[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19004-19006]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 UNANIMOUS CONSENTS REQUEST--H.R. 2126

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here with Senator Portman of Ohio 
to try--I think for about the sixth time--to get energy efficiency 
legislation passed.
  Senator Portman and I have been working on legislation called the 
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act for 4 years now. We 
have tried to bring it to the floor, and it has been objected to not 
because of provisions in the bill but because of extraneous provisions 
that have people holding it up.
  Tonight we are again trying to pass a smaller version of that bill. 
It is H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, which was 
passed out of the House with a strong bipartisan vote of 375 to just 
36. It was sponsored in the House by Representative McKinley from West 
Virginia and Representative Welch from Vermont. Senator Portman and I 
introduced the same bill here in the Senate a couple of weeks ago.
  I am going to be asking for unanimous consent that the Senate 
consider passage of this legislation. Before I do that, it is my 
understanding it is going to be objected to again and that Senator 
Toomey is here to do that. But I wonder if I could get an answer to a 
question from Senator Toomey about what his specific objections are to 
the legislation.
  I understand the Tenant Star provision in the bill is what he is 
objecting to. Yet this would establish best practices, and it would set 
up a voluntary certification system for efficiency and commercial 
tenant spaces. What it does not do is provide financial incentives or 
create new regulations. It is a voluntary, market-based, business-
friendly approach to encouraging energy efficiency--which is the 
cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs in this country. It 
is something everybody agrees we should try and do.
  So I wonder if I can ask my colleague from Pennsylvania if he could 
describe his concerns about that provision in the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am objecting on behalf of a colleague 
who is unavoidably detained. So the Senator from New Hampshire will 
have to take this up with our colleague.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, in that case, I ask unanimous consent 
that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, and the Senate 
proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read a third time and 
passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague who is 
unavoidably detained, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Ohio who I 
know is here to talk about the legislation or my colleague from New 
Hampshire who has been working on the Tenant Star provision with 
Senator Bennet from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Hampshire 
and my colleague from Ohio, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for their 
work on this legislation.
  As my colleague from New Hampshire has said, unfortunately this is a 
piece of legislation that is being blocked. As we saw on the floor, we 
don't even know the reason it is being blocked. I think, when we have 
an objection on the Senate floor, we should have to come to the floor 
and state what our objection is.
  So here we are. We are going to again ask for this legislation to be 
brought forward that passed overwhelmingly in the House and in fact has 
overwhelming support from both the business community and environmental 
groups.
  If the Tenant Star provision is what is being raised--we are not 
quite sure what the objection is because we haven't heard here 
publicly.
  This program is supported not only by commercial landowners but also 
tenants, the business community, and environmental groups. What it does 
is establish a market-based approach that is not a mandate but 
encourages both the commercial owners and tenants to be able to create 
a voluntary Tenant Star certification to encourage commercial tenants 
to implement cost measures that will help reduce energy consumption.
  Energy efficiency is a bipartisan way we can reduce energy costs, we 
can protect our environment, and we can ensure that we don't have to be 
dependent on countries overseas. It is about security of this country 
too.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for working so 
hard on this bill. It is surprising, this bill that passed--obviously, 
a smaller version of the bill that they have introduced and I am proud 
to cosponsor, but it has overwhelming support. It passed the House. It 
is unfortunate that we are here and aren't going to be able to get this 
done because it is just common sense.
  Again, the program is not a mandate. There is no tax incentive, no 
grant program. It contains no regulatory authority, no new costs. This 
is one that just makes common sense.
  So I am very disappointed that this bill is not going to be brought 
forward tonight. It is unfortunate that we are essentially here 
fighting against something we don't even know what the objections are 
because they haven't been stated publicly.
  With that, I again thank my colleagues for working on this bill. I 
hope to support their efforts in the next Congress to get this 
bipartisan, commonsense energy efficiency legislation through this 
body.
  With that, I turn to my colleague from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am also joined by our colleague from 
Alaska, the ranking member on the energy committee who will be the 
chair come January. I want to give her a chance to talk in a moment, 
but let me state a few things.
  First, this legislation represents a lot of hard work by a lot of 
people, including Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, who spoke, Senator 
Shaheen also from New Hampshire, Senator Bennet, and others. It is an 
example of smart, bipartisan legislation that was worked out with the 
business community, with folks who are concerned about energy 
efficiency who are in nonprofits. It has no objection, as far as I

[[Page 19005]]

know, in the real world; meaning there is no group, not a single group, 
that has objected to it.
  On the other hand, there are dozens of people who support it, 
including business groups, environmental groups, and people who want to 
have the opportunity on a voluntary basis--no mandates, as the Senator 
from New Hampshire has said, to be able to know that there is a 
certification that a building is energy efficient, to be able to have 
information.
  Second, I want to make the point that it is part of four provisions, 
one of which is urgent because it involves a decision we have to make 
now--tonight--in the Senate in order to keep a regulation from the 
Department of Energy unfairly imposed on businesses and consumers in 
America, and this is the water provision.
  So not only are we objecting to something I don't think anyone 
objects to in the real world, but also we are blocking something that 
would be good for our consumers and good for business.
  Because of our inaction tonight--because we had this objection for 
reasons we don't know because we have not been able in two nights on 
the floor to get a reason. All we heard was: We object. No reason. We 
are stopping the ability for companies to produce water heaters that 
are then used by rural electric co-ops that are used in an energy-
efficient way, because during a peak demand they are turned off. So 
they could superheat the water and be turned off in peak demand, called 
demand response. It is an efficiency measure.
  The regulation doesn't make any sense that bans the production of 
these water heaters, but it is because of legislation that Congress 
passed that DOE feels they have to oppose the regulation.
  So tonight we had the opportunity not only to pass something good on 
Tenant Star, not only to do other things that are good for the Federal 
Government to become efficient--the biggest energy user in the world, 
by the way--but also we have an urgent matter before us; that is, to 
change this regulation before manufacturers are blocked from producing 
these water heaters.
  Rural electric co-ops all over the country are watching tonight, and 
they are disappointed. Why? Because they use these water heaters, and 
they use them in an energy-efficient way. They are not going to be able 
to do that going forward because manufacturers are literally having to 
stop producing these water heaters because we are not acting.
  So after the first of the year I hope we will be able to, in regular 
order, take this forward, and hopefully some of these manufacturers 
will begin to produce these water heaters again. Once we can take care 
of the regulations that are onerous on business owners and consumers 
and does not make sense for energy efficiency.
  Finally, this is part of what I hope will be the past Congress. I 
hope in the future Congress, which will start in January, that we do 
things in a different way. I hope we begin to look at ideas from both 
sides of the aisle, find common ground, and move forward in legislation 
to help the American people.
  This is a small matter. I understand that. It is a big matter if you 
are a rural electric co-op or if you are one of these commercial 
buildings that want to use Energy Star or if we care about the fact 
that we think about $5 billion is wasted in energy inefficiency by the 
Federal Government that could be addressed by some of the other 
provisions here tonight.
  I think this is, unfortunately, symbolic of where we are as a 
Congress. We can't even get simple things done.
  This legislation was reported out of the committee in the House 
unanimously--all four provisions. We are talking about the Republican-
led House unanimously on the floor of the House passed by a vote of 
375. I think it was 375 to 34, as I recall. We don't see those kind of 
bipartisan votes often.
  Then it came over here. It has gone through the energy committee. The 
energy committee's vote was something like 18 to 3, as I recall. It has 
come to the floor now for the third time--the fourth time, if we 
include last night.
  This legislation has been fully vetted. We have had hearings on it. 
We have done all the right things. We have played by the rules, and 
those of us who played by the rules on this legislation again are being 
stopped as we get to the floor of the Senate.
  I hope we will see not just good energy efficiency legislation passed 
in the next Congress but other legislation as well to deal with our Tax 
Code that is out of date, antiquated, to deal with the overreach and 
regulations, some of the regulatory reform measures that the Presiding 
Officer and I have talked about.
  We can deal with the fact that we are falling behind in terms of 
exports; that we are not dealing with some of our urgent problems we 
should be dealing with to get this economy moving.
  We have to change the way we are doing business around here. We are 
letting things move only in very incremental and, unfortunately, 
partisan ways. We are not allowing the process to work.
  So I am hopeful this legislation will be taken up in January. I am 
very disappointed it was objected to again tonight for no apparent 
reason. I am hopeful this will lead us to be able to better represent 
the people who hired us, the people who said: Go to Washington. I want 
you to find common ground because there are big problems to solve, not 
just give speeches. We have had enough of those. There is enough 
rhetoric. It is time to get things done. This is a small example of 
what could have gotten done tonight but for an objection with no 
apparent reason.
  With that, I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Alaska has 
stayed late to be able to talk about this tonight. She will be the next 
chair of the energy committee, and she has the ability. Working with 
her colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to get some great 
legislation accomplished, and I hope this will be one of them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues and express 
my disappointment that we are again at this place: A good measure that 
has good, strong, bipartisan, bicameral support has been blocked. It 
has been objected to.
  I made a comment last evening when we once again attempted to bring 
up the unanimous consent order to advance the energy efficiency bill. 
It kind of feels like ``Groundhog Day,'' the movie, where it is just 
the same scene over and over again, the third time to the floor on a 
measure that enjoys strong support. It kind of begs the question, why? 
What is the problem with it? But as both my colleagues Senator Shaheen 
and Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire have outlined in terms of the 
specifics, there is no opposition there.
  As the cosponsor, my colleague from Ohio has pointed out these four 
provisions that are contained in this House measure have so much 
bipartisan support that it passed the House unanimously coming over 
here.
  So we have to ask: If we cannot advance a measure in this body such 
as energy efficiency that enjoys this level of support, how can we do 
anything around here?
  I asked the question months ago, when I was being stopped in the 
hallway by reporters asking: What is going to happen to the energy 
efficiency bill, and I was bullishly optimistic because, as I said, 
this is a measure that enjoys strong support. It enjoys strong support 
and it is common sense.
  I said: If we can't demonstrate that, we can't get a measure such as 
energy efficiency through both Houses and enacted into law, how are we 
ever going to get to the really thorny, difficult issues?
  I have been working with my colleagues on the appropriating side of 
energy and water, the Senator from California and Senator Alexander 
from Tennessee working with us on the authorizing side. First it was me 
and Senator Wyden, and then it was me and Senator Landrieu, and in 
January it will be Senator Cantwell.

[[Page 19006]]

  We will be trying to figure out how we are going to deal with the 
issues surrounding nuclear waste disposal. These are tough issues. 
These are contentious. We have got some issues that will face us in the 
new Congress relating to the export of our energy resources. These are 
also going to be contentious. How are we ever going to get to the tough 
ones if--on the easy ones, what we describe around here as the low-
hanging fruit--we cannot get through this process?
  So I have to say, it is late--it is not the 11th hour; it is beyond 
the 11th hour because we have just taken the last vote, the last vote 
of the 113th Congress. We are done, and what we are leaving people with 
is uncertainty. When we are talking about those ways that we as a 
Congress can help right some of the problems in this country--how we 
can get our economy on a better track, how we can move towards more 
jobs and job creation--the best thing we can do is offer a level of 
certainty.
  Well, right now you have these manufacturers of these water heaters 
that are saying: We don't know whether we are going to have any kind of 
a reprieve from this regulation or not. So we are not only not going to 
be making these water heaters, but that means we don't have the 
workers, those in the manufacturing companies who are going to be there 
or the people that are selling them. Think about what we have done with 
this one hurdle that we just couldn't get around. Yet we couldn't get a 
straight answer as to what the opposition--what the push-back--was.
  Something is wrong with this process when we cannot advance measures 
such as the energy efficiency bill, a measure that has been worked on 
for years--diligently and in good faith--in a very, very open and 
bipartisan way. So I am hopeful that the 114th Congress is going to 
bring with it not only some fresh air--fresh perspective--but a 
willingness and a commitment to move through a process. If there is an 
objection, it should be stated, and we can work it out. But to continue 
to block and block when we have the level of support on a measure that 
we have, that is just not right. There has to be a better way. So I 
have pledged to my colleagues, the sponsors of this bill and all of 
those who have been working hard on it, that we are taking this back up 
again in the new year. We are going to work to make sure this has, yet 
again, the committee process, now for the third time, and we will work 
to advance it to the floor. It is my hope that if someone has problems 
with it, they have a solution to fix it, and they then come down and 
offer their amendments, we will debate them, and we will move on. But 
we have to be in a better place than where we have ended this evening.
  So it is with regret that I say we will take it up again next year. 
But my hope is that we will do right by our energy policy, by focusing 
not only on the production side, not only the renewable side, but our 
efficiency measures that we have included in this bill. We are going to 
do right for a lot of the right reasons.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________