows you to plug in an electric razor, allows you to have the lights in your bathroom as you get ready for work. All of these things happen, but it is not automatic. Somebody is out there producing electricity in a coal-fired generating plant perhaps, or a generating plant that is fueled by natural gas. What we are saying is, we want to set a standard of 15 percent of our electric energy to be produced with renewable energy. We now have unbelievable turbines that can take energy from the wind and turn it into electricity. Yes, you can advance your electricity issue with that or, an experiment I have in North Dakota that I am very excited about, you can take the energy from the wind, produce electricity, and with that electricity in the process of electrolysis, separate hydrogen from water and store hydrogen as a vehicle fuel; the wind to hydrogen, all renewable. You can do the same with respect to the renewable electricity standard by requiring that 15 percent of the electricity we produce comes from biomass, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, and more. We should do that. I know it is a close vote. I know some oppose that. We should do that because it will advance this country's interests. I want to make one additional point. There are some who say: You are out here talking about increased efficiency standards, you talk about renewable electricity and so on--what about more production? In fact, I just had a person call me a few minutes ago who said the same thing. What about more production? I believe we ought to have more production of energy. I have supported, along with my colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho--bipartisan--the two of us have supported something called the SAFE Act, which proposes and calls for more production from that area offshore that has the greatest potential. No, it is not Alaska, not California; it is the gulf, the Gulf of Mexico that has the greatest potential. I was one who helped open lease 181, which was just opened. But I believe much more can be done to increase the potential on the Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico. I support that. I filed an amendment--we have not called it up because I don't believe we have the votes for that--but Senator Craig and I are discussing that issue. I support increased production because I believe it is a necessary part of a balanced energy strategy. I think all of these issues are important. I know there are some who probably do not think the Energy bill is as important as it really is, but it is at the root of this country's future economic opportunity. This engine of ours, this economic engine of ours cannot and does not work without energy, and our energy policy has not been a particularly thoughtful policy. We waste a prodigious amount of energy in every way, every day. We can make buildings more efficient, we can make automobiles more efficient, we can make appliances more efficient. We should produce more. We should conserve more. There is so much we should do in energy policy. Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, who are the chair and ranking member of the Energy Committee--I am a senior member of that committee--but with their leadership they have put together a bill that is now on the Senate floor, and I think it will advance our interests. But we need to do a couple of things. No. 1, we need to support the CAFE standards. By the way, that comes from the Commerce Committee on which I serve. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens are to be complimented for what we were able to do in the Commerce Committee with respect to CAFE standards. Senator Boxer and the leadership of the EPW committee has also contributed to this bill. But we need to have a 15-percent standard of renewable fuels coming with respect to the production of electricity, and we need to support the CAFE standards that have come from the Commerce Committee. I do not believe there are others who wish to speak. Let me do a couple of unanimous consents.