[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S260-S272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand we 
are on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the bill.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, let me say that I rise in general opposition to the 
Keystone Pipeline, and I rise in favor of Senator Markey's amendment. 
After long and careful deliberation--and after having had the benefit 
of a hearing on the pipeline in the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee--I have decided to oppose this bill for four basic reasons.
  First, on the bill, I am deeply concerned that if approved this 
pipeline will be the first of many pipelines opening one of the largest 
sources of carbon on Earth to exploitation.
  Second, contrary to what many believe, I am convinced this pipeline 
will simply not enhance, help or--in any positive way--improve our 
energy profile.
  Third, in my view, it is completely absurd for Congress to take the 
role of permitting pipelines. It is a role we have never assumed and 
should not assume now.
  Fourth, I believe it is ridiculous that our Republican colleagues 
insist on language banning eminent domain for national parks 
legislation but oppose it when it comes to foreign or private projects 
such as Keystone.
  Furthermore, we cannot underestimate the environmental impacts of 
this pipeline. The facts are clear. The resource in Alberta is 
enormous; the tar sands formation is the size of Iowa; tar sands oil is 
17 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than other forms of oil 
because it takes an enormous industrial process to extract it.
  It has been estimated that if this resource were fully exploited, it 
would release more carbon dioxide in the air than the United States has 
emitted in its entire history.
  As James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, 
has said, building the Keystone pipeline would be ``game over for the 
planet.''
  There are also more local risks. Over the weekend, landowners are 
seeing the pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River in Montana. It is 
happening right now, and landowners are wondering if their family farm 
will be the victim of a similar spill, wondering if property that has 
been in their family for generations can still be farmed and passed on 
to the next generation.
  While some jobs will be created by the pipeline, the fact is--after 2 
years of construction--it will create only 35 permanent jobs--35. That 
is not a lot of jobs.
  If we want to create millions of permanent infrastructure jobs, I 
urge the supporters of the pipeline to support our efforts to increase 
transportation funding. I urge them to continue incentives for clean 
energy. I ask them to do all they can to help local governments rebuild 
local infrastructure systems. That is how we create permanent jobs that 
build our economy and help us keep our competitive advantage.
  By comparison, the number of jobs created by Keystone is hardly an 
argument for passage of this legislation. As you all know, we also have 
the issue of eminent domain--the power of any governmental entity to 
take private property and convert it to public use subject to 
reasonable compensation.
  Many, including some of my most conservative friends on the other 
side, were outraged by the idea that eminent domain proceedings could 
be used to seize private property for private gain. I have been working 
very closely with Senator Cantwell on an amendment, and we agree with 
our conservative colleagues that using eminent domain proceedings for 
private gain is pretty outrageous. Here, on the issue of Keystone, a 
foreign-owned company is using eminent domain to seize private property 
so it can better export Canadian oil--a foreign-owned company using 
eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export 
Canadian oil. The project is not in the public interest but clearly in 
the private interest. Senator Cantwell and I feel this amendment should 
be a no-brainer--an easy amendment every Senator can support.
  In recent years Republicans have insisted on similar language 
prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish national parks. 
If eminent domain cannot be used to establish a national park in the 
public interest to conserve our national treasures and preserve 
America's beauty for future generations, then surely--surely--it should 
not be used to benefit private interests; in this case, in the interest 
of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product around the 
world, which brings me to the amendment of the Senator from 
Massachusetts.


                            Amendment No. 13

  We know the oil that will flow through this pipeline will flow 
directly to foreign markets. That is why I support the amendment from 
the Senator from Massachusetts. Foreign oil is not subject to America's 
crude oil export ban, but whether it is shipped as crude or refined 
here and then exported, we all know this oil is not going to help the 
American consumers.
  The intent of the Markey amendment can be summed up very simply, 
using an old adage that President Reagan was fond of: ``Trust but 
verify.''
  For months now supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline have been 
telling us the tar sands that will travel through the United States 
will help advance our energy security. They have been telling us the 
pipeline will bring a reliable source of fuel from a close ally and 
that it will reduce prices at the pump, helping U.S. consumers and 
businesses.
  The Markey amendment does nothing more than confirm the promises 
made--time and time again--by supporters of the pipeline. It would 
require the tar sands that travel through the United States stay in the 
United States. It says that if Americans are to accept all of the 
downsides of the pipeline, if U.S. property owners are to have their 
lands taken away for TransCanada's benefit, if Americans are forced to 
live with the risk of an oilspill of dirty tar sands that we do not 
even know how to clean up properly, then the very least we can do is 
get a guarantee in law that the United States will reap the benefits 
that come with all of these risks.
  So all this amendment does is put into writing the promises we have 
heard over and over again from supporters of the pipeline. It codifies 
in law what we previously had to take on faith.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for offering the amendment, 
and I would note he has a long history of working to improve America's 
energy security. He and I have worked closely since he came to the 
Senate to protect the longstanding requirement that U.S.-produced crude 
oil stay here at home to benefit the U.S. consumer rather than being 
shipped across the globe.
  This amendment is another commonsense protection to make sure our 
Nation's energy policy is aimed at helping consumers rather than 
helping oil companies' bottom line, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  For the last several Congresses I have introduced the American Oil 
for American Families Act, a bill to ensure that oil or petroleum 
products that originate within America's public lands or waters are not 
exported as crude or in refined form. That bill would increase our 
energy supply at home, lowering prices for consumers and businesses, 
and I intend to reintroduce that legislation in this Congress.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Markey 
amendment. I intend to vote against the bill, which in my view is 
nothing more than an earmark for Big Oil. The pipeline will have 
enormous environmental impacts, it will not significantly help the 
American economy, it will not benefit American consumers, and it will 
needlessly harm landowners for generations.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                       State of the Union Address

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tonight the President of the United States 
will address the Nation on the state of our Union and talk a little bit 
about his priorities for the coming year.

[[Page S261]]

  I am not sure how much more there is for the President to say than 
has already been leaked in the press in the drip, drip, drip of social 
media and other stories, but I am concerned he simply did not get the 
message that was delivered loud and clear on November 4 by the American 
voters.
  Just a couple of months ago they sent a message that was loud and it 
was clear. They are fed up with the way things operate in Washington, 
DC. They are fed up with the dysfunction, and they are fed up with the 
lack of real leadership that focuses on their concerns, not 
Washington's concerns--concerns such as more money in their pocket.
  I was amused to listen to our good friend, our colleague from New 
Jersey, complaining about additional exports of oil or actually 
gasoline and other fuel. It is actually the supply, the glut of 
gasoline onto the global markets that has caused a pay raise for most 
hard-working, middle-class families. The price of gasoline has 
plummeted because of the glut of supply.
  But we ought to be focused like a laser on how we put more money into 
the pocketbook of hard-working American taxpayers--after years of 
stagnant jobs and stagnant wages, the stagnant number of jobs for the 
record number of Americans who have been looking for them.
  So after sending a message loud and clear on November 4, what is the 
President's response? He says more of the same. He is set to announce a 
$320 billion tax hike and hundreds of billions of dollars in more 
spending--yes, hundreds of billions of dollars more in taxes and 
hundreds of billions of dollars in more Federal spending. Sadly, the 
President has doubled down on the same agenda which, in his own words, 
was on the ballot this last fall and was soundly rejected.
  But this agenda and these policies are not only wrong for America 
today, they are certainly wrong for the America of our future. Future 
generations deserve a country that provides them more opportunity than 
our parents had or than we have. That is called the American dream. But 
hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending and new taxes--when we 
already face an $18 trillion debt--well, that makes the American 
promise one unlikely to be fulfilled.
  The cause of this problem is pretty clear: The President remains 
focused on the priorities in Washington, DC, and not on the priorities 
of hard-working American taxpayers working from paycheck to paycheck, 
dealing with rising costs of living when it comes to food and other 
commodities and who are sorely in need of additional money in their 
pocket.
  Things clearly need to change. That to me was what the voters said on 
November 4. I think I speak for many Americans and many Texans when I 
say: Mr. President, enough is enough. The American people expect 
better, and, more importantly, they deserve better.
  Sure, we know there are always going to be big challenges, and they 
are not easy to deal with by any stretch of the imagination. But 
surely--surely--we can come up with better solutions than more taxes 
and more spending. This is really doubling down over the last 6 years. 
One would think that the President, giving the State of the Union now 
in his seventh year in office, could come up with something a little 
bit different, particularly after his own party lost nine Senate seats 
after this referendum on his failed policies that took place on 
November 4.
  The great news--and there is good news--is we do not have to start 
from scratch. We need to look no further than some of the laboratories 
of democracy--that is what Louis Brandeis called the State: the 
laboratories of democracy--to see what actually works. We know what 
does not work. So let's look and see what does work.
  We could learn a lot from States such as Arizona, where the Presiding 
Officer is from, and my home State of Texas. We are not perfect, but I 
think we have learned a few important lessons we could teach to the 
policymakers in the White House. Many policymakers in Washington seem 
to have forgotten the secret sauce, the formula, the recipe by which 
strong, sustainable economic growth that lifts the middle class in 
Texas and in so many other States across the country--why that is alive 
and well and why those policies actually work.
  Just last Friday I had the opportunity to visit Southeast Texas. I 
was in Beaumont, TX, actually, where the existing gulf coast leg of the 
Keystone Pipeline is already operating.
  I bet many of my colleagues would be amazed to know that we are 
already transporting Canadian crude from Canada all the way across the 
country, by and large on railcars, to refineries on the gulf coast. The 
Keystone XL Pipeline--the legislation that we will be voting on today--
will increase the supply, which means more product, and hopefully, that 
will result in downward pressure on prices for hard-working American 
taxpayers.
  While the President stood in the way of the building of this 
completed pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs it would support, 
the gulf coast leg of the Keystone Pipeline in Texas is already 
booming. But they are hungry for more crude feedstock so they can 
produce more and thereby create more jobs.
  It has been good for communities. I talked to the mayor of Beaumont 
and other communities. I talked to a county judge. These taxes, which 
are provided by investment from the Keystone XL Pipeline, not only 
create good jobs, but the tax base is necessary to educate our kids in 
K-12 education. They provide the products and services from local 
businesses that sell goods. In other words, projects such as the 
Keystone XL Pipeline is a force multiplier when it comes to our economy 
and economic growth and opportunity, and of course, it has been good 
for thousands of construction workers who built the pipeline.
  I heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to 
denigrate these construction jobs. They say that they are just 
temporary jobs. Mr. President, you and I have a temporary job. We are 
elected for a term of office, and if we are not reelected, it is a 
temporary job. In effect, every job is a temporary job. But to 
denigrate these good, high-paying construction jobs, including those 
performed by welders--in Texas, properly trained welders can make 
$140,000 to $150,000 a year. Those are good, high-paying jobs, and we 
ought to respect and encourage them.
  That is just one example of how some of the folks at the White House 
look down their nose at these construction jobs and try to denigrate 
the economic contribution of projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline 
and what they could learn from this project.
  In my State we reduced taxes, cut red tape in favor of sensible 
regulations, and encouraged businesses to come to Texas to grow and 
create jobs. If I heard the story one time, I heard it 100 times. In my 
State, Governor Perry has contacted people in California and said: Come 
to Texas, where you are welcome and the cost of doing business is lower 
and the cost of living is cheaper. You can actually buy an affordable 
home for your family. People have voted with their feet and have come 
where the opportunity is.
  If we add it all up, over the last 6 years two-thirds of all new net 
jobs created in the United States of America came from just one State, 
and that is my home State.
  Another thing Washington could learn from Texas is how to balance a 
budget. We actually balance our budget every year. Earlier I mentioned 
that the President seems to be proud of the fact that the deficit is 
actually going down. As the Presiding Officer knows, that is the annual 
difference between what we take in and what we spend.
  What he doesn't tell you is that we are actually adding to the debt 
every year because we are still spending more money than we are 
bringing in, and it has now gone up about $8 trillion during his 
administration to an unprecedented $18 trillion national debt. We need 
to roll up our sleeves, and we invite the President to join us and take 
on the priorities of hard-working American taxpayers in every State 
across the country.
  We know this is not going to be easy, but that is what we volunteered 
for. I know there are colleagues here in the Senate--Republicans and 
Democrats alike--who are eager to address the challenges that confront 
our country--whether it is economic, national security, or you name it. 
These are things that need to get done.
  At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I think the 
State of our

[[Page S262]]

Union is or, for that matter, it doesn't really matter what the 
President thinks the State of our Union is. What matters is whether the 
teacher in Katy, TX, believes his students will have the opportunities 
he did growing up or whether the single mom waiting tables in Fort 
Worth can find enough work to feed her family.
  Our Nation is truly strong when its people believe it to be, and I 
hope the President understands that and tries something new rather than 
the same old failed policies of the past.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Presiding Officer.


                            Amendment No. 17

  I wish to urge my colleagues to oppose any motion to table my 
amendment. My amendment is about making sure that, if we do build the 
Keystone XL Pipeline, it is built with American iron and steel. Those 
are jobs. I don't wish to short-circuit the process here, but if the 
pipeline is built, it should be built with American steel.
  The Presiding Officer's State produces a lot of American steel and 
very often with iron ore from my State. These are American jobs.
  TransCanada has said that 50 percent of the iron and steel will be 
outsourced from other countries, and the iron and steel for some of the 
other pipes could come from other countries. They also said they can 
use those pipes in other projects, including other projects in Canada.
  I agree with Senator Cornyn when he said these construction jobs that 
will help build the pipeline are real jobs. Just because they are not 
permanent jobs does not mean they are not real jobs. Providing the iron 
and steel and other manufactured products for this project will also 
provide real jobs. Our amendment will do this entirely and consistently 
within the language of the bill and within our trade obligations.
  I ask that my colleagues not vote to table this amendment because a 
vote to table this is a vote against American jobs. It is a vote 
against jobs in Ohio and Minnesota. It is a vote against the shippers 
who ship our iron ore over the Great Lakes or by rail or over the 
Mississippi so it can be used to make steel. We have done ``Buy 
America'' legislation before. We just did it in 2013 on the WRDA bill. 
I ask that my colleagues please not vote against American jobs.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes before 
we vote to speak to the Franken amendment. I think all of us want to 
buy American and buy local whenever and wherever we can. We strongly 
support that since it does mean jobs--whether we are talking about a 
pipeline or otherwise.
  But I think the bigger question here--and what we have in front of us 
with the Keystone XL Pipeline--is what this amendment would do. This 
amendment would mandate specific materials for the Keystone XL 
pipeline, and I think we need to put this into context. This pipeline 
is a private project. This is not a federally funded infrastructure 
project. This would be the first time that Congress has directed or 
forced private parties to purchase domestic goods and materials.
  We actually asked the Congressional Research Service to look into 
this to see if there was any other instance at the Federal level where 
private parties were told that they must purchase 100-percent domestic 
goods and materials, and so far the answer to that inquiry has been 
that they can find no instance of that.
  I think we need to be careful about this as a precedent because if we 
are going to direct this particular project--the Keystone XL--to have 
this requirement on it, where do we go next? What will happen to the 
next project that we have? Will it be the next pipeline or the next 
renewable energy project? Where does this slippery slope go?
  I think it is fair to note that TransCanada has made a commitment to 
have 75 percent of the pipes for this project come from North America, 
and fully half of that--more than 332,000 tons of steel will come from 
the State of Arkansas.
  I am with the Senator from Minnesota. We want to make sure we get as 
many jobs as we absolutely can and make sure they are good-paying 
jobs--whether it is in steel making or widget making or welders. This 
is about jobs. This is what we want to do to encourage jobs. I think we 
need to be very cognizant of what this particular amendment would do. 
This amendment--for the first time ever--would direct a private entity 
to utilize all American-made products throughout the process of the 
construction.
  It is important to note that the American Iron and Steel Institute 
has been a strong supporter of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have all 
received a letter--they called it a Steelgram--from the American Iron 
and Steel Institute. They let us know very clearly and in no uncertain 
terms that they support Keystone XL. They said it is essential that 
Congress act to ensure the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline without 
further delay. Again, I agree.
  We need to get moving on it. We need to do it without delay. I do 
think it is interesting to note that the amendment does allow for the 
President to waive the requirements for American materials based on 
certain findings he can make. I appreciate that is in there, and I 
think that is good. But think about where we are. It has been 3,200-
and-some-odd days now where we have been waiting for the President to 
act to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. So I don't have any 
real confidence that he will move to act quickly on any kind of a 
waiver requirement.
  I just wanted to put that out there before we moved to take up the 
amendments that we have pending before us this afternoon and note that 
we will be doing that in a few short minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
Senator from Alaska. I wish to say a few things about this private 
company. This company is asking us to do an extraordinary thing. We are 
debating this on the floor because they are asking us to circumvent the 
environmental and safety process here and possibly expose the United 
States--and the path of this pipeline--to tremendous environmental 
damage. This is very different.
  The Senator asked: Why won't this extend to every private enterprise? 
This is something we are here debating and voting on, and that should 
say something about the nature of this issue.
  The United Steelworkers have endorsed my amendment. This is about 
American jobs. The question is: If we do build this pipeline, should it 
be built with American steel or should it be built with steel from 
other countries?
  Again, in the bill, we make sure this is compliant with our trade 
obligations. There is nothing to stop us from doing this. This is a 
private foreign company that is asking us to circumvent our normal 
processes, and because of that, I feel we have the right to say this 
should be made with American steel and with jobs in the State of Ohio 
and in the State of Minnesota--American jobs. If this is about American 
jobs, let's make it about American jobs.
  Again, this is a company that is asking us to circumvent our normal 
processes. So all I will say is that TransCanada has said the pipes 
that have been made for this can be used in other projects in Canada.
  If we are going to build this project, let's make it about American 
jobs.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about jobs--
especially jobs in the U.S. steel industry.
  This November I went to a ceremony at Sparrows Point a former steel 
plant in Maryland. It was a bittersweet day. I was there to honor the 
legacy of Bethlehem Steel and all of the Steelworkers in Baltimore.
  The site is being demolished but Sparrows Point has over 3,000 acres 
of land, access to ports, rails, and roads to attract companies to 
create jobs today and tomorrow.
  We don't have steel in Maryland anymore. Many of us still mourn its 
loss. But we still have steel in America and I am still for steel.
  If this Keystone bill is really a jobs bill, then let us put some 
made-in-America jobs in it and show our support for American steel.

[[Page S263]]

  For over a hundred years, workers at Sparrows Point produced the 
steel that built America. Members of my own family worked at this steel 
mill. My father would open the doors to his grocery store early so that 
Bethlehem Steel workers could pick up their lunch on their way to work.
  America's steel and steelworkers protect the United States and our 
freedom. At Sparrows Point, they rolled gun barrels, made steel for 
grenades, shells and landing craft during World War II.
  God help us all if America stops making steel. During times of war--
will we depend on foreign steel to build our ships, aircraft carriers 
and weapons?
  American steelworkers work hard, play by the rules and serve their 
country. In war: building ships, tanks and weapons. In peace: making 
steel for our buildings and cars.
  Yet for over 50 years, the steel industry withered--not because steel 
was unproductive or overpriced. The steel industry withered in America 
because Congress didn't do everything possible to protect American 
steel from factors in the international steel market, raw material 
costs, slumping demand, low steels prices, and a global recession. The 
government looked the other way when foreign imports began to drive 
down our prices and drive down our steel mills.
  Our government singles out specific industries all the time when it 
is in our national interest. We single out specific industries and then 
talk about their value to America. I agree with that.
  We single out industries when it is in our national interest because 
we need them as part of our economy or as part of our national 
production.
  Helping the farmers or the airlines because of the national interest 
means national responsibility. In 2008, we bailed out the banks and we 
bailed out the auto industry for stability, security, and American 
independence. Where is the help for the steel industry and the 
steelworkers?
  I have fought for steel in the past. Now I am fighting for steel 
again. I fought so hard year after year to protect the lives and 
livelihoods in Baltimore, in Dundalk.
  I have fought for more than 25 years to reverse this tide against 
American manufacturing and against American steel. I am going to keep 
on fighting.
  I fought to keep Sparrows Point open. And when that wasn't possible, 
I fought for a safety net for workers Trade Adjustment Assistance, 
unemployment insurance and health care benefits.
  I think about Maryland steelworkers every day--what they are going 
through these past few years have been tough on workers, their 
families, and the community.
  I am supporting an amendment that protects American steel like steel 
has protected us. It is simple. Let us put American workers back to 
work in good, solid steel jobs, by requiring that the pipeline's 
construction, connection, operation, and maintenance all be done with 
made-in-America, U.S. steel.
  Let us get to work for American workers and let us put the jobs in 
this jobs bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                      Amendment No. 3, as Modified

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Portman 
amendment No. 3 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

               DIVISION B--ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Energy Efficiency 
     Improvement Act of 2015''.

                       TITLE I--BETTER BUILDINGS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Better Buildings Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 102. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN FEDERAL AND OTHER BUILDINGS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (2) Cost-effective energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     ``cost-effective energy efficiency measure'' means any 
     building product, material, equipment, or service, and the 
     installing, implementing, or operating thereof, that provides 
     energy savings in an amount that is not less than the cost of 
     such installing, implementing, or operating.
       (3) Cost-effective water efficiency measure.--The term 
     ``cost-effective water efficiency measure'' means any 
     building product, material, equipment, or service, and the 
     installing, implementing, or operating thereof, that provides 
     water savings in an amount that is not less than the cost of 
     such installing, implementing, or operating.
       (b) Model Provisions, Policies, and Best Practices.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy and after providing the public 
     with an opportunity for notice and comment, shall develop 
     model commercial leasing provisions and best practices in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       (2) Commercial leasing.--
       (A) In general.--The model commercial leasing provisions 
     developed under this subsection shall, at a minimum, align 
     the interests of building owners and tenants with regard to 
     investments in cost-effective energy efficiency measures and 
     cost-effective water efficiency measures to encourage 
     building owners and tenants to collaborate to invest in such 
     measures.
       (B) Use of model provisions.--The Administrator may use the 
     model commercial leasing provisions developed under this 
     subsection in any standard leasing document that designates a 
     Federal agency (or other client of the Administrator) as a 
     landlord or tenant.
       (C) Publication.--The Administrator shall periodically 
     publish the model commercial leasing provisions developed 
     under this subsection, along with explanatory materials, to 
     encourage building owners and tenants in the private sector 
     to use such provisions and materials.
       (3) Realty services.--The Administrator shall develop 
     policies and practices to implement cost-effective energy 
     efficiency measures and cost-effective water efficiency 
     measures for the realty services provided by the 
     Administrator to Federal agencies (or other clients of the 
     Administrator), including periodic training of appropriate 
     Federal employees and contractors on how to identify and 
     evaluate those measures.
       (4) State and local assistance.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall make 
     available model commercial leasing provisions and best 
     practices developed under this subsection to State, county, 
     and municipal governments for use in managing owned and 
     leased building space in accordance with the goal of 
     encouraging investment in all cost-effective energy 
     efficiency measures and cost-effective water efficiency 
     measures.

     SEC. 103. SEPARATE SPACES WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY MEASURES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title IV of the Energy 
     Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17081 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 424. SEPARATE SPACES WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY MEASURES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     `high-performance energy efficiency measure' means a 
     technology, product, or practice that will result in 
     substantial operational cost savings by reducing energy 
     consumption and utility costs.
       ``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' means 
     areas within a commercial building that are leased or 
     otherwise occupied by a tenant or other occupant for a period 
     of time pursuant to the terms of a written agreement.
       ``(b) Study.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy, shall complete a study on the feasibility of--
       ``(A) significantly improving energy efficiency in 
     commercial buildings through the design and construction, by 
     owners and tenants, of separate spaces with high-performance 
     energy efficiency measures; and
       ``(B) encouraging owners and tenants to implement high-
     performance energy efficiency measures in separate spaces.
       ``(2) Scope.--The study shall, at a minimum, include--
       ``(A) descriptions of--
       ``(i) high-performance energy efficiency measures that 
     should be considered as part of the initial design and 
     construction of separate spaces;
       ``(ii) processes that owners, tenants, architects, and 
     engineers may replicate when designing and constructing 
     separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency 
     measures;
       ``(iii) policies and best practices to achieve reductions 
     in energy intensities for lighting, plug loads, heating, 
     cooling, cooking, laundry, and other systems to satisfy the 
     needs of the commercial building tenant;
       ``(iv) return on investment and payback analyses of the 
     incremental cost and projected energy savings of the proposed 
     set of high-performance energy efficiency measures, including 
     consideration of available incentives;
       ``(v) models and simulation methods that predict the 
     quantity of energy used by separate spaces with high-
     performance energy efficiency measures and that compare that

[[Page S264]]

     predicted quantity to the quantity of energy used by separate 
     spaces without high-performance energy efficiency measures 
     but that otherwise comply with applicable building code 
     requirements;
       ``(vi) measurement and verification platforms demonstrating 
     actual energy use of high-performance energy efficiency 
     measures installed in separate spaces, and whether such 
     measures generate the savings intended in the initial design 
     and construction of the separate spaces;
       ``(vii) best practices that encourage an integrated 
     approach to designing and constructing separate spaces to 
     perform at optimum energy efficiency in conjunction with the 
     central systems of a commercial building; and
       ``(viii) any impact on employment resulting from the design 
     and construction of separate spaces with high-performance 
     energy efficiency measures; and
       ``(B) case studies reporting economic and energy savings 
     returns in the design and construction of separate spaces 
     with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
       ``(3) Public participation.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting 
     public comments regarding effective methods, measures, and 
     practices for the design and construction of separate spaces 
     with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
       ``(4) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the study 
     on the website of the Department of Energy.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 423 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 424. Separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency 
              measures.''.

     SEC. 104. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title IV of the Energy 
     Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17081 et 
     seq.) (as amended by section 103) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 425. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     `high-performance energy efficiency measure' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 424.
       ``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 424.
       ``(b) Tenant Star.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Energy, shall develop a voluntary program within the Energy 
     Star program established by section 324A of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a), which may be known as 
     `Tenant Star', to promote energy efficiency in separate 
     spaces leased by tenants or otherwise occupied within 
     commercial buildings.
       ``(c) Expanding Survey Data.--The Secretary of Energy, 
     acting through the Administrator of the Energy Information 
     Administration, shall--
       ``(1) collect, through each Commercial Buildings Energy 
     Consumption Survey of the Energy Information Administration 
     that is conducted after the date of enactment of this 
     section, data on--
       ``(A) categories of building occupancy that are known to 
     consume significant quantities of energy, such as occupancy 
     by data centers, trading floors, and restaurants; and
       ``(B) other aspects of the property, building operation, or 
     building occupancy determined by the Administrator of the 
     Energy Information Administration, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be 
     relevant in lowering energy consumption;
       ``(2) with respect to the first Commercial Buildings Energy 
     Consumption Survey conducted after the date of enactment of 
     this section, to the extent full compliance with the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) is not feasible, conduct 
     activities to develop the capability to collect such data and 
     begin to collect such data; and
       ``(3) make data collected under paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     available to the public in aggregated form and provide such 
     data, and any associated results, to the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency for use in accordance with 
     subsection (d).
       ``(d)  Recognition of Owners and Tenants.--
       ``(1) Occupancy-based recognition.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date on which sufficient data is received pursuant 
     to subsection (c), the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall, following an opportunity for public 
     notice and comment--
       ``(A) in a manner similar to the Energy Star rating system 
     for commercial buildings, develop policies and procedures to 
     recognize tenants in commercial buildings that voluntarily 
     achieve high levels of energy efficiency in separate spaces;
       ``(B) establish building occupancy categories eligible for 
     Tenant Star recognition based on the data collected under 
     subsection (c) and any other appropriate data sources; and
       ``(C) consider other forms of recognition for commercial 
     building tenants or other occupants that lower energy 
     consumption in separate spaces.
       ``(2) Design- and construction-based recognition.--After 
     the study required by section 424(b) is completed, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and following an opportunity 
     for public notice and comment, may develop a voluntary 
     program to recognize commercial building owners and tenants 
     that use high-performance energy efficiency measures in the 
     design and construction of separate spaces.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 424 
     (as added by section 103(b)) the following new item:

``Sec. 425. Tenant Star program.''.

                  TITLE II--GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS

     SEC. 201. GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS.

       Part B of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act is amended--
       (1) in section 325(e) (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)), by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(6) Additional standards for grid-enabled water 
     heaters.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Activation lock.--The term `activation lock' means a 
     control mechanism (either a physical device directly on the 
     water heater or a control system integrated into the water 
     heater) that is locked by default and contains a physical, 
     software, or digital communication that must be activated 
     with an activation key to enable the product to operate at 
     its designed specifications and capabilities and without 
     which activation the product will provide not greater than 50 
     percent of the rated first hour delivery of hot water 
     certified by the manufacturer.
       ``(ii) Grid-enabled water heater.--The term `grid-enabled 
     water heater' means an electric resistance water heater 
     that--

       ``(I) has a rated storage tank volume of more than 75 
     gallons;
       ``(II) is manufactured on or after April 16, 2015;
       ``(III) has--

       ``(aa) an energy factor of not less than 1.061 minus the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(AA) the rated storage volume of the tank, expressed in 
     gallons; and
       ``(BB) 0.00168; or
       ``(bb) an equivalent alternative standard prescribed by the 
     Secretary and developed pursuant to paragraph (5)(E);

       ``(IV) is equipped at the point of manufacture with an 
     activation lock; and
       ``(V) bears a permanent label applied by the manufacturer 
     that--

       ``(aa) is made of material not adversely affected by water;
       ``(bb) is attached by means of non-water-soluble adhesive; 
     and
       ``(cc) advises purchasers and end-users of the intended and 
     appropriate use of the product with the following notice 
     printed in 16.5 point Arial Narrow Bold font:
     `` `IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This water heater is intended only 
     for use as part of an electric thermal storage or demand 
     response program. It will not provide adequate hot water 
     unless enrolled in such a program and activated by your 
     utility company or another program operator. Confirm the 
     availability of a program in your local area before 
     purchasing or installing this product.'.
       ``(B) Requirement.--The manufacturer or private labeler 
     shall provide the activation key for a grid-enabled water 
     heater only to a utility or other company that operates an 
     electric thermal storage or demand response program that uses 
     such a grid-enabled water heater.
       ``(C) Reports.--
       ``(i) Manufacturers.--The Secretary shall require each 
     manufacturer of grid-enabled water heaters to report to the 
     Secretary annually the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters 
     that the manufacturer ships each year.
       ``(ii) Operators.--The Secretary shall require utilities 
     and other demand response and thermal storage program 
     operators to report annually the quantity of grid-enabled 
     water heaters activated for their programs using forms of the 
     Energy Information Agency or using such other mechanism that 
     the Secretary determines appropriate after an opportunity for 
     notice and comment.
       ``(iii) Confidentiality requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     treat shipment data reported by manufacturers as confidential 
     business information.
       ``(D) Publication of information.--
       ``(i) In general.--In 2017 and 2019, the Secretary shall 
     publish an analysis of the data collected under subparagraph 
     (C) to assess the extent to which shipped products are put 
     into use in demand response and thermal storage programs.
       ``(ii) Prevention of product diversion.--If the Secretary 
     determines that sales of grid-enabled water heaters exceed by 
     15 percent or greater the quantity of such products activated 
     for use in demand response and thermal storage programs 
     annually, the Secretary shall, after opportunity for notice 
     and comment, establish procedures to prevent product 
     diversion for non-program purposes.
       ``(E) Compliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subparagraphs (A) through (D) shall 
     remain in effect until the Secretary determines under this 
     section that--

       ``(I) grid-enabled water heaters do not require a separate 
     efficiency requirement; or
       ``(II) sales of grid-enabled water heaters exceed by 15 
     percent or greater the quantity of such products activated 
     for use in demand

[[Page S265]]

     response and thermal storage programs annually and procedures 
     to prevent product diversion for non-program purposes would 
     not be adequate to prevent such product diversion.

       ``(ii) Effective date.--If the Secretary exercises the 
     authority described in clause (i) or amends the efficiency 
     requirement for grid-enabled water heaters, that action will 
     take effect on the date described in subsection 
     (m)(4)(A)(ii).
       ``(iii) Consideration.--In carrying out this section with 
     respect to electric water heaters, the Secretary shall 
     consider the impact on thermal storage and demand response 
     programs, including any impact on energy savings, electric 
     bills, peak load reduction, electric reliability, integration 
     of renewable resources, and the environment.
       ``(iv) Requirements.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall require that grid-enabled water heaters be 
     equipped with communication capability to enable the grid-
     enabled water heaters to participate in ancillary services 
     programs if the Secretary determines that the technology is 
     available, practical, and cost-effective.'';
       (2) in section 332(a) (42 U.S.C. 6302(a))--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in the first paragraph (6), by striking the period at 
     the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (C) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph 
     (7);
       (D) in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (7) (as so 
     redesignated), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) for any person--
       ``(A) to activate an activation lock for a grid-enabled 
     water heater with knowledge that such water heater is not 
     used as part of an electric thermal storage or demand 
     response program;
       ``(B) to distribute an activation key for a grid-enabled 
     water heater with knowledge that such activation key will be 
     used to activate a grid-enabled water heater that is not used 
     as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response 
     program;
       ``(C) to otherwise enable a grid-enabled water heater to 
     operate at its designed specification and capabilities with 
     knowledge that such water heater is not used as part of an 
     electric thermal storage or demand response program; or
       ``(D) to knowingly remove or render illegible the label of 
     a grid-enabled water heater described in section 
     325(e)(6)(A)(ii)(V).'';
       (3) in section 333(a) (42 U.S.C. 6303(a))--
       (A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of section 
     332(a)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), 
     or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (4) in section 334 (42 U.S.C. 6304)--
       (A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 332(a)(6)'' and inserting 
     ``section 332(a)(7)''.

         TITLE III--ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

     SEC. 301. ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

       (a) Requirement of Benchmarking and Disclosure for Leasing 
     Buildings Without Energy Star Labels.--Section 435(b)(2) of 
     the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 
     17091(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)''; and
       (2) by striking ``signing the contract,'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting the 
     following:
     ``signing the contract, the following requirements are met:
       ``(A) The space is renovated for all energy efficiency and 
     conservation improvements that would be cost effective over 
     the life of the lease, including improvements in lighting, 
     windows, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
     systems.
       ``(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the space is benchmarked 
     under a nationally recognized, online, free benchmarking 
     program, with public disclosure, unless the space is a space 
     for which owners cannot access whole building utility 
     consumption data, including spaces--
       ``(I) that are located in States with privacy laws that 
     provide that utilities shall not provide such aggregated 
     information to multitenant building owners; and
       ``(II) for which tenants do not provide energy consumption 
     information to the commercial building owner in response to a 
     request from the building owner.
       ``(ii) A Federal agency that is a tenant of the space shall 
     provide to the building owner, or authorize the owner to 
     obtain from the utility, the energy consumption information 
     of the space for the benchmarking and disclosure required by 
     this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in 
     collaboration with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall complete a study--
       (A) on the impact of--
       (i) State and local performance benchmarking and disclosure 
     policies, and any associated building efficiency policies, 
     for commercial and multifamily buildings; and
       (ii) programs and systems in which utilities provide 
     aggregated information regarding whole building energy 
     consumption and usage information to owners of multitenant 
     commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings;
       (B) that identifies best practice policy approaches studied 
     under subparagraph (A) that have resulted in the greatest 
     improvements in building energy efficiency; and
       (C) that considers--
       (i) compliance rates and the benefits and costs of the 
     policies and programs on building owners, utilities, tenants, 
     and other parties;
       (ii) utility practices, programs, and systems that provide 
     aggregated energy consumption information to multitenant 
     building owners, and the impact of public utility commissions 
     and State privacy laws on those practices, programs, and 
     systems;
       (iii) exceptions to compliance in existing laws where 
     building owners are not able to gather or access whole 
     building energy information from tenants or utilities;
       (iv) the treatment of buildings with--

       (I) multiple uses;
       (II) uses for which baseline information is not available; 
     and
       (III) uses that require high levels of energy intensities, 
     such as data centers, trading floors, and televisions 
     studios;

       (v) implementation practices, including disclosure methods 
     and phase-in of compliance;
       (vi) the safety and security of benchmarking tools offered 
     by government agencies, and the resiliency of those tools 
     against cyber attacks; and
       (vii) international experiences with regard to building 
     benchmarking and disclosure laws and data aggregation for 
     multitenant buildings.
       (2) Submission to congress.--At the conclusion of the 
     study, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study.
       (c) Creation and Maintenance of Database.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and following opportunity for public 
     notice and comment, the Secretary of Energy, in coordination 
     with other relevant agencies, shall maintain, and if 
     necessary create, a database for the purpose of storing and 
     making available public energy-related information on 
     commercial and multifamily buildings, including--
       (A) data provided under Federal, State, local, and other 
     laws or programs regarding building benchmarking and energy 
     information disclosure;
       (B) information on buildings that have disclosed energy 
     ratings and certifications; and
       (C) energy-related information on buildings provided 
     voluntarily by the owners of the buildings, only in an 
     anonymous form unless the owner provides otherwise.
       (2) Complementary programs.--The database maintained 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall complement and not duplicate 
     the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy 
     Star Portfolio Manager tool.
       (d) Input From Stakeholders.--The Secretary of Energy shall 
     seek input from stakeholders to maximize the effectiveness of 
     the actions taken under this section.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     progress made in complying with this section.


                            Amendment No. 13

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I call for regular order 
with respect to Markey amendment No. 13.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table the Markey amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There is a unanimous 
consent request. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Is there a request from the Senator from Massachusetts to speak to 
this amendment for 1 minute? What is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He asked unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. To this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, this is a motion to table the Markey 
amendment, which is an amendment to have every Member of the Senate be 
put on record as to whether or not the oil coming through the Keystone 
Pipeline

[[Page S266]]

is then exported out of the United States. Each Member of the Senate 
should be recorded on that issue.
  We import 5 million barrels of oil per day into the United States. We 
should not allow the Canadians to use the United States as a straw to 
be able to then go down to the Gulf of Mexico and send that oil out of 
the country. We export young men and women over to the Middle East in 
order to protect oil coming in from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is a 
chance to keep oil in America so we don't have to export it.
  I do not believe the appropriate vote for Members is to support a 
tabling of the Markey amendment so that we don't actually reach the 
heart of this substantive issue, which is that we should be working to 
have energy independence in America. When we are importing 5 million 
barrels of oil a day from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, we are in 
no way independent.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have previously been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WICKER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 17

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I now move to table the Franken amendment, No. 17, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                      Amendment No. 3, as Modified

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Shaheen be recognized to speak for 1 minute and that Senator Portman be 
recognized to speak for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator Portman from 
Ohio in a bipartisan amendment on energy efficiency. This is a very 
short version that passed overwhelmingly in the House last year. It 
doesn't pick favorites in terms of fuel sources, and it is good for 
every region of the country. This is something we all ought to be able 
to get behind. I am very pleased and hope we get a very strong vote in 
the Senate.
  I am pleased to support this amendment, and I thank my colleague from 
Ohio, Senator Portman, for his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. The Senator from New Hampshire said it well. This is a 
no-brainer. It is three relatively small provisions, one of which is 
very timely with regard to water heaters, about which we are very 
concerned. I ask that we move on this amendment in a bipartisan way. It 
has already passed the House, so it shouldn't be controversial over 
there either. We hope we will be able to bring the larger legislation 
to the floor in the future, but this is a good downpayment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I know of no further debate on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

[[Page S267]]



                                NAYS--5

     Cruz
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Sasse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The amendment (No. 3), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. FISCHER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have disposed of three pending 
amendments that were before us. As we mentioned earlier, we are looking 
forward to Members coming down to the floor to offer their amendments. 
We have agreed to a process here this afternoon.
  Today will be a somewhat truncated day on the Senate floor because of 
the State of the Union Address, but it is our hope that we will be able 
to get three amendments pending on our side and three amendments 
pending on the Democrats' side.
  The Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer, is prepared to speak to her 
amendment, and then we will move to the other side of the aisle. After 
that, I will be calling up an amendment from Senator Lee. We will then 
go to the Democratic side and come back here for a third round.
  Just to give Members an idea of what we will have in front of us, we 
will not be having votes on these amendments today, but I do think it 
should be clear to Members that we will be looking forward to doing a 
similar series of votes tomorrow. So I would encourage folks to come to 
the floor, talk to us, and let's get this process moving.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                  Amendment No. 18 to Amendment No. 2

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 18.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 18 to amendment No. 2.

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide limits on the designation of new federally 
                            protected land)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON DESIGNATION OF NEW FEDERALLY PROTECTED 
                   LAND.

       (a) Definition of Federally Protected Land.--In this 
     section, the term ``federally protected land'' means any area 
     designated or acquired by the Federal Government for the 
     purpose of conserving historic, cultural, environmental, 
     scenic, recreational, developmental, or biological resources.
       (b) Findings Required.--New federally protected land shall 
     not be designated unless the Secretary, prior to the 
     designation, publishes in the Federal Register--
       (1) a finding that the addition of the new federally 
     protected land would not have a negative impact on the 
     administration of existing federally protected land; and
       (2) a finding that, as of the date of the finding, 
     sufficient resources are available to effectively implement 
     management plans for existing units of federally protected 
     land.

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this amendment would create limitations 
for new Federal land designations to ensure responsible management of 
our natural resources. These limitations are modeled on those in the 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, which authorizes the protection of 
national marine sanctuaries. Under the act, the Commerce Secretary 
cannot designate a new sanctuary unless the Secretary publishes a 
finding that, No. 1, the addition of a new sanctuary will not have a 
negative impact on the overall system, and No. 2, sufficient resources 
were available in the fiscal year in which the finding is made to 
effectively implement management plans for each sanctuary in the 
system.
  These are commonsense limitations that ensure the administration will 
not add more land to the Federal system without considering the impacts 
to the overall system and without sufficient funds to manage those 
resources effectively. At a time when the national park system has a 
$13 billion maintenance backlog, we need to consider the impacts to the 
overall system and whether there are sufficient resources to 
effectively manage additional land holdings.
  In the context of energy policy, we should also consider our 
stewardship choices. American energy production on private and State-
owned lands has increased significantly in recent years while 
decreasing on Federal lands. Through leasing restrictions and 
permitting delays, the Obama administration has tied up energy 
production on Federal lands in redtape. Since 2009 oil production on 
Federal lands is down by 6 percent, and natural gas production on 
Federal lands is down 28 percent. Meanwhile, oil production on non-
Federal land has risen by 61 percent, and natural gas production on 
non-Federal land is up by 33 percent.
  By limiting Federal land designations, more land should continue to 
be held privately or managed by States and local governments, 
increasing the opportunity for productive and beneficial use.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as we go back and forth on offering 
amendments, I wish to turn to the Senator from Hawaii for him to offer 
his amendment.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                  Amendment No. 58 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 58.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Schatz] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 58 to amendment No. 2.

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding climate change)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The environmental analysis contained in the 
     Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referred to 
     in section 2(a) and deemed to satisfy the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) as described in section 2(a), states that--
       (1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and 
     each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at 
     the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';
       (2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in 
     addition to other institutions, such as the National Research 
     Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research 
     Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely 
     that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] 
     concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human 
     activities.''; and
       (3) ``A warmer planet causes large-scale changes that 
     reverberate throughout the climate system of the Earth, 
     including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and 
     altered weather patterns (e.g. an increase in more extreme 
     weather events).''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Consistent with the findings under 
     subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) climate change is real; and
       (2) human activity significantly contributes to climate 
     change.

  Mr. SCHATZ. This amendment affirms something very simple; that is, 
climate change is real and human activities significantly contribute to 
climate change. It also states that a warmer planet causes large-scale 
changes, including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and 
altered weather patterns, such as increases in more extreme weather 
events.
  This amendment cites for its evidence the findings of national and 
international scientific institutions, including the IPCC, the National 
Research Council, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. All of 
these organizations are cited and quoted in the State Department's 
final supplemental environmental impact statement on Keystone XL 
Pipeline. This is the same environmental review document that plays a 
prominent role in the text of the underlying bill, S. 1, and the 
substitute amendment.

[[Page S268]]

  The purpose of this amendment is simply to acknowledge and restate a 
set of observable facts. It is not intended to place a value judgment 
on those facts or to suggest a specific course of action in response to 
those facts. It is just a set of facts derived from decades of careful 
study of our land, air, and water.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                  Amendment No. 33 to Amendment No. 2

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment to call up Senator Lee's amendment No. 33.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Lee, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 33 to amendment No. 2.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To conform citizen suits under the Endangered Species Act of 
                                 1973)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. AWARD OF LITIGATION COSTS TO PREVAILING PARTIES IN 
                   ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING LAW.

       Section 11(g)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1540(g)(4)) is amended by striking ``to any'' and all 
     that follows through the end of the sentence and inserting 
     ``to any prevailing party in accordance with section 2412 of 
     title 28, United States Code.''.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Very briefly on Senator Lee's amendment--he will be 
here to speak to it--this is a measure which would ensure that the rate 
of legal fees that are paid in Endangered Species Act cases would be 
consistent with those in other cases that are eligible for lawyer's fee 
compensation. Right now there is no cap on the hourly rate lawyers can 
be paid in connection with lawsuits that are brought regarding 
violations under the ESA. So this amendment would standardize the award 
of attorney's fees to parties prevailing against the Federal Government 
by applying a $125-an-hour rate cap under the Equal Access to Justice 
Act requirement. This applies to small business-related claims, among 
other things, and this would apply the same standard to ESA cases.
  This is a measure Senator Lee will come to the floor to speak to 
further, but I would just give a little preview of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I would like to call on the Senator from Illinois to 
offer his amendment.


                  Amendment No. 69 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 69.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 69 to amendment No. 2.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure that the storage and transportation of petroleum 
coke is regulated in a manner that ensures the protection of public and 
                           ecological health)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF 
                   PETROLEUM COKE.

       This Act shall not take effect prior to the date that--
       (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, 
     promulgates rules concerning the storage and transportation 
     of petroleum coke that ensure the protection of public and 
     ecological health; and
       (2) petroleum coke is no longer exempt from regulation 
     under section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(14)), which may be established either by an Act of 
     Congress or any regulations, rules, or guidance issued by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, about 1 year ago I was invited to go to 
the southeast part of the city of Chicago. It is an area that used to 
be populated by steel mills and now there are a lot of struggling 
families. The manufacturing jobs were not replaced.
  These are hard-working people--many are Mexican-American people. They 
sustain what you might expect--great parishes and churches and a great 
spirit among them, but now they are in a constant struggle. They live 
in a part of Chicago that has seen better days. They are doing their 
darndest for their families.
  They invited me to see something. They wanted me to see what they 
were living next door to. I went down to that part of the city of 
Chicago--within the boundaries of the city of Chicago--and I could not 
believe what I saw. They live in little houses such as these, and 
across from them is a mountainous gathering of something called 
petcoke.
  What is petcoke? If you take the Canadian tar sands that will move 
through the Keystone XL Pipeline to a refinery and put them through a 
process where you can end up with a viable product, such as gasoline, 
jet fuel, diesel fuel or whatever it might be, you have to clean out 
all of this petcoke that creates the tar sands composition that they 
are dealing with.
  When it is all over with--and if the process has been successful--
there is a lot of waste. In fact, there are 61 pounds of petcoke for 
every barrel of oil. Keep in mind that the Senator who is sponsoring 
the underlying legislation--we are dealing with moving hundreds of 
thousands of barrels a day through this pipeline.
  Now take every one of those barrels and have 61 pounds of petcoke 
left over as a result of the refining process. What happens to it? This 
is what happened to it in Chicago. It was dumped in the neighborhood.
  The people invited me to come to their homes, and I did. I walked 
into this woman's home, and she said: I have sealed the windows. I 
taped them shut because this black, sooty petcoke blows through my 
windows night and day. I cannot stop it. Is it something to worry 
about?
  It turns out that the petcoke is not a benign material. We are not 
talking about dust in the air. We are talking about a composition that 
includes--according to those who have taken a close look at it--heavy 
metals. Would you want your baby in your home--or my home or my 
grandchildren--breathing in this filthy, petcoke-infested dust night 
and day? They are not making it up. They showed me the window sills, 
and you could see the black, sooty petcoke.
  I will tell you the details of the story. The environmental review 
for the project of Keystone XL notes that communities throughout the 
Midwest have noticed large piles of petroleum coke--or petcoke--
building up as more and more tar sands are processed.
  This picture tells a story. This is near a body of water which is 
carrying this petcoke on the water. These poor folks deal with it as it 
blows through the air.
  This type of crude oil is carried by the Keystone XL Pipeline, a 
pipeline which the Republican majority has decided is their No. 1 
priority in the Senate. Under the new Republican majority it is S. 1. 
This pipeline, on behalf of a Canadian company, TransCanada, is the 
topic we are facing.
  We just had a vote and unfortunately could not prevail with the 
notion that at least the oil that comes out of the pipeline ought to be 
for the benefit of American consumers. We lost that vote. I think the 
vote was 57 to 42. It was tabled.
  Let's talk about the actual process itself. According to the EPA--as 
I mentioned, the environmental impact statement--every barrel of tar 
sands contains 61 pounds of petcoke. That means the Keystone XL 
Pipeline alone will produce 15,400 metric tons of petcoke every day--
15,400 metric tons of petcoke every day. Would you like to live next 
door to that? That is what is happening in the city of Chicago, but it 
not the only one.
  This petcoke comes from the BP, British Petroleum, refinery in 
Whiting, IN. It is on the very southern tip of Lake Michigan. We can 
see it from the city of Chicago. They went through a

[[Page S269]]

$4 billion upgrade and put in new equipment so they could start 
processing the Canadian tar sands which will come down through the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  Soon after they started this processing with $4 billion of new 
equipment, the people living in this part of Chicago looked out their 
windows to see the massive piles of petcoke building up, and as a 
consequence they got worried. They are worried for their children. On 
windy days--it is, in fact, the ``Windy City''--black clouds of this 
dust blow from piles into this working-class neighborhood.
  It always seems to be the case, doesn't it? If somebody tried to put 
this on the North Shore of Chicago, they would scream bloody murder. 
But the company that owns this petcoke put it outside a poor 
neighborhood--a working-class neighborhood in Chicago. The petcoke dust 
settles on window sills and porches.
  I met the kids running outside.
  They are producing 6,000 tons of petcoke every single day at the 
British Petroleum refinery in Whiting, IN--6,000 tons a day. At that 
rate the plant only has room to store a few days' worth of production 
onsite. So they ended up selling the petcoke to a company called KCBX. 
It is a subsidiary company owned by the Koch brothers--yes, those Koch 
brothers.
  Connect the dots. The highest priority of the Republican majority in 
the Senate was to call up a bill for a Canadian company to transport 
tar sands across the United States with no promise that the American 
consumers would ever be able to access it, and the process of refining 
the Canadian tar sands ends up inuring to the benefit of many 
companies, such as British Petroleum and KCBX, which again is owned by 
the Koch brothers. These are the same Koch brothers who are viable 
political players in our political campaigns.
  This means the people in southeast Chicago are forced to breathe this 
dirty air that members of National Nurses United say causes severe 
health threats. Petcoke contains high levels of heavy metals, such as 
vanadium and nickel, and dust particles get trapped in residents' 
lungs, triggering asthma and exacerbating heart and lung conditions.
  When I go to a school--whether it is rural or urban--I make a point 
to ask a very basic question: Does any student here know anyone with 
asthma? Half of the hands are up in every classroom. Our pages are 
starting to raise their hands, of course.
  So here we have a national problem, a respiratory problem, which has 
been made dramatically worse by the byproduct, petcoke, of the Keystone 
XL Pipeline. That is a fact. What I have argued to you now so far is 
indisputable.
  The community and members of the Southeast Environmental Task Force 
that I visited with in Chicago are fighting back with the help of the 
National Resources Defense Council. They worked with Mayor Emanuel and 
Chicago officials to put standards in place for petcoke storage sites 
that protect public and environmental health. They have come up with a 
radical notion--if you want to store this dangerous petcoke, then for 
goodness' sake put it inside a building so it doesn't blow all over the 
neighborhood.
  They are suing KCBX and Koch Industries for the damages caused by 
petcoke piles after the Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice 
to the company of Clean Air Act violations.
  The people who hate the EPA like the devil hates holy water do not 
want them to come in and look at something as outrageous as this and 
tell you the obvious. This is a public health danger. Petcoke from 
Canadian tar sands, and part of the Keystone XL Pipeline, is a public 
health hazard.
  Unfortunately, petcoke just isn't an issue in Chicago or Illinois. My 
colleague from Michigan, Senator Gary Peters, told me a story earlier. 
He can tell you what happened in Detroit when another Koch brothers-
owned company decided to store large piles of petcoke on the Detroit 
River.
  If you look online, you can still find the YouTube video of black 
clouds blowing off the piles of the Koch brothers' petcoke into the 
river. In fact, Senator Peters said that at one point this black cloud 
was so dense it obscured the Ambassador Bridge between the United 
States and Canada. You could not see it.
  It took years of complaints and lawsuits from local communities to 
get shipping ports in California to require piles of petcoke that was 
being stored there to be kept in enclosed facilities and covered at all 
times.
  Other communities continue to fight, including my city of Chicago, 
which I am proud to represent. As the U.S. refines more and more tar 
sands--that is what this bill is all about, refining more and more 
Canadian tar sands. Every single day tons of this petcoke is produced 
with no end in sight and no way of protecting the people who live 
around that area from the damage it will cause to the lungs of children 
and other vulnerable people, such as elderly people with respiratory 
challenges.
  Residents in Houston, TX, and the State of Ohio have complained about 
how these petcoke piles stored in their neighborhoods are damaging 
their homes and health, but many Americans affected by petcoke don't 
have the money or power to take on big companies, so it is up to 
Congress. It is up to us to ensure that every person in America--rich 
or poor, whether they live in a good neighborhood or a struggling 
neighborhood--has the protection against public health hazards.
  There is a current exemption of petcoke from environmental laws. When 
you think of all of the things blowing in the air, how in the world did 
petcoke end up being treated like fairy dust? It is exempt from laws 
relating to basic things, such as the Superfund. It is exempt from laws 
relating to hazardous waste and materials. They must have had friends 
in high places to make sure this miserable source of respiratory 
problems would be exempt from Federal law.
  My amendment would change that. It would end this exemption so they 
would be held to environmental and public health standards when it 
comes to this miserable byproduct of Canadian tar sands and the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  My amendment goes on to require the EPA and the Department of 
Transportation to implement rules for petcoke storage and 
transportation to protect the public health and environment.
  Is there anyone here who will tell you that the folks, TransCanada or 
those refining this, should not have that responsibility? I would not 
want to see this anywhere. I would not want to see it in Alaska, and I 
would not want to see it in Oklahoma. I sure don't want to even see it 
in the city of Chicago. But to think it goes unregulated--absolutely 
unregulated--is amazing, and that is what my amendment addresses.
  The United States already produces millions of tons of petcoke each 
year. Building this pipeline is just going to add dramatically to that 
amount. By fixing the legal status of petcoke and making it subject to 
the same laws as all other dangerous materials, we can help ensure that 
clean air and clean water is something everyone enjoys, whether they 
are rich or poor and no matter what State they happen to live in.
  I hope the Senate will have a chance to vote on my amendment to close 
this loophole for petcoke and establish reasonable guidelines for 
handling the material.
  It is time we put the health and well-being of Americans ahead of the 
profits of any industry involved in the processing of Canadian tar 
sands because no community--especially the southeast side of Chicago--
should be considered a dumping ground for companies to make money off 
the lungs and health of vulnerable children, elderly, and poor people.
  No family should be forced to live next door to a three-story-high 
pile of petcoke, and that is what is going on. No kid should have to 
move from a ball field to play inside so they are not exposed to 
hazardous chemicals.
  I know what will happen. Somebody is going to make a motion to table 
this amendment. We can run, but we can't hide, just as we can run, but 
we can't hide from blowing petcoke. If my colleagues won't allow a vote 
on this amendment to classify this as a material that should be 
regulated for the safety of the environment and public health, they 
will be on record if they vote to table this amendment.

  I urge my colleagues--even if they dearly love the Keystone XL 
Pipeline

[[Page S270]]

and even if they can't wait to bring in the Canadian tar sands--think 
about this as if this were your hometown, your neighborhood, and you 
lived in a house such as this and you looked across the road at that 
miserable pile, three stories high, of petcoke blowing in for your 
children and your grandchildren to breathe every day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                  Amendment No. 41 to Amendment No. 2

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to 
set aside the pending amendment to call up the Toomey amendment No. 41.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska, [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Toomey, 
     for himself, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 41 to amendment No. 2.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To continue cleaning up fields and streams while protecting 
    neighborhoods, generating affordable energy, and creating jobs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STANDARDS FOR COAL REFUSE POWER PLANTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) 19th-century mining operations left behind more than 
     2,000,000,000 tons of coal refuse on surface land in various 
     coal mining regions of the United States;
       (2) coal refuse piles--
       (A) pose significant environmental risks;
       (B) have contaminated more than 180,000 acres of land and 
     streams; and
       (C) are susceptible to fires that endanger public health 
     and emit an estimated 9,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide each 
     year, in addition to other uncontrolled pollutants;
       (3) the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of 
     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and the 
     Department of Environmental Protection of the State of 
     Pennsylvania recognize the significant public health benefits 
     of power plants that use coal refuse as fuel;
       (4) since the inception of coal refuse power plants, the 
     plants have removed 210,000,000 tons of coal refuse and 
     restored 8,200 acres of contaminated land; and
       (5) due to the unique nature of coal refuse and the power 
     plants that use coal refuse as a fuel, those plants face 
     distinct economic and technical obstacles to achieving 
     compliance with regulatory standards established for 
     traditional coal-fired power plants.
       (b) Definition of Coal Refuse.--In this section, the term 
     ``coal refuse'' means any byproduct of coal mining, physical 
     coal cleaning, or coal preparation operations that contains 
     coal, matrix material, clay, and other organic and inorganic 
     material.
       (c) Emission Limitations for Certain Electric Utility Steam 
     Generating Units.--
       (1) In general.--The general emission limitations 
     established by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 
     final rule entitled ``Federal Implementation Plans: 
     Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 
     Correction of SIP Approvals'' (76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 8, 
     2011)) (or a successor regulation) shall not apply to an 
     electric utility steam generating unit described in paragraph 
     (3).
       (2) Hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide.--The emission 
     limitations for hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide 
     contained in table 2 of subpart UUUUU of part 63 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), 
     entitled ``Emission Limits for Existing EGUs'' shall not 
     apply to an electric utility steam generating unit described 
     in paragraph (3).
       (3) Description of electric utility steam generating 
     units.--An electric utility steam generating unit referred to 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2) is an electric utility steam 
     generating unit that--
       (A) is in operation as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (B) uses fluidized bed combustion technology to convert 
     coal refuse into energy; and
       (C) uses coal refuse as at least 50 percent of the annual 
     fuel consumed, by weight, of the unit.
       (d) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, this section takes effect on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, obviously, Senator Toomey will come to 
the floor to speak to his amendment.
  I wish to follow up on the comments of the Senator from Illinois, who 
was referring to petcoke. Senator Toomey in his amendment is attempting 
to deal with a situation in specific parts of the country that are 
impacted by coal refuse. Coal refuse, as it is defined in his 
amendment, effectively comes about from some centuries-old, 19th 
century mining operations that left behind this coal refuse in certain 
parts of the coal mining regions around the country. They remain a 
legacy problem that is acknowledged, a legacy problem that creates 
environmental issues, including contamination of local streams with 
heavy metals, acid, and mine drainage, that, again, I think we all 
recognize there is a responsibility to address.
  The good news is there is a solution to cleaning up this problem. 
Coal refuse powerplants take this coal and these waste piles and turn 
them into energy and heat for consumers, for businesses. They follow 
EPA regulations. This is not a situation where we are bypassing EPA 
regulations when it comes to the emissions issues. But remediating 
these mine sites, removing these waste piles, and at the same time 
generating electricity with the coal and applying the basic ash from 
the process reclaims the land at a lower cost. So we are able to do 
several things at the same time. We are dealing with an environmental 
issue that has been in place for far too long. We are generating 
electricity that can be used to the benefit of consumers and 
businesses, and we are also able to reclaim the land.
  So it is viewed, clearly, as a win here. It also creates some jobs. 
It improves the environment and it boosts economic growth.
  Burning these coal waste piles is basically a carbon-neutral process 
because the carbon in these piles is currently being emitted into the 
atmosphere through the slow chemical process that is at play there, and 
we also have fires that burn within these piles. So just sitting there 
is not an answer to a better environment and reduced emissions.
  The plants that burn this waste coal cannot economically be as clean 
as plants using higher quality coal. But the side benefits of removing 
these waste piles, again, from the perspective of dealing with 
emissions, generating electricity, and reclaiming the land--the 
benefits do compensate for the differences that are out there.
  Historically, environmental regulators have recognized these 
benefits. They have carved out the plants from regulatory standards 
that would cause them to shut down. There have been EPA regulations 
recently that have failed to sustain this approach and, thus there is 
the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania that would allow these 
coal waste plants to run.
  I encourage my colleagues to look at this amendment in front of us 
and consider the merits as Senator Toomey has laid out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know we are running against a time 
clock here in getting ready for the State of the Union Address tonight. 
I appreciate my colleague from Alaska going back and forth on these 
amendments and allowing both sides of the aisle to set up some pending 
amendments. I will just say the Toomey amendment asks for an exemption 
of the Clean Air Act which I wouldn't support. I know we will have a 
chance later on to have that discussion.
  Our colleague from Nebraska came to the floor and offered an 
amendment that would make it incredibly difficult without first proving 
there was negative management of Federal land to get any more national 
monuments. National monuments have been big economic drivers in a lot 
of communities and have preserved some very unique parts of our 
country. We will have a chance to talk about that a little bit later. 
But I wish to make sure we get our colleague recognized so he can offer 
his amendment. Then, I think we will probably, as my colleague from 
Alaska said, be finished for this afternoon as it relates to offering 
amendments back and forth. I wish to recognize the Senator from Rhode 
Island for his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                  Amendment No. 29 to Amendment No. 2

       (Purpose: to express the sense of the Senate that climate 
     change is real and not a hoax)

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside 
the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 29.

[[Page S271]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 29 to amendment No. 2.
       On page 3, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real 
     and not a hoax.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I first wish to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the energy committee and her ranking member 
for allowing this process to go forward to the point where I am able to 
call up this amendment.
  It is a convention here when amendments are called up to ask 
unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with, but in this 
amendment, the effective language is only eight words: ``Climate change 
is real and not a hoax.'' So I went ahead and allowed the clerical 
staff to read the whole operative text of this amendment.
  This is an extremely simple amendment. We are here in this remarkable 
body in which so much history has taken place and in which so many 
great achievements have been fought through, many of them with powerful 
interests and strong arguments on opposite sides. And through that 
conflict, here in this body, we have been able to generate some of the 
great compromises and some of the great resolutions that have defined 
the course of the history of this country. So what a wonderful place 
this is to have the opportunity to serve.
  Now, in this great deliberative body, called by many the greatest 
deliberative body, we have a great issue before us--perhaps as many 
say, the issue of our time--and that is what our carbon pollution--the 
excess carbon that we burn when we burn fossil fuels--is doing to our 
atmosphere and what it is doing to our oceans. There is no factual 
debate about what it is doing to our atmosphere and our oceans. It is 
crystal clear, and the consequences are crystal clear as well.
  If my colleagues don't believe me, fine, go ask the U.S. military. 
Ask Admiral Locklear. Ask the Secretary of the Navy. Ask the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. If my colleagues don't want to believe in the 
military, ask our religious leaders. Ask the U.S. Conference of 
Catholic Bishops. If my colleagues only believe what corporations tell 
us, ask some of our biggest and most successful American corporations. 
Ask Walmart. Ask Coca-Cola. Ask Nike, ask Apple, ask Google. Go on 
through the corporate heraldry, and virtually every American 
corporation that is not actively involved in the fossil fuel industry 
will tell us this is a real and serious problem. And many of them are 
dedicating an enormous amount of internal effort to try to solve it 
within their corporate boundaries. Again, Walmart and Coca-Cola come 
right to the head of the list.
  Of course, we don't have to ask our scientists any longer. They are 
pretty clear. They use words such as ``unequivocal'' and ``undeniable'' 
at every single scientific society that represents the major elements 
of the profession in this country. Every single one has made this a 
priority. If people just want to go out to farmers, foresters, and 
fishermen, they are already seeing the changes around them.
  So here we are in this great deliberative body with this 
extraordinarily important issue that we have to face, and what do we 
see? Silence, virtually dead silence, because one side of this body 
won't even discuss the question. Many refuse to believe that climate 
change even exists, and for those who do, the political perils of using 
that phrase have now become so great that there is no serious 
conversation back and forth about climate change.
  In the first week we debated the Keystone Pipeline, which the 
environmental impact statement said will have a dramatic effect on 
climate change--the equivalent of 6 million added cars on our highways 
for 50 years, not to mention the petcoke and the byproducts, and just 
the carbon effect of it--no mention. The only time it was mentioned was 
when our distinguished energy committee chairman mentioned the 
testimony of a witness in her committee. She was good enough to make 
sure that climate change was raised in her committee, and she mentioned 
that there had been a witness who in turn mentioned climate change. But 
there was no direct mention in all of the debate that we heard in that 
week about climate change. It is the word that cannot be said.
  That is wrong. We cannot ignore this problem. It is too real for my 
fishermen in Rhode Island. It is to real for the people who are living 
near coasts and are seeing beaches they used to be able to play on 
eaten away. It is too real for the people whose homes have fallen into 
the sea. It is too real for us not to discuss it.
  Now, it is not going to be easy, and we have to start somewhere. So 
this is a start. I am going to ask my colleagues to vote on such a 
simple question: Is climate change real or is it a hoax? Both points of 
view have been expressed in this body. Where do we come down? Let's 
actually find out if there are people on the Republican side of the 
aisle who are willing to say climate change is real. My moose up in New 
Hampshire, one could say, are suffering unprecedented infestations of 
ticks because there is no snow for them to fall off and die, and the 
moose are getting overwhelmed. We could say that in the University of 
Oklahoma, the leading dean is an IPCC member and led the establishment 
of Climate Central. One could go to the Carolina coasts and hear from 
the coastal agencies about sea level rise. One could go to Arizona and 
hear about the desertification and the drought. We can go all over the 
place and find these things, and they are real.
  We have to have this conversation. It has to begin with as simple a 
proposition as this. Then, I hope if we can build off this if we can 
find a few Republican Senators who will say publicly that climate 
change is real. We can then go on to if it is real, let's have a 
conversation about what we do about it, because recklessly continuing 
to dump megatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year is not a 
solution. And I don't want to be a part of a generation of which our 
kids and our grandchildren look back and ask: Where were they? Why 
could they not address this question? There they were in this great 
deliberative body. There they were with this great issue of our time. 
Why would they not even discuss it?
  So I hope this amendment gets the conversation under way. It is one I 
look forward to. I think there are very sensible ways to solve this 
problem, including ways that have been supported by everyone from 
Republican Secretaries of the Treasury to the lead economist for Ronald 
Reagan, the famous Mr. Laffer. There are ways we can make these 
adjustments. But we have to have the conversation, and I hope this 
begins it.
  With that, I yield the floor. Again, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the energy committee for her courtesy in allowing us to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I think 
discussions we have had just in the past hour here since we have had 
the vote and the various amendments we now have pending before us--this 
is a good conversation. This is a good discussion and debate for us to 
be having as a body. We haven't had energy-related issues brought 
before this floor in some years now. We had a very limited debate on 
Keystone back in December, but I am hopeful that with the opportunity 
for amendments--and again, not just some amendments we on our side have 
handpicked and then decided what the Democrats might be able to move on 
their side--an opportunity for some real issues to be brought forward 
and to be debated on this floor.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is very passionate on the issue of 
climate change. I think it is fair to say that he has singlehandedly 
raised the awareness not only in this body but for those loyal 
followers on C-SPAN.
  When it comes to the issue of climate change, I think the Senator 
comes up once a week with his charts and a series of speeches that I 
think is meant to educate colleagues. I don't agree with all of it. I 
think that is a fair statement to say. But what is equally fair is that 
there is a care and concern for not only our country and our country's 
environment--truly the public

[[Page S272]]

safety of our people, a care for our land, the stewardship we have as 
Americans--but it goes well beyond our borders to that of our entire 
globe, our entire planet, and how we care for planet Earth and how we 
move forward responsibly.
  One aspect of the energy debate that I continue to advance is that we 
must ensure that if we are to make advances when it comes to caring for 
our environment and truly the whole issue of global climate, we have to 
be a nation that is economically secure in the sense that the 
technologies we will have to help us be cleaner in all that we do, do 
not come without cost. Here in this country, we have been the leaders, 
we have been the innovators when it comes to clean-energy technologies, 
and we should challenge ourselves every day to do more in that regard, 
to build out, to push out that R&D so that we are making--whether it is 
making clean coal truly clean, whether it is advancing those clean 
energy technologies.
  I, for one, coming from a fossil fuel-producing State, am a huge 
proponent of nuclear-powered generation in this country because I 
believe very strongly that it is the cleanest energy source we have at 
this point in time.
  So what are we doing in this country to make sure our energy is 
abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure? These are the 
challenges I put out to my colleagues.
  I clearly appreciate the need that we have in this body and in this 
country to be moving forward with technologies that allow us to have 
reduced emissions, to have a cleaner environment, but I also want to 
make sure we do so in a way that doesn't cripple our economy. So how we 
lead in this way, which I believe we must, while keeping our economy 
where it must be--in the front and moving forward all the time--is our 
great challenge.
  Again, I look forward to the debate we will have. I am pleased we 
were able to process the amendments we had before us today. I look 
forward to advancing those that we have pending in front of us now and 
to good, continued, and robust discussion on this floor.
  I note the majority leader is here, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________