[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 18 (Monday, February 1, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S405-S421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the
energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Murkowski amendment No. 2953, in the nature of a
substitute.
Murkowski (for Cassidy/Markey) amendment No. 2954 (to
amendment No. 2953), to provide for certain increases in, and
limitations on, the drawdown and sales of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
Murkowski amendment No. 2963 (to amendment No. 2953), to
modify a provision relating to bulk-power system reliability
impact statements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congratulating The Nfl's Nfc Champion Carolina Panthers and the Arizona
Cardinals
Mr. McCAIN. Last week, Senator Tillis and I agreed to a friendly--or
not so friendly--wager on the NFC championship game. The terms of that
friendly wager are that the loser would
[[Page S406]]
deliver a congratulatory speech on the Senate floor and wish the winner
luck in the Super Bowl. Unfortunately--even tragically--this is what
brings me before you today. It is also why I am wearing this unsightly
blue tie, which I am sure is an assault on the senses of C-SPAN viewers
all over the world.
It is with all sincerity that I wish the Carolina Panthers luck as
they play the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl 50. The 15-1 NFC
championship season has been nothing short of remarkable. Led by head
coach Ron Rivera and the sensational quarterback Cam Newton, the
Panthers have been a dominant force all season long as they certainly
were against the Arizona Cardinals. I have no doubt we will see the
Panthers' explosive offense continue to have success in Super Bowl 50.
While I could go on about the Panthers' impressive offensive line and
coaching staff, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate
my Arizona Cardinals on an exceptional season that included numerous
milestones. The Cardinals' wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald wrote
recently that the Cardinals ``broke the mold of what kind of football
people expect to be played in the desert.'' Witnessing this team
achieve a franchise record of 13 regular season wins and a No. 2 seed
in the NFC, Arizonans could not agree more.
Perhaps there is no better example of the Cardinals' toughness and
never-say-die attitude than their thrilling January 16 overtime win
over Green Bay. After an improbable Hail Mary touchdown pass from Green
Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers to send the game into overtime, the
Cardinals--boosted by two amazing and memorable plays by the legendary
Larry Fitzgerald--scored the game-winning touchdown to advance to the
NFC championship game.
I have always been proud to count myself among the most loyal and
spirited Cardinals fans, and I am confident Arizona will continue to
see exciting Super Bowl-caliber performances in the season to come.
Congratulations to Arizona Cardinals' president Michael Bidwell, head
coach Bruce Arians, and the members of the 2015 Arizona Cardinals on a
banner season. I also recognize Larry Fitzgerald, Carson Palmer,
Patrick Peterson, Mike Iupati, Justin Bethel, Calais Campbell, and
Tyrann Mathieu, known as the Honey Badger, for being selected to
represent the Cardinals in the Pro Bowl this year.
All season long, these two teams stood among the best in the NFL. On
any given Sunday, anything can happen. Unfortunately, for my Cardinals
last Sunday was not their day.
Senator Tillis, you may have gotten the best of me this year, but I
have a good feeling this is not the last time one of us will stand
before the body to offer our congratulations. You would be wise to get
a head start and purchase a Cardinals' red and white tie now because
you will be standing in my shoes this time next year. I guarantee it.
To Carolina Panthers head coach Ron Rivera, the NFL's probable MVP
Cam Newton, and every member of the Carolina Panthers football team,
good luck on Sunday. To my beloved Cardinals, thanks for an exciting
season. I look forward to your bringing a Super Bowl trophy home to the
valley next year. Go Cards.
Mr. President, I gladly yield the floor.
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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Welcoming the New Pages
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I want to
welcome the new pages to the Senate. We said goodbye to a great group
of young men and young women from around the country last week, their
last day being Friday. Here we are on Monday, and we have a whole new
batch.
So to you all, through the Chair, welcome. Know that you are here at
a most exciting and interesting time. We rely on our pages a great
deal, and it is always nice to see these young ambassadors who come to
us from around the country to serve us in the Senate. Welcome.
Mr. President, I wish to give an update as to where we are on the
status of our broad bipartisan energy bill. Last week we started out a
little rough because of the blizzard, the snow days. But once we began
the debate, we heard some very strong statements in support of our
Energy Policy Modernization Act.
We heard it from Members on both sides of the aisle, and that was
very encouraging. We heard Members tout provisions that relate to
supply, to innovation, to efficiency, really the whole gamut.
As we promised, we began an open amendment process, which has already
drawn close to 200 proposals now. Last week we accepted 11 amendments.
We had three rollcall votes, and we had eight voice votes. I think it
is important to recognize that those amendments were sponsored by 10
different Senators. They were cosponsored by many, many others, and
they really add to the Members whose priorities we have seen
incorporated into the energy bill through the process that we had in
committee. So the benefit of really getting back to regular order,
where you have good, robust committee work, then being able to come to
the floor, to go through the amendment process, and then to gain input
from other Members is kind of good, old-fashioned governing. I like the
fact that we are back to it.
We agreed to boost our efforts to develop advanced nuclear energy
technologies. This came to us by way of an amendment from a very
diverse group. Some might not have anticipated the collection of
Senators that this advanced nuclear energy technology measure brought
together. It was the two Senators from Idaho, Risch and Crapo, and we
had Senator Booker, both Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin from Illinois,
as well as Senator Hatch and Senator Whitehouse. With this amendment,
we have all different perspectives in terms of political perspectives
as well as geographic.
We also agreed to a proposal from Senator Daines and Senator Tester
that will help facilitate the use of clean, renewable hydropower in
their State of Montana.
Among others, we agreed to an amendment from Senator Capito and
Senator Manchin to study the feasibility of an ethane storage and
distribution hub in this country. I think that is a real possibility as
a result of the shale gas revolution.
We moved through 11 amendments. Eleven is a good number, but,
honestly, I would have hoped that we would have been able to process
more amendments last week. What we are going to do this week--and I am
going to put everybody on notice--is that we are going to redouble our
efforts. I want to move forward and process even more over these next
couple of days.
Our staffs have been extraordinarily busy over this weekend, as have
I and as has been Senator Cantwell, my ranking member. We were going
through all of the amendments that have been offered to the bill,
determining which ones we can clear, which ones we need to bring up for
a vote, and which may not be offered at all. We are moving right along,
and that is good. We need to keep moving right along because we know
that time on the floor is not unlimited. As important as the energy
bill is and as important as modernizing our energy policies are, we are
not the only show in town here. There are Members and there are other
committees that are either on deck or want to be on deck. They are
waiting for their turn and are waiting to move to advance their bills.
If we still have Members who are thinking about filing amendments, I
strongly encourage that be done today. We have dozens of options to
vote on. So at this point, unfiled amendments are really at a
disadvantage, just given all that we are dealing with. Know that we are
going to process as many amendments as possible, but the window for
advancing them is closing rapidly.
Many of the amendments we are seeing would address opportunities and
challenges from across the energy spectrum. I really am thankful for
the Senators who have come forward with very, very constructive
suggestions and for their work to make this bill even better.
[[Page S407]]
As we resume consideration of this legislation today, I also want to
explain how the provisions that are already within the Energy Policy
Modernization Act will help our country. I want to do that today--to
spend a few minutes this afternoon--by explaining how it will benefit
my home State of Alaska, how it will help Alaskans produce more energy
and more minerals, how it will help Alaskans pay less for their energy,
and how it will boost Alaska's economy at a time when we really need a
boost.
The most obvious place to start is with supply. Alaska, as all my
colleagues know, is a producer for the rest of the country--really, for
the rest of the world. That is our legacy. It is also our future. That
is because we are blessed with an amazing abundance of resources that
most States--and, really, even most countries--cannot even dream of.
You name the resource, and there is a pretty good chance that we have
it. In fact, there is a pretty good chance that we have a lot of it.
How will our bill help Alaska produce more energy and minerals? For
starters, it boosts hydropower development. Hydropower right now
provides 24 percent of our State's electricity, which is good and
critically important. There are however more than 200 promising sites
with untapped hydropower potential. So our commitment to this clean,
renewable resource and our efforts to improve the regulatory process
for it could benefit communities throughout the southeastern part of
the State, the south-central part, and the southwest. It provides
benefit for all.
Our bill also streamlines the approval process for LNG exports. The
Presiding Officer knows full well the benefit that this will bring to
the country, but it will also ensure that in Alaska our efforts to
market its stranded natural gas can proceed in a timely manner without
Federal delay, which is extremely important for us as we move forward
with our efforts to move Alaska's natural gas.
It will also help Alaskans harness more of our geothermal potential.
We have enormous quantities of geothermal, but we have some challenges,
as you know, with our extensive geography. But we are looking to
develop a renewable resource that could potentially help power one-
quarter of our States' communities, particularly in some very remote,
high-cost energy States.
Our bill also reauthorizes a program to advance the development of
electricity from ocean and river currents as well as tides and waves. I
have mentioned before that Alaska has some 33,000 miles of coastline.
That is a lot of area to harness the power of the tides and waves.
There is considerable potential to generate electricity from our
extensive river systems as well.
So working to do more with our marine hydrokinetic and our ocean
energy could really provide a boost to projects that are showcasing
some new technologies, such as those that we have proposed in Igiugig.
Yakutat is looking at a project south of Kenai and along the Yukon
River.
Within the bill we also promote the production of heat and
electricity from the tremendous biomass resources within our forests,
which could help the development of technology to aid the construction
of wood pellet plants across the State, again taking that resource that
is there and helping to reduce our energy costs. It will also renew a
research program to develop Alaska's immense resources of frozen
methane hydrates. This is something they sometimes call fire ice. It
has significant promise as a secure, long-term source of American
energy, but making sure that we are able to move out on that research
is going to be important.
Then there is a subtitle on minerals, a very important part of our
bill. I spoke on Thursday that we have incorporated much of the text of
my American Mineral Security Act, which is designed to focus on our
Nation's deepening dependence on foreign minerals and the concern that
we do not want to get in the same place with our minerals that we once
saw with oil, where we are reliant on foreign sources to supply the
things that we need.
We are obviously known in Alaska for our oil production, but Alaska
also has nearly unparalleled potential for mineral production. We had a
hearing last year before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
and we had the deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Ed Fogels, testify. He said: If Alaska were a country, we
would be in the top 10 in the world for coal, copper, lead, gold, zinc,
and silver. He also noted that we have the potential to produce many of
the minerals that we import from abroad. One example is our State
government has already identified over 70 deposits of rare earth
elements just within the borders of the State. As I mentioned last week
on the floor, we use rare earth for everything from renewable energy
technologies and smartphones to defense applications. Right now in this
country we are not producing any of that supply--none of that supply on
our own--yet we have the potential to do so in Alaska.
If we pass this bill, our Nation will begin to place a much greater
priority on resource assessments so that we can understand what we
have. If we have not done an inventory, if we have not done an
assessment, how do we really know the extent of our mineral resources?
We will finally make some commonsense reforms to improve our
notoriously slow Federal permitting system, which could benefit some of
the projects that we have that we would like to get moving on. We have
a project on Prince of Wales Island called Bokan Mountain that has rare
earth potential. We also have a graphite deposit near Nome, and making
sure that we help some of the changes that we see within this bill will
be important.
As we produce more of our natural resources, Alaskans will benefit
significantly. We will see new jobs created, new revenues will be
generated for our State's treasury, and local energy costs, which is
the next area I want to focus on, will decline, allowing Alaskans to
keep more of their money for other purposes and needs. This is an issue
when I am at home and I am talking to Alaskans about what their No. 1
concerns and priorities are. I do not care what part of the State I am
talking to folks. It is all about the high energy costs and what we can
do to make a difference. What can we do to bring down our energy costs?
The Energy Policy Modernization Act will not only boost our energy
supplies, but it is also designed to help lower the costs of energy and
to help lower the cost of energy for Alaskans. We are an energy and a
mineral producer in the State, but due to our vast geography, energy is
still extremely expensive in many parts of the State. It is always an
eyepopper for people to do a comparison of what is going on with energy
costs. Right now in the lower 48, people are enjoying going to the
filling station and seeing prices that are less than $2 a gallon. I was
in Nome, AK, just a few weeks ago, and they are paying over $5.50 a
gallon at the pump. It is not unusual that in many of our communities
around the State, we are still looking at $5 a gallon for fuel. This is
not only fuel for your vehicles or your snow machine or your four-
wheeler to move you around or for your boat. It is also your stove oil
and how you are keeping warm.
So it is moving around, keeping you warm, and you are paying
extraordinarily high costs. In many cases, our electricity costs are
two to three times higher than in most other States. When we think
about what it means to live in a community where effectively 40 to 50
percent of the household budget goes to stay warm and to keep the
lights on--what does that leave for educating your kids, for feeding
your kids, and for retirement? It does not leave you with much when you
are spending half of your income to stay warm and to keep your lights
on. This is part of the reality in Alaska that every day we work to
address and every day we work to make a difference.
State Senator Lymon Hoffman is from the Bethel region and has been a
voice for rural Alaska. He sent me a letter last year. He wrote that
``the high cost of diesel and home heating fuels are just crushing'' in
rural Alaska and that he believes ``the energy situation is the single,
most important problem facing the lives and well-being of rural
Alaskans.'' I agree with him. That is why we worked so hard within the
Energy Policy Modernization Act to make sure that as we are modernizing
our energy policies, we are working to do everything we can to lower
the costs of energy for Americans and for Alaskans. We reauthorized the
[[Page S408]]
Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides our State with
funding to improve the energy efficiency for low-income families'
homes. We also renewed the State Energy Program, which allows Alaska to
invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy, emergency preparedness,
and other priorities.
As we have heard talked about on the floor, we have an entire title
of the bill--Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have been working on
this--devoted to efficiency for everything from voluntary building code
improvements to the retrofitting of schools. As our vehicles, our
appliances, and our homes are all becoming more energy efficient, that
in turn works to reduce energy consumption as well as energy costs
throughout the State.
This bill also has a provision to promote the development of hybrid
microgrid systems. I get excited about this part of the bill because I
can see the direct application in my State. It allows communities to
utilize local resources and storage technologies. Microgrids are
critical within the State of Alaska. We have multiple dozens of
isolated communities that are not connected to anybody's grid. In fact,
they are hundreds of miles from anything that could even be considered
a grid. So how do they get their energy? They are basically burning
diesel to meet their electricity needs. So what we are seeing come
together are energy solutions where you take a little bit of wind and
perhaps a little bit of hydromarine, hydrokinetic, coupled with battery
and storage, and we are finding some solutions. It is innovative. In
fact, it is so innovative we have a hearing scheduled over the
Presidents Day recess up in Bethel, AK, so Members can see what we are
doing when it comes to energy innovation and coupling things together
to make them work.
We are never going to be part of a big energy grid in many parts of
our State. We have had some great successes--such as Kodiak, a huge
fishing port, which now produces 99.7 percent of its electricity from
renewables. They have wind, they have hydro, and they have a storage
system that has allowed it to work. But think about it. This is a major
fishing port which, during the summer, needs a lot of energy when they
are processing the fish. During the winter months, the local people
there do not have energy needs that are as high as the demand during
the summer. So how do you even this out? How do you make it meet during
the highs and the lows? This is what Kodiak has done. They have taken
themselves, as a community that was once 100 percent dependent on
diesel for their energy needs, to being 99.7 percent on renewables.
One of the best provisions in the bill to help address energy costs
is a modification that we make within DOE's Loan Guarantee Program.
Instead of allowing only major corporations to apply, we allow States
with energy-financing institutions to seek funding and to advance a
range of energy projects.
Just to give a little context here, if the bill becomes law, the
State of Alaska would be able to apply for a loan guarantee and then
use those funds to help rural communities finance small hydropower
projects, geothermal wells, MHK technology, marine hydrokinetic
technologies, and the hybrid microgrids that I have been talking about.
So instead of these top-down, government-driven programs, we would see
the State DOE programs and other elements contained within this Energy
Policy Modernization Act leveraging the innovation of local people--
leveraging the innovation of Alaskans, the American people, and the
private sector--to improve our energy landscapes.
These are just a few of the ways that this Energy Policy
Modernization Act will help Alaskans produce more energy, save energy,
and reduce local energy costs. In the process, the extra gain and
benefit is that we create new jobs, generate new revenues, and provide
other economic benefits we sorely need right now.
I have talked about Alaska and the impacts on my State as a result of
modernizing our energy policies, but know that as Alaska benefits,
other States benefit as well. Many of the provisions I have mentioned
in my comments this afternoon are just as applicable in Louisiana,
Maine, Arizona, and Montana as they are in my State. This bill will
fairly bring economic benefits to every State, and as it brings
economic benefits, the energy security that stems from the economic
security that leads to the national security makes us all stronger--yet
another reason I encourage the Senate to work with Senator Cantwell and
me over these next couple of days to move forward this broad,
bipartisan effort to modernize our Nation's energy policies.
Mr. President, I know we have Members who are anxious to speak this
afternoon. Again, I will make the same request I made earlier: If
Members are interested in submitting any amendments to the Energy
Policy Modernization Act, now is the time because we are going to be
moving--and hopefully moving quickly--so we can proceed with some
expediency and efficiency throughout this week.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Welcoming the New Pages
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to echo the comments Senator
Murkowski made in terms of the new pages. We welcome all of you. We are
excited about having you here. It is a big change to go from the
previous pages to the new pages. We are excited about how things are
moving along. As many people will tell you around here, pages end up
doing great things. I have served in the House, and I have served in
the Senate. There are Members of the House who started as pages, and
there are Members of the Senate who started here as pages. So we are
proud of you and expect good things of you.
Mr. President, it has been over 8 years since we passed a
comprehensive energy bill. A lot has changed since then.
I first want to thank Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for their
leadership and hard work. I know both of them worked very hard to find
common ground. Senator Murkowski is my chairman of the Interior
Department Appropriations subcommittee, and she is always trying to
find a way for us to work together to move that appropriations bill
forward. The same thing is true of Senator Cantwell's very good
leadership on the energy committee. They both had a very tough job, and
they crafted an energy bill that I believe moves us forward.
This legislation isn't perfect, but it is bipartisan and it is moving
us in the right direction. I am pleased that my bill, the Smart Energy
and Water Efficiency Act, was included in this legislation. All too
often, treated water is lost. A lot of it is wasted because of leaks
and broken pipes. My State and many States have had historic droughts.
We need every drop of water we can get. We can't afford leaking pipes.
We have to do better, and we can do better.
This bill supports the Federal pilot projects to develop water and
energy efficiency technology. We can create a smart grid of technology
to detect leaks in pipes even before they happen. This is critical to
communities all across our Nation. Saving water is saving energy.
Treating and transporting water is energy intensity. The more we waste,
the more we pay--now and later.
I also plan to file an amendment I have been working on with a number
of other Senators. This amendment, like the House Energy bill,
authorizes the WaterSense Program at EPA. The WaterSense Program is to
water efficiency what the ENERGY STAR label is to energy efficiency.
Products and services that have earned the WaterSense label have to be
at least 20 percent more efficient without sacrificing performance. It
promotes smart water use and helps consumers decide which products are
water efficient. By authorizing this valuable program, we will make the
WaterSense Program permanent and help consumers save water energy and
money.
We face great challenges, and one thing is very clear: Our energy
future depends on investment in a clean energy economy. We have to be
bold, we have to be innovative, and we have to encourage investment in
the kind of creativity and enterprise that change the world and move us
in the right direction. So today I am proposing a new initiative that
will help us make those investments: clean energy victory bonds.
During the First and Second World Wars, our country faced threats we
had
[[Page S409]]
never faced before. We rose to the challenge. We gave it everything we
had. Everyone contributed. For many, that included investing in victory
bonds. They helped pay for the costs of war--$185 billion--over $2
trillion in today's money. Folks lined up to buy those bonds. That is
the spirit of the American people--to pull together. It was true then,
and it is true now.
Today, we face a very different threat, but it also requires us all
to come together to face our challenges and to fight. National security
experts tell us that rising global temperatures are one of our greatest
security concerns. In 2015, global temperature records were shattered--
records that were set just the year before. Climate change threatens
agriculture, public health, water resources, and weather patterns. We
are already feeling the impacts. In New Mexico, temperatures have been
rising 50 percent faster than the global average, not just this year or
last year but for decades. We have had historic drought. We have had
the worst wildfires in our history.
The science is clear: The threat is growing, and time is running out.
We must act. Governments are working together to reduce emissions, as
we saw in Paris last month. The United States is leading, with
commitments from over 140 nations to reduce their emissions. This is
providing a major signal in the marketplace and is driving up interest
in investing in clean energy. Over the next 5 years, 20 nations will
double their renewable energy research to $20 billion. Industry is
stepping up to the plate as well, pledging to invest at least $2
billion in clean energy startups. This is progress. This is momentum.
Our job now is to keep it going. Investment--public and private--is the
key.
My amendment is very simple. It directs the Secretaries of Treasury
and Energy to submit a plan to Congress, to develop clean energy
victory bonds--bonds all Americans could invest in. These bonds would
raise up to $50 billion. That money could leverage up to $150 billion
to invest in clean energy technology and would create over 1 million
new jobs.
People across the country want to do their part. They want to invest
in a clean energy future and to help fight climate change. But most of
them can't afford clean energy mutual funds with $1,000 or $5,000
minimums. Many can't afford $25 or $50. We must invest in jobs and
healthier communities. Clean energy victory bonds will provide that
opportunity. We can do this without any new taxes on individuals or
businesses. Bonds are completely voluntary, and they are an opportunity
for ordinary Americans who see the challenge and who want to do
something about it.
Here is how it works: Like war bonds, clean energy victory bonds
would be U.S. Treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the
U.S. Government. Investors will earn back their full investment--plus
interest that comes from energy savings to the government--and loan
repayments for solid projects. The investment would make a critical
difference in our energy future.
I urge my colleagues to support this effort. We face a great
challenge, and we have a great opportunity. Now is the time for action.
The American people want to pitch in and do what they can to fight
global warming and to help ensure that the United States leads the
world in the clean energy economy. Support for this amendment is
growing with groups like the American Sustainable Business Council and
Green America. Americans are already asking where they can purchase
these bonds.
This Energy bill is a good step, but it is a modest step. Our energy
and climate challenges demand much more. Again, I thank Chairman
Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell. They have managed to move a
bipartisan bill and keep the process on track. I urge them to accept my
amendment and to further strengthen this bill.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the leaders who have worked
on this bill--Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell--and the good work
they put into it. I have served on the Energy Committee and now serve
on Environment and Public Works. Those are important committees as we
wrestle with how to produce energy at lower prices that is healthy for
our Nation.
As we consider this Energy Policy Modernization Act, I want to focus
on a critical point about public policy and what is a primary goal of
the United States of America. We are in a very competitive world.
Energy is a big part of how we compete on manufacturing, production,
and jobs. The American people want us to focus on that.
In addition, energy impacts everybody when they fill up their tank
and when they drive to work. It is important when it comes to paying
the electric bill or the heating bill at home. Is it expensive or
inexpensive? The price of energy has a dramatic impact on the quality
of life for American people to a degree that is almost impossible to
ascertain. When the price of gasoline is cut in half and somebody has a
long commute every day, they may have had $200 a month in gasoline
bills and now it is $100. They have $100 extra in their pocket. Without
taxes, without insurance, and without house payments to be paid out of
that, they can use that to take care of their own personal needs--their
family, their vacation, going out to eat, or just paying down that
credit card that has been run up too high.
For decades Republicans have called for producing more American
energy. Our Democratic colleagues have attacked those proposals that
would increase the supply of energy, claiming that these efforts are
part of some corrupt deal with big oil companies to make them rich at
the expense of the taxpayers and the American citizens. That has been
the argument. You have heard it for the last 30 years. But is that the
correct way to analyze the challenges we face? Is that the way to
establish good, sound public policy that will produce more American
energy and bring down the cost?
Our Democratic colleagues objected to the Keystone Pipeline. We had a
number of votes over a number of years, and finally it passed, and then
the President vetoed that. What would the Keystone Pipeline do? It
would produce another source of oil for the United States of America.
Is that good or bad for big Texas oil companies? It is bad for those
companies. It made it harder for them to get a higher price. There is
another substantial competitor pouring another supply of oil into the
United States.
This was not a corrupt deal to try to benefit some big oil company
but a way to make the supply more plentiful, to bring down the cost of
energy for American people. That is what we were fighting for, and it
baffled me to no end that the President finally vetoed it at the end,
after the American people so clearly favored it.
The Federal ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico--we had the
Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. There is no doubt about that. This
country really focused on it. Great effort was made to find out how it
happened and how we could prevent it in the future. Eventually the
Obama administration said they were reopening production in the gulf--I
thought it took longer than necessary.
There is now onsite, according to a government official, a cap, and
if the Horizon Disaster were to occur again, that cap within matter of
days could be taken out, and it would successfully have stopped that
blowout as well. We didn't have it in advance. We should have had it.
But that is fixed, and other things were done, and the President said
we are going to open up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. It wasn't so.
They referred to it as a de facto moratorium. They still couldn't get
approval, and we lost a lot of production that went to other places
around the globe.
More production means lower prices. More American oil means more
American jobs and more revenue for the Federal and State governments
that benefit from that and a smaller wealth transfer from Americans to
some foreign country which may be hostile to us and from which we have
to buy our oil. We should look to head in that direction.
Additionally, the Obama administration recently placed a moratorium
on new leases for coal mined on Federal lands. I believe the
administration has bypassed Congress and the will of the American
people by drafting regulations that seriously constrain the use
[[Page S410]]
of coal as an energy source. We just have to use coal. It is a
magnificent energy source. We can do it and are doing it cleaner year
after year.
Closing producing coal mines reduces American energy competition and
certainly increases the cost of everyday living for Americans, and it
certainly causes economic dislocation where mine after mine is being
closed and United Mine Workers are being laid off.
I have always believed in and fought for increased energy production
for the American people--not for big oil companies but because greater
production brings down price. We know now that is true because we have
seen a worldwide increase in supplies, which has resulted in a dramatic
decrease in the price of oil--an amount below what anyone may have
expected. This price collapse affects Americans at the gas pump every
day. Gas prices are the lowest they have been since 2008. The national
average as of last week was $1.84. This is half of what it was a few
months ago. This has been my goal and the goal of my Republican
colleagues and a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle.
In addition, we have increased oil production throughout the country
with new fracking technologies. We have had battle after battle over
that, but we have never had water supplies that have been impacted
adversely by fracking. It is a highly efficient technology. It also
helped collapse the price of oil.
We have had good, bipartisan support for efficiency breakthroughs
over the years. They have caused us to have a car that uses a little
less gas, houses that are more efficient, and other energy sources that
are more efficient. As a result, we have needed less oil. That also
helps increase the supply as the demand increases. That has been a
positive step toward seeing the collapse in prices.
If Big Oil were so powerful, how is it that the price of oil has gone
from $140 a barrel to $30 a barrel? They dictate the price. They can
set the price at whatever they want it to be. Not if the supply starts
coming in in large numbers. The prices begin to decline. It was at $140
a barrel, and now it is at $30, $35 a barrel.
The energy industry supports 9.8 million U.S. jobs, which represents
8 percent of the U.S. economy. Low energy costs are critical to advance
American manufacturing. Without affordable, efficient, and reliable
energy sources, American companies cannot supply their factories and
employees with the kind of production we want to see.
In a recent investment report, Standard & Poors wrote that affordable
energy is critical to give U.S. manufacturers ``a competitive edge over
overseas competitors.'' We have lower energy prices than Europe, Japan,
and South Korea. That is an advantage. We want to keep that advantage.
We need more American jobs, not fewer. We need to see fewer offshore
incidents than we have seen. We need to have some onshoring, some
return of manufacturing to America. If we can keep our energy prices
low, that is a way our businesses can take advantage of that and expand
their production of various products, many of which can be sold around
the world.
The President's agenda, which he has carried on since the beginning,
has had the effect of really helping foreign countries by keeping our
prices higher than they should be and blocking reasonable efforts to
add more production in America. Instead of American energy being
promoted at home and abroad, Iran is able to export oil more freely,
thanks to the President's flawed nuclear deal. Instead of promoting the
general welfare of the United States, the President has limited the
production of domestic oil, further increasing costs for consumers.
Regulators have delayed American production many times.
These are important dynamics, along with nuclear power. I believe
this is a very valuable part of the American energy production. I have
been a strong advocate of nuclear power for years, and Republicans have
too. It is a direct competitor to Big Oil, to carbon fuel, and we need
more of that. So I think we need to remember that.
Yes, wind and solar are getting more competitive, but it still
remains for the most part more expensive in most places in the country.
I hope it will continue to drop in price. Maybe it will. But I can't
imagine we will see dramatic decreases any time soon. If we were to
shift America immediately to a total solar and wind power system,
prices would go through the roof. It would hammer Americans far more
than we have ever seen before.
I think this bill has many good qualities. It helps improve
efficiency and innovation, and maybe we can build on it in a way that
will bring America to the point where we can produce more American
supply, keep prices down, help revitalize our manufacturing base, and
put this country in a position to compete far more effectively in the
world marketplace.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
20 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to address an issue that the
Senator from Alabama touched on before he leaves the floor. I am here
to speak about the Florida Everglades, but since the Senator just
raised the issue of the Gulf of Mexico, which is certainly an interest
of his, just as it is for the Acting President pro tempore, the Senator
from Louisiana, I just want to clarify something and make sure the
Senators understand that this part of the Gulf of Mexico, which is off-
limits to drilling up to and through 2022, has nothing to do with the
Obama administration. It has to do with a law that Senator Martinez and
I passed in the last half of the last decade.
Now, why did we do that? Well, it would be nice to say that we were
prescient and understood that when the oil spilled into the gulf off of
Louisiana--relative to the whole spill, a little oil got into Florida
and covered up Pensacola Beach and got into Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay,
Choctawhatchee Bay and went as far east as Panama City Beach; the
sugary white beaches that so many people visit were just covered with
tar balls--as a result, a whole tourist season was lost, not just for
Pensacola, Destin, Sandestin, and Panama City Beach but for the entire
gulf coast of Florida down to Clearwater Beach, Sarasota, Fort Myers,
Naples and for the farmost beaches on the west coast of Florida on the
gulf and Marco Island. Now, if that were not enough, I just want the
Senator to understand why we are so opposed to drilling off the coast
of Florida. Clearly, there is the economic reason. So much of the
environment got messed up, and it was unhealthy for the critters that
get into the estuaries. Here is the ringer, and the Senator from
Alabama will especially appreciate this because he has, at times, been
my leader on the Armed Services Committee. The Gulf of Mexico off of
Florida is the largest testing and training range in the world for the
U.S. military, and every admiral, general, and the Secretaries of all
of the branches will simply tell you that we cannot have drilling
activities where we are testing and training some of our most
sophisticated weapons.
Why do we have all of those training, tests, and evaluation
activities at Eglin Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, and the
Naval Training Center in Panama City? I didn't even include Pensacola
and Whiting Field and all of the Department of Defense. When we shut
down the U.S. Navy's testing range of Vieques, off of Puerto Rico,
where did the fleet of the U.S. Navy go? They went to the gulf. They
will send squadrons coming down to Key West Naval Air Station and stay
there for a week or two because when they lift off the runway of Boca
Chica, within 2 minutes, they are over a protected area so they can get
into their training and testing activities.
I will finally say to my friend--and I am not sure that my colleague
has ever been able to see this through the eyes of someone who is
trying to protect the defense assets in the State of Florida----
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator----
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator for a
question.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is a great friend, and we have a couple of
good battles going on right now where we stand shoulder to shoulder,
but for the most part the area that was approved for production was
shut down
[[Page S411]]
when the problem with Deepwater Horizon was fixed rather than expanding
that into Florida where the Florida waters, which Senator Nelson has
been an effective advocate for, would not allowing drilling there. I do
believe we have a situation where we have agreed and proved that this
kind of problem would not occur now. I do believe there is a tremendous
advantage for America, and we can have an advantage of low energy for
American workers, for our jobs, and that way we will not send money
abroad.
I thank Senator Nelson for his good comments. He is highly informed
on this issue. It is a pleasure to serve with him.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. He knows how
affectionate I am toward him as a friend. I appreciate that friendship
and that willingness in a bipartisan way--even when we had all kinds of
thorny issues, such as national missile defense in the Armed Services
Committee--that the two of us could work it out.
Florida Everglades
Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the Everglades, and
I need to start by saying that the Army Corps of Engineers began
releasing water from Lake Okeechobee into the two rivers on either side
of the lake. The problem is that we have a dike--not like the one that
Mother Nature intended, where the whole surrounding of Lake Okeechobee,
which is the largest lake in Florida, was nothing but a marsh. That is
how Mother Nature had it. But after people moved in--and then in the
late 1920s, the hurricane that drowned 2,000 people--we came in there
and diked all the way around it. Well, the dike is only so structurally
sound so that as the water rises in the lake, there is more water
pressure on the sides, and if you start getting above 15 feet of depth
of the lake, we have to worry about the dike collapsing and all the
flooding of the surrounding towns and people and farmlands. So you get
the picture.
So the Army Corps of Engineers has to give some relief. So they
release water to the east into the St. Lucie River and to the west into
the Caloosahatchee River, and as a result, it relieves the dike
pressure problem. But since Lake Okeechobee is so polluted, until we
can get it cleaned up--and there is an effort--what happens when it
goes into these pristine estuaries to the east into the St. Lucie and
to the west into the Caloosahatchee, is that you get much too much
nutrient content into those estuaries. The salinity in those estuaries
goes down, which is harmful to things like oysters and certain fish,
and the nitrogen and phosphorous and other pollutants come up. And what
happens? Algae grows. When algae grows, it sucks up the oxygen from the
water, and it becomes a dead river. The mullet can't jump because there
is no mullet, the fish hawk can't dive because there is no fish, and it
becomes a dead river.
Now, that is why it is so necessary that we proceed with the
Everglades restoration projects that will help us clean up the
pollution in Lake Okeechobee, and at the same time when the dike
structure gets threatened, we will have a place to send that water
instead of directly into those two estuaries. That is presently being
built on the east--a storage area--and it is to be built on the west
over near LaBelle on the Caloosahatchee River. Well, it is just another
reason why many of us are fighting so hard to complete these Everglades
restoration projects, so that impossible decisions that face the Corps
of Engineers right now--that either they threaten the dam and hold it
back or they release the polluted water and kill the rivers--are not
choices that the Corps has to make. It is certainly not a good choice
for our environment and for all the people who live in the surrounding
area. So Everglades restoration must move forward aggressively and
without delay, and that is why this Senator is going to be introducing
legislation tomorrow to expedite that process. It is going to be called
the Everglades for the Next Generation Act. It will authorize all of
these Everglades restoration projects that the Army Corps of Engineers
has deemed ready to begin. It would allow the Corps to begin work on
them immediately instead of having to wait around for us to pass
another water bill. Remember, we just passed a water bill. When was the
last time we passed a water bill? It was 7 years ago. We just can't
wait that long. There is too much at stake, and this is why we want to
get these all bundled up, so the Army Corps of Engineers can proceed.
The Everglades, for the first three-quarters of the last century, was
diked, drained, and deferred, and now we are trying to bring back as
much of that plumbing and reverse it so that it will flow much more
like Mother Nature had intended it and did for eons and eons. It is a
monumental task. We have to look at what we are doing to protect this
land that we love that has been called the ``river of grass.'' We have
to do everything we can to protect it. But right now, beware. The
National Park Service has in front of it and is evaluating a proposal
from a Texas-based company for drilling and fracking activity. This
company is looking to conduct--this is what they say: Oh, this is just
a seismic survey--first on 70,000 acres, but it is just the first part
of seismically mapping the entire Big Cypress National Preserve. This
is a national preserve of 700,000 acres, and where is it located? It is
located right next to the Everglades National Park, which is 1.5
million acres, but it includes hundreds of thousands of other acres
that are part of this water discharge area where we are cleaning up
that water as it is coming south.
They will say: Oh, this is just a seismic survey. But what do we have
seismic surveys for? To drill. By the way, this is a company in Texas
that not only drills for oil, it also fracks for oil. Why in the world
would we want this to happen? Why would we spend hundreds of millions
and billions of dollars to restore the Everglades and then suddenly
turn around and hand it off to a Texas wildcatter to go out there and
drill--a wildcatter that is also a fracker.
This Senator has nothing against fracking. Where is our fracking
done? It is done in the hard shale rock of the Dakotas, of Oklahoma, of
Texas. They go down under high pressure and shoot water and chemicals
to break up the shale rock. It is solid rock. What does the State of
Florida sit on? It sits on a porous honeycomb of limestone, and that
porous rock is filled with freshwater near the surface.
So people wanted to go in there and start doing high-pressure
fracking that we do successfully to shale rock, which was done by the
Dan Hughes Company. They were given a permit by the State of Florida.
Then the county commission of Collier County found out about it and
started raising Cain, and suddenly the pressure became too great
because of what that fracking would do, with the high-speed chemical
going into that porous limestone, not only to the water supply of
Florida but to the very foundation of Florida. If you ever look and
envision a piece of coral that our divers go down to look for in some
of the national reefs--we have seen that beautiful coral, and it builds
up. That is very similar to how Florida was formed: Over years, over
and over, those corals and shells and skeletons and limestone that
created that substructure holds up the State of Florida and contains a
bubble of water, which is our Floridian aquifer.
Some people think a seismic survey is no big deal, but watch out. It
is just like the proverbial camel getting its nose under the tent.
Watch out. That camel is pretty soon going to be in the tent. So why
conduct a huge, prolonged seismic survey if we don't have the plans to
extract the resources that are found? Why would the Federal Government
approve risky behavior such as fracking and a brandnew type of seismic
survey equipment in an area we have spent decades trying to restore?
Remember, I said it is the Everglades National Park, 1.5 million acres.
Right next to it, to the west, is the Big Cypress National Preserve,
another 700,000 acres. To the north are all of those protected lands of
the water recharge area, hundreds of thousands of acres.
All of this is why I wrote to the Interior Secretary asking her
agency to complete a very thorough environmental review of this
proposal. It is interesting. I wasn't the only one who responded. The
National Park Service told me they had received about 8,000 comments
during the public comment period. It seems to me that is a pretty clear
sign that there is a great deal of concern and controversy out there in
the public interest and especially those
[[Page S412]]
in Collier County. My colleagues can't imagine the political backlash
when this Dan Hughes oil company--not the one that is applying for the
seismic survey but they were a wildcatter as well as a fracker, that
Dan Hughes company--my colleagues can't imagine the political backlash
that occurred from people of both parties. I can tell my colleagues
there was backlash, especially from the Republican county commission in
Collier County, when they found out there was fracking going on out
there without their knowing about it and without any of their input
into whether it should have been done.
Fortunately, the outcry was so severe that the State of Florida
finally revoked the permit and they had to pull out. They had--that
company--performed an unauthorized acid stimulation procedure, which is
a glorified term for fracking. So we rose up and we fought that. Again,
I say to the Senate, this Senator does not have a problem with fracking
done environmentally well, but fracking in all of our oil reserves has
been done in the shale rock. That is what has made it possible to, in a
few years, be able to completely eliminate our dependence on foreign
oil. This Senator has no problem with that. This Senator is thankful
for that, but when we try to perform that procedure on a different kind
of substrate--a porous limestone filled with water--then we are
courting economical and environmental disaster.
I must say, this didn't stop some in the State Legislature of Florida
who are determined to open parts of Florida to companies looking to
drill. To make sure all of this local opposition doesn't get in their
way, State legislators in session right now in Tallahassee have
proposed a bill that would prohibit a county, a city or any other local
government from limiting fracking within that city or county's borders.
Such a decision, under this proposed legislation, would be left up to
the State only. It is not hard to figure out how that is going to turn
out, especially since it was the State of Florida that gave a permit to
do the fracking that there was such a reaction to 2 years ago.
This is one of the most pristine areas on the planet. I urge my
colleagues to join our efforts to protect this unique environment for
generations to come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Transparency in Government
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Founders of our great land believed in
transparency of government because they believed that only an informed
citizenry was in a position to consent to what the government was doing
on their behalf. The very legitimacy of our government is based on that
informed consent. It is also important for the voters to be able to
hold elected leaders politically accountable. Of course, they can't
hold their elected leaders accountable for something they don't know
about or something hidden from their view.
It is no understatement to say that the American people's confidence
in the Federal Government is at if not an alltime low, certainly a new
low in recent memory. Unfortunately, they see the President acting
unilaterally, where he should be working on a collaborative and
cooperative basis with Congress to pass legislation rather than to try
to do things by Executive action. Then we see where elected officials
and members of the administration have made blatant misrepresentations
of the facts only to be proven wrong and then are not even embarrassed
by it.
So it is important to have transparency in government, to have an
open government. The American people need to know what their government
is purporting to do on their behalf so they can approve or disapprove
as they see fit. That is the foundation of our democracy and our
Republic.
Back in October I stood on the floor of the Senate and outlined
concerns I had about the evolving scandal involving Secretary Clinton's
use of her private, unsecured email server during her service as
Secretary of State. I said at the time that her behavior not only
violated the President's promise to be the most transparent
administration in history--I remember him making that statement during
his first inaugural address--but it also represented a violation of the
public trust. Now we learn of very serious national security concerns
which I am going to speak about in just a moment.
Because we know that the Department of Justice is headed by the
Attorney General--a political appointee of the President of the United
States who serves at the pleasure of the President--and because of the
conflict of interest by asking Attorney General Lynch to investigate
and perhaps even prosecute somebody in the Obama administration, I
called upon the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General in
particular, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter,
given those obvious conflicts of interest. Of course, we read in the
paper and understand from testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee just recently by Director Comey of the FBI that the FBI is
conducting an investigation into this matter, as they should. For
myself, I would say the FBI, notwithstanding what I have said about the
Federal Government's poor reputation generally--that the FBI is still
very widely respected for its integrity, as it must be, but the FBI
cannot go further and convene a grand jury to consider potential
violations of the criminal law. That can only be done by a court at the
request of a prosecutor with the Justice Department.
If we are going to be true to the promise of equal justice under the
law--those are the words carved above the entryway to the U.S. Supreme
Court--if we are going to be true to that promise, we have to be able
to demonstrate that the same rules and the same laws apply to everybody
in this country, whether a person is the President of the United States
or whether a person is one of our Nation's humblest citizens. We are
all equal before the law--or at least we should be--and it is a
violation of the public trust when people act as if the rules that
apply to everybody else don't apply to them.
So far the Attorney General has declined to appoint a special
counsel, but I think that even in the interim, since I first made that
request and it was declined, we see why it is even more important today
than it was back in October.
The Obama administration has demonstrated time and time again
precisely why we need the decisionmaking in this case as far removed
from White House politics as it can possibly be. For example, in
October the President went on television and publicly opined on the
results of the ongoing criminal probe. He said, ``I don't think it
posed a national security problem.'' That is the President of the
United States. Based on his comments, one might reasonably conclude
that the White House was somehow privy and in consultation with the FBI
about their ongoing criminal investigation. Subsequently, I had a
chance to ask Director Comey whether in fact that was the case, and he
said absolutely not. I believe Director Comey.
It is not a little matter when the President of the United States is
saying ``I don't see a problem here'' when he actually doesn't even
know the facts, and it might appear that he is trying to influence the
conduct of that investigation. That is a real problem. In fact, the
President's comments were out of line--offering his opinion on what the
results of an ongoing criminal investigation might or should be.
Since that time, we found out that Secretary Clinton had 18 emails
between herself and the President on her private email server. I don't
know whether the President still feels like this is not a problem, but
it is a big problem.
I earlier outlined the publicly reported evidence and explained the
very real likelihood of criminal violation on the part of Secretary
Clinton and her staff. Since then, my concerns--that the information
held and sent by Secretary Clinton contained some of the most sensitive
classified information of the U.S. Government--have been confirmed.
Just 2 weeks ago, several of my colleagues received a letter from the
inspector general of the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the agency whose core mission it is to integrate all the
intelligence operations of the U.S. Government. That letter was
[[Page S413]]
sent in response to one from the chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
about the security of Secretary Clinton's private email server. What
the inspector general said should give us all pause. He said that there
were ``several dozen e-mails containing classified information.''
As we know, there are several different levels of classification for
government correspondence, some more sensitive than others, but the
inspector general went on to say that these emails were ``determined by
the [intelligence community] element to be at the Confidential, Secret
and the Top Secret/SAP level.'' That ``SAP'' term may be a new one to a
lot of people, but it is an acronym that means special access programs.
It is the most sensitive classified information known to the U.S.
Government, and it is a classification even above ``top secret.''
Access to special access program information is so highly restricted
in part because it exposes information about programs that are
incredibly sensitive to national security, such as how intelligence was
gathered in the first place, sources, and methods--some of which would
be jeopardized, if not individuals killed if it was known that they
were providing a source of intelligence for the U.S. Government. In the
case of special access programs from an intelligence agency, that means
exposing this information would put intelligence collection and, as I
said, potentially human sources at great risk.
On Friday, more news regarding the type of information that was on
Secretary Clinton's server was announced. It was widely reported for
the first time that the State Department admitted that it had
categorized at least 22 emails found on Secretary Clinton's server as
``top secret''--that is the agency she was responsible for that said 22
emails were top secret.
I think it is pretty obvious, even based on the public reports--most
of which were generated from information produced as a result of a
freedom of information lawsuit in Federal court--I think it is pretty
obvious that her email server did contain information that jeopardized
our national security.
Let me digress for a second to talk about a new development, a new
concern that was raised by this information that some of these
different classifications of information were contained on her private
email server. The fact is, there are three different government email
systems. There is the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network--known as
the SIPRNet--which is used by the Defense Department and some other
government agencies and which is separate and apart from the Internet.
It is also separate and apart from the usual government system called
the Nonclassified Internet Protocol Router Network, NIPRNet. The
SIPRNet is secret and separate, and the NIPRNet can be used to send
emails outside the government on a government email server. Then there
is a third type of system known as JWICS. This is the Joint Worldwide
Intelligence Communication System, which is even more sensitive than
the information contained on the SIPRNet, which I mentioned earlier. If
somehow, as appears to be the case, information got from the SIPRNet or
JWICS onto a NIPRNet system or onto a private email server system, it
would have to be physically transferred because they are not connected.
Part of their security is that they are maintained as independent
systems. The concern is that highly classified information from SIPRNet
or the super-secure JWICS somehow jumped from those closed systems to
the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 Clinton home emails.
In an article in today's New York Post, the author points to
Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills or Deputy Chiefs Huma
Abedin and Jake Sullivan because in one of the emails that has been
made public, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by
a foreign leader.
``Just email it,'' Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan
replied: ``Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops
converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no
physical way for me to email it.''
In another recently released email, Clinton instructed
Sullivan to convert a classified document into an
unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an
unsecured computer and sending it to her without any
classified markings. ``Turn into nonpaper w no identifying
heading and send nonsecure,'' she ordered.
One gentleman associated with Judicial Watch, which has been one of
the entities that have filed the freedom of information litigation
which has produced the huge volume of emails contained on Secretary
Clinton's server, said, ``Receiving Top Secret SAP intelligence outside
secure channels is a mortal sin.''
So, as one can see, these are not trivial matters; these are very
serious matters.
It is important to remind folks that this issue was even made worse
because it is likely that some of our adversaries had access to and
monitored her private email server. We have heard many of our Nation's
top national security and intelligence leaders indicate that is likely.
Recently, Secretary Gates, whose long service to our country includes
being Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush and President
Barrack Obama, as well as high-level jobs in the CIA, said, ``I think
the odds are pretty high'' that Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had
compromised Secretary Clinton's server.
Here we are now knowing that information on that server not only
included classified information but information classified at the
highest level known to the Federal Government.
On Friday, given these reports, President Obama's Press Secretary,
his chief spokesman, Josh Earnest, was asked about the status of the
investigation and if he believes Secretary Clinton would be indicted.
It would have been easy enough for him to say ``No comment'' or ``We
are not privy to the investigation because it is being conducted by a
law enforcement agency and that is the way these things are done,'' but
instead he said, ``Some officials have said she is not the target of
the investigation'' and that an indictment ``does not seem to be the
direction in which it is trending.''
As with the President's reckless remarks on television in October,
either the White House has information they should not have about the
status of this ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI or they are
sending a signal to the FBI and the Department of Justice that they
want this to go away. It is hard for me to interpret these comments by
the President and by his Press Secretary as anything other than trying
to influence the FBI and the Department of Justice on the outcome the
administration prefers. That is completely inappropriate, it is
outrageous, and it has to stop.
Today this Senator is back on the Senate floor where I started months
ago to make the very same point but with a greater sense of urgency and
with a lot of new information that has come to light. I believe
Secretary Clinton has likely violated multiple criminal statutes. For a
Secretary of State to conduct official business--including transmitting
and receiving information that is classified as SAP level--on a
private, unsecured server, when sensitive national defense information
would likely pass through it, is not just a lapse of judgment, it is a
reckless disregard for the security of the American people, not to
mention the lives of our intelligence professionals who are involved in
gaining this important intelligence. It is important for us to protect
ourselves against our adversaries.
In light of the unprecedented nature of the case and of the multiple
conflicts for the Department of Justice, I can see no other appropriate
course of action but for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a
special counsel to pursue this matter wherever the facts may lead. That
need is underscored by the apparent inability of the White House to
resist the temptation to try to influence or, at worst, obstruct the
current investigation.
I hope the Attorney General seriously considers my request to appoint
a special counsel given the conflict of interest and the extraordinary
circumstances of this case because in the end it is the right thing to
do for the American people. If the U.S. Government--including Congress
and the administration--is going to regain the trust and confidence of
the American people, they need to know that the chips will fall where
they may and that our law enforcement officials, such as the FBI and
the Department of Justice, will pursue these cases wherever the
[[Page S414]]
facts may lead, that there isn't a separate set of rules for high
government officials, such as the Secretary of State, and you and me.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that I
submitted last week, amendment No. 3140, which is a tripartisan
amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which is the pending
legislation. I submitted the amendment last week with Senators
Klobuchar and King as my lead cosponsors. Our amendment would support
the key role that the forests in this country can play in helping to
meet our country's energy needs.
The carbon benefits of forest biomass are clearly established. Yet
current policy uncertainty could end up jeopardizing--rather than
encouraging--investment in working forests, harvesting operations,
bioenergy, wood products, and paper manufacturing. Biomass energy is
sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant as an
energy source. Many States are already relying on biomass to meet their
renewable energy goals. There is a great deal of support for renewable
biomass, which creates the benefits of establishing jobs, boosting
economic growth, and helping us to meet our Nation's energy needs.
Federal policies across all departments and agencies must remove any
uncertainties and contradictions through a clear policy that forest
bioenergy is an essential part of our Nation's energy future.
With these goals in mind, I have offered a very straightforward
amendment with a group of colleagues who span the ideological spectrum.
They include, as I mentioned, Senators Klobuchar and King, as well as
Senators Ayotte, Franken, Daines, Crapo, and Risch. I am very pleased
to have all of these colleagues cosponsoring my bill.
Our amendment supports the key role that forests in the United States
can play in addressing the Nation's energy needs. The amendment echoes
the principles outlined in the June 2015 letter that we sent, which was
signed by 46 Senators. As the Acting President pro tempore knows, it is
very unusual for 46 Senators on both sides of the aisle to come
together in support of a policy.
Specifically, our amendment would require the Secretary of Energy,
the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the EPA to
jointly ensure that Federal policy relating to forest bioenergy is
consistent across all departments and agencies and that the full
benefits of forest biomass for energy conservation and responsible
forest management are recognized.
The amendment would also direct these Federal agencies to establish
clear and simple policy for the utilization of biomass as an energy
solution. These include policies that reflect the carbon neutrality of
forest bioenergy that recognize biomass as a renewable energy source,
that encourage private investment throughout the biomass supply chain,
that encourage forest management to improve forest health, and that
recognize State initiatives to use biomass.
The carbon neutrality of biomass harvested from sustainably managed
forests has been recognized repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies,
institutions, and rules around the world, and there has been no dispute
about the carbon neutrality of biomass derived from the residuals of
forest products manufacturing and agriculture.
Our tripartisan amendment would help ensure that Federal policies for
the use of clean, renewable energy solutions are clear and simple.
I am in conversations with the two managers of this important bill,
the chairman, Senator Murkowski, and the ranking member, Senator
Cantwell, about our amendment. I hope that it will be adopted, and I
encourage our colleagues to support its adoption.
As I mentioned, Senators Klobuchar and King joined with me last week
in submitting this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ayotte, Senator
Franken, Senator Daines, Senator Crapo, and Senator Risch be added as
cosponsors to the amendment as well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Student Loan Debt
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, Senate Democrats announced
our commitment to end the crushing burden of student loan debt. Our
campaign is called ``In the Red'' because we agree with what President
Obama said during his final State of the Union: ``No hard-working
student should be stuck in the red.''
My special guest at President Obama's final State of the Union
address highlighted exactly this point. Alexis Ploss is a student at
UMass Lowell. She is a first-generation college student working on a
degree in math. She wants to get a master's degree so she can become a
public school teacher, but she has already taken on over $50,000 in
student loan debt.
Think about that, smart, hard-working students who want to build a
future for themselves and who want to teach the next generation of kids
are weighing the benefits of more education against the fear of an
unmanageable debt load.
I don't think Alexis will quit, but I want my Republican colleagues
to explain to me how America is any better off if a young woman doesn't
get a master's degree and become a first-rate math teacher. How is this
country any better off if young people get scared by debt, quit school,
and take a job that requires less education?
What Alexis and hundreds of thousands of other people like her end up
doing will be affected by decisions we make right in this room. If
Congress does nothing, then Alexis and hundreds of thousands of other
students just get squeezed harder. The debts get bigger, they grow
faster, and the decision to give up is just a little closer.
Seventy percent of students now need to borrow money in order to make
it through school. Democrats are here to say: Enough is enough, and
that is what this ``In the Red'' campaign is all about. The Democratic
plan has two basic parts: debt-free college and refinancing student
loans.
There are a lot of ways to get to debt-free college. We can give
students the opportunity to graduate from community college without
student debt by making it completely tuition free. We can increase Pell
grants. We can hold colleges accountable for keeping costs low and
providing a high-quality education that will help students get ahead.
We can also cut the outstanding debt. Some student loans are charging
6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and even higher interest rates. We
could cut those interest rates right now. Democrats are ready to go,
but the Republicans are blocking us every step of the way. Instead of
lowering the cost of student loans, they support the status quo, where
the U.S. Government turns young people who are trying to get an
education into profit centers to bring in more revenue for the Federal
Government.
In fact, Congress has set interest rates so high on loans that just
one slice of those loans--those issued from 2007 to 2012--are now on
target to make $66 billion in profits for the U.S. Government. This is
obscene. The Federal Government should be helping students get an
education, not making a profit off their backs.
The main response from Republicans in Congress has been to claim that
refinancing wouldn't save students that much money. Really? There are
more than 40 million people currently dealing with student loan debt.
When their interest rates are cut, many will save hundreds of dollars a
year and some will save thousands of dollars a year.
[[Page S415]]
That is money that can help someone out of a hole or money to save for
a downpayment on a home or money to pay off those student loans
faster--but Republicans say that money is trivial? What comes next? Do
Republicans say let them eat cake?
Where are all those Republicans who think Washington takes too much
of our money? These artificially high interest rates are a tax we
impose on students to fund government, a tax that keeps hard-working
young people from buying homes, from starting businesses or for from
saving for retirement.
The Republicans may not want to tax billionaires or Fortune 500
corporations, but evidently they don't mind squeezing students who have
to borrow money to pay for college.
For 2 years now, Democrats have tried to get a bill through Congress
to lower the interest rate on student loans, and for 2 years the
Republicans have blocked this bill. As the Republicans have said no,
hardworking people who are just trying to build a life have paid and
paid and paid.
So I am here to ask the Republicans: What is your idea? What is your
plan for how to deal with existing student loan debt? Democrats have
put a proposal on the table to make college affordable, but I don't
hear anything from the Republicans except ``no, no, no.'' Well, it is
time for change--debt-free college and lower interest rates on student
loans. That is what Senate Democrats are fighting for, and together
that is what we are going to win.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on Wednesday of this week, in the dead
of the night--at least here--the President intends to have his trade
representative sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade
agreement, for our Pacific trading partners. It is the product of fast-
track, a procedure that cleared the Senate. Presumably at some point,
it will then be advanced to the Congress for approval. The advancement
will be the result of the President filing implementing legislation
that will move the agreement forward.
Even though the President regards this deal as one of his signature
accomplishments, he is not making the trip. Instead, he has deputized
Trade Representative Michael Froman to sign the agreement in New
Zealand on behalf of the United States. New Zealand is a long way away.
We haven't had much talk about this event. The reason is that the
American people are very uneasy about it. The American people are not
happy with this agreement. The American people, I believe, fully oppose
it and would oppose it even more so if they knew more about it, and
they will learn more about it. So I think there has been an effort not
to talk about it, to keep the language low, and to see if it can't be
brought up some way and passed. I think that would be a mistake.
This trade agreement is 5,554 pages long and stacks 3 feet high on my
desk, so I would like to point my colleagues to examples of what the
deal will do.
The American Automobile Policy Council recently issued a report which
stated that the TPP would threaten 90,000 American automotive jobs
because of its failure to include strong currency protections. This is
just one of the problems we have. It has to be dealt with. Currency
manipulation is exceedingly dangerous. It has very large impacts, and
on a $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 automobile, we are talking about
thousands of dollars difference through currency.
American industries across the board are beginning to oppose TPP.
Many believe that all of the businesses are for it. But that is not the
case. Many American manufacturers would see their future even more
problematic under the TPP.
Ford released a statement opposing the deal. They argued that the TPP
is not adequately open and does not adequately open foreign markets to
U.S. goods.
We are going to further open our markets to foreign goods, but we are
not going to make the kind of progress that must be made to help our
exports, which is why we are told this agreement should pass--because
it is going to open up markets for us. Ford says no.
Last week Ford announced they were leaving the Japanese market--Japan
being the key country in this agreement--because they say that Japan
has nontariff barriers that have limited their ability to sell cars in
Japan.
For example, in 2015, Ford sold fewer than 5,000 cars in Japan. Ford
is an international manufacturer. They sell large numbers of
automobiles in Europe, in Mexico, in South America, but they cannot
penetrate the Japanese market. Hyundai, a superb South Korean
manufacturer, also not too long ago gave up trying to sell automobiles
in Japan. It is not tariffs; it is nontariff factors, constructed by
Japan, that make this happen.
Given this evidence, one would hope that the United States would be
able to negotiate a deal that would support American manufacturing and
American workers, but that is not the case with the TPP.
This is the World Bank's evaluation. The World Bank has concluded
that Japan would see an extra economic growth of 2.7 percent by 2030
while the United States can expect only four-tenths of 1 percent of
additional economic growth.
The White House's own study--a study they cite with pride, although
they omit many of the facts that are set forth in that report--
conducted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics claimed
that TPP will decrease the growth of manufacturing in the United States
by 20 percent by 2030. In other words, without this deal, manufacturing
in the United States would grow 20 percent more than if we signed the
TPP.
Is this good for America? Manufacturing jobs are high-paying jobs.
Manufacturing jobs demand resources from the community, and all kinds
of people support those manufacturing jobs. The products that Americans
manufacture are sold in the United States, around the world, and money
is brought home, and it pours into that community to buy more products,
more machines, more gasoline, more electricity, and to pay the workers
who work in the plants.
You have to have manufacturing in this world. A nation cannot get by
without it. A nation that has the greatest economy in the world, a
nation that has the greatest military in the world must maintain a
manufacturing base.
According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, this
20 percent reduction in potential growth would result in around 120,000
fewer jobs than would have been created otherwise. That is a very large
number--120,000 high-paying, good jobs in manufacturing plants. But
that is the President's study. That is his group that they got to give
the results he wanted. Trust me--and we are going to show this over
time--the predictions for these trade agreements have fallen massively
short of what the administration has promised.
However, a more critical study by the economists at Tufts
University--that prestigious university--recently found that TPP would
cost up to 400,000 jobs in the United States. We are supposed to sign
this deal, and it is supposed to make America better, and it is going
to cost us jobs. That is what the other deals have done. I think this
one is likely to do the same. I wish it weren't so.
We need better trade deals. We don't need to enter into trade deals
that don't protect the legitimate interest of American workers and
American manufacturers. Our trading partners, good countries, good
people--Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and others--are tough trading
partners. They are mercantilists. They are not free traders, really.
They are out to maximize their exports, and the export market they lust
after the most is the U.S. market. That is where they want to export
their products and bring home American dollars. We haven't done a good
job of defending our interests.
The United States already has trade agreements with major Asian
nations. We have many of them now. How have they turned out? Shouldn't
we study
[[Page S416]]
that? Has anyone talked about that? Have we had hearings on how well
they worked out before? No.
We haven't really looked into the effects of previous agreements
because we don't want to talk about that. What we want to say in the
Senate and the House of Representatives is that trade deals are good.
If anybody has a trade deal, be for it. That is not a sound way to
proceed.
South Korea is a good ally of the United States. It is a good
country, but they are tough competitors. Our trade deficit with South
Korea last year from January through November was $26 billion, and by
the end of the year, that country alone will be about $28-plus billion.
They have not published numbers yet, but estimates suggest that the
2015 trade deficit will be 15 percent higher than the previous year--
2014. Is that a good deal for the United States?
Trade deficits reduced U.S. GDP, as products that Americans consume
are made abroad instead of produced here as part of our gross domestic
product. It is not good for economic growth. Our growth fell way below
expectations--0.7 percent--in the fourth quarter of this year, and
every dollar of trade deficit subtracts from our GDP.
Some think we could be heading into a recession. Many people are
seriously discussing this. Who knows what will happen? We are not in a
booming economy; there is absolutely no doubt about it. Wages are down.
Job prospects are down. We have the lowest percentage of Americans in
their working years actually working since the 1970s. It is not a
healthy environment.
In 2010, President Obama promised that the South Korean trade deal--
he said this when he signed the agreement. They have been promising
these kinds of things in advance. It passed, and he signed the
agreement. I voted for it. I voted for most of these deals, but it is
time for us to be honest about it, to evaluate how well they are
actually turning out. When he signed the deal, he promised it would
increase American exports to South Korea by $11 billion a year. That
was nice. We would like to have seen that. However, in the 11 months of
last year, the United States exported only $1.2 billion more than we
did when the deal was signed 6 years ago. The year before that, it was
a $0.8 billion export increase; it was not even $1 billion.
What about Korean exports to the United States, what we import from
Korea? Since 2010, our trade deficit with South Korea has risen nearly
260 percent, from $10.1 billion in 2010 to more than $26 billion this
year. That is a very serious matter. I am very concerned about this
loss of jobs.
I think the American people need to know what is happening. The
Transpacific Partnership Agreement not only fails to deal with
manufacturing jobs in general, but it also fails to include any kind of
serious measure that would address currency manipulation.
During the time President Reagan was President, the economy went
through a tough period, but it rebounded under his leadership. Paul
Volcker and Reagan's leadership put us on a path of sound, solid growth
that went all the way through the 1990s. Mr. Volcker once said a moment
of currency manipulation can wipe out years of trade agreements with
our trading partners.
Currency is a huge thing. That is why the American Automotive Council
is concerned about it, why Ford and other manufacturers care about it,
and why we had a series of votes on the Senate floor to try to do
something about currency.
But the powers that be had the ultimate victory. We got to vote for a
bill that wouldn't become law; that would push back and allow us to
resist currency manipulation. We got to vote on that one, but they made
sure it didn't get on the bill that is going to become law--the Trans-
Pacific Partnership Agreement. It was a show vote. The President was
not going to execute it, and he threatened to veto it.
The Wall Street Journal, on November 5, wrote:
Mexico, Canada and other countries signaled that they were
open to the [currency] deal when they realized it [would not]
include binding currency rules that could lead to trade
sanctions through the TPP.
These countries want to be able to manipulate their currency.
Obviously, they agreed to go forward with the trade deal because they
knew there were no binding currency rules. In fact, last year the
Japanese Finance Minister, Taro Aso, said that ``there [will not] be
any change'' in Japan's currency policy because of the provisions
included in the TPP.
Some milk toast language got in the agreement. The Senators were able
to say they voted for a bill that had teeth to it, but that was in a
separate bill that would not become law. My currency provisions in the
bill, the language with real teeth, was stripped out during the
Conference Committee because the President threatened to veto it. It is
never going to become law.
But the agreement included alongside the TPP is meaningless. Japan
and others say it is not going to make any change in their currency
policy. Japan significantly devalued the yen again recently. China
devalued its currency by 6 percent last summer alone, and many expect
they will devalue it even further.
I have to say, it is time for the United States of America to
understand something. We are the largest economy in the world. We have
the greatest military in the world. We need to demand that people who
sell in our markets--and whose exports to the United States are
critical to their economic well-being--don't get to do this if they are
not playing by the rules. They don't get to manipulate their
currencies. They don't get to subsidize their manufacturing, and we are
not going to allow them to use nontariff barriers to prohibit the
imports of American products.
That is what we need from the leadership in this country--not an
agreement that allows continued manipulation of currency and that does
not deal effectively with the nontariff barriers and subsidies these
countries use to take market share away from U.S. companies.
What happens to an American business? U.S. Steel just closed some
production and laid off 1,000 workers in Birmingham last year. Is that
plant going to reopen? We would like to think so, but I doubt it. Once
these American plants that get no support from their government to
compete abroad are closed, they don't reopen. Our competitors know
that, and they take market share. They get to sell more in the United
States and bring home strong American dollars.
I think it is time for us to slow down on this. We are going to
continue to look at how these trade agreements have worked. I don't
think they have worked very well for the American worker. They haven't
done very well for American manufacturing. I think few would dispute
that this Nation can be prosperous without manufacturing. One time they
said you could do it with a service economy and high-tech economy.
Saturday's Barron's did a report on a study that has been done about
our high-tech companies, which we are so proud of and hear so much talk
about. What about the job prospects they have for this year? Are they
going to add more jobs to high-tech computer companies in America? No,
this analysis said that the information technology companies in America
would reduce employment by 330,000 people this year.
I have to tell you that if we lose automobile manufacturing and steel
plants, these people are not going to work in computer companies. That
is one of the biggest misrepresentations I have ever heard. The facts
are becoming very clear on that. Microsoft laid off over 100,000 people
the year before last. We have had a continual decline in high-tech job
creation. Oh yes, some plant somewhere is adding jobs, but more plants
are laying off workers. There is an election going on out there. People
are concerned about their future. They need to know about the trade
agreement. They need to be asking their Representatives and their
Presidential candidates how they feel about it. Which side are you
going to be on? Let's hear the reasons why you are for or against this
agreement. After they hear that, I think they will be in a better
position to decide how to cast their vote.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor as we are moving
forward, as many of my colleagues know, on this energy package. I thank
my colleagues who have already come to the floor today to talk about
it, and I especially thank Senator Murkowski
[[Page S417]]
for helping us to move through so many different proposals by our
colleagues. We were able to clear some of these amendments by voice
votes, and, hopefully, we will be able to move forward over the next 24
hours on this bill by getting some votes locked in.
One of the things we are going to talk about this week is energy
efficiency, which is creating jobs and making our economy more
competitive by holding down the cost of energy. Many of us know that
for centuries the use of energy has been a very important factor in our
economy. Last week I mentioned that the Northwest economy was built on
a hydrosystem. Cheap hydropower has worked for us over and over again,
as companies that use a lot of electricity have moved to the Northwest.
We have stored everything from apples to terabytes of data because of
the huge efficiencies that we were able to pull off with cheap
hydropower.
As my colleague from Alaska will say, energy costs are high in Alaska
and she wants to make sure we are making it more affordable and
enabling distributed generation, as she just mentioned earlier today.
Ensuring that we have a microgrid to do that is a key component to how
the state will successfully diversify their economy. As we debate this
bill on the Senate floor, each of us is thinking about the regions of
our country we represent and how to make sure we are dealing with
energy successfully.
One important thing I wanted to discuss is that in 2007, for the
first time in our history, the United States actually delinked economic
growth from energy use. Now, our economy is producing more in goods and
services, yet it is using less in electricity. The chart behind me
demonstrates this.
This is a very important point because it shows that we can still
grow our economy while consuming and using less energy. This is
important if you are a homeowner and want to use the energy in your
home more efficiently, while still having many apps and devices that
require electricity but make your life easier. It is also important for
businesses. As U.S. businesses compete in a global economy, they want
to produce goods and services and do so in a cost-effective manner. So
the more you can drive down energy costs without having to drive down
consumption, the better.
If we want to continue to compete in that global economy, we must
continue to improve our energy productivity, and that is exactly what
title I of the bill does. The Energy Policy Modernization Act will help
ensure that the Nation is eliminating energy waste and making
improvements in new technologies that will improve our competitiveness
for the 21st century.
Energy efficiency is the cheapest and most affordable energy resource
because it is typically about one-third of the cost of new production;
that is, by saving energy at home, by using what we already have more
efficiently--and there are all sorts of smart ways to do this--you can
actually spend only one-third of the cost of what it would take to get
new production online.
In the last 40 years, since the oil embargo, energy efficiency became
an integral part of our energy policy. We have learned that efficiency
is not like most other resources that are depleted and consumed.
Instead, we found that as we keep making progress on energy efficiency,
we have created new technologies. These have become the most cost-
effective ways to cut waste and the most cost-effective ways to take
the ``low-hanging fruit'' available in front of us and help businesses
and homeowners alike.
There are two examples of this that we, as the Federal Government,
had a hand in: No. 1, automobiles and No. 2, lighting technology. Now
both of these were in the previous 2007 Energy bill. Since then,
average automobile fuel economy has improved dramatically, from 15
miles per gallon in 1978 to 28 miles per gallon in 2016, thanks to the
CAFE standards in effect. That was something we pushed here that made
our automobiles more efficient.
With respect to lighting, the latest light-emitting diode, LED,
technology is 6 to 7 times more efficient in energy consumption than
traditional incandescent lights and can last at least 25 times longer.
In 2012 alone, nearly 50,000 LEDs were installed in the United States,
saving an estimated $675 million in annual electricity costs.
What we are saying here is that we want to continue to move forward
on energy efficiency. It is saving money for businesses and homeowners.
We also want to continue the advancements of these energy-efficiency
technologies and make sure that we are making the right investments. So
I want to remind my colleagues that there are going to be several ways
in which we are going to try to build on this progress. Energy
efficiency must be a major part of our policies here, and I know many
States across the country are also making investments in this.
So tomorrow I expect us to have a vote on an amendment to establish a
Federal energy efficiency resource standard, or an EERS.
Since its establishment, the Department of Energy has implemented
successful energy efficiency programs that develop new technologies and
promote best practices within the major sectors of our energy economy.
Yet many States have used their role to also establish energy
efficiency standards. Behind me, you will see the number of States that
have already developed these incentives for investments in energy
efficiency by giving utilities an incentive to invest in low-cost,
energy efficiency programs before investing in more expensive new
energy production. You can see that many of these States across the
United States have adopted such initiatives--25 States with energy
efficiency resource standards.
Why is that important? Well, once you start down the road of energy
efficiency, you continue to make your grid more efficient, which is
something California has done. California made a huge investment as a
marketplace for energy efficiency, and now they continue to be on the
cutting edge of energy efficiency. They have continued to grow as an
economy yet use less energy. In fact, the 19 States with the greatest
energy savings in the Nation all have energy efficiency resource
standards.
So, to me, this is an area of the bill that I think we would like to
improve. States are the laboratories of democracy, and because 25 of
them have demonstrated the benefits of this policy, I believe it is
time the Federal Government should also establish a national energy
efficiency resource standard. My colleague Senator Franken from
Minnesota will be offering an amendment to do just that on this bill.
The Federal Government could require States to do their part in
reducing the waste of resources and increasing our Nation's energy
productivity by establishing an energy efficiency resource standard
that would promote investments in efficiency--everything from cost
effectiveness in new buildings to production capacity. The proposed
EERS would set a very modest, easily achievable energy savings target
that electrical and natural gas utilities must meet as is already
required in half of these States.
The American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy estimates that
implementing the Federal EERS would save $130 billion, or about $1,000
per household by 2040. The adoption of this EERS amendment would more
than triple the energy efficiency savings benefits of the act before us
today. A Federal EERS would not only save every American money by
reducing their energy bill, but it would also strengthen our Nation's
economic competitiveness by improving our energy's productivity and
maintaining our leadership in the commercialization of these products.
This is something I learned during my time in the private sector.
Anytime you can make something that is of value to everybody more
efficient, such as energy, you are on the winning path; that is, if you
become the experts of constantly knowing how to make everything more
efficient, whether you are talking about development in China, in
Europe or in other parts of Asia, the fact that we are experts on
energy efficiency by deploying this here in the United States gives us
a winning hand on deploying it around the world. Anytime you can be
more efficient, you are also being more cost effective and saving
dollars. That is what we are pushing in this bill. It will move us
forward on energy efficiency.
As we have seen, energy efficiency--and I am sure Senator Franken
will talk more about this tomorrow--is not only commonsense economics,
but it
[[Page S418]]
also has the ability to focus on some of the cleaner sources of energy
that we have been discussing too.
The Federal Government has had a history of promoting energy
efficiency, and the government itself, being the single largest energy
user in the Nation, could benefit from this. We hope that when we look
at the Federal Government, we will also be talking about energy
efficiency products. One of the examples of how Congress directed the
Federal Government to lead was by the enactment of section 433 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This provision
established a Federal leadership role in the development of high-
efficiency, low-emission commercial buildings by requiring the Federal
Government to phase out the use of fossil fuel energy in Federal
buildings and major renovations by 2030.
The U.S. Government, as the single largest occupant of Federal
buildings in the Nation, should continue, I believe, to demonstrate its
energy efficiency as well. I know in the Pacific Northwest we have the
Bullitt Center, which is the greenest commercial building in the United
States. We have a hospital in Issaquah that is one of the most energy
efficient hospitals in the United States, and we have other businesses
that are developing these buildings that are smart buildings that are
driving down the costs. What does that mean? It means that businesses
can invest money into R&D or into the manufacturing of goods or into
the promotion of ideas instead of spending it on energy costs.
For us in the Pacific Northwest, someone might ask: With the cheapest
kilowatt rates in the Nation, why would everybody spend so much time on
energy efficiency? We spend so much time on energy in the Northwest
because we know it pays dividends. We know it gives us a competitive
edge, and we know it continues to put us in the driver's seat with
technology. Even though we have the cheapest kilowatt rates, we
continue to make an investment.
These buildings were designed by architects to show what is now
technologically possible and to feature state-of-the-art ground-source
heating and cooling, both photovoltaic and thermal solar energy
collection, and computers that automatically adjust the building
systems in order to keep them comfortable and efficient. Some buildings
have an elevator that converts kinetic energy from braking into usable
electricity. All of these things are about cutting-edge technology. The
Bullitt Center and other buildings like it in the United States
demonstrate that it is technologically feasible and cost effective to
phase out the use of fossil fuel generated energy in new Federal
buildings within the next 14 years, as required by current law.
These are not radical policies. These laws, which were passed in
2007, are things that I know people here would like to strike and
repeal. Let me mention another one we will likely hear about, which is
the SAFE Act, offered by our colleagues from Georgia and Colorado. The
Senators likely will offer this bill for sensible accounting to value
energy. This bipartisan amendment was included in the Shaheen-Portman
bill that would help homeowners account for the energy efficiency of
their home during the mortgage and underwriting process. The average
homeowner pays more than $2,000 annually for the energy in their home.
After the mortgage, this is typically the second largest cost in buying
and owning a home, but it is not accounted for in the mortgage
underwriting process. Many of us have gone through this process of
buying a home and getting a mortgage. So why can't a homeowner, on a
voluntary basis, have their home audited for its energy efficiency
characteristics and have that information accounted for in the mortgage
underwriting process? This is what Senators Isakson, Bennet, Shaheen,
and Portman have introduced in an amendment, and I think it will be one
of the things we will hear about tomorrow and one of the potential
votes we will be having.
A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that
owners of more efficient homes are less likely to default on their
mortgages. Adopting this amendment creates an incentive for homeowners
to invest in energy efficiency improvement because those improvements
will be accounted for in the underwriting process for their homes.
Organizations as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the U.S.
Green Building Council all support this amendment. So this is another
idea that is not in the underlying bill that we will be discussing.
Today we are here with many amendments that were added last week to
this legislation. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
their hard work and for continuing to move forward with my colleague,
the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, and myself in getting through
the next couple of days of these policies.
I know my colleagues want to continue to discuss this legislation, as
I do, but we also know there is a limited time that we will be able to
be on this legislation. So I urge our colleagues to bring any
amendments to the floor tonight that they would like to have
considered, if they haven't already filed them today.
We need to continue to build on the successes of the last 40 years,
continue to cut our energy waste, and de-link our economic growth from
energy use so we can make sure we can continue to grow in the most
cost-effective way, and continue to produce the jobs that these new
renewables and energy efficiency opportunities are creating for us. I
think this legislation will help give us another foothold toward a
future economy that is cleaner, more efficient, and a better driver of
U.S. competitiveness on an international global basis for the types of
energy solutions that we think will help the world as well.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering a
bipartisan energy bill that could lead America on a pathway to
rebuilding our Nation's economy in this century. It has been 9 years
since we passed an energy bill and a lot of things have changed.
The bill we are considering contains important provisions to build
domestic clean energy sources, strengthen energy efficiency measures,
and modernize our electric grid.
This bill also represents a commitment to basic science research at
the Department of Energy. I believe it can and should do more than what
the original bill proposes. We need more robust support for basic
science research--the kind of research that costs too much and takes
too long for any individual company to undertake. We need to invest in
medical and basic science research. The investment will pay off for
generations to come.
I cochair the Senate National Lab Caucus, and I know that if we
invest in research in the National Labs, it will lead to breakthroughs
that will help keep America competitive and create good-paying jobs.
At Fermi National Accelerator Lab in Illinois, the development of
superconducting wire technology enabled the large-scale manufacture of
the magnetic resonance imaging--or MRI--machines doctors use today.
Sometimes it is hard for the scientists and engineers and leaders at
these labs to explain in simple words what they are doing and why it is
important. This is an example. They were working on a wire technology
that probably didn't mean much certainly to me or to many people, but
when they finished, they came up with an MRI--a brandnew way of imaging
our bodies to detect illnesses and plot a way to cure them.
In the 1970s, the scientists building Fermilab's particle accelerator
drove cutting-edge research in superconducting wire fabrication. Rather
than patent these advances, Fermilab made them freely available to the
public and private sector, opening the door to large-scale
superconducting wire manufacturing by private industry. Since MRI
machines rely on superconducting wires, this made commercialization
possible.
Today, MRI machines are widely used to image the human body. Using
[[Page S419]]
MRIs nearly eliminates the need for exploratory surgery, which, of
course, means it is cheaper in the long run and safer.
Last month, a new generation of MRI machines at the Illinois
Neurological Institute saved the life of a 27-year-old farmer from
Canton, IL, Cody Krulac. Cody had a tumor that was located in the part
of his brain that would have been difficult to image using old
technology and would have relied on surgery and guesswork, but using
the new MRI machine, his doctors were able to pinpoint exactly where
the tumor was and exactly how much to remove, meaning Cody spent less
time in surgery and recovered more quickly.
Another example of the Department of Energy's success can be found in
Argonne's Advanced Photon Source. Its power x-ray beams enable the
observation of extremely small objects in unprecedented detail. This
allows scientists to see how viruses, such as HIV, replicate and how
cancer grows. This understanding led to the discovery of a new drug for
AIDS therapy, a drug called Kaletra, which is now the most prescribed
drug in its class for this deadly disease. It also led to the
development of a drug, Zelboraf, to treat melanoma. This drug has been
used by 11,000 patients worldwide and is approved in 43 countries. The
research at this National Lab really paved the way.
Building and operating a facility like the Advanced Photon Source is
too expensive and specialized for any single company to do. Only
investment by America in its own Department of Energy can make
something like this possible.
Let me give one final example of how the Department of Energy's
Office Of Science has had an impact on every American life. Researchers
from Illinois University, Fermilab, and Argonne have teamed up to give
a tenfold boost to normal CT scanning capabilities. The result was a
next-generation CT scanner that limits the patient's exposure to
radiation while giving better images that allow doctors to more
accurately detect and treat cancer and save lives. This research also
led to two U.S. patents and spurred an Illinois startup company called
ProtonVDA through the National Institutes of Health small business
innovation research grant.
These are only some of the Department of Energy's and the National
Lab's success stories, but they are examples that show that this
investment, which cannot be effectively made by most businesses in
America, can really make America safer, healthier, and pave the way for
new businesses and jobs. America's place as a world leader in cutting-
edge research is at risk if we fail to make the necessary investments
in basic science research.
I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, particularly Senator
Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri; Senator Lamar Alexander, a
Republican from Tennessee; and Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from
the State of Washington. They really stepped up when it came to NIH
research--the National Institutes of Health. In this year's budget, we
are going to have virtually a 5-percent real increase in research--$2
billion of new money going to NIH. I am willing to stake my future in
the Senate and tell you that investment at the NIH this year in
research will ultimately lead to breakthroughs that will save lives.
This is another area which is equally promising.
I remember visiting the Department of Energy a few months back with
Ernest Moniz, our Secretary, whom I respect very much. I told him the
story of how I am committed to NIH's basic biomedical research. I said
one example is Alzheimer's.
I was surprised when my staff said one American is diagnosed with
Alzheimer's every 67 seconds. I said: Go back to the drawing board.
That can't be true.
They went back and came back and said: No, Senator, that is exactly
right. One in every 67 seconds on average, an American is diagnosed
with Alzheimer's.
I told that story to Ernest Moniz, the Secretary of Energy, and I
said that is why we need this NIH research.
He said: Senator, my Office of Science in the Department of Energy is
developing the imaging techniques so that we can detect Alzheimer's in
living human beings.
Currently, the only confirmation of the diagnosis is confirmed in
autopsy. If we can look at the early onset of Alzheimer's, we can
better respond to it. That is why, if one is interested in curing
diseases, in finding ways to avoid expensive surgery, in reducing the
cost of medicine but still protecting America, this generation of
lawmakers needs to make a commitment to science research.
I have already thanked my colleagues by name who have done so much
for the NIH, and I will be offering an amendment with Senator Alexander
of Tennessee that is going to help increase our commitment to research
in the Energy bill which is before us. The 4-percent growth in the bill
is good, but unfortunately it does not protect against inflation. What
we are calling for is 5-percent growth over inflation in this
Department. I can guarantee that the breakthroughs that will come from
this research will make life better and create more opportunities for
people living in this country. We need to have sustained funding to
ensure that cutting-edge research can bear fruit, and we are asking
that they maintain this growth period of 5-percent real growth for 5
years.
Congress needs to help America's best and brightest do what they do
best. This amendment represents an investment that will save lives.
I will say parenthetically that this morning I made a trip to
Atlanta, GA. Every 2 or 3 years, I go down to visit the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. This agency is not well known or well
understood by most Americans. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in Atlanta, GA, is the first line in America's national
defense when it comes to public health threats.
We now have a mosquito called the Zika mosquito spreading a virus in
Brazil to the point where women are being warned that now is not the
time to be pregnant. If one of those mosquitoes should sting you and if
some of the virus gets into your body, it can cause a miscarriage or
some terrible birth defects in the baby. That is how dangerous it is.
The frontline of defense in the United States is the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA.
As I walked through there and met with the pathologists, the doctors,
veterinarians, and others who work there, I saw this amazing array of
extraordinary talent, people who were excited about their work, about
making our country and the world safer. The Zika virus, of course, is
our current threat, but there are many more. They faced the Ebola
crisis in Africa, and luckily it did not spread beyond the few
countries where it was first reported. So when we talk about
investments in research by the U.S. Federal Government, it is research
that is good for us and our families, and it is good for the world.
I will be offering this amendment probably this week with Senator
Alexander and others to increase this commitment to research. It is an
investment that will lead to new breakthroughs in this bill on energy,
in scientific discoveries, energy innovation, and national security.
This amendment strengthens the bill before us and helps us move to our
21st-century economy in the world. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative 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 have had an opportunity to have a
few speakers here this afternoon. Senator Cantwell and I have come to
the floor and urged our colleagues to help us as we work to advance the
Energy Policy Modernization Act. We have, for the information of
colleagues, an order, in terms of several--a couple of votes tomorrow.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up
the following amendments: amendment No. 3023 by Senator Lee and
amendment No. 3115 by Senator Franken; that on Tuesday, February 2,
2016, at 2:30 p.m.,
[[Page S420]]
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the above amendments in the
order listed, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the
votes and a 60-vote affirmative threshold required for adoption;
further, that the time between 2:15 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. be equally
divided in the usual form and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2970, 2989, 2991, 3119, 3019, 3066, 3137, and 3056, as
Modified, to Amendment No. 2953
Ms. MURKOWSKI. We are now ready to process a handful of amendments
with a series of voice votes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments
be called up and reported by number: Gardner amendment No. 2970; Reed
amendment No. 2989; Inhofe amendment No. 2991; Daines amendment No.
3119; Murphy amendment No. 3019; Hirono amendment No. 3066; Udall
amendment No. 3137; and Flake amendment No. 3056, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 2970, 2989, 2991, 3119, 3019,
3066, 3137, and 3056, as modified, to amendment No. 2953.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2970
(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to energy management
requirements)
In section 1006, strike subsection (a) and insert the
following:
(a) Energy Management Requirements.--Section 543(f)(4) of
the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
8253(f)(4)) is amended by striking ``may'' and inserting
``shall''.
amendment no. 2989
(Purpose: To ensure that funds for research and development of electric
grid energy storage are used efficiently)
Section 2301 is amended by adding at the end the following:
(f) Use of Funds.--To the maximum extent practicable, in
carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
the use of funds to carry out this section is coordinated
among different offices within the Grid Modernization
Initiative of the Department and other programs conducting
energy storage research.
Amendment No. 2991
(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to brownfields grants)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of January 27, 2016, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
amendment no. 3119
(Purpose: To require that the 21st Century Energy Workforce Advisory
Board membership also represent cybersecurity)
On page 316, line 15, strike ``and'' and insert
``cybersecurity, and''.
amendment no. 3019
(Purpose: To promote the use of reclaimed refrigerants in Federal
facilities)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. PROMOTING USE OF RECLAIMED REFRIGERANTS IN FEDERAL
FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services
shall issue guidance relating to the procurement of reclaimed
refrigerants to service existing equipment of Federal
facilities.
(b) Preference.--The guidance issued under subsection (a)
shall give preference to the use of reclaimed refrigerants,
on the conditions that--
(1) the refrigerant has been reclaimed by a person or
entity that is certified under the laboratory certification
program of the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute; and
(2) the price of the reclaimed refrigerant does not exceed
the price of a newly manufactured (virgin) refrigerant.
amendment no. 3066
(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to the energy workforce pilot
grant program)
In section 3602(d), strike paragraph (2) and insert the
following:
(2) work with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs or veteran service organizations recognized
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5902 of
title 38, United States Code, to transition members of the
Armed Forces and veterans to careers in the energy sector;
amendment no. 3137
(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to a Secretarial order)
On page 302, strike lines 6 through 9 and insert the
following:
(2) Secretarial order not affected.--This subtitle shall
not apply to any mineral described in Secretarial Order No.
3324, issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 3,
2012, in any area to which the order applies.
amendment no. 3056, as modified
(Purpose: To include other Federal departments and agencies in an
evaluation of potentially duplicative green building programs)
Strike section 1020 (relating to an evaluation of
potentially duplicative green building programs within the
Department of Energy) and insert the following:
SEC. 1020. EVALUATION OF POTENTIALLY DUPLICATIVE GREEN
BUILDING PROGRAMS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrative expenses.--
(A) In general.--The term ``administrative expenses'' has
the meaning given the term by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget under section 504(b)(2) of the Energy
and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010 (31 U.S.C. 1105 note; Public Law 111-85).
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``administrative expenses''
includes, with respect to an agency--
(i) costs incurred by--
(I) the agency; or
(II) any grantee, subgrantee, or other recipient of funds
from a grant program or other program administered by the
agency; and
(ii) expenses relating to personnel salaries and benefits,
property management, travel, program management, promotion,
reviews and audits, case management, and communication
regarding, promotion of, and outreach for programs and
program activities administered by the agency.
(2) Applicable program.--The term ``applicable program''
means any program that is--
(A) listed in Table 9 (pages 348-350) of the report of the
Government Accountability Office entitled ``2012 Annual
Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and
Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue''; and
(B) administered by--
(i) the Secretary;
(ii) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(iii) the Secretary of Defense;
(iv) the Secretary of Education;
(v) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(vi) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
(vii) the Secretary of Transportation;
(viii) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(ix) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(x) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology; or
(xi) the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
(3) Service.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
``service'' has the meaning given the term by the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(B) Requirements.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
term ``service'' shall be limited to activities, assistance,
or other aid that provides a direct benefit to a recipient,
such as--
(i) the provision of technical assistance;
(ii) assistance for housing or tuition; or
(iii) financial support (including grants, loans, tax
credits, and tax deductions).
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the
Secretary, in consultation with the agency heads described in
clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection (a)(2)(B), shall
submit to Congress and make available on the public Internet
website of the Department a report that describes the
applicable programs.
(2) Requirements.--In preparing the report under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall--
(A) determine the approximate annual total administrative
expenses of each applicable program attributable to green
buildings;
(B) determine the approximate annual expenditures for
services for each applicable program attributable to green
buildings;
(C) describe the intended market for each applicable
program attributable to green buildings, including the--
(i) estimated the number of clients served by each
applicable program; and
(ii) beneficiaries who received services or information
under the applicable program (if applicable and if data is
readily available);
(D) estimate--
(i) the number of full-time employees who administer
activities attributable to green buildings for each
applicable program; and
(ii) the number of full-time equivalents (the salary of
whom is paid in part or full by the Federal Government
through a grant or contract, a subaward of a grant or
contract, a cooperative agreement, or another form of
financial award or assistance) who assist in administering
activities attributable to green buildings for the applicable
program;
(E) briefly describe the type of services each applicable
program provides attributable to green buildings, such as
information, grants, technical assistance, loans, tax
credits, or tax deductions;
(F) identify the type of recipient who is intended to
benefit from the services or information provided under the
applicable program attributable to green buildings, such as
individual property owners or renters, local
[[Page S421]]
governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations, or State
governments; and
(G) identify whether written program goals are available
for each applicable program.
(c) Recommendations.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the
Secretary, in consultation with the agency heads described in
clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection (a)(2)(B), shall
submit to Congress a report that includes--
(1) a recommendation of whether any applicable program
should be eliminated or consolidated, including any
legislative changes that would be necessary to eliminate or
consolidate applicable programs; and
(2) methods to improve the applicable programs by
establishing program goals or increasing collaboration to
reduce any potential overlap or duplication, taking into
account--
(A) the 2011 report of the Government Accountability Office
entitled ``Federal Initiatives for the Nonfederal Sector
Could Benefit from More Interagency Collaboration''; and
(B) the report of the Government Accountability Office
entitled ``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce
Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and
Enhance Revenue''.
(d) Analyses.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the
Secretary, in consultation with the agency heads described in
clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection (a)(2)(B), shall
identify--
(1) which applicable programs were specifically authorized
by Congress; and
(2) which applicable programs are carried out solely under
the discretionary authority of the Secretary or any agency
head described in clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection
(a)(2)(B).
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could just say, I so appreciate our
colleagues working in such a bipartisan fashion to work through these
eight amendments and set votes for these amendments tomorrow. We are
making good progress on this legislation. I hope our colleagues will
give attention to these matters so tomorrow we can move further on some
more votes to clear up the remaining issues before us on this bill.
I appreciate all our colleagues working together in earnest and the
chair of the committee to make sure we have made this progress so far
today. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no further debate, the question is on
agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 2970, 2989, 2991, 3119, 3019, 3066, 3137, and
3056, as modified) were agreed to en bloc.
____________________