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

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 19 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S470-S484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 3023

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Lee amendment
No. 3023, which places commonsense limitations on the ability of the
executive branch to unilaterally lock up large swaths of public land.
Specifically, the amendment provides Congress and the applicable State
legislatures a 3-year window to approve Presidentially declared
national monuments, ensuring that land use decisions finally have the
input from the impacted States.
Arizona knows all too well the effects of restrictive Federal land
designations. Like most Western States, a significant portion of
Arizona is under Federal ownership. Arizona leads the Nation with a
total of 21 national parks and monuments. Like most, our Federal land
is a mix of single-purpose lands set aside for recreation and multiple-
use lands providing opportunities for grazing, mining, and timber
production. The ability to use these lands for multiple purposes is
critical; however, a national monument designation can take away that
opportunity with one stroke of the President's pen.
It is also worth noting that a monument designation has the potential
to change the character of the water rights associated with Federal
lands--an outcome I am working to prevent with separate stand-alone
legislation.
There is a real concern that the President will take unilateral
action to increase the Federal Government's ownership of Federal lands.
In fact, one recent proposal would lock up another 1.7 million acres
right in Arizona to create yet another national monument. That is an
area larger than the entire State of Delaware. The negative impact of
such a land grab would likely extend to activities such as hunting,
livestock grazing, wildfire prevention, mining, and other recreation
activities. Last March Senator McCain and I sent a letter to the
President urging him to not unilaterally pursue this monument
designation. This sentiment is echoed by a large number of individuals
throughout Arizona, including State and local officials, several
municipalities, and a wide range of sportsmen's groups.
The Lee amendment would give these stakeholders a voice in the
monument designation process, and I am happy to be a cosponsor and to
support this amendment on the floor today.
I also look forward to considering several amendments I have
submitted on this legislation as well regarding safeguarding hydropower
production, reimbursing national parks after a government shutdown
occurs, and creating a database to increase transparency for WAPA
customers.
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. CANTWELL. 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. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are about to vote shortly on the Lee
amendment.
I rise to speak in opposition to that amendment and to remind my
colleagues that this is a vote that we took around the same time last
year.
The Antiquities Act is one of our Nation's most successful
conservation laws. It was signed into law in 1906 and used by President
Theodore Roosevelt to designate Devils Tower in Wyoming as its first
national monument.
In the 110 years since its enactment, the Antiquities Act has been
used by 16 different Presidents--8 Republicans, 8 Democrats--to
designate more than 140 national monuments, including the San Juan
Islands and the Hanford Reach in the State of Washington. Nearly half
of our national parks, including national icons, such as the Grand
Canyon and Olympic National Park, were designated as national monuments
under the Antiquities Act. However, the amendment of the Senator from
Utah would effectively end the President's ability to use the
Antiquities Act to protect these threatened lands. His amendment
requires that the national monument designation will expire after 3
years unless Congress enacts a law specifically approving the
designation, and the State in which the monument would be located would
also have to approve the designation. So this amendment requires State
and Federal approval over a Federal land designation, which is
unprecedented, giving away Federal land management responsibilities to
States and a veto over these conservation efforts.
I hope that, as my colleagues look at this first vote, they will
oppose this amendment. As I said, I strongly do, and I hope our
colleagues will look at their past record on this as well, because I am
pretty sure we are all on record on our side in opposition to this
amendment in the past.
With that, I know we are probably ready to proceed to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my amendment
No. 3023.
The purpose of this amendment is simple--to put in the hands of the
people the right to decide whether a monument close to them will be
designated. My amendment would leave intact the President's authority
to designate a monument such that we could protect land from imminent
destruction, but it puts a fuse on that. It puts a finite limit on that
authority so that within 3 years that monument designation would expire
unless both the host State has acted to embrace it and Congress has
affirmatively enacted the monument designation into law.
The American people demand and deserve nothing less than to have
decisions such as these put in the hands of their elected
representatives rather than simply handed over to one single official
who doesn't stand accountable to the American people.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3023.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page S471]]

The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--48

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 3115 to Amendment No. 2953

(Purpose: To establish a Federal energy efficiency resource standard
for electricity and natural gas suppliers)

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3115 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Franken] proposes an
amendment numbered 3115 to amendment No. 2953.

(The amendment is printed in the Record of January 28, 2016, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask for order so my colleagues might
hear my wise remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I call on my colleagues to support my
amendment No. 3115 that I offer with Senators Heinrich, Warren, and
Sanders. This amendment establishes a national energy efficiency
standard that requires electric and natural gas utilities to help their
customers use energy more efficiently. Our amendment is modeled on the
experience of Minnesota and 24 other States that have already adopted
energy efficiency standards, including States such as Texas, Arizona,
and Arkansas. The State programs are working great, helping reduce
energy usage, saving customers, consumers, and businesses money on
their electricity bills, creating well-paying jobs, and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. According to the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, our amendment will generate more than three
times the energy savings of the entire Portman-Shaheen energy
efficiency title, which is a great title in and of itself, 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.
We like to say that States are the laboratories of democracy, and
half our States have shown that these policies work. So it is time to
build on their successes and bring this successful experiment to the
entire country. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge that Members oppose this
amendment that would impose a Federal mandate on retail electricity and
natural gas suppliers to reduce a certain percentage of electricity or
natural gas that their customers use annually. We have considered this
before. We have seen it. It has been under consideration for about a
decade. Most recently, the energy committee rejected this same proposal
as we were moving forward on this bipartisan Energy bill.
A national mandate like this depends on the behavior of end-use
customers. The concern that you take a one-size-fits-all policy that
refuses to recognize very real regional differences that are in play
out there with energy use is problematic. As the Senator from Minnesota
said, 25 States already have this in place, but what we do by imposing
a new national mandate is we upend those existing State programs.
We have a good, bipartisan efficiency measure contained in this. That
is why a Federal EERS has not worked before. Now is not the right time
to move forward with it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes in this series
be 10 minutes in length so we can move through the amendments we have
in front of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time has expired.
The question occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--5

Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Shelby
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from South Dakota.

Amendment No. 3182, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2953

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3182, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Rounds] proposes an
amendment numbered 3182, as modified, to amendment No. 2953.

[[Page S472]]

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
conservation incentives landowner education program)

At the end of title V, add the following:

SEC. 50__. CONSERVATION INCENTIVES LANDOWNER EDUCATION
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
establish a conservation incentives landowner education
program (referred to in this section as the ``program'').
(b) Purpose of Program.--The program shall provide
information on Federal conservation programs available to
landowners interested in undertaking conservation actions on
the land of the landowners, including options under each
conservation program available to achieve the conservation
goals of the program, such as--
(1) fee title land acquisition;
(2) donation; and
(3) perpetual and term conservation easements or
agreements.
(c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
ensure that the information provided under the program is
made available to--
(1) interested landowners; and
(2) the public.
(d) Notification.--In any case in which the Secretary of
the Interior contacts a landowner directly about
participation in a Federal conservation program, the
Secretary shall, in writing--
(1) notify the landowner of the program; and
(2) make available information on the conservation program
options that may be available to the landowner.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided.
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, conservation easements are an important
tool when we talk about rural America. They are used on a regular
basis, but whenever entering into a conservation easement with the
government, farmers, ranchers, and landowners should be made aware of
all of the options made available to them, not just permanent
easements. While there are many programs and options available, all too
often landowners are not aware of these options and will unknowingly
enter into a contract with the government because they don't realize
there are also shorter term options available to them.
This amendment will aggregate information for landowners and will
allow landowners to choose from conservation options that are shorter
term and are not a permanent contract with the government.
I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this amendment would direct the
Department of the Interior to create a new education program to educate
landowners about conservation programs. It also requires that if the
Interior Department contacts landowners about selling property or
participating in a Federal conservation program, that the landowner be
provided information about the Federal conservation programs available.
I think this information is already publicly available, so I don't
oppose establishing it as a conservation education program, and I am
happy to move this amendment by a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Rounds bringing
this measure before us. It appears we do have an agreement to do a
voice vote on the Rounds amendment, as modified; therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold with respect to Rounds
amendment No. 3182, as modified, be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3182), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 3030 to Amendment No. 2953

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3030.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso] proposes an
amendment numbered 3030 to amendment No. 2953.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. 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 establish deadlines and expedite permits for certain
natural gas gathering lines on Federal land and Indian land)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. NATURAL GAS GATHERING ENHANCEMENT.

(a) Certain Natural Gas Gathering Lines Located on Federal
Land and Indian Land.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle B of title III of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 685) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 319. CERTAIN NATURAL GAS GATHERING LINES LOCATED ON
FEDERAL LAND AND INDIAN LAND.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Gas gathering line and associated field compression
units.--
``(A) In general.--The term `gas gathering line and
associated field compression unit' means--
``(i) a pipeline that is installed to transport natural gas
production associated with 1 or more wells drilled and
completed to produce oil or gas; and
``(ii) if necessary, 1 or more compressors to raise the
pressure of that transported natural gas to higher pressures
suitable to enable the gas to flow into pipelines and other
facilities.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `gas gathering line and
associated field compression unit' does not include a
pipeline or compression unit that is installed to transport
natural gas from a processing plant to a common carrier
pipeline or facility.
``(2) Federal land.--
``(A) In general.--The term `Federal land' means land the
title to which is held by the United States.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `Federal land' does not
include--
``(i) a unit of the National Park System;
``(ii) a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
``(iii) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System; or
``(iv) Indian land.
``(3) Indian land.--The term `Indian land' means land the
title to which is held by--
``(A) the United States in trust for an Indian tribe or an
individual Indian; or
``(B) an Indian tribe or an individual Indian subject to a
restriction by the United States against alienation.
``(b) Certain Natural Gas Gathering Lines.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the issuance
of a sundry notice or right-of-way for a gas gathering line
and associated field compression unit that is located on
Federal land or Indian land and that services any oil or gas
well shall be considered to be an action that is
categorically excluded (as defined in section 1508.4 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this section)) for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if
the gas gathering line and associated field compression unit
are--
``(A) within a field or unit for which an approved land use
plan or an environmental document prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) analyzed transportation of natural gas produced from 1
or more oil or gas wells in that field or unit as a
reasonably foreseeable activity; and
``(B) located adjacent to or within--
``(i) any existing disturbed area; or
``(ii) an existing corridor for a right-of-way.
``(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to Indian
land, or a portion of Indian land, for which the Indian tribe
with jurisdiction over the Indian land submits to the
Secretary of the Interior a written request that paragraph
(1) apply to that Indian land (or portion of Indian land).
``(c) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section affects
or alters any requirement--
``(1) relating to prior consent under--
``(A) section 2 of the Act of February 5, 1948 (25 U.S.C.
324); or
``(B) section 16(e) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C.
476(e)) (commonly known as the `Indian Reorganization Act');
``(2) under section 306108 of title 54, United States Code;
or
``(3) under any other Federal law (including regulations)
relating to tribal consent for rights-of-way across Indian
land.''.
(2) Assessments.--Title XVIII of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (Public Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 1122) (as amended by
section 2311) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1842. NATURAL GAS GATHERING SYSTEM ASSESSMENTS.

``(a) Definition of Gas Gathering Line and Associated Field
Compression Unit.--In this section, the term `gas gathering
line and associated field compression unit' has the meaning
given the term in section 319.
``(b) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, States,
and Indian tribes, shall submit to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a study
identifying--

[[Page S473]]

``(1) any actions that may be taken, under Federal law
(including regulations), to expedite permitting for gas
gathering lines and associated field compression units that
are located on Federal land or Indian land, for the purpose
of transporting natural gas associated with oil and gas
production on any land to a processing plant or a common
carrier pipeline for delivery to markets; and
``(2) any proposed changes to Federal law (including
regulations) to expedite permitting for gas gathering lines
and associated field compression units that are located on
Federal land, for the purpose of transporting natural gas
associated with oil and gas production on any land to a
processing plant or a common carrier pipeline for delivery to
markets.
``(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, and every 1 year thereafter, the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with other
appropriate Federal agencies, States, and Indian tribes,
shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives a report that describes--
``(1) the progress made in expediting permits for gas
gathering lines and associated field compression units that
are located on Federal land or Indian land, for the purpose
of transporting natural gas associated with oil and gas
production on any land to a processing plant or a common
carrier pipeline for delivery to markets; and
``(2) any issues impeding that progress.''.
(3) Technical amendments.--
(A) Section 1(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public
Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 594) is amended by adding at the end of
subtitle B of title III the following:

``Sec. 319. Natural gas gathering lines located on Federal land and
Indian land.''.

(B) Section (1)(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public
Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 594) is amended by adding at the end of
title XXVIII the following:

``Sec. 1842. Natural gas gathering system assessments.''.

(b) Deadlines for Permitting Natural Gas Gathering Lines
Under the Mineral Leasing Act.--Section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(z) Natural Gas Gathering Lines.--The Secretary of the
Interior or other appropriate agency head shall issue a
sundry notice or right-of-way for a gas gathering line and
associated field compression unit (as defined in section
319(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) that is located on
Federal land not later than 90 days after the date on which
the applicable agency head receives the request for issuance
unless the Secretary or agency head finds that the sundry
notice or right-of-way would violate division A of subtitle
III of title 54, United States Code, or the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).''.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we all want to reduce the flaring of
natural gas in oil wells, and to do that we need natural gas gathering
lines. These are small pipelines that capture natural gas from oil
wells where it would otherwise be flared off into the atmosphere.
This is a bipartisan amendment. I am delighted to be here with
Senator Heitkamp, who is a cosponsor. This bipartisan amendment
expedites the permitting of the gathering lines on Federal land and,
subject to tribal consent, also on Indian lands. This is a commonsense
solution that helps taxpayers, Indian Country, and our environment.
I yield to my lead cosponsor, the junior Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I thank my great friend from the State
of Wyoming.
Many of you have talked about the challenges you have in terms of
seeing the flaring. If you want to stop waste, whether it is economic
waste because of a lack of royalties, both Federal and State, or if you
want to stop flaring and waste and do a great environmental thing, you
will vote yes on this amendment.
What this amendment fundamentally does is shorten the time period for
pipeline easements across Federal land--easements where today it takes
2 or 3 weeks to get a private or State easement--which takes over a
year. During that period of time, we have seen flaring across North
Dakota and across the West.
Please vote yes for this amendment. It is a great environmental and
economic amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, speaking in opposition to this
amendment, it is basically like Keystone ``light.'' The proponents want
to have no environmental review of natural gas gathering pipelines, and
that is why we should oppose it. With two exceptions, the amendment
would require the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture to approve
the right to waive any gathering pipelines, unless they violate the
Endangered Species Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. It
would require the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture to approve
the right to waive with pipelines.
I consulted with the Department of the Interior, which had grave
concerns about waiving those laws here. This amendment would
significantly limit the Department's ability to gather relevant,
scientific, technical information, and the public views about how to
manage our public lands. So I encourage our colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--43

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 2996 to Amendment No. 2953

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2996.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2996 to amendment No. 2953.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. 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 require each agency to repeal or amend 1 or more rules
before issuing or amending a rule)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. REPEAL OF RULES REQUIRED BEFORE ISSUING OR AMENDING
RULE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given the term in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code;
(2) the term ``covered rule'' means a rule of an agency
that causes a new financial or administrative burden on
businesses in the United States or on the people of the
United States, as determined by the head of the agency;
(3) the term ``rule''--
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 551 of title
5, United States Code; and
(B) includes--

[[Page S474]]

(i) any rule issued by an agency pursuant to an Executive
Order or Presidential memorandum; and
(ii) any rule issued by an agency due to the issuance of a
memorandum, guidance document, bulletin, or press release
issued by an agency; and
(4) the term ``Unified Agenda'' means the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
(b) Prohibition on Issuance of Certain Rules.--
(1) In general.--An agency may not--
(A) issue a covered rule that does not amend or modify an
existing rule of the agency, unless--
(i) the agency has repealed 1 or more existing covered
rules of the agency; and
(ii) the cost of the covered rule to be issued is less than
or equal to the cost of the covered rules repealed under
clause (i), as determined and certified by the head of the
agency; or
(B) issue a covered rule that amends or modifies an
existing rule of the agency, unless--
(i) the agency has repealed or amended 1 or more existing
covered rules of the agency; and
(ii) the cost of the covered rule to be issued is less than
or equal to the cost of the covered rules repealed or amended
under clause (i), as determined and certified by the head of
the agency.
(2) Application.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
issuance of a covered rule by an agency that--
(A) relates to the internal policy or practice of the
agency or procurement by the agency; or
(B) is being revised to be less burdensome to decrease
requirements imposed by the covered rule or the cost of
compliance with the covered rule.
(c) Considerations for Repealing Rules.--In determining
whether to repeal a covered rule under subparagraph (A)(i) or
(B)(i) of subsection (b)(1), the head of the agency that
issued the covered rule shall consider--
(1) whether the covered rule achieved, or has been
ineffective in achieving, the original purpose of the covered
rule;
(2) any adverse effects that could materialize if the
covered rule is repealed, in particular if those adverse
effects are the reason the covered rule was originally
issued;
(3) whether the costs of the covered rule outweigh any
benefits of the covered rule to the United States;
(4) whether the covered rule has become obsolete due to
changes in technology, economic conditions, market practices,
or any other factors; and
(5) whether the covered rule overlaps with a covered rule
to be issued by the agency.
(d) Publication of Covered Rules in Unified Agenda.--
(1) Requirements.--Each agency shall, on a semiannual
basis, submit jointly and without delay to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs for publication in the
Unified Agenda a list containing--
(A) each covered rule that the agency intends to issue
during the 6-month period following the date of submission;
(B) each covered rule that the agency intends to repeal or
amend in accordance with subsection (b) during the 6-month
period following the date of submission; and
(C) the cost of each covered rule described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(2) Prohibition.--An agency may not issue a covered rule
unless the agency complies with the requirements under
paragraph (1).

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we all know that our economy is
overregulated, and this overregulation undermines our ability to grow
our economy and create good jobs. I am sure all the Senators know that
just this last quarter we grew at 0.7 percent GDP growth. We can't even
break 1 percent GDP growth now.
Take a look at this chart. This is one of the big problems. Federal
regulations only grow. They only grow year after year. They never go
away. They are never sunsetted.
Even President Obama recognizes this is a problem. In his State of
the Union address, the President said: ``I think there are outdated
regulations that need to be changed. There is red tape that . . .
[must] be cut.''
My amendment is an opportunity to do just that. It is a simple, one-
in, one-out requirement for agencies. When an agency issues a new reg,
it has to sunset or get rid of an old reg. Now, it is up to the agency
to choose which reg it is going to get rid of, but it has to abide by
the one-in, one-out rule.
This is not a partisan idea. In fact, this is becoming a consensus
idea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SULLIVAN. The U.K. and Canada are doing this.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very
interested in this idea. I ask for their support of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the committee on
homeland security, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Our friend who is offering this amendment today indicates that
Federal agencies are always promulgating regulations, and we never
stand any of them down; we never retire them. As it turns out, about 5
or 6 years ago, President Obama said to Cass Sunstein, who runs OIRA,
part of OMB: I want you to begin a top-to-bottom review of regulations.
Find the ones that don't serve a purpose, and let's get rid of them.
Over the next 5 years, that effort will bear fruit. It is not like
saving a couple of million dollars. Over the next 5 years, it is going
to save $22 billion. So we actually do have a process, and this is one
that has really been provided by leadership from the administration.
The other avenue was provided by our Democratic leader from years ago
when he authored something called the Congressional Review Act. It is
not always effective; it doesn't always work, but it is actually a way
to stand down regulations that we don't want to see stood up.
So there are two ways to do this. We always have an opportunity
whenever regulations are proposed. We can speak to them. We can testify
to them. We can urge that they be changed while they are in production.
I urge us to vote no on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--46

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendment No. 3176 to Amendment No. 2953

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out tax
preferences for fossil fuels on the same schedule as the phase out of
the tax credits for wind facilities)

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3176 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S475]]

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Schatz] proposes an amendment
numbered 3176 to amendment No. 2953.

(The amendment is printed in the Record of February 1, 2016, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this amendment is based on a very simple
idea: that there should be a level playing field for fossil fuels and
for clean energy. Right now we have subsidies on both the fossil fuel
side and on the clean energy side through our Tax Code. Periodically,
we need to recalibrate our energy policy based on market conditions,
fiscal circumstances, and what is happening in the world.
Again, here is the idea: We should make sure to reevaluate tax
preferences for fossil fuels and clean energy at the same time. If we
are serious about creating a level playing field, we should phase out
incentives for fossil fuels as we phased them out for wind and solar
power. Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans support the repeal
of these tax preferences, and so I hope my colleagues will join me in a
big bipartisan vote for putting our clean sources of energy on equal
footing with their fossil fuel counterparts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have seen an iteration of this
before. It is Groundhog Day, but there is a difference with the
approach that has been taken with regard to targeting oil and gas
production with this basket of fossil fuel subsidies, where we are
talking about the repeal of five very important tax provisions that are
vital to our domestic small and midsize operators.
The sponsor is correct. It does tie the expiration of these
provisions to the expiration of wind tax credits, which most of us
would agree should be phased out.
I am in favor of reforming our Tax Code to make it more
straightforward and fair. I would welcome that discussion for us to
engage in broad-based tax reform on the Senate floor, but the Energy
Policy Modernization Act is not the place to do it. It is not the
appropriate venue for a tax amendment. As my colleagues know, all
revenue-raising measures must originate within the House. The adoption
of this tax-related amendment would therefore create an impermissible
blue-slip problem.
I urge its rejection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--5

Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 3095 to Amendment No. 2953

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3095 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 3095 to amendment No. 2953.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Office of Science of the
Department of Energy)

On page 352, strike lines 17 through 21 and insert the
following:
``(8) $5,423,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;
``(9) $5,808,000,000 for fiscal year 2017;
``(10) $6,220,000,000 for fiscal year 2018;
``(11) $6,661,000,000 for fiscal year 2019; and
``(12) $7,134,000,000 for fiscal year 2020.''.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment which I am
offering with Senator Alexander would increase funding levels for the
Department of Energy Office of Science to a rate of 5 percent annual
real growth for 5 years.
The Office of Science is an incredible organization--24 scientists,
10 national labs, research in 300 colleges and universities in all 50
States. It was their work which led to the development of the MRI, and
they are currently working on imaging systems to identify Alzheimer's
in its early stages. It is an incredible operation. This commitment
will pay us back many times over.
I yield to my friend and colleague from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote because I think
an important part of a Republican pro-growth policy is support for
government-sponsored research. That is how we got 3-D mapping and
horizontal drilling that led to unconventional gas and oil. That is how
we are going to get the cost of carbon capture low enough to make it
commercial. That is how we are going to get solar panels cheap enough
to make them useful.
We should reduce wasteful spending on subsidies for mature energy
technology and double energy research, and this would do that on a
conservative path. At 5 percent a year, it would take 10 years to
double the $5 billion of energy spending we have today.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand that we have an agreement
to voice vote the Durbin amendment. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that the 60-vote threshold with respect to the Durbin amendment No.
3095 be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Hearing none, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3095) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 3125 to Amendment No. 2953

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3125 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] proposes an
amendment numbered 3125 to amendment No. 2953.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require campaign finance disclosures for certain persons
benefitting from fossil fuel activities)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURES BY FOSSIL FUEL
BENEFICIARIES.

(a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1974 (52 U.S.C.

[[Page S476]]

30104) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(j) Disclosure by Fossil Fuel Beneficiaries.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Initial disclosure.--Every covered entity which has
made covered disbursements and received covered transfers in
an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during the period
beginning on January 1, 2014, and ending on the date that is
165 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection
shall file with the Commission a statement containing the
information described in paragraph (2) not later than the
date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(B) Subsequent disclosures.--Every covered entity which
makes covered disbursements (other than covered disbursement
reported under subparagraph (A)) and received covered
transfers (other than a covered transfer reported under
subparagraph (A)) in an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000
during any calendar year shall, within 48 hours of each
disclosure date, file with the Commission a statement
containing the information described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be
filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of
perjury and shall contain the following information:
``(A) The identification of the person making the
disbursement or receiving the transfer, of any person sharing
or exercising direction or control over the activities of
such person, and of the custodian of the books and accounts
of the person making the disbursement or receiving the
transfer.
``(B) The principal place of business of the person making
the disbursement or receiving the transfer, if not an
individual.
``(C) The amount of each disbursement or transfer of more
than $200 during the period covered by the statement and the
identification of the person to whom the disbursement was
made or from whom the transfer was received.
``(D) The elections to which the disbursements or transfers
pertain and the names (if known) of the candidates involved.
``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated
bank account which consists of funds contributed solely by
individuals who are United States citizens or nationals or
lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in
section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))) directly to this account for
electioneering communications, the names and addresses of all
contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or
more to that account during--
``(i) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(A),
during the period described in such paragraph, and
``(ii) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(B),
the period beginning on the first day of the preceding
calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.

Nothing in this subparagraph is to be construed as a
prohibition on the use of funds in such a segregated account
for a purpose other than covered disbursements.
``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not
described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all
contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or
more to the person making the disbursement during--
``(i) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(A),
during the period described in such paragraph, and
``(ii) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(B),
the period beginning on the first day of the preceding
calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.
``(3) Covered entity.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered entity' means--
``(i) any person who is described in subparagraph (B), and
``(ii) any person who owns 5 percent or more of any person
described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Person described.--A person is described in this
subparagraph if such person has received revenues or stands
to receive revenues of $1,000,000 or greater from fossil fuel
activities.
``(C) Fossil fuel activities.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `fossil fuel activities' includes the
extraction, production, refining, transportation, or
combustion of oil, natural gas, or coal.
``(4) Covered disbursement.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `covered disbursement' means a
disbursement for any of the following:
``(A) An independent expenditure.
``(B) A broadcast, cable, or satellite communication (other
than a communication described in subsection (f)(3)(B))
which--
``(i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal
office;
``(ii) is made--

``(I) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for an office other than President or Vice
President, during the period beginning on January 1 of the
calendar year in which a general or runoff election is held
and ending on the date of the general or runoff election (or
in the case of a special election, during the period
beginning on the date on which the announcement with respect
to such election is made and ending on the date of the
special election); or
``(II) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for the office of President or Vice President, is
made in any State during the period beginning 120 days before
the first primary election, caucus, or preference election
held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating
convention of a political party is held in any State (or, if
no such election or caucus is held in any State, the first
convention or caucus of a political party which has the
authority to nominate a candidate for the office of President
or Vice President) and ending on the date of the general
election; and

``(iii) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for an office other than President or Vice
President, is targeted to the relevant electorate (within the
meaning of subsection (f)(3)(C)).
``(C) A transfer to another person for the purposes of
making a disbursement described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(5) Covered transfer.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `covered transfer' means any amount received by a
covered entity for the purposes of making a covered
disbursement.
``(6) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `disclosure date' means--
``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a
person has made covered disbursements and received covered
transfers aggregating in excess of $10,000; and
``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a
person has made covered disbursements and received covered
transfers aggregating in excess of $10,000 since the most
recent disclosure date for such calendar year.
``(7) Contracts to disburse; coordination with other
requirements; etc,.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraphs
(5), (6), and (7) of subsection (f) shall apply for purposes
of this subsection.''.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is the last vote in this tranche
of votes, and I hope this can be a bipartisan vote. We all understand
that a shadow has fallen over this Chamber since Citizens United, and
that is the shadow of dark money. The American public is sick about the
special interests that have so much sway. They are even more sick of
special interests having secret sway because of secret spending. This
secret spending influences what we can and cannot do. It influences our
deliberations. It has even constrained the shape of the very bill on
the floor right now. As one Kentucky newspaper said, it has also
created a tsunami of slime in our elections.
This vote gives us the chance to push back and to put a little
daylight on the secret money that is being spent in our elections. I
very much hope that, consistent with past Republican support for
sunshine and disclosure, we can get a bipartisan vote in favor of
disclosure of the big-money donors who are now putting secret money
into our elections--in this case, particularly in the energy sector.
I ask for the votes of my colleague in favor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do think that at some point in time
it is fair to discuss disclosure when it comes to campaign finance and
campaign finance disclosure. However what this amendment does is
require campaign finance disclosures from individuals receiving over $1
million from fossil fuel activities--no other activities.
What activities are we talking about? It defines fossil fuel
activities as those including ``the extraction, production, refining,
transportation, or combustion of oil, natural gas, or coal.'' That is
pretty broad. We are talking about explorers, producers, refiners,
perhaps even the automotive industry, the rail industry, powerplants,
and many others.
We can have a discussion about campaign finance disclosure and what
may or may not be appropriate. We defeated an amendment similar to this
when we had the Keystone debate last January. We tabled another. The
time and the place to debate this issue is not in this Energy Policy
Modernization Act. Therefore, I will be opposing the amendment and
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator

[[Page S477]]

from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham),
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Shelby).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

YEAS--43

NAYS--52

NOT VOTING--5

Cruz
Graham
Rubio
Sanders
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have just concluded this series of
eight votes. You combine that with the rollcall votes we had yesterday,
as well as the voice votes we have taken, and we are up to 27
amendments that we have processed. We are moving right along.
I appreciate the cooperation of Members on both sides and the staff
who are working as we speak to see if we can pull together yet another
block of amendments we will be able to accept by voice vote. We will
not have any more rollcall votes for the remainder of today, but know
that we are working aggressively to try to process as many amendments
as we can by voice vote and then set up a process tomorrow.
We will notify Members in terms of when we might be able to expect
votes on amendments. I thank colleagues for the good work today. We
encourage you to come down to the floor, speak to your amendments,
speak to the issues you are hoping to advance. We would like to get
this bill through to completion by the end of this week. I thank
Members for their support.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Cloture Motion

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
the Murkowski substitute amendment No. 2953.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
2953, the substitute amendment to S. 2012, an original bill
to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the
United States, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Mike
Crapo, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Steve Daines,
Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Pat Roberts, John Hoeven,
Shelley Moore Capito, John Thune, James E. Risch, Lamar
Alexander, John McCain, Rob Portman.

Cloture Motion

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
the underlying bill, S. 2012.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
218, S. 2012, an original bill to provide for the
modernization of the energy policy of the United States, and
for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Mike
Crapo, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Steve Daines,
Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Pat Roberts, John Hoeven,
Shelley Moore Capito, John Thune, James E. Risch, Lamar
Alexander, John McCain, Rob Portman.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum call under rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the
Senate with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the crisis in Flint, MI, is a tragedy that
was entirely preventable. This week we have a chance to do something
about it. Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters from Michigan have
submitted an amendment that I hope, when we go back on the bill, we
will consider. As we do so, it is important to remember that Flint is
far from the only town in this country where families face exposure to
dangerous levels of lead.
In Sebring, in northeast Ohio, near Youngstown, we know there are
troubling amounts of lead in the water. Families are scared that their
drinking water isn't safe. They are afraid they are facing another
Flint. No parent should have to worry that the water coming out of
their faucets might in fact be poisoning their children. Pregnant women
shouldn't have to fear their tap water.
In Sebring, just as in Flint, families were left in the dark about
the safety of their water. For months, local officials failed to notify
residents about the lead, and the State EPA failed to step in. I spoke
with the mayor. I spoke recently--just this week--to State
Representative Boccieri and State Senator Schiavoni, who represent
Sebring and that part of the county, about what our response should be.
The amendment before us this week will help put a stop to the
failure--in Michigan, the failure of the Governor, and in Columbus, it
appears to be the failure of the State EPA. It requires the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency to notify the public directly if there
is a danger from lead in the water system if a State fails to do so
within 15 days. No more arguing about whose responsibility it is while
families continue drinking water that we know is not safe. No more
finger-pointing after the fact. This amendment says that when there is
a problem with the water, people have a right to know and that it is
the EPA's job to make sure they do. The sooner we know about lead
contamination, the sooner we can get to work to fix it. That is why
notification is critical. But notification is just the beginning. The
amendment before us this week will be just the beginning of our work to
protect Americans from unsafe levels of lead.
The Centers for Disease Control estimates that at least 4 million
American households--4 million American households with children--are
exposed to high levels of lead. We know what that does to their brain
development. We know the impact it has for the rest of their lives.
Four million households in this country have children who are exposed
to high levels of lead even though we know it isn't safe.
This problem stretches far beyond Flint, MI, and far beyond just our
water systems. Corroded lead pipes are a major health hazard, but they
are far from the only source of lead poisoning. We know that too many
of our children

[[Page S478]]

are exposed to lead through paint--mostly in older homes and mostly in
lower income homes--and even the dirt in their backyards. Imagine that.
The devastating effects of lead poisoning fall disproportionately on
low-income children and on children of color. They are more likely to
live in older homes closer to the city center and in rental housing
that is poorly maintained. I have seen it firsthand in Ohio. The
Cleveland Plain Dealer conducted an investigation last fall. They found
that some 40,000 Cuyahoga County children have tested positive for lead
poisoning in the last 10 years. Think about that--40,000 children in
that community alone have been tested for lead poisoning over the past
10 years and have tested positive.
Paint chips shed from molding and windowsills in older homes turn
into dust that is easily ingested. Sometimes babies pick up lead chips
and chew on them because they are colorful.
The danger hasn't subsided. More than 187,000 homes in Cuyahoga
County are putting their occupants at risk of lead poisoning. That is
why our efforts can't stop with Michigan and can't stop with lead in
our water.
The good news is, we can combat this. I know we can because we have
done it before. In 2012 a number of my colleagues--Senators Franken
from Minnesota, Casey from Pennsylvania, and Merkley from Oregon--wrote
to the EPA about the danger posed by former lead smelter sites in urban
residential communities. I was in one of those neighborhoods and talked
to people who had seen far too much lead in the dirt where their
children play in front or behind their houses. Because of our efforts
and some diligent reporting by reporters at USA TODAY, the EPA has
acted to reexamine hundreds of former lead factory sites, helping
communities address and deal with this problem. Think about this: You
move into a home. You didn't know that 40 years ago this neighborhood
had a lead smelting plant. Your children play in it. You have no idea
that soil is contaminated from that lead smelter that closed decades
ago.
We also worked to combat the threat of lead in our children's toys.
In 2007 Ashland University professor Jeff Weidenhamer found that more
than one in seven Halloween toys he purchased and tested through his
classes contained dangerous levels of lead, most of them made in China,
most of them painted by companies contracting with U.S. toy companies.
Who is responsible for that? Surely the Chinese companies'
subcontractors that put the lead paint on the toys but certainly the
U.S. toy companies that contracted with them and didn't care enough or
know enough to check the quality of these toys. Following that shocking
discovery, we worked with Professor Weidenhamer and other experts to
pass the bipartisan Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in 2008.
When Professor Weidenhamer conducted the same test on toys in 2011,
none of them tested positive for dangerous levels of lead.
In spite of the fact that many people sitting in this body won their
elections by saying that the government can never do anything good,
that the government can never have an impact on our lives, and that the
government is too big, that is what the government did--we passed a
consumer protection bill in 2008. Two years later we found that
comparable toys don't have lead paint in them. So we know we can make
progress when we work together and strengthen consumer protections to
ensure that agencies tasked with protecting children have the resources
they need.
We need to take the lead in our water, in our communities, and in our
homes just as seriously as lead in toys. It is not enough to just
respond to the crisis at hand. We should do that in Flint, we should do
that in Sebring, and we should do that in smaller communities in Ohio
in older homes--all of those things. But it is not enough just to
respond. Once children have been exposed, the effects can't be erased.
We have to do more to help protect families from being exposed to lead
in the first place.
We did the right thing in December when we funded critical programs
at the CDC and at Housing and Urban Development that helped prevent
lead poisoning and monitor lead levels in children, but we can't stop
there. We are seeing in Flint, we are seeing in Sebring, OH, and we are
seeing in cities across our country that current efforts are not
enough. Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters' amendment is a first good
step. I hope we will use this opportunity to examine what more we can
do to protect our children, especially those young enough that their
brain is developing. Lead poisoning arrests much of their brain
development and affects the rest of their lives. We have to do whatever
we can to protect our children from the terrible effects of lead
poisoning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering State Senator Gil Kahele

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, what is aloha? It is not a catchphrase. As
it is commonly understood, it is synonymous with kindness, with love,
with hospitality, with a Hawaiian perspective, but it is difficult for
those not from Hawaii to fully understand its meaning and for those of
us from Hawaii to fully explain.
No one embodied the spirit of aloha more than State senator Gil
Kahele, who died suddenly last week. He was a living personification of
the idea that we are all in this together, that it really does mean
something to live together in an island State in the most isolated
populated place on the planet and the most beautiful place in the
world.
Senator Kahele devoted his life to public service, but political
office for him was an afterthought. Gil was a veteran of the U.S.
Marine Corps. He worked for the State's department of defense for 33
years and eventually became director of public works at the Pohakuloa
Training Area.
Gil took office in 2011 and dedicated his efforts to the people of
Senate District 1. He was the chair of the Tourism and International
Affairs Committee. Gil was committed to supporting the needs of his
district and was instrumental in securing funding for the College of
Pharmacy at the University of Hawaii at Hilo.
The circumstances of my election in 2014 were unusual in the extreme,
and they brought me to Gil. On election night, I was ahead by fewer
than 2,000 votes, but there were parts of Hawaii Island--two precincts
in particular--that were unable to vote because of a category 4
hurricane that hit the southern part of the Big Island, the Puna
District. As a result, the day after the primary election day, we
realized we weren't quite done, and so we went to Puna. But more than
the election not being done, the people of Puna were without water and
power. Their food was rotting, their roads weren't clear, and they had
no working utilities. So we went to work--not gathering votes but
gathering provisions; not walking door to door to campaign but
literally standing on the road handing out blocks of ice for the folks
in Puna. We did this every day for a week, with Gil and the Kahele
ohana, until a sense of normalcy was eventually restored. For their
family, this was just what you do if you are a person like Gil Kahele,
born in a grass shack in the fishing village of Miolii, a Native
Hawaiian who served his country, his State, his community, and his
family the best way he knew how--with aloha.
Mr. President, 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Wildfire Prevention Funding

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last year more acreage in our forests
burned than ever before. I know the Presiding Officer understands what
this has been like in the West over the last few years. Senator Crapo
and I have dedicated something like 5 years of our professional lives
to coming up with practical approaches to deal with this mushrooming
problem. There are a whole host of issues that go into making a
sensible forestry policy to make sure that we can protect our treasures

[[Page S479]]

in the West, have jobs in the woods that are sustainable, and keep our
forests healthy.
In order to do that, one of the most important reforms that are
necessary is the one that Senator Crapo and I have been working on. I
really began on this before I was the chairman of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. Senator Crapo and I literally have teamed
up now for half a decade to end a particularly inefficient and harmful
economic and environmental policy that we call fire borrowing. Fire
borrowing takes place when Congress fails to budget enough money to
fight wildfires, forcing agencies to raid their other accounts,
including accounts to prevent wildfires.
Obviously, there may be some listening in who don't represent western
communities. But what Senator Crapo and I have tried to convey to our
colleagues is that fire borrowing doesn't just threaten fire prevention
and suppression. It is quicksand that is dragging down all of the
programs at the Forest Service: timber sales, stream restoration, trail
maintenance, recreation, and many more.
So Senator Crapo and I said that this was too important to have yet
another issue that gets thrown around, batted around like another bit
of cannon fodder for partisan kind of drills. We have put together
legislation with 21 cosponsors in the Senate and 145 in the House to
end fire borrowing. Our legislation is supported by a coalition of more
than 250 groups of anglers, sportsmen, environmentalists, and timber
companies. It is pretty hard to get more than a handful of people to
agree on much of anything here in Washington, DC. What Senator Crapo
and I have been talking about now has more than 250 organizations
behind it.
Despite the overwhelming support for this effort, the bill has been
stuck. Tonight what Senator Crapo and I are going to talk about is how
we can work together with our colleagues to unstick this and to get it
done. We felt that all along we had been doing what it took to make
this happen. We talked to our colleagues of both parties. We
negotiated. We talked to House Members. We talked to Senate offices. We
talked to the administration. We talked to timber and environmental
people. All we said is that it makes sense, even though there are a
whole host of changes that you can pursue for a sensible fire policy to
end fire borrowing for good, to end the erosion of the Forest Service
budget, and to start focusing on prevention. Wouldn't it make more
sense to concentrate on prevention, going in there and thinning out the
forests and using sensible fire prevention strategies rather than not
to do the prevention and have the forests get hot and dry? Then we have
lightning strikes in our part of the world. All of a sudden you have an
inferno on your hands, and they don't have enough money to put all
these fires out. So you borrow from the prevention fund and the problem
gets worse.
What Senator Crapo and I said is that we will work with all of the
budget authorities. We were very much involved with Chairman Enzi in
this. We could come up with some budget process issues that would be
acceptable here in the Senate and also to our colleagues in the House.
There was a colloquy last week among the chairs of the Energy,
Budget, and Agriculture Committees that indicated that they very much
want a resolution of the issue. I am pleased that they are interested
in hearings and working on legislation and moving in February and
March. I felt that this was a promising start to the year because that
is what Senator Crapo and I were after last July when we got a great
many Senators together and we said that we were going to try to get
this worked out so that it could have been done last fall. We all said
that we were going to get together and get this resolved.
Obviously, for a variety of reasons it didn't happen. But I think
what we heard last week strikes me as a beginning to finally getting
this unstuck, and I have been so appreciative of working with the
Senator on this now for something like 5 years. I would be interested
in the Senator's reaction with respect to this situation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I strongly agree with my friend and
colleague Senator Wyden from Oregon. He is absolutely right that we
have been working on this for probably 5 years as we have worked to
identify the solution and then build the coalition of support to
implement the solution that is necessary for this critical problem.
I am also very appreciative, as Senator Wyden has said, that we had
the chairman of the Energy Committee, the chairman of the Budget
Committee, and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee engaged in a
colloquy last week discussing the urgency of resolving this issue. I
believe we are now getting to a point at which the understanding of how
critical it is to resolve this issue has penetrated deeply into the
political fiber of both the Senate and the House. Now we need to take
that momentum and continue to move forward.
As we take stock of last year's fire season, the statistics are
sobering. Senator Wyden referenced a little bit of it. Let me just add
to that a little bit.
Nationally, last year, we had 68,151 fires that burned 10.1 million
acres and cost over $1.7 billion in suppression operations. These fires
accounted for the loss of roughly 4,600 structures, and, most
tragically, the lives of 13 wild land firefighters.
This set of statistics is a set of statistics that is growing every
year. We are seeing more fires and more catastrophic fires every year
because we are not managing our forests properly, and we are not
dealing with the crisis that is creating in forest fires.
There is a very important statistic that I think everyone in America
should understand about this critical issue. I just said that there
were 68,151 fires in America last year. One percent of those fires cost
30 percent of the firefighting budget. Those are the fires that became
catastrophes. They became catastrophic. The solution we have come
together on to help address this issue is simply to make a very obvious
conclusion and to put it into the law; that is, when we get a fire that
is 1 percent of the fires that cost 30 percent of the firefighting and
do so much of the damage, we declare that they are natural disasters--
just like the earthquakes, the hurricanes, the tornadoes, the floods
and the other disasters that we acknowledge here in Congress and deal
with as disasters when we finance the efforts to fight them and to
respond to them.
With these numbers in mind, I want to again thank the committee
chairmen who came to the floor last week and engaged in a colloquy to
express how serious this issue is. It is getting to a crisis point. As
those Senators last week noted, when it comes to how we fight
wildfires, we are in a crisis.
For more than a decade, as fires have raged across the West, we have
seriously underbudgeted for the necessary suppression costs with these
disasters. To make matters worse, the lack of resources to fight the
worst of our annual fires has forced land management agencies into what
Senator Wyden has so ably described--fire borrowing that results in
less money for the very activities that can prevent the large
devastating fires from happening in the first place. What happens is
our management agencies, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and those who deal with the wild lands and grasses that burn, have had
to borrow from all of their other funds so that they can't adequately
manage the land. As a result, we end up with more bad fires, and every
year the catastrophic fires grow.

When the Forest Service is forced to borrow to fight fires, they are
actually borrowing against jobs, recreational opportunities, and proper
forest management. The best way to think of fire borrowing is less
timber, less jobs, and less access to these beautiful lands because
while it is fire borrowing, in many cases it delays the repayment in
ways that actually cancel projects, undercut the ability to implement
proper forest management, lose jobs, and reduce access to our public
lands. Perhaps the most destructive is the fact that less work in the
woods means that the harmful cycle just gets worse.
As Senator Wyden has noted, to address this problem, we have
consistently introduced legislation for years now that would treat the
devastating fires as the disasters that they are.
I need to back up for a second. We talk about the fact that there is
a cost that is not being provided for by Congress and that this fire
borrowing has

[[Page S480]]

to happen, but I think it is critical to note that our solution has
been scored by both the Congressional Budget Office and by the OMB at
the White House as having zero budget impact. It will not increase the
deficit because we do end up paying to fight these fires, it is just
the way that we end up paying to fight them is the way we deal with so
much of our catastrophic health care--at the emergency room with the
most expensive solutions, the worst outcomes, and we don't deal with
the underlying crisis.
While there is broad agreement from lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle and in both Houses of Congress that a fix to fire borrowing is
needed, there have been different approaches to the solution. Senator
Wyden and I have been very willing to work with those who have
different ideas about how we need to solve this problem and can
actually make adjustments in our legislation as we move forward to deal
with issues and concerns that others have raised.
We are now at the crisis point, and now we need to move forward and
put a final resolution in place. Senator Wyden and I have worked with
these lawmakers and will continue to work with them. We are simply here
tonight to say that we are very pleased to see that the leadership of
the critical committees in the Senate and others who are so concerned
about this issue are in agreement that we need to put this on the front
burner and engage with developing a solution and putting it into law.
I look forward to working with Senator Wyden, the chairman of our
Energy, Budget, and Agriculture Committees, and all the interested
stakeholders whom Senator Wyden mentioned--250 groups from across the
political spectrum. This is one of those issues in which those groups
that so often have different perspectives on how to manage our public
lands are in agreement, and we need to take this support--the political
agreement that is taking place and the political awareness of the
crisis that is happening--and move forward to the implementation of a
solution.
I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor tonight and talk
with Senator Wyden one more time about this as we move to the final
stages of implementing this important legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Idaho, and in
wrapping this up I wish to convey what the bottom line really is here.
Senator Crapo and I do not want to be back on the floor of the U.S.
Senate in the winter of 2017 once again talking about how something got
stuck or somebody didn't agree with somebody on one small aspect of
this, and as a result fire borrowing is still in place. What Senator
Crapo and I are saying is we want to work with all sides. It is going
to have to be bipartisan and it is going to have to be bicameral. Those
are probably the most important words in this whole discussion. It is
going to have to be bipartisan and it is going to have to be bicameral.
We have lots of committees involved. We have the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee that I am on and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry Committee, and the Budget Committee that both of us have been
on. We have lots of committees in the Senate, and we have partners in
the House who have also played a meaningful role.
I would like to think that Senator Crapo and I were able to move that
bipartisan, bicameral process a fair way down the road at the end of
last year, but what we are saying is: Let's now vow, as a body and
working with our colleagues, to make sure we are not back here in the
winter of 2017 after yet another horrendous fire season and once again
saying: You know, this Forest Service practice is a textbook case of
inefficiency, and we are explaining what fire borrowing is and how it
does so much damage in the forest and to forest health.
This is about the betterment of rural resource-dependent communities,
especially in the West and around the country. Senator Crapo and I have
worked together on other past efforts, such as the secure rural schools
legislation and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. We were both
involved in those efforts and they were, in fact, bipartisan and
bicameral.
Tonight our hope is, as a result of this discussion and what we heard
on the floor of the Senate last week, that in fact after more than 5
years of effort on this issue, that this time the Congress, on both
sides of the Capitol, will come together and will work with the
administration. They indicated support for what we were doing last year
and will indicate support early on for efforts that are bipartisan and
bicameral. The sooner we can get on with that, the better. That is why
it is good news that the committees will be starting hearings and
legislative consideration shortly, and we look forward to working with
our colleagues.
I yield at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on Thursday, 12 countries will sign a
massive trade agreement to change the rules for 40 percent of the
world's economy, but the Trans-Pacific Partnership will not go into
effect unless Congress approves it. I urge my colleagues to reject the
TPP and stop an agreement that will tilt the playing field even more in
favor of big multinational corporations and against working families.
Much of the debate over this trade agreement has been described as a
fight over America's role in setting the rules of international trade,
but this is a deliberate diversion. In fact, the United States has
free-trade agreements with half of the TPP countries. Most of the TPP's
30 chapters don't even deal with traditional trade issues. No. Most of
TPP is about letting multinational corporations rig the rules on
everything from patent protection to food safety standards all to
benefit themselves.
The first clue about whom the TPP helps is who wrote it. Twenty-eight
trained advisory committees were formed to whisper in the ear of our
trade negotiators to urge them to move this way or that way during
negotiations. Who are the special privileged whisperers? Well, 85
percent are corporate executives or industry lobbyists. Many of the
committees--including those on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, aerospace
equipment, textiles and clothing, and financial services--are 100
percent industry representatives. In 15 advisory committees, no one--no
one--was in the room who represented American workers or American
consumers. There was no one in the room who worried about the
enforcement of environmental issues or protection against human rights
abuses. Nope. Day after day, meeting after meeting, our official
negotiators listened to the whispers of the giant industries and heard
little from anyone else.
The second clue about what is going on is that it all happened behind
closed doors. The U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, says that
the United States has been working to negotiate this trade deal for
over 5\1/2\ years, but the text of the agreement was hidden from public
view until just 3 months ago, and when I say hidden, I mean hidden. The
drafts were kept under lock and key so that even Members of the Senate
had to go to a secure location to see them, and then we weren't allowed
to say anything to anyone about what we had actually seen. A rigged
process produces a rigged outcome. When the people whispering in the
ears of our negotiators are mostly top executives and lobbyists for big
corporation--and when the public is shut out of the negotiating
process--the final deal tilts in favor of corporate interests.
Evidence of this tilt can be seen in a key TPP provision, investor-
state dispute settlement, ISDS. With ISDS, big companies get the right
to challenge laws they don't like, not in courts but in front of
industry-friendly arbitration panels that sit outside any court system.
Those panels can force taxpayers to write huge checks to big
corporations with no appeals. Workers, environmentalists, and human
rights advocates don't get the special right, only corporations do.
Most Americans don't think of keeping dangerous pesticides out of our
food or keeping our drinking water clean as trade issues, but all over
the globe companies have used ISDS to demand compensation for laws they
don't like. Just last year a mining company

[[Page S481]]

won an ISDS case when Canada denied the company permits to blast off
the coast of Nova Scotia. Today, Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for
up to $300 million all because their government tried to protect its
environment and tried to protect the livelihood of local fishermen.
ISDS hasn't been a problem just for other countries. We have seen the
dangers of ISDS right here at home. Last year, the U.S. State
Department concluded, and President Obama agreed, that the Keystone XL
Pipeline would not serve the national interests of the United States.
It was a long fight, but the administration, applying American law,
decided that the pipeline was a threat to our air, to our water, and to
our climate and denied the permit, but the oil company that wants to
build this pipeline doesn't think the buck stops with our President.
Now this foreign oil company is using the ISDS provision in NAFTA to
demand more than $15 billion in damages from the United States just
because we turned down the Keystone Pipeline.
The Nation's top experts in law and economics have warned us about
the dangers of ISDS. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz,
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, and others recently noted that if
ISDS panels force countries to pay high enough fines, the countries
will voluntarily drop the health, safety, labor, and environmental laws
that big corporations don't like. That is exactly what Germany did in
2011 when they cut back on environmental regulations after an ISDS
lawsuit.
Everyone understands the risks associated with ISDS. In fact, the
issue got so hot over tobacco companies using ISDS to roll back health
standards around, the world that the TPP negotiators decided to limit
the use of ISDS to challenge tobacco laws. That is a pretty bold
admission that ISDS can be used to weaken public health laws.
I am glad tobacco laws are protected from ISDS, but what about food
safety laws or drug safety laws or any other regulation that is
designed to protect our citizens? Under TPP every other company,
regardless of the health or safety impact, will be able to use ISDS.
Congress will have to vote straight up or down on TPP. We will not
have a chance to strip out any of the worst provisions like ISDS. That
is why I oppose the TPP, and I hope Congress will use its
constitutional authority to stop this deal before it makes things even
worse and more dangerous for America's hardest working families.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I 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.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to applaud
the great work that Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell are
doing this week on the Energy bill to get this bill to the floor--the
Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. They have been leaders and
have shown their commitment to developing and advancing what is truly a
bipartisan bill.
This legislation is a result of nearly a year's work on the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee, with four legislative hearings leading
up to a July markup. There have been many hours put into the base text,
and we had a strong bipartisan vote to report the bill out of committee
18 to 4. It is also nice to see Members over the past several days, and
last week as well, having the opportunity to amend the bill on the
floor--to make it even stronger through an open amendment process
throughout this past week.
The Energy Policy Modernization Act will mean more energy efficiency,
more energy generation, and more jobs in the energy sector. Promoting
energy efficiency and clean alternative power sources is something that
has been a focus of my service, and I am pleased that I have had a
chance in my role on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to
continue shaping Federal energy policy in the U.S. Senate.
We have before us this week an opportunity to really advance our
national energy policy and to think about what our national energy
policy means for this country--energy being a cornerstone of our
economy and our security. It means more jobs, it means more growth, and
perhaps even one of the most potent foreign policy tools this Nation
has to offer our allies.
I wish to take a little bit of time to highlight several provisions
of the bill that I helped champion and sponsor to get included in the
base of the text.
Section 1006 would encourage the use of something called energy
savings performance contracts and utility energy savings contracts in
Federal buildings. It is a long name for something that probably
doesn't fit very well on a bumper sticker. But what energy savings
performance contracts and utility energy savings contracts do is
something very simple. They are tools that will allow innovative public
and private partnerships to occur, that allow private companies to use
private dollars to make energy efficient upgrades to Federal buildings.
The private companies are then reimbursed for upgrades once the Federal
buildings' energy costs are lower. So, in essence, we are taking
private sector ingenuity and know-how and private sector investments
and putting them into Federal buildings to lower utility costs, to make
sure we are doing a better job of heating or cooling or turning the
lights on in our buildings, all through private sector know-how, with
no cost to the taxpayer, resulting in taxpayer savings and, of course,
thousands of private sector jobs.
Last night we had an amendment that passed by voice vote which
requires Federal agencies to implement energy savings projects at
Federal facilities. For the past several years, we have been carrying
out mandatory Federal energy audits that outline energy savings
projects for Federal facilities that are aimed at reducing energy
consumption and saving tax dollars, but Federal agencies were not
required to implement these changes. So we were actually spending
Federal dollars to find out how we can save Federal dollars. Yet we
would put that report on a shelf where it could gather dust, and we
actually didn't implement the taxpayer savings that the reports
suggested. We are not talking about just a little bit of savings; we
are talking about billions upon billions of dollars of savings that we
could put upon the Federal Government simply by making the billions of
square feet of office space that the Federal Government has more energy
efficient--all, again, by using private sector know-how and private
sector ingenuity, with zero taxpayer dollars involved. This amendment
that we added last night would make sure those requirements--those
findings of energy savings--are actually put into place. Instead of
just gathering dust on the shelf, we are going to make them a reality.
Section 3002 of the bill would reauthorize a Department of Energy
program for 10 additional years to provide funding to retrofit existing
dams and river conduits with electricity-generating technology. It is
estimated by the Department of Energy that there is up to 12 gigawatts
of untapped hydropower development within the Nation's existing dam
infrastructure--12 gigawatts already there, untapped. Right now we
estimate that only about 3 percent of the Nation's 80,000 existing dams
are used to generate clean hydroelectric power. If people are concerned
about zero emissions and carbon emissions, hydropower is one of the
greatest opportunities we have--hydroelectric generation--to produce
clean energy, a renewable resource and emission free.
We have heard from the Colorado Small Hydro Association that there
are new Colorado hydroelectric projects benefiting from this program
that were originally authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These
projects include new small hydro projects near Ouray, Creede, Grand
Lake, and Ridgeway, CO.
Another measure I have been working on over the past several years is
section 2201, which expedites the approval of liquefied natural gas
export applications. I carried this measure in the House where we
passed it with bipartisan support, and now we are going to be able to
pass it with bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate.
When we think about the foreign policy potential that expediting
liquefied natural gas has for this country and the world, it is truly
significant. We

[[Page S482]]

now can send to our allies in Eastern Europe and around the globe--
nations that are currently dependent on energy from tyrannical
governments or governments that would use their energy contracts and
pricing to try to gouge their neighbors or to manipulate markets for
their own gain of an unscrupulous leader--it is a foreign policy tool
that the United States can now provide to our allies abundant,
affordable energy. This bill will allow that liquefied natural gas
permitting process to be expedited. Nations can't wait to get their
hands on U.S. energy. The Department of Energy has said that they can
comply with the terms of this bill. It is a no-brainer.
I also sponsored language in section 4101 of the bill to commission a
study of the feasibility and the potential benefits that could be
brought about by an energy-water Center Of Excellence within the
Department of Energy's national laboratories. In Colorado we are home
to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. We are also home to some
of the most incredible waterways our Nation has to offer. We are also
home, of course, to the high plains areas of the Western Slope and the
Eastern Plains that need more attention when it comes to how we are
going to develop our energy sources while also making sure we are
protecting our water and making sure we are being good conservationists
when it comes to our water. An energy-water Center Of Excellence would
aid in efforts to establish a comprehensive approach for managing
energy and water resources in the future.
In section 3017, I worked to clarify that oilseed crops are eligible
to qualify for the same research provisions as biomass. Meeting future
demand for energy and fuel will require a variety of sources, and
science and research indicate that oilseed crops have the potential to
play a significant role. The Central Great Plains Research Station in
Akron, CO, is researching right now oilseed productivity under varying
water availability. Meeting our energy needs in an increasingly
drought-ridden area will only become harder and harder. Without the
necessary research, we may not have an appropriate response, but with
continued innovation, we will have a great one.
Oilseeds can hold the key to providing safe, clean energy that is
water efficient--a key for the increasingly drought-ridden West.
One of the things we know we have to consider in agriculture, as
farmers sometimes face challenging and sometimes historic lows in
commodity prices, is to make sure we are finding new ways and new value
to the crops they can raise. The development of oilseeds, development
of dryland oilseed technologies is an incredible way for us to bring
value-added opportunities to rural America.
These are only a few of the provisions that I have worked to advance
in this bill, and I wish to thank, again, Chairman Murkowski and so
many of our colleagues for including these provisions so important to
States like Colorado and the Presiding Officer's State of Montana, and
for what we have been able to do in this Energy bill.
We are spending this time on energy because it is so important to
this country. Why is it important? Because it means jobs. It means an
economic foundation. Abundant and affordable energy means the
opportunity for a small business to open up. It means the ability of
our neighbors to be able to afford to cool or heat their homes, to be
able to turn on the light switch when they wake up in the morning and
go home at night.
Over the past year we have looked back at the work the Senate has
done, and really the past year has been a very productive one in the
Senate for the American people. We have focused on four things in the
Senate--four corners--something that I call my four corners plan:
Working on education, passing a bipartisan education bill; areas such
as our economy, and providing tax relief to small businesses and people
around the country; passing a bipartisan transportation bill to make
sure we are getting goods to and from the market. We have worked on the
environment by passing the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In fact,
this bill will address the great program of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which has benefited all 50 States across the country
with projects in every single one. This bill, the Energy Modernization
Policy Act that we are working on today, will address the fourth corner
of my four corner plan, and that is energy. We will hopefully produce
hundreds of thousands of jobs around Colorado and the country, directly
or indirectly related to energy development and energy production,
whether that is clean energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency,
traditional energy, transmission of that energy to and from consumers;
whether it is produced in the sparsely populated southeastern areas of
Colorado or the densely populated areas of Colorado's front range and
beyond. I hope our colleagues will agree to support and pass this
legislation so that it actually continues American leadership when it
comes to energy policy.
So I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership. I know in
Montana this Energy bill is an important step forward because it
represents an all-of-the-above energy policy. I want to thank the
Presiding Officer for his leadership in Montana, and I also want to
thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Murkowski, for her
leadership as well.
Mr. President, I 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have been working hard this
afternoon. I think we had a very productive day. We processed eight
amendments, which was very good for the process we are in. I have
appreciated Members' cooperation with that.
We have been working through the back-and-forth to come up with a
package of amendments that we can process by voice vote. It has been
good. It has been a little lengthier than we had anticipated, but I
think we are in a good place now and I am pleased with that. Again,
tomorrow we will look to set up a series of additional votes. Members
can expect that beginning probably in the afternoon, but we are also
looking to adopt additional votes as we try to reach that unanimous
consent agreement.

Amendments Nos. 3064; 3065, as Modified; 3179; 3145; 3174; 3140, as
Modified; 3156; 3143; 3194, as Modified; 3205; and 3160 to Amendment
No. 2953

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this point in time we are now ready
to process some amendments by voice vote.
I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up
and reported by number: Hirono amendment No. 3064; Hirono amendment No.
3065, with modification; Klobuchar amendment No. 3179; Inhofe-Carper
amendment No. 3145; Heitkamp amendment No. 3174; Collins-Klobuchar
amendment No. 3140, with modification; Baldwin amendment No. 3156;
Carper-Inhofe amendment No. 3143; Boxer-Feinstein amendment No. 3194,
with modification; Inhofe-King amendment No. 3205; and Booker amendment
No. 3160.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 3064; 3065, as modified; 3179;
3145; 3174; 3140, as modified; 3156; 3143; 3194, as modified;
3205; and 3160 en bloc to amendment No. 2953.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 3064

(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to the energy workforce pilot
grant program)

In section 3602(d)(1)(B), after ``State'' insert the
following: ``(as defined in 202 of the Energy Conservation
and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6802)) (referred to in this
section as the `State')''.

Amendment No. 3065, as modified

(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to the energy workforce pilot
grant program)

In section 3602(d), strike paragraph (3) and insert the
following:
(3) work with Indian tribes (as defined in section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450b)), tribal organizations (as defined in section
3765 of title 38, United States Code), and Native American
veterans (as defined in section 3765 of title 38, United
States Code), including veterans who are a descendant of an

[[Page S483]]

Alaska Native (as defined in Section 3(r) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (432 U.S.C. 1602(r).''

Amendment No. 3179

(Purpose: To modify the areas of focus under the grid storage program)

On page 174, line 5, insert ``, electric thermal,
electromechanical,'' after ``materials''.

Amendment No. 3145

(Purpose: To provide that for purposes of the Federal purchase
requirement, renewable energy includes thermal energy)

At the end of title III, add the following:

Subtitle I--Thermal Energy

SEC. 3801. MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TO
INCLUDE THERMAL ENERGY.

(a) In General.--Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852) (as amended by section 3001(b)) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``a number equivalent
to'' before ``the total amount of electric energy'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Qualified waste heat resource.--The term `qualified
waste heat resource' means--
``(A) exhaust heat or flared gas from any industrial
process;
``(B) waste gas or industrial tail gas that would otherwise
be flared, incinerated, or vented;
``(C) a pressure drop in any gas for an industrial or
commercial process; or
``(D) such other forms of waste heat as the Secretary
determines appropriate.''; and
(C) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(i) by striking ``produced from'' and inserting ``produced
or, if resulting from a thermal energy project placed in
service after December 31, 2014, thermal energy generated
from, or avoided by,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``qualified waste heat resource,'' after
``municipal solid waste,''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively, and indenting
appropriately;
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) (as so
redesignated), by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--For purposes''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Separate calculation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of determining compliance
with the requirements of this section, any energy consumption
that is avoided through the use of renewable energy shall be
considered to be renewable energy produced.
``(B) Denial of double benefit.--Avoided energy consumption
that is considered to be renewable energy produced under
subparagraph (A) shall not also be counted for purposes of
achieving compliance with another Federal energy efficiency
goal.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2410q(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``section
203(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
15852(b)(2))'' and inserting ``section 203(b) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852(b))''.

Amendment No. 3174

(Purpose: To affirm a Federal commitment to carbon capture utilization
and storage research, development, and implementation and to study the
costs and benefits of contracting authority for price stabilization)

On page 302, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 3401. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CARBON CAPTURE, USE, AND
STORAGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT.

It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) carbon capture, use, and storage deployment is--
(A) an important part of the clean energy future and smart
research and development investments of the United States;
and
(B) critical--
(i) to increasing the energy security of the United States;
(ii) to reducing emissions; and
(iii) to maintaining a diverse and reliable energy
resource;
(2) the fossil energy programs of the Department should
continue to focus on research and development of technologies
that will improve the capture, transportation, use (including
for the production through biofixation of carbon-containing
products), and injection processes essential for carbon
capture, use, and storage activities in the electrical and
industrial sectors;
(3) the Secretary should continue to partner with the
private sector and explore avenues to bring down the cost of
carbon capture, including through loans, grants, and
sequestration credits to help make carbon capture, use, and
storage technologies more competitive compared to other
technologies that are a part of the clean energy future of
the United States; and
(4) the Secretary should continue working with
international partners on pre-existing agreements, projects,
and information sharing activities of the Secretary to
develop the latest and most cutting-edge carbon capture, use,
and storage technologies for the electrical and industrial
sectors.
On page 302, line 15, strike ``3401'' and insert ``3402''.
On page 302, line 21, strike ``3402'' and insert ``3403''.
On page 311, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 3404. REPORT ON PRICE STABILIZATION SUPPORT.

(a) Definition of Electric Generation Unit.--In this
section, the term ``electric generation unit'' means an
electric generation unit that--
(1) uses coal-based generation technology; and
(2) is capable of capturing carbon dioxide emissions from
the unit.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report--
(1) on the benefits and costs of entering into long-term
binding contracts on behalf of the Federal Government with
qualified parties to provide price stabilization support for
certain industrial sources for capturing carbon dioxide from
electricity generated at an electric generation unit or
carbon dioxide captured from an electric generation unit and
sold to a purchaser for--
(A) the recovery of crude oil; or
(B) other purposes for which a commercial market exists;
and
(2) that--
(A) contains an analysis of how the Department would
establish, implement, and maintain a contracting program
described in paragraph (1); and
(B) outlines options for how price stabilization contracts
may be structured and regulations that would be necessary to
implement a contracting program described in paragraph (1).

Amendment No. 3140, as modified

(Purpose: To require certain Federal agencies to establish consistent
policies relating to forest biomass energy to help address the energy
needs of the United States)

At the end of part IV of subtitle A of title III, add the
following:

SEC. 30__. POLICIES RELATING TO BIOMASS ENERGY.

To support the key role that forests in the United States
can play in addressing the energy needs of the United States,
the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
consistent with their missions, jointly--
(1) ensure that Federal policy relating to forest
bioenergy--
(A) is consistent across all Federal departments and
agencies; and
(B) recognizes the full benefits of the use of forest
biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible forest
management; and
(2) establish clear and simple policies for the use of
forest biomass as an energy solution, including policies
that--
(A) reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and
recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, provided the
use of forest biomass for energy production does not cause
conversion of forests to non-forest use.
(B) encourage private investment throughout the forest
biomass supply chain, including in--
(i) working forests;
(ii) harvesting operations;
(iii) forest improvement operations;
(iv) forest bioenergy production;
(v) wood products manufacturing; or
(vi) paper manufacturing;
(C) encourage forest management to improve forest health;
and
(D) recognize State initiatives to produce and use forest
biomass.

Amendment No. 3156

(Purpose: To strike a repeal under a provision relating to
manufacturing energy efficiency)

Beginning on page 130, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 131, line 5.
Beginning on page 419, line 26, strike ``(as amended'' and
all that follows through ``1201(d)(3))'' on page 420, line 1.

Amendment No. 3143

(Purpose: To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program)

At the end of part III of subtitle D of title I, add the
following:

SEC. 131_. REAUTHORIZATION OF DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION
PROGRAM.

Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16137(a)) is amended by striking ``2016'' and inserting
``2021''.

Amendment No. 3194, as modified

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a task force
to analyze and assess the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. ALISO CANYON NATURAL GAS LEAK TASK FORCE.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S483, February 2, 2016, at the bottom of the third
column, and continuing in the first column on page S484, the
following language appears (a) FINDINGS.---- Congress finds that--
-- (1) on October 23, 2015, a natural gas leak was discovered at a
well within the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility in Los
Angeles County in the State of California, and as of January 27,
2016, attempts by theSouthern California Gas Company (referred to
in this section as the ``Company'') to stop the leak have not been
successful; (2) the leak appears to be caused by damage to the
well casing at approximately 500 feet underground; (3) the Company
has attempted severaltimes to plug the well, but as of January 28,
2016, those efforts have been unsuccessful; (4) many residents in
the nearby communityhave reported adverse physical symptoms
including dizziness, nausea, and nosebleeds as a result of the
natural gas leak, and the continuing emissions from the leak have
resulted in the relocation of thousands of people away from their
homes and livelihoods; (5) local schools have temporarily closed,
many businesses have been negatively impacted, and regular public
services such as mail delivery have also been disrupted; (6) more
than 86,500,000 kilograms of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas,
have been emitted into the atmosphere, which is---- (A) the
equivalent of 2,200,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide; or (B) more
greenhouse gas than 468,000 carsemit in 1 year; (7) agencies of
the State of California issued an emergency order on December 10,
2015, prohibiting injection of natural gas into the Aliso Canyon
Storage Facility until further authorization; and

The online Record has been corrected to omit the language.

========================= END NOTE =========================

[[Page S484]]

(b) Establishment of Task Force.--Not later than 15 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
lead and establish an Aliso Canyon Task Force (referred to in
this section as the ``task force'').
(c) Membership of Task Force.--In addition to the
Secretary, the task force shall be composed of--
(1) 1 representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration;
(2) 1 representative from the Department of Health and
Human Services;
(3) 1 representative from the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(4) 1 representative from the Department of the Interior;
(5) 1 representative from the Department of Commerce; and
(6) 1 representative from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
(d) Report.--
(1) Final report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit a final
report that contains the information described in
subparagraph (B) to--
(i) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate;
(ii) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives;
(iii) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate;
(iv) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives;
(v) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate;
(vi) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives;
(vii) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate;
(viii) the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House of Representatives;
(ix) the President; and
(x) relevant Federal and State agencies.
(B) Information included.--The report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include, at a minimum--
(i) an analysis and conclusion of the cause of the Aliso
Canyon natural gas leak;
(ii) an analysis of measures taken to stop the natural gas
leak, with an immediate focus on other, more effective
measures that could be taken;
(iii) an assessment of the impact of the natural gas leak
on health, safety, the environment, and the economy of the
residents and property surrounding Aliso Canyon;
(iv) an analysis of how Federal and State agencies
responded to the natural gas leak;
(v) in order to lessen the negative impacts of natural gas
leaks, recommendations on how to improve--

(I) the response to a future leak; and
(II) coordination between all appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies in the response to the Aliso Canyon
natural gas leak and future natural gas leaks;

(vi) an analysis of the potential for a similar natural gas
leak to occur at other underground natural gas storage
facilities in the United States;
(vii) recommendations on how to prevent any future natural
gas leaks;
(viii) recommendations on whether to continue operations at
Aliso Canyon and other facilities in close proximity to
residential populations based on an assessment of the risk of
a future natural gas leak;
(ix) a recommendation on information that is not currently
collected but that would be in the public interest to collect
and distribute to agencies and institutions for the continued
study and monitoring of natural gas infrastructure in the
United States;
(x) an analysis of the impact of the Aliso Canyon natural
gas leak on wholesale and retail electricity prices; and
(xi) an analysis of the impact of the Aliso Canyon natural
gas leak on the reliability of the bulk-power system.
(2) Publication.--The final report under paragraph (1)
shall be made available to the public in an electronically
accessible format.
(3) If, before the final report is submitted under
paragraph (1) the task force finds methods to solve the
natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon; better protect the affected
communities; or finds methods to help prevent other leaks,
they must immediately issue such findings to the same
entities that are to receive the final report.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary.

amendment no. 3205

(Purpose: To provide for the use of geomatic data in consideration of
applications for Federal authorization)

On page 196, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
(d) Geomatic Data.--If a Federal or State department or
agency considering an aspect of an application for Federal
authorization requires the applicant to submit environmental
data, the department or agency shall consider any such data
gathered by geomatic techniques, including tools and
techniques used in land surveying, remote sensing,
cartography, geographic information systems, global
navigation satellite systems, photogrammetry, geophysics,
geography, or other remote means.

amendment no. 3160

(Purpose: To strike a provision relating to identifyng and
characterizing methane hydrate resources using remote sensing and
seismic data in the Atlantic Ocean Basin)

On page 263, line 5, strike ``or the Atlantic Ocean
Basin''.

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. Is there further debate?
If not, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3064; 3065, as modified; 3179; 3145; 3174; 3140,
as modified; 3156; 3143; 3194, as modified; 3205; and 3160) were agreed
to en bloc.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate again the cooperation and
the working relationship with my ranking member, as well as her very
strong and able team working with mine, as well as the floor staff who
have been doing a great job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we just cleared several amendments in a
bipartisan fashion, working back and forth across the aisle, and I so
appreciate our colleagues working so diligently on these tonight. If we
want to keep making progress, obviously we have to keep communicating,
but I thank everybody involved with getting these amendments done.
To my colleague from Alaska, thanks for her diligence in focusing on
these issues. Hopefully we will resolve these issues tomorrow. The
cloture motion has been filed, so we need to keep moving forward so
that we can resolve these issues by the end of this week.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3140, as Modified

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I did want to mention on amendment No.
3140 that I want to thank everybody who worked on that particular
amendment tonight. I know tomorrow we are going to have a colloquy
continuing the dialogue among all our colleagues who care about these
issues as they relate to energy and biomass and making sure we are all
continuing to work on this together. I want to point out that there
will be a colloquy on that tomorrow.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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.

____________________