ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015--Continued; Congressional Record Vol. 162, No. 19
(Senate - February 02, 2016)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S470-S484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015--Continued

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


                           Amendment No. 3023

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Lee amendment 
No. 3023, which places commonsense limitations on the ability of the 
executive branch to unilaterally lock up large swaths of public land. 
Specifically, the amendment provides Congress and the applicable State 
legislatures a 3-year window to approve Presidentially declared 
national monuments, ensuring that land use decisions finally have the 
input from the impacted States.
  Arizona knows all too well the effects of restrictive Federal land 
designations. Like most Western States, a significant portion of 
Arizona is under Federal ownership. Arizona leads the Nation with a 
total of 21 national parks and monuments. Like most, our Federal land 
is a mix of single-purpose lands set aside for recreation and multiple-
use lands providing opportunities for grazing, mining, and timber 
production. The ability to use these lands for multiple purposes is 
critical; however, a national monument designation can take away that 
opportunity with one stroke of the President's pen.
  It is also worth noting that a monument designation has the potential 
to change the character of the water rights associated with Federal 
lands--an outcome I am working to prevent with separate stand-alone 
legislation.
  There is a real concern that the President will take unilateral 
action to increase the Federal Government's ownership of Federal lands. 
In fact, one recent proposal would lock up another 1.7 million acres 
right in Arizona to create yet another national monument. That is an 
area larger than the entire State of Delaware. The negative impact of 
such a land grab would likely extend to activities such as hunting, 
livestock grazing, wildfire prevention, mining, and other recreation 
activities. Last March Senator McCain and I sent a letter to the 
President urging him to not unilaterally pursue this monument 
designation. This sentiment is echoed by a large number of individuals 
throughout Arizona, including State and local officials, several 
municipalities, and a wide range of sportsmen's groups.
  The Lee amendment would give these stakeholders a voice in the 
monument designation process, and I am happy to be a cosponsor and to 
support this amendment on the floor today.
  I also look forward to considering several amendments I have 
submitted on this legislation as well regarding safeguarding hydropower 
production, reimbursing national parks after a government shutdown 
occurs, and creating a database to increase transparency for WAPA 
customers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are about to vote shortly on the Lee 
amendment.
  I rise to speak in opposition to that amendment and to remind my 
colleagues that this is a vote that we took around the same time last 
year.
  The Antiquities Act is one of our Nation's most successful 
conservation laws. It was signed into law in 1906 and used by President 
Theodore Roosevelt to designate Devils Tower in Wyoming as its first 
national monument.
  In the 110 years since its enactment, the Antiquities Act has been 
used by 16 different Presidents--8 Republicans, 8 Democrats--to 
designate more than 140 national monuments, including the San Juan 
Islands and the Hanford Reach in the State of Washington. Nearly half 
of our national parks, including national icons, such as the Grand 
Canyon and Olympic National Park, were designated as national monuments 
under the Antiquities Act. However, the amendment of the Senator from 
Utah would effectively end the President's ability to use the 
Antiquities Act to protect these threatened lands. His amendment 
requires that the national monument designation will expire after 3 
years unless Congress enacts a law specifically approving the 
designation, and the State in which the monument would be located would 
also have to approve the designation. So this amendment requires State 
and Federal approval over a Federal land designation, which is 
unprecedented, giving away Federal land management responsibilities to 
States and a veto over these conservation efforts.
  I hope that, as my colleagues look at this first vote, they will 
oppose this amendment. As I said, I strongly do, and I hope our 
colleagues will look at their past record on this as well, because I am 
pretty sure we are all on record on our side in opposition to this 
amendment in the past.
  With that, I know we are probably ready to proceed to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my amendment 
No. 3023.
  The purpose of this amendment is simple--to put in the hands of the 
people the right to decide whether a monument close to them will be 
designated. My amendment would leave intact the President's authority 
to designate a monument such that we could protect land from imminent 
destruction, but it puts a fuse on that. It puts a finite limit on that 
authority so that within 3 years that monument designation would expire 
unless both the host State has acted to embrace it and Congress has 
affirmatively enacted the monument designation into law.
  The American people demand and deserve nothing less than to have 
decisions such as these put in the hands of their elected 
representatives rather than simply handed over to one single official 
who doesn't stand accountable to the American people.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3023.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page S471]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

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


                Amendment No. 3115 to Amendment No. 2953

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

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

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

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of January 28, 2016, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask for order so my colleagues might 
hear my wise remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I call on my colleagues to support my 
amendment No. 3115 that I offer with Senators Heinrich, Warren, and 
Sanders. This amendment establishes a national energy efficiency 
standard that requires electric and natural gas utilities to help their 
customers use energy more efficiently. Our amendment is modeled on the 
experience of Minnesota and 24 other States that have already adopted 
energy efficiency standards, including States such as Texas, Arizona, 
and Arkansas. The State programs are working great, helping reduce 
energy usage, saving customers, consumers, and businesses money on 
their electricity bills, creating well-paying jobs, and reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. According to the American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy, our amendment will generate more than three 
times the energy savings of the entire Portman-Shaheen energy 
efficiency title, which is a great title in and of itself, in the base 
bill. By the year 2030, our amendment will generate 20 percent energy 
savings across the country and result in about $145 billion in net 
savings to consumers.
  We like to say that States are the laboratories of democracy, and 
half our States have shown that these policies work. So it is time to 
build on their successes and bring this successful experiment to the 
entire country. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge that Members oppose this 
amendment that would impose a Federal mandate on retail electricity and 
natural gas suppliers to reduce a certain percentage of electricity or 
natural gas that their customers use annually. We have considered this 
before. We have seen it. It has been under consideration for about a 
decade. Most recently, the energy committee rejected this same proposal 
as we were moving forward on this bipartisan Energy bill.
  A national mandate like this depends on the behavior of end-use 
customers. The concern that you take a one-size-fits-all policy that 
refuses to recognize very real regional differences that are in play 
out there with energy use is problematic. As the Senator from Minnesota 
said, 25 States already have this in place, but what we do by imposing 
a new national mandate is we upend those existing State programs.
  We have a good, bipartisan efficiency measure contained in this. That 
is why a Federal EERS has not worked before. Now is not the right time 
to move forward with it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes in this series 
be 10 minutes in length so we can move through the amendments we have 
in front of us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from 
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

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


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

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

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


[[Page S472]]


  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

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

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 50__. CONSERVATION INCENTIVES LANDOWNER EDUCATION 
                   PROGRAM.

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

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


                Amendment No. 3030 to Amendment No. 2953

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

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

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish deadlines and expedite permits for certain 
      natural gas gathering lines on Federal land and Indian land)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. NATURAL GAS GATHERING ENHANCEMENT.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S473]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

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


                Amendment No. 2996 to Amendment No. 2953

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

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

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require each agency to repeal or amend 1 or more rules 
                   before issuing or amending a rule)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

[[Page S474]]

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

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


                Amendment No. 3176 to Amendment No. 2953

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

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


[[Page S475]]


  

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

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


                Amendment No. 3095 to Amendment No. 2953

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

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

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


                Amendment No. 3125 to Amendment No. 2953

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

[[Page S476]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S477]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

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


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

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


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

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

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

[[Page S478]]

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


                  Remembering State Senator Gil Kahele

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


                      Wildfire Prevention Funding

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

[[Page S479]]

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

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

[[Page S480]]

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


                  Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

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

[[Page S481]]

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

[[Page S482]]

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


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

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

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

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3064

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

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


                    Amendment No. 3065, as modified

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

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

[[Page S483]]

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


                           Amendment No. 3179

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

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


                           Amendment No. 3145

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

                       Subtitle I--Thermal Energy

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

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


                           Amendment No. 3174

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3404. REPORT ON PRICE STABILIZATION SUPPORT.

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


                    Amendment No. 3140, as modified

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

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

     SEC. 30__. POLICIES RELATING TO BIOMASS ENERGY.

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


                           Amendment No. 3156

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

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


                           Amendment No. 3143

    (Purpose: To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program)

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

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

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


                    Amendment No. 3194, as modified

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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



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

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


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


[[Page S484]]

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 3205

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

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


                           amendment no. 3160

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

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

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3064; 3065, as modified; 3179; 3145; 3174; 3140, 
as modified; 3156; 3143; 3194, as modified; 3205; and 3160) were agreed 
to en bloc.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate again the cooperation and 
the working relationship with my ranking member, as well as her very 
strong and able team working with mine, as well as the floor staff who 
have been doing a great job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we just cleared several amendments in a 
bipartisan fashion, working back and forth across the aisle, and I so 
appreciate our colleagues working so diligently on these tonight. If we 
want to keep making progress, obviously we have to keep communicating, 
but I thank everybody involved with getting these amendments done.
  To my colleague from Alaska, thanks for her diligence in focusing on 
these issues. Hopefully we will resolve these issues tomorrow. The 
cloture motion has been filed, so we need to keep moving forward so 
that we can resolve these issues by the end of this week.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3140, as Modified

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I did want to mention on amendment No. 
3140 that I want to thank everybody who worked on that particular 
amendment tonight. I know tomorrow we are going to have a colloquy 
continuing the dialogue among all our colleagues who care about these 
issues as they relate to energy and biomass and making sure we are all 
continuing to work on this together. I want to point out that there 
will be a colloquy on that tomorrow.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________