[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1534-1537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION BILL

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was in the cloakroom listening to my 
colleague from Rhode Island talk about the issue he is clearly very 
passionate about relating to our climate and recognizing that in that 
space, as we think about energy and our energy needs as a nation, our 
economic security, our energy security, our national security, how that 
is all tangled and intertwined, I can't help but think we have 
colleagues from very different perspectives who have stood on this 
floor over the course of the past couple of weeks, and it seems that 
one thing we have found some level of consensus on is that it is time 
to update our energy policies. It has been over 8 years now since we 
have seen any energy policies that do anything to move us forward as a 
nation, that work to help us be more energy efficient, be more energy 
independent, move toward a cleaner energy future, embrace the 
technologies we have available to us. There is a recognition we need to 
act together to update our energy policies.
  I have come to the floor this evening to speak to where we are in 
this process of successfully moving an energy modernization bill across 
the floor of the Senate. We took this up some 2 weeks ago now. I wanted 
to comment on some of the comments that were actually made on the floor 
this morning. There was a comment that was made that as Republicans we 
need to ``get to yes'' on assistance for Flint.
  I have stood on the floor and have made clear there is no doubt in my 
mind that Flint is the site of a tragedy that should have been, could 
have been avoided. There is no doubt in my mind that Federal assistance 
could be provided to help with the city's ongoing crisis, but there is 
also no doubt in my mind but that this is something where we need to 
get to yes on a number to help Flint out. We need to get to yes, and we 
need to figure out what that right amount is.
  It sounds easy, and those of us who are committed to not only 
addressing the situation, the urgent situation we see in Flint, there 
is a recognition that there is a broader problem at play when we think 
about our Nation's infrastructure and our water infrastructures. I 
wanted to take a few minutes this evening to speak to that and where we 
are in this process and why this ``getting to yes'' has perhaps been 
more problematic than most had hoped.
  I remind my colleagues that what we have been debating on the floor 
is an energy bill. It is a bill that was written by myself as the 
chairman of the Energy Committee, along with Senator Cantwell from 
Washington as my ranking member. It included the Presiding Officer as a 
member of the committee, along with dozens of other members who serve 
on the Energy Committee. It has been the result of more than a year of 
regular process, regular order, within the committee, where we worked 
to consider ideas from all over the board.
  We undertook an effort that some would say you just don't see around 
here anymore. We started with an agreement, an agreement between the 
chairman, myself, and the ranking member, and asked: Do we want to send 
a message this year about what we need to do with energy and our energy 
policies or do we want to bring about some change? Is it time to update 
our energy policies after 8 years?
  The two of us agreed we wanted to make that change. We recognized 
that in order to do that, in order to get it

[[Page 1535]]

through the committee with a good bipartisan vote, in order to get it 
to the floor, we were going to have to work together. We made that 
commitment, our staffs made that commitment, and we not only said we 
were going to do it, we did it.
  We started off with a series of oversight hearings that we had in 
Washington, DC, and around the country, bringing people in, soliciting 
their ideas. After the oversight hearings, we had six legislative 
hearings before the committee, going through a host of different 
initiatives. There were 114 bills, separate bills--some from members of 
the committee, some from Members who were not serving on the Energy 
Committee but who had good ideas, and we reviewed them all, considered 
them as part of the bill we were building, and then we had our markup. 
We went into 3 days of markup before the Energy Committee. We 
considered over 50 different measures, 50 different measures from folks 
within the committee and outside the committee, Republicans and 
Democrats, urban and rural.
  In the committee process, it was full-on. It was an open exchange. It 
was any good idea, any amendment that you have, if you think you have 
the votes, let's run it. If you think you don't and you still want to 
run it anyway, let's work it. We worked that committee process. We 
considered 59 amendments within the committee. It was a good process, 
and because it was good process and it was so inclusive, we got a bill 
that moved out of the committee 18 to 4. The four dissenting votes were 
interesting. We had two Republicans who dissented and two Democrats. 
Even the opposition was bipartisan.
  I say this by laying the groundwork for what we have built because I 
want colleagues to appreciate the substance of the measure we have 
before us with the Energy Policy Modernization Act. We then came to the 
floor the first of the year, the first big bill to come to the floor 
and take up valuable floor time, and I am pleased we were able to come 
to the floor early. In the time that we have been to the floor, we have 
dispensed with 38 amendments. Most of those have gone by voice, not 
because it has been a take-this-or-leave-it approach. A voice vote 
means it comes by unanimous consent. You have to get consent to get 
these before the body. We worked through a host of different issues, 
all over the board--whether it related to advanced nuclear or whether 
it related to coal research or whether it related to issues as they 
relate to our public lands. We have been working this throughout this 
process.
  In fact, I think it is important to recognize that even during this 
time period where it has been quiet on the floor, we haven't heard 
people talking much about where we are with the Energy bill. Our staffs 
on the majority side and the minority side have been working together 
to clear even more amendments that have that support that we could move 
by voice, almost 30 additional amendments on top of what we have 
already done.
  We are not letting the moss collect and gather as we are trying to 
deal with the situation that has detracted and distracted this Energy 
bill, and that is the nature of the Flint issue. I don't want people to 
think the basis of the bill which brought us here, a bill that would 
modernize our energy policies, a bill that would help America produce 
more energy, a bill that would help Americans save money, a bill that 
would help our Nation with our national security, our energy security, 
and our economic security, a bill that would help to cement our status 
as a global energy superpower--it is important we remember why we are 
here.
  Others are remembering that when we left the floor on Thursday with 
an indeterminate path forward into how we were going to advance the 
Energy bill, those groups that have been interested in following this 
debate come to us with concern saying: Wait. Don't stop that forward 
movement. The Bipartisan Policy Center has sent out a letter urging us 
to move forward with this Energy Policy Modernization Act. ClearPath 
has urged us: Please, this is important to us from a clean energy 
perspective. Bill Gates has put out a letter on his blog post urging 
us: Please don't forget that as we are talking about how to resolve 
this situation for Flint, MI, that we don't forget the importance of 
the underlying bill we are debating, which is the Energy Policy 
Modernization Act.
  The progress we have made on this bill is critically important. 
Again, we are working with the ranking member to keep plugging along on 
all of those issues we have outstanding. We believe we have a path 
forward for a bipartisan bill, a bill that so many Members of this body 
have come to the floor and said that this is good, this is important, 
this is something we need to do.
  We are not going to forget that, but in the meantime, what we are 
dealing with is this plea for assistance, Federal assistance by the 
people of Flint, MI. As I said last week, I don't fault that request. 
Coming from a State like Alaska, which has considerable needs of its 
own when it comes to water infrastructure, in far too many of my 
communities it is not a situation of aging infrastructure. It is a 
situation of no infrastructure, no clean water, no safe drinking water.
  I understand, but I am increasingly frustrated by where we are now 
and how the decisions that have been made to date are effectively 
stopping all activity on an energy bill, even as it becomes perhaps 
increasingly obvious or clear that the issue related to Flint, the 
urgency of Flint's situation--the bigger issue we see looming when it 
comes to our Nation's water infrastructure, that is a problem that 
demands a level of scrutiny and attention that we as a Congress should 
give--but is the Energy Policy Modernization Act the right vehicle for 
what is being sought right now?
  I want to make sure that not only colleagues know but people who have 
been following this issue know that we have been working in good faith 
toward a solution that will help address the situation in Flint. Many 
of my Republican colleagues are working with the Senators from Michigan 
to try to find a good-faith solution. I have been engaged in this from 
the very get-go. I have been working on this issue, as have many 
Republican members.
  We found some programs out there that make sense for providing 
assistance. The State revolving fund is one we have looked to and have, 
along with our staffs, spent considerable hours debating the merits of 
different approaches and drafting language for them in the hope of 
being able to resolve scoring issues and generally trying to seek a 
path forward.
  While others were enjoying the Super Bowl on Sunday, my staff was 
not. Actually, the Senator from Washington and I happened to be on the 
same airplane when we were coming back from the west coast so we could 
be here to work on this bill, and we missed the game as well. Our 
staffs were going back and forth with CBO to determine if the solutions 
that we had laid down were going to work. Were they going to meet the 
scoring issues? Were they going to avoid the blue slip issues? Was it 
going to be a viable path forward? We have been doing this since day 
one.
  I think it is important to outline these issues to people so that 
when someone suggests that somehow or other we just need to ``get to 
yes'' quickly, they know that there is a range of factors that have 
complicated our efforts. It doesn't help that the Energy bill that has 
drawn widespread acclaim for having a very open process has to now try 
and deal with the situation in Flint, so there hasn't been an open 
process. In fact, there hasn't been a process. I think that is part of 
what is complicating this situation.
  This is a big issue. There is an urgency to address Flint's 
situation, which is maybe more specific, but again, this is bigger than 
Flint. We heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle about the 
issues around their respective States and around our country which we 
are going to have to be dealing with.
  We have an amazing, complete process with the Energy bill that we 
have methodically and consistently--almost over the top--gone through a 
process, and now we have something that is kind of been airdropped in, 
to use an expression around here, that is not as

[[Page 1536]]

easy as people would suggest. It is not something where you can say: 
Just throw some money at it. We are not helped by attempts to 
federalize the process, regardless of the Federal Government's share of 
the responsibility in it. I believe there is a proportionate share 
where we have to be there to help.
  We are not helped by the President's decision not to issue a disaster 
declaration but instead to grant a much more limited emergency 
declaration, and then we are not necessarily helped by the President's 
budget that he laid down today. He didn't request funding for Flint in 
this massive budget proposal. In fact, the level of funds that we have 
been looking at that could help Flint--the State revolving funds--have 
not increased. What we have actually seen is a decrease in the Clean 
Water Fund. That is not going to help us because we recognize that we 
have to address those issues as well. Also, we are not helped when they 
ask for far more Federal dollars than the city of Flint may be capable 
of spending over the next year. We have been trying to identify and 
discern what would help.
  I had a conversation with the Governor of Michigan to try to discern 
it. I have talked to the Senators from Michigan, and I have talked to 
the House Members from Michigan. We have at least four Flint-related 
amendments that are pending to the Energy bill from the Michigan 
delegation alone, but again, in terms of the extent of the repairs that 
need to be made, does it include all of the pipes in Flint? Are they 
trying to get a corrosion control system in place? Is that it? Do we 
have a final estimate for what those repairs will cost and the plan of 
action that will be required?
  I appreciate the response of the Senator from Michigan when there was 
a little bit of back and forth with the Senator from Texas, saying that 
in her bill there is a requirement to detail how the money will be 
spent. I truly appreciate that part of it. We are being put in a 
situation where we are trying to define the right amount here, and it 
is important that we get that right. As important as it is for us to 
get to yes and figure out what we can do to help Flint in a way that is 
fair to Flint and fair overall, we have to get it right as well.
  Again, I was reading some newsclips last night. The New York Times 
had an article about how all around the country we are seeing other 
States that are setting up an alarm in terms of situations within their 
communities--from Pennsylvania to Ohio to California--where there is a 
need to not only improve the current infrastructure, but there are 
issues in these communities that have raised a level of concern that we 
should all be concerned and care about. So how we approach this issue 
and how we make sure that--in an effort to kind of rush money out the 
door to Flint alone--we don't put ourselves in a place where we commit 
to a course of action where the Federal Government pays for all of the 
costs for local water systems. We can't legislate crisis by crisis, 
community by community, or pretend that the Federal Government is not 
already $19 trillion in debt. We have to do right by this. We want to 
address the urgency--I want to address the urgency--for the people in 
Flint, but I also want to make sure we do it right.
  I think most Members recognize that our solution is going to have to 
be national in scope because there are other communities in other 
States that may also need help. Most Members know that our answers must 
be responsible in light of our already difficult fiscal situation, and 
most Members are at least willing to consider the legislation that 
provides assistance so long as it doesn't violate our Senate rules, the 
Constitution, or add to the Federal deficit. Again, that is why we are 
kind of sitting here today, Tuesday evening.
  There are a couple of plans that have been viewed as viable because 
they meet that criteria. They meet the criteria in terms of not adding 
to the Federal deficit, not violating the rules of the Senate, and not 
violating our Constitution, and it is interesting that both of those 
measures are actually measures that come from this side of the aisle.
  I note that the majority leader is on the floor, and I will defer to 
him at his convenience; otherwise, I will continue with my comments.
  I laid down an offer last week. The offer would make $550 million 
available, $50 million would be made available through State-revolving 
grants. This money could help the people of Flint and other communities 
that have contaminated drinking water. It gives access to $500 million 
in loans. It is fully paid for. It is one of the few viable offsets 
that we have found within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee where I am the chairman, and I think that is part 
of the issue that we need to be discussing here. It is so important to 
make sure--as we look to these pay-fors--we can make an agreement on 
the pay-fors, and I believe this one is viable because I believe it is 
one we can agree on.
  Last week I asked unanimous consent to have this amendment pending 
for a vote, but that was rejected. The second proposal was one made by 
Chairman Inhofe, who is the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction, and last week 
he also introduced an amendment that was fully paid for. He used funds 
that are available from an all-but-dormant loan program at the 
Department of Energy which is used to subsidize the auto industry. We 
can go back and forth about the merits of that fund, but the fact 
remains that it would have been a viable pay-for for the measure that 
Senator Inhofe laid down. It, too, was rejected even though it was 
effectively an offer to prioritize assistance for the families and the 
children in Flint over some of the major corporations, and we were told 
no. That is kind of where we are right now. If you want to know why the 
negotiations aren't proceeding as quickly and as smoothly as they had 
hoped, I think that is one of the reasons we are where we are.
  The fact is, many of us are willing and trying valiantly, and in many 
cases desperately, to get to yes, but we can't get to yes on just 
anything. We cannot accept something that is not paid for. Quite 
honestly, we can't do something that would jeopardize and doom the 
underlying Energy bill, and I think we can't get to yes on something 
that provides more funding than could reasonably be used in the short 
term or ignores the problems that we are facing in other parts of the 
country.
  We have looked at how we can separate this and how we can work it out 
as a stand-alone measure. I think it needs to be made a priority. I 
think Chairman Inhofe, who is on the EPW, has made it one, but I think 
it needs to be separate and apart from what we are doing on this 
bipartisan Energy bill which already includes priorities from over 62 
Members of the Senate.
  I don't think it is too much to ask that our Energy bill be allowed 
to move forward in the meantime. If we had been able to move forward as 
we had planned, we would have tucked this legislation away last 
Thursday, and we would have had a full week to buckle down and figure 
out a path forward for Flint and for the Nation. Instead, here we are 
on a Tuesday, we have a recess coming up at the end of the week, and we 
haven't had an opportunity to approve these almost 30 amendments that 
could go by voice. We are kind of at a stall spot.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I will.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just want to assure the chairman of 
the Energy Committee that we are not giving up on this bill. It has too 
much support on a bipartisan basis for us to walk away from it, and I 
know all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle appreciate the 
ongoing efforts the Senator has made to deal with the other issue that 
has arisen here, regrettably right when she was on the verge of 
achieving an agreement here. I know the Senator from Alaska will stick 
with it, and I am behind this effort all the way.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate those comments, and I 
appreciate the support of the majority leader. I had an opportunity to 
speak with the minority leader earlier today,

[[Page 1537]]

and he reiterated the priority of this Energy bill. To my colleagues 
and those who have been urging us to carry on and continue, know that 
we are doing exactly that and that I remain committed to not only the 
Energy Policy Modernization Act, but I am committed to finding a path 
forward as we deal with the important issue that relates to Flint and 
also relates to the rest of the Nation when it comes to the security 
and safety of our water supply.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________