[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 856-872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2953, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murkowski (for Cassidy/Markey) amendment No. 2954 (to 
     amendment No. 2953), to provide for certain increases in, and 
     limitations on, the drawdown and sales of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve.
       Murkowski amendment No. 2963 (to amendment No. 2953), to 
     modify a provision relating to bulk-power system reliability 
     impact statements.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Congratulating The Nfl's Nfc Champion Carolina Panthers and the Arizona 
                               Cardinals

  Mr. McCAIN. Last week, Senator Tillis and I agreed to a friendly--or 
not so friendly--wager on the NFC championship game. The terms of that 
friendly wager are that the loser would deliver a congratulatory speech 
on the Senate floor and wish the winner luck in the Super Bowl. 
Unfortunately--even tragically--this is what brings me before you 
today. It is also why I am wearing this unsightly blue tie, which I am 
sure is an assault on the senses of C-SPAN viewers all over the world.
  It is with all sincerity that I wish the Carolina Panthers luck as 
they play the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl 50. The 15-1 NFC 
championship season has been nothing short of remarkable. Led by head 
coach Ron Rivera and the sensational quarterback Cam Newton, the 
Panthers have been a dominant force all season long as they certainly 
were against the Arizona Cardinals. I have no doubt we will see the 
Panthers' explosive offense continue to have success in Super Bowl 50. 
While I could go on about the Panthers' impressive offensive line and 
coaching staff, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate 
my Arizona Cardinals on an exceptional season that included numerous 
milestones. The Cardinals' wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald wrote 
recently that the Cardinals ``broke the mold of what kind of football 
people expect to be played in the desert.'' Witnessing this team 
achieve a franchise record of 13 regular season wins and a No. 2 seed 
in the NFC, Arizonans could not agree more.
  Perhaps there is no better example of the Cardinals' toughness and 
never-say-die attitude than their thrilling January 16 overtime win 
over Green Bay. After an improbable Hail Mary touchdown pass from Green 
Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers to send the game into overtime, the 
Cardinals--boosted by two amazing and memorable plays by the legendary 
Larry Fitzgerald--scored the game-winning touchdown to advance to the 
NFC championship game.

[[Page 857]]

  I have always been proud to count myself among the most loyal and 
spirited Cardinals fans, and I am confident Arizona will continue to 
see exciting Super Bowl-caliber performances in the season to come.
  Congratulations to Arizona Cardinals' president Michael Bidwell, head 
coach Bruce Arians, and the members of the 2015 Arizona Cardinals on a 
banner season. I also recognize Larry Fitzgerald, Carson Palmer, 
Patrick Peterson, Mike Iupati, Justin Bethel, Calais Campbell, and 
Tyrann Mathieu, known as the Honey Badger, for being selected to 
represent the Cardinals in the Pro Bowl this year.
  All season long, these two teams stood among the best in the NFL. On 
any given Sunday, anything can happen. Unfortunately, for my Cardinals 
last Sunday was not their day.
  Senator Tillis, you may have gotten the best of me this year, but I 
have a good feeling this is not the last time one of us will stand 
before the body to offer our congratulations. You would be wise to get 
a head start and purchase a Cardinals' red and white tie now because 
you will be standing in my shoes this time next year. I guarantee it.
  To Carolina Panthers head coach Ron Rivera, the NFL's probable MVP 
Cam Newton, and every member of the Carolina Panthers football team, 
good luck on Sunday. To my beloved Cardinals, thanks for an exciting 
season. I look forward to your bringing a Super Bowl trophy home to the 
valley next year. Go Cards.
  Mr. President, I gladly yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Welcoming the New Pages

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I want to 
welcome the new pages to the Senate. We said goodbye to a great group 
of young men and young women from around the country last week, their 
last day being Friday. Here we are on Monday, and we have a whole new 
batch.
  So to you all, through the Chair, welcome. Know that you are here at 
a most exciting and interesting time. We rely on our pages a great 
deal, and it is always nice to see these young ambassadors who come to 
us from around the country to serve us in the Senate. Welcome.
  Mr. President, I wish to give an update as to where we are on the 
status of our broad bipartisan energy bill. Last week we started out a 
little rough because of the blizzard, the snow days. But once we began 
the debate, we heard some very strong statements in support of our 
Energy Policy Modernization Act.
  We heard it from Members on both sides of the aisle, and that was 
very encouraging. We heard Members tout provisions that relate to 
supply, to innovation, to efficiency, really the whole gamut.
  As we promised, we began an open amendment process, which has already 
drawn close to 200 proposals now. Last week we accepted 11 amendments. 
We had three rollcall votes, and we had eight voice votes. I think it 
is important to recognize that those amendments were sponsored by 10 
different Senators. They were cosponsored by many, many others, and 
they really add to the Members whose priorities we have seen 
incorporated into the energy bill through the process that we had in 
committee. So the benefit of really getting back to regular order, 
where you have good, robust committee work, then being able to come to 
the floor, to go through the amendment process, and then to gain input 
from other Members is kind of good, old-fashioned governing. I like the 
fact that we are back to it.
  We agreed to boost our efforts to develop advanced nuclear energy 
technologies. This came to us by way of an amendment from a very 
diverse group. Some might not have anticipated the collection of 
Senators that this advanced nuclear energy technology measure brought 
together. It was the two Senators from Idaho, Risch and Crapo, and we 
had Senator Booker, both Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin from Illinois, 
as well as Senator Hatch and Senator Whitehouse. With this amendment, 
we have all different perspectives in terms of political perspectives 
as well as geographic.
  We also agreed to a proposal from Senator Daines and Senator Tester 
that will help facilitate the use of clean, renewable hydropower in 
their State of Montana.
  Among others, we agreed to an amendment from Senator Capito and 
Senator Manchin to study the feasibility of an ethane storage and 
distribution hub in this country. I think that is a real possibility as 
a result of the shale gas revolution.
  We moved through 11 amendments. Eleven is a good number, but, 
honestly, I would have hoped that we would have been able to process 
more amendments last week. What we are going to do this week--and I am 
going to put everybody on notice--is that we are going to redouble our 
efforts. I want to move forward and process even more over these next 
couple of days.
  Our staffs have been extraordinarily busy over this weekend, as have 
I and as has been Senator Cantwell, my ranking member. We were going 
through all of the amendments that have been offered to the bill, 
determining which ones we can clear, which ones we need to bring up for 
a vote, and which may not be offered at all. We are moving right along, 
and that is good. We need to keep moving right along because we know 
that time on the floor is not unlimited. As important as the energy 
bill is and as important as modernizing our energy policies are, we are 
not the only show in town here. There are Members and there are other 
committees that are either on deck or want to be on deck. They are 
waiting for their turn and are waiting to move to advance their bills.
  If we still have Members who are thinking about filing amendments, I 
strongly encourage that be done today. We have dozens of options to 
vote on. So at this point, unfiled amendments are really at a 
disadvantage, just given all that we are dealing with. Know that we are 
going to process as many amendments as possible, but the window for 
advancing them is closing rapidly.
  Many of the amendments we are seeing would address opportunities and 
challenges from across the energy spectrum. I really am thankful for 
the Senators who have come forward with very, very constructive 
suggestions and for their work to make this bill even better.
  As we resume consideration of this legislation today, I also want to 
explain how the provisions that are already within the Energy Policy 
Modernization Act will help our country. I want to do that today--to 
spend a few minutes this afternoon--by explaining how it will benefit 
my home State of Alaska, how it will help Alaskans produce more energy 
and more minerals, how it will help Alaskans pay less for their energy, 
and how it will boost Alaska's economy at a time when we really need a 
boost.
  The most obvious place to start is with supply. Alaska, as all my 
colleagues know, is a producer for the rest of the country--really, for 
the rest of the world. That is our legacy. It is also our future. That 
is because we are blessed with an amazing abundance of resources that 
most States--and, really, even most countries--cannot even dream of. 
You name the resource, and there is a pretty good chance that we have 
it. In fact, there is a pretty good chance that we have a lot of it.
  How will our bill help Alaska produce more energy and minerals? For 
starters, it boosts hydropower development. Hydropower right now 
provides 24 percent of our State's electricity, which is good and 
critically important. There are however more than 200 promising sites 
with untapped hydropower potential. So our commitment to this clean, 
renewable resource and our efforts to improve the regulatory process 
for it could benefit communities throughout

[[Page 858]]

the southeastern part of the State, the south-central part, and the 
southwest. It provides benefit for all.
  Our bill also streamlines the approval process for LNG exports. The 
Presiding Officer knows full well the benefit that this will bring to 
the country, but it will also ensure that in Alaska our efforts to 
market its stranded natural gas can proceed in a timely manner without 
Federal delay, which is extremely important for us as we move forward 
with our efforts to move Alaska's natural gas.
  It will also help Alaskans harness more of our geothermal potential. 
We have enormous quantities of geothermal, but we have some challenges, 
as you know, with our extensive geography. But we are looking to 
develop a renewable resource that could potentially help power one-
quarter of our States' communities, particularly in some very remote, 
high-cost energy States.
  Our bill also reauthorizes a program to advance the development of 
electricity from ocean and river currents as well as tides and waves. I 
have mentioned before that Alaska has some 33,000 miles of coastline. 
That is a lot of area to harness the power of the tides and waves. 
There is considerable potential to generate electricity from our 
extensive river systems as well.
  So working to do more with our marine hydrokinetic and our ocean 
energy could really provide a boost to projects that are showcasing 
some new technologies, such as those that we have proposed in Igiugig. 
Yakutat is looking at a project south of Kenai and along the Yukon 
River.
  Within the bill we also promote the production of heat and 
electricity from the tremendous biomass resources within our forests, 
which could help the development of technology to aid the construction 
of wood pellet plants across the State, again taking that resource that 
is there and helping to reduce our energy costs. It will also renew a 
research program to develop Alaska's immense resources of frozen 
methane hydrates. This is something they sometimes call fire ice. It 
has significant promise as a secure, long-term source of American 
energy, but making sure that we are able to move out on that research 
is going to be important.
  Then there is a subtitle on minerals, a very important part of our 
bill. I spoke on Thursday that we have incorporated much of the text of 
my American Mineral Security Act, which is designed to focus on our 
Nation's deepening dependence on foreign minerals and the concern that 
we do not want to get in the same place with our minerals that we once 
saw with oil, where we are reliant on foreign sources to supply the 
things that we need.
  We are obviously known in Alaska for our oil production, but Alaska 
also has nearly unparalleled potential for mineral production. We had a 
hearing last year before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
and we had the deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural 
Resources, Ed Fogels, testify. He said: If Alaska were a country, we 
would be in the top 10 in the world for coal, copper, lead, gold, zinc, 
and silver. He also noted that we have the potential to produce many of 
the minerals that we import from abroad. One example is our State 
government has already identified over 70 deposits of rare earth 
elements just within the borders of the State. As I mentioned last week 
on the floor, we use rare earth for everything from renewable energy 
technologies and smartphones to defense applications. Right now in this 
country we are not producing any of that supply--none of that supply on 
our own--yet we have the potential to do so in Alaska.
  If we pass this bill, our Nation will begin to place a much greater 
priority on resource assessments so that we can understand what we 
have. If we have not done an inventory, if we have not done an 
assessment, how do we really know the extent of our mineral resources?
  We will finally make some commonsense reforms to improve our 
notoriously slow Federal permitting system, which could benefit some of 
the projects that we have that we would like to get moving on. We have 
a project on Prince of Wales Island called Bokan Mountain that has rare 
earth potential. We also have a graphite deposit near Nome, and making 
sure that we help some of the changes that we see within this bill will 
be important.
  As we produce more of our natural resources, Alaskans will benefit 
significantly. We will see new jobs created, new revenues will be 
generated for our State's treasury, and local energy costs, which is 
the next area I want to focus on, will decline, allowing Alaskans to 
keep more of their money for other purposes and needs. This is an issue 
when I am at home and I am talking to Alaskans about what their No. 1 
concerns and priorities are. I do not care what part of the State I am 
talking to folks. It is all about the high energy costs and what we can 
do to make a difference. What can we do to bring down our energy costs?
  The Energy Policy Modernization Act will not only boost our energy 
supplies, but it is also designed to help lower the costs of energy and 
to help lower the cost of energy for Alaskans. We are an energy and a 
mineral producer in the State, but due to our vast geography, energy is 
still extremely expensive in many parts of the State. It is always an 
eyepopper for people to do a comparison of what is going on with energy 
costs. Right now in the lower 48, people are enjoying going to the 
filling station and seeing prices that are less than $2 a gallon. I was 
in Nome, AK, just a few weeks ago, and they are paying over $5.50 a 
gallon at the pump. It is not unusual that in many of our communities 
around the State, we are still looking at $5 a gallon for fuel. This is 
not only fuel for your vehicles or your snow machine or your four-
wheeler to move you around or for your boat. It is also your stove oil 
and how you are keeping warm.
  So it is moving around, keeping you warm, and you are paying 
extraordinarily high costs. In many cases, our electricity costs are 
two to three times higher than in most other States. When we think 
about what it means to live in a community where effectively 40 to 50 
percent of the household budget goes to stay warm and to keep the 
lights on--what does that leave for educating your kids, for feeding 
your kids, and for retirement? It does not leave you with much when you 
are spending half of your income to stay warm and to keep your lights 
on. This is part of the reality in Alaska that every day we work to 
address and every day we work to make a difference.
  State Senator Lymon Hoffman is from the Bethel region and has been a 
voice for rural Alaska. He sent me a letter last year. He wrote that 
``the high cost of diesel and home heating fuels are just crushing'' in 
rural Alaska and that he believes ``the energy situation is the single, 
most important problem facing the lives and well-being of rural 
Alaskans.'' I agree with him. That is why we worked so hard within the 
Energy Policy Modernization Act to make sure that as we are modernizing 
our energy policies, we are working to do everything we can to lower 
the costs of energy for Americans and for Alaskans. We reauthorized the 
Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides our State with 
funding to improve the energy efficiency for low-income families' 
homes. We also renewed the State Energy Program, which allows Alaska to 
invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy, emergency preparedness, 
and other priorities.
  As we have heard talked about on the floor, we have an entire title 
of the bill--Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have been working on 
this--devoted to efficiency for everything from voluntary building code 
improvements to the retrofitting of schools. As our vehicles, our 
appliances, and our homes are all becoming more energy efficient, that 
in turn works to reduce energy consumption as well as energy costs 
throughout the State.
  This bill also has a provision to promote the development of hybrid 
microgrid systems. I get excited about this part of the bill because I 
can see the direct application in my State. It allows communities to 
utilize local resources and storage technologies. Microgrids are 
critical within the

[[Page 859]]

State of Alaska. We have multiple dozens of isolated communities that 
are not connected to anybody's grid. In fact, they are hundreds of 
miles from anything that could even be considered a grid. So how do 
they get their energy? They are basically burning diesel to meet their 
electricity needs. So what we are seeing come together are energy 
solutions where you take a little bit of wind and perhaps a little bit 
of hydromarine, hydrokinetic, coupled with battery and storage, and we 
are finding some solutions. It is innovative. In fact, it is so 
innovative we have a hearing scheduled over the Presidents Day recess 
up in Bethel, AK, so Members can see what we are doing when it comes to 
energy innovation and coupling things together to make them work.
  We are never going to be part of a big energy grid in many parts of 
our State. We have had some great successes--such as Kodiak, a huge 
fishing port, which now produces 99.7 percent of its electricity from 
renewables. They have wind, they have hydro, and they have a storage 
system that has allowed it to work. But think about it. This is a major 
fishing port which, during the summer, needs a lot of energy when they 
are processing the fish. During the winter months, the local people 
there do not have energy needs that are as high as the demand during 
the summer. So how do you even this out? How do you make it meet during 
the highs and the lows? This is what Kodiak has done. They have taken 
themselves, as a community that was once 100 percent dependent on 
diesel for their energy needs, to being 99.7 percent on renewables.
  One of the best provisions in the bill to help address energy costs 
is a modification that we make within DOE's Loan Guarantee Program. 
Instead of allowing only major corporations to apply, we allow States 
with energy-financing institutions to seek funding and to advance a 
range of energy projects.
  Just to give a little context here, if the bill becomes law, the 
State of Alaska would be able to apply for a loan guarantee and then 
use those funds to help rural communities finance small hydropower 
projects, geothermal wells, MHK technology, marine hydrokinetic 
technologies, and the hybrid microgrids that I have been talking about. 
So instead of these top-down, government-driven programs, we would see 
the State DOE programs and other elements contained within this Energy 
Policy Modernization Act leveraging the innovation of local people--
leveraging the innovation of Alaskans, the American people, and the 
private sector--to improve our energy landscapes.
  These are just a few of the ways that this Energy Policy 
Modernization Act will help Alaskans produce more energy, save energy, 
and reduce local energy costs. In the process, the extra gain and 
benefit is that we create new jobs, generate new revenues, and provide 
other economic benefits we sorely need right now.
  I have talked about Alaska and the impacts on my State as a result of 
modernizing our energy policies, but know that as Alaska benefits, 
other States benefit as well. Many of the provisions I have mentioned 
in my comments this afternoon are just as applicable in Louisiana, 
Maine, Arizona, and Montana as they are in my State. This bill will 
fairly bring economic benefits to every State, and as it brings 
economic benefits, the energy security that stems from the economic 
security that leads to the national security makes us all stronger--yet 
another reason I encourage the Senate to work with Senator Cantwell and 
me over these next couple of days to move forward this broad, 
bipartisan effort to modernize our Nation's energy policies.
  Mr. President, I know we have Members who are anxious to speak this 
afternoon. Again, I will make the same request I made earlier: If 
Members are interested in submitting any amendments to the Energy 
Policy Modernization Act, now is the time because we are going to be 
moving--and hopefully moving quickly--so we can proceed with some 
expediency and efficiency throughout this week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.


                        Welcoming the New Pages

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to echo the comments Senator 
Murkowski made in terms of the new pages. We welcome all of you. We are 
excited about having you here. It is a big change to go from the 
previous pages to the new pages. We are excited about how things are 
moving along. As many people will tell you around here, pages end up 
doing great things. I have served in the House, and I have served in 
the Senate. There are Members of the House who started as pages, and 
there are Members of the Senate who started here as pages. So we are 
proud of you and expect good things of you.
  Mr. President, it has been over 8 years since we passed a 
comprehensive energy bill. A lot has changed since then.
  I first want to thank Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for their 
leadership and hard work. I know both of them worked very hard to find 
common ground. Senator Murkowski is my chairman of the Interior 
Department Appropriations subcommittee, and she is always trying to 
find a way for us to work together to move that appropriations bill 
forward. The same thing is true of Senator Cantwell's very good 
leadership on the energy committee. They both had a very tough job, and 
they crafted an energy bill that I believe moves us forward.
  This legislation isn't perfect, but it is bipartisan and it is moving 
us in the right direction. I am pleased that my bill, the Smart Energy 
and Water Efficiency Act, was included in this legislation. All too 
often, treated water is lost. A lot of it is wasted because of leaks 
and broken pipes. My State and many States have had historic droughts. 
We need every drop of water we can get. We can't afford leaking pipes. 
We have to do better, and we can do better.
  This bill supports the Federal pilot projects to develop water and 
energy efficiency technology. We can create a smart grid of technology 
to detect leaks in pipes even before they happen. This is critical to 
communities all across our Nation. Saving water is saving energy. 
Treating and transporting water is energy intensity. The more we waste, 
the more we pay--now and later.
  I also plan to file an amendment I have been working on with a number 
of other Senators. This amendment, like the House Energy bill, 
authorizes the WaterSense Program at EPA. The WaterSense Program is to 
water efficiency what the ENERGY STAR label is to energy efficiency. 
Products and services that have earned the WaterSense label have to be 
at least 20 percent more efficient without sacrificing performance. It 
promotes smart water use and helps consumers decide which products are 
water efficient. By authorizing this valuable program, we will make the 
WaterSense Program permanent and help consumers save water energy and 
money.
  We face great challenges, and one thing is very clear: Our energy 
future depends on investment in a clean energy economy. We have to be 
bold, we have to be innovative, and we have to encourage investment in 
the kind of creativity and enterprise that change the world and move us 
in the right direction. So today I am proposing a new initiative that 
will help us make those investments: clean energy victory bonds.
  During the First and Second World Wars, our country faced threats we 
had never faced before. We rose to the challenge. We gave it everything 
we had. Everyone contributed. For many, that included investing in 
victory bonds. They helped pay for the costs of war--$185 billion--over 
$2 trillion in today's money. Folks lined up to buy those bonds. That 
is the spirit of the American people--to pull together. It was true 
then, and it is true now.
  Today, we face a very different threat, but it also requires us all 
to come together to face our challenges and to fight. National security 
experts tell us that rising global temperatures are one of our greatest 
security concerns. In 2015, global temperature records were shattered--
records that were set just the year before. Climate change threatens 
agriculture, public

[[Page 860]]

health, water resources, and weather patterns. We are already feeling 
the impacts. In New Mexico, temperatures have been rising 50 percent 
faster than the global average, not just this year or last year but for 
decades. We have had historic drought. We have had the worst wildfires 
in our history.
  The science is clear: The threat is growing, and time is running out. 
We must act. Governments are working together to reduce emissions, as 
we saw in Paris last month. The United States is leading, with 
commitments from over 140 nations to reduce their emissions. This is 
providing a major signal in the marketplace and is driving up interest 
in investing in clean energy. Over the next 5 years, 20 nations will 
double their renewable energy research to $20 billion. Industry is 
stepping up to the plate as well, pledging to invest at least $2 
billion in clean energy startups. This is progress. This is momentum. 
Our job now is to keep it going. Investment--public and private--is the 
key.
  My amendment is very simple. It directs the Secretaries of Treasury 
and Energy to submit a plan to Congress, to develop clean energy 
victory bonds--bonds all Americans could invest in. These bonds would 
raise up to $50 billion. That money could leverage up to $150 billion 
to invest in clean energy technology and would create over 1 million 
new jobs.
  People across the country want to do their part. They want to invest 
in a clean energy future and to help fight climate change. But most of 
them can't afford clean energy mutual funds with $1,000 or $5,000 
minimums. Many can't afford $25 or $50. We must invest in jobs and 
healthier communities. Clean energy victory bonds will provide that 
opportunity. We can do this without any new taxes on individuals or 
businesses. Bonds are completely voluntary, and they are an opportunity 
for ordinary Americans who see the challenge and who want to do 
something about it.
  Here is how it works: Like war bonds, clean energy victory bonds 
would be U.S. Treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the 
U.S. Government. Investors will earn back their full investment--plus 
interest that comes from energy savings to the government--and loan 
repayments for solid projects. The investment would make a critical 
difference in our energy future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort. We face a great 
challenge, and we have a great opportunity. Now is the time for action. 
The American people want to pitch in and do what they can to fight 
global warming and to help ensure that the United States leads the 
world in the clean energy economy. Support for this amendment is 
growing with groups like the American Sustainable Business Council and 
Green America. Americans are already asking where they can purchase 
these bonds.
  This Energy bill is a good step, but it is a modest step. Our energy 
and climate challenges demand much more. Again, I thank Chairman 
Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell. They have managed to move a 
bipartisan bill and keep the process on track. I urge them to accept my 
amendment and to further strengthen this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the leaders who have worked 
on this bill--Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell--and the good work 
they put into it. I have served on the Energy Committee and now serve 
on Environment and Public Works. Those are important committees as we 
wrestle with how to produce energy at lower prices that is healthy for 
our Nation.
  As we consider this Energy Policy Modernization Act, I want to focus 
on a critical point about public policy and what is a primary goal of 
the United States of America. We are in a very competitive world. 
Energy is a big part of how we compete on manufacturing, production, 
and jobs. The American people want us to focus on that.
  In addition, energy impacts everybody when they fill up their tank 
and when they drive to work. It is important when it comes to paying 
the electric bill or the heating bill at home. Is it expensive or 
inexpensive? The price of energy has a dramatic impact on the quality 
of life for American people to a degree that is almost impossible to 
ascertain. When the price of gasoline is cut in half and somebody has a 
long commute every day, they may have had $200 a month in gasoline 
bills and now it is $100. They have $100 extra in their pocket. Without 
taxes, without insurance, and without house payments to be paid out of 
that, they can use that to take care of their own personal needs--their 
family, their vacation, going out to eat, or just paying down that 
credit card that has been run up too high.
  For decades Republicans have called for producing more American 
energy. Our Democratic colleagues have attacked those proposals that 
would increase the supply of energy, claiming that these efforts are 
part of some corrupt deal with big oil companies to make them rich at 
the expense of the taxpayers and the American citizens. That has been 
the argument. You have heard it for the last 30 years. But is that the 
correct way to analyze the challenges we face? Is that the way to 
establish good, sound public policy that will produce more American 
energy and bring down the cost?
  Our Democratic colleagues objected to the Keystone Pipeline. We had a 
number of votes over a number of years, and finally it passed, and then 
the President vetoed that. What would the Keystone Pipeline do? It 
would produce another source of oil for the United States of America. 
Is that good or bad for big Texas oil companies? It is bad for those 
companies. It made it harder for them to get a higher price. There is 
another substantial competitor pouring another supply of oil into the 
United States.
  This was not a corrupt deal to try to benefit some big oil company 
but a way to make the supply more plentiful, to bring down the cost of 
energy for American people. That is what we were fighting for, and it 
baffled me to no end that the President finally vetoed it at the end, 
after the American people so clearly favored it.
  The Federal ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico--we had the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. There is no doubt about that. This 
country really focused on it. Great effort was made to find out how it 
happened and how we could prevent it in the future. Eventually the 
Obama administration said they were reopening production in the gulf--I 
thought it took longer than necessary.
  There is now onsite, according to a government official, a cap, and 
if the Horizon Disaster were to occur again, that cap within matter of 
days could be taken out, and it would successfully have stopped that 
blowout as well. We didn't have it in advance. We should have had it. 
But that is fixed, and other things were done, and the President said 
we are going to open up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. It wasn't so. 
They referred to it as a de facto moratorium. They still couldn't get 
approval, and we lost a lot of production that went to other places 
around the globe.
  More production means lower prices. More American oil means more 
American jobs and more revenue for the Federal and State governments 
that benefit from that and a smaller wealth transfer from Americans to 
some foreign country which may be hostile to us and from which we have 
to buy our oil. We should look to head in that direction.
  Additionally, the Obama administration recently placed a moratorium 
on new leases for coal mined on Federal lands. I believe the 
administration has bypassed Congress and the will of the American 
people by drafting regulations that seriously constrain the use of coal 
as an energy source. We just have to use coal. It is a magnificent 
energy source. We can do it and are doing it cleaner year after year.
  Closing producing coal mines reduces American energy competition and 
certainly increases the cost of everyday living for Americans, and it 
certainly causes economic dislocation where mine after mine is being 
closed and United Mine Workers are being laid off.

[[Page 861]]

  I have always believed in and fought for increased energy production 
for the American people--not for big oil companies but because greater 
production brings down price. We know now that is true because we have 
seen a worldwide increase in supplies, which has resulted in a dramatic 
decrease in the price of oil--an amount below what anyone may have 
expected. This price collapse affects Americans at the gas pump every 
day. Gas prices are the lowest they have been since 2008. The national 
average as of last week was $1.84. This is half of what it was a few 
months ago. This has been my goal and the goal of my Republican 
colleagues and a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle.
  In addition, we have increased oil production throughout the country 
with new fracking technologies. We have had battle after battle over 
that, but we have never had water supplies that have been impacted 
adversely by fracking. It is a highly efficient technology. It also 
helped collapse the price of oil.
  We have had good, bipartisan support for efficiency breakthroughs 
over the years. They have caused us to have a car that uses a little 
less gas, houses that are more efficient, and other energy sources that 
are more efficient. As a result, we have needed less oil. That also 
helps increase the supply as the demand increases. That has been a 
positive step toward seeing the collapse in prices.
  If Big Oil were so powerful, how is it that the price of oil has gone 
from $140 a barrel to $30 a barrel? They dictate the price. They can 
set the price at whatever they want it to be. Not if the supply starts 
coming in in large numbers. The prices begin to decline. It was at $140 
a barrel, and now it is at $30, $35 a barrel.
  The energy industry supports 9.8 million U.S. jobs, which represents 
8 percent of the U.S. economy. Low energy costs are critical to advance 
American manufacturing. Without affordable, efficient, and reliable 
energy sources, American companies cannot supply their factories and 
employees with the kind of production we want to see.
  In a recent investment report, Standard & Poors wrote that affordable 
energy is critical to give U.S. manufacturers ``a competitive edge over 
overseas competitors.'' We have lower energy prices than Europe, Japan, 
and South Korea. That is an advantage. We want to keep that advantage.
  We need more American jobs, not fewer. We need to see fewer offshore 
incidents than we have seen. We need to have some onshoring, some 
return of manufacturing to America. If we can keep our energy prices 
low, that is a way our businesses can take advantage of that and expand 
their production of various products, many of which can be sold around 
the world.
  The President's agenda, which he has carried on since the beginning, 
has had the effect of really helping foreign countries by keeping our 
prices higher than they should be and blocking reasonable efforts to 
add more production in America. Instead of American energy being 
promoted at home and abroad, Iran is able to export oil more freely, 
thanks to the President's flawed nuclear deal. Instead of promoting the 
general welfare of the United States, the President has limited the 
production of domestic oil, further increasing costs for consumers. 
Regulators have delayed American production many times.
  These are important dynamics, along with nuclear power. I believe 
this is a very valuable part of the American energy production. I have 
been a strong advocate of nuclear power for years, and Republicans have 
too. It is a direct competitor to Big Oil, to carbon fuel, and we need 
more of that. So I think we need to remember that.
  Yes, wind and solar are getting more competitive, but it still 
remains for the most part more expensive in most places in the country. 
I hope it will continue to drop in price. Maybe it will. But I can't 
imagine we will see dramatic decreases any time soon. If we were to 
shift America immediately to a total solar and wind power system, 
prices would go through the roof. It would hammer Americans far more 
than we have ever seen before.
  I think this bill has many good qualities. It helps improve 
efficiency and innovation, and maybe we can build on it in a way that 
will bring America to the point where we can produce more American 
supply, keep prices down, help revitalize our manufacturing base, and 
put this country in a position to compete far more effectively in the 
world marketplace.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to address an issue that the 
Senator from Alabama touched on before he leaves the floor. I am here 
to speak about the Florida Everglades, but since the Senator just 
raised the issue of the Gulf of Mexico, which is certainly an interest 
of his, just as it is for the Acting President pro tempore, the Senator 
from Louisiana, I just want to clarify something and make sure the 
Senators understand that this part of the Gulf of Mexico, which is off-
limits to drilling up to and through 2022, has nothing to do with the 
Obama administration. It has to do with a law that Senator Martinez and 
I passed in the last half of the last decade.
  Now, why did we do that? Well, it would be nice to say that we were 
prescient and understood that when the oil spilled into the gulf off of 
Louisiana--relative to the whole spill, a little oil got into Florida 
and covered up Pensacola Beach and got into Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, 
Choctawhatchee Bay and went as far east as Panama City Beach; the 
sugary white beaches that so many people visit were just covered with 
tar balls--as a result, a whole tourist season was lost, not just for 
Pensacola, Destin, Sandestin, and Panama City Beach but for the entire 
gulf coast of Florida down to Clearwater Beach, Sarasota, Fort Myers, 
Naples and for the farmost beaches on the west coast of Florida on the 
gulf and Marco Island. Now, if that were not enough, I just want the 
Senator to understand why we are so opposed to drilling off the coast 
of Florida. Clearly, there is the economic reason. So much of the 
environment got messed up, and it was unhealthy for the critters that 
get into the estuaries. Here is the ringer, and the Senator from 
Alabama will especially appreciate this because he has, at times, been 
my leader on the Armed Services Committee. The Gulf of Mexico off of 
Florida is the largest testing and training range in the world for the 
U.S. military, and every admiral, general, and the Secretaries of all 
of the branches will simply tell you that we cannot have drilling 
activities where we are testing and training some of our most 
sophisticated weapons.
  Why do we have all of those training, tests, and evaluation 
activities at Eglin Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, and the 
Naval Training Center in Panama City? I didn't even include Pensacola 
and Whiting Field and all of the Department of Defense. When we shut 
down the U.S. Navy's testing range of Vieques, off of Puerto Rico, 
where did the fleet of the U.S. Navy go? They went to the gulf. They 
will send squadrons coming down to Key West Naval Air Station and stay 
there for a week or two because when they lift off the runway of Boca 
Chica, within 2 minutes, they are over a protected area so they can get 
into their training and testing activities.
  I will finally say to my friend--and I am not sure that my colleague 
has ever been able to see this through the eyes of someone who is 
trying to protect the defense assets in the State of Florida----
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator----
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator for a 
question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is a great friend, and we have a couple of 
good battles going on right now where we stand shoulder to shoulder, 
but for the most part the area that was approved for production was 
shut down when the problem with Deepwater Horizon was fixed rather than 
expanding

[[Page 862]]

that into Florida where the Florida waters, which Senator Nelson has 
been an effective advocate for, would not allowing drilling there. I do 
believe we have a situation where we have agreed and proved that this 
kind of problem would not occur now. I do believe there is a tremendous 
advantage for America, and we can have an advantage of low energy for 
American workers, for our jobs, and that way we will not send money 
abroad.
  I thank Senator Nelson for his good comments. He is highly informed 
on this issue. It is a pleasure to serve with him.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. He knows how 
affectionate I am toward him as a friend. I appreciate that friendship 
and that willingness in a bipartisan way--even when we had all kinds of 
thorny issues, such as national missile defense in the Armed Services 
Committee--that the two of us could work it out.


                           Florida Everglades

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the Everglades, and 
I need to start by saying that the Army Corps of Engineers began 
releasing water from Lake Okeechobee into the two rivers on either side 
of the lake. The problem is that we have a dike--not like the one that 
Mother Nature intended, where the whole surrounding of Lake Okeechobee, 
which is the largest lake in Florida, was nothing but a marsh. That is 
how Mother Nature had it. But after people moved in--and then in the 
late 1920s, the hurricane that drowned 2,000 people--we came in there 
and diked all the way around it. Well, the dike is only so structurally 
sound so that as the water rises in the lake, there is more water 
pressure on the sides, and if you start getting above 15 feet of depth 
of the lake, we have to worry about the dike collapsing and all the 
flooding of the surrounding towns and people and farmlands. So you get 
the picture.
  So the Army Corps of Engineers has to give some relief. So they 
release water to the east into the St. Lucie River and to the west into 
the Caloosahatchee River, and as a result, it relieves the dike 
pressure problem. But since Lake Okeechobee is so polluted, until we 
can get it cleaned up--and there is an effort--what happens when it 
goes into these pristine estuaries to the east into the St. Lucie and 
to the west into the Caloosahatchee, is that you get much too much 
nutrient content into those estuaries. The salinity in those estuaries 
goes down, which is harmful to things like oysters and certain fish, 
and the nitrogen and phosphorous and other pollutants come up. And what 
happens? Algae grows. When algae grows, it sucks up the oxygen from the 
water, and it becomes a dead river. The mullet can't jump because there 
is no mullet, the fish hawk can't dive because there is no fish, and it 
becomes a dead river.
  Now, that is why it is so necessary that we proceed with the 
Everglades restoration projects that will help us clean up the 
pollution in Lake Okeechobee, and at the same time when the dike 
structure gets threatened, we will have a place to send that water 
instead of directly into those two estuaries. That is presently being 
built on the east--a storage area--and it is to be built on the west 
over near LaBelle on the Caloosahatchee River. Well, it is just another 
reason why many of us are fighting so hard to complete these Everglades 
restoration projects, so that impossible decisions that face the Corps 
of Engineers right now--that either they threaten the dam and hold it 
back or they release the polluted water and kill the rivers--are not 
choices that the Corps has to make. It is certainly not a good choice 
for our environment and for all the people who live in the surrounding 
area. So Everglades restoration must move forward aggressively and 
without delay, and that is why this Senator is going to be introducing 
legislation tomorrow to expedite that process. It is going to be called 
the Everglades for the Next Generation Act. It will authorize all of 
these Everglades restoration projects that the Army Corps of Engineers 
has deemed ready to begin. It would allow the Corps to begin work on 
them immediately instead of having to wait around for us to pass 
another water bill. Remember, we just passed a water bill. When was the 
last time we passed a water bill? It was 7 years ago. We just can't 
wait that long. There is too much at stake, and this is why we want to 
get these all bundled up, so the Army Corps of Engineers can proceed.
  The Everglades, for the first three-quarters of the last century, was 
diked, drained, and deferred, and now we are trying to bring back as 
much of that plumbing and reverse it so that it will flow much more 
like Mother Nature had intended it and did for eons and eons. It is a 
monumental task. We have to look at what we are doing to protect this 
land that we love that has been called the ``river of grass.'' We have 
to do everything we can to protect it. But right now, beware. The 
National Park Service has in front of it and is evaluating a proposal 
from a Texas-based company for drilling and fracking activity. This 
company is looking to conduct--this is what they say: Oh, this is just 
a seismic survey--first on 70,000 acres, but it is just the first part 
of seismically mapping the entire Big Cypress National Preserve. This 
is a national preserve of 700,000 acres, and where is it located? It is 
located right next to the Everglades National Park, which is 1.5 
million acres, but it includes hundreds of thousands of other acres 
that are part of this water discharge area where we are cleaning up 
that water as it is coming south.
  They will say: Oh, this is just a seismic survey. But what do we have 
seismic surveys for? To drill. By the way, this is a company in Texas 
that not only drills for oil, it also fracks for oil. Why in the world 
would we want this to happen? Why would we spend hundreds of millions 
and billions of dollars to restore the Everglades and then suddenly 
turn around and hand it off to a Texas wildcatter to go out there and 
drill--a wildcatter that is also a fracker.
  This Senator has nothing against fracking. Where is our fracking 
done? It is done in the hard shale rock of the Dakotas, of Oklahoma, of 
Texas. They go down under high pressure and shoot water and chemicals 
to break up the shale rock. It is solid rock. What does the State of 
Florida sit on? It sits on a porous honeycomb of limestone, and that 
porous rock is filled with freshwater near the surface.
  So people wanted to go in there and start doing high-pressure 
fracking that we do successfully to shale rock, which was done by the 
Dan Hughes Company. They were given a permit by the State of Florida. 
Then the county commission of Collier County found out about it and 
started raising Cain, and suddenly the pressure became too great 
because of what that fracking would do, with the high-speed chemical 
going into that porous limestone, not only to the water supply of 
Florida but to the very foundation of Florida. If you ever look and 
envision a piece of coral that our divers go down to look for in some 
of the national reefs--we have seen that beautiful coral, and it builds 
up. That is very similar to how Florida was formed: Over years, over 
and over, those corals and shells and skeletons and limestone that 
created that substructure holds up the State of Florida and contains a 
bubble of water, which is our Floridian aquifer.
  Some people think a seismic survey is no big deal, but watch out. It 
is just like the proverbial camel getting its nose under the tent. 
Watch out. That camel is pretty soon going to be in the tent. So why 
conduct a huge, prolonged seismic survey if we don't have the plans to 
extract the resources that are found? Why would the Federal Government 
approve risky behavior such as fracking and a brand new type of seismic 
survey equipment in an area we have spent decades trying to restore? 
Remember, I said it is the Everglades National Park, 1.5 million acres. 
Right next to it, to the west, is the Big Cypress National Preserve, 
another 700,000 acres. To the north are all of those protected lands of 
the water recharge area, hundreds of thousands of acres.
  All of this is why I wrote to the Interior Secretary asking her 
agency to complete a very thorough environmental review of this 
proposal. It is interesting. I wasn't the only one who responded. The 
National Park Service told me they had received about 8,000

[[Page 863]]

comments during the public comment period. It seems to me that is a 
pretty clear sign that there is a great deal of concern and controversy 
out there in the public interest and especially those in Collier 
County. My colleagues can't imagine the political backlash when this 
Dan Hughes oil company--not the one that is applying for the seismic 
survey but they were a wildcatter as well as a fracker, that Dan Hughes 
company--my colleagues can't imagine the political backlash that 
occurred from people of both parties. I can tell my colleagues there 
was backlash, especially from the Republican county commission in 
Collier County, when they found out there was fracking going on out 
there without their knowing about it and without any of their input 
into whether it should have been done.
  Fortunately, the outcry was so severe that the State of Florida 
finally revoked the permit and they had to pull out. They had--that 
company--performed an unauthorized acid stimulation procedure, which is 
a glorified term for fracking. So we rose up and we fought that. Again, 
I say to the Senate, this Senator does not have a problem with fracking 
done environmentally well, but fracking in all of our oil reserves has 
been done in the shale rock. That is what has made it possible to, in a 
few years, be able to completely eliminate our dependence on foreign 
oil. This Senator has no problem with that. This Senator is thankful 
for that, but when we try to perform that procedure on a different kind 
of substrate--a porous limestone filled with water--then we are 
courting economical and environmental disaster.
  I must say, this didn't stop some in the State Legislature of Florida 
who are determined to open parts of Florida to companies looking to 
drill. To make sure all of this local opposition doesn't get in their 
way, State legislators in session right now in Tallahassee have 
proposed a bill that would prohibit a county, a city or any other local 
government from limiting fracking within that city or county's borders. 
Such a decision, under this proposed legislation, would be left up to 
the State only. It is not hard to figure out how that is going to turn 
out, especially since it was the State of Florida that gave a permit to 
do the fracking that there was such a reaction to 2 years ago.
  This is one of the most pristine areas on the planet. I urge my 
colleagues to join our efforts to protect this unique environment for 
generations to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.


                       Transparency in Government

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Founders of our great land believed in 
transparency of government because they believed that only an informed 
citizenry was in a position to consent to what the government was doing 
on their behalf. The very legitimacy of our government is based on that 
informed consent. It is also important for the voters to be able to 
hold elected leaders politically accountable. Of course, they can't 
hold their elected leaders accountable for something they don't know 
about or something hidden from their view.
  It is no understatement to say that the American people's confidence 
in the Federal Government is at if not an alltime low, certainly a new 
low in recent memory. Unfortunately, they see the President acting 
unilaterally, where he should be working on a collaborative and 
cooperative basis with Congress to pass legislation rather than to try 
to do things by Executive action. Then we see where elected officials 
and members of the administration have made blatant misrepresentations 
of the facts only to be proven wrong and then are not even embarrassed 
by it.
  So it is important to have transparency in government, to have an 
open government. The American people need to know what their government 
is purporting to do on their behalf so they can approve or disapprove 
as they see fit. That is the foundation of our democracy and our 
Republic.
  Back in October I stood on the floor of the Senate and outlined 
concerns I had about the evolving scandal involving Secretary Clinton's 
use of her private, unsecured email server during her service as 
Secretary of State. I said at the time that her behavior not only 
violated the President's promise to be the most transparent 
administration in history--I remember him making that statement during 
his first inaugural address--but it also represented a violation of the 
public trust. Now we learn of very serious national security concerns 
which I am going to speak about in just a moment.
  Because we know that the Department of Justice is headed by the 
Attorney General--a political appointee of the President of the United 
States who serves at the pleasure of the President--and because of the 
conflict of interest by asking Attorney General Lynch to investigate 
and perhaps even prosecute somebody in the Obama administration, I 
called upon the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General in 
particular, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter, 
given those obvious conflicts of interest. Of course, we read in the 
paper and understand from testimony before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee just recently by Director Comey of the FBI that the FBI is 
conducting an investigation into this matter, as they should. For 
myself, I would say the FBI, notwithstanding what I have said about the 
Federal Government's poor reputation generally--that the FBI is still 
very widely respected for its integrity, as it must be, but the FBI 
cannot go further and convene a grand jury to consider potential 
violations of the criminal law. That can only be done by a court at the 
request of a prosecutor with the Justice Department.
  If we are going to be true to the promise of equal justice under the 
law--those are the words carved above the entryway to the U.S. Supreme 
Court--if we are going to be true to that promise, we have to be able 
to demonstrate that the same rules and the same laws apply to everybody 
in this country, whether a person is the President of the United States 
or whether a person is one of our Nation's humblest citizens. We are 
all equal before the law--or at least we should be--and it is a 
violation of the public trust when people act as if the rules that 
apply to everybody else don't apply to them.
  So far the Attorney General has declined to appoint a special 
counsel, but I think that even in the interim, since I first made that 
request and it was declined, we see why it is even more important today 
than it was back in October.
  The Obama administration has demonstrated time and time again 
precisely why we need the decisionmaking in this case as far removed 
from White House politics as it can possibly be. For example, in 
October the President went on television and publicly opined on the 
results of the ongoing criminal probe. He said, ``I don't think it 
posed a national security problem.'' That is the President of the 
United States. Based on his comments, one might reasonably conclude 
that the White House was somehow privy and in consultation with the FBI 
about their ongoing criminal investigation. Subsequently, I had a 
chance to ask Director Comey whether in fact that was the case, and he 
said absolutely not. I believe Director Comey.
  It is not a little matter when the President of the United States is 
saying ``I don't see a problem here'' when he actually doesn't even 
know the facts, and it might appear that he is trying to influence the 
conduct of that investigation. That is a real problem. In fact, the 
President's comments were out of line--offering his opinion on what the 
results of an ongoing criminal investigation might or should be.
  Since that time, we found out that Secretary Clinton had 18 emails 
between herself and the President on her private email server. I don't 
know whether the President still feels like this is not a problem, but 
it is a big problem.
  I earlier outlined the publicly reported evidence and explained the 
very real likelihood of criminal violation on the part of Secretary 
Clinton and her

[[Page 864]]

staff. Since then, my concerns--that the information held and sent by 
Secretary Clinton contained some of the most sensitive classified 
information of the U.S. Government--have been confirmed.
  Just 2 weeks ago, several of my colleagues received a letter from the 
inspector general of the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence, the agency whose core mission it is to integrate all the 
intelligence operations of the U.S. Government. That letter was sent in 
response to one from the chairman of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
about the security of Secretary Clinton's private email server. What 
the inspector general said should give us all pause. He said that there 
were ``several dozen e-mails containing classified information.''
  As we know, there are several different levels of classification for 
government correspondence, some more sensitive than others, but the 
inspector general went on to say that these emails were ``determined by 
the [intelligence community] element to be at the Confidential, Secret 
and the Top Secret/SAP level.'' That ``SAP'' term may be a new one to a 
lot of people, but it is an acronym that means special access programs. 
It is the most sensitive classified information known to the U.S. 
Government, and it is a classification even above ``top secret.''
  Access to special access program information is so highly restricted 
in part because it exposes information about programs that are 
incredibly sensitive to national security, such as how intelligence was 
gathered in the first place, sources, and methods--some of which would 
be jeopardized, if not individuals killed if it was known that they 
were providing a source of intelligence for the U.S. Government. In the 
case of special access programs from an intelligence agency, that means 
exposing this information would put intelligence collection and, as I 
said, potentially human sources at great risk.
  On Friday, more news regarding the type of information that was on 
Secretary Clinton's server was announced. It was widely reported for 
the first time that the State Department admitted that it had 
categorized at least 22 emails found on Secretary Clinton's server as 
``top secret''--that is the agency she was responsible for that said 22 
emails were top secret.
  I think it is pretty obvious, even based on the public reports--most 
of which were generated from information produced as a result of a 
freedom of information lawsuit in Federal court--I think it is pretty 
obvious that her email server did contain information that jeopardized 
our national security.
  Let me digress for a second to talk about a new development, a new 
concern that was raised by this information that some of these 
different classifications of information were contained on her private 
email server. The fact is, there are three different government email 
systems. There is the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network--known as 
the SIPRNet--which is used by the Defense Department and some other 
government agencies and which is separate and apart from the Internet. 
It is also separate and apart from the usual government system called 
the Nonclassified Internet Protocol Router Network, NIPRNet. The 
SIPRNet is secret and separate, and the NIPRNet can be used to send 
emails outside the government on a government email server. Then there 
is a third type of system known as JWICS. This is the Joint Worldwide 
Intelligence Communication System, which is even more sensitive than 
the information contained on the SIPRNet, which I mentioned earlier. If 
somehow, as appears to be the case, information got from the SIPRNet or 
JWICS onto a NIPRNet system or onto a private email server system, it 
would have to be physically transferred because they are not connected. 
Part of their security is that they are maintained as independent 
systems. The concern is that highly classified information from SIPRNet 
or the super-secure JWICS somehow jumped from those closed systems to 
the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 Clinton home emails.
  In an article in today's New York Post, the author points to 
Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills or Deputy Chiefs Huma 
Abedin and Jake Sullivan because in one of the emails that has been 
made public, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by 
a foreign leader.

       ``Just email it,'' Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan 
     replied: ``Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops 
     converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no 
     physical way for me to email it.''
       In another recently released email, Clinton instructed 
     Sullivan to convert a classified document into an 
     unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an 
     unsecured computer and sending it to her without any 
     classified markings. ``Turn into nonpaper w no identifying 
     heading and send nonsecure,'' she ordered.

  One gentleman associated with Judicial Watch, which has been one of 
the entities that have filed the freedom of information litigation 
which has produced the huge volume of emails contained on Secretary 
Clinton's server, said, ``Receiving Top Secret SAP intelligence outside 
secure channels is a mortal sin.''
  So, as one can see, these are not trivial matters; these are very 
serious matters.
  It is important to remind folks that this issue was even made worse 
because it is likely that some of our adversaries had access to and 
monitored her private email server. We have heard many of our Nation's 
top national security and intelligence leaders indicate that is likely.
  Recently, Secretary Gates, whose long service to our country includes 
being Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush and President 
Barrack Obama, as well as high-level jobs in the CIA, said, ``I think 
the odds are pretty high'' that Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had 
compromised Secretary Clinton's server.
  Here we are now knowing that information on that server not only 
included classified information but information classified at the 
highest level known to the Federal Government.
  On Friday, given these reports, President Obama's Press Secretary, 
his chief spokesman, Josh Earnest, was asked about the status of the 
investigation and if he believes Secretary Clinton would be indicted. 
It would have been easy enough for him to say ``No comment'' or ``We 
are not privy to the investigation because it is being conducted by a 
law enforcement agency and that is the way these things are done,'' but 
instead he said, ``Some officials have said she is not the target of 
the investigation'' and that an indictment ``does not seem to be the 
direction in which it is trending.''
  As with the President's reckless remarks on television in October, 
either the White House has information they should not have about the 
status of this ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI or they are 
sending a signal to the FBI and the Department of Justice that they 
want this to go away. It is hard for me to interpret these comments by 
the President and by his Press Secretary as anything other than trying 
to influence the FBI and the Department of Justice on the outcome the 
administration prefers. That is completely inappropriate, it is 
outrageous, and it has to stop.
  Today this Senator is back on the Senate floor where I started months 
ago to make the very same point but with a greater sense of urgency and 
with a lot of new information that has come to light. I believe 
Secretary Clinton has likely violated multiple criminal statutes. For a 
Secretary of State to conduct official business--including transmitting 
and receiving information that is classified as SAP level--on a 
private, unsecured server, when sensitive national defense information 
would likely pass through it, is not just a lapse of judgment, it is a 
reckless disregard for the security of the American people, not to 
mention the lives of our intelligence professionals who are involved in 
gaining this important intelligence. It is important for us to protect 
ourselves against our adversaries.
  In light of the unprecedented nature of the case and of the multiple 
conflicts for the Department of Justice, I can see no other appropriate 
course of action but for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a 
special counsel

[[Page 865]]

to pursue this matter wherever the facts may lead. That need is 
underscored by the apparent inability of the White House to resist the 
temptation to try to influence or, at worst, obstruct the current 
investigation.
  I hope the Attorney General seriously considers my request to appoint 
a special counsel given the conflict of interest and the extraordinary 
circumstances of this case because in the end it is the right thing to 
do for the American people. If the U.S. Government--including Congress 
and the administration--is going to regain the trust and confidence of 
the American people, they need to know that the chips will fall where 
they may and that our law enforcement officials, such as the FBI and 
the Department of Justice, will pursue these cases wherever the facts 
may lead, that there isn't a separate set of rules for high government 
officials, such as the Secretary of State, and you and me.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that I 
submitted last week, amendment No. 3140, which is a tripartisan 
amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which is the pending 
legislation. I submitted the amendment last week with Senators 
Klobuchar and King as my lead cosponsors. Our amendment would support 
the key role that the forests in this country can play in helping to 
meet our country's energy needs.
  The carbon benefits of forest biomass are clearly established. Yet 
current policy uncertainty could end up jeopardizing--rather than 
encouraging--investment in working forests, harvesting operations, 
bioenergy, wood products, and paper manufacturing. Biomass energy is 
sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant as an 
energy source. Many States are already relying on biomass to meet their 
renewable energy goals. There is a great deal of support for renewable 
biomass, which creates the benefits of establishing jobs, boosting 
economic growth, and helping us to meet our Nation's energy needs. 
Federal policies across all departments and agencies must remove any 
uncertainties and contradictions through a clear policy that forest 
bioenergy is an essential part of our Nation's energy future.
  With these goals in mind, I have offered a very straightforward 
amendment with a group of colleagues who span the ideological spectrum. 
They include, as I mentioned, Senators Klobuchar and King, as well as 
Senators Ayotte, Franken, Daines, Crapo, and Risch. I am very pleased 
to have all of these colleagues cosponsoring my bill.
  Our amendment supports the key role that forests in the United States 
can play in addressing the Nation's energy needs. The amendment echoes 
the principles outlined in the June 2015 letter that we sent, which was 
signed by 46 Senators. As the Acting President pro tempore knows, it is 
very unusual for 46 Senators on both sides of the aisle to come 
together in support of a policy.
  Specifically, our amendment would require the Secretary of Energy, 
the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the EPA to 
jointly ensure that Federal policy relating to forest bioenergy is 
consistent across all departments and agencies and that the full 
benefits of forest biomass for energy conservation and responsible 
forest management are recognized.
  The amendment would also direct these Federal agencies to establish 
clear and simple policy for the utilization of biomass as an energy 
solution. These include policies that reflect the carbon neutrality of 
forest bioenergy that recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, 
that encourage private investment throughout the biomass supply chain, 
that encourage forest management to improve forest health, and that 
recognize State initiatives to use biomass.
  The carbon neutrality of biomass harvested from sustainably managed 
forests has been recognized repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies, 
institutions, and rules around the world, and there has been no dispute 
about the carbon neutrality of biomass derived from the residuals of 
forest products manufacturing and agriculture.
  Our tripartisan amendment would help ensure that Federal policies for 
the use of clean, renewable energy solutions are clear and simple.
  I am in conversations with the two managers of this important bill, 
the chairman, Senator Murkowski, and the ranking member, Senator 
Cantwell, about our amendment. I hope that it will be adopted, and I 
encourage our colleagues to support its adoption.
  As I mentioned, Senators Klobuchar and King joined with me last week 
in submitting this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ayotte, Senator 
Franken, Senator Daines, Senator Crapo, and Senator Risch be added as 
cosponsors to the amendment as well.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Student Loan Debt

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, Senate Democrats announced 
our commitment to end the crushing burden of student loan debt. Our 
campaign is called ``In the Red'' because we agree with what President 
Obama said during his final State of the Union: ``No hard-working 
student should be stuck in the red.''
  My special guest at President Obama's final State of the Union 
address highlighted exactly this point. Alexis Ploss is a student at 
UMass Lowell. She is a first-generation college student working on a 
degree in math. She wants to get a master's degree so she can become a 
public school teacher, but she has already taken on over $50,000 in 
student loan debt.
  Think about that, smart, hard-working students who want to build a 
future for themselves and who want to teach the next generation of kids 
are weighing the benefits of more education against the fear of an 
unmanageable debt load.
  I don't think Alexis will quit, but I want my Republican colleagues 
to explain to me how America is any better off if a young woman doesn't 
get a master's degree and become a first-rate math teacher. How is this 
country any better off if young people get scared by debt, quit school, 
and take a job that requires less education?
  What Alexis and hundreds of thousands of other people like her end up 
doing will be affected by decisions we make right in this room. If 
Congress does nothing, then Alexis and hundreds of thousands of other 
students just get squeezed harder. The debts get bigger, they grow 
faster, and the decision to give up is just a little closer.
  Seventy percent of students now need to borrow money in order to make 
it through school. Democrats are here to say: Enough is enough, and 
that is what this ``In the Red'' campaign is all about. The Democratic 
plan has two basic parts: debt-free college and refinancing student 
loans.
  There are a lot of ways to get to debt-free college. We can give 
students the opportunity to graduate from community college without 
student debt by making it completely tuition free. We can increase Pell 
grants. We can hold colleges accountable for keeping costs low and 
providing a high-quality education that will help students get ahead.
  We can also cut the outstanding debt. Some student loans are charging 
6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and even

[[Page 866]]

higher interest rates. We could cut those interest rates right now. 
Democrats are ready to go, but the Republicans are blocking us every 
step of the way. Instead of lowering the cost of student loans, they 
support the status quo, where the U.S. Government turns young people 
who are trying to get an education into profit centers to bring in more 
revenue for the Federal Government.
  In fact, Congress has set interest rates so high on loans that just 
one slice of those loans--those issued from 2007 to 2012--are now on 
target to make $66 billion in profits for the U.S. Government. This is 
obscene. The Federal Government should be helping students get an 
education, not making a profit off their backs.
  The main response from Republicans in Congress has been to claim that 
refinancing wouldn't save students that much money. Really? There are 
more than 40 million people currently dealing with student loan debt. 
When their interest rates are cut, many will save hundreds of dollars a 
year and some will save thousands of dollars a year. That is money that 
can help someone out of a hole or money to save for a downpayment on a 
home or money to pay off those student loans faster--but Republicans 
say that money is trivial? What comes next? Do Republicans say let them 
eat cake?
  Where are all those Republicans who think Washington takes too much 
of our money? These artificially high interest rates are a tax we 
impose on students to fund government, a tax that keeps hard-working 
young people from buying homes, from starting businesses or for from 
saving for retirement.
  The Republicans may not want to tax billionaires or Fortune 500 
corporations, but evidently they don't mind squeezing students who have 
to borrow money to pay for college.
  For 2 years now, Democrats have tried to get a bill through Congress 
to lower the interest rate on student loans, and for 2 years the 
Republicans have blocked this bill. As the Republicans have said no, 
hardworking people who are just trying to build a life have paid and 
paid and paid.
  So I am here to ask the Republicans: What is your idea? What is your 
plan for how to deal with existing student loan debt? Democrats have 
put a proposal on the table to make college affordable, but I don't 
hear anything from the Republicans except ``no, no, no.'' Well, it is 
time for change--debt-free college and lower interest rates on student 
loans. That is what Senate Democrats are fighting for, and together 
that is what we are going to win.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on Wednesday of this week, in the dead 
of the night--at least here--the President intends to have his trade 
representative sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade 
agreement, for our Pacific trading partners. It is the product of fast-
track, a procedure that cleared the Senate. Presumably at some point, 
it will then be advanced to the Congress for approval. The advancement 
will be the result of the President filing implementing legislation 
that will move the agreement forward.
  Even though the President regards this deal as one of his signature 
accomplishments, he is not making the trip. Instead, he has deputized 
Trade Representative Michael Froman to sign the agreement in New 
Zealand on behalf of the United States. New Zealand is a long way away.
  We haven't had much talk about this event. The reason is that the 
American people are very uneasy about it. The American people are not 
happy with this agreement. The American people, I believe, fully oppose 
it and would oppose it even more so if they knew more about it, and 
they will learn more about it. So I think there has been an effort not 
to talk about it, to keep the language low, and to see if it can't be 
brought up some way and passed. I think that would be a mistake.
  This trade agreement is 5,554 pages long and stacks 3 feet high on my 
desk, so I would like to point my colleagues to examples of what the 
deal will do.
  The American Automobile Policy Council recently issued a report which 
stated that the TPP would threaten 90,000 American automotive jobs 
because of its failure to include strong currency protections. This is 
just one of the problems we have. It has to be dealt with. Currency 
manipulation is exceedingly dangerous. It has very large impacts, and 
on a $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 automobile, we are talking about 
thousands of dollars difference through currency.
  American industries across the board are beginning to oppose TPP. 
Many believe that all of the businesses are for it. But that is not the 
case. Many American manufacturers would see their future even more 
problematic under the TPP.
  Ford released a statement opposing the deal. They argued that the TPP 
is not adequately open and does not adequately open foreign markets to 
U.S. goods.
  We are going to further open our markets to foreign goods, but we are 
not going to make the kind of progress that must be made to help our 
exports, which is why we are told this agreement should pass--because 
it is going to open up markets for us. Ford says no.
  Last week Ford announced they were leaving the Japanese market--Japan 
being the key country in this agreement--because they say that Japan 
has nontariff barriers that have limited their ability to sell cars in 
Japan.
  For example, in 2015, Ford sold fewer than 5,000 cars in Japan. Ford 
is an international manufacturer. They sell large numbers of 
automobiles in Europe, in Mexico, in South America, but they cannot 
penetrate the Japanese market. Hyundai, a superb South Korean 
manufacturer, also not too long ago gave up trying to sell automobiles 
in Japan. It is not tariffs; it is nontariff factors, constructed by 
Japan, that make this happen.
  Given this evidence, one would hope that the United States would be 
able to negotiate a deal that would support American manufacturing and 
American workers, but that is not the case with the TPP.
  This is the World Bank's evaluation. The World Bank has concluded 
that Japan would see an extra economic growth of 2.7 percent by 2030 
while the United States can expect only four-tenths of 1 percent of 
additional economic growth.
  The White House's own study--a study they cite with pride, although 
they omit many of the facts that are set forth in that report--
conducted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics claimed 
that TPP will decrease the growth of manufacturing in the United States 
by 20 percent by 2030. In other words, without this deal, manufacturing 
in the United States would grow 20 percent more than if we signed the 
TPP.
  Is this good for America? Manufacturing jobs are high-paying jobs. 
Manufacturing jobs demand resources from the community, and all kinds 
of people support those manufacturing jobs. The products that Americans 
manufacture are sold in the United States, around the world, and money 
is brought home, and it pours into that community to buy more products, 
more machines, more gasoline, more electricity, and to pay the workers 
who work in the plants.
  You have to have manufacturing in this world. A nation cannot get by 
without it. A nation that has the greatest economy in the world, a 
nation that has the greatest military in the world must maintain a 
manufacturing base.
  According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, this 
20 percent reduction in potential growth would result in around 120,000 
fewer jobs than would have been created otherwise. That is a very large 
number--

[[Page 867]]

120,000 high-paying, good jobs in manufacturing plants. But that is the 
President's study. That is his group that they got to give the results 
he wanted. Trust me--and we are going to show this over time--the 
predictions for these trade agreements have fallen massively short of 
what the administration has promised.
  However, a more critical study by the economists at Tufts 
University--that prestigious university--recently found that TPP would 
cost up to 400,000 jobs in the United States. We are supposed to sign 
this deal, and it is supposed to make America better, and it is going 
to cost us jobs. That is what the other deals have done. I think this 
one is likely to do the same. I wish it weren't so.
  We need better trade deals. We don't need to enter into trade deals 
that don't protect the legitimate interest of American workers and 
American manufacturers. Our trading partners, good countries, good 
people--Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and others--are tough trading 
partners. They are mercantilists. They are not free traders, really. 
They are out to maximize their exports, and the export market they lust 
after the most is the U.S. market. That is where they want to export 
their products and bring home American dollars. We haven't done a good 
job of defending our interests.
  The United States already has trade agreements with major Asian 
nations. We have many of them now. How have they turned out? Shouldn't 
we study that? Has anyone talked about that? Have we had hearings on 
how well they worked out before? No.
  We haven't really looked into the effects of previous agreements 
because we don't want to talk about that. What we want to say in the 
Senate and the House of Representatives is that trade deals are good. 
If anybody has a trade deal, be for it. That is not a sound way to 
proceed.
  South Korea is a good ally of the United States. It is a good 
country, but they are tough competitors. Our trade deficit with South 
Korea last year from January through November was $26 billion, and by 
the end of the year, that country alone will be about $28-plus billion. 
They have not published numbers yet, but estimates suggest that the 
2015 trade deficit will be 15 percent higher than the previous year--
2014. Is that a good deal for the United States?
  Trade deficits reduced U.S. GDP, as products that Americans consume 
are made abroad instead of produced here as part of our gross domestic 
product. It is not good for economic growth. Our growth fell way below 
expectations--0.7 percent--in the fourth quarter of this year, and 
every dollar of trade deficit subtracts from our GDP.
  Some think we could be heading into a recession. Many people are 
seriously discussing this. Who knows what will happen? We are not in a 
booming economy; there is absolutely no doubt about it. Wages are down. 
Job prospects are down. We have the lowest percentage of Americans in 
their working years actually working since the 1970s. It is not a 
healthy environment.
  In 2010, President Obama promised that the South Korean trade deal--
he said this when he signed the agreement. They have been promising 
these kinds of things in advance. It passed, and he signed the 
agreement. I voted for it. I voted for most of these deals, but it is 
time for us to be honest about it, to evaluate how well they are 
actually turning out. When he signed the deal, he promised it would 
increase American exports to South Korea by $11 billion a year. That 
was nice. We would like to have seen that. However, in the 11 months of 
last year, the United States exported only $1.2 billion more than we 
did when the deal was signed 6 years ago. The year before that, it was 
a $0.8 billion export increase; it was not even $1 billion.
  What about Korean exports to the United States, what we import from 
Korea? Since 2010, our trade deficit with South Korea has risen nearly 
260 percent, from $10.1 billion in 2010 to more than $26 billion this 
year. That is a very serious matter. I am very concerned about this 
loss of jobs.
  I think the American people need to know what is happening. The 
Transpacific Partnership Agreement not only fails to deal with 
manufacturing jobs in general, but it also fails to include any kind of 
serious measure that would address currency manipulation.
  During the time President Reagan was President, the economy went 
through a tough period, but it rebounded under his leadership. Paul 
Volcker and Reagan's leadership put us on a path of sound, solid growth 
that went all the way through the 1990s. Mr. Volcker once said a moment 
of currency manipulation can wipe out years of trade agreements with 
our trading partners.
  Currency is a huge thing. That is why the American Automotive Council 
is concerned about it, why Ford and other manufacturers care about it, 
and why we had a series of votes on the Senate floor to try to do 
something about currency.
  But the powers that be had the ultimate victory. We got to vote for a 
bill that wouldn't become law; that would push back and allow us to 
resist currency manipulation. We got to vote on that one, but they made 
sure it didn't get on the bill that is going to become law--the Trans-
Pacific Partnership Agreement. It was a show vote. The President was 
not going to execute it, and he threatened to veto it.
  The Wall Street Journal, on November 5, wrote:

       Mexico, Canada and other countries signaled that they were 
     open to the [currency] deal when they realized it [would not] 
     include binding currency rules that could lead to trade 
     sanctions through the TPP.

  These countries want to be able to manipulate their currency. 
Obviously, they agreed to go forward with the trade deal because they 
knew there were no binding currency rules. In fact, last year the 
Japanese Finance Minister, Taro Aso, said that ``there [will not] be 
any change'' in Japan's currency policy because of the provisions 
included in the TPP.
  Some milk toast language got in the agreement. The Senators were able 
to say they voted for a bill that had teeth to it, but that was in a 
separate bill that would not become law. My currency provisions in the 
bill, the language with real teeth, was stripped out during the 
Conference Committee because the President threatened to veto it. It is 
never going to become law.
  But the agreement included alongside the TPP is meaningless. Japan 
and others say it is not going to make any change in their currency 
policy. Japan significantly devalued the yen again recently. China 
devalued its currency by 6 percent last summer alone, and many expect 
they will devalue it even further.
  I have to say, it is time for the United States of America to 
understand something. We are the largest economy in the world. We have 
the greatest military in the world. We need to demand that people who 
sell in our markets--and whose exports to the United States are 
critical to their economic well-being--don't get to do this if they are 
not playing by the rules. They don't get to manipulate their 
currencies. They don't get to subsidize their manufacturing, and we are 
not going to allow them to use nontariff barriers to prohibit the 
imports of American products.
  That is what we need from the leadership in this country--not an 
agreement that allows continued manipulation of currency and that does 
not deal effectively with the nontariff barriers and subsidies these 
countries use to take market share away from U.S. companies.
  What happens to an American business? U.S. Steel just closed some 
production and laid off 1,000 workers in Birmingham last year. Is that 
plant going to reopen? We would like to think so, but I doubt it. Once 
these American plants that get no support from their government to 
compete abroad are closed, they don't reopen. Our competitors know 
that, and they take market share. They get to sell more in the United 
States and bring home strong American dollars.
  I think it is time for us to slow down on this. We are going to 
continue to look at how these trade agreements have worked. I don't 
think they have worked very well for the American worker. They haven't 
done very well

[[Page 868]]

for American manufacturing. I think few would dispute that this Nation 
can be prosperous without manufacturing. One time they said you could 
do it with a service economy and high-tech economy. Saturday's Barron's 
did a report on a study that has been done about our high-tech 
companies, which we are so proud of and hear so much talk about. What 
about the job prospects they have for this year? Are they going to add 
more jobs to high-tech computer companies in America? No, this analysis 
said that the information technology companies in America would reduce 
employment by 330,000 people this year.
  I have to tell you that if we lose automobile manufacturing and steel 
plants, these people are not going to work in computer companies. That 
is one of the biggest misrepresentations I have ever heard. The facts 
are becoming very clear on that. Microsoft laid off over 100,000 people 
the year before last. We have had a continual decline in high-tech job 
creation. Oh yes, some plant somewhere is adding jobs, but more plants 
are laying off workers. There is an election going on out there. People 
are concerned about their future. They need to know about the trade 
agreement. They need to be asking their Representatives and their 
Presidential candidates how they feel about it. Which side are you 
going to be on? Let's hear the reasons why you are for or against this 
agreement. After they hear that, I think they will be in a better 
position to decide how to cast their vote.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor as we are moving 
forward, as many of my colleagues know, on this energy package. I thank 
my colleagues who have already come to the floor today to talk about 
it, and I especially thank Senator Murkowski for helping us to move 
through so many different proposals by our colleagues. We were able to 
clear some of these amendments by voice votes, and, hopefully, we will 
be able to move forward over the next 24 hours on this bill by getting 
some votes locked in.
  One of the things we are going to talk about this week is energy 
efficiency, which is creating jobs and making our economy more 
competitive by holding down the cost of energy. Many of us know that 
for centuries the use of energy has been a very important factor in our 
economy. Last week I mentioned that the Northwest economy was built on 
a hydrosystem. Cheap hydropower has worked for us over and over again, 
as companies that use a lot of electricity have moved to the Northwest. 
We have stored everything from apples to terabytes of data because of 
the huge efficiencies that we were able to pull off with cheap 
hydropower.
  As my colleague from Alaska will say, energy costs are high in Alaska 
and she wants to make sure we are making it more affordable and 
enabling distributed generation, as she just mentioned earlier today. 
Ensuring that we have a microgrid to do that is a key component to how 
the state will successfully diversify their economy. As we debate this 
bill on the Senate floor, each of us is thinking about the regions of 
our country we represent and how to make sure we are dealing with 
energy successfully.
  One important thing I wanted to discuss is that in 2007, for the 
first time in our history, the United States actually delinked economic 
growth from energy use. Now, our economy is producing more in goods and 
services, yet it is using less in electricity. The chart behind me 
demonstrates this.
  This is a very important point because it shows that we can still 
grow our economy while consuming and using less energy. This is 
important if you are a homeowner and want to use the energy in your 
home more efficiently, while still having many apps and devices that 
require electricity but make your life easier. It is also important for 
businesses. As U.S. businesses compete in a global economy, they want 
to produce goods and services and do so in a cost-effective manner. So 
the more you can drive down energy costs without having to drive down 
consumption, the better.
  If we want to continue to compete in that global economy, we must 
continue to improve our energy productivity, and that is exactly what 
title I of the bill does. The Energy Policy Modernization Act will help 
ensure that the Nation is eliminating energy waste and making 
improvements in new technologies that will improve our competitiveness 
for the 21st century.
  Energy efficiency is the cheapest and most affordable energy resource 
because it is typically about one-third of the cost of new production; 
that is, by saving energy at home, by using what we already have more 
efficiently--and there are all sorts of smart ways to do this--you can 
actually spend only one-third of the cost of what it would take to get 
new production online.
  In the last 40 years, since the oil embargo, energy efficiency became 
an integral part of our energy policy. We have learned that efficiency 
is not like most other resources that are depleted and consumed. 
Instead, we found that as we keep making progress on energy efficiency, 
we have created new technologies. These have become the most cost-
effective ways to cut waste and the most cost-effective ways to take 
the ``low-hanging fruit'' available in front of us and help businesses 
and homeowners alike.
  There are two examples of this that we, as the Federal Government, 
had a hand in: No. 1, automobiles and No. 2, lighting technology. Now 
both of these were in the previous 2007 Energy bill. Since then, 
average automobile fuel economy has improved dramatically, from 15 
miles per gallon in 1978 to 28 miles per gallon in 2016, thanks to the 
CAFE standards in effect. That was something we pushed here that made 
our automobiles more efficient.
  With respect to lighting, the latest light-emitting diode, LED, 
technology is 6 to 7 times more efficient in energy consumption than 
traditional incandescent lights and can last at least 25 times longer. 
In 2012 alone, nearly 50,000 LEDs were installed in the United States, 
saving an estimated $675 million in annual electricity costs.
  What we are saying here is that we want to continue to move forward 
on energy efficiency. It is saving money for businesses and homeowners. 
We also want to continue the advancements of these energy-efficiency 
technologies and make sure that we are making the right investments. So 
I want to remind my colleagues that there are going to be several ways 
in which we are going to try to build on this progress. Energy 
efficiency must be a major part of our policies here, and I know many 
States across the country are also making investments in this.
  So tomorrow I expect us to have a vote on an amendment to establish a 
Federal energy efficiency resource standard, or an EERS.
  Since its establishment, the Department of Energy has implemented 
successful energy efficiency programs that develop new technologies and 
promote best practices within the major sectors of our energy economy. 
Yet many States have used their role to also establish energy 
efficiency standards. Behind me, you will see the number of States that 
have already developed these incentives for investments in energy 
efficiency by giving utilities an incentive to invest in low-cost, 
energy efficiency programs before investing in more expensive new 
energy production. You can see that many of these States across the 
United States have adopted such initiatives--25 States with energy 
efficiency resource standards.
  Why is that important? Well, once you start down the road of energy 
efficiency, you continue to make your grid more efficient, which is 
something California has done. California made a huge investment as a 
marketplace for energy efficiency, and now they continue to be on the 
cutting edge of energy efficiency. They have continued to grow as an 
economy yet use less energy. In fact, the 19 States with the greatest 
energy savings in the Nation all have energy efficiency resource 
standards.
  So, to me, this is an area of the bill that I think we would like to 
improve. States are the laboratories of democracy, and because 25 of 
them have demonstrated the benefits of this policy, I

[[Page 869]]

believe it is time the Federal Government should also establish a 
national energy efficiency resource standard. My colleague Senator 
Franken from Minnesota will be offering an amendment to do just that on 
this bill.
  The Federal Government could require States to do their part in 
reducing the waste of resources and increasing our Nation's energy 
productivity by establishing an energy efficiency resource standard 
that would promote investments in efficiency--everything from cost 
effectiveness in new buildings to production capacity. The proposed 
EERS would set a very modest, easily achievable energy savings target 
that electrical and natural gas utilities must meet as is already 
required in half of these States.
  The American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy estimates that 
implementing the Federal EERS would save $130 billion, or about $1,000 
per household by 2040. The adoption of this EERS amendment would more 
than triple the energy efficiency savings benefits of the act before us 
today. A Federal EERS would not only save every American money by 
reducing their energy bill, but it would also strengthen our Nation's 
economic competitiveness by improving our energy's productivity and 
maintaining our leadership in the commercialization of these products.
  This is something I learned during my time in the private sector. 
Anytime you can make something that is of value to everybody more 
efficient, such as energy, you are on the winning path; that is, if you 
become the experts of constantly knowing how to make everything more 
efficient, whether you are talking about development in China, in 
Europe or in other parts of Asia, the fact that we are experts on 
energy efficiency by deploying this here in the United States gives us 
a winning hand on deploying it around the world. Anytime you can be 
more efficient, you are also being more cost effective and saving 
dollars. That is what we are pushing in this bill. It will move us 
forward on energy efficiency.
  As we have seen, energy efficiency--and I am sure Senator Franken 
will talk more about this tomorrow--is not only commonsense economics, 
but it also has the ability to focus on some of the cleaner sources of 
energy that we have been discussing too.
  The Federal Government has had a history of promoting energy 
efficiency, and the government itself, being the single largest energy 
user in the Nation, could benefit from this. We hope that when we look 
at the Federal Government, we will also be talking about energy 
efficiency products. One of the examples of how Congress directed the 
Federal Government to lead was by the enactment of section 433 of the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This provision 
established a Federal leadership role in the development of high-
efficiency, low-emission commercial buildings by requiring the Federal 
Government to phase out the use of fossil fuel energy in Federal 
buildings and major renovations by 2030.
  The U.S. Government, as the single largest occupant of Federal 
buildings in the Nation, should continue, I believe, to demonstrate its 
energy efficiency as well. I know in the Pacific Northwest we have the 
Bullitt Center, which is the greenest commercial building in the United 
States. We have a hospital in Issaquah that is one of the most energy 
efficient hospitals in the United States, and we have other businesses 
that are developing these buildings that are smart buildings that are 
driving down the costs. What does that mean? It means that businesses 
can invest money into R&D or into the manufacturing of goods or into 
the promotion of ideas instead of spending it on energy costs.
  For us in the Pacific Northwest, someone might ask: With the cheapest 
kilowatt rates in the Nation, why would everybody spend so much time on 
energy efficiency? We spend so much time on energy in the Northwest 
because we know it pays dividends. We know it gives us a competitive 
edge, and we know it continues to put us in the driver's seat with 
technology. Even though we have the cheapest kilowatt rates, we 
continue to make an investment.
  These buildings were designed by architects to show what is now 
technologically possible and to feature state-of-the-art ground-source 
heating and cooling, both photovoltaic and thermal solar energy 
collection, and computers that automatically adjust the building 
systems in order to keep them comfortable and efficient. Some buildings 
have an elevator that converts kinetic energy from braking into usable 
electricity. All of these things are about cutting-edge technology. The 
Bullitt Center and other buildings like it in the United States 
demonstrate that it is technologically feasible and cost effective to 
phase out the use of fossil fuel generated energy in new Federal 
buildings within the next 14 years, as required by current law.
  These are not radical policies. These laws, which were passed in 
2007, are things that I know people here would like to strike and 
repeal. Let me mention another one we will likely hear about, which is 
the SAFE Act, offered by our colleagues from Georgia and Colorado. The 
Senators likely will offer this bill for sensible accounting to value 
energy. This bipartisan amendment was included in the Shaheen-Portman 
bill that would help homeowners account for the energy efficiency of 
their home during the mortgage and underwriting process. The average 
homeowner pays more than $2,000 annually for the energy in their home. 
After the mortgage, this is typically the second largest cost in buying 
and owning a home, but it is not accounted for in the mortgage 
underwriting process. Many of us have gone through this process of 
buying a home and getting a mortgage. So why can't a homeowner, on a 
voluntary basis, have their home audited for its energy efficiency 
characteristics and have that information accounted for in the mortgage 
underwriting process? This is what Senators Isakson, Bennet, Shaheen, 
and Portman have introduced in an amendment, and I think it will be one 
of the things we will hear about tomorrow and one of the potential 
votes we will be having.
  A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that 
owners of more efficient homes are less likely to default on their 
mortgages. Adopting this amendment creates an incentive for homeowners 
to invest in energy efficiency improvement because those improvements 
will be accounted for in the underwriting process for their homes. 
Organizations as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the U.S. 
Green Building Council all support this amendment. So this is another 
idea that is not in the underlying bill that we will be discussing.
  Today we are here with many amendments that were added last week to 
this legislation. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
their hard work and for continuing to move forward with my colleague, 
the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, and myself in getting through 
the next couple of days of these policies.
  I know my colleagues want to continue to discuss this legislation, as 
I do, but we also know there is a limited time that we will be able to 
be on this legislation. So I urge our colleagues to bring any 
amendments to the floor tonight that they would like to have 
considered, if they haven't already filed them today.
  We need to continue to build on the successes of the last 40 years, 
continue to cut our energy waste, and de-link our economic growth from 
energy use so we can make sure we can continue to grow in the most 
cost-effective way, and continue to produce the jobs that these new 
renewables and energy efficiency opportunities are creating for us. I 
think this legislation will help give us another foothold toward a 
future economy that is cleaner, more efficient, and a better driver of 
U.S. competitiveness on an international global basis for the types of 
energy solutions that we think will help the world as well.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 870]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering a 
bipartisan energy bill that could lead America on a pathway to 
rebuilding our Nation's economy in this century. It has been 9 years 
since we passed an energy bill and a lot of things have changed.
  The bill we are considering contains important provisions to build 
domestic clean energy sources, strengthen energy efficiency measures, 
and modernize our electric grid.
  This bill also represents a commitment to basic science research at 
the Department of Energy. I believe it can and should do more than what 
the original bill proposes. We need more robust support for basic 
science research--the kind of research that costs too much and takes 
too long for any individual company to undertake. We need to invest in 
medical and basic science research. The investment will pay off for 
generations to come.
  I cochair the Senate National Lab Caucus, and I know that if we 
invest in research in the National Labs, it will lead to breakthroughs 
that will help keep America competitive and create good-paying jobs.
  At Fermi National Accelerator Lab in Illinois, the development of 
superconducting wire technology enabled the large-scale manufacture of 
the magnetic resonance imaging--or MRI--machines doctors use today. 
Sometimes it is hard for the scientists and engineers and leaders at 
these labs to explain in simple words what they are doing and why it is 
important. This is an example. They were working on a wire technology 
that probably didn't mean much certainly to me or to many people, but 
when they finished, they came up with an MRI--a brandnew way of imaging 
our bodies to detect illnesses and plot a way to cure them.
  In the 1970s, the scientists building Fermilab's particle accelerator 
drove cutting-edge research in superconducting wire fabrication. Rather 
than patent these advances, Fermilab made them freely available to the 
public and private sector, opening the door to large-scale 
superconducting wire manufacturing by private industry. Since MRI 
machines rely on superconducting wires, this made commercialization 
possible.
  Today, MRI machines are widely used to image the human body. Using 
MRIs nearly eliminates the need for exploratory surgery, which, of 
course, means it is cheaper in the long run and safer.
  Last month, a new generation of MRI machines at the Illinois 
Neurological Institute saved the life of a 27-year-old farmer from 
Canton, IL, Cody Krulac. Cody had a tumor that was located in the part 
of his brain that would have been difficult to image using old 
technology and would have relied on surgery and guesswork, but using 
the new MRI machine, his doctors were able to pinpoint exactly where 
the tumor was and exactly how much to remove, meaning Cody spent less 
time in surgery and recovered more quickly.
  Another example of the Department of Energy's success can be found in 
Argonne's Advanced Photon Source. Its power x-ray beams enable the 
observation of extremely small objects in unprecedented detail. This 
allows scientists to see how viruses, such as HIV, replicate and how 
cancer grows. This understanding led to the discovery of a new drug for 
AIDS therapy, a drug called Kaletra, which is now the most prescribed 
drug in its class for this deadly disease. It also led to the 
development of a drug, Zelboraf, to treat melanoma. This drug has been 
used by 11,000 patients worldwide and is approved in 43 countries. The 
research at this National Lab really paved the way.
  Building and operating a facility like the Advanced Photon Source is 
too expensive and specialized for any single company to do. Only 
investment by America in its own Department of Energy can make 
something like this possible.
  Let me give one final example of how the Department of Energy's 
Office Of Science has had an impact on every American life. Researchers 
from Illinois University, Fermilab, and Argonne have teamed up to give 
a tenfold boost to normal CT scanning capabilities. The result was a 
next-generation CT scanner that limits the patient's exposure to 
radiation while giving better images that allow doctors to more 
accurately detect and treat cancer and save lives. This research also 
led to two U.S. patents and spurred an Illinois startup company called 
ProtonVDA through the National Institutes of Health small business 
innovation research grant.
  These are only some of the Department of Energy's and the National 
Lab's success stories, but they are examples that show that this 
investment, which cannot be effectively made by most businesses in 
America, can really make America safer, healthier, and pave the way for 
new businesses and jobs. America's place as a world leader in cutting-
edge research is at risk if we fail to make the necessary investments 
in basic science research.
  I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, particularly Senator 
Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri; Senator Lamar Alexander, a 
Republican from Tennessee; and Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from 
the State of Washington. They really stepped up when it came to NIH 
research--the National Institutes of Health. In this year's budget, we 
are going to have virtually a 5-percent real increase in research--$2 
billion of new money going to NIH. I am willing to stake my future in 
the Senate and tell you that investment at the NIH this year in 
research will ultimately lead to breakthroughs that will save lives. 
This is another area which is equally promising.
  I remember visiting the Department of Energy a few months back with 
Ernest Moniz, our Secretary, whom I respect very much. I told him the 
story of how I am committed to NIH's basic biomedical research. I said 
one example is Alzheimer's.
  I was surprised when my staff said one American is diagnosed with 
Alzheimer's every 67 seconds. I said: Go back to the drawing board. 
That can't be true.
  They went back and came back and said: No, Senator, that is exactly 
right. One in every 67 seconds on average, an American is diagnosed 
with Alzheimer's.
  I told that story to Ernest Moniz, the Secretary of Energy, and I 
said that is why we need this NIH research.
  He said: Senator, my Office of Science in the Department of Energy is 
developing the imaging techniques so that we can detect Alzheimer's in 
living human beings.
  Currently, the only confirmation of the diagnosis is confirmed in 
autopsy. If we can look at the early onset of Alzheimer's, we can 
better respond to it. That is why, if one is interested in curing 
diseases, in finding ways to avoid expensive surgery, in reducing the 
cost of medicine but still protecting America, this generation of 
lawmakers needs to make a commitment to science research.
  I have already thanked my colleagues by name who have done so much 
for the NIH, and I will be offering an amendment with Senator Alexander 
of Tennessee that is going to help increase our commitment to research 
in the Energy bill which is before us. The 4-percent growth in the bill 
is good, but unfortunately it does not protect against inflation. What 
we are calling for is 5-percent growth over inflation in this 
Department. I can guarantee that the breakthroughs that will come from 
this research will make life better and create more opportunities for 
people living in this country. We need to have sustained funding to 
ensure that cutting-edge research can bear fruit, and we are asking 
that they maintain this growth period of 5-percent real growth for 5 
years.
  Congress needs to help America's best and brightest do what they do 
best. This amendment represents an investment that will save lives.
  I will say parenthetically that this morning I made a trip to 
Atlanta, GA. Every 2 or 3 years, I go down to visit

[[Page 871]]

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This agency is not well 
known or well understood by most Americans. The Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA, is the first line in America's 
national defense when it comes to public health threats.
  We now have a mosquito called the Zika mosquito spreading a virus in 
Brazil to the point where women are being warned that now is not the 
time to be pregnant. If one of those mosquitoes should sting you and if 
some of the virus gets into your body, it can cause a miscarriage or 
some terrible birth defects in the baby. That is how dangerous it is. 
The frontline of defense in the United States is the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA.
  As I walked through there and met with the pathologists, the doctors, 
veterinarians, and others who work there, I saw this amazing array of 
extraordinary talent, people who were excited about their work, about 
making our country and the world safer. The Zika virus, of course, is 
our current threat, but there are many more. They faced the Ebola 
crisis in Africa, and luckily it did not spread beyond the few 
countries where it was first reported. So when we talk about 
investments in research by the U.S. Federal Government, it is research 
that is good for us and our families, and it is good for the world.
  I will be offering this amendment probably this week with Senator 
Alexander and others to increase this commitment to research. It is an 
investment that will lead to new breakthroughs in this bill on energy, 
in scientific discoveries, energy innovation, and national security. 
This amendment strengthens the bill before us and helps us move to our 
21st-century economy in the world. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have had an opportunity to have a 
few speakers here this afternoon. Senator Cantwell and I have come to 
the floor and urged our colleagues to help us as we work to advance the 
Energy Policy Modernization Act. We have, for the information of 
colleagues, an order, in terms of several--a couple of votes tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up 
the following amendments: amendment No. 3023 by Senator Lee and 
amendment No. 3115 by Senator Franken; that on Tuesday, February 2, 
2016, at 2:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the above 
amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree amendments in 
order prior to the votes and a 60-vote affirmative threshold required 
for adoption; further, that the time between 2:15 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. be 
equally divided in the usual form and that there be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 2970, 2989, 2991, 3119, 3019, 3066, 3137, and 3056, as 
                    Modified, to Amendment No. 2953

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. We are now ready to process a handful of amendments 
with a series of voice votes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments 
be called up and reported by number: Gardner amendment No. 2970; Reed 
amendment No. 2989; Inhofe amendment No. 2991; Daines amendment No. 
3119; Murphy amendment No. 3019; Hirono amendment No. 3066; Udall 
amendment No. 3137; and Flake amendment No. 3056, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for others, 
     proposes amendments numbered 2970, 2989, 2991, 3119, 3019, 
     3066, 3137, and 3056, as modified, to amendment No. 2953.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2970

     (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to energy management 
                             requirements)

       In section 1006, strike subsection (a) and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Energy Management Requirements.--Section 543(f)(4) of 
     the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
     8253(f)(4)) is amended by striking ``may'' and inserting 
     ``shall''.


                           amendment no. 2989

(Purpose: To ensure that funds for research and development of electric 
               grid energy storage are used efficiently)

       Section 2301 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       (f) Use of Funds.--To the maximum extent practicable, in 
     carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     the use of funds to carry out this section is coordinated 
     among different offices within the Grid Modernization 
     Initiative of the Department and other programs conducting 
     energy storage research.


                           Amendment No. 2991

     (Purpose: To modify provisions relating to brownfields grants)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of January 27, 2016, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 3119

 (Purpose: To require that the 21st Century Energy Workforce Advisory 
             Board membership also represent cybersecurity)

       On page 316, line 15, strike ``and'' and insert 
     ``cybersecurity, and''.


                           amendment no. 3019

   (Purpose: To promote the use of reclaimed refrigerants in Federal 
                              facilities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PROMOTING USE OF RECLAIMED REFRIGERANTS IN FEDERAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services 
     shall issue guidance relating to the procurement of reclaimed 
     refrigerants to service existing equipment of Federal 
     facilities.
       (b) Preference.--The guidance issued under subsection (a) 
     shall give preference to the use of reclaimed refrigerants, 
     on the conditions that--
       (1) the refrigerant has been reclaimed by a person or 
     entity that is certified under the laboratory certification 
     program of the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 
     Institute; and
       (2) the price of the reclaimed refrigerant does not exceed 
     the price of a newly manufactured (virgin) refrigerant.


                           amendment no. 3066

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

       In section 3602(d), strike paragraph (2) and insert the 
     following:
       (2) work with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs or veteran service organizations recognized 
     by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5902 of 
     title 38, United States Code, to transition members of the 
     Armed Forces and veterans to careers in the energy sector;


                           amendment no. 3137

    (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to a Secretarial order)

       On page 302, strike lines 6 through 9 and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Secretarial order not affected.--This subtitle shall 
     not apply to any mineral described in Secretarial Order No. 
     3324, issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 3, 
     2012, in any area to which the order applies.


                    amendment no. 3056, as modified

   (Purpose: To include other Federal departments and agencies in an 
     evaluation of potentially duplicative green building programs)

       Strike section 1020 (relating to an evaluation of 
     potentially duplicative green building programs within the 
     Department of Energy) and insert the following:

     SEC. 1020. EVALUATION OF POTENTIALLY DUPLICATIVE GREEN 
                   BUILDING PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrative expenses.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``administrative expenses'' has 
     the meaning given the term by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget under section 504(b)(2) of the Energy 
     and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2010 (31 U.S.C. 1105 note; Public Law 111-85).
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``administrative expenses'' 
     includes, with respect to an agency--
       (i) costs incurred by--

       (I) the agency; or

[[Page 872]]

       (II) any grantee, subgrantee, or other recipient of funds 
     from a grant program or other program administered by the 
     agency; and

       (ii) expenses relating to personnel salaries and benefits, 
     property management, travel, program management, promotion, 
     reviews and audits, case management, and communication 
     regarding, promotion of, and outreach for programs and 
     program activities administered by the agency.
       (2) Applicable program.--The term ``applicable program'' 
     means any program that is--
       (A) listed in Table 9 (pages 348-350) of the report of the 
     Government Accountability Office entitled ``2012 Annual 
     Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 
     Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue''; and
       (B) administered by--
       (i) the Secretary;
       (ii) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (iii) the Secretary of Defense;
       (iv) the Secretary of Education;
       (v) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (vi) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
       (vii) the Secretary of Transportation;
       (viii) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (ix) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (x) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology; or
       (xi) the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration.
       (3) Service.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     ``service'' has the meaning given the term by the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (B) Requirements.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term ``service'' shall be limited to activities, assistance, 
     or other aid that provides a direct benefit to a recipient, 
     such as--
       (i) the provision of technical assistance;
       (ii) assistance for housing or tuition; or
       (iii) financial support (including grants, loans, tax 
     credits, and tax deductions).
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the agency heads described in 
     clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection (a)(2)(B), shall 
     submit to Congress and make available on the public Internet 
     website of the Department a report that describes the 
     applicable programs.
       (2) Requirements.--In preparing the report under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) determine the approximate annual total administrative 
     expenses of each applicable program attributable to green 
     buildings;
       (B) determine the approximate annual expenditures for 
     services for each applicable program attributable to green 
     buildings;
       (C) describe the intended market for each applicable 
     program attributable to green buildings, including the--
       (i) estimated the number of clients served by each 
     applicable program; and
       (ii) beneficiaries who received services or information 
     under the applicable program (if applicable and if data is 
     readily available);
       (D) estimate--
       (i) the number of full-time employees who administer 
     activities attributable to green buildings for each 
     applicable program; and
       (ii) the number of full-time equivalents (the salary of 
     whom is paid in part or full by the Federal Government 
     through a grant or contract, a subaward of a grant or 
     contract, a cooperative agreement, or another form of 
     financial award or assistance) who assist in administering 
     activities attributable to green buildings for the applicable 
     program;
       (E) briefly describe the type of services each applicable 
     program provides attributable to green buildings, such as 
     information, grants, technical assistance, loans, tax 
     credits, or tax deductions;
       (F) identify the type of recipient who is intended to 
     benefit from the services or information provided under the 
     applicable program attributable to green buildings, such as 
     individual property owners or renters, local governments, 
     businesses, nonprofit organizations, or State governments; 
     and
       (G) identify whether written program goals are available 
     for each applicable program.
       (c) Recommendations.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the agency heads described in 
     clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection (a)(2)(B), shall 
     submit to Congress a report that includes--
       (1) a recommendation of whether any applicable program 
     should be eliminated or consolidated, including any 
     legislative changes that would be necessary to eliminate or 
     consolidate applicable programs; and
       (2) methods to improve the applicable programs by 
     establishing program goals or increasing collaboration to 
     reduce any potential overlap or duplication, taking into 
     account--
       (A) the 2011 report of the Government Accountability Office 
     entitled ``Federal Initiatives for the Nonfederal Sector 
     Could Benefit from More Interagency Collaboration''; and
       (B) the report of the Government Accountability Office 
     entitled ``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce 
     Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and 
     Enhance Revenue''.
       (d) Analyses.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the agency heads described in 
     clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection (a)(2)(B), shall 
     identify--
       (1) which applicable programs were specifically authorized 
     by Congress; and
       (2) which applicable programs are carried out solely under 
     the discretionary authority of the Secretary or any agency 
     head described in clauses (ii) through (xi) of subsection 
     (a)(2)(B).

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could just say, I so appreciate our 
colleagues working in such a bipartisan fashion to work through these 
eight amendments and set votes for these amendments tomorrow. We are 
making good progress on this legislation. I hope our colleagues will 
give attention to these matters so tomorrow we can move further on some 
more votes to clear up the remaining issues before us on this bill.
  I appreciate all our colleagues working together in earnest and the 
chair of the committee to make sure we have made this progress so far 
today. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no further debate, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2970, 2989, 2991, 3119, 3019, 3066, 3137, and 
3056, as modified) were agreed to en bloc.

                          ____________________