[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.
____________________