[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 15 (Thursday, January 29, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S620-S645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
[[Page S621]]
Pending:
Vitter/Cassidy further modified amendment No. 80, to
provide for the distribution of revenues from certain areas
of the outer Continental Shelf.
Murkowski (for Sullivan) amendment No. 67 (to amendment No.
2), to restrict the authority of the Environmental Protection
Agency to arm agency personnel.
Murkowski amendment No. 98 (to amendment No. 2), to express
the sense of Congress relating to adaptation projects in the
United States Arctic region and rural communities.
Flake amendment No. 103 (to amendment No. 2), to require
the evaluation and consolidation of duplicative green
building programs.
Boxer amendment No. 130 (to amendment No. 2), to preserve
existing permits and the authority of the agencies issuing
the permits to modify the permits if necessary.
Merkley amendment No. 174 (to amendment No. 2), to express
the sense of Congress that the United States should
prioritize and fund adaptation projects in communities in the
United States while also helping to fund climate change
adaptation in developing countries.
Cantwell/Boxer amendment No. 131 (to amendment No. 2), to
ensure that if the Keystone XL Pipeline is built, it will be
built safely and in compliance with United States
environmental laws.
Tillis/Burr amendment No. 102 (to amendment No. 2), to
provide for leasing on the outer Continental Shelf and the
distribution of certain qualified revenues from such leasing.
Markey amendment No. 178 (to amendment No. 2), to ensure
that products derived from tar sands are treated as crude oil
for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum.
Booker amendment No. 155 (to amendment No. 2), to allow
permitting agencies to consider new circumstances and new
information.
Burr modified amendment No. 92 (to amendment No. 2), to
permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Cardin amendment No. 124 (to amendment No. 2), to clarify
that treaties with Indian tribes remain in effect.
Cantwell (for Peters/Stabenow) amendment No. 55 (to
amendment No. 2), to require a study of the potential
environmental impact of by-products of the Keystone XL
pipeline.
Murkowski (for Barrasso) amendment No. 245 (to amendment
No. 2), to clarify that treaties with Indian tribes remain in
effect.
Daines amendment No. 246 (to amendment No. 2), to express
the sense of Congress that reauthorizing the Land and Water
Conservation Fund should be a priority.
Udall amendment No. 77, to establish a renewable
electricity standard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we just heard, the House has sent
over legislation they have moved through that body that would allow for
export of LNG. As we speak, in the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee downstairs, the committee is considering a bipartisan LNG
measure. Five Republicans and five Democrats are coming together with
an LNG export proposal that they have not only worked with the
administration on, but the administration is actually carrying out,
without the law being in place. Certainly we are getting to a place
with our LNG and our natural gas opportunities where there are good,
substantive developments being made in our laws and in how we can
provide for not only certainty through the regulatory process--
efficiency, expediency--but assurance to the public--to families, to
businesses, to manufacturers--that pricing issues will be addressed and
the opportunity for jobs in this country is put first and foremost. So
I think there is good news going on today.
There is further good news as we begin the glidepath toward passage
of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have had a host of measures come before
us in the form of some 35 amendments that we have considered as a body
over the course of these several weeks. I think it has been good
debate. I think it has been a good process. We are now getting to the
final closeout.
Amendment No. 80, as Further Modified
Some very important issues have been raised in this debate. I wish to
thank Senator Vitter for bringing the very important issue of revenue
sharing to the attention of the Senate. He offered an amendment that
has been before us for consideration. He has been very steadfast in
ensuring that there is a continued commitment to America's energy
security and increasing offshore energy production.
The American energy revolution has provided us with high-paying jobs
for millions of workers. It has led to lower gas prices. It has
provided a real stimulus to the pocketbooks of just about every
American. It is fundamentally changing our role on the international
stage, which is so important.
The amendment Senator Vitter has offered to the underlying bill,
which would increase access to our offshore energy resources and
provide revenue sharing for coastal producing States, is a very
important one. Again, I thank him for that.
One of my top priorities as chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee is to help ensure the exploration and the
development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--which holds an
estimated 236 billion barrels of offshore oil and 132 trillion cubic
feet of offshore natural gas. This is clearly an amazing resource base.
It is going to take a while--more than a decade--to develop, but it
will provide substantial government revenues for generations to come.
With the benefits that come with this resource development, there are
also impacts. There will be impacts both to the State of Alaska and to
coastal communities. It will require major investment in new
infrastructure, whether it be ports or pipelines or roads. That just
comes with this kind of resource production.
I look forward to working with Senator Vitter to address the revenue
sharing not only for my State but for the gulf States and other States
that host energy development off of their coastline in legislation that
the energy committee will consider later this year.
I appreciate the continued support of my colleague from Louisiana and
for providing a fair share of the revenue from offshore oil and gas
activity to the States that are most affected. His State most clearly
has experienced the benefits of offshore activity. I have seen this for
myself when I have gone down to visit.
He is also working hard to ensure that others enjoy those benefits as
well. Again, we are having a great debate over energy policy. We are
seeing many good amendments with ideas that could be included in future
bills, and I certainly look forward to working on revenue sharing with
my colleagues from Louisiana, Senator Vitter and Senator Cassidy, and
with other Members of the Senate as we go forward in this Congress.
I will now yield to my colleague from Louisiana for any comments he
may choose to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to thank the Senator for her kind words and continuing
commitment to work on revenue-sharing measures. As her new role as the
Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that is going to
happen this year, which is exciting.
As the Senator mentioned, I filed an amendment to this bill with
regard to revenue sharing and worked very closely with my new Senate
colleague, Bill Cassidy, and others. This is important now more than
ever, particularly in light, unfortunately, of the Obama
administration's recently announced 5-year OCS plan. That plan is
grossly inadequate. It really chops up and goes down even lower than we
have been with regard to the development of our Outer Continental
Shelf.
Revenue sharing is one key way to reverse that trend and produce more
American energy in a safe and environmentally sensitive way and have
all of this benefit, including, by the way, the Federal Treasury. My
revenue-sharing amendment and other revenue-sharing ideas--certainly
including those Senator Murkowski is working on--would do just that. We
have three fundamental goals in mind.
First of all, we need to expand production activity on our U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf.
Secondly, we need to treat host States right. They have benefits like
the economic benefits we enjoy in Louisiana, but there are also costs
and burdens. There are absolutely impacts to coastal communities. That
requires that some portion of that revenue from that production stay in
the host States. That is what revenue sharing is all about. We need
that in Alaska. We need that in the gulf. We need that when we start
production on the east coast.
Finally, we need that revenue sharing because it is the most powerful
incentive tool out there to significantly
[[Page S622]]
boost production, to get more States into the act, to get more
production online working toward American energy independence and an
economic renaissance. Revenue sharing, properly formulated, will do all
of that.
I really do appreciate Senator Murkowski's focus on this issue and
commitment to proceeding with this issue in the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee in legislation this year.
Amendment No. 80, as Further Modified Withdrawn
With that having been said, I will withdraw my Vitter amendment No.
80 on this bill and certainly will actively partner with Senator
Murkowski, Senator Cassidy, and others to advance revenue sharing this
year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana.
I do think this is an area where those of us from coastal States can
sit down together to truly map out a proposal that is fair and
equitable, truly taking advantage of the benefits of accessing our
offshore resources while recognizing those States that bear the
responsibility of these production and development activities should
share in some of the benefit there as well. I am looking forward to
working with him as well as members of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
At this time I ask unanimous consent that the votes on the Barrasso
amendment No. 245 and the Cardin amendment No. 124 occur after the
disposition of the Udall amendment No. 77, with all other provisions of
the previous order remaining in effect, and there be 2 minutes equally
divided before the vote on the Daines amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Just for Members' information, we will be prepared
very shortly to commence votes. The good news for Members is the list
of amendments that we had scheduled prior to the lunchtime has actually
been winnowed down somewhat. Some Members, such as we have just seen
from the Senator from Louisiana, have chosen to withdraw. We may be in
a position to take some by voice. We will be having votes commencing
here very quickly. But the good news is there will be fewer than there
were when we started out this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I assume there is a little bit of time
to make a couple of comments as we are waiting.
I would commend the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, for she and the ranking Member have done an excellent job of
moving us through. I think we all appreciate it when we hear the words
``an amendment has been withdrawn'' in terms of being able to move the
process forward.
I did want to mention a couple of things. One, just to remind
everyone, when we talk about this Canadian oil company bringing a
pipeline through the United States down to the Gulf--putting it on a
ship and sending it to China--they are not paying into the oilspill
liability trust fund. Our amendment to say the oil should stay here if
Americans are taking all the risk was voted down. The amendment that
would require American steel was voted down. Any commitment to make
sure these were all American jobs has also been voted down.
I did also--because the distinguished Chair of the committee
mentioned a bill that came over from the House--want to take a moment
to say as we look at energy policy in the energy committee today we
are, in fact, considering what I consider to be one of the most
fundamental questions for us moving forward with this new energy source
in abundance called natural gas.
It is incredibly important we get this right. As opposed to the
pipeline going through the middle of our country, this is something
that can greatly increase our ability to have manufacturing jobs across
the country, to continue to lower and keep down the prices of heating
and other energy costs for our citizens. If it is done right--the
committee, I believe, dramatically does it the wrong way. The bill that
came from the House is very much, in my judgment, a China-first policy
and not an America-first policy. I say that because right now China is
willing to pay more than three times for natural gas than we are. I
understand that the gas and oil industry wants to rush it on ships over
to China. But to add insult to injury for us, they were willing to pay,
last year, $16 and then turn around and subsidize their industry that
is competing with us and only give it to them for I believe it was
$1.78. Our folks who are forced to pay $16 because we don't have a
prudent export policy--they just throw open the doors to send it to
China. Our folks pay $16. The folks competing with us for our jobs are
paying $1.78.
I realize we have a lot more discussion on that at a later point. I
do want to say there will be a great debate on what I believe is one of
the most important issues in front of us in terms of continuing to
having manufacturing renaissance and the ability to create good middle-
class jobs in this country. I am hopeful in the end we will have an
America-first policy, not a China-first policy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are just about ready to begin our
votes. Again, it was a very productive day processing amendments
yesterday, and we have some good provisions included in the bill. We
were able to adopt by voice the provision of the Senator from Maine to
better coordinate energy retrofitting assistance for schools. That was
good for us. I think we have been available to reach agreement on
several of the measures that will allow the process to go quickly this
morning.
I am certainly prepared to yield back any time here so we can
commence with the voting, although I want to recognize my ranking
member and partner in this weeks-long effort if she wants to make any
comments before the vote.
Ms. CANTWELL. I know originally we pushed the bill back, so I am
happy to move it back to reclaim some of that time and help us. I know
there are a few things which have been worked out, and we very much
appreciate that.
I yield back our time.
Amendment No. 246
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 246, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Daines.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Daines amendment.
While I respect the perspective of my colleague from Montana, this
amendment does nothing to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
If you really want to support LWCF, you ought to support the bipartisan
Burr amendment which we will consider in a few minutes. Instead of
actually solving the problem, the Daines measure creates more delay for
delay's sake and says LWCF should be a priority but undermines the very
notion by suggesting there is something wrong with the program.
For once we have a program where there actually is nothing wrong with
it. It has been one of our Nation's most successful conservation
programs for 50 years, funding projects in every State and literally
every single county in the United States. These are projects that range
from creating new parks for inner city kids, to providing new access to
sportsmen, to protecting the Nation's historic battlefields. We don't
need to overhaul LWCF, we just need to reauthorize it and let the
program's proven track record of success continue.
I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daines amendment before
us now, but vote yes on the bipartisan Burr amendment to follow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Daines is still in
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee so I will attempt to speak
on his behalf in support of his amendment.
Reauthorizing the LWCF is something that I have said we plan to take
up in the energy committee. We are going to make it a priority. But I
agree
[[Page S623]]
the sense-of-the-Senate, in order to ensure that this program can be an
effective tool for management structural improvements to the program,
is going to be needed.
For example, I know the LWCF has been used to acquire inholdings in
existing national parks, our national forests, and wildlife refuges.
Acquiring inholdings can improve management. We should do more of these
kinds of targeted land acquisitions.
Another structural change I know some are interested in making is
setting aside some of the LWCF funding to address the maintenance
backlog facing our Federal land management agencies. We have combined
maintenance backlogs, as much as $22 billion, according to CRS reports.
We have issues. We have to do that.
I will support the Daines amendment.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
been instrumental in increasing access to our public lands, growing
opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protecting wildlife. And
there is great potential for the program to be used to increase access
to our existing Federal lands.
My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the Land and Water
Conservation Fund serves an important role in improving wildlife
habitat, increasing outdoor recreation opportunities, and facilitating
economic development on our public lands.
It will also convey that funding and reauthorizing the Land and Water
Conservation Fund should be a priority for Congress and as we consider
its reauthorization, we should also look for improvements to the
structure of the program. The benefits and opportunities for
improvement to the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be
thoroughly evaluated in a transparent legislative process.
My amendment would support authorization through the legislative
process and allow for oversight and transparency in improving the
program. My amendment is not intended to undermine the integrity of the
program.
Montana's outdoors heritage is of great importance to our State's
economy and thousands of Montanans' way of life. Supporting and
improving the Land and Water Conservation Fund will help us ensure that
this legacy is continued for future generations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Daines amendment, No. 246.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mrs. Ernst). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--51
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cruz
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Reid
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. VITTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 92, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 92, as modified, offered by the Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Burr.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I will be brief, but I would like my
colleagues' attention because we have an opportunity today to take a
program that functions well, that this body designed, funded from
royalties off of exploration of energy, that has never been fully
funded at what the statute said we would do, and every so often it
comes up for reauthorization. That is sort of stupid.
What this amendment does is it makes permanent the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. I say to my friends and colleagues, if you want to
change the makeup of the fund--what it does, how it works--that still
exists, but let's not have the debate as to whether this is going to
continue. Let's continue it permanently, and let's make sure that what
they do in their work, where they leverage a few Federal dollars with a
lot of private dollars, not to acquire massive amounts of lands or
create parks but to put adjoining lands together that stops
encroachment on some very sensitive areas--this is a smart investment,
and it is an investment we make off of the production of energy in this
country.
I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 92.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would suggest that legislative
proposals such as reauthorizing the LWCF should be considered under
regular order, beginning with hearings in the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. Obviously, this is an issue in which many of us
are interested. We have just had a measure before this which spoke to
some of the proposed policy changes that might be considered.
So whether we are seeking to reauthorize permanently or considering
different set-asides of funds that come in for different programs, I
would like to think we could do it through regular order. But I
certainly understand where the Senator from North Carolina is coming
from, and I look forward to working with him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
92, as modified.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Corker
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
[[Page S624]]
Tillis
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--39
Barrasso
Boozman
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Reid
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment, as modified, is
rejected.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 77
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 77, offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, this amendment creates a national market
for renewable energy. A bill similar to this has passed the Senate
three times and also passed the House once. These are the jobs of the
future--renewable energy jobs. More than half of the new generation of
energy in the world is in renewables, and this amendment--it is
estimated by the people who have studied it and the experts--would
create about 300,000 new jobs.
So I ask my colleagues to support it. It is a good complement to the
bill we are on, and it would create a lot of new jobs.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this amendment is an issue that
Congress has considered many times over the past 16 years, but we
declined to impose a renewable electricity standard.
We called it several different names. We called it a renewable
portfolio standard. Then it moved to renewable electricity standard. It
was later rebranded the clean energy standard. Now it is back to the
RES. But this latest proposal that 25 percent of electricity supplied
by a retail provider be generated by certain renewable resources by
2025 is really no different than the EPA's move to impose a 30-percent
reduction in greenhouse gases from existing powerplants by 2030 under
this proposed CPP regulation.
I would encourage Members to oppose this amendment.
Further, I would note to colleagues that we are very close to
finishing up these amendments. If we move quickly, if we stay on the
floor and stick to 10-minute votes, we can finish them all before
lunch. I think that would be good, but it is going to require the
cooperation of all Members.
With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to Udall amendment No. 77.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
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 45, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--53
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Reid
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. PORTMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 245
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 245, offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this is an amendment Senator Barrasso
and Senator Cardin have been working on together. This amendment
provides that the Federal Government must consult with the relevant
Indian nations before modifying or breaking any trust or treaty
obligation. This obligation is already required by Executive order. The
Federal Government has been fulfilling its government-to-government
consultation responsibilities on the Keystone XL Pipeline project for
over 6 years.
I think it is important for colleagues to recognize that this
amendment does not create any new law; it is merely an additional
guarantee that the Federal Government will live up to its existing
obligations to consult with the Indian nations, which is a matter I
think we should all be able to agree on.
This is an issue Senator Barrasso has been working on with the
Senator from Maryland, and they have indicated that they will accept a
voice vote on this amendment.
Amendment No. 245, as Modified
I ask unanimous consent that Barrasso amendment No. 245 be modified
with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.
Nothing in this Act relieves the United States of its
responsibility to consult with Indian nations as required
under executive order 13175 (67 Fed. Reg. 67249) (November 6,
2000).
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative
threshold be vitiated, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate on this amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 245), as modified, was agreed to.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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 Maryland.
Amendment No. 124
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I take a
few minutes to debate the next amendment and save a little bit of time
at the end by withdrawing the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as we consider both the Barrasso and
Cardin amendments, I wish to remind my colleagues of the unique history
the United States has with Indian nations. This history includes over
300
[[Page S625]]
treaties that were negotiated with individual tribes and nations which
remain in effect today.
For over two centuries our Nation disregarded the concerns of tribal
nations with respect to expansion and development that affected their
communities. This often included abrogating treaty rights and
disregarding trust obligations this country has to Indian nations and
individual Indians. But this is no longer how we work with Indian
nations in our country. We now have laws and Executive orders requiring
deliberate and meaningful consultation on any actions taken by the
Federal Government that affect tribal interests. We have also signed on
to the United Nations Declaration Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which
states that the rights of indigenous peoples cannot be abrogated
without their free and informed consent.
I want to make it crystal clear that nothing in this bill is meant to
abrogate the rights of any Indian nation or any individual Indian. So
while I believe we could say more to affirm these policies in this
bill, I am happy that at a minimum, Senator Barrasso's amendment
guarantees that Indian nations continue to have a voice through
meaningful consultation on this project.
It has been necessary to have this discussion because the Great
Plains Tribal Chairman's Association does not believe that the
consultation required is occurring with respect to KXL. It is helpful
to remind the executive branch agencies involved in this process just
what their obligations are. I would like to quote from a letter the
association recently sent to Interior Secretary Jewell, which states in
part:
As our Trustee, DOI has a specific duty to insure that its
comments and positions on this National Interest
Determination accurately reflect the very real potential
impacts that this Project may have on our historical Tribal
homelands, sacred sites, cultural resources and water rights,
all of which are protected by applicable federal law and our
Treaties with the United States. While many of our Tribes
have submitted comments on this document, the State
Department's unwillingness to sit down with us on a
government to government basis to discuss our concerns has
led us to question whether that Department really respects
our legal roles as elected officials of federally recognized
sovereign tribes. These concerns are so serious that the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,
the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe have all
become party interveners in the South Dakota Public Utility
Commission's proceedings challenging its 2010 action permit
for this project.
Madam Secretary, we know that you have many important
demands on your schedule, but meaningful government to
government consultation, especially on matters of this
importance, is assured to us by President Obama's Tribal
Consultation policy of November 5, 2009, as well as by
Executive Order 13175. President Clinton issued that
Executive Order to ``establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the
development of Federal policies that have tribal implications
[and] to strengthen the United States government-to-
government relationship with Indian tribes''. President Obama
re-committed federal agencies to this duty through a
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies issued on November 5, 2009, in which he declared:
``My Administration is committed to regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in
policy decisions that have tribal implications including, as
an initial step, through a complete and consistent
implementation of Executive Order 13175''. To prepare final
DOI comments on a document of this magnitude without
affording us the opportunity for a meaningful face to face/
government to government meeting is a flagrant violation of
President Obama's directive in 2009 and of the commitments
President Obama has made to us as recently as last December.
Now, what is meant by the term ``consultation''? When the world
community of nations, including the United States, worked with
Indigenous Peoples over a 15-year period to develop the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they used the
consultative standard of ``free, prior and informed consent'' in
Article 11, 2: which reads: ``States shall provide redress through
effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in
conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural,
intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their
free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws,
traditions and customs.''
This language was necessary because the Federal Government and the
States once ran roughshod over the rights of Native peoples and simply
took and used land and other property of Native nations and persons,
and there was a need to make sure that this would not happen in the
future. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Native peoples were confined
to reservations and could not leave without permission of the Federal
Indian agent. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, Native delegations to
Washington were not supposed to go to Capitol Hill without checking in
at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. Native people tell me that they
used to think BIA stood for ``boss Indians around.'' Out of this sorry
past have come new policies that give true meaning to the nation-to-
nation relationship. Key to this relationship is ongoing consultation
that is meaningful and worthy of trust, and agreements that are made
are transparent and consensual.
There are many laws mandating consultation with Indian tribes and
persons, regarding areas on tribal, individual trust and original
lands, among them the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves
Protection & Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation
Act. Unless the consultation required under these and other statutes is
open and based on informed consent, it is not meaningful and cannot
lead to a good end. When we refer to consultation in the modern era, we
do not mean some sleight of hand; rather, we intend fair, good faith
dealings that honor the high standards of the United States' treaty and
trust relationship with the Native peoples.
I will close my remarks simply by including excerpts from just two
recent judicial decisions regarding the nature of Federal-tribal
consultation. First, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California ruling in the case of Quechan Tribe v. United
States Department of the Interior, et al (December 15, 2010), citing
the National Historic Preservation Act: ``The consultation requirement
is not an empty formality; rather, it `must recognize the government-
to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes' and is to be `conducted in a manner sensitive to the concerns
and needs of the Indian tribe.' ''
Second, from the case of Comanche Nation, et al v. USA, et al
(September 23, 2008), involving the Army's failure to consult with the
Comanche Nation regarding a sacred place, Medicine Bluff, the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma found that the
National Historic Protection Act, NHPA:
. . . requires an agency to make a reasonable and good faith
effort to identify historic properties that may be impacted,
and to identify . . . issues in connection with such
potential impact. . . . The reasonable and good faith efforts
requirement extends to consultation with Native American
tribes which may attach religious and cultural significance
to potentially affected property . . . It has been said that,
in a general sense, the NHPA requires agencies to `stop,
look, and listen' before commencing actions which could
impact historic or culturally significant properties. . . .
The evidence submitted during the preliminary injunction
hearing substantially demonstrates Defendants' actions were
contrary to the letter and the spirit of the NHPA and its
implementing regulations. . . . Defendants virtually ignored
the concerns regarding the viewscape up to the Bluffs from
the southern approach. . . . Contrary to the direction of the
Ft. Sill Garrison Commander . . . to `get with the tribes'
about their viewscape issues, that same day the Section 106
letter was sent out without a reference to Medicine Bluffs
and without mentioning the potential impact on viewscapes.
Instead, the details of the TSC project were buried in
technical attachments, and the consulting parties were left
to ferret out for themselves the adverse impact on viewscapes
then known by Defendants to exist. . . . Moreover, the
requirement of good faith consultation suggests that the
consulted Native American tribes would have considered it
important to know, and therefore should have been told, that
the TSC warehouse was the tip of the iceberg regarding plans
to build within the southern approach to the Bluffs. . . . In
reality, the area in question is also slated for construction
of a DRMO facility (which will occupy about 20 acres),
construction of a fire station, and a widening of Randolph
Road on its north side. Had this cumulative impact been
disclosed to the area tribes, their initial reaction may well
have been different. As it was, the Comanche Nation began
complaining in earnest in the fall of 2007 and early 2008.
These protests, asserted after the close of the 30-day
comment period announced in the August 10, 2007 Section 106
[[Page S626]]
letter, were brushed off by defendants as untimely. Having
concluded that they technically complied with the Section 106
process, Defendants decided to proceed with the TSC project
despite the mounting objections from the Comanche Nation. . .
. it has been said that the NHPA requires an agency to `stop,
look and listen' Coliseum Square Ass'n, Inc., 465 F.3d at
225; the evidence in the present case suggests that
Defendants merely paused, glanced, and turned a deaf ear to
warnings of adverse impact. Thus, Defendants' efforts fell
short of the reasonable and good faith efforts required by
the law. Where a plaintiff shows that an agency failed to
comply with the NHPA requirements, injunctive relief may
issue.
The bottom line is that for over two centuries, our Nation
disregarded the concerns of tribal nations with respect to projects
affecting tribal communities. We now have laws and executive orders
requiring deliberate and meaningful consultation on any actions taken
by the Federal Government that affect tribal interests. This certainly
applies to the Keystone pipeline.
I want to thank Senator Barrasso for working with us on the amendment
we just approved that makes it very clear that the consultation
obligations must be adhered to. I also want to thank Senator Heinrich,
Senator Tester, and Senator Cantwell for their incredible help on this
issue so we could get a compromise.
The work that Senator Barrasso and I have done in consultation with
other Members, with the amendments that have been filed, to try to find
common ground exemplifies what I hope we would do more of here in the
Senate: finding common ground.
So I am pleased we were able to adopt the Barrasso amendment.
Amendment No. 124 Withdrawn
With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is withdrawn.
Under the previous order, the motion to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on S. 1 is agreed
to, and the motion to reconsider is also agreed to.
Cloture Motion
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1, a bill to
approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Jerry
Moran, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Johnny Isakson, Kelly
Ayotte, Ben Sasse, Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David
Vitter, Tim Scott, Roger F. Wicker, Richard C. Shelby,
Michael B. Enzi, Roy Blunt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 1, a
bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, shall be brought to a close,
upon reconsideration?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--35
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Hirono
Reid
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). On this vote, the yeas are 62,
the nays are 35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn
having voted in the affirmative, upon reconsideration, the motion is
agreed to.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 15 minutes, and that following me, the Senator from North Carolina
be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am advised by the highly competent
floor staff that Senators Nelson and Collins will be worked in to be
able to speak shortly after we have because I know they both are hoping
to do that.
Amendments Nos. 67, 98, 103, 174, 102, and 55 Withdrawn
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments
be withdrawn: Sullivan No. 67, Murkowski No. 98, Flake No. 103, Merkley
No. 174, Tillis No. 102, and Peters No. 55.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Innovation for Healthier Americans Report
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from North Carolina, Senator Burr, and I
are here to speak about an important and exciting development that is
about to occur in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
What we are talking about and we will describe in our remarks today is
a report entitled ``Innovation for Healthier Americans'' which will
launch a bipartisan effort to look at how Congress can help to get
cutting-edge treatments, drugs, and devices to America's patients more
quickly while still preserving this Nation's gold standard for safety
and quality. This report and the actions we hope to take will affect
virtually every American.
I am especially glad today to be here with the Senator from North
Carolina. While there are a number of Senators on this body who worked
hard on these issues--which in our government are usually dealt with by
the Food and Drug Administration and by the National Institutes of
Health--no one has been more effective, no one has worked harder, and
no one has had more foresight and vision on these issues than Richard
Burr, the Senator from North Carolina. The report today is
substantially his work product, and he will be deeply involved in the
next year as we work with Senator Murray, our Democratic friends, and
with President Obama to try to bring this to a result.
In 2013, Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of
Health, wrote the following:
Drugs exist for only about 250 of the more than 4,400
conditions with defined molecular causes. And it takes far
too long and far too much money to get a new drug into our
medicine cabinets. This is an old problem that cries out for
new and creative solutions.
Since Dr. Collins said that, the number of conditions with defined
molecular causes has increased now to about 5,390, yet the number of
new drugs approved has not kept pace with these discoveries.
The President of the United States has recognized this problem. In
his State of the Union message a few days ago, President Obama said
this:
21st century businesses will rely on American science,
technology, research and development. I want the country that
eliminated polio and mapped the human genome to lead a new
era of medicine--one that delivers the right treatment at the
right time. In some patients with cystic fibrosis, this
approach has reversed a disease once thought unstoppable.
The President said:
Tonight, I'm launching a new Precision Medicine Initiative
to bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and
diabetes--and to give all of us access to the personalized
information we need to keep ourselves and our families
healthier.
Senator Murray and I had breakfast yesterday with Secretary Burwell
and talked with her about the President's statement and about Secretary
[[Page S627]]
Burwell's own desire to help implement that initiative.
Today Senator Burr and I released a report titled ``Innovation for
Healthier Americans.''
Next, Senator Murray--who is ranking member of the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--and I will start examining the
issues in this report and other issues raised in comments, through a
bipartisan HELP Committee staff working group.
I emphasize that we are going to be working together, Democrats and
Republicans. We are going to be working with Secretary Burwell, we are
going to be working with the President of the United States, and we are
going to be on a parallel track with the House of Representatives,
where Chairman Upton and his team have been working for several months
on what they call 21st century cures. In our committee in the Senate we
will begin hearings in March.
We are releasing the report today in order to ask for comments.
Surely we missed something in the report. If someone who is listening
or reading it may have an idea or solution, we would like to know about
that. We have opened an email account just to hear from those outside
of Washington, DC, that is: [email protected].
Improving medical device and drug development is not a new topic for
the HELP Committee. Legislation was passed in 1997 and different
legislation was passed in 2012 to try to get at the same goal of
speeding delivery of drugs and devices while ensuring they are still
safe. Our goal will be to give bipartisan legislation to the President
this year.
It is encouraging to have the House, the Senate, and the President
working on such an important common goal that affects virtually every
American during the same Congress. That greatly increases our
likelihood of securing a result.
We want to improve and modernize how drugs and medical devices are
discovered, developed, and approved. We will examine the work of the
National Institutes of Health, which funds and enables much of the
research that leads to medical breakthroughs and the Food and Drug
Administration which regulates all the medical products we come in
contact with.
As I mentioned, this work will touch the life of almost every single
American--from a very ill patient who has run out of treatment options
and is counting on the most cutting-edge drug to an active child with
asthma who is hoping to run faster and farther with the aid of a new
drug.
Today our scientists and researchers are making discoveries at a pace
that our development process is not equipped to match. Patients wait
while treatments languish in laboratories, going through our drawn out,
inefficient, and outrageously expensive development process.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg has acknowledged that ``we are
left relying on the 20th century approaches for the review, approval
and oversight of the treatments and cures of the 21st century.''
There is no time to waste in solving this problem. The mapping of the
human genome opened a whole new world of individualized medicine in
which a person's genetic makeup can drive the doctor's plan for disease
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.
In the words of Andrew von Eschenbach, the former Commissioner of the
FDA and Director of the National Cancer Institute:
We stand on the cusp of a revolution in health care.
Advances in molecular medicine will allow us to develop
powerful new treatments that can cure or even prevent
diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. Tomorrow's high-tech
cures can also slash health-care costs and eliminate
ineffective treatments. What will it take to realize the
potential of the new medicine?
Today's report is the first step of our initiative. It seeks to
answer the questions: What today is driving innovation? What barriers
are standing in the way? What can we improve?
The report has five main themes:
No. 1, it costs too much to bring medical products to patients; No.
2, as science and technology advance, the discovery and development
process takes too long; No. 3, the Food and Drug Administration's
responsibilities have grown to include many unrelated to regulating
medical products; No. 4, science outside the FDA is moving at a faster
pace than ever; No. 5, an effective FDA is essential to maintain the
U.S. leadership in biomedical innovation.
Some of the report's key findings include that complex medical
devices approved in the U.S. were available to patients in Europe on
average four years earlier than in the U.S., and increased competition
for NIH grants may be discouraging researchers from proposing risky
projects. Further, the average cost to develop a drug is disputed-some
say $1 billion, some say $2 billion, some more-but all agree it is
rising, and unpredictable and inconsistent development requirement
standards in the FDA review process drive product developers to design
clinical trials that are unnecessarily expansive.
Since World War II, the U.S. has dominated the biomedical industry
space. Even 20 years ago, studies suggested that the U.S. share of
global biomedical research funding was as high as 70-80 percent.
However, from 2007 to 2012, the U.S. share of research and
development declined from about 51 percent to 45 percent. While the
U.S. continued to lead the world in public sector investment during
this time, private sector investment shrank by almost $13 billion and
largely reallocated to Asia.
This is a chance to step back and look at where we are and how all
the different reauthorizations have added up. We need to ensure that
legislative efforts over the last 30 years are helping and not getting
in the way of having the best treatment and technology available for
the right patient at the right time. Our goal is simple but ambitious--
to work in a bipartisan way with members of the HELP Committee to make
sure policies support medical innovation and patient access to
important medicines and medical technologies.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the copy of the
executive summary from the report that Senator Burr and I are releasing
today.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Summary
``We stand on the cusp of a revolution in health care.
Advances in molecular medicine will allow us to develop
powerful new treatments that can cure or even prevent
diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. Tomorrow's high-tech
cures can also slash health-care costs and eliminate
ineffective treatments. What will it take to realize the
potential of the new medicine?''
--Andrew von Eschenbach, former FDA Commissioner, 2012
The federal government has been an enthusiastic investor in
biomedical research for five decades. That investment has
helped drive rapid innovation and bring us to a crossroads:
Will we use what we have learned to transform the discovery
and development of new drugs and medical devices, or will we
maintain the status quo, depriving patients of cutting-edge
products?
With the release of this report, the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee is beginning
an inclusive and transparent process to:
Candidly assess the status quo: What works? What's not
working? What can we do better?
Identify how Congress can improve public policies to
promote the efficiency and effectiveness of medical product
development to cut down on the total time it takes for these
products to get to American patients.
Pass transformational legislation that the President can
sign this year.
Every American is personally affected by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health
(NIH). Anytime we take medicine, have a routine check-up, or
undergo a serious procedure for a health problem, like
surgery or cancer treatment, we are using medical products
regulated by the FDA. In many cases, the research leading to
the discovery and development of these products has been
advanced, funded, or enabled in some way by the NIH.
These two agencies have an enormous influence on our
economy. FDA-regulated products account for about 25 cents of
every dollar spent by American consumers each year.
For generations, America has led the world in medical
innovation. The dedicated professionals at the NIH and FDA
have helped to instill confidence in FDA-approved products.
Scientists from across the globe take seriously the findings
and caliber of research that NIH funds, as well as the safety
and efficacy of products FDA approves.
But our global edge is slipping.
Medical discoveries and advancements to treat and cure
diseases, including new targeted drugs, could, and should, be
reaching American patients more quickly and with less cost to
developers, without lessening the
[[Page S628]]
standards of safety and efficacy. Too many patients with no
treatment options wait while potential treatments languish in
laboratories awaiting further development, testing, and/or
approval. At the same time, each additional $1 billion spent
on pharmaceutical research and development results in fewer
drugs than in years past. The time and cost of developing
medical products is increasing without a discussion of
whether there is enough incremental assurance of safety and
effectiveness for the additional delays and costs.
Over the past several decades, FDA's mission and regulatory
reach has expanded dramatically. This has resulted in an
increasingly complex bureaucracy while the science of
discovery and development has evolved more rapidly than ever
in academia and private industry. FDA has struggled to
regulate the most cutting-edge medical products. The
disparity between the pace of scientific discovery and
development outside of the FDA and FDA's scientific knowledge
threatens America's position as a global leader in medical
innovation.
FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, has acknowledged
that ``. . . we are left relying on the 20th century
approaches for the review, approval and oversight of the
treatments and cures of the 21st century.'' While the FDA has
reviewed drugs in as little as three months, and meets the
timelines set for medical device reviews the majority of the
time, the inability of medical product developers to predict
what questions will be asked during the review forces a
multi-year process simply to get an application ready for FDA
consideration. This lack of predictability is driven by fast
changing and complex science, inefficient and inconsistent
processes, and difficulty in hiring and retaining review
staff and managers. This challenge will grow as new medical
products and the clinical methods used to test them continue
to evolve at an exciting pace.
This report aims to examine the current process of drug and
device development and identify the inefficiencies that stand
in the way of a modern development and review process. We
take a close and honest look at what is, and is not, working
well at the NIH and FDA. We want to know what successes we
can replicate, and what failures must be learned from and
fixed.
This report is organized to follow the process it
examines--in other words it takes us from discovery to
approval. We outline key problems, partnerships, initiatives,
dollars, and data involved in helping to bring promising
medical products through the research, development, and
regulatory review process. We identify the challenges at the
NIH and FDA--inefficiencies, unnecessary regulatory burden, a
lack of predictability, and ever increasing regulatory
costs--that must be addressed. We identify ways to facilitate
stakeholder engagement in these processes, and we intend to
continue regular and responsible congressional oversight.
Our goal is simple and ambitious--to work in a bipartisan
way with members of the HELP Committee to align public
policies to support accelerating medical innovation and
patient access to important medicines and medical
technologies.
Science has never held greater potential to improve the
quality of life and outcomes for America's patients. In order
to fully realize this exciting potential, we must identify,
candidly assess, and confront existing factors that may be
stifling efforts to innovate. We have identified five guiding
principles for this effort:
(1) It costs too much to bring medical products through the
pipeline to patients.
(2) As science and technology advance, the discovery and
development process takes too long for medical products to
make their way to patients.
(3) FDA's responsibilities have grown to include many
activities unrelated to the core function of regulating
medical products to advance the public health.
(4) The disparity in scientific knowledge at FDA and the
fast pace of biomedical innovation are slowing, and in some
cases, stifling, innovation in American medicine.
(5) A working FDA is essential to continuing biomedical
innovation in the United States and maintaining America's
global leadership in medical innovation.
For us to succeed, we need your help. The full spectrum of
stakeholders here is incredibly large and diverse, so it may
be challenging to identify specific challenges and/or best
practices that would have wide-ranging impact. We wish to
solicit ideas on how to address these challenges in order to
inform action in the 114th Congress. This report and the
feedback we receive in response to it will inform what we
expect will become a bipartisan legislative package to
address the challenges we identify through this process.
Please send your ideas to us at I[email protected] not
later than February 23, 2015. These comments will be shared
with Ranking Member Patty Murray and all of our colleagues on
the HELP Committee as we work to achieve this important goal.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I look forward to the remarks from the Senator from
North Carolina. As I have said, no Senator has done more on either side
of the aisle in this area of helping us think about creative new ways
to move treatments, medical devices, and drugs through our safety
process into the medicine cabinets and into the hands of patients who
desperately need them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am pleased to talk about an issue that as
Senator Alexander said is near and dear to my heart; that is, ensuring
that America's patients have access to the most cutting-edge medical
products in as timely a manner as possible. I look forward to the
partnership that Chairman Alexander and I have in what I think is one
of the most crucial studies and processes we will go through in this
session of Congress.
Many of my colleagues know that holding the National Institutes of
Health and the Food and Drug Administration accountable for their work
on behalf of America's patients is not a new area of focus for either
one of us. After I was first elected to serve in the House of
Representatives, I was tasked with modernizing the Food and Drug
Administration, a Federal agency that controls 25 cents of every $1 of
our economy. This work culminated in the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1977, FDAMA, a total revamp of that agency.
FDAMA sought to ensure that the FDA had the tools it needed to keep
pace with modern scientific advances. We modernized the agency in a way
that supported regulating in the least burdensome manner, while
ensuring that innovative products would reach patients in as timely a
manner as possible. As many of my colleagues remember, these reforms
were adopted at a critical point in the fight against the HIV/AIDS
epidemic. But while we have made great strides in certain areas,
FDAMA's tools haven't been fully leveraged, and the challenges of
keeping pace with the cutting-edge technologies have only increased.
Today the timely and predictable review of medical products is key to
promoting and protecting the public health, just as it was 18 years
ago. But the agency's mission and responsibilities have expanded
dramatically over that same period of time. The size and the scope of
the FDA as an organization has never been more complex than it is
today. By its own admission, FDA has struggled to regulate the most
cutting-edge medical products at the same time our understanding of
medicine and the ability to target treatments to individualized
patients has never been greater. The growth of the agency and its
responsibilities presents serious management challenges.
Our report, as the chairman said, entitled ``Innovation for Healthier
Americans: Identifying Opportunities for Meaningful Reform to Our
Nation's Medical Product Discovery and Development,'' takes a hard look
at the current status quo and poses targeted questions that can help
inform how we do things better. We need to identify how we can improve
our policies to promote more efficient and effective medical product
development and review processes to cut down on total time it takes for
these lifesaving products to actually reach America's patients.
We have seen how regulatory burden and uncertainty results in
innovation going overseas, while America's patients wait for the FDA to
catch up. The day-to-day actions and in many cases inaction at the
agency has a profound effect on our Nation's patients and our health
care.
It also directly impacts our economy, as FDA-regulated products
account for about 25 cents of every $1 spent by American consumers. The
importance of holding the agency accountable for its actions and
inactions--all the way from the frontline reviewers to the
Commissioner--has never been more important than now.
This is what the current landscape tells us:
No. 1, it costs too much to bring medical products through the
development pipeline to patients. There is no disputing that the costs
to bring medical products through the development pipeline have grown
over time.
No. 2, as science and technology advance, the discovery and
development process takes longer for medical products to make their
ways to patients. We need to look at the total real time it takes for
medical products to reach a patient, not only the time of FDA review.
In 2004, FDA's Critical Path Report warned that:
[[Page S629]]
Today's revolution in biomedical science has raised new
hope for the prevention, treatment, and cure of severe
illnesses. However, there is a growing concern that many of
the new basic science discoveries made in recent years may
not quickly yield more effective, more affordable, and safe
medical products for patients. This is because the current
medical product development path is becoming increasingly
challenging, inefficient, and costly.
More than a decade later, these challenges continue to confront us.
We must find a way to embrace our advances and to cut down on the total
time it takes medical products to reach an American patient. Our report
asks for feedback, as the chairman said, on how we do that.
No. 3, FDA's responsibilities have grown to include many activities
unrelated to the core function of regulating medical devices to advance
the public health. Today there are more than 12,000 employees at the
Food and Drug Administration. This growth has exacerbated the
management challenges of the agency, and the question is, How do we
ensure that FDA is equipped to fulfill its mission?
No. 4, the disparity in scientific knowledge at FDA and the fast pace
of biological innovation are slowing and in some cases stifling
innovation in American medicine. To ensure that medical product
innovation continues to benefit America's patients, our report asks how
we could better leverage the regulatory science initiatives to ensure
that the novel medical products are reaching America's patients in that
timely fashion.
No. 5, we know that a working FDA is essential to be continuing
biomedical innovation in the United States and maintaining America's
global leadership in medical innovation. Therefore, we ask for feedback
on how Congress and the FDA can work to align public policy and
regulation to support biomedical research as a vibrant and healthy
component of the U.S. economy.
We have a unique opportunity this Congress to take a hard look at
what is and is not working and advance solutions that will ultimately
ensure that the NIH and the FDA serve America's patients better. We
have an opportunity to focus on these issues without a crisis demanding
action, such as the unfortunate meningitis outbreak in 2012.
The drug and medical device user fee negotiations have not yet begun.
I should add that these negotiations should not begin until everyone
has the data to inform how well the agency is currently meeting what
was agreed to in the last round of negotiations. It makes no sense to
me why anyone would rush to engage in a negotiation before they have
the data to know what they are getting or what they are currently
paying for.
It is my hope that looking at these issues without the pressure of an
eminent, expiring, user fee reauthorization will help to facilitate
candid dialogue among all stakeholders about where we are, where we
need to go on behalf of America's patients.
While we do not have these pressures upon us today, we do bring an
urgency to this work because of what is at stake. These issues impact
every single one of our constituents and every single American, but
they affect not only our patients but our economy and our global
competitiveness.
Our goal is simple, to align public policies to support accelerated
medical innovation and patient access to medicines and medical
technologies, because when we advance innovation, we help America's
patients be able to access the most cutting-edge, lifesaving medical
devices, and products in as timely a fashion as possible.
We foster and facilitate the next generation of cutting-edge products
which, in turn, help to ensure America's continued standing as the
world leader of innovation.
This is good for our innovators, it is good for our patients, and it
is good for North Carolina.
Dr. Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical
Progress was right when he pointed out that innovation is not an
option, it is a national imperative. Innovation is central to
addressing our Nation's unsustainable health care costs. It is also
central to improving the treatments, outcomes, and ultimately the
quality of life for the American people.
Former FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach was kind enough to pen
the foreword of this report. The chairman has already alluded to some
of his statements, but in that foreword he writes:
Government policy can either inhibit or accelerate the next
revolution in science and technology. The time has come to
examine whether our nation has the right public policies in
place to realize the full promise of discovery, development,
and delivery of 21st century medicine.
Toward that end, I really do look forward to working with my good
friend Chairman Alexander, with our ranking member, Senator Murray, and
with all the members of the HELP Committee as we begin this important
process of ensuring that the National Institutes of Health and the Food
and Drug Administration work as well as they can for patients today
and, more importantly, into the future.
I thank the chairman for the opportunity to work with him on this
issue. It won't be an easy road, but it is one we are committed to
tackling. I urge those who might have input for the purposes of this
study and this initiative to please visit the HELP Web site and submit
feedback to [email protected]. I am glad to see we have put
that in place.
I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, health care
doesn't distinguish between parties. Health care requires us to come
together and to put policies in place that drive innovation and drive
quality outcomes. If we can do that, we might set a new pathway for how
we cure disease, for how we bring down health care costs, and for how
Americans look forward to a generation that grows up with less
genetically transmitted diseases.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. COTTON. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I be permitted to proceed for up to 20
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Retirement Security Act
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today Senator Nelson and I rise to
discuss S. 266, the Retirement Security Act, legislation we filed
earlier this week and first introduced last year. Our bill would
encourage more small employers to offer retirement plans that would
provide incentives for employees to save more for retirement and would
ensure that low-income and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim
tax benefits for retirement savings that are already authorized in law.
Our bill is the product of the work that Senator Nelson and I did
together on the Special Committee on Aging. In the fall of 2013, the
committee conducted a hearing on retirement security where we heard
from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to
fear they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated
$6.6 trillion gap between the savings that American households need to
maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually
have. The group that was surveyed were those Americans between ages 32
and 64.
Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income
beyond Social Security. In the State of Maine the number is one in
three. While 4 in 10 rely on this vital program for 90 percent of their
retirement income, Social Security provides an average benefit of just
$1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year.
It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the
bills. Certainly a comfortable retirement would be out of the question
for most Americans.
A recent Gallup poll shows there is an increase in concern among the
American people about their standard of living in retirement. This has
gone up over time. Two decades ago 34 percent of Americans were
concerned. Now 60 percent of Americans are worried about their standard
of living in retirement.
[[Page S630]]
Sadly, they are right to be concerned. Projections published in 2014
by the Employee Benefit Research Institute showed that nearly half of
``early boomers''--those between ages 56 and 62 when the study was
conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic
costs in retirement, including health care costs not covered by
insurance.
There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing
American seniors, including the demise of many defined-benefit pension
plans in the private sector, the severity of the financial crisis we
recently endured, rising health care costs, the greater and expanding
need for long-term care, which is so expensive, but most of all the
fact that Americans are living far longer than they did in the past.
Many of us are also reaching retirement age with far more debt than
retirees of previous generations.
Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small
businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based
retirement plans. According to a July 2013 GAO study, more than half of
the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100
employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost
and complexity are among the reasons that plans are not more widely
offered by smaller employers.
These employers would very much like to offer plans, but oftentimes
the cost and the complexity make the plans out of reach. Therefore,
making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement
plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the
financial security of many retirees. That is why the bill that we
reintroduced earlier this week focuses on reducing the cost and
complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on
encouraging individuals to save more for retirement.
Let me now go into detail about the provisions of our bill.
First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple
employer plans, MEPs, to offer retirement programs jointly to their
employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative
burden of a retirement plan, which helps lower costs. Current law
discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or
``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as
membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the
nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as
not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out under
which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when
they hire their 500th employee.
Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for
small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to
meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax
benefits, all employers and their employees could lose these tax
benefits, which are substantial. For employees, they include delaying
the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn.
For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited deductions
and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations
to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the
failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations.
Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan.
Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a
variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify,
clarify, and consolidate these required notices, to lessen costs.
Fourth, the Retirement Security Act encourages those still in the
workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often
designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from
challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The
existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans
effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay,
with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount of up to 6
percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans
that would allow employees to receive an employer match on
contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay.
I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new
optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased
employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses--
those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a
new tax credit equal to the increased match.
Finally, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings
are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so-
called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and
middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including
IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet the credit cannot be claimed on a form
1040EZ, which is frequently used by these individuals. A 2013
Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies survey found that only 23
percent of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year,
the group most likely to qualify, were aware of the saver's credit. To
address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on
Form 1040 EZ.
I do want to emphasize in closing that is there is nothing in our
bill that would force a small business to offer a 401(k) plan. That may
be impractical for some small employers. What we are trying to do is to
provide incentives for them to do so, to reduce the cost, and to make
it possible for them to join together with other employers to offer
retirement plans. We are trying also to provide incentives for
employees to save more for their retirement.
During my time on the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard
countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they
had anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors in
what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a
July 2012 report, poverty among the elderly also increases Medicare and
Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet
at retirement age more opportunities to save--and to save more--would
help ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that are
already projected to be unsustainable.
In light of the positive impacts this bill would have in
strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge our
colleagues to join Senator Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement
Security Act of 2015. This bill has been endorsed by the Maine State
Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council, the American
Council of Life Insurers, Fidelity Investments, Lincoln Financial
Group, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors,
the Plan Sponsor Council of America, the Principal Financial Group, the
Society for Human Resource Management, TransAmerica, and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these as well
as other letters of support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Maine State Chamber of Commerce,
Augusta, ME, January 8, 2015.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: First, I want to wish you a Happy New
Year. I would also like to thank you for your continued
service to the state of Maine, particularly the business
community. Your efforts in Washington are most appreciated!
I am writing to you today about your efforts to enable more
businesses to offer retirement plans to their employees. The
Maine State Chamber of Commerce fully supports your efforts
on this front. As you know, small businesses drive Maine's
economy--80% of businesses here in Maine employ fewer than 20
people--and their employees are like family to them.
I regularly hear from small businesses who want to offer
more retirement benefits to their employees, but are not in
the financial position to do so. Coming from a small business
state, you clearly understand this. Your proposed legislation
can. change this dynamic and make offering retirement plans a
more viable option for more small businesses--not only in
Maine, but across the country.
Again, thank you for your efforts on behalf of Maine's
business community. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Dana F. Connors,
President/CEO.
[[Page S631]]
____
American Benefits Council,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins and Senator Nelson: On behalf of the
American Benefits Council, I am writing to applaud the
introduction of the Retirement Security Act of 2015. We stand
ready to assist you in working toward enactment of this
important piece of legislation.
The Council is a public policy organization representing
principally Fortune 500 companies and other organizations
that assist employers of all sizes in providing benefits to
employees. Collectively, the Council's members either sponsor
directly or provide services to retirement and health plans
that cover more than 100 million Americans.
The private retirement system is a great success and has
helped ensure the retirement security of millions of
Americans. But there is still more work to be done,
especially with respect to the coverage of small business
employees and with respect to benefit levels.
Your bill would take major steps forward in addressing both
of these issues. We believe the bill's reforms of the
multiple employer plans rules will expand opportunities for
small businesses to band together to maintain plans at a
lower cost. In particular, we applaud the provision that
would prevent an entire multiple employer plan from being
disqualified by reason of a violation of the qualification
rules by one or more participating employers. This
inappropriate result under current law can deter many small
employers from joining a multiple employer plan.
The Council is a strong supporter of automatic enrollment,
and believes that the Retirement Security Act of 2015 would
substantially increase the use of automatic enrollment
through the establishment of an alternative safe harbor with
key incentives to adopt it. Moreover, the alternative safe
harbor would set default contributions at higher levels that
are better designed to achieve retirement security.
We thank you for your leadership in this important area and
look forward to working toward enactment of this important
bill.
Sincerely,
Lynn D. Dudley,
Senior Vice President, Global Retirement and Compensation
Policy, American Benefits Council.
____
American Council of Life Insurers,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins and Senator Nelson, The American
Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) would like to express our
appreciation for your leadership in the field of retirement
security, especially in your roles as Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. We support
you for reintroducing the Retirement Security Act of 2015, a
bill that would greatly expand the ability of Americans to
better save for their retirement.
ACLI represents approximately 300 legal reserve life
insurer and fraternal benefit society member companies
operating in the United States and abroad. ACLI member
companies offer insurance contracts and other investment
products and services to qualified retirement plans,
including defined benefit pensions, 401(k) and 403(b)
arrangements, and to individuals through individual
retirement accounts (IRAs) or on a non-qualified basis. Our
members and their products help Americans accumulate
retirement savings and turn those savings into guaranteed
lifetime income.
ACLI supports proposals that will help expand coverage and
encourage small businesses to sponsor retirement savings
plans for their employees. The Retirement Security Act of
2015 would help facilitate the use of private multiple
employer plans, encourage greater use of auto-enrollment and
auto-escalation features, and allow employers to use a
``stretch match'' to incent employees to save even more. The
bill would expand tax incentives for small businesses to
offer retirement plans, an important consideration for many
employers. Likewise, the bill would make it easier for more
individuals to access the Savers' Credit, helping low-income
workers maximize their savings. These valuable reforms will
help to expand a system already important to millions of
Americans.
Again, we appreciate your continued support of the current
retirement security system. ACLI and its member companies
look forward to working with you and your staffs to improve
retirement security for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Dirk Kempthorne,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
____
Fidelity Investments,
Boston, MA, January 20, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Nelson: On behalf of Fidelity
Investments, I would like to thank you for your efforts to
improve retirement security and enhance pension coverage
among small employers. The private employer retirement system
has been a great success, yet more can be done to improve
retirement security and expand access to workplace savings
plans.
Fidelity supports provisions in the Retirement Security Act
of 2013 that would establish a new safe harbor from the
401(k) nondiscrimination rules for plans that automatically
enroll employees at a minimum contribution level equal to 6
percent of pay. One of the key actions to boost retirement
security for workers is to save at the right rates in a
workplace savings plan. Automatic enrollment at a minimum of
6 percent of pay, along with annual automatic increases and
investing appropriately, puts workers on a better path toward
retirement security. Our data and analysis show that the
average participation rate among plans with automatic
enrollment is approximately 90 percent, regardless of the
default contribution rate and regardless of the salary level.
The 3 percent minimum contribution rate under the current
safe harbor is too low and woefully inadequate to put
employees on a path to reach their retirement savings goals.
Due to human inertia many employees who auto-enroll at 3
percent are unlikely to take any action to increase their
savings. Raising the minimum contribution level from 3
percent to 6 percent would go a long way toward increasing
savings rates and improving retirement security.
Furthermore, Fidelity supports provisions in the bill to
streamline and simplify regulations and reduce unnecessary
burdens that serve as an obstacle to retirement plan
coverage. Regulatory burdens are one of the biggest obstacles
to small employers that may otherwise want to offer a
retirement plan to their employees.
Fidelity applauds your leadership on retirement security
and appreciates your efforts to advance these reforms. We
hope to work with you as the bill moves through the
legislative process to further simplify the rules and
streamline duplicative or unnecessary regulations to help
achieve your goal of expanding pension coverage.
Regards,
Douglas B. Fisher,
Senior Vice President.
____
Lincoln Financial Group,
Greensboro, NC, January 20, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of Lincoln Financial Group,
I am writing to express our strong support for the Retirement
Security Act of 2015. We thank you for your leadership in
sponsoring this very important bill.
Congress has made great strides forward in enhancing
retirement security, but there are many challenges still
ahead. One of the key challenges is improving retirement plan
coverage among small businesses. The Act would help address
the small business issue by reforming the rules regarding
multiple employer plans, which help small businesses achieve
many of the economies of scale that large businesses have.
The Act would modify the rules to make multiple employer
plans more efficient and more workable for small businesses.
We also applaud the Act's new automatic enrollment safe
harbor and its important enhancement of access to the saver's
credit. These provisions will increase participation levels,
especially among low and middle-income individuals.
We strongly support your efforts and stand ready to assist
you in moving forward with this important piece of
legislation.
Sincerely,
Charles C. Cornelio,
President, Retirement Plan Services.
____
National Association of
Insurance and Financial Advisors,
Falls Church, VA, January 7, 2015.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: The National Association of Insurance
and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) applauds your efforts in
preserving and enhancing the voluntary employer-provided
retirement system and the tax incentives that support it.
These plans are helping millions of American families achieve
a secure retirement.
The employer-sponsored retirement plan system has
introduced tens of millions of American workers to retirement
saving. Employers voluntarily establish and promote these
plans to help their workers build assets for a secure
retirement.
NAIFA encourages support for the Retirement Security Act of
2015 introduced by Senator Susan M. Collins. The bill would
add a new more generous safe harbor for small business
retirement plans, establish a tax credit for employer matches
for plan sponsors using the new (optional) safe harbor, and
ease the rules allowing small employers to join multiple
employer pension plans.
Cost is often a factor in whether a business will offer a
plan for its employees to adequately save for retirement.
This bill lowers costs by waiving a requirement that there be
a nexus among businesses to join multiple employer plans,
thereby allowing more entities to share plan administrative
burdens.
[[Page S632]]
The bill instructs Treasury to simplify, clarify and
consolidate notice requirements for retirement plans, and
instructs Treasury to provide taxpayers using a 1040EZ filing
the ability to report and receive a tax credit, if eligible.
We thank you for your leadership in helping employees plan
and prepare for a financially secure retirement.
Sincerely,
Juli Y. McNeely,
LUTCF, CFP, CLU,
NAIFA President.
____
Principal Financial Group,
Des Moines, IA, January 9, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins and Nelson: On behalf of Principal
Financial Group, I want to thank you for your leadership in
seeking to improve and enhance the existing voluntary defined
contribution system through the Retirement Security Act of
2015. Employer sponsored 401(k) plans and other worksite
retirement plans have helped millions of workers save
trillions of dollars. These plans have proven to be resilient
even in challenging times but more is needed to expand access
to worksite retirement plans. Your proposal builds upon the
strength of the existing system, providing main street
businesses the necessary tools to address retirement savings
adequacy and coverage challenges.
Principal Financial Group is a leading provider of defined
contribution plans with more than 70 years' experience
working with small to medium-sized employers and their
employees. We currently provide retirement services to more
than 41,000 retirement plans and 4.5 million employee
participants.
Principal was particularly pleased with your inclusion of
the enhanced automatic contribution safe harbor. We must find
ways to encourage far greater numbers of plan sponsors to
adopt automatic enrollment and escalation features with
substantive employer match contributions. To do this, we feel
more flexibility is needed in the existing safe harbor
requirements and your proposal offers a good starting point
for gaining that additional flexibility.
Thank you for your leadership in this area. We look forward
to working with you as the process continues. Seeking
solutions to these important policy considerations to expand
savings rates in the current employer based retirement system
is vital to the economic wellbeing of millions of future
retirees.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Burrows,
Senior Vice President.
____
Society for Human
Resource Management,
Alexandria, VA, January 9, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington,DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Nelson: On behalf of more than
275,000 human resource professionals who belong to the
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), I would like to
thank you for your leadership on the issue of retirement
security. The introduction of the Retirement Security Act of
2015, demonstrates your commitment to ensuring that all
Americans are given the ability to save for retirement.
Founded in 1948, SHRM is the world's largest membership
organization devoted to human resource management.
Representing more than 275,000 members in over 160 countries,
SHRM is the leading provider of resources to meet the
evolving needs of HR professionals, while advancing the
professional practice of human resource management. SHRM has
more than 575 affiliated chapters throughout the United
States.
As human resource professionals, it has been our members'
experience that a comprehensive and flexible benefits package
is an essential tool in recruiting and retaining talented
employees. Regardless of an employer's size, it is vitally
important that every employee be given the opportunity to
save and plan for retirement and to protect his or her
family's financial health. Steps the government can take to
facilitate and encourage voluntary employer-sponsored
retirement plans and individual savings plans are critical to
achieving this goal.
Removing barriers and disincentives, especially for small
businesses, is a tactic that can lead to greater
participation in employer-provided defined benefit retirement
plans. A variety of options including tax incentives,
increased contribution limits, catch-up contributions for
older workers and increased access for employees, are all
elements that have proven to increase participation and
contribution levels in retirement plans. SHRM believes that
the Retirement Security Act of 2015 would benefit both
employers and employees by expanding important tax credits to
small businesses as well as expanding auto-enrollment safe
harbor provisions. These elements are essential for small
businesses, who comprise an important segment of our
membership, to offer retirement plans that enable their
employees to save for retirement.
We look forward to working with you in the future to ensure
that retirement security for all Americans is preserved.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Aitken,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
____
Transamerica,
Government Affairs,
Washington, DC, January 22, 2015.
Re Retirement Security Act of 2015
Hon. Susan Collins,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of Transamerica, I would
like to thank you for your leadership on retirement security
issues as most recently evidenced by your introduction today
of the Retirement Security Act of 2015.
Your bill addresses in a comprehensive manner problems
faced by small and large employers in providing their
employees the means to save for a secure retirement, as well
as by individuals in trying to achieve a secure retirement
through workplace savings. In particular, removing
impediments to the adoption of multiple employer plans,
expanding the auto enrollment safe harbor and making it
easier to claim the Saver's Credit are areas in which
Transamerica has been extremely active--from a policy,
participant education and market development standpoint. I
and others at Transamerica look forward to working with you
and your staff as you move the bill forward.
The Transamerica companies market life insurance,
annuities, pensions and supplemental health insurance, as
well as mutual funds and related investment products
throughout the U.S. and in selected countries worldwide.
Transamerica Retirement Solutions provides and services
workforce retirement savings plans in the small and mid-large
employer markets. As of December 31, 2014, these plans held
in the aggregate over $132 billion in assets for 3.7 million
participants. The Transamerica companies are ranked among the
top insurance groups in the U.S., based on admitted assets,
and employ approximately 11,000 people nationwide.
Please do not hesitate to contact either me if I can
provide any specific information regarding our retirement
plan business or market expertise to support your efforts.
Very truly yours,
Jeanne de Cervens,
Vice President & Director,
Federal Government Affairs.
____
Chamber of Commerce,
United States of America,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2015.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Vern Buchanan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins and Representative Buchanan: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation
representing the interests of more than three million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as
state and local chambers and industry associations, and
dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's
free enterprise system, thanks you for introducing the
``Retirement Security Act of 2015.'' Retirement security is a
critical issue, and our members support all efforts to
encourage voluntary participation in retirement savings
plans.
The Retirement Security Act of 2015 includes key provisions
that the Chamber has set forth as important reforms to the
retirement system including eliminating barriers to the use
of multiple employer plans; providing optional safe harbor
alternatives; and simplifying notice requirements. Overall,
the Chamber believes that the Retirement Security Act of 2015
would provide important reforms to encourage participation by
both plan sponsors and plan participants in the employer-
provided retirement system.
The Chamber looks forward to working with you on this bill
and urges Congress to take steps to further the enactment of
the bill.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten,
Executive Vice President,
Government Affairs.
____
Plan Sponsor Council of America,
Washington, DC, January 20, 2015.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Nelson, The Plan Sponsor Council
of America (PSCA) is pleased to endorse the Retirement
Security Act of 2015. The Act removes several impediments
that restrict the ability of small businesses to participate
in multiple employer plans, or MEPs. Expanded MEP access will
open another important avenue for small business owners to
provide critically important retirement plans for hardworking
employees.
The small business arena is the last frontier for improving
access to an employer-provided retirement plan. The
Retirement Security Act of 2015 will help conquer this
frontier, providing a uniform, federal response. This is an
especially timely endeavor as states consider enacting new
legislation relating to employer-based retirement plans that
could result in a problematic patchwork of disparate laws
impacting plan sponsors and employees.
[[Page S633]]
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of American workers.
Sincerely,
Stephen McCaffrey,
Chairman, PSCA Legal
and Legislative Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this bill is borne out of the work Senator
Collins and I did on the Special Committee on Aging. After we had a
hearing on the condition of the American senior citizen, it was
certainly clear that something had to be done to give them better
access to retirement plans.
A lot of the situation that Senator Collins has just described is so
true. Fewer than half of workers have access to any retirement plan at
work, and those numbers are even constricted when you start talking
about employees who work for smaller business. Only one quarter of
small businesses with less than 100 employees offers any type of
retirement plan for their employees.
The lack of a retirement plan at work means when an individual gets
to be a senior citizen they are going to end up relying on Social
Security, where we are talking about a benefit of maybe $1,300 a month,
or $15,000 a year. That is simply not enough to pay for housing and
medical care and other expenses. In my State of Florida, one-third of
the senior citizens rely on Social Security income to get by in
retirement. We have to fix this problem. There are too many people who
work too hard throughout their lives and get to be in those golden
years, and then they are faced with a real crisis.
So the legislation the two of us have worked on for well over a year
will offer retirement plans by encouraging small businesses to set up
those retirement plans. One example would be small businesses will be
able to pool together their resources and take advantage of the
economies of scale. There is no reason that a very good retirement plan
can't be as a result of cobbling together the resources of many small
businesses and still have a retirement plan that makes sense for the
individual retirement business because they are getting the economies
of scale.
The bill is going to encourage the employees to save more with things
such as providing automatic enrollment in retirement plans, and it is
going to encourage increasing the employer match. Those things are all
common sense.
I join Senator Collins in urging our colleagues to come together, and
let's try to do this for the American senior citizens.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 320
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The majority leader.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 203
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30
p.m. on Monday, February 2, the Senate proceed to the consideration of
Calendar No. 6, H.R. 203; that the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally
divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back
of that time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on
passage of the bill, without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the
Keystone XL Pipeline. This bill will not help our economy, it will not
create permanent jobs, and it certainly is not a boon to the
environment. On item after item, the Keystone pipeline just doesn't
make sense for the United States.
When we last debated Keystone in November, the price for a barrel of
oil was about $75. That price was already down from a peak of $100 in
2014, and since then the price has dropped another $25, to less than
$50 a barrel.
In November, the average price of gas was nearly $3 per gallon. This
week, gas averages around $2.20 per gallon--the cheapest in nearly six
years--and many States are seeing gas under $2 per gallon.
In fact, since this pipeline was first proposed in 2008, America has
gone from the third largest producer of oil to the world's largest
producer, surpassing both Russia and Saudi Arabia. As a result of new
production and increasing fuel economy, the final months of 2014 saw
the lowest net imports of crude oil since 1986.
The Keystone Pipeline is simply not necessary for America's energy
independence.
Even worse, the oil that moves through the pipeline isn't necessarily
for the benefit of the United States. Instead, the pipeline would be a
conduit to move the oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, where it
will be refined and sold on the global market. Some individual barrels
may be kept in the United States, but much will be exported and prices
will be set by international supply and demand. The State Department's
review projected that building a pipeline would have ``little impact on
the prices U.S. consumers pay for refined products such as gasoline.''
I fail to see how the United States gains any economic benefit from
this project.
Finally, Keystone supporters often argue that the pipeline creates
large numbers of jobs. It is great that this project will create nearly
2,000 direct construction jobs over 2 years, and more indirectly.
Unfortunately, those jobs are temporary. That means once the pipeline
is complete in two years, operating the pipeline will support only
around 50 permanent jobs.
The American economy won't benefit from this bill. American companies
won't benefit. American drivers won't benefit, and American workers
won't benefit. The economic policies behind the pipeline just don't
make sense.
Unfortunately, the problems also don't end with the lack of economic
value. This project also comes with substantial hazards for the
environment. Extracting oil from these tar sands would essentially mean
the destruction of huge swaths of land in Alberta. The tar sands are
beneath 54,000 square miles of boreal forest and peat bog, an area the
size of the state of New York.
An estimated 20 percent of the deposits require destructive surface
mining, which entails clearing huge swathes of boreal forest and top
soil to get at the tar sands beneath. Already, 175,000 acres of forest
have been cleared, but an additional 1 million acres of forest have
already been leased for surface mining operations.
This destructive form of mining generates large volumes of toxic
wastewater, which must be stored in vast tailings ponds that already
cover around 70 square miles. These tailings contain high
concentrations of benzene and other carcinogens, as well as lead and
mercury. Significantly higher levels of these pollutants have been
found downstream from tar sands refineries, leading to higher rates of
cancers, including leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
The development of these tar sands will have negative effects on the
environment and public health, and it has also contributed
significantly to Canada's failure to fulfill its Kyoto Protocol
obligations. I believe that Canada should rethink its approach to tar
sands development.
Finally, I wish like to address climate change. No matter how hard
some of my colleagues hope climate change isn't real, it is, and we are
already seeing harmful effects.
Transforming the oil from tar sands into useful gasoline is 80
percent more carbon intensive than the processing of typical crude oil.
Producing, refining, and combusting the oil that Keystone would carry
will release up to 168 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions
every year. That is 27 million metric tons more greenhouse gas
emissions than would be emitted from burning the same amount of typical
crude oil. To put this in context, those additional emissions over
normal processing are equivalent to the annual emissions from 5.7
million cars, 1.4 million homes or nearly 8 coal-fired power plants.
The economics of the Keystone Pipeline don't make sense, and the
environmental risks could well be tragic. We
[[Page S634]]
are being asked to approve a project that will primarily benefit
Canadian companies and foreign oil markets, while at the same time
accepting the consequences of the harm the pipeline and tar sands oil
would create.
If this is about jobs, let's invest in clean energy. The Shaheen-
Portman energy efficiency bill, for example, is estimated to create
190,000 jobs. If our goal is to lower fuel costs for American families,
let's speed up improvements to fuel economy standards. If we want to
modernize our infrastructure, let's get to work on a real
transportation reauthorization bill. And if our aim is to exploit our
energy resources, let's focus on wind and solar, biofuels, or the
future of batteries and fuel cells.
We can do better than the Keystone Pipeline, both for our economy and
for the environment. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
Keystone Pipeline.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, today I wish to speak on S. 1, legislation
to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, which will
approve construction of the pipeline that has been under review for 6
long years. By moving this project forward, we are helping to secure
America's energy future, improve our national defense, and create tens
of thousands of jobs for Americans.
The Keystone XL Pipeline is a commonsense jobs bill. It should never
have been a political issue. It goes far beyond the labor to construct
the pipeline--it will drastically increase employment across many
industries as we work to develop our North American energy resources.
It is disappointing that the President is threatening to veto its
approval when building Keystone would create American jobs and help
lower energy costs for families across the country.
The American people are still struggling in today's economy, and they
expect and deserve Washington to cut red tape and unleash America's
energy resources. Building the Keystone XL pipeline is an important
step toward meeting these goals, will help ensure America's energy
security, and reinforce relations with our largest trading partner.
Unleashing our Nation's full energy potential remains one of my top
priorities in the U.S. Senate. I will work to advance serious policies
that responsibly develop all of our energy resources, create good jobs,
and make America more energy independent.
It is time we start putting America's issues on the President's desk.
I urge the President to reconsider his threat to veto the bipartisan
Keystone jobs bill and to finally take the opportunity to work with
Congress to find solutions the American people want.
The Senator from Florida.
Telephone Tracking Devices
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there is a disturbing report in the
Washington Post today about a major telephone company, Verizon, putting
supercookies on the phones that its customers are using which will
allow those customers to be tracked, and if that information is turned
over to third parties, to be utilized for purposes of advertising, even
though the customer has indicated they do not want that particular
cookie placed on their device.
Our staff on the commerce committee will be investigating this, and
we certainly want to make sure that in this time of ubiquity of eyes
prying all around in this electronic age we are living in that we
preserve the rights of privacy for all individuals.
This is a matter of particular importance to the commerce committee.
It is of extreme importance to this Senator, and I will keep the Senate
informed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Department of Homeland Security Funding
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I know we are about to bring some final
votes on Keystone to the floor, but I want to take a few minutes to
speak on the topic we will be focused on next week, and that is the
impending crisis at the Department of Homeland Security should we not
continue to fund their operations, which matters greatly to a State
such as Connecticut--a State with expansive coastline, with natural
disasters as part of our recent history, and with a close connection to
some of the potential epicenters for terrorist activity and attacks,
New York City being at the top of the list.
It was just 3 weeks ago that terrorists staged a horrific attack in
downtown Paris. Before they were stopped by law enforcement, dozens of
people were killed or injured and the world was given another reminder
of the threats that exist all around us. Across Europe countries
stepped up their alert, increasing their law enforcement presence,
raiding suspected terror cells, and requesting the assistance of the
United States to help track down the people who carried out the
attacks.
Astoundingly, though, here at home, it seems as though there are a
lot of Republicans in Congress who would rather talk about deporting
children who were brought to this country without documentation rather
than talk about funding the very agency that every day seems to keep
our homeland safe from threats.
Even as our allies in Europe look for ways to improve their security,
the House of Representatives, in particular, has told us that the only
way we can fund the Department of Homeland Security--keeping this
country safe--is to start deporting young boys and girls who are here
trying to make it in the United States.
The United States is no stranger to the types of attacks that
happened in France. An Ohio man was arrested 3 weeks ago when it was
discovered he was plotting to blow up the United States Capitol. I am
certain we have not already forgotten about the Boston marathon bombing
or what happened before that in Oklahoma City. The threats against this
country continue to evolve.
Why should we play politics with the agency that is most responsible
for responding and getting this country ready for those threats? It is
the height of irresponsibility to suggest, as some of my colleagues
have, that shutting down the Department of Homeland Security--the
Department responsible for protecting the United States from terrorist
attacks--would be no big deal.
This is what the Secretary of Homeland Security has said. Last week
he said:
. . . as long as we are on a CR, we cannot engage in new
starts, new spending, new initiatives, new grants to state
and local law enforcement to fund homeland security missions.
We can't put in place the independent panel that recommended
changes to the secret service. We can't do a lot of things
for border security. Our counterterrorism efforts are
limited.
In 28 days, the Department of Homeland Security, the agency charged
with border security, aviation security, cyber security, Presidential
security, and counterterrorism efforts, is going to run out of funding.
Instead of working with the Senate, which overwhelmingly passed a
bipartisan bill to fix our immigration system and secure our border,
Republicans are willing to hold up this funding bill so they can deport
DREAMers against the President's Executive order. It is not just
irresponsible, it is dangerous.
In my State, as I said, it matters greatly. Over the past several
years, we have seen, as the northeast has been battered by hurricanes
and superstorms and blizzards, the indispensable nature of agencies
funded in the Department of Homeland Security budget. Failing to pass
this bill would delay upgrades to critical and necessary emergency
communication systems for first responders in my State that are
responding to emergencies and disasters. Whether we like it or not,
they are happening with greater frequency.
Fortunately, thanks to the leadership of Senator Mikulski and Senator
Shaheen, there is a path forward. Yesterday they introduced a clean,
full-year funding bill that has been endorsed by every Democratic
Senator. This is the same bipartisan, bicameral bill that was
negotiated by the House and the Senate last year.
This agreement includes critical assistance, critical increases in
funding for our border security, cyber security, air and maritime
surveillance, and biological and explosive detection at our borders.
All of these things keep us
[[Page S635]]
safe at a time when we know that terrorism is a more real threat than
ever, not just to the United States but to our partner countries all
around the world.
Last week, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution I was proud to
have written, declaring that we stand in solidarity with the people in
France, that we mourn the loss of innocent victims and condemn the
atrocity of these attacks.
I submit that just as important as our words, which we all came
together to support, are our deeds. Will our response now be to engage
in a partisan fight over immigration or do we come together as
Republicans and Democrats to fund the law enforcement personnel who are
charged with keeping our citizens safe?
Next week when we return to this body, I strongly urge my Republican
colleagues to quickly bring a clean, bipartisan Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill to the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Children's Health Insurance Program
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Children's Health
Insurance Program. This Congress 20 years ago passed CHIP. It was an
invention of Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch, both Senators who cared
a lot about what we do to help low-income children.
I was at Mercy Health Clinic in Cincinnati late last week, and early
this week I was at Dayton Children's Hospital, talking to families who
have benefitted from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
In the great majority of cases, the parents of these children have
full-time jobs--often two jobs. They typically make significantly less
than what we would call a living wage. They rarely have any kind of
health insurance, although now they are entering the exchanges or
perhaps Medicaid--more likely the exchanges--but their children are not
getting health insurance except through CHIP. It has been around for 20
years, and there are about 10 million children in the United States who
benefit from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
The Children's Health Insurance Program is law. It has been
reauthorized up through 2019, but the funding for it expires this
September. I have spoken with members of the Senate Finance Committee,
including my colleague here, Senator Nelson from Florida, who has been
a big supporter of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Senators
Casey and Stabenow have been very involved, Senator Gillibrand, and as
I said, Senator Hatch was one of the founders of this program, along
with Senator Kennedy.
It is so important that we move as quickly as possible, in part
because the States need to budget these dollars--this Federal
passthrough--so that it directly goes to the Children's Health
Insurance Program. There are a few things we can do that are even more
important than that.
In closing, I will add that it is not just the right thing to do, to
fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, it is also a smart thing
to do because it means that parents will take their child who has an
earache to the family doctor because they have insurance, instead of
waiting a week, when the pain is unbearable, and taking that child to
the emergency room and costing all of us more as taxpayers and perhaps
causing that child some hearing loss.
In addition to helping these families with health insurance and
saving money, it also makes a big difference in schools. The children
are less likely to miss school and children will be better able to
learn if, in fact, they have better health insurance.
We know that is the case for our own children. All of us here have
government health insurance, if you will, as Members of the Senate, and
it is important that we do what we ought to do for the Children's
Health Insurance Program. It matters for so many families in North
Dakota, the Presiding Officer's State, and my State of Ohio.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
(The remarks of Mr. Thune and Mr. Nelson pertaining to the
introduction of S. 304 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes equally divided after each vote and that all after the first
vote in the series be 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 155
The question occurs on the Booker amendment No. 155.
Who yields time?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, my amendment No. 155 ensures that Federal
agencies disclose to the public, landowners, and communities any
significant new circumstances learned about the impact of the Keystone
XL Pipeline.
The National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--is one of the most
emulated statutes in the world. It is used as a model around the world.
NEPA in fact is often referred to as the modern-day ``environmental
Magna Carta.''
These are very commonsense ideas. NEPA regulations really do require
agencies to actually supplement already issued environmental impact
statements when significant new circumstances or information is found
to exist relating to the environmental impacts of a project.
The pending Keystone bill, however, would deem the final
environmental impact statement issued last January to fully satisfy
NEPA. In other words, if new circumstances come up that are germane and
important, they do not get a chance to alter that statement. My
amendment would change that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BOOKER. I respectfully request 25 more seconds to conclude my
comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOOKER. My amendment would change that and would preserve the
applications of agencies to supplement the EIS. For example, if the
proposed route of the pipeline was to change, it could mean drinking
water supplies and other critical resources would have a higher risk of
contamination from a spill. People should know that.
When American companies are building projects, they comply with this
important NEPA safeguard. Foreign companies should not be given a
shortcut. If American companies do it, foreign companies should do the
same.
This amendment is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Fund,
the Sierra Club, and a number of other organizations. I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are here today because the Keystone
Pipeline border crossing permit has been pending for years. There are
no shortcuts at play.
The Booker amendment, drafted as a savings clause, would withhold the
approval the bill seeks to confer if there are any new circumstances,
new information relevant to environmental concerns. That is the whole
point here.
The Keystone administrative record is already thousands of pages
long. We have had 6 years of dos and redos. If this amendment is
adopted, it begs the question as to whether there will ever be a
decision.
I think the obvious strategy of pipeline opponents is to drag out the
approval process until everybody gives up on it; everyone walks away.
That is certainly not the intent of those of us who support this
bipartisan bill. We don't want to see an endless round of further
considerations. I think the majority here in the Senate believes it is
time to move forward. Let's not have continued delays.
I urge a rejection of this amendment.
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 Booker amendment No. 155
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
[[Page S636]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Lee
Reid
Rubio
The amendment (No. 155) was rejected.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 130
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with
respect to the Boxer amendment No. 130.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that Senator Boxer is willing
to forgo a rollcall vote, but she would like to speak to her amendment.
I turn to Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. If I could ask for the attention of my friends.
The reason I so wanted have this 1 minute even though I am not asking
for a rollcall vote is because I want to make clear what we are doing
in this underlying bill.
This is the only time in the history of the Senate that we have given
such a big hug and kiss to a private company--any private company,
American or foreign.
My amendment simply says that if TransCanada breaks the rules related
to any permit they have--for example, there is an oilspill and they
don't follow the oilspill plan or they don't handle hazardous waste in
the right way--a whole list: They use the wrong steel. It is dangerous.
They are dangerous to their workers. It doesn't matter what they do,
under the underlying bill, S. 1, they can never lose their permit. We
don't do that for any other company, let alone a foreign special
interest company that is going to take this oil and siphon it right out
of America. There are 35 permanent jobs. A trail of misery follows the
tar sands.
I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote because I get the writing
on the wall. I would hope we would have a voice vote, and I would urge
my folks to yell a ``yes'' if they can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is clear that the good
Senator from California and I disagree on whether the Keystone XL
Pipeline should proceed. It is apparent that we disagree on the reach
of the section on permits as currently in the bill and also, more
specifically, the substitute amendment we are discussing.
I am willing to agree that the permits which have already been issued
should not be affected. That was the intent of the provision within the
substitute. I am going to be voicing my opposition through a loud
``nay'' and would encourage my colleagues to do the same.
With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
I withdraw my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 130) was rejected.
Amendment No. 141
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided before a vote on the Markey amendment No. 141.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It would
require that before the Keystone XL Pipeline is deemed approved, we
should determine whether carbon pollution, including the carbon
pollution from tar sands oil production, will contribute to an increase
in more extreme weather events. We should know if carbon pollution is
going to put another climate change card in a deck that is already
stacked for more extreme rainfall and snowfall and for more dangerously
hot summer days.
Since 2010 there have been 49 weather and climate disasters in our
country that caused at least $1 billion in damages across the United
States. We should not be making energy policy decisions that increase
the risk of costly, extreme weather events.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I would suggest that this amendment is designed to
further delay this pipeline. It requires that a study be done by all
Federal agencies with even a smidgen of review authority to determine
whether increased greenhouse gas emissions are likely to contribute to
an increase in more extreme weather events. It doesn't specify that the
increased greenhouse gases that are under study are only related to the
pipeline project. So, for instance, the President's deal to allow an
increase in greenhouse gas emissions until 2030--if it caused the
impacts listed in this amendment, it would stop the pipeline. That is
not what we want to do.
I am going to be urging my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
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 36, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]
YEAS--36
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
King
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--62
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Reid
Rubio
The amendment (No. 141) was rejected.
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.
[[Page S637]]
Amendment No. 178
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the Markey amendment No. 178.
The Senator from Massachusetts
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, right now the Canadian pipeline company is
receiving a ``get out of Canada free'' slip. They do not have to pay
taxes into the oilspill liability fund.
My colleagues may remember that last week the Republicans objected
because they said the amendment of Senator Wyden had a blue slip
problem from the House because the tax has to originate in the House.
You might remember that last Thursday night Senators on the Republican
side objected to my amendments--late at night and, again, on procedural
grounds. Well, the good news is we have been able to find a way to have
a straight up-or-down vote on the substance of whether the Canadians
have to pay into the oilspill liability fund. So this is going to be
the vote that determines whether they are going to be able to build a
pipeline right through our country--where we are running all the
environmental risk--and if a spill occurs, they have not contributed to
the oilspill liability fund.
This is a pure vote. It is not procedural. It is yes or no--do they
contribute or not to that fund. I urge an aye vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will be opposing this amendment. I
believe it is unnecessary. We already debated and dispensed with this
just last week. We voted for the sense of the Senate amendment which
called for a loophole within the oilspill liability trust fund to be
closed. We set us on a path to work with the House on that. That
amendment is now part of this bill.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support in making sure
we did adopt that. I think most of us believe this loophole should be
closed, and I am confident that we will close it well before the
Keystone XL Pipeline goes into operation.
We have to remember, my friends, that before any oil flows through
this pipeline which can be put into the oilspill liability trust fund,
it has to be built. That is what this bill before us does. I want to
make sure that we address this with the House. We will do so.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--54
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
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Reid
Rubio
The amendment was rejected.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROUNDS. 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 Washington.
Amendment No. 131 Withdrawn
Ms. CANTWELL. Given the results on other votes--given the vote on the
Boxer and Booker amendments, and given everybody here, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the Cantwell amendment No. 131.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is withdrawn.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to announce
that this is the last vote of the week. The final vote on the Keystone
Pipeline is the last vote of the week. The next vote will be at 5:30
p.m. on Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to
the vote on passage of S. 1, as amended.
Mr. CORKER. I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, all time is yielded back.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, shall it pass?
Mr. CORKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
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 62, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--36
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Reid
Rubio
The bill (S. 1), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Keystone XL Pipeline
Approval Act''.
SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.
(a) In General.--TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. may
construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and
cross-border facilities described in the application filed on
May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of
State (including any subsequent revision to the pipeline
route within the State of Nebraska required or authorized by
the State of Nebraska).
(b) Environmental Impact Statement.--The Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of
State in January 2014, regarding the pipeline referred to in
subsection (a), and the environmental analysis, consultation,
and review
[[Page S638]]
described in that document (including appendices) shall be
considered to fully satisfy--
(1) all requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(2) any other provision of law that requires Federal agency
consultation or review (including the consultation or review
required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a))) with respect to the pipeline and
facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Permits.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued
before the date of enactment of this Act for the pipeline and
cross-border facilities referred to in subsection (a) shall
remain in effect.
(d) Judicial Review.--Except for review in the Supreme
Court of the United States, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for
the review of an order or action of a Federal agency
regarding the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a), and the related facilities in the United
States, that are approved by this Act (including any order
granting a permit or right-of-way, or any other agency action
taken to construct or complete the project pursuant to
Federal law).
(e) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act
alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary
to secure access from an owner of private property to
construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a).
(f) Private Property Protection.--Land or an interest in
land for the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a) may only be acquired consistently with the
Constitution.
SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF ENERGY RETROFITTING ASSISTANCE FOR
SCHOOLS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) School.--The term ``school'' means--
(A) an elementary school or secondary school (as defined in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801));
(B) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002(a));
(C) a school of the defense dependents' education system
under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20
U.S.C. 921 et seq.) or established under section 2164 of
title 10, United States Code;
(D) a school operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(E) a tribally controlled school (as defined in section
5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25
U.S.C. 2511)); and
(F) a Tribal College or University (as defined in section
316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059c(b))).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Designation of Lead Agency.--The Secretary, acting
through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
shall act as the lead Federal agency for coordinating and
disseminating information on existing Federal programs and
assistance that may be used to help initiate, develop, and
finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy
retrofitting projects for schools.
(c) Requirements.--In carrying out coordination and
outreach under subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
(1) in consultation and coordination with the appropriate
Federal agencies, carry out a review of existing programs and
financing mechanisms (including revolving loan funds and loan
guarantees) available in or from the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Education, the Department of the Treasury, the Internal
Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other appropriate Federal agencies with jurisdiction over
energy financing and facilitation that are currently used or
may be used to help initiate, develop, and finance energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects for schools;
(2) establish a Federal cross-departmental collaborative
coordination, education, and outreach effort to streamline
communication and promote available Federal opportunities and
assistance described in paragraph (1) for energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects that
enables States, local educational agencies, and schools--
(A) to use existing Federal opportunities more effectively;
and
(B) to form partnerships with Governors, State energy
programs, local educational, financial, and energy officials,
State and local government officials, nonprofit
organizations, and other appropriate entities to support the
initiation of the projects;
(3) provide technical assistance for States, local
educational agencies, and schools to help develop and finance
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects--
(A) to increase the energy efficiency of buildings or
facilities;
(B) to install systems that individually generate energy
from renewable energy resources;
(C) to establish partnerships to leverage economies of
scale and additional financing mechanisms available to larger
clean energy initiatives; or
(D) to promote--
(i) the maintenance of health, environmental quality, and
safety in schools, including the ambient air quality, through
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofit
projects; and
(ii) the achievement of expected energy savings and
renewable energy production through proper operations and
maintenance practices;
(4) develop and maintain a single online resource website
with contact information for relevant technical assistance
and support staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy for States, local educational agencies, and
schools to effectively access and use Federal opportunities
and assistance described in paragraph (1) to develop energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects; and
(5) establish a process for recognition of schools that--
(A) have successfully implemented energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects; and
(B) are willing to serve as resources for other local
educational agencies and schools to assist initiation of
similar efforts.
(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the implementation of this section.
SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.
Nothing in this Act relieves the United States of its
responsibility to consult with Indian nations as required
under executive order 13175 (67 Fed. Reg. 67249) (November 6,
2000).
SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.
It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real
and not a hoax.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING THE OIL SPILL LIABILITY
TRUST FUND.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) Congress should approve a bill to ensure that all forms
of bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are
subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(2) it is necessary for Congress to approve a bill
described in paragraph (1) because the Internal Revenue
Service determined in 2011 that certain forms of petroleum
are not subject to the per-barrel excise tax;
(3) under article I, section 7, clause 1 of the
Constitution, the Senate may not originate a bill to raise
new revenue, and thus may not originate a bill to close the
legitimate and unintended loophole described in paragraph
(2);
(4) if the Senate attempts to originate a bill described in
paragraph (1), it would provide a substantive basis for a
``blue slip'' from the House of Representatives, which would
prevent advancement of the bill; and
(5) the House of Representatives, consistent with article
I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, should consider
and refer to the Senate a bill to ensure that all forms of
bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are
subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
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
[[Page S639]]
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
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
[[Page S640]]
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 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
[[Page S641]]
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.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CORNYN. 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.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are at this
point after three solid weeks of debate. The Presiding Officer
introduced this bill on January 8, 2015, and it is now January 29.
After weeks of good, solid debate, we have officially passed our
bipartisan bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
This legislation was not only important to pass so we could add more
jobs, have energy security, and good trade relationships with our
neighbor in Canada, but also we were able to return to what we call
regular order in the Chamber. The Senate has been given the title of
the world's most deliberative body. I think it is fair to say that in
recent years we have not really worn that title very well. We have not
been able to engage in the deliberation and debate that I think Members
of the Senate and the public at large expect.
What we have seen over these past few weeks was a return to regular
order where a Member is free to call up an amendment, have it debated,
and have it fall or succeed based on a process that has been long
established in this Chamber. That is a good thing to see.
Boy, did we have our share of ideas. By last count, I believe there
were close to 250 amendments that Members had offered from both sides
of the aisle. That is a lot of ideas. There was a lot of pent-up
demand, if you will, on energy-related legislation.
All in all, we voted on just over 40 amendments. I believe the final
count was 41 amendments. We made a lot out of the statement that we
have surpassed--with just this one bill in 1 month--all of the recorded
votes that we had throughout 2014. In fact, we surpassed it with nearly
three times more votes than we had in all of 2014.
Senator Cantwell and I have been here in the well during this last
vote, and we have received thanks from Members who said: Thank you for
getting us to this point. We appreciate that. Good job.
But I think we all recognize there were some points of very clear
tension around here, and that is just part of the process. Fortunately,
cooler heads prevailed, and we were able to come back together. We were
able to get the process moving forward and keep this bipartisan
coalition in tact.
I will just point out to the Members that with the help of the
ranking member on the energy committee--with the exception of one
night--we did it all during daylight hours. Not to get real personal
around here, but we have gotten into a habit in recent years of not
taking up votes until just about the dinnertime hour. I don't know
about the rest of you, but when I call the family in for dinner, we
kind of expect it is dinnertime.
I am pleased that we were able to work with everyone's schedule and
move through amendments in a fashion that was reasonable and
structured. Yesterday was not exactly convenient with the numbers that
we processed, but we did it. So I appreciate the great level of
cooperation we have had. It is not easy to start out a new Congress in
a new majority as the manager of the first bill brought to the floor,
but I had a lot of phenomenal help.
I wish to take a brief moment to thank those who have provided
counsel and assistance to us. This is kind of like the Academy Awards
for the first bill coming through the Senate.
I would like to recognize my staff on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee who have done a fabulous job with every part of
this process: My staff director, Karen Billups, Pat McCormick, Kellie
Donnelly, Colin Hayes, Lucy Murfitt, Tristan Abbey, Kate Williams,
Robert Dillon, Chelsea Thompson, Chuck Kleeschulte, Cathy Cahill, Chris
Kearney, Mike Pawlowski, Chester Carson, Mike Tadeo, Isaac Edwards,
Jason Huffnagle, and Brian Hughes, on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee and on my personal staff as well. Our interns on the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee, Samin Peirovi and Will Treadwell, also
did a great job assisting my staff, including putting together binders,
making sure we had the current amendments and the modifications that
were in front of them. So they did a great job as well.
I also want to thank the members of the natural resources team in the
Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel. These folks are kind of the
unsung heroes. These are the ones who helped prepare the more than 240
amendments that were offered to this bill. We never see these folks,
but they are churning out amendments as quickly as we can move ideas to
them. Gary Endicott, Heather Burnham, Christina Jacquet, Michelle
Johnson-Weider, Deanna Edwards, and Heather Lowell.
It is absolutely not possible to do what we did in moving this
measure through--or any measure--without recognizing the work our floor
staff does for us. I wish to thank Laura Dove and the entire cloakroom
staff, including Robert Duncan and Chris Tuck. The Parliamentarians and
the clerks really worked hard.
Also I wish to recognize on the Democratic side of the aisle Gary
and--everybody has just done a phenomenal job and we so appreciate it.
I truly must say the opportunity to start with this first bill and to
be working with my ranking member, Maria Cantwell, on this effort,
knowing that she was just getting her staff in line as we moved to this
bill--the staff director on the ranking side I don't even think had
officially been brought on--and it was full on. They have done
extraordinary work, working with us.
I want to recognize Angela Becker-Dippmann and Sam Fowler and all the
rest of the team because they were extraordinary.
I also want to recognize Barbara Boxer and her staff as well. There
was so much that needed to be coordinated.
I thank my ranking member for her patience, for her partnership, and
for really the very good-faith efforts she has made as we have worked
to get this bill to a conclusion, and offer a continued gesture of
wanting to work together with her. I want her to know that I will be
with her this weekend rooting for the Seahawks at the Super Bowl. So
yet one more area of her operation, but a grand thanks to my ranking
member and my partner on this bill.
With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor to Senator
Cantwell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I wish to speak also for a few minutes
about what an incredible process this has been. As the Senator from
Alaska stated, this was all a very unique experience, coming to a new
Congress and being the very first bill up and everybody moving to that
discussion. So I thank the Senator from Alaska.
[[Page S642]]
Let's just say both sides of the aisle tested people on amendments
and the amendment process, but I would say it was the trust we could
negotiate that got us through a couple of rough spots and the fact that
I could count on the Senator from Alaska for negotiating and trusting
what she had to say about how we could move forward in getting those
votes and getting things done. So I thank her for that and I thank her
for her leadership. I certainly can't wait to work with her on broader
energy policy legislation, because while I think people probably still
look at us as representing the States of Washington and Alaska, what
people may not realize is how intertwined Alaska's and Washington's
economies are. So if there is anybody who can find commonality on
energy policy, even given the difference of our States and the
differences on each side of the aisle, I think the Senator from Alaska
and I will have a chance to do that. I think this process we just went
through bodes well for us trying to say to both sides of our aisles
that there are things we can put on the table and discuss and a process
we can go through, and that process can work. So I thank her for that.
I look forward to the many initiatives--in fact, we just had a
hearing this morning. I said, with two women heading up this leadership
on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and two women staff
directors, multitasking is front and center in the U.S. Senate. I don't
think a lot of people would see either of us out in the halls making
declarations. I think we just hustled our way to the floor to try to
get things done. I hope that is what we can do as we move forward
through this process.
I too wish to thank certainly Karen Billups on the majority side
staff. I hadn't had a chance to work with her yet in this capacity and
I certainly appreciated her steady hand on that. I want to thank on our
side our staff director, Angela Becker-Dippmann. The very first day--
like sometime in mid-January, I think--to come back to the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and then have the first bill and have it
right in front of us and not be totally staffed up, I certainly
appreciate her leadership and her dedication to energy policy. Also, I
thank Sam Fowler and David Brooks and Jared Leopold on my staff for
their hard work on this.
I too have a list of staff that I wish to read quickly: Will
Dempster, Clayton Allen, Renae Black, Elizabeth Weiner, Tara
Billingsley, David Gillers, Al Stayman, Dan Adamson, Elizabeth
Craddock, Nick Sutter, Aisha Johnson, Caroline Bruckner, Bryan Petit,
Faye Matthews, and Carl Seip. There are also a couple of other people
from my staff, Nicole Teutschel and Travis Lumpkin who also helped.
I really want to thank the floor staff. This is the first time I have
managed a bill on the floor, so thanks to Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell
and Tricia Engle; and Reema in Senator Durbin's office, and Emma,
thanks so much for helping us through a process that, as my colleague
said, for the most part didn't take us way late into the night and we
got a lot of things accomplished when we could during the day.
Needless to say, I am not as excited about the passage of this
legislation as my colleague on the other side of the aisle, but we did
find out some things during this process. We found out that the
majority of the Senate doesn't think that climate change is a hoax. We
couldn't quite agree on whether it is significantly caused by man, or
just caused by man in some areas, but that was a step. We saw huge
enthusiasm for energy efficiency. We saw that people were willing to
accept voice votes or receive 95 votes on things that were energy
efficiency items, so I think that bodes well for the Senator from
Alaska and me thinking about more energy efficiency policy.
Obviously, I remain concerned about the holes in the legislation,
everything from the things we didn't get to pass--the trust fund--and
the fact that we still need to figure out oilspill cleanup processes on
something like tar sands.
I appreciate the Senator from Alaska mentioning some of these issues
as areas for continued work because we will definitely take her up on
that process. And, certainly, we want to try to take up some of the
issues our colleagues, such as Senator Peters, brought up and work on
them moving forward. I hope this process, as it relates to this
legislation--I hope our colleagues--coming from the State of Washington
where we have so many coal trains and oil trains coming through our
area, I wish the pipeline would be some remedy for us, but it is not.
Even according to railroad statistics and other statistics, a pipeline
is not going to make one dent in the number of oil trains coming to the
Pacific Northwest. So the fact that the Commandant of the Coast Guard
says we don't have a solution for cleaning up tar sands is something we
want to work on and push forward on.
I hope we can get our colleagues around the fact that the number of
crude oil incidents has been growing since 2009. It used to be we were
having a decline and now, according to the Associated Press, we are
seeing an increase; at least 73 different accidents in 2014, an 87-
percent increase over 2009.
We are seeing these new sources being developed and new ways of
transporting them, and huge acceleration, and I hope Congress will take
a deep breath and get to these issues as it relates to safety and
security outlined and into law. I hope we will have a chance to do
that.
I still hope the President of the United States vetoes this
legislation because, frankly, I want him to be able to negotiate. I
want him to be able to negotiate with this company the terms and
agreements by which this pipeline is going to be built. I want him to
protect the American economy, I want him to protect the American
farmers, and I want him to protect the American environment.
Again, I say to my colleague from Alaska that if she and I can get
through these few weeks on a bill that a lot of our colleagues were
predetermined on, but have so many different amendment discussions,
then, yes, maybe it bodes well for a bigger bipartisan energy bill. I
will certainly look forward to working with her on that.
I thank her for her leadership during a time period where she had
many things on her plate, and this was just one of them. I hope we can
get some of the issues we care about on our side of the aisle that I
think really do lead to job growth, such as the energy tax credits, a
focus on energy efficiency, and a focus of diversification also on the
energy agenda.
With that, I yield the floor.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from
Washington for her comments. I think it is clear that we have a great
deal of work in front of us, but I think we also have a better idea of
where some of that common ground may be as a result of the discussions
this past month. So I am looking forward to advancing an energy
initiative through the committee and, hopefully, through the full
process, that will speak to the attributes of affordability, abundance,
a clean energy supply, diverse and secure. We have a lot of work to do.
In the comments I made, I thanked a lot of people, but I think it is
important to recognize that the Senator from Washington and I would not
have been able to do the job we did--managing this bill on the floor,
working with other Members, working with staff on the floor and our
respective staffs--if there had not been a very clear and a conscious
decision that management of what was going to happen on the Senate
floor was going to be a little bit different, that there would be an
opportunity for debate, and some have described free-wheeling debate.
What is free-wheeling debate? I think we have just kind of defined it
here with the Keystone XL Pipeline. I don't know whether that is going
to be the course for everything going forward, but this was a pledge
that the majority leader Senator McConnell made when he became the
majority leader. I think we have seen that play out in a process that
has been respectful, where at the end of the discussion we can still
agree to disagree on the bill itself, but the process that has gotten
us through final passage has been one that, again, was respectful and
did allow for full and civil discourse. I think that is what the Senate
should be all about and I am proud to have been a part of it.
With that, I know my good friend from North Dakota, the prime sponsor
of this bill, is waiting to speak and I congratulate him for a
phenomenal job. He and his staff--I should have mentioned his staff.
Ryan and the others
[[Page S643]]
who have been working behind the Senator from North Dakota have been
doing a great job. Senator Hoeven has been articulate, persistent, and
really has done a phenomenal job moving this through the process.
I congratulate the Senator from North Dakota, and I yield to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska
and the Senator from Washington as the bill managers. I think they have
done an exceptional job. I know that is not just my opinion, but it is
the opinion on both sides of the aisle. It is not just that they were
able to do the work on this bill, but actually to facilitate the debate
that really enabled us to move through an open amendment process and a
return to regular order. It is not easy to do. Because, obviously, we
had people who had ideas on a whole variety of issues, and, clearly, we
have strong support for legislation, but there are those who oppose
legislation as well. So to find a way to keep that amendment process
going and with more than 40 amendments and, of course, to get to a
final vote and pass the legislation is a real testament to both of the
bill managers.
I thank all of the Members of this body who supported the
legislation. A bipartisan vote getting more than 60 votes is no small
achievement for any piece of legislation. Of course this bill already
passed the House.
We are already conferring now with the House on whether we will need
to go to conference or hopefully get their concurrence, but obviously
our objective is to put it on the President's desk as soon as possible.
This is an important step in building the kind of energy plan this
country needs. We can't get to energy independence or energy security
without building the infrastructure we need to move that energy from
where it is produced to where it is consumed.
We have to remember that, yes, this is about working with our closest
friend and ally, Canada. Some of the oil in the pipeline will be moved
from oil production in Canada, but it is also about moving our domestic
oil in this country from States such as mine and from the State of
Montana and moving that oil as safely and as efficiently and
effectively as possible and moving it in a way that actually produces
less emissions than if we try to move all that oil on trains, which is
what is being done now.
Moved on trains, we are talking 1,400 railcars a day instead of
moving it through a pipeline. It is not only a safety issue, it is not
only a cost issue, it is not only an efficiency issue, it is about
producing less emissions and making sure we don't create congestion on
our railroads to move all of the other goods we want to move. This is
about building the kind of infrastructure plan for energy and other
things we want for this country. I hope the President now will join
with us. Clearly we are going to move this to his desk, and I hope he
will work with us. That is what the American people want.
If we look at this legislation, if we look at this Keystone XL
Pipeline project, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about
helping to grow our economy. It is about working to achieve national
security in terms of energy security. It is about building the right
kind of energy plan for the future of our country.
Here is where we are. This process was started over 6 years ago. Not
only has this Congress, both the House and the Senate, now advanced
this bill in a bipartisan way with strong bipartisan majorities in both
Chambers, but every State on the route, all six States on the route
have approved this project as well. We have the Congress that has
approved it on a bipartisan basis. We have all six States that are
included on the route. They have approved it through their processes.
We have the supreme court in the State of Nebraska which has
adjudicated, legislated in that State. That has been resolved.
Our closest friend and ally, Canada, wants us to work with them on
energy security for North American energy security, but most important
of all the American people want this done. In poll after poll, the
American people overwhelmingly support this project. Over the last 3
years, the support has ranged from 65 percent to 75 percent. Even in
the most recent poll that came out this month, 3 to 1, 65 percent to 22
percent, the people want the President to sign this bill. Again, I hope
the President will join with us and work with us and support this
legislation as we work with our leader on the energy committee and with
our ranking member.
We don't agree on everything, obviously, but there are things we can
work on together. We are working to build the right kind of energy plan
for this country to get energy security. There will be more work to do,
but I hope the President will join us in a bipartisan way and sign this
legislation.
Again, my thanks to the bill managers, to the Members of this body
who supported the legislation. I appreciate it very much.
I know the good Senator from Texas has a few words, but I will first
yield the floor back to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, let me say to the Senator from Alaska
and the Senator from North Dakota, congratulations, and tell them how
much I admire and appreciate their tenacity. The 114th Congress had a
lot to prove. Mainly what we had to prove is we weren't like the 113th
Congress that was completely dysfunctional, particularly the Senate.
I have to say to our good friend, the Presiding Officer, it wasn't
the House. It was the Senate that was dysfunctional. The House passed a
lot of legislation that came to die in the Senate because the then-
majority leader made the decision he wasn't going to move it. It is a
new day in the Senate. While I am sure the bill managers would tell us
it wasn't easy, we actually have an accomplishment thanks to the
leadership of the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from North
Dakota, and thanks to an awful lot of people. That is progress.
I hope the first efforts we have made by being able to pass
legislation--hopefully the House will concur, the Senate, and the
President--we will have done our job. What the President decides to do
is about him doing his job, but we can't fail to do our jobs just
because he refuses to do his job.
In fact, when he has announced for seven different pieces of
legislation he is going to veto them, the easiest thing for us to do
would be to curl up in a fetal position and say we give up, we are not
even going try. We haven't done that. Again, I think this is a great
accomplishment.
I would say to my friends, the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from
North Dakota, and others who have gotten us here today, well done.
President Obama's 2016 Budget
Madam President, I would like to turn to another topic. That seems as
though it is a metaphor for life in the Senate. We finished one
important piece of legislation, and we turn the page to the next topic.
I would like to talk about the budget.
Next Monday the President is expected to release his 2016 budget.
Budgets are a time when you talk about and deal with your priorities.
This budget will reflect the President's priorities, I am sure. I hope
one of those priorities is to put the country on a more sustainable
path. But one of the things I am very glad about is that for the first
time the President, in a long time, is actually going to propose his
budget on time. The President missed so many previous deadlines over
the years that people hardly ever notice anymore--but that is good, the
President releasing his budget on time.
While I am happy to see he will finally meet his statutory deadline
in submitting his annual budget, what I am interested in seeing is what
he has in the budget, to see if he is willing to meet the challenges of
our day by drafting a serious budget, including realistic priorities.
That also means making tough decisions, but that is where budgets are
so helpful.
I am an optimistic person, but if the President's State of the Union
rhetoric is any indication as to what we will see next week, I am
concerned the budget will be loaded with more taxes, more spending, and
more debt. That certainly isn't a sustainable path forward for the
country, but last year the President's 2015 budget would have raised
taxes by more than $1 trillion
[[Page S644]]
and increased our national debt by trillions more and his budget would
have never balanced.
I can't think of anything worse during a time of slow economic growth
than layering on $1 trillion of additional taxes on the people we are
depending upon to create jobs and make the investment to get the
economy growing again and get America back to work.
Here is another sort of sleight of hand the President has been using
lately. He has been talking a little bit about deficits. Deficits, as
we all know, is the difference between the money that comes in and the
money that is paid out on an annual basis. The debt is a different
topic. That is the long-term debt. Actually, it is the accumulated
deficits which represent the biggest challenge.
The President likes to say that, well, the deficit has come down--
which is true--but primarily the reason for that is because of a huge
tax increase he embraced a couple of years ago along with the sequester
or discretionary spending caps that were in the Budget Control Act of
2011. The combination of higher taxes the President sought and got and
the spending restraint that essentially was championed on this side of
the aisle resulted in lower annual deficits.
But the fact is we are still spending money we don't have. As the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee likes to say, we are
still overspending. We are still spending money we don't have as long
as we have any deficit. But deficits will not hold up for long as a
reliable red herring. Factors contributing to lower deficits will soon
change. Spending on ObamaCare and other broken entitlements will only
ramp up from here. On the President's current trajectory, it is only a
matter of time before those annual deficits start building again and
adding even more to our national debt.
What the President is hoping is that they will be distracted by his
happy talk about lower annual defenses, and we will not pay attention
to the looming elephant in the room, which is our national debt which
has grown more than $7 trillion in the 6 years he has been in office.
More than $1 trillion a year. The national debt is $18 trillion and
counting. It is set to explode over the long term.
I realize most of us can't possibly conceive of what $18 trillion is,
but if we consider the fact we have 320 million people in America and
we have an $18.1 trillion national debt, each one of us--from the
oldest American, most senior American, to the baby who was just born--
owes $56,500 in debt.
Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office released its annual
Budget and Economic Outlook which provides an updated economic forecast
for the current fiscal year and for 10 subsequent years. According to
the Congressional Budget Office, under current law the national debt is
expected to grow more than $9 trillion in the next 10 years. The
President added $7 trillion during the 6 years he has been in office.
If we don't do something quickly, we are on a trajectory to add $9
trillion more over the next 10 years.
The Congressional Budget Office's report also shows that in 5 years
the Federal Government will spend more than $500 billion in interest on
the debt alone and $827 billion in 10 years.
Here is the ticking timebomb if you think about it. Because of slow
economic growth globally, a lot of the Federal Reserve Banks
essentially for the United States and other countries have done the
best they can to keep interest rates low. In America they are next to
zero. All we need to do is look at the return on our savings accounts
to see what a meager interest rate is being offered by the bank or
credit union on our savings. That is because of Federal Reserve policy.
That is true of central banks throughout the world. But inevitably over
time those interest rates are unsustainable, so they are going to start
ticking back up. When they go from roughly zero to 4 percent or 5
percent, the amount of money we will have to pay on the current $18.1
trillion in debt and on the additional debt that will be added over the
next 10 years--unless we get hold of this problem--is going to crowd
out our ability to do everything from protecting the most vulnerable in
our society through our safety net programs to jeopardizing our
national defense which is something we can't outsource to somebody
else. This is something only the Federal Government can do.
We had an office holder in Texas a few years ago who talked about the
Yellow Pages test. It always resonated with me. She used to say
government should not be doing things that we can find in the Yellow
Pages because that means the private sector is doing it. But the one
thing you won't find in the Yellow Pages is national security, and so
our ability to protect our way of life and our future is going to be
jeopardized by this debt. That is why Admiral Mullen--former Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a few years ago--shocked all of us when he
was asked ``What is the single largest threat to our national
security?'' and he said ``The debt.'' That got a lot of us going to the
books trying to figure out what he was talking about, and what he was
talking about is what I have been referring to here.
Let me repeat that second part again. In 2025 we will be spending
$827 billion in interest on our debt alone. We won't be paying down the
principal; we will just be paying interest on the debt by 2025--$827
billion. That would be the third largest line item in the Federal
budget, just behind Medicare and Social Security.
The Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, has
been testifying on findings from this report. On Tuesday, before the
House Budget Committee, Dr. Elmendorf stated that ``such large and
growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences.'' He is
exactly right. When we have to basically take up available credit to
finance our national debt, that leaves less credit available to the
private sector to make investments that will actually create jobs. It
acts like a wet blanket on economic growth. Nothing but fiscal
uncertainty and crisis will come from our debt continuing to spiral out
of control.
The bottom line is this: Under President Obama the Federal Government
has spent the past several years raising taxes. It has increased
regulations. It is driving our national debt to unprecedented levels,
and we have a growth rate which reflects that.
I know the President was celebrating. He was almost spiking the
football at the State of the Union, saying: Well, we had a 5-percent
spurt of growth in the gross domestic product last quarter.
Well, that is great, but all of the projections show that for the
next year, because of all of the factors I have mentioned, growth is
going to continue to bounce along the bottom at a rate of roughly 2 to
2.2 percent. That is not enough growth to get the economy moving again
to create the jobs to create the prosperity and lift our economy needs
to get Americans back to work.
In my opinion, the President's policies over the last year have
actually made it more difficult for businesses to hire workers and for
families to plan for the future. I would argue that his policies have
introduced enormous uncertainty into our health care system, our tax
system, and our financial system.
What our country needs now is the same thing which we have needed all
along but which we haven't had over the past 6 years. We need genuine
Presidential leadership, the type of leadership that is required to
restore Americans' confidence in the future and to ensure better
opportunities for the next generations and beyond. We don't need
Presidential leadership that leads us into more debt, less opportunity,
and a more dismal future.
It is my hope that the President's budget will be exactly what it
should be and exactly what the American people deserve; that is, a
responsible blueprint for robust, economic growth. There are not a lot
of problems that face our country that couldn't be addressed in large
part by robust economic growth. Our economy would grow. Revenues to the
Federal Treasury would grow, thus reducing our deficits and giving us a
better opportunity to address our debt. More Americans would be working
again instead of the lowest percentage of people in the workforce in
the past 30 years. That is what they call the labor participation rate.
I hope the President's budget will get behind some of these progrowth
policies, such as progrowth tax reform--something we are eager to work
with
[[Page S645]]
the President on--and support serious efforts to save Social Security
and Medicare. The dirty little secret in Washington is that if we don't
do anything to save Medicare and Social Security, they are going to
fall off the fiscal cliff. So doing nothing is not an option, but we
need a bipartisan commitment to save Social Security and Medicare.
I hope the President's budget will be a balanced one and finally
offer a long-term plan for controlling our national debt. If it is not,
well, we are not going to depend on the President alone; we are going
to do our job in the Senate and the House and pass a responsible
budget. If the President does not propose one, we will show the
American people what one looks like because we cannot let the President
continue to lead us down this path of unsustainable debt and a darker
future for American people.
____________________