[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 644-652]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





                ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the 
     energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:15 
p.m. will be for debate only.
  The Senator from the great State of Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is good to welcome the Presiding 
Officer back to Washington, DC. This Senator knows that the Presiding 
Officer was back home in Alaska, and while they may not have had snow, 
they got everybody else's attention with a 7.1 earthquake. I know it 
was an interesting weekend for the Presiding Officer as well.
  Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor this morning with a fair 
amount of excitement and enthusiasm. We are beginning the debate on 
energy reform legislation, S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization 
Act. This is the first time the Senate has debated energy policy reform 
in more than 8 years. It has been more than 8 years since we have had 
this kind of debate.
  I was here yesterday morning and had an opportunity to open the 
session. I opened the session and Senator Collins was the Presiding 
Officer in the chair. It was one of those interesting mornings where 
everybody else seemed to be female on the floor, and the press has 
taken note of that. But that is not my point.
  I left the floor and went out in the hallway where there was a group 
of eight or nine young kids with a fellow who works on the House side. 
I think he was giving them a little bit of a field trip, but I think he 
had kid duty because so many schools were still closed on account of 
the incredible amount of snow we got in Washington. I had a fabulous 
conversation with the kids who at that age are excited about being in 
the Capitol and understanding the difference between a House Member and 
a Senate Member.
  They asked: Well, what are you working on?

[[Page 645]]

  I said: It is really exciting because we are going to be taking up 
energy reform legislation that we have not done in a long time.
  I asked the kids when they were born, and one little girl said 2007. 
I said that 2007 was the last time we had energy legislation on the 
floor.
  And since it sometimes helps to understand the passage of time in 
relation to our kids I said: Look what has happened to you in the 8 
years since you were born. You have grown, gotten smarter, and been 
exposed to a lot of things.
  Debate on energy legislation is long overdue on the floor of this 
Senate. This is a good bill, it is a timely bill, and it is a 
bipartisan bill. It deserves overwhelming support from this Chamber. I 
was encouraged by the minority leader's comments and his encouragement 
that through the process that we have built on the energy committee to 
move out a bipartisan bill, it should enjoy the respect of good debate 
as we move forward to again attempt to modernize our energy policies.
  At the beginning, I acknowledge the good and strong and very 
cooperative work I have received from my ranking member Senator 
Cantwell from the State of Washington and thank her for helping me 
craft this bill because it was truly a joint effort. It was a very 
collaborative effort. I also thank the other members of the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee for all the ideas they brought 
to bear and the support we have received from them bringing the bill to 
this point.
  To give folks a little bit of a background on how we came to have 
this Energy bill--the first real substantive legislation we have had 
here in 2016--it is worthwhile to talk about the process of how we got 
it because that in and of itself is a little bit unusual nowadays.
  To segue just a moment, because it was last year at this time that 
Senator Cantwell and I were managing the floor when we had the Keystone 
XL debate. It was the first time in a long time we had seen regular 
order with a full-on amendment process. A lot of people did not even 
know how to process these amendments. We worked through some 40-odd 
amendments, and got everybody's attention that we can actually move a 
bill. It had some level of controversy. We did not obviously agree with 
many aspects of it, but we moved through a process.
  Well, it is January again, and the women are back at work. I am 
hopeful the collaborative effort that got this bipartisan bill to the 
floor today will be reflected in the debate that goes forward. Senator 
Cantwell and I sat down last January, when I became the chairman of the 
committee, and we talked about goals and priorities--what we were 
looking for. We both said it was well past time to update our energy 
policies, to do a scrub, to do an overhaul. We had a conversation about 
how we might go about it because there were a couple of ways we could 
proceed. I could have drafted my own bill with my own priorities and 
tried to get the votes that I needed to move it out of committee, but 
if you do not have the support beyond your side of the aisle, it is 
going to be tough to be able to advance it to the floor and get it 
enacted into law. Senator Cantwell could have done the same. She could 
have moved her own bill. We could have done messaging bills, but we 
both agreed we are well past the time for messaging. We need to be 
legislating and governing in the energy space, and in order to do it, 
it is going to take some cooperation, collaboration, and conversation. 
That is where we started.
  I went around to colleagues on the committee and began conversations 
with them about their energy-related priorities. These conversations 
continued between our staffs. Our staffs also held dozens of bipartisan 
listening sessions with stakeholders. We held them in Washington, DC. 
We held them in other parts of the country. We held one hearing in 
Kwigillingok, AK. The Presiding Officer knows where that is. Most 
others know it as only some faraway village in Alaska, but I mention 
this as it speaks to the level of outreach for which we strived.
  After our listening sessions, we came back and really rolled up our 
sleeves. We held four oversight hearings and began with a 30,000-foot-
look about where we are in different energy spaces. We had our 
oversight hearings.
  Then we moved down to six legislative hearings on a total of 114 
different bills. These were 114 different bills that were not 
necessarily introduced by just Members of the energy committee. These 
were bills that were introduced by Republicans and Democrats throughout 
the Senate and some House Members' bills that we had seen as well. We 
took the testimony that we received from experts, advocates, private 
citizens, administration officials, and from our home States and just 
about every other State. We gathered all the perspectives that we could 
about what Congress should do and what Congress needs to do to ensure 
that our Federal policies keep up with the years of change in energy 
markets and energy technologies.
  One simple case in point that reminds us of this 8-year passage of 
time is this. Eight years ago when we talked about LNG, what we were 
talking about was seeing if we could structure our LNG terminals so 
they could be import terminals. Think about where we are now. We are 
talking about how we export our LNG, how we can move it to share our 
energy wealth with others. That is a prime example of making sure that 
what is happening within our energy markets, what is happening within 
our energy technologies is consistent with what our policies, our laws, 
and our regulations allow.
  After we did all this gathering of information, we entered weeks of 
bipartisan negotiations to determine which bills should be incorporated 
into our draft text. From the 114 measures, we took 50 different bills. 
As one flips through the 400-some-odd pages of this Energy Policy 
Modernization Act, you will see bits and pieces of 50 different 
measures offered by colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--offered 
throughout the Senate.
  Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have been leaders on energy 
efficiency and we were able to incorporate a number of ideas in the 
energy efficiency title of our bill. You will also see incorporated in 
it the critical minerals bill that I have been working on for years 
now. Again, we are not just taking the ideas from this Senator from 
Alaska or the Senator from Washington and introducing a bill for 
consideration, we have solicited others for ideas and input as well.
  The last step on the committee was when we went to markup. We held 3 
days of markup, which is a pretty good time to spend in committee. We 
dispensed with nearly 59 amendments and because of that very 
collaborative process we solicited ideas from all sides. When it came 
to reporting the bill out of committee we ended up passing it out by a 
significant 18-to-4 vote. We agreed to report the Energy bill to the 
full Senate for further consideration, and that is how we got to where 
we are today.
  I wish I could say we would see more of this type of collaborative 
effort in the Senate. We do not see this all the time. We did see it 
last year, and where we have seen legislative success is worth noting.
  The Education bill that was shepherded by Senator Alexander and 
Senator Murray was also a very collaborative process. I serve on the 
HELP Committee. I sat through the many hours of debate and oversight 
and markups. We were able to advance that bipartisan bill to the 
floor--a bill that moved out of the committee unanimously--and we were 
able to advance it to the floor where it enjoyed strong bipartisan 
support, went to conference with the House, and has now been signed 
into law.
  Another area where the leaders worked cooperatively and 
collaboratively--I commend Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for what 
they did on the highway bill. They worked through the issues that were 
not easy but were absolutely necessary to get a longer term highway 
transportation bill. That does not happen if you just elbow your way 
through. It comes when you work together. I think we have demonstrated 
on the energy committee that we have done just that--working 
collaboratively.

[[Page 646]]

  I have said many times that the Energy Policy Modernization Act is 
not the bill I would have drafted if it were just up to me, and it is 
not the bill Senator Cantwell would have drafted if it were just up to 
her. The bill is not exactly the way any one of us would have drafted 
it if it was up to just one of us. It is a bill we wrote together. We 
wrote it as a committee. We wrote it as a team and as a group of 22 
Senators who care very deeply about our Nation's energy policies.
  As Members are coming back, as they are looking at this bill, I urge 
them to look at what is in the bill and where we have been able to find 
the common ground. Look and analyze that because I can guarantee you 
are going to find things that are not in there that you wish were there 
and you are going to say: Lisa, how come my X, Y, or Z is not part of 
this bill?
  That is true. There is some X, Y, and Z that is not in this bill that 
I would really like. I know there are items the Presiding Officer would 
really like--the two of us being Senators from Alaska--but we do not 
have then opportunity to build a consensus on some of those issues 
right here, right now. So can we agree that what we have built with 
this bill advances our energy policies, brings us more up to speed, and 
loosens the choke hold we have in certain areas?
  We spent months modernizing our energy policies and addressing both 
opportunities and challenges, and we found common ground in many areas. 
I think we found common ground in more areas than we actually expected 
when we started this process--certainly enough to write a good, solid 
bill. We ultimately organized our efforts into five main titles. We 
have efficiency, infrastructure, supply, accountability, and 
conservation.
  We agreed to include the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act. This is the efficiency measure which I mentioned 
just a moment ago which Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have been 
leading for years. I think it is very important that we were able to 
incorporate the good work of the Senators from Ohio and New Hampshire, 
along with the support of 13 other Members, for inclusion in this bill.
  We also agreed to include the LNG Permitting Certainty and 
Transparency Act. This act was led by Senator Barrasso, and 17 other 
Members joined with him on that very important measure.
  We agreed to include my American Mineral Security Act, which is the 
critical minerals bill sponsored by Senator Risch of Idaho, Senator 
Crapo of Idaho, and Senator Heller of Nevada. Again, it is a piece that 
I think many would agree is vitally important. Having greater control 
of these important minerals is critical to our country's energy 
security and we must not subject ourselves to complete reliance on 
others as sources for their supply. We do not want to go down the same 
road we have been down, for instance, with oil historically when we are 
talking about our critical minerals. This is a huge issue for us.
  We agreed to promote the use of clean, renewable hydropower, which is 
a priority for Members from Western States, including Senator Gardner, 
who helped lead, Senator Daines, Senator Cantwell, and me.
  We agreed to expedite the permitting of natural gas pipelines without 
sacrificing any environmental review or public participation. This was 
an effort that was led by Senator Capito of West Virginia.
  We agreed to a new pilot program for oil and gas permitting. This was 
one of many good ideas Senator Hoeven of North Dakota advanced.
  We took up a proposal from Senator Collins of Maine to boost 
efficiency within our schools. I think we all recognize this is an area 
where we can and should try to do a little bit more. It saves us in the 
long run.
  Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota had a measure to increase the 
efficiency of buildings that are owned by nonprofits.
  We agreed to improve our Nation's cyber security--an issue we are all 
very keyed in on. This was from legislation that was originally 
presented by Senator Risch of Idaho and Senator Heinrich of New Mexico. 
We saw an amendment from Senator Flake on this topic as well.
  We made innovation a key priority in our bill, with a recognition 
that there is a limited but very useful role for the Federal Government 
to play early on in the development of new technologies.
  I just came from a meeting this morning, a summit on advanced nuclear 
technologies. We spent a good part of the summit recognizing that when 
you talk about nuclear and the future, innovation is key to what we are 
building.
  We agreed to reauthorize many of the energy-related portions of the 
America COMPETES Act. You will recall that this was the measure Senator 
Alexander has advanced in the past. We took those energy-related pieces 
and incorporated them in the bill.
  In some of the areas of renewable, geothermal is one that I believe 
has enormous potential. We certainly have that potential in the State 
of Alaska, but we also have it in other Western States. This was a big 
priority for Senator Wyden and Senator Heller. Senator Wyden's 
legislation and the ideas he has advanced have been key.
  We agreed to promote vehicle innovation. This was a priority for 
Senator Peters of Michigan, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, and Senator 
Alexander of Tennessee so we were able to enhance that discussion on 
vehicle innovation.
  We agreed to renew the coal R&D program at the Department of Energy. 
This was based on a proposal that was advanced by the Senators from 
West Virginia, Senator Manchin and Senator Capito, but Senator Portman 
was also key to helping advance this.
  We agreed to help protect reliability within the electric sector--an 
incredibly important part of what we do within this legislation.
  We reform the Loan Guarantee Program at the Department of Energy. 
Many of us believe strongly that reforms were necessary, and we have 
done just that to ensure that we do not have taxpayers at risk with 
certain aspects of that program.
  We agreed to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As 
folks will recall, that authorization expired toward the end of last 
year. Within the omnibus, we successfully advanced a 3-year extension, 
but what we did within the committee was we advanced permanent 
authorization of LWCF with some reforms--reforms that were endorsed by 
the full committee.
  We have a provision in there as well that helps to address the 
maintenance backlog within our national park system. People understand 
that this year is the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. 
It is something worthy of celebration. Unfortunately, we have a real 
black eye when it comes to maintenance and upkeep of our parks, so we 
have reviewed that issue and said we need to make steps to help address 
that in a way that is constructive.
  There is a section of the bill nobody will talk about. The press does 
not care to report about it, but I think it is a very good section. 
Recognizing the Presiding Officer's interest in regulatory reform, he 
will be pleased to know we cleaned up the United States Code. We 
deleted dozens of provisions within the Code that are either obsolete 
or duplicative. We get these programs on the books, we put requirements 
for a study into law, and as long as they are still there--even though 
no one is reading that report anymore, even though those programs are 
now obsolete because of what has gone on, they are still on the books. 
So if you are worried about government spending and you are looking at 
the conservative reason to embrace what we are doing, take a look at 
some of the provisions we got rid of. They are old, they are outdated, 
and they are obsolete.
  This is just a sample of the good work we have included within the 
bipartisan bill.
  Many of the Members I listed are responsible for not just one 
provision but for multiple provisions throughout the bill. It was truly 
a team effort as we worked this through. We were counting up different 
parts of the bill on which we have seen Members contribute, and

[[Page 647]]

more than half of the Members of this Senate are sponsors or cosponsors 
of at least one provision in the bill as we stand here today. Again, I 
think that is representative of the process in which Senator Cantwell 
and I have engaged.
  You may say: OK, you had a very thorough process. What is in it? What 
good is it? What does it mean to me? How is this going to help our 
country from an energy policy perspective? How is it going to make sure 
that when we talk about energy security translating into economic 
security and national security--how does this all bind together? What 
does this do? How does this help our people?
  There are many practical benefits to modernizing our energy policy, 
and I will start with the first obvious one. Every time you do 
upgrades, whether within your house or your business, you become more 
efficient. For example, we recently replaced the windows in our house. 
Not only did it make the house look a little bit better, but we are 
paying less on utility bills. My husband just found a good deal on 
LEDs, and he replaced all the lightbulbs in the house. He is all 
excited about it because it is going to reduce his costs. He is worried 
about costs. We should all be worried about costs. This bill helps us 
reduce our costs.
  This bill also allows us a cleaner energy future because when you 
modernize your infrastructure, when you use less, you reduce much of 
your emissions. So for those who will be critical and say ``By gosh, 
you didn't fix the issue of climate change,'' look through this bill 
and tell me it does not make for a cleaner energy future for this 
country.
  This bill helps us to produce more energy and to be less reliant on 
others. It helps Americans save energy. Again, when we save energy, we 
save money and there is a more efficient environment. It will help 
ensure that our energy can be transported from where it is produced to 
where it is needed. That is a big challenge we have nowadays. It will 
bolster our status as the most innovative Nation in the world. Why 
shouldn't we be the most innovative Nation in the world when it comes 
to energy? We have the resources here. Let us develop the technologies 
that will allow us to access them in a way that is responsible, with 
good environmental stewardship, that creates jobs, that creates 
economic opportunities, and that truly allows us to be more energy-
resilient. Why shouldn't we be the innovators and the leaders? Let us 
not cede that to anyone.
  Our bill will allow manufacturers to thrive without the fear of high 
costs or crippling shortages, and it will cement our status as a global 
energy superpower as we provide a share of our surplus to our allies 
and trading partners. Is not that a nice thing to know, that not only 
can our energy be good for us and for America, it can be good from a 
geopolitical perspective? That we can help our friends and allies?
  When you think about the energy security, the economic security, and 
the national security that come with energy, that is where it all knits 
together. The Energy Policy Modernization Act will boost our economy, 
our security, and our international competitiveness all at the same 
time. It will help our families save money. It will help our businesses 
save hundreds of billions of dollars. It frees up budgets. It frees up 
our ability to place priorities elsewhere. It will help assure that our 
energy remains abundant and affordable, even as it becomes cleaner and 
more diverse in supply. And it will do all of this without raising 
taxes, without imposing new mandates, and without adding to the Federal 
deficit.
  Again, we are getting great gains for our economy, good jobs, and 
security from a host of different ways. We are able to do this without 
raising taxes, without imposing new mandates, and without adding to the 
Federal deficit.
  This is a good bill. This is a bill that is designed to go the 
distance. It is designed to make a difference. I am confident that we 
can proceed through this floor debate, and we can make it even better. 
For the half of the Senators who have participated in this one way or 
another, there is another half who want to weigh in, and I welcome 
that. I think that is part of this process. This is part of a 
commitment we are making to an open amendment process, but I hope we 
can focus on the good that is within this bill and work to make it 
better and avoid the gotchas and avoid the poison pills; avoid those 
things that are designed to do nothing more than to bring a bill down 
by perhaps making a political point. I ask my colleagues to treat this 
bill on the floor with the same seriousness that the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee treated it throughout this month-long process. Let 
us come together as Senators in the United States Senate to truly help 
make a difference with our energy policies.
  With that, I encourage Members to come down to the floor. We know 
there are a bunch of rumored amendments out there, and we welcome them. 
But we all know we have been delayed a couple of days by the snow, and 
we have work to do. So I would urge colleagues to come to the floor and 
file their amendments. I would also remind Members that if an amendment 
costs money, it is going to need to be paired with a viable offset.
  I remind the Senate that we are considering Senate bill 2012. This is 
not a House shell. So we will need to table any tax amendments because 
we do not want to be in a situation where we have a blue slip that 
prevents us from advancing to conference. I am throwing that out there. 
You may have issues that you would like to bring up, but if it costs 
money, we have to have an offset. We simply cannot do tax amendments, 
and I know that because there are actually some that I am interested in 
as well.
  I think Senator Cantwell and I are both in the same situation. We 
know an open amendment process on an energy bill that hasn't seen floor 
action in a long time could have the effect of unkinking the hose. We 
know there are a lot of folks that have a lot of good ideas, and 
perhaps hundreds of ideas, that this bill could include. Our intent is 
to work as hard as we can and as fast as we can to process as many of 
these bills as possible.
  Tomorrow we expect to have a busy day. Hopefully, by the end of 
today, we will have reached some consent agreement as to what the votes 
for tomorrow would look like, but my hope is that we will be voting, 
voting, voting tomorrow so as to process the many of the amendments we 
are expecting. It is unfortunate that we have lost a few working days 
to the snowstorm, but that is nothing compared to the 8 years we have 
lost as we have let our energy policies languish.
  We know we are in a place and a space where our policies have failed 
to keep up with the changes in the market and the advances in 
technology. We know our policies in many areas are outdated, with 
opportunities being ignored and challenges going unaddressed. So we are 
here. It is time to have the debate. It is time to work through an 
amendment process. It is time to pass an energy bill in the U.S. 
Senate. And after the model of the highway bill, of the education 
reform, and the very good work that so many in this body have put 
toward this bipartisan effort, my hope is that the Energy Policy 
Modernization Act will be the next bipartisan accomplishment on behalf 
of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield to my ranking member and good partner in all 
things energy, Senator Cantwell. A very sincere thank-you to her for a 
very cooperative and good working relationship throughout all of this. 
Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I, too, rise this morning to talk about 
the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015. Yes, sometimes we can be 
cynical about this place and what we can get done; then, all of a 
sudden, we have a great opportunity to move something forward.
  The Senator from Alaska said it correctly. This is a milestone for 
the Senate. The fact that we are considering energy policy legislation 
on the Senate floor in a bipartisan bill, or any bill, for the first 
time since 2007 is a tremendous milestone. I thank her for her 
leadership and for her time and effort to put this legislation together 
in such

[[Page 648]]

a bipartisan fashion through the processes that we went through shown 
on that chart--hearings, listening sessions, discussions, amendments.
  I think it is appropriate to thank our staffs. Usually that is done 
at the end of a process, but when we have had a bill on the floor for 
the first time since 2007, we should herald them in advance. Angela 
Becker-Dippmann, Colin Hayes, and I know Karen also played a big role 
in this, so I thank them.
  But my colleague is a partner, as she said, in all things energy. It 
is interesting that the other Senator from Alaska is presiding at this 
moment. We have all been working together. The Senator from Alaska, Ms. 
Murkowski, and I participated in an Arctic summit just last week in 
Seattle, focusing on another policy for our Nation--the urgency of 
getting an icebreaker fleet for the United States of America and the 
other policies we need to do in the Arctic. So I have certainly enjoyed 
the many efforts that we in the Pacific Northwest region focus on. I 
think maybe that helped us a little bit in our outlook. It is not that 
we agree on everything. Certainly, we don't. But I think we know where 
we disagree, and we try not to let that get us held up. We try to find 
the commonality in what we are doing in moving forward on the 
modernization of our energy system and to make sure we are empowering 
the private sector to continue to move ahead on things by making sure 
that either the R&D investments or changes in policy get done on our 
watch. That is really what the Energy Policy Modernization Act is 
about.
  I thank the Chair for her leadership on that effort and for steering 
us to this process that we have before us today. As she said, it is not 
a bill so perfect that we are not going to hear from our colleagues on 
it. Since it is the first major piece of energy legislation in a long 
time that we hope goes all the way to the President's desk, it is a 
process I am sure many of our colleagues are going to want to see 
amendments on. We will work through them to the best of our abilities 
to hopefully improve the bill, but also not sink the bill with poison 
pill amendments that we know either will get it vetoed or will not get 
it across the finish line where we need to take this legislation.
  I am here this morning, along with the Chair of the committee, to 
thank our colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle for 
their leadership and input on this bill. Again, it was a process on 
which not everybody agreed, but the bill passed out of committee with 
well over a majority of votes in a bipartisan way. I think that signals 
it should have good support here on the Senate floor because we went 
through a very deliberative process in the committee, and that 
deliberative process means a lot of issues were aired, and we know 
where we can go and where we can't go on this legislation.
  Again, it doesn't mean we are not willing to consider a lot of 
debate; we are. It doesn't mean people aren't going to offer amendments 
that are going to be challenging; they are. But in the end, I think if 
we want to keep moving forward with empowering the kind of energy 
revolution that we are seeing, we need to keep up on our side of the 
ledger here in the Nation's Capital.
  Much has changed in the last 9 years since the 2007 act. Before that, 
we had a small bill in 2005, so we have seen some very dramatic changes 
in energy. Clean energy has certainly weathered the storm and is not 
just a pipe dream anymore. It is a key driver of our economy, and it is 
helping us reduce our carbon emissions. Wind power has more than 
quadrupled since the last bill. Solar photovoltaic installations are up 
nearly 15 times. The number of LED lights--I am glad the Senator from 
Alaska's husband is such a cheerleader--has grown more than 90 times in 
since that bill. The reason is, just as the Senator from Alaska said, 
this is all about consumers who want to be able to save money on their 
energy costs. Senators from Alaska get that, and Senators from 
Washington get that as well. We get it in a different way. They get it 
because they are constantly battling the highest energy costs in the 
Nation, and we get it because we are constantly reaping the benefits 
from some of the lowest energy costs in the Nation.
  We both have a great deal of concern here. We both want to protect 
the industries and the economic opportunities of our economy. We know 
that energy is the lifeblood of any economy.
  The U.S. solar industry employed more than 200,000 Americans in 2015, 
which was a 20 percent growth in the industry in the last year. To put 
it into perspective, it has grown nearly 12 times faster than the 
national employment rate during that same time period. So we need to 
continue this effort to make investments in the right research and 
development, the right technologies, in order to empower homeowners, 
ratepayers, and even businesses to save billions of dollars in energy 
costs.
  Why are we doing this bill? As I said, it is an important journey to 
update our antiquated energy policies when we want to modernize our 
infrastructure, and we want to maintain our global competitiveness. 
These are issues that are part of our energy debate today because we 
also want to reduce carbon pollution. As my colleague said, while this 
bill may not have everything we want to see from our side of the aisle 
in a carbon reduction plan, it certainly shows that we do want to see 
investments in clean energy.
  It doesn't matter whether you are a Republican or Democrat, the 
people of this country have said clearly that they want to see clean 
energy and they want us to help curb climate change. We need to listen 
to our constituents, and that is why we are trying to move past some of 
the issues of policy and move forward on things that will empower our 
citizens.
  The Senator from the State of Iowa, who is here, understands exactly 
what I am talking about because he, too--whether it is in wind or solar 
or biofuels--has seen the economic benefits of a changing energy 
landscape for our economy and wants to make sure that businesses and 
ratepayers are still empowered.
  We are here because we need to update and modernize our energy 
policies. That is what we did when this bill came out of committee with 
an 18-to-4 vote. And we need to build on the momentum of the 
technologies and how their deployment reflect new market realities. A 
very important aspect of our energy debate is the Secretary of Energy's 
completion of what was called the Quadrennial Energy Review.
  What are our Nation's energy challenges? It wasn't just an Energy 
Department discussion. It was the entire Federal Government weighing in 
on what are the energy needs of our Nation. It is done every 4 years. 
Basically, what Secretary Moniz said in that report is that we are at a 
crossroads, that the dynamic and changing nature of our domestic 
resource mix, expanded supplies of natural gas, and growth in 
distributed generation are creating opportunities and challenges.
  As the Secretary put it, ``the longevity and high capital costs of 
energy infrastructure mean that decisions made today will strongly 
influence our energy mix for the considerable part of the 21st 
century.''
  What was he talking about? He was talking about the fact that we are 
at a crossroads and where we make investments will mean that we will 
either reap the benefits of making the right decisions or stymie our 
economy's economic growth by not making the right energy decisions.
  When we talk about energy infrastructure, I try to remind my 
colleagues we are talking about 2.6 million miles of pipeline, 640,000 
miles of transmission lines, 414 natural gas storage facilities, 330 
ports with petroleum and crude, more than 140,000 miles of railroad, 
and a diverse mix of energy projects and obviously an electricity grid 
that runs from coast to coast.
  The Quadrennial Energy Review talked about how we needed to modernize 
and upgrade that infrastructure and that the electricity grid was a key 
part of that. That is why you will see a lot in this bill about 
modernizing the electricity grid and why it is so important to our 
Nation--not only from an

[[Page 649]]

economic perspective of having affordable, cheap, renewable, clean 
energy but also in making sure we modernize the grid to help us with 
cyber security.
  Once again, a quote from the report:

       Dramatic changes in the U.S. energy landscape have 
     significant implications for . . . infrastructure needs and 
     choices. Well-informed and forward-looking decisions that 
     lead to a more robust and resilient infrastructure can enable 
     substantial new economic, consumer service, climate 
     protection, and system reliability benefits.

  That is why you will see a significant focus in this bill on 
infrastructure, investing in technologies, cyber security, and making 
our grid more intelligent, efficient, and resilient--ways that we 
believe are going to help both businesses and consumers.
  The bill includes investments in energy storage, which helps 
integrate renewable energy. It has provisions for advanced grid 
technologies, which help make our electricity grid smarter and more 
intelligent, to move energy around more efficiently. It has cyber 
security research and development. I don't think there will be anybody 
in the Senate who will not support this more robust effort on cyber 
security given the challenges and the threats we face.
  It has a focus on new renewable technologies, which are great 
breakthroughs in helping to drive down costs. It has energy efficiency, 
which costs basically one-third to one-half less than new generation.
  This chart shows the question of whether you want to pay 4.6 cents a 
kilowatt for production or 12 cents a kilowatt for production. I know 
this. I would rather pay 4.6 cents. I would rather drive the costs down 
for the consumer as a result of energy efficiency or renewable energy, 
as opposed to making investments in what we know is going to be more 
expensive energy for the future.
  When it comes to R&D, we need to make sure we are making the right 
investments for the future and that we are sending the signals that 
capital markets will take as also a signal for continued investment.
  We need to make investments in our workforce because as the 
Quadrennial Energy Review shows, we will need 1.5 million new workers 
by 2030 in the energy sector. That is a huge number. I will say that we 
do not have the right tools in place to quickly train as many people as 
necessary.
  I am sure the Presiding Officer would attest to this just in the 
biofuels area. I am sure there are institutions in her State that are 
working hard to help describe, train, and educate those in the biofuels 
areas so we can have a robust infrastructure--the science, the R&D, the 
distribution, all of that. I know in our State we are working hard on 
this with our national laboratories and Washington State University on 
getting an advanced biofuels for the airplane sector because we want 
aviation to move forward on using those fuels and becoming even more 
efficient.
  There is advanced manufacturing here where it is about making sure 
our trucks have the same efficiency opportunities that we were able to 
help usher through in 2007 with higher fuel efficiency standards for 
automobiles. Now we want to make sure we are investing in the same 
level of R&D for our advanced truck fleets in the United States so they 
can reap the same benefits as fuel-efficient automobiles.
  As I mentioned, the Quadrennial Energy Review laid all of this out, 
and that is why we took an effort with the committee on hearings that 
my colleague already outlined with more than 100 different energy bills 
and a variety of input from our colleagues.
  Yes, energy efficiency is front and center in this debate. In fact, I 
think there were 22 different energy efficiency bills from 30 different 
Senators as sponsors and cosponsors in the discussion. I think in 2007 
we definitely talked about some smart grid demonstration projects and a 
few things, but nowhere was energy efficiency or the development of 
these policies--whether it is storage or distributed generation or 
protecting ratepayers--none of them were as front and center as they 
have been in this debate today. That is because energy efficiency not 
only makes sense in terms of the environmental benefits. People have 
seen that it makes sense for the economy, and it makes sense for our 
consumers. As I said, it drives down the cost of production and, 
obviously, when it integrates more sustainable resources, efficiency 
becomes a cheaper, better job creator and carries lower environmental 
costs than the alternative. Not only does it save consumers money, but 
it helps add to the flexibility of our grid and reduces carbon.
  I want to thank a few of our colleagues who have worked so hard on 
helping us put this legislation together. My colleague from Alaska 
mentioned the Shaheen-Portman piece of legislation, which is a key 
cornerstone of this bill when it comes to the energy efficiency area. 
It encompasses much of their work. They have obviously been stalwarts 
for years trying to get energy efficiency legislation moved through the 
Senate. Many of the provisions they have sought in the past are now in 
this bill. I commend them for their efforts.
  Residential and commercial buildings consume 40 percent of our U.S. 
energy. That is roughly $430 billion. When you talk about focusing on 
making our buildings more efficient and addressing that sector of our 
energy needs, there are some true savings.
  In the past, energy buildings and equipment standards have lowered 
the costs, and they expected to save roughly 3 billion metric tons of 
carbon emissions, which is the equivalent of carbon emissions of 42 
million vehicles in a 15-year period. Just by focusing on our buildings 
and making them more energy efficient, we can have a tremendous impact. 
That is why I worked with my colleague Senator Murkowski in authorizing 
a section of this bill on smart buildings, and Senator Warren joined 
us. Smart buildings really will help us manage our energy loads better, 
particularly focusing on lighting, heating, cooling systems, and 
communications between buildings. We heard from the Department of 
Energy that smart buildings really could be a game changer for the 
efficiency discussions. I thank my colleague from Alaska for working 
with me on that provision.
  DOE has estimated that smart buildings can result in 30-percent 
additional efficiency in the way buildings are operated when they 
realize the full potential of these technologies. You can imagine that 
if you are an industry and you are trying to be competitive, what that 
is going to mean to have that level of efficiency. I know because with 
every sector of economy, they are constantly focusing on energy costs 
as a way to be competitive, particularly in an international market. I 
would say that one of the reasons we have so many server farms in the 
State of Washington--that is, storage data facilities--is because we 
have cheap electricity. When you start saying you are going to drive 
down the cost of electricity by such a significant margin, people are 
saying, ``I want to locate there.''
  We want to make sure we are empowering free capital and investments 
to help us reduce carbon emissions by focusing on giving those powers 
to help focus on smart buildings. This isn't just a U.S. strategy. This 
is something the United States could be world leaders in. The 
International Energy Agency says that the energy efficiency market in 
China alone is expected to total more than $1.5 trillion between now 
and 2035. Think about it. They are building so rapidly, and yet they 
could be incented--that is, by the level of investment the United 
States is already making--to further their own efforts in smarter 
buildings, reducing carbon, building more efficiently. This is 
something where U.S. solutions could aid. I hope we will continue to 
focus on these kinds of innovations in the U.S. agreement with China.
  My colleague mentioned infrastructure as a key theme of this bill and 
mentioned some of those provisions. As I mentioned, utilities and the 
fact that, on average, the United States spends nearly 29 percent of 
its total expenditures on utilities such as electricity and natural 
gas--we want to continue to make improvements there. Data-driven 
intensive industries also, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, are part

[[Page 650]]

of the equation. We know as they continue to grow, we are going to want 
to make continued investments.
  In the Pacific Northwest, the Bullitt Center, which has been an 
acclaimed building--probably one of the greenest commercial buildings 
in the entire world--is a net-zero building and shows how well you can 
build a building that both consumes less electricity and can actually 
put electricity back onto the grid.
  We have many of these efforts in the Pacific Northwest where people 
have seen that smart building technology is expected to grow from $7 
billion now to $17 billion in the next 4 years. It is a tremendous 
market opportunity for U.S. technology.
  I wish to mention a couple of other provisions that our colleagues 
have worked on in the bill and thank them for that. I wish to thank 
Senator Franken, Senator Heinrich, Senator King, and Senator Hirono for 
their efforts on energy storage that we have included in this 
legislation. It includes a program that is focused on driving down the 
cost curve of ways to help with storing energy, whether you are talking 
about battery technology or large-scale storage. I also thank Senator 
Wyden, Senator King, and Senator Hirono for their focus on advanced 
grid technologies--that includes demonstrating how multiple new 
technologies can be put into the electricity grid on a micro level. 
This is so important. My colleague from Alaska and my colleague from 
Hawaii both see the challenges of very different energy mixes than the 
rest of the United States and the challenges with transportation. 
Helping them on micro grid issues is critically important.
  As I mentioned, making distributed generation more reliable and more 
intelligent is a very key factor in this bill. Senator Wyden did 
incredible work on making sure we added new renewables in the area of 
marine hydrokinetic, geothermal, and biopower into this legislation. I 
thank him for that.
  I know my colleagues Senator King and Senator Sanders--and I know we 
will be joined by Senator Reid on the floor--are continuing to push the 
envelope on innovative ways to make sure distributed generation works 
for our citizens.
  This is something we didn't get as much in the bill as we wanted. We 
certainly put some new authority to make sure we are protecting 
consumers. But I think we will probably see that people will want to go 
further to make sure we are empowering everybody--from members of the 
Tea Party to the environmentalists who want to be in the solar business 
to those who put solar panels on their roof or anyone else who doesn't 
want to be gouged for the cost of doing that by the utility. They want 
the utility to make the investment, and they want to get a return for 
participating in reducing energy costs.
  I wish to thank all of those who worked on the cyber security section 
of the bill, which, as I mentioned, is very important. In 2003, more 
than half of the cyber incidents were directed at critical energy 
infrastructure. So the bill today basically says that the Department of 
Energy will be the lead role in coordinating our cyber response for the 
energy sector and that we will be working on the R&D in partnership 
with the private sector to make sure we have the right kind of 
information sharing to continue to make the kinds of investments for 
resiliency that we need to have for cyber security.
  I would like to mention a few more items. The advanced vehicle 
technologies program--Senators Stabenow, Peters, and Alexander all 
worked on this section of the legislation to try to, as I mentioned 
earlier, take the same fuel efficiency we have in automobiles and do 
the same thing for trucks. Companies in my State, such as PACCAR and 
the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, are already trying to drive 
down the cost of truck transportation. Why? Because they see how much 
freight the United States is moving to overseas markets. We see that we 
have products we are going to sell to a developing overseas world, but 
we have to move them cost-effectively, so we put a lot of work into 
making our truck transportation efficient.
  I thank Senator Warren for her work on the Energy Information 
Administration provisions and Senator Manchin for his work on workforce 
issues--which I am sure we will continue to hear about when we come to 
the floor as it relates to our mine workers and a variety of other 
people keep transitioning to new job training to make sure we have the 
workforce for tomorrow. Lastly, I also want to mention my colleague 
Senator Heinrich, who has been very active on the workforce issues as 
well and making sure we have grants for work shortages and job 
training.
  I think my colleague from Alaska said it best--that this is not a 
bill which is about what everybody wanted but about what we could do 
and that is important to move forward now. It was built on a good, 
bipartisan process, and people were able to have input. We hope to 
follow the same process here on the floor. I am sure my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle will want to talk about ways in which we could 
go further.
  The American Energy Innovation Act we introduced last September has 
many of these provisions, such as having an energy efficiency resource 
standard at a national level and getting Senators Bennet and Isakson's 
SAVE Act, which makes sure consumers realize as homeowners the benefits 
of the investments they make in energy efficiency.
  I also mention my colleagues, Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator King 
of Maine, who have shared innovative ways to make sure consumers 
benefit from being in the solar business.
  I am sure we will hear from many more people on both sides of the 
aisle about their ideas and how they would like to improve this bill.
  As my colleague from Alaska said, it is important that we work 
together and not try to torpedo this bill but instead move forward on 
what has been a good, bipartisan process and continue to make 
investments for the future.
  One of the last issues I wish to mention, as an investment for the 
future, is the success of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am so 
proud that the Land and Water Conservation Fund was original 
legislation by my predecessor, Scoop Jackson, a Senator who served our 
State for many years. I think the Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
one of the most successful conservation programs in our country's 
history. It had been successful for more than 50 years before it was 
dismantled, but we were able to reestablish it in the omnibus for the 
next 3 years. Obviously our committee came to a bipartisan decision on 
this issue, and we believe it should be made permanent. It was such a 
successful program, it should at least receive the same attention it 
did for the first 50 years so we can continue on the same journey we 
have been making so we can be sure we have open space in the United 
States of America as we continue to grow.
  These are important outdoor spaces that have generated an incredible 
outdoor economy for the United States of America. It has generated 
economic revenue by providing the ability for people to go to the 
outdoors. I hope we will keep that as part of this legislation as it 
moves all the way through the U.S. Senate and the House and to the 
President's desk--permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  At this time, I am going to turn the floor back over to our 
colleagues so they can discuss this bill or other issues, but before I 
yield, I will reiterate that this legislation is about the 
modernization of energy--the lifeblood of our economy--and driving down 
the costs through investments on a new strategy for the future. It is 
not about holding on to the past as much as moving forward to the 
future, and it will enable our businesses, our ratepayers, and all of 
those whom we care about in that economy to continue to reap the 
benefits of next-generation energy technology--renewable technology--
that is cleaner, more efficient, and will keep our economy in the 
driver's seat for our own U.S. economy and be a game changer for us on 
an international basis so we can provide solutions that are cleaner, 
more efficient

[[Page 651]]

for sure, and will help us deal with the carbon issues around the 
globe.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know we will be breaking at the 
regular time for our policy luncheons. When I am finished speaking, I 
will yield the floor so that the Senator from Arizona can make any 
comments he wishes before we go into recess.
  I want to say a few words about this legislation. I know that amidst 
the polarization and the circus-like atmosphere of our politics these 
days, people are really surprised to find out we were able to get some 
important work done here in the U.S. Senate in the year 2015.
  While this Presidential selection process goes forward in Iowa, New 
Hampshire, and South Carolina for both Democrats and Republicans, I 
think it is important that we continue to do the people's work here in 
the Senate. I can't think of any better subject for us to legislate on 
than this bipartisan Energy bill which was ably led by the chair of the 
energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, and our 
colleague, the Senator from Washington.
  In my State and no doubt in other States, we have seen how important 
the energy sector can be to jobs. Texas is suffering a little bit, as 
are places such as North Dakota, Alaska, and other big energy States, 
because the price of oil is so low. Actually, it is good for consumers 
because gasoline prices are cheaper than they have been in a long time. 
We have been able to see how smart energy policies can have a positive 
influence on jobs and stronger economic growth not just in Texas but 
across the country. So taking advantage of our natural resources and 
diversifying our energy supply when we can is a win-win situation.
  This legislation, the Energy Policy Modernization Act, will update 
our energy policies for the 21st century. I can't tell you how many 
times I have heard people say: Well, we don't have a national energy 
policy. Unfortunately, that is true, but this Energy Policy 
Modernization Act will go a long way toward developing sound energy 
policy that will help us produce more energy, help us use the energy we 
produce more efficiently, and it will allow consumers and businesses to 
save money.
  This bill modernizes the U.S. electric grid--the infrastructure that 
provides us with electricity--which, of course, we don't think about 
too often until we have a brownout or a blackout as a result of some 
incident. It is very important that our electric grid be reliable and 
more economical in the long run.
  This bill also seeks to diversify our energy supply, including 
promoting research on renewable energy options while updating our 
policies on mineral extraction as well. I think this legislation 
promises to allow us to continue to be productive now in this new year, 
2016.
  I wish to add one other word about the Senator from Alaska, Ms. 
Murkowski, the chair of this important committee. Thanks to her 
leadership, Congress was able to pass legislation to finally lift the 
export ban on crude oil--a ban that had been in place for 40 years. 
Really, that change was the most contentious part of this energy 
policy. I think she has wisely separated those two issues and left the 
Energy Policy Modernization Act as one that does enjoy broad bipartisan 
support.
  We also need to continue to expedite our exporting of liquefied 
natural gas, which this bill does. It will help us to get more of our 
energy to international markets and will provide domestic suppliers a 
more reliable timeline for building the infrastructure--which is not 
cheap--to allow us to export more of our domestic resources.
  This has really been the story of our energy resources here in 
America, where we have constantly underestimated the impact of 
technology and innovation when it comes to energy. Just a few years 
ago, we used to talk about something called peak oil, as if all the oil 
had been discovered and there wasn't any more there. Thanks to the 
innovative use of horizontal drilling, together with fracking, which 
had been around for 70 years or more, people realized that America 
holds the promise of being the next energy exporter in the not too 
distant future.
  I have heard the senior Senator from Arizona, the chair of the Armed 
Services Committee, make this point, which I enthusiastically agree 
with: Our energy resources here in America are a natural security 
asset. What we see around the world, particularly in Europe, is that 
people like Vladimir Putin use energy as a weapon. Our willingness and 
ability to export energy will not only create jobs in America, but it 
will help grow our economy by making sure our small businesses have 
access to reasonably priced energy, and it will also help strengthen 
our friends and allies around the world.
  I look forward to discussing the bill. I hope we can move on some of 
the amendments that have been brought up on both sides of the aisle and 
in so doing continue to strengthen America's hand as an energy 
powerhouse in the 21st century.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business for whatever time I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Overruling the Authorizing Committee

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last month I came to the floor and 
called attention to a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
for fiscal year 2016. I will remind my colleagues about the 2,000-page 
omnibus bill that all of us had approximately 48 hours to view before 
voting yes or no on it. I specifically objected to a provision that, in 
an egregious exercise of pork barrel parochialism, reversed reasonable 
restrictions on the Air Force's use of the Russian-made RD-180 rocket 
engine for national security space launches. I explained how that 
provision was secretly airdropped into the 2,000-page omnibus bill and 
overruled the authorizing committee--in other words, an outrageous 
overruling of the authorizing committee. They dropped this provision 
into the middle of this 2,000-page bill while we had hearings, 
discussions, markups, and debates on the floor of the U.S. Senate which 
considered 100-and-some amendments. So what we saw buried in this 
2,000-page bill was a direct contradiction to the authorizing process.
  This process must stop. We have to stop allowing the appropriators to 
make policy. That should come from the authorizing committee. I tell my 
colleagues now: I will not stand for it any longer.
  Sometimes we wonder why the Americans are angry and why they are 
supporting Trump, Sanders, or some outsider. All they have to do is 
look at the process we went through with this 2,000-page bill. It 
wasn't just the rocket engines; it also included hundreds of millions 
of dollars in unnamed projects, including $225 million for a ship that 
the Navy neither wants nor needs. By the way, that was the second one. 
We were supposed to build 10. So the appropriators--the Senator from 
Alabama--again added a $225 million ship that the Navy neither wanted 
nor needed, which was made and manufactured in Mobile, AL. We can't do 
that. It has to stop.
  Of course, they acted in a way that it now provides tens, if not 
hundreds, of millions of dollars to Vladimir Putin and his corrupt 
cronies. How do we justify such action?
  The American taxpayers should be outraged to learn that some U.S. 
Senators want American taxpayers to continue subsidizing Russian 
aggression and comrade capitalism. But those very Senators thought that 
if they snuck their blank check to the Putin regime into an unamendable 
omnibus bill, no one would stop them. I rise in the hope that Congress 
will prove them wrong. That is why I will be joining with House 
majority leader Kevin McCarthy to introduce legislation that would 
repeal this section of the omnibus bill and reassert the will of the 
Congress and the American people.
  It is morally outrageous and strategically foolish to ask the 
American taxpayers to subsidize Russia's military industrial base when 
Vladimir

[[Page 652]]

Putin, whom the Treasury Department has reportedly accused of being 
personally corrupt, occupies Crimea, destabilizes Ukraine, menaces our 
NATO allies in Europe, violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force 
Treaty, sends weapons to Iran, and bombs U.S.-backed forces in Syria to 
prop up the murderous regime of Bashar Assad, and all for the benefit 
of a rocket plant in Alabama.
  I won't go into too many details here, except to point out that after 
the United States imposed sanctions against Russia in March of 2014, 
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the space 
industry in Russia, indicated several times that Russia expects that 
the United States will not use RD-180 engines for military launches and 
threatened to stop supplying them.
  Rogozin declared: ``We are not going to deliver the RD-180 engines if 
the United States will use them for non-civil purposes. We also may 
discontinue servicing the engines that were already delivered to the 
United States.'' He also threatened to deactivate all GPS sites in 
Russian territory and ban U.S. astronauts from the International Space 
Station by 2020. Rogozin suggested that in the future, the United 
States should deliver ``its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.''
  Later that year, Rogozin appeared to reconsider. After all, in order 
to design and build more rocket engines in Russia, Rogozin said, ``we 
need free money. This is why we are prepared to sell them . . . taking 
the sanctions very pragmatically.''
  So what are Russia's two desired outcomes? On the one hand, America 
continues its dependency on Russian rocket engines. On the other hand, 
America helps Putin go around sanctions by getting ``free money'' for 
rocket engines. And this is who ULA and its congressional sponsors want 
us to do business with?
  At the same time, Russia has threatened to cut off supply, Energomash 
has pursued other business opportunities with other countries that 
would give Russia a freer hand in making good on its threats--most 
notably, China.
  In July 2015, President Putin signed a new law that consolidated the 
Russian space industry under a single state corporation, an entity 
called Corporation Roscosmos. This was done to enhance the power of the 
Russian Government to better implement state-based policy and control 
the space industry. He signed an order that will effectuate this law.
  In addition, Putin appointed Igor Komarov chief executive of the 
newly created Corporation Roscosmos. Komarov was the former chairman of 
one of Russia's largest carmakers and an adviser to Sergei Chemezov. 
Chemezov, who was also appointed to the board, is said to have served 
as a KGB officer with Vladimir Putin in Germany back in the 1980s, and 
he has been targeted by our sanctions.
  Under the same order, Putin also appointed Russian Deputy Prime 
Minister Dmitry Rogozin, and the list goes on and on.
  So why do we want U.S. taxpayers sending millions of dollars to the 
Russian Government when Vladimir Putin occupies Crimea, destabilizes 
Ukraine, et cetera. To add insult to injury, this last year, on the 
defense bill, we had to legislate to stop--to stop--the U.S. Defense 
Department from giving $800 million per year to ULA. That is the outfit 
that now launches using Russian rockets--ULA--with Russian rocket 
engines. We had to prohibit the continued payment of $800 million a 
year they were paying them to stay in business. It is amazing. I 
figured out that roughly, since 2006, we have paid this ULA, which is a 
combination of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, some $7 billion to stay in 
business. It used to be called the military industrial complex that 
Eisenhower warned us about when he was leaving office. It is now the 
military industrial congressional complex that puts in a 2,000-page 
bill a requirement to build a $225 million ship that nobody wants and 
that the Navy doesn't need, for the second year in a row. That is $450 
million of your tax dollars that went to build two ships that the Navy 
neither needs nor wants.
  My friends, do you wonder about the cynicism of the American people? 
Do you wonder why they think the way we are doing business in 
Washington is corrupt, when we spent $240 million in 2 years on two 
ships that the Navy doesn't want or need and when we subsidize an 
outfit--the only one that until recently does space launches--and paid 
them $800 million a year to stay in business, spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars on unspecified scientific programs, take hundreds 
of millions of dollars from medical research that has nothing to do 
with defense and take it out of defense? Would we wonder that the 
American people are angry and frustrated? Look at what we are doing 
with their tax dollars.
  I don't know if it was 48 or 72 hours that we had to vote up or down 
on a 2,000-page, $1.1 trillion document, and no amendments were 
allowed.
  So I say to my colleagues: Do not wonder; do not be curious why they 
are out there flocking to the banner of Senator Sanders, the only 
announced socialist in the U.S. Senate and on the other side people 
like Donald Trump, who has never had anything to do with Washington, 
DC. They should not be surprised.
  Well, all I can say to my colleagues is that I am not going to stop, 
because I owe the people of Arizona a lot better than what we are 
giving them. We owe them an accountability of why we would spend $800 
million a year to keep a company in business. We owe them an 
explanation of why we would over the last 2 years spend $450 million 
for two ships that the Navy neither wants nor needs because they are 
made in Mobile, AL. We owe them a lot better than our performance on 
this omnibus appropriations bill.
  I will be glad to talk more about how each individual was blocked by 
the other side and would not agree to move forward and the rules of the 
Senate and all that, but that really doesn't make much difference at 
the Rotary Club. What makes a difference is that we have wasted 
billions of dollars of the taxpayers that were neither wanted nor 
needed nor ever had a hearing in the authorizing committee.
  I am proud of the work we do on the Armed Services Committee. We have 
literally a hearing every day. We spend hours and hours and hours in 
markups and debate and discussion on these various programs. We have 
hearings with administration officials. We have hearings in the 
subcommittees. I am so proud of the bipartisan approach that we take on 
our Defense authorization bill, working closely with Senator Reid and 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am proud of the 
product, after literally thousands of hours of testimony, of study, of 
voting, and all of that. Then we get a 2,000-page omnibus 
appropriations bill stuffed with billions of dollars of projects that 
we never, ever would consider in the authorizing committee.
  So the system is broken. The system is broken, and it better be 
fixed. I am telling my colleagues, especially those on the 
Appropriations Committee: This will not stand.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________