Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 19 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 19 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S460-S470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will report.
The legislative 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. The Senator from Alaska.

Drug Addiction

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks this morning
about the Energy Policy Modernization Act, I wish to acknowledge my
colleague from Massachusetts. I come from a very large, remote State.
About 80 percent of the communities in Alaska are not connected by a
road, so one would think that our isolation would insulate us from some
of the scourges that we see when it comes to drugs and drug addiction.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. In my State we are seeing the same
level of addiction. While the numbers might not be as eye-popping as
Massachusetts or New Hampshire and other parts of the country, that is
because we have fewer people. But on a per capita basis, the numbers
are staggering and very worrying.
As my colleague from Massachusetts notes, this is not something that
should be a Republican or a Democratic problem or have a Republican or
Democratic solution. This should have all of us working together
because what is happening and what we are seeing is simply
unacceptable. It is destroying families and communities, and we must
work together. I appreciate his comments here before the body this
morning.
Mr. President, I hope the Senate is prepared for another good, busy
day of debate on our broad bipartisan energy bill.
Late yesterday, while we were not taking votes, we were in session
for a few hours--but what we were able to do during that time period
was approve eight more amendments by voice vote. We are now up to 19
amendments accepted so far. The latest batch from yesterday featured a
proposal from Senators Gardner, Coons, Portman, and Shaheen to boost
energy savings projects that will limit the cost of government and save
taxpayer dollars.
We also approved an amendment from Senators Flake, McCaskill, and
Booker to evaluate the number of duplicative green buildings programs
within the Federal Government. I think we all appreciate the need to be
more efficient, but do we need to have dozens and dozens of duplicative
programs to build this out? That is what that amendment addressed.
We also approved an amendment from Senators Inhofe, Markey, and
Booker to renew a brownfields restoration program run by the EPA.
So we did OK yesterday, approving eight amendments by voice votes,
which is not bad for a Monday around here when we were not scheduled to
have votes, but I think we can do better than that. I think we can pick
up the pace, and we are ready to do that.
We will have two rollcall votes that are scheduled for 2:30 this
afternoon. The first one is an amendment by the Senator from Utah, Mr.
Lee, amendment No. 3023, and it would limit Presidential authority to
permanently withdraw Federal lands as national monuments. This is an
issue that I have joined the Senator from Utah on, as well as many
Senators from around the West, who have concerns that we would see vast
areas of our particular States permanently withdrawn--something that
again resonates very strongly in my State, where 61 percent of our
State is held in Federal land. I am pleased that my colleague from Utah
has offered this amendment, and I am hopeful the Senate will adopt it.
The second amendment we will have this afternoon is the Franken
amendment No. 3115. This would impose a nationwide efficiency mandate.
This is a matter that we had before the energy committee when we were
in markup in July, and many Members are already familiar with it.
I am aware that some Members are still filing amendments, but I think
my advice to them is to know they are chasing the train down the tracks
at this point in time. We had a total of 230 amendments filed as of
this morning, so we have a lot to sort through as we are trying to deal
with the debate and just kind of keep things moving.
A number of Members are also hoping to secure a vote on their
priorities, so we have a line now. Those who are just thinking about
filing should know where you are in this process. Senator Cantwell and
I intend to continue to process amendments as quickly as we can and we
ask for the cooperation of Members to help that effort move along.
I do want to thank the ranking member on the energy committee.
Senator Cantwell and her staff have been working very hard and very
well with me and my staff as we are working to process this bill. The
level of back-and-forth has been very constructive, very helpful, and I
appreciate it, and I want to give special recognition to the yeoman's
work that the staff are doing right now.
We will be setting up additional rollcall votes today. We will
hopefully be able to reach agreement on amendments that we can clear on
both sides as well.
As we have moved through the debate process on this important Energy
bill, we have seen some good, strong amendments. I mentioned some
already. We have had amendments from both parties. We have had them
offered by Members from all areas of the country. We have seen some
particularly good ones that focus on hydropower. I wish to take a few
moments this morning to speak about hydropower and the amazing supply
source that hydropower provides for our Nation.
Hydropower harnesses the forces of flowing water to generate
electricity, and it has many virtues as an energy resource. It is not
only emissions free and renewable, it is also capable of producing
stable, reliable, and affordable base power. How about that: stable,
affordable, and reliable base power. It is emissions free. It is
renewable. It is not defined yet as renewable, and we address that in
this bill. Right now, hydropower produces about 6 percent of our
Nation's electricity and nearly half of our renewable energy. That is
more

[[Page S461]]

than wind and solar combined and enough electricity to power some 30
million American homes.
Up in Alaska, hydropower provides--the number is right about 24
percent of our electricity. It provides energy for communities
throughout the State, most notably in the southeastern part of the
State where I was born and raised. It is very significant there. It is
also in what we call the railbelt area. It is an amazing contributor to
our State's energy base. We continue, though, to have vast potential
with hundreds of sites in Alaska alone just waiting to be developed. We
are a leader on hydropower, but we are hardly alone in having untapped
potential.
According to an official from the Department of Energy who testified
before the energy committee back in 2011, our country could realize
``an additional 300 gigawatts of hydropower through efficiency and
capacity upgrades at existing facilities, powering nonpowered dams, new
small hydro development, and pump storage hydropower.''
So let me repeat what that really means: An additional 300 gigawatts
of hydropower, not through some big megadam but through efficiency,
through capacity upgrades at existing facilities, powering up our
nonpowered dams, new small hydro development--we see a lot of that in
Alaska--and pump storage hydropower. With that, 300 gigawatts of
additional power.
Putting it into context, 1 gigawatt can power hundreds of thousands
of homes. We have an estimated 300 gigawatts of potential hydropower--a
huge benefit to our country in terms of what we could get from our
hydro resources, and it will not take much to start taking advantage of
it. That is the beauty of it.
It may surprise some to know that right now only 3 percent of our
Nation's existing 80,000 dams around the country currently produce
electricity. Just 3 percent of 80,000 dams that are already out there
are producing electricity. Think about what we could do if we electrify
just the top 100--just the top 100 out of 80,000. We could generate
enough electricity for nearly 3 million more homes and create thousands
of jobs. Meanwhile, simply upgrading the turbines at existing
hydropower dams could yield a similar amount of additional electric
generating capacity.
We talk a lot about efficiency around here. Well, let us apply the
efficiency with what we have with our existing facilities. What most of
us agree on is that hydropower is a great American resource. It is
renewable, it is affordable, it is always on, and nearly every State
has potential in some way. Yet, despite all of this--despite the
tremendous benefits that it provides and despite our tremendous
untapped potential--America's hydropower development has stalled. Why?
It has stalled, quite honestly, because of redtape and environmental
opposition.
This was the subject of a recent op-ed piece that I cowrote with Jay
Faison, who is the founder of the ClearPath Foundation. It is called
``Stop Wasting America's Hydropower Potential.'' It ran in the New York
Times last month, and we have gotten some pretty good, positive
comments. I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2016]

Stop Wasting America's Hydropower Potential

(By Lisa Murkowski and Jay Faison)

President Obama has described climate change as one of the
biggest challenges facing our country and has said he is open
to new ideas to address it. He can start by supporting
legislation to increase the nation's hydropower capacity, one
of our vital renewable energy resources.
Hydropower harnesses the force of flowing water to generate
electricity. It already produces about 6 percent of the
nation's electricity and nearly half of its renewable energy,
more than wind and solar combined. This is enough electricity
to power 30 million homes and, according to the Department of
Energy, avoids some 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
emissions each year. That amounts to taking about 40 million
cars off the road for one year.
But we could be doing much more to harness the huge
potential of hydropower, even without building new dams.
For instance, only 3 percent of the nation's 80,000 dams
now produce electricity. Electrifying just the 100 top
impoundments--primarily locks and dams on the Ohio,
Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas Rivers that are operated by
the Army Corps of Engineers--would generate enough
electricity for nearly three million more homes and create
thousands of jobs.
And upgrading and modernizing the turbines at existing
hydropower dams could yield a similar amount of additional
electricity-generating capacity.
Despite the benefits of this technology, American
hydropower development has stalled because of government red
tape and environmental opposition. Less capacity has been
added each decade since the 1970s, even as our infrastructure
ages. Half of our plants use turbines or other major
equipment designed and installed more than 50 years ago.
At the heart of the problem is a broken federal permitting
process that has created an unnavigable gantlet for
hydropower projects. While mandatory environmental reviews
must be stringent to protect waterways and wildlife, federal
bureaucrats insist on duplicative, sequential processes that
exacerbate regulatory uncertainty, delay approvals and drive
up consumer costs.
Compounding the roadblocks are environmental groups that
claim to adhere to sound science but hold remarkably outdated
views of hydropower and its benefits. Rather than acknowledge
technological advances and the environmental safeguards in
our laws, these groups have filed lawsuits to dismantle dams
or stop their construction.
Add it all up, and it can now take well over a decade to
relicense an existing hydropower dam. For the California
customers of Pacific Gas and Electric, relicensing costs have
run as high as $50 million a dam--all for the privilege of
continuing to operate an existing renewable energy project.
One-third of the nation's hydropower dams will require
license renewals by 2030. We need to make this process more
efficient by reducing bureaucratic and administrative delays
that end up increasing electricity rates and slowing
hydropower's expansion.
Fortunately, Congress has stepped in to get hydropower
development back on track. Legislation in both chambers,
including a measure in the Senate that was approved by a
bipartisan vote in committee, would direct agencies to
expedite the permitting of new projects and the relicensing
of existing ones, and would advance the use of hydropower
nationwide.
But while Congress has chosen to lead on this important
issue, President Obama has threatened to veto the House bill,
claiming it would undermine environmental safeguards. The
challenge is finding a way to bring state and federal
agencies to the table with the applicants at the beginning of
the process so they can identify potential problems and
coordinate environmental reviews. The legislation would not
change the authority of federal agencies to impose
environmental conditions.
There is much more that we can do. Upgrading existing dams
is just one of the approaches that holds big promise.
Coordinating hydropower projects on a regionwide basis might
allow for permitting on a more timely basis and provide
better opportunities for environmental mitigation. There is
also tremendous potential for electricity generation using
new marine hydrokinetic technologies that convert the energy
of waves, tides and river and ocean currents into
electricity. And it is important to recognize the huge,
untapped potential for hydropower in Alaska.
With hydropower, Congress has given the president an
opportunity to address climate change and ``bridge the
divide'' between parties. If he is serious about expanding
the use of clean, renewable energy, he should at last give
hydropower the attention it deserves in his final year.
____

[From the Register-Guard, Jan. 20, 2016]

Preserve Hydro Assets

On Sept. 29, 1963, a crowd of 1,800 people gathered near
the headwaters of the McKenzie River for the dedication of
the Eugene Water & Electric Board's Carmen Smith project. A
band played, box lunches were served, Gov. Mark Hatfield
spoke and power flowed from a hydroelectric complex for which
Eugene voters had approved a $23.5 million bond issue three
years earlier.
Carmen Smith has been generating electricity ever since,
and now its license to operate on a public waterway needs to
be renewed. EWEB submitted its relicensing application to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 10 years ago. The
relicensing process--along with improvements to the project,
most of them related to fish passage--will cost an estimated
$226 million.
It is costing 10 times as much and taking more than three
times as long to relicense the project as it did to build it
in the first place.
To be sure, a million dollars isn't worth what it used to
be, more is known about the environmental effects of
hydroelectric projects than was the case half a century ago,
and appreciation of the importance of the McKenzie River's
fish habitat has grown. Still, the high cost of relicensing
has tipped the value of the Carmen Smith project into
negative territory. Low power prices are to blame--but
another factor is a relicensing process that is predicated on
the notion that hydroelectric projects are valuable enough to
carry a heavy load of added costs.
The $226 million price tag for relicensing stems in part
from an agreement that EWEB negotiated in 2008 with
government agencies, environmental groups and Native American
tribes. The other parties to the agreement

[[Page S462]]

pledged to support a new license of Carmen Smith, and EWEB
agreed to retrofit its components to improve fish passage and
make other improvements. With electricity selling at $100 per
megawatt hour or more, power generated by the Carmen Smith
complex would easily cover the costs.
In today's markets, however, electricity is selling for
one-third that amount on a good day--and sometimes, buyers
can't be found at any price. Without a reduction in
relicensing costs, Carmen Smith will become a money loser.
Parties to the 2008 agreement are close to accepting a
revision that would lower the costs by $55 million to $60
million. EWEB would close a relatively small generating
turbine at the complex's Trail Bridge Dam, eliminating the
need for a costly fish screen. Even with that change,
prospects of a positive cash flow from Carmen Smith are
dicey.
EWEB is not the only utility whose hydroelectric plants are
being weighed down by relicensing costs. One-third of the
nation's dams will need new licenses by 2030. These are
mostly dams whose construction bonds have long been paid off,
an advantage that until recently allowed the relicensing
process to become a vehicle for the addition of
environmental, recreational and other improvements. In some
cases, such improvements are no longer affordable. In other
cases, the costs of licensing acts as a barrier to the
electrification of dams or other impoundments, blocking the
development of a reliable, carbon-free power source.
Many hydro projects need environmental upgrades, and should
not be relicensed without them. But the process should not
drag on for a decade, and it ought to recognize the
environmental benefits of hydropower--benefits in danger of
being buried under a mountain of relicensing costs.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. At the heart of the problem is a broken Federal
permitting process that has created an unnavigable gauntlet for our
hydropower projects. It can now take well over a decade to relicense an
existing dam. I will say it again. We are not talking about licensing a
new dam; we are talking about relicensing an existing dam--a process
that can take over a decade. For the California consumers of Pacific
Gas and Electric, relicensing costs have run as high as $50 million per
dam simply to continue an existing project. We are not building
anything new. We want to relicense it. It is costing $50 million and
taking over 10 years.
There was a recent editorial in a Eugene, OR, newspaper, the
Register-Guard, which called for the preservation of hydropower assets,
and it noted that the existing Carmon Smith project has been mired in
the relicensing process for over 10 years, with a pricetag estimated at
$226 million. It amounts to 10 times as much and 3 times as long as it
took to build the project when it was constructed in 1963. What is
wrong with this picture? Taking 10 times as much--requiring 10 times as
much money--$226 million--and taking 3 times as long to build as when
they built that project back in 1963. We are going in the wrong
direction. This is not progress. We are headed exactly in the wrong
direction.
We can change that. Let us put it in the context of what we have
existing in this country right now. I said that right now hydro is
providing about 6 percent of our energy and about half of our
renewables. One-third of our Nation's existing hydropower projects will
require license renewals by 2030. One-third of the existing facilities
are going to have to go through this decade-long relicensing process,
which will cost millions of dollars. What we need to do is make the
relicensing process more efficient by reducing bureaucratic and
administrative delays that end up increasing electricity rates, slowing
hydropower's expansion, and actually delaying the adoption of
environmental mitigation measures. If you are concerned about the
environment, you ought to be interested in making sure we have a better
process because if we fail to improve the relicensing process, we are
going to start losing hydropower projects, and we will backslide as
other forms of generation replace them, just as we are seeing with
nuclear power in some parts of our country. We are going to go
backward.
Whether your issue is climate change or whether it is electric
reliability or just good, affordable energy, we should be able to agree
that this is a situation we want to avoid. We do not want to be going
backward on this.
Coming from Washington State, Senator Cantwell understands and
clearly appreciates the value of our hydropower resources. I have been
very pleased to be able to work with her on many of these initiatives,
as well as with many other members of our committee, on some of the
bipartisan reforms we have contained within the Energy Policy
Modernization Act. What we realize is that our current policies are
holding this resource back and that we need to update, we need to
modernize them, if we ever want to harness the amazing potential of
domestic hydropower. Our joint hydropower language attempts to bring
State and Federal agencies to the table with the applicants at the
beginning of the process so they can identify where the potential
problems may be and coordinate environmental reviews.
Because hydropower licenses are issued by the FERC, our bill
authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be the lead
agency so they set a schedule and they coordinate all the needed
Federal authorizations. The schedule is to be established on a case-by-
case basis, in consultation with other agencies, and if a resource
agency then cannot meet a deadline, the White House Council on
Environmental Quality is then tasked with resolving these interagency
disputes.
In terms of a step that is long overdue, we formally designate
hydropower as a renewable resource for the purpose of all Federal
programs.
When I first came to the Senate some years ago and focused on energy
issues, I just really had a hard time with the fact that hydropower was
not considered a renewable resource.
I was born in Ketchikan, AK. It is in the middle of a rainforest. I
was raised in southeastern Alaska, where the annual precipitation is
something that would take most people's breath away. If I were to tell
the people of Juneau or Wrangell or Ketchikan that what is coming out
of the sky today is not a renewable resource, I would be laughed out of
the room. Hopefully we take care of this and formally designate
hydropower as a renewable resource for the purposes of all Federal
programs.
We have very good, commonsense ideas carefully crafted within our
bill. Our language does not alter the authority of Federal agencies to
impose mandatory environmental conditions or weaken the stringent
environmental review process. For those who are afraid that somehow or
another we are going to run roughshod over the environmental
regulators, that is not the case. What we are doing is, through
efficiency, streamlining, and some coordination, we are going to be
able to make a difference in our Nation's ability to develop
hydropower, and that is why the members of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee overwhelmingly supported the hydropower provisions
in the bill we have before us today.
There is always more good news we can add. We have looked at the
amendments other Members have offered. We have already accepted an
amendment from Senator Daines to extend the deadline for the
relicensing of a hydropower project in Montana. We also have a number
of other amendments from other Members from both sides of the aisle,
and I am hoping we will be able to add them to the bill. For example,
Senator Gillibrand has filed an amendment to extend the deadline for a
hydroproject in her home State of New York. Senator Burr has filed an
amendment to extend the deadline of a hydroproject in his home State of
North Carolina. Senator Kaine has filed an amendment to extend the
deadline for hydroprojects in his State of Virginia. All of these
projects would add power to nonpowered dams. These projects already
have licenses, but what they need is more time to deal with the
technical and regulatory issues that often arise before construction
can begin.
We have a fair number of our western Members who are understandably
prioritizing hydropower. Senator Barrasso is filing an amendment to
authorize the use of active capacity of the Fontenelle Reservoir in
southwest Wyoming. Senators Flake and Feinstein have come together with
a pretty good amendment to improve the way the Army Corps of Engineers
operates dams to increase their efficiency. Is this not just good
common sense?
It probably comes as no surprise that I have a couple of amendments
that will benefit Alaska, including one that will expand the existing
project at Terror Lake and allow the local community there--Kodiak--to
remain powered almost entirely by renewable energy. Right now they are
99.7 percent powered by renewable energy between wind

[[Page S463]]

and their hydrocapacity. We want them to get to that full 100 percent.
Finally, I want to recognize the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Markey, who has a proposal to encourage the development of pumped
storage hydropower assets--one of the best ways to store baseload power
and a technology that could help to smooth out the intermittency of
other renewable resources. We are working on that one--checking it
out--but it looks good.
These are good proposals. As we continue our voting and clearing
process here today, I am confident we will be able to accept many more
of them.
Again, I want to acknowledge the work and partnership I have with
Senator Cantwell on many of these hydro issues. Her State certainly
enjoys the benefit of lower cost energy because of the investments made
in hydro.
We have more work ahead of us. I know Members are anxious to talk on
their amendments that they may have an interest in moving toward this
afternoon, but this Senator is glad to be back on the bill, and
hopefully we will have an exciting and energetic day.
With that, I yield the floor to my ranking member.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Alaska
for her focus on the hydropower bills we may be considering here, and I
am thankful for the focus from all my colleagues on hydropower and ways
we can continue to improve the efficiency of our resources and make
sure we are continuing to diversify.
I think we have outlined a good plan for today. Obviously we need the
cooperation of our colleagues to keep moving forward on this
legislation. We are going to have a couple of votes.
I am so pleased my colleague from Minnesota is here to talk about one
of our first votes, a federal energy efficiency resource standard. He
has been a leader on this issue.
Yesterday I outlined some of the great States in this Nation that
have already adopted what are called energy efficiency resource
standards, which have shown great success in helping to save energy and
driving down demand, thereby saving money for both businesses and
homeowners. I think it is something that will also receive a lot of
enthusiasm as we move forward.
I know that we have many ideas; that is what I like about this Energy
bill--it was bipartisan coming out of the committee, and so far it has
been bipartisan on the Senate floor in working out these issues. I hope
my colleagues will understand that there will be a point where we do
have to move off of this bill. Hopefully, with the cooperation of
Members, we can make a great deal of progress today on additional votes
besides the two that are pending, set more votes for later this
evening, and also continue the process of getting some of these other
issues resolved in the meantime.
Again, I thank our colleagues for turning their focus to this. I
thank my colleague for outlining where we have already been on the bill
as it relates to the amendments we adopted last night and the continued
progress. I think it comes down to the fact that as our economy
changes, energy production needs to have the attention of our
committee. We need to continue to be able to help empower this
transformation that our economy is seeing on energy, and working
together in a bipartisan fashion helps us to get there. It is good for
our homeowners, it is good for businesses, and it is good for our
economy.
With that, I yield the floor and encourage our colleagues to support
my colleague Senator Franken on his EERS amendment we will be voting on
shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise today to talk about the importance of updating our Nation's
energy policy. I thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell,
and their staffs for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan energy
bill.
Congress hasn't passed a comprehensive energy bill since 2007, and a
lot has changed in the energy sector since then. We have seen a
transformation in renewable energy. Electricity generation from wind
power has grown by more than 400 percent. Wind energy now supplies
electricity for 20 million Americans. The growth of solar energy is
equally impressive. In its early days, solar power was known for
powering satellites and space stations. Now we are seeing residential
and utility-scale solar power becoming important components of the
grid. Since the passage of the last Energy bill in 2007, our solar
generation capacity has increased more than 2,000 percent. During that
time, the cost of solar energy has dropped more than 60 percent. We
have to build on these trends and reorient our energy sector toward a
clean energy future. Comprehensive energy legislation needs to promote
innovation, deploy clean energy technology, and create good-paying
jobs.
The bipartisan Energy bill we are currently debating is an important
step forward. It improves our Nation's energy efficiency through
commonsense measures, such as updating building codes. It invests in
energy storage, which will turn intermittent renewable energy into
baseload power. It also helps States and tribes to access funds to
deploy more clean energy technologies. These are good measures, and
that is why I voted to support this bill out of the energy committee.
However, the current bill does not go far enough to fight the
challenge of climate change. Climate change presents a Sputnik moment--
an opportunity to rise to the challenge and defeat the threat of
climate change. In response to Sputnik, we mobilized American ingenuity
and innovation. We ended up not just winning the space race and sending
a man to the Moon, we did all sorts of great things for the American
economy and for our society.
By rising to the challenge of climate change, we can bet again on
American ingenuity. We have the opportunity not just to clean up our
air but also to drive innovation and create jobs. That is why I am
offering my American Energy Efficiency Act as an amendment to this
bill. This amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Heinrich,
Warren, and Sanders, establishes a national energy efficiency standard
that requires electric and natural gas utilities to help their
customers use their electricity more efficiently. This is something
that 25 States are already doing, and what those programs have shown us
is that energy efficiency standards work.
Our amendment will send market signals that we are serious about
energy efficiency. It will unleash the manufacturing and deployment of
all kinds of energy-efficient products throughout our economy. It will
help households and businesses save money on their electricity bills.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy--the
experts in energy efficiency who rated the energy savings in the
Portman-Shaheen bill--our amendment will generate more than three times
the energy savings of the entire Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency
title in the base bill. By the year 2030, our amendment will generate
20 percent energy savings across the country and result in about $145
billion in net savings to consumers.
Our amendment is modeled on the experience of States that have
adopted energy efficiency standards. In fact, the first State to adopt
efficiency standards was Texas. Similar programs have been adopted by
both red and blue States. What we have seen with these programs is that
they work. They are saving energy, and they are saving consumers money,
both in businesses and homes.
My State of Minnesota passed its energy efficiency standards under a
Republican Governor--Governor Tim Pawlenty--in 2007. We have a goal of
1.5 percent annual energy savings, and we don't just meet that goal, we
exceed it. These energy efficiency standards also send a market signal
to companies to innovate and deploy energy savings technologies.
The State of Arkansas set its energy savings targets in 2011, and
according to the Arkansas Advanced Energy Foundation, the program has
generated $1 billion in sales by energy efficiency companies. The
standard has also helped create 9,000 well-paying jobs in the State.
The program has been so successful that the State public service
commission recently extended the energy efficiency goals through 2019.

[[Page S464]]

Arizona implemented its energy efficiency savings targets in 2011.
Just 3 years after its implementation, Arizona went from being 29th to
the 15th most energy-efficient State in the country. Through the
program, utilities have saved electricity equivalent to powering
133,000 homes for 1 year. Businesses and residents have already saved
$540 million from reduced energy and water usage. These savings put
more in people's pockets. That means more money to buy groceries, a new
car, or to pay for college.
The States have shown that energy efficiency standards work. We
should learn from Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, and 22 other States
and bring this successful experiment to the whole country.
I again applaud the efforts of Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell
in bringing this bipartisan Energy bill to the floor.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment when it comes to a vote
this afternoon. My amendment will make this good piece of legislation
stronger. It will reduce emissions. It will save Americans money. It
will unleash clean energy innovation and jobs throughout the Nation. I
urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and to bet on
our future.
This is a Sputnik moment. When we responded to Sputnik, we did
amazing things. This is a piece of it. I urge my colleagues to support
my amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASSIDY. 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. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I speak on amendment No. 3192, which is
revolutionary. At some point I will yield to my colleague the Senator
from Louisiana to further discuss this amendment.
Mr. President, the amendment I filed today is a byproduct of the work
and bipartisan agreement of members representing the gulf, the
Atlantic, and the Arctic regions of our country. I specifically thank
Senators Murkowski, Warner, Scott, Vitter, Kaine, and Tillis for their
contributions in our efforts to bring greater equity revenue sharing
from funds derived from offshore energy production.
For years, energy activities in coastal gulf States and adjacent
offshore waters have produced billions of barrels of oil and trillions
of cubic feet of natural gas for American energy consumers. The States
along the gulf coast and the Arctic, et cetera, have supported offshore
energy development for the rest of the country, providing the support
for and paying for the infrastructure needed to bring this energy to
market. With all of this development, as you might guess, there have
been increased costs associated with supporting this increased traffic,
additional use of local and State resources, as well as transportation
corridors--such as pipelines, vessels, and trucks--to get this energy
delivered to those consumers driving vehicles all across the United
States.
Maybe most importantly, in addition to the critical areas that
support this energy supply, in my State in particular we are
experiencing unparalleled land loss due to Federal decisions as to how
the lower Mississippi River will be channeled for the benefit of the
inland country as well as those efforts associated with this oil and
gas development. We can see the effects of this unparalleled land loss.
When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit our coast, there was no longer the
wetlands that buffered the impact of tidal action. Those wetlands
eroded, so those hurricanes hit with greater force, causing greater
damage to our State. After Hurricane Katrina, you only have to remember
those news reports from New Orleans to understand how devastating that
could be--all related to decisions made by the Federal Government.
Addressing these historic costs of hosting a capital-intensive
industry, while ensuring resilient domestic energy supply, can be
obtained only through equitable revenue sharing. What Louisiana does
under our State constitution with any revenue that is shared from the
Federal Government related to drilling off the coast of the Gulf of
Mexico--100 percent is dedicated to coastal restoration; 100 percent is
dedicated to restoring the wetlands that would prevent another
Hurricane Katrina from devastating New Orleans or any other coastal
community in our State.
There are other benefits for the rest of the country. This amendment
that we have filed would increase funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund by over $600 million, so the rest of the country
benefits as well.
This amendment brings greater equity in revenue sharing with the gulf
States by lifting the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, or the GOMESA
revenue sharing cap, while allowing mid-Atlantic States and Alaska to
share in future revenue from offshore energy production. All energy-
producing States deserve to share the revenue derived from energy
developed both onshore and offshore. Responsible revenue sharing allows
States hosting energy production to mitigate for the historic and
prospective infrastructure demands of energy production and allows
States to make strategic investments ensuring future generations of
resiliency for this vital infrastructure and natural resources.
Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator
Vitter, for his thoughts on this issue.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cassidy.
Mr. President, I also rise in strong support of this amendment, the
Cassidy amendment, which would increase revenue sharing for States for
offshore and oil and gas development.
Revenue sharing is a critical issue that I have advocated with others
for many years, certainly including Senator Cassidy, his predecessor,
and Committee Chair Murkowski. I am pleased that our coalition in
support of this strong, positive concept has grown in recent years and
it now includes colleagues from the mid-Atlantic States. I am
particularly pleased that that is evidenced by this amendment being
supported and coauthored by the two Senators from Virginia and Senator
Scott.
Revenue sharing with oil and gas producing States is, No. 1, fair to
those States that incur real environmental and other costs due to
production activity that benefits the Nation; and, No. 2, it is good,
positive pro-American energy policy.
It is fair because, again, energy-producing States incur costs and
impacts from that production, including environmental costs. Those
States need to be properly compensated to deal with those real costs
and impacts.
Secondly, and just as importantly, this is positive, productive
policy that furthers pro-American energy agenda. It encourages the
production of American energy. It incents domestic drilling and
activity and domestic energy production over the long term. That energy
production is essential to job creation and an overall healthy economy.
If it weren't for the oil and gas jobs that accompanied the energy
sector boom earlier this decade, we would still be in a technical
recession.
One point I wish to emphasize is that many of those jobs have been
created by small firms in the oil and gas services industry and support
sectors. These small business jobs are something I have highlighted in
my role as chair of the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
This amendment before the Senate, the Cassidy amendment, would
increase revenue sharing for gulf States, and it would establish
revenue sharing for new production from Alaska, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This is a clear gain for those
States and those regions. But, more importantly, it is a clear gain for
the country because in the medium and long term, we will get more
American energy production and be more self-sufficient.
Let me be clear what revenue sharing means for States such as my home
of Louisiana. In Louisiana we spend 100 percent of those revenues on
valid environmental works, specifically coastal restoration.
We lose a football field of land in Louisiana's coastal area--just in
coastal Louisiana--every 38 minutes. Think about that. Close your eyes,
and picture a football field losing that amount of Louisiana coastal
land every 38 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52

[[Page S465]]

weeks a year, with no time off for holidays or weekends. This is our
most significant environmental issue by far in Louisiana, so our State
has committed itself to spending all of the money we receive from
revenue sharing to restoring, rebuilding, and stabilizing our coast.
This is vitally important for us. It is also vitally important for
the rest of the country because Louisiana supplies so much energy to
the rest of the country--so many fisheries, fish, and seafood to the
rest of the country. Our ports in the midst of that coastal area are
vital to trade and commerce for the rest of the country.
What this amendment does is expand revenue sharing to Alaska and the
mid-Atlantic States. Between 2027 and 2031, those States would receive
37.5 percent of revenue sharing from oil and gas production off of
their coasts, which is what Louisiana and the Gulf States receive now.
The amendment would also lift the cap on revenue sharing that the
gulf States are burdened with under the GOMESA act of 2006. Under that
law, revenue sharing with gulf States is capped arbitrarily at $500
million a year, but in those operative years of this amendment, that
would be increased to $1 billion a year.
Revenue sharing is vital when it comes to adequately compensating the
States that incur costs and impacts, so it is vital for fairness. But,
again, it is vital to encourage more American energy production and
more self-sufficiency. For our Nation--not just the States impacted--
that means growth, and that means energy independence. That is a win,
in fact, for our foreign policy--less dependence on unstable and
sometimes very unfriendly nations in the Middle East.
We want to continue to play a critical role in meeting America's
energy needs. We want to do that in Louisiana; other States want to do
that. This amendment and this concept will very much encourage us to do
that and continue to forge a path of American energy independence,
which is great for economic growth.
I wish to briefly take a moment to compliment my colleague from
Louisiana, Senator Cassidy. He has worked very hard on this issue, this
amendment, and other critical energy issues as a member of the energy
committee and also before that as a Member of the House of
Representatives. I am very grateful for this opportunity to work with
him on this amendment and this concept that we have been working on and
furthering for some time.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, pro-American
energy, pro-American jobs amendment. This will move us in the right
direction for energy independence, for economic growth, and for a sound
foreign policy that decreases our reliance and dependence of any sort
on nations in the Middle East.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I will be speaking later, as we are
expecting Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am delighted to be on the floor
today, again, with my good friend from Ohio, Senator Portman, to
discuss our energy efficiency bill, the Energy Savings and Industrial
Competitiveness Act, which is almost entirely now a part of the broad
Energy Policy Modernization Act that is on the floor today.
The Energy Policy Modernization Act is a broad bipartisan approach to
improve our Nation's energy policies on efficiency, infrastructure,
supply, and accountability. I wish to thank the chair of the energy
committee, Senator Murkowski, and Ranking Member Cantwell for the good
work they have done to put together this bipartisan piece of
legislation that is going to address a number of our energy challenges
and also permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Now, as I said, a fundamental component of this bill started out as
Shaheen-Portman. Now we call it Portman-Shaheen. But as my colleagues
know, Senator Portman and I have been working on this energy efficiency
legislation since we first introduced it in 2011.
I am a proponent of energy efficiency because it is the easiest,
cheapest way to reduce energy costs, to combat climate change, and to
create private sector jobs. In addition to being affordable, energy
efficiency benefits aren't confined to a certain fuel source or to a
particular region of the country. You can like efficiency if you are a
supporter of fossil fuels or if you are a supporter of new alternative
energies.
Our piece of this comprehensive bill represents nearly 5 years of
meetings, negotiations, compromise, and broad stakeholder outreach. The
end result is an affordable, bipartisan approach to boost the use of
energy efficiency technologies in manufacturing, in buildings, and
across the Federal Government.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
when fully implemented, our efficiency bill will create nearly 200,000
jobs, reduce carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking 22 million
cars off the road, and save consumers $16 billion a year. And it does
this with absolutely no mandates.
Critical to the negotiation of this legislation has been the joint
effort between Senator Portman and myself, and between our staffs, to
work out with stakeholder groups the concerns they had in the energy
efficiency legislation and to come up with compromises that we all
thought not only helped build support for the legislation but that
actually make it a better bill.
So on buildings, which use about 40 percent of our energy in this
country, the proposals in our legislation would improve energy savings
by strengthening outdated model building codes to make new homes and
commercial buildings more energy efficient. Again, I point out that it
does that without any mandates. It is a carefully crafted agreement
that has been negotiated with everyone, from the home builders to the
realtors to a number of our friends in labor. So I think this is a
compromise, and the language in the bill is a compromise for which
there is broad support.
The bill also encourages energy efficiency in the industrial sector,
which consumes more energy than any other sector of our economy. Again,
the provisions in the legislation would encourage the private sector to
develop innovative energy efficient technologies for industrial
applications and to invest in a workforce that is trained to deploy
energy efficiency practices to manufacturers, and they would encourage
the Department of Energy to work more closely with stakeholders on
commercialization of new technologies.
Finally, the energy efficiency piece of this legislation would
encourage the Federal Government, the Nation's largest energy consumer,
to adopt more efficient building standards and technologies, such as
smart meters. With stronger efficiency standards for Federal
facilities, we can save taxpayers millions of dollars.
Senator Portman and I have introduced our bill three times. Each
time, this legislation has received broad bipartisan support from our
Senate colleagues, broad bipartisan support in the energy committee,
and it has received strong support from a diverse group of
stakeholders--everyone from trade associations and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers, labor
organizations, and the environmental community--all, I think, because
efficiency is something that we can all agree on.
At long last, I am excited to see that the full Senate is again
taking up this legislation as part of a bigger, more comprehensive
bill.
Before I turn it over to Senator Portman, who is here, I would also
point out that two other provisions I have been working on are included
in this comprehensive bill. One is smart manufacturing legislation,
which uses technology to integrate all aspects of

[[Page S466]]

manufacturing so that businesses can manufacture more while using less
energy. The other provision deals with grid integration, because, as we
know, this is one of the issues that the committee took up as part of
this bill: How do we address our aging transmission and distribution
infrastructure? The grid integration bill will ensure the broader
deployment of clean and efficient technologies, such as solar, combined
heat and power, and energy storage. I think that is important to
strengthen this Nation's energy security.
Finally, I will close by saying that the Senate is working this week
on a comprehensive energy bill for the first time since 2007, if it
becomes law. Since then, we have seen a dramatic change in our economy,
and we have seen a dramatic change in the world economy with respect to
energy. The United States has greatly reduced our energy imports. We
are now the world's top producer of oil and natural gas. In many places
around the world, electricity generated by renewable sources, such as
wind and solar, is cheap enough to compete effectively with electricity
generated by fossil fuels. Just at the end of the year, we saw more
than 180 countries come together to form a global plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. So
we are truly experiencing a revolution in energy production and energy
technology. It is way past time for our energy policies in America to
catch up with that revolution.
I, again, thank the chair and ranking member and the entire energy
committee, and, again, my colleague Senator Portman for the great work
he has done and that we have done together to bring this portion of the
bill to the floor.
I yield to Senator Portman.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New
Hampshire, and I tell her that the third time is the charm. Right? We
have had the bill before us twice now. We really think this is the
opportunity for us to do something good for our constituents and for
our country. This is an opportunity for us to pass energy efficiency
legislation. It will help create more jobs, make the environment
cleaner, make our businesses more competitive, make us less dependent
on foreign sources of oil, and help with the trade deficit because of
that. So this is a win-win for everybody, and, because of that, I thank
Senator Shaheen for her work on this. We have been working on this for
4 years together. The last vote we had in the energy committee on this
legislation was a 20-to-2 vote. As we have worked on this over time, we
have received more and more support as people understood what we were
doing and why it was so important for their States and for our country.
The economic growth in this last quarter was 0.7 percent, meaning
less than 1 percent growth. That is discouraging. We have to look
around and say: What can we do to help to get this economy moving
again? One area is energy. There is no question about it. We believe
our legislation will help. It is going to create jobs. We have the
number out there, as Senator Shaheen talked about, and just under
200,000 jobs could be created by our legislation. We have an analysis
that shows this. But this broader energy bill would also help. That is
one reason we need to move forward on this.
We are grateful that our legislation is part of this broader bill
called the Energy Policy Modernization Act. This legislation is one
that Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell have been talking about on
the floor. I support that broader legislation, also, as does Senator
Shaheen, and we like it because it is a broader bill that looks at the
energy issue as an ``all the above.'' In other words, we should be
using various sources of energy and producing more energy, but we
should also be using what we have more efficiently.
We are delighted that our legislation--the Portman-Shaheen
legislation--is title I of this broader bill. This is an opportunity
for us to do something really good for the economy--this broader bill,
as well as our specific bill. We think our specific bill is really
important with regard to jobs.
One thing I hear back home from our manufacturing companies is that
they would like to become more competitive so that they can create more
jobs in Ohio and in America. We are starting to bring some jobs back
because energy prices are relatively low, natural gas and oil in
particular. But one of the issues they are facing overseas is that
other countries are more energy efficient and their manufacturing
companies are more efficient. So they are competing with companies that
have a lower cost to produce the same product. So one reason they are
excited about this legislation--and why the National Association of
Manufacturers is for this legislation and has worked with us from the
start--is that this provides them access to new technologies on energy
efficiency that will let them compete globally with other companies and
create more jobs. This is going to result in more jobs coming to Ohio,
more jobs coming to New Hampshire, and more jobs coming to America. We
like that about the legislation. It also has more jobs because these
energy efficiency retrofits are going to create more jobs and activity
here in this country. So as buildings become more efficient, we will
need workers to work on that. We have some training programs in our
legislation, for instance, to provide for that workforce. So we are
going to create more jobs.
As to energy independence, the underlying bill lets us actually
produce more energy here but use it more efficiently. I like producing
more and using less. It is a nice combination, and it lets us say to
other countries in the world that we are going to be energy independent
and not subject to the dangerous and volatile parts of the world where
our energy comes from. We are going to be a net exporter over time.
Energy efficiency helps us to be able to do that.
Our trade deficit is driven by a couple things. I am a former U.S.
Trade Representative, and, yes, countries like China and other
countries aren't playing by the rules. That is a problem, and we need
to address that. But another one is energy. We still do need to bring
in more energy than we are exporting. That is an opportunity for us to
help our economy overall with efficiency and to help improve our trade
deficit, which improves our environment.
Senator Shaheen talked about improving the environment, but the
analysis she was using is that 21 million cars being taken off the road
is the equivalent savings that is in this legislation for emissions.
That is because of the energy efficiency. This is an opportunity for us
to be much more energy efficient in terms of our economy and be more
competitive but also to clean the environment. This is a good example.
By the way, it is not a big regulatory approach, as some other
approaches are. It doesn't have any mandates in it, so it is not going
to kill jobs. It is actually going to create jobs and yet help the
environment. That is a good combination for us. It is one we are
excited about because it is a way for us to both help the economy and
help the environment. That is important too.
We are excited about getting this across the finish line because we
know it is the right legislation. It is the right time. We think there
is an opportunity for us to actually do something that is bipartisan,
something we can get through the House and get to the President's desk
for his signature.
One reason we are excited about the prospects of getting something
done is that we have so much support around the country. There are over
260 trade association groups that have now supported this legislation.
By the way, they range from the National Association of Manufacturers--
as I talked about earlier--to the Sierra Club, to the Alliance to Save
Energy, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That is not a group that
normally gets together on legislation. So this is an opportunity for us
to get a lot of groups involved and focused because it does make good
economic sense, good energy sense, and good environmental sense. While
helping others in the private sector, the bill does not have mandates.
I think that is very important. This is legislation that provides
incentives but not mandates.
The final piece I want to talk about is one that everybody should be
for. It is going to actually help reduce the costs of the Federal
Government and therefore help us all as taxpayers; that is, to take on
the Federal Government's efficiency challenge. We believe

[[Page S467]]

the U.S. Federal Government is the largest energy user in the United
States and may well be the largest energy user in the world. This is
let's practice what we preach.
The Federal Government is talking about green technologies, energy
efficiency, and so on, but in our own Federal Government we see huge
gaps and huge opportunities. This legislation goes after that and
specifically puts in place requirements for the Federal Government to
be much more efficient with how it uses energy. That will make a big
difference in terms of everything we talked about with regard to the
environment and the benefits of efficiency, but it also helps the
taxpayer because at the end of the day, we will be spending less on
energy for the Federal Government as taxpayers.
It is another part of the legislation that I think is important and
one where I would hope everybody would be supportive. Overall, we
believe this legislation will save consumers $13.7 billion annually in
reduced energy costs. This is a big deal. This is something that if we
can get it through the Senate this week and get it through the House
and get it to the President for his signature, it will make a real
difference for the families I represent and whom all of us in this
Chamber have the honor to represent.
I thank Senator Shaheen for her patience over what has been 4, 5
years working on this together with me and the good work she has done
and others have done to give us this opportunity to be able to help
those folks whom we represent with an ``all of the above'' energy
strategy that is good for jobs, good for the environment, and good for
the taxpayer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the Presiding Officer knows, we are
busy working to complete action on the Energy Policy Modernization Act.
I want to start by saying some good words about the leadership of
Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the energy committee, and her
ranking member, Senator Cantwell, who have gotten us to this point.
Unless we drop the ball in the next couple of days, we ought to be able
to wrap up our debate and deliberation on this very important bill that
will help our country move forward with energy policies that reflect
the times we are living in.
I also think we ought to reflect on what those times are because it
was just a few short years ago when all of the pundits and experts were
predicting peak oil. In other words, all the oil that could be
discovered, they said, had been discovered and we would then be in a
period of decline from that point forward. In the United States we also
found ourselves in the main dependent upon imported oil from the Middle
East. As you know, both of those have turned around. In other words,
because of the innovation and good old all-American know-how, we are
now exporting more energy.

To Senator Murkowski's credit, she led the effort to lift the ban on
exporting crude oil, so now American-produced energy can be made
available on world markets. Just as significantly, we can make sure our
friends and allies around the world aren't captive to people like
Vladimir Putin, who uses energy as a weapon and threatens to cut off
the energy supply, particularly of those countries in its orbit in the
Baltics unless they are willing to go along with his heavy-handed
tactics.
This is a very good story. This legislation will update our energy
policies with that reality in mind and enable our country to continue
to grow its role as a leading global energy power. I pause here to say
that this is not just from people who come from an energy State as I
do, such as from Texas or Alaska or North Dakota. The energy story is
the story of world history in so many ways.
One of my favorite books is written by Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer
Prize-winning author. One of the books he has written is called ``The
Prize,'' which tracks the history of the globe and in an incredible
sort of way, but he makes the point that so much of our history has
been determined by the need for and attempt to gain access to reliable
energy supplies and how important that is not only to our military to
be able to fight and win our Nation's wars but to our economy, to the
businesses that need access to reasonably priced energy and to
consumers, obviously.
We are seeing the benefit now, those of us who filled our gas tank
recently, of inexpensive gasoline prices because the price of oil has
come down because of increased world supply. There comes a point where
it is challenging to the industry, but they have been through ups and
downs in the past, and I am sure they will make the appropriate
adjustments.
In this legislation, in addition to addressing and modernizing our
energy policies, we are doing things such as modernizing the electric
grid. That is what keeps the lights on at night and keeps our
thermostats working when it is cold and we have snowstorms like we had
in Washington recently.
This bill will make our electricity supply more reliable and more
economical in the long run. Just like we did with crude oil, this bill
will help expedite the approval process for liquefied natural gas
exports. It is amazing to me to think that a few short years ago we
were building import terminals that would actually receive natural gas
being exported from other countries to being brought to the United
States to help us with our energy needs. Now those have been
retrofitted and reversed so these export terminals are now exporting
American energy to markets around the world.
I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about some amendments
that I have offered to the underlying bill. Again, I must compliment
the bill managers for working with various Senators to try to work in,
either through a voice vote or by some acceptance of amendments,
provisions which are designed to improve this legislation. My
amendments that I want to mention now are designed to address Texas's
needs and the American people's needs from preventing overreach by the
administration, particularly when it comes to your energy production
and supply.
One amendment I have offered specifically targets an upcoming rule
offered by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, known as
BSEE. BSEE is an organization that most people are completely unaware
of, but it is set to hand down a rule referred to as the so-called well
control rule that deals with highly technical and complex safety
producers for offshore wells.
Certainly, since the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, we have become
all too aware of the dangers of uncontrolled blowout of offshore
drilling, but there has been a lot of very important study, work, and
education that has been acquired since that time. The industry has done
a lot to make itself safer.
You can imagine, if you are a publicly traded company or if you are
not a publicly traded company, you sure don't want to be in the middle
of another crisis like we saw with the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico
for all sorts of reasons: People lost their lives, cost hundreds of
millions of dollars, and of course the environmental impact along the
gulf coast, including States like Texas. In typical bureaucratic
fashion, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, BSEE, has
refused to engage in discussions that might help clear up some
confusion among stakeholders. They have been unwilling to take the time
to fully vet the negative impact on their proposed rules and to talk to
the people who know the most about it, and that would be the people who
would be most affected by the rule.
My amendment would require BSEE to resubmit the rule but first by
taking additional comments from stakeholders, and it would require the
rulemaking organization to have additional workshops with industry
experts so everybody can understand what they are trying to accomplish
and to do it more efficiently and better.
So often the very people who have the most expertise are in the
industry the government tries to regulate. I know there is a natural
reluctance to try to consult with and learn from the regulated
industry, but the fact is, often--and it is true in this case--it is
that industry that understands the process and both the risks and what
protective measures need to be taken in order to accomplish the
objective. So rather than just issuing a rule that is complex and
highly technical without consulting the stakeholders who are sitting
down and having a reasonable conversation trying to figure out

[[Page S468]]

what you are trying to accomplish, have you thought of this, have you
thought of doing it differently or a better way, that doesn't happen.
Unfortunately, that is where we are with BSEE.
In addition, I have submitted an amendment that protects property
owners along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River, which borders the
States of Texas and Oklahoma. This has to do with another bureaucracy
called the Bureau of Land Management. A few years ago, the Bureau of
Land Management claimed to actually own tens of thousands of acres
along the Red River. As you can imagine, that came as quite a shock to
the people who thought they owned that property, and now many of them
are stuck today fighting the U.S. Government--their government--in
court to reclaim the property that is rightfully theirs.
My amendment would help protect these landowners from this massive
land grab. It would require a legitimate survey of the land in question
to be conducted and approved by the authorities. It seems so
commonsensical, but unfortunately common sense isn't all that common
when you see the bureaucracy at work. With this amendment, these
landowners would finally get a reasonably efficient means of resolution
to this frustrating abuse of Federal Government power.
Another amendment I have submitted would address how States,
counties, and other affected parties enter into a conversation about
the Endangered Species Act. Too often States and local communities, not
to mention private property owners, are left in the dark while interest
groups they don't know much about conduct closed-door discussions with
Federal authorities about potential listing of endangered species.
My amendment will give all of the stakeholders the opportunity to
have a seat at the table and to have a conversation--it doesn't seem
like a lot to ask--so both the regulators and the regulated can talk
about the real impact those regulations will have on their daily lives
and better inform the regulatory process.
These amendments get to different specific problems, but the common
theme uniting them is a desire to try to lessen the interference by the
government in our everyday lives. By pushing back against overbearing,
costly regulations that don't actually accomplish the goal that even
the regulators say they want to accomplish and ensuring that State and
local communities and stakeholders play a role in this conversation
which should be part of the regulatory process, the American people
would be better served by this legislation.
As we continue these discussions on this bill, I hope my colleagues
will consider these amendments and others like them to help get the
government out of the way or to help correct the bureaucracy when it is
misguided and misinformed about how to actually accomplish consensus
goals.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 3023 to Amendment No. 2953

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 3023 to amendment No. 2953.

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

(Purpose: To modify the authority of the President of the United States
to declare national monuments)

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

SEC. 44___. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO DECLARE NATIONAL
MONUMENTS.

Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Effective Date.--A proclamation or reservation issued
after the date of enactment of this subsection under
subsection (a) or (b) shall expire 3 years after proclaimed
or reserved unless specifically approved by--
``(1) a Federal law enacted after the date of the
proclamation or reservation; and
``(2) a State law, for each State where the land covered by
the proclamation or reservation is located, enacted after the
date of the proclamation or reservation.''.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
an additional 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, if there is one thing we know about
American politics--if there is one thing we have learned from the 2016
Presidential race thus far--it is that there is a deep and growing
mistrust between the American people and the Federal Government. This
institution, Congress, is held in shamefully low regard by the people
we were elected to represent, but so, too, are the scores of
bureaucratic agencies that are based in Washington, DC, but extend
their reach into the most remote corners of American life.
In my home State of Utah, the public's distrust of Washington is
rooted not in ideology, but experience. In particular, the experience
of living in a State where a whopping two-thirds of the land is owned
by the Federal Government and managed by distant, unaccountable
agencies that are either indifferent or downright hostile to the
interests of the local communities that they are supposed to serve. I
have lost track of the number of stories I have heard from the people
of Utah about their run-ins with Federal land management agencies, but
there is one story that every Utahan knows: President Bill Clinton's
infamous use of the Antiquities Act in 1996 to designate as a national
monument more than 1.5 million acres of land in southern Utah--what
would become known as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
What Utahans remember about this episode is not just what President
Clinton did, but how he did it. Signed into law in 1906, the
Antiquities Act gives the President power to unilaterally designate
tracts of Federal land as ``historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific
interest.'' The purpose of the law is to enable the Executive to act
quickly to protect archaeological sites on Federal lands from looting,
destruction, or vandalism.
But the Antiquities Act is not supposed to be carte blanche for the
President. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The language of the law
is clear. It instructs the President to restrict the designation of
national monuments under the Antiquities Act to the ``smallest area
compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be
protected.'' So you can imagine the surprise, and, in fact, the
indignation across the State of Utah following President Clinton's
decision to annex a stretch of land roughly 1\1/2\ times the size of
the State of Delaware and then to give control over that land to a
Federal bureaucracy that routinely maintains a maintenance backlog that
is several billion dollars higher than its multibillion-dollar annual
budget.
Even worse than the enormous size of the designation was the Clinton
administration's hostility toward the people of Utah and the
communities that would be most directly and severely affected by his
decision. Not only did President Clinton announce the monument
designation in Arizona--over 100 miles from the Utah State border--but
he refused to consult or even notify Utah's congressional delegation
until the day before his announcement. Consulting with the people who
live and work in the communities around a potential national monument
area isn't just a matter of following political etiquette, it is a
matter of ensuring that Federal land policy does not rob citizens of
their livelihood, which is exactly what happened as a result of the
Grand Staircase designation.
Utah's economy is built on the farm and agriculture industry, and
livestock is the State's single largest sector of farm income. But of
the 45 million acres of rangeland in Utah, nearly three-quarters is
owned and managed by the Federal Government.
Since the 1940s, Federal agencies have slashed livestock grazing
across the Utah landscape by more than 50 percent--a policy of economic
deprivation that accelerated after 1996 on rangeland within the Grand
Staircase case. Even today the Bureau of Land Management shows no sign
of relenting.

[[Page S469]]

For most people, the Grand Staircase episode is a case study of
government-sponsored injustice and a form of bureaucratic tyranny. For
me, it brings to mind the line from America's Declaration of
Independence in which the colonists charge that the King of Great
Britain ``has erected a multitude of New Offices and sent hither swarms
of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.''
But for President Obama and the radical environmental groups that
have co-opted Federal land agencies, it is the textbook model for the
application of the Antiquities Act. In fact, it appears that President
Obama is considering using his final year in the White House to target
another vast tract of land in southern Utah for designation as a
national monument. Covering 1.9 million acres of Federal land in San
Juan County, this area, known as Bears Ears, is roughly the same size
as the Grand Staircase. Both are situated near the southern edge of the
State, and both possess an abundance of national beauty unrivaled by
any place in the world.
The similarities don't end there. Each area is home to a group of
Utahans deeply connected to the Federal land targeted by environmental
activists for a national monument designation. In the case of the Grand
Staircase, it is the ranchers, and in the case of Bears Ears, it is the
Kaayelii Navajo. The Kaayelii believe that a national
monument designation in Bears Ears, their ancestral home, would
threaten their livelihood and destroy their very way of life.

Their concerns are well founded. In the 1920s and 1930s, hundreds of
Navajo families settled on homesteads located in national monuments
only to find themselves steadily pushed out by imperious Federal
agencies all too eager to eradicate the private use of public lands. So
it should come as no surprise to us today that the Kaayelii are
protesting the unilateral Federal takeover of Bears Ears and calling on
the Obama administration to forgo the high-handed approach to land
conservation that was employed by President Clinton in 1996.
The Kaayelii, of course, are not opposed to the protection or the
conservation of public lands. They care about the preservation of Bears
Ears just as much as anyone else. To them, the land is not just
beautiful, it is also sacred. They depend on it for their economic and
spiritual survival, which is why all they are asking for is a seat at
the table so that their ancestral land isn't given over, sight unseen,
to the arbitrary and arrogant control of Federal land management
agencies.
I agree with the Kaayelii. The President of the United States has no
business seizing vast stretches of public land to be micromanaged and
mismanaged by Federal agencies, especially if the people who live,
work, and depend on the land stand in opposition to such a takeover.
There is no denying that the people of San Juan County reject the
presumption that they should have no say in the management of the land
in their community. The truth is that most of those who have mobilized
to support a monument designation at Bears Ears, including several
Native American groups, live outside of Utah in States such as
Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona.
By contrast, the people of San Juan County, UT--the people whose
lives and livelihoods are intricately tied to Bears Ears--stand united
in their opposition to a monument designation. That is why I have
offered amendment No. 3023, which would update the Antiquities Act in
order to protect the right of the Kaayelii and their fellow citizens of
San Juan County to participate in the government's efforts to protect
and preserve public land.
Here is how my amendment works: It preserves the President's
authority to designate tracts of Federal land as national monuments,
but it also reserves a seat at the table for people who would be
directly affected by Executive action. It does so by opening the
policymaking process to the people's elected representatives at the
State and Federal levels so they can weigh in on monument designations.
Under my amendment, Congress and the legislature of the State in
which a monument has been designated would have 3 years to pass
resolutions ratifying the designation. If they fail to do so, the
national monument designation will expire. Some critics might claim
that this amendment would take unprecedented steps to curtail the
President's monument designation authority under the Antiquities Act.
This is not true. This, in fact, is nonsense. The truth is that
Congress has twice passed legislation amending the Antiquities Act. In
1950, Congress wholly prohibited Presidential designation of national
monuments under the Antiquities Act in the State of Wyoming. Some 30
years later, Congress passed another law requiring congressional
approval of national monuments in Alaska larger than 5,000 acres.
If you have ever visited Wyoming or Alaska, you know that these
provisions have not led to the parade of horribles conjured up by
radical environmental activists who seem intent on achieving nothing
short of ironfisted Federal control of all Federal lands.
In reality, the States of Wyoming and Alaska have proven that
national monument designations are not necessary to protect and
conserve America's most beautiful, treasured public lands. So why
should the people of Wyoming and Alaska enjoy these reasonable,
commonsense protections under the law while the people of Utah--and
indeed, the people of every other State in the Union--do not enjoy the
same protections? There is no good answer to this question except, of
course, the adoption of my amendment.
To anyone who might suggest that the people of these communities in
and around national monuments are not prepared to participate in the
monument process and policy process that leads to the creation of a
monument, I invite you to visit San Juan County in southeastern Utah.
You will see a community that is not only well informed about the
issues and actively engaged in the political process, but also
genuinely dedicated to finding a solution that works for everyone.
The people of San Juan County--from the Kaayelii to the county
commissioners--have the determination that is necessary to forge a
legislative solution to the challenges facing public lands in their
community, and that is exactly what you would expect. San Juan is a
hardscrabble community. It is one of the most disadvantaged in the
entire State of Utah, but you wouldn't know it from the people there.
The citizens of San Juan County are hardworking, honest, decent, and
happy people. Yet for far too long, Federal land management agencies
have given the people of San Juan County and the people all across
America little reason to trust the Federal Government.
My amendment gives us an opportunity to change that. If Congress
wants to regain the trust of the American people, we are going to have
to earn it, and one of the ways we can earn it is by returning power to
the people, and that is what this amendment would do. Passing this
amendment giving all Americans a voice in the land management decisions
of their community would be a meaningful and important step toward
earning back that trust. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to
this amendment and the vital public trust that it will help us to
rebuild.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I am hopeful that before we go to the
caucus lunches, we will be able to move forward on a few more
amendments and the scheduling of votes. Hopefully we will be able to do
that in a few minutes.
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. Madam 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. Madam President, we are making some good progress here
in the intervening hours since we came to the floor this morning and
began business.
Working with the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, we have come to an agreement to announce a series of
amendments that will be voted on. I want to acknowledge the effort that
has gone back and forth on both sides to make

[[Page S470]]

sure folks have an opportunity to weigh in and vote on amendments that
are important to them. I think we have a good series here that we will
announce.
It is our hope that as we move to vote on these amendments, we will
also continue the good work we have done to try to advance some other
measures that will be able to go by voice votes, and we will be working
on those throughout the day.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call
up the following amendments: No. 3182, Rounds, as modified; No. 3030,
Barrasso; No. 2996, Sullivan; No. 3176, Schatz; No. 3095, Durbin; and
No. 3125, Whitehouse; that following the disposition of the Franken
amendment No. 3115, 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; that a 60-vote affirmative threshold be
required for adoption; and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would note that there will now be a
series of eight votes when we commence at 2:30 this afternoon, and
recognizing that there are committees meeting and other Senate business
going on, we would hope to be able to process these votes relatively
efficiently, respecting that 10-minute vote parameter, so that we can
move through them in a manner that respects others' schedules.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

____________________