[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S243-S247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, in this Energy bill we are considering, 
we are going to offer an amendment regarding the renewable fuel 
standard--also called the RFS. The RFS requires that fuel sold in the 
United States contain a minimal amount of renewable fuels. You know it 
because when you go to the gas pump, it says: contains 10 percent 
ethanol.
  The RFS is outdated. It was created in 2005--a time when American 
energy consumption relied heavily upon foreign imports. It was thought 
that the renewable fuel standard will be good for the environment by 
decreasing the carbon footprint, but in the last 10 years our energy 
landscape has changed dramatically. We now have more domestic oil than 
almost ever before, and the drawbacks of the RFS greatly outweigh its 
benefits.
  For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Americans 
will be forced to pay $0.13 to $0.26 more per gallon if the RFS is not 
repealed. For a mom and dad with two teenage sons, this would be $400 a 
year, but it doesn't stop at the pump.
  Over the last 10 years, the price of corn has drastically fluctuated. 
Corn costs have approximately doubled since before the RFS began. The 
corn price increasing has increased the cost of food as much as 7 
percent to 26 percent it is estimated per year. It also raises costs 
all the way down. For example, your chain restaurants are estimated to 
spend $3.2 billion more for the food they purchase and serve to their 
customers because of the RFS.
  Perhaps paying more at the pump, paying more at the grocery store and 
more at the restaurant will be worth it if there are environmental 
benefits. Unfortunately, there is not only no environmental benefit, 
there is tremendous environmental harm.
  To begin with, an increase in corn production means that there is an 
increase in fertilizer use across the Midwest. That fertilizer runs 
into the rivers, goes down into the Mississippi River, hits the Gulf of 
Mexico, and causes algae blooms because of the high nitrogen and 
phosphorous, and that decreases the oxygen in the water, thereby 
devastating the fish population. If you look at maps of the dead zone 
in the Mississippi River, they have continuously increased in size 
since the RFS was put into law.
  But it is not just about our water quality. Let's talk about carbon 
footprint. One of the original rationales as to why we should have 
renewable fuels: The Union of Concerned Scientists state that certain 
types of ethanol have a worse carbon footprint than gasoline. So now we 
have something that not only increases the cost of food and hurts the 
water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and the rivers that feed it but 
also has a higher carbon footprint than the gasoline it dilutes.
  By the way, it is not just the Union of Concerned Scientists; the 
National Academy of Sciences says that the renewable fuel standard has 
little or no environmental benefit and actually increases the 
particulate matter and sulfur that is in the atmosphere and harms water 
quality.
  Let's just say that with the abundance of our domestic oil and 
increased vehicular efficiency standards, there is no need for the RFS. 
It is time to repeal the renewable fuel standard so that our farmers, 
anglers, ranchers, and consumers can reap the benefit.
  In addition to this, I wish to mention another amendment I am 
offering with Senator Markey. This amendment would save taxpayer 
dollars and preserve oil reservoirs in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located in my home State, in 
Harahan, LA. This amendment gives the Secretary of Energy the ability 
to sell Strategic Petroleum Reserve quantities of crude oil when the 
price goes up. Right now, he has been instructed to sell the oil to 
raise $5 billion but without regard to price. We clearly don't want to 
sell it when the price of oil is at $30. We want to wait until the 
price of oil goes back up and sell it then so we can reap multiple 
benefits. It will allow for more supply so consumers will have lower 
prices at the pump, and it will also get more money for the oil we do 
sell, which will be good for taxpayers who bought the oil in the first 
place.
  America is blessed with an abundance of oil. Taxpayers invested in 
this emergency oil stockpile. Yet some must be sold, and it should be 
sold at the highest price possible to get the best deal for the 
taxpayers.
  I urge my fellow Senators to support both of these amendments. They 
are important to American families, critical to America's energy 
security, and in the case of the RFS, it is critical to our 
environmental hopes.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Homeland Security and the Threat of Violent Extremism

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss for a couple of 
moments the issue of homeland security and the threat of violent 
extremism in the United States.
  In the last 2 months in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we have 
experienced two very concerning incidents of violent extremism--first, 
in December, the arrest of a 19-year-old man in Harrisburg, PA, who 
allegedly used social media to propagandize and facilitate on behalf of 
the terrorist group ISIS. At the time of his arrest, law enforcement 
officers found ammunition and other signs that he might be preparing 
for an attack. Thank goodness

[[Page S244]]

law enforcement at the local and State level worked with the FBI and 
would have been able to thwart that attack if it were carried out.
  The second incident, and the one I will focus more of my attention on 
today, was the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett 
while he was on patrol on January 7 of this year. The gunman ran up to 
Officer Hartnett's patrol car and fired 11 rounds at very close range. 
Officer Hartnett was hit three times in his left arm before the 
attacker fled. In a truly remarkable act of bravery, Officer Hartnett 
was able to radio for backup and pursue the attacker. The gunman was 
apprehended as a result of Officer Hartnett's heroic action and the 
quick response of his fellow officers.
  Law enforcement professionals like Officer Hartnett and his 
colleagues are on the frontlines of protecting us and protecting our 
homeland every day. We have to remain vigilant against potential 
attacks from terrorist groups in foreign countries, of course, who seek 
to harm Americans, but we must also confront the threat of violent 
extremism here at home from individuals who are inspired by the 
hateful, evil ideology of terrorist groups such as ISIS. These are 
individuals who can often be categorized as lone wolves, planning and 
plotting without the direction of a terrorist group necessarily but 
motivated by violent rhetoric they find online or by other means.
  On January 18, I visited Officer Hartnett in the hospital to thank 
him for his bravery and his service. He was in much better shape that 
day than he was on the night of the attack. We are so happy that he 
continues to recover well from those injuries. Just last week he was 
able to leave the hospital in Philadelphia and go home.
  At the same time, I also received a briefing on the investigation 
from the FBI and met with Mayor Jim Kenny, the newly elected mayor of 
Philadelphia, and Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ross to discuss this 
emerging threat in Philadelphia and certainly in other places as well.
  What do lawmakers do, Members of this body and the other body as 
well, the House and the Senate? We have an abiding obligation to give 
our full support to local and State authorities confronting the threat 
of violent extremism whether it is in Pennsylvania or anywhere across 
the country.
  According to a recent assessment from the Foreign Policy Initiative, 
71 individuals have been charged with ISIS-related activities since 
March of 2014. The profiles and motivations of these individuals differ 
dramatically, making it even more difficult for law enforcement 
officials to investigate and prevent attacks. But I believe that as 
Members of Congress--and, I also would add, the administration as 
well--we all need to listen to the professional advice of law 
enforcement officials, homeland security experts, and others rather 
than simply engaging in categorical condemnation or, unfortunately, 
oversight by sound bite.
  I have invited Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to 
Philadelphia to join me in a roundtable with community leaders and law 
enforcement officials in Pennsylvania so I can be briefed on and 
updated about homeland security issues in Philadelphia and throughout 
southeastern Pennsylvania.
  A recent Politico survey of leading mayors around the country 
evaluated the city executives' perspective on the challenges they 
confront in addressing terrorism and violent extremism in their 
communities. The mayors have told us that they identified lack of 
overall funding as the biggest challenge facing their cities in the 
context of counterterrorism. And I have to say that for at least a 
decade, local law enforcement and the FBI have been badly underfunded. 
Let's ensure that these communities have what they need.
  I will continue to urge the Departments of Homeland Security and 
Justice to communicate better with local and State authorities. I will 
also urge the disbursement of Federal grant funding to support 
activities to counter violent extremism and to continue to train law 
enforcement in ways to help prevent and respond to complex terrorist 
attacks.
  I am supporting and I hope others will support Senator Carper's 
Community Partnerships Act of 2015, which is a piece of commonsense 
legislation that would bolster the Federal Government's support to 
local and State authorities. We owe it to our first responders, such as 
Officer Jesse Hartnett from Philadelphia, and we owe it to the 
communities they protect to give them the support and resources they 
need to help us confront and defeat violent extremism.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about the 
Energy bill that is before the Chamber right now. I thank Senator 
Murkowski and Senator Cantwell for bringing us to this point.
  This is called the Energy Policy and Modernization Act. It is my 
understanding that this is the first comprehensive Energy bill to come 
to the floor of the Senate in 7 or 8 years. It is something we ought to 
be focused on because it helps to create a better economy, and it helps 
to ensure that we do have a protected grid and that we can indeed 
improve our infrastructure around the country in terms of energy and 
improve the performance of Federal agencies.
  The bill allows more exports of LNG--liquefied natural gas--which is 
important to our economy. By focusing on energy and taking commonsense 
steps to help in terms of making our economy more efficient, we will 
help to create more independence in this country and make America less 
dependent on foreign sources of energy as well. I commend them for 
that, and I am happy to support the broader legislation.
  Tonight I would like to talk about title I of the bill. As those of 
you who have looked at the bill know, title I is about energy 
efficiency. I again thank Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for including 
the Portman-Shaheen Energy and Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 
Act in as title I of the legislation. This is energy efficiency 
legislation that has been to the floor a couple of times. We were not 
able to get it passed because of a disagreement over amendments, but it 
has come out of the committee with strong votes. In fact, the most 
recent vote was a few months ago when we reported the energy efficiency 
legislation out of our energy committee in the Senate by a vote of 20 
to 2. That doesn't happen very often around this place. It is 
bipartisan because it makes sense.
  Senator Shaheen and I have worked with Members on both sides of the 
aisle and groups all around the country over the past 4 or 5 years to 
put this legislation together. It is part of what I think is the right 
philosophy which I see embodied in this overall legislation, which is 
that we ought to be producing more energy in this country, but we also 
ought to be using it more efficiently. Producing more and using less is 
a good combination. It creates jobs, creates the opportunity for us to 
be more competitive in global markets, it helps us to be less dependent 
on foreign oil, and it helps us to improve the environment.
  This legislation we are looking at in title I is going to get across 
the finish line this year, I believe, because we do have strong support 
from not just Republicans and Democrats here in this Chamber but from 
people around the country who have helped us to put this together.
  Those on this side of the aisle often talk about the need for an 
``all of the above'' energy strategy. I like to talk about that. I 
think it is the right approach. I think we should be focusing on all of 
our energy resources. When you talk about ``all of the above,'' though, 
one of the best sources of energy is the energy you don't use. It is 
the energy that is really economically viable, and that is energy 
efficiency. Sometimes we are pretty good at the produced part of the 
equation on my side of the aisle, but we need to focus more on the 
efficiency part.
  This legislation also helps the environment, as I said. It is 
actually the equivalent of taking about 20 million cars off the road 
within 15 years. Think about that. Through energy efficiency, it is the 
equivalent of taking about 20 million cars off the road within 15 
years.
  By the way, it doesn't do it by overregulating, it doesn't do it by 
killing jobs, and it doesn't do it by the heavy hand of government. It 
does it without any mandates. It does it by

[[Page S245]]

incentivizing less energy use, which will help to reduce emissions in a 
way that doesn't kill jobs. In fact, our legislation will create more 
jobs. We have a study of our legislation now showing that it will 
create 136,000 new jobs while saving consumers about $13.7 billion a 
year in reduced energy costs within 15 years.
  The bill is supported by 260 associations, businesses, advocacy 
groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Sierra 
Club, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It 
is supported by groups who don't normally get together to support 
legislation, but they are all together on this because they understand 
the importance of it. That is one of the reasons this passed the 
committee with big bipartisan numbers, and it is also why it actually 
works--because we got input from everybody. It makes good economic 
sense, good energy sense, and good environmental sense.
  In visiting with jobseekers around Ohio and going to businesses 
talking about this legislation, they are excited about it because it 
gives them the opportunity to have access to new energy efficiency 
technology that makes them more competitive. So it allows Ohio workers 
to be able to compete better with workers in places like Japan or 
Europe where there is more of a focus on energy efficiency, and it 
reduces the costs of production. This is why the manufacturing 
community in my home State of Ohio is really excited about it. They 
know this is going to help them to be competitive.
  It also helps with regard to our Federal Government. The Federal 
Government ought to practice what it preaches. The Federal Government 
is the largest user of energy in the country--probably the largest user 
of energy in the world--and, by the way, one of the more inefficient 
users of energy. So our legislation specifically focuses on the Federal 
Government and talks about how we need to use less energy at our call 
centers and how we need to make sure Federal buildings are more energy 
efficient. Just by doing that alone, we are going to save taxpayers 
billions of dollars. That makes sense for taxpayers, and it also makes 
sense for reducing emissions, and it makes sense to have our Federal 
Government be more efficient.
  The proposals contained in this bill are really commonsense reforms. 
There are no mandates on the private sector. They come as a result of 
direct conversations we have had with people at the local level and 
businesses to understand how we can actually help, without mandating, 
to create incentives.
  Our legislation does focus on manufacturing, and it does focus on the 
government and the General Services Administration and buildings. It 
also focuses on buildings to ensure that buildings are more efficient, 
both residential and commercial buildings, which is where we are going 
to see a lot of our savings. Again, this is not only going to create 
more jobs but save consumers a lot of money.
  It has been nearly 10 years since Congress passed legislation that 
focused on energy efficiency. A lot has changed and a lot needs to be 
updated. This legislation allows us to do that--to move forward in a 
smart way and in a bipartisan way to ensure that, yes, we are producing 
more energy, becoming less dependent on foreign sources and more 
independent here in this country, helping our economy but also doing so 
in a way that helps create a better environment for all of us.
  This is a true, ``all of the above'' energy strategy.
  Again, I applaud my colleagues for bringing forward the Energy Policy 
Modernization Act, and I thank them for including the Shaheen-Portman 
legislation. I wish to thank my partner, Jeanne Shaheen from New 
Hampshire, for her hard work over the years on this legislation. It is 
time for us to get it done. It is time to provide this incentive and 
give this economy a shot in the arm to help ensure that we can take 
advantage of the energy resources in this country, use them more 
efficiently, and, by doing so, create more economic opportunity for 
everyone.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are at the end of the day after 
having turned to the Energy Policy Modernization Act. We have had some 
Members come to the floor to speak to the significance and the 
importance of finally, after almost 8 years now, updating and 
modernizing our energy infrastructure, our energy supply, our energy 
efficiency and accountability within the energy space.
  I know that we are going to be continuing to work to address not only 
much of what is contained within the bill but also amendments from 
colleagues. We have solicited and have received a fair number of 
amendments today. The ranking member and I are processing these and 
looking, again, not only to set up a unanimous consent agreement here 
this evening, but I will take this opportunity to remind colleagues 
that if you have amendments that you wish to be brought up, please file 
them, and please come to the floor to speak to them. We will hopefully 
have a full opportunity tomorrow to do just that, but we do intend to 
work aggressively to get through this very important, very bipartisan 
measure.


   Amendments Nos. 2968, 2963, 3017, 2982, 3021, and 2965 En Bloc to 
                           Amendment No. 2953

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent 
that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by 
number in the following order: amendment No. 2968, for Senator Shaheen; 
amendment No. 2963, for Senator Murkowski; amendment No. 3017, for 
Senator Barrasso; amendment No. 2982, for Senator Markey; amendment No. 
3021, for Senator Crapo; and amendment No. 2965, for Senator Schatz.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for herself and 
     others, proposes amendments numbered 2968, 2963, 3017, 2982, 
     3021, and 2965 en bloc to amendment No. 2953.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2968

        (Purpose: To clarify the definition of the term ``smart 
                            manufacturing'')

       Beginning on page 132, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 133, line 4, and insert the following:
       (5) Smart manufacturing.--The term ``smart manufacturing'' 
     means advanced technologies in information, automation, 
     monitoring, computation, sensing, modeling, and networking 
     that--
       (A) digitally--
       (i) simulate manufacturing production lines;
       (ii) operate computer-controlled manufacturing equipment;
       (iii) monitor and communicate production line status; and
       (iv) manage and optimize energy productivity and cost 
     throughout production;
       (B) model, simulate, and optimize the energy efficiency of 
     a factory building;
       (C) monitor and optimize building energy performance;
       (D) model, simulate, and optimize the design of energy 
     efficient and sustainable products, including the use of 
     digital prototyping and additive manufacturing to enhance 
     product design;
       (E) connect manufactured products in networks to monitor 
     and optimize the performance of the networks, including 
     automated network operations; and
       (F) digitally connect the supply chain network.


                           Amendment No. 2963

     (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to bulk-power system 
                     reliability impact statements)

       Strike section 4301 and insert the following:

     SEC. 4301. BULK-POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.

       Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Reliability Impact Statement.--
       ``(1) Solicitation by commission.--Not later than 15 days 
     after the date on which the head of a Federal agency proposes 
     a major rule (as defined in section 804 of title 5, United 
     States Code) that may significantly affect the reliable 
     operation of the bulk-power system, the Commission shall 
     solicit from the ERO, who shall coordinate with regional 
     entities affected by the proposed rule, a reliability impact 
     statement with respect to the proposed rule.
       ``(2) Requirements.--A reliability impact statement under 
     paragraph (1) shall include a detailed statement on--
       ``(A) the impact of the proposed rule on the reliable 
     operation of the bulk-power system;

[[Page S246]]

       ``(B) any adverse effects on the reliable operation of the 
     bulk-power system if the proposed rule was implemented; and
       ``(C) alternatives to cure the identified adverse 
     reliability impacts, including a no-action alternative.
       ``(3) Submission to commission and congress.--On completion 
     of a reliability impact statement under paragraph (1), the 
     ERO shall submit to the Commission and Congress the 
     reliability impact statement.
       ``(4) Transmittal to head of federal agency.--On receipt of 
     a reliability impact statement submitted to the Commission 
     under paragraph (3), the Commission shall transmit to the 
     head of the applicable Federal agency the reliability impact 
     statement prepared under this subsection for inclusion in the 
     public record.
       ``(5) Inclusion of detailed response in final rule.--With 
     respect to a final major rule subject to a reliability impact 
     statement prepared under paragraph (1), the head of the 
     Federal agency shall--
       ``(A) consider the reliability impact statement;
       ``(B) give due weight to the technical expertise of the ERO 
     with respect to matters that are the subject of the 
     reliability impact statement; and
       ``(C) include in the final rule a detailed response to the 
     reliability impact statement that reasonably addresses the 
     detailed statements required under paragraph (2).''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3017

(Purpose: To expand the authority for awarding technology prizes by the 
  Secretary of Energy to include a financial award for separation of 
                  carbon dioxide from dilute sources)

       At the end of subtitle G of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 46__. CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY PRIZE.

       Section 1008 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     16396) (as amended by section 4601) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h) Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Prize.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Board.--The term `Board' means the Carbon Dioxide 
     Capture Technology Advisory Board established by paragraph 
     (6).
       ``(B) Dilute.--The term `dilute' means a concentration of 
     less than 1 percent by volume.
       ``(C) Intellectual property.--The term `intellectual 
     property' means--
       ``(i) an invention that is patentable under title 35, 
     United States Code; and
       ``(ii) any patent on an invention described in clause (i).
       ``(D) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Energy or designee, in consultation with the Board.
       ``(2) Authority.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, as part of the program carried 
     out under this section, the Secretary shall establish and 
     award competitive technology financial awards for carbon 
     dioxide capture from media in which the concentration of 
     carbon dioxide is dilute.
       ``(3) Duties.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) subject to paragraph (4), develop specific 
     requirements for--
       ``(i) the competition process;
       ``(ii) minimum performance standards for qualifying 
     projects; and
       ``(iii) monitoring and verification procedures for approved 
     projects;
       ``(B) establish minimum levels for the capture of carbon 
     dioxide from a dilute medium that are required to be achieved 
     to qualify for a financial award described in subparagraph 
     (C);
       ``(C) offer financial awards for--
       ``(i) a design for a promising capture technology;
       ``(ii) a successful bench-scale demonstration of a capture 
     technology;
       ``(iii) a design for a technology described in clause (i) 
     that will--

       ``(I) be operated on a demonstration scale; and
       ``(II) achieve significant reduction in the level of carbon 
     dioxide; and

       ``(iv) an operational capture technology on a commercial 
     scale that meets the minimum levels described in subparagraph 
     (B); and
       ``(D) submit to Congress--
       ``(i) an annual report that describes the progress made by 
     the Board and recipients of financial awards under this 
     subsection in achieving the demonstration goals established 
     under subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, a report that describes the levels of 
     funding that are necessary to achieve the purposes of this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) Public participation.--In carrying out paragraph 
     (3)(A), the Board shall--
       ``(A) provide notice of and, for a period of at least 60 
     days, an opportunity for public comment on, any draft or 
     proposed version of the requirements described in paragraph 
     (3)(A); and
       ``(B) take into account public comments received in 
     developing the final version of those requirements.
       ``(5) Peer review.--No financial awards may be provided 
     under this subsection until the proposal for which the award 
     is sought has been peer reviewed in accordance with such 
     standards for peer review as are established by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(6) Carbon dioxide capture technology advisory board.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established an advisory 
     board to be known as the `Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology 
     Advisory Board'.
       ``(B) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of 9 
     members appointed by the President, who shall provide 
     expertise in--
       ``(i) climate science;
       ``(ii) physics;
       ``(iii) chemistry;
       ``(iv) biology;
       ``(v) engineering;
       ``(vi) economics;
       ``(vii) business management; and
       ``(viii) such other disciplines as the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary to achieve the purposes of this subsection.
       ``(C) Term; vacancies.--
       ``(i) Term.--A member of the Board shall serve for a term 
     of 6 years.
       ``(ii) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board--

       ``(I) shall not affect the powers of the Board; and
       ``(II) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.

       ``(D) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which all members of the Board have been appointed, 
     the Board shall hold the initial meeting of the Board.
       ``(E) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       ``(F) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       ``(G) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The Board shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the 
     members of the Board.
       ``(H) Compensation.--Each member of the Board may be 
     compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level V 
     of the Executive Schedule for each day during which the 
     member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of 
     the Board.
       ``(I) Duties.--The Board shall advise the Secretary on 
     carrying out the duties of the Secretary under this 
     subsection.
       ``(7) Intellectual property.--
       ``(A) In general.--As a condition of receiving a financial 
     award under this subsection, an applicant shall agree to vest 
     the intellectual property of the applicant derived from the 
     technology in 1 or more entities that are incorporated in the 
     United States.
       ``(B) Reservation of license.--The United States--
       ``(i) may reserve a nonexclusive, nontransferable, 
     irrevocable, paid-up license, to have practiced for or on 
     behalf of the United States, in connection with any 
     intellectual property described in subparagraph (A); but
       ``(ii) shall not, in the exercise of a license reserved 
     under clause (i), publicly disclose proprietary information 
     relating to the license.
       ``(C) Transfer of title.--Title to any intellectual 
     property described in subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     transferred or passed, except to an entity that is 
     incorporated in the United States, until the expiration of 
     the first patent obtained in connection with the intellectual 
     property.
       ``(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     such sums as are necessary.
       ``(9) Termination of authority.--The Board and all 
     authority provided under this subsection shall terminate on 
     December 31, 2026.''.


                           amendment no. 2982

 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
conduct a review and submit a report on energy production in the United 
              States and the effects of crude oil exports)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. GAO REVIEW AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 2 years, 
     the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     review of--
       (1) energy production in the United States; and
       (2) the effects, if any, of crude oil exports from the 
     United States on consumers, independent refiners, and 
     shipbuilding and ship repair yards.
       (b) Contents of Report.--Not later than 1 year after 
     commencing each review under subsection (a), the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit to the Committees 
     on Energy and Natural Resources, Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs, Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Natural 
     Resources, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, and 
     Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that 
     includes--
       (1) a statement of the principal findings of the review; 
     and
       (2) recommendations for Congress and the President to 
     address any job loss in the shipbuilding and ship repair 
     industry or adverse impacts on consumers and refiners that 
     the Comptroller General of the United States attributes to 
     unencumbered crude oil exports in the United States.


                           Amendment No. 3021

       (Purpose: To enable civilian research and development of 
     advanced nuclear energy technologies by private and public 
     institutions, to expand theoretical and practical knowledge 
     of nuclear physics, chemistry, and materials science)


[[Page S247]]


  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2965

  (Purpose: To modify the funding provided for the Advanced Research 
                        Projects Agency--Energy)

       Strike section 4201(b)(5)(A)(iv) and insert the following:
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) $325,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2018; and
       ``(G) $375,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 and 
     2020.''; and

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon 
tomorrow the Senate vote on the Crapo amendment No. 3021 and at 1:45 
p.m. the Senate vote on the Schatz amendment No. 2965; that no second-
degree amendments be in order to the Crapo or Schatz amendments prior 
to the votes; finally, that the time until 12 noon and following the 
disposition of the Crapo amendment until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided 
between the two managers or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, but I just want to point out to our colleagues that 
the chair has worked with us today to get a number of these pending 
amendments. I know she will probably express this, but it is our intent 
that hopefully we will have some votes on these other amendments either 
by voice or additional votes. So I hope colleagues who are interested 
in other amendments will come down. But I think this process gets us 
going on the voting and could be on some of these pending amendments as 
well.
  So I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senators should be aware that we may 
add additional rollcall votes on amendments to both stacks of votes 
tomorrow, as the ranking member has said. It would certainly be our 
intent that we work to process as much as we can during the time that 
we have.

                          ____________________