despite the importance of his work, the republicans are preventing a vote in the banking committee and thus preventing adam szubin from even having a vote here on the senate floor. he's currently acting -- he is certainly acting in a role that is not permanent. he is called an acting member of the treasury department, and he lacks the stature that his counterparts have around the world, so he's not able to do all that should be done to disrupt terrorists' financial networks throughout the world. in the september hearing on his nomination, the quhairn of the banking committee -- the chairman of the banking committee, the senior senator from alabama, said "mr. szubin iseminently equal foi eminent qs wogs." why are republicans holding up this nomination, this critical nomination? we all know why.

powerful right-wing groups have announced they are scoring votes on presidential nominations. in fact, heritage action, a front group for the tea party and the koch brothers, said the senate should only confirm nominees they deem -- they deem, not senators but this right-wing cabal -- that they deal worthwhile. this comes at the expense of the american people and our national security. if the republican leadership follows this, scores of service members could be prevented from service. a woman by the name of azita r raja who has been nominated to represent us in sweden, an

accomplished businesswoman, there's been more than 300 swedish citizens who have left sweden to fight with isis in either syria or iraq, making this nation the second-largest country of origin per capita for foreign fighters coming from europe into the middle east. we need to ghet done. it is not right for america to not have someone there to help sweden with their issues. the swedish government is on a heightened alert for attackers yet we don't have a senate-confirmed ambassador to represent us in stockholm. she was first nominated to be ambassador in october 2014. we're now in 2016. we don't have an ambassador in swedening. we don't have an ambassador in norway. it's been that way for more than two years. president obama nominated a

person by the name of samuel heinz, an accomplished lawyer and humanitarian from minnesota. his nomination is not controversial. i.t. only nomination to the tea party and the koch brothers. he should be confirmed without delay, but it's been two years. other state department nominees are being blocked for partisan reasons by the junior senator from texas. tom shannon has been nominated to be under secretary of state for political affairs. we don't have an ambassador to mexico, but tom shannon is the fourth-highest ranking position at the state department -- he would like to be. he would serve on the -- he would day-to-day manage the overall policy issues and oversee bureaus around the world. he served under presidents of both parties. if he is confirmed, he will be the highest-ranking career

diplomat in the state department. john kerry, who has called me, how can i continue this job i have? i don't have people to do the work? he doesn't even have a lawyer. the state department doesn't have a lawyer. we've tried to get confirmed brian egan, who started back on september 2014, but he's been held up for months and months. and you know what it is about? clinton's e-mails. secretary clinton's e-mails. if the senior senator from iowa is really interested in getting answers to his countless, countless letters to the state department, wouldn't a senate-confirmed legal advisor be some help? eric fan ning has been blocked by the senior senator from kansas, even though the senior senator from kansas said -- quote -- "i think fan something a pretty good -- fanning is a

pretty good nominee." but in spite of that, there is no vote on his nomination. the army needs mr. fanning's leadership because there's over $200 billion he would be responsible for and more than a million service members. right now they're making do at the pentagon. unless republicans change course, these important vacancies will go unfilled. i have only mening add few of them -- mentioned a few of them. our diplomats around th diplomad will continue to suffer. my republican colleagues, i do not understand what they are dock. if the republicans have their way, the senate will stop confirming officials of every agency. the senate has confirmed an average of 351nominees in the first session of congress. last year the senate didn't get to half of what they normally do. the senate should goat work and

schedule the president's nominees. here's why. valid concerns about the qualifications of the nominations should be brought forth, but we haven't heard any. but denying a vote for partisan gain does nothing to strengthen america around the world. the american people deserve better. mr. president, i say, america is less safe because of what is going on with the republicans here in the senate. we're not as secure as we should be. ambassadors all over the world being not filled. people within the state department, the treasury department whose job is to deal with terrorism -- they're being blocked for. for the first time in over 50 years, we don't have anybody reported out of the banking committee. america is less safe because of what republicans are doing to our country. i yield the floor, mr. president.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 2012, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 218, s. 2012, a bill to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the united states and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided between the managers or their designees. the senator alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, it is a good morning, this morning. we are on day two of the energy policy modernization act. we took up yesterday a broad, bipartisan energy bill for the first tomb in mor time in more t years. i think that was a good moment for us. it was an important step. it is the beginning of a series

of steps that we will take to modernizing our nation's energy as well as our mineral policies. i'm hopeful that we're going to have a good day of debate today. as we begin this morning, i'd like to kind of summarize very briefly where are we are in this process, what members might expect over the course of the day. as of this morning, we have a total of 89 amendments that have now been filed to the underlying bill. we're already starting to process those amendments. we recognize that some will go by voice vote, some will, of course, need roll call votes, and others sumly will not be voted at all. -- simil simply will not be vott all. we have amendment number 2963 which i have offered by improves a provision in the underlying bill related to reliability impact statements. we have amendment 2968 from

senator sha shaheen to clarify a definition for the term "smart manufacturing" that is contained within the underlying bill. we have an amendment from senator markey, amendment 2982, to require the government accountability toffs study the economic -- office to study the economic viability of crude exports for three years. we have an amendment from senator barrasso, amendmen to se imponing dying mol molecules. at noon we are scheduled to proceed to a roll call vote on amendmenamendment 30231 promoteh into nuclear energy. there is a strong list of members that are supporting this amendment. senators crapo and risch from idaho along with senator

whitehouse of rhode island, senator booker of new jersey, senator hatch of utah, and senators kirk and durbin from illinois. so a good bipartisan mix of senators from around the country coming together to promote nuclear research with this amendment. at 1:45 we will proceed to amendment 2565, introduced by senator schatz. it would increase the authorized funding levels for arpa-e in the underlying energy bill. senator cantwell and i are both working with our staffs to reach agreement on any additional amendments that can be brought up for votes today. we'll try to keep members apprised as to what they can expect. i think both of us are hopeful that we will see more votes added to the list that i have

just described. we may have one as early as 11:30, but that has not yet been worked out. but the option for more amendments in the afternoon if members are willing to stick with us on this. i mentioned yesterday just in terms of some housekeeping details -- and it is worth repeating today -- i would urge members, don't wait to file your amendments. get your amendments in so that we can be looking at them and trying to assess where they might fit in terms of how we handle and process them. i think the earlier you are able to file these amendments, the greater the likelihood that you will see a vote on them. again, i mentioned yesterday, any amendment that costs money, any amendment that's going to score, you're going to need to find a viable offset in order for us to consider it. and then, further, if it is a

measure that would result in a blue slip because it involves a tax provision, a tax amendment, know that that's just something that we can't consider. before make some comments about some individuals, i want to make a few more brief words about the bill itself, this broad, bipartisan energy policy modernization act. i mentioned yesterday, we have a total of five titles within the bill, and we didn't just construct them for organizational purposes. they really represent some very important themes in our policies within these areas. the first title is efficiency, and when you think about -- when you think about the importance of efficiency in the energy sector, it's a critical

component. we should all always be looking for ways that we can save energy of the it's just smart. it's smart from a cost perspective. it's smart from just being a good steward perspective. it's just smart all the way around. it helps our businesses and our families save money. it makes our resources last longer. it's good for our environment. efficiency is just good overall. infrastructure is our second title. typically when we think about infrastructure, we think about the roads, we think about the bridges. but our energy infrastructure is so key, it's so integral to the daily operation, commerce that goes on around us when we're talking about energy infrastructure. and it may be the big infrastructure like you think of when you think of the hoover

dam. but it is also the electric wires, it is als it is the whole infrastructure package. we've got a responsibility to keep our from in good shape so that we can reliably and safely transport energy from the place where it's produced to the place where it's needed. i joke smiles -- i say, you know, it's frustrating because sometimes you fao he will that there isn't -- sometimes you feel that there isn't as much education about energy and understanding our energy and our energy resources and how they work as much as we would like. and i have joked that some ascribe to this immaculate conception theory of energy. it just happens. the lights come ofnlt the -- ths come on. the tern is what w temperature d

like it to be and we don't care about how or why it came to us or the fact that we might not have that energy resource in our neighborhood. as long as it is not inconvenient, we're good with it. but we don't think about how it gets to us and the necessity of reliable, safe infrastructure to take that from the source to where the customer truly is. the third title is accountability. and again, like efficiency, it just makes good sense to ensure that as we are building out our energy policies that there's a level of accountability that comes with it, that our federal agencies work efficiently and effectively as good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

i think we've got plenty of room for improvement when it comes to accountability right now. i mentioned yesterday in addition to a pretty robust accountability title, we remove some dead weight, some reports and requirements that have built up over the years that get incorporated into our u.s. code and then they just sit there. and as they sit there, it's not just that they're benign. the agencies still go ahead and they have to produce the reports that we in congress require of them. that costs money. nobody reads them. let's get rid of them. we've done that within the accountability title. and then the fifth title is the title that relates to conservation aspects as they relate to land and water conservation fund, an issue i know that the presiding officer is very interested in, making sure that there are reforms there. and we want to work to make sure that the reforms are good and

sound. also making sure that our national parks have the focus on maintenance that they need. instead of adding more parks to our system without ensuring that we're taking care of our parks and our public lands, that's a responsibility, again, that we have. but rather than just doing the 30,000-foot level on these various titles with each consecutive day, i want to highlight today -- and i'll do a little bit this morning, probably a little bit this afternoon, highlight a little bit about the supply title which is title 3 of our bill. over the past few years, i think we have seen several things. we've seen a lot of good things that happen when we're producing our own energy here in this country. the benefits that accrue to us when our energy is abundant.

it's not just access to energy. it is what that allows us in terms of energy economic security that comes with good jobs that are created. the economy grows here. our security increases. and really we become far more competitive. so again, when i talk about energy and strong energy policies and an energy security focus, it does have try angular. you've got energy security leading to economic security leading to national security. and it just kind of loops all the way around and, again, allows us to be more competitive overall as a nation. our bill would help keep our nation's oil and natural gas

production going strong. we've included a pilot program from senator hoeven for oil and gas permitting. we would expedite the process for liquefied natural gas exports which could help us raise our domestic production levels. but we didn't just focus on oil and gas in this bill because we recognize that drawing our energy from a variety of sources creates reliability and stability. and we all know that alaska is an oil-producing state. and we focus a lot in our state on oil and being able to ak ses that and access it responsibly. but we also know that when you are reliant on one source, there is a vulnerability. so when we talk about an "all of the above" it makes sense. it makes sense because it

lessens your vulnerability. it increases not only your energy security, but again your economic security, your national security. and so focusing on all aspects of our energy sources is key to what we do within this bill. we took some good steps to produce more hydropower in this country by helping to reduce the regulatory barriers and extending the licensing period for hydropower projects. this is so important to us as a nation when we think about our resources that are currently existing through hydropower and the additional capacity that we have to gain more from our hydropower resources. this is significant for us. geothermal is another area where we have an emissions-free source

of baseload energy. again, so much of what we talk about with renewables, part of the big problem that we face there, folks, is it's intermittent. the wind is coming at you sometimes. the sun is coming at you sometimes. but not always when you need them. so you've got to have a reliable baseload. and our reliable baseload for a century here has been coal. we've got reliable baseload with nuclear. but when you think about those, those other areas where we have reliable baseload, you can certainly have that within geothermal. and our bill includes a number of provisions to help us expand the use and reduce the cost of this important renewable resource. we're doing some exciting things up in alaska as we're identifying sources to access

geothermal energy resources. another area that alaska along with some of the other coastal states, whether it's maine or down in oregon, we're seeing some good progress, some interesting progress when it comes to marine hydrokinetic energy which has the potential to draw the power from the movement of the oceans and the river currents. i just mentioned reliable baseload. you need to have something that you can rely on. mr. president, you come from the interior part of the country. i come from a state that has 33,000, 34,000 miles of coastline. one of the things that we know in alaska is how the tides come and go. we can print up tide books because there's a reliability to when the tide is in and when the tide is out. and so when you think about the

potential for energy resource from our oceans, from our river currents, so what we do within the bill, we help add vans m.h.k., which is the acronym for marine hydrokinetic energy, we move it out of its infancy and focus the d.o.e. on critical research areas. we have a great subtitle on minerals, and oftentimes we forget about the strategic importance of critical minerals. every one of us is walking around nowadays with a smartphone. every one of us, therefore, is reliant on some form of critical mineral. those that want to advance the energy future in the direction of renewables, well, in order for you to have that wind turbine, you're going to need some of the elements that come

from the earth that are those critical minerals that allow us to really build out our technologies. minerals are really the foundation of our modern society, and we need, we need them for everything, like i said, from our smartphones to our military assets. and yet, despite this importance, we've really failed, i think, as policy-makers to focus on mineral security. we just don't -- we haven't been thinking about it. we've been talking a lot about we don't want to be reliant on oil. we don't want to be reliant on opec, and so we're going to work to address that. well, in the meantime we've taken our eye off the ball when it comes to mineral security. we now import 100% of 19 separate mineral commodities and more than 50% of some 24 additional commodities. and this is happening despite

the growing importance of these minerals in really our everyday lives. and despite what we have here in this country, which is a world-class mineral base. i think that when we talk about energy security and, again, making sure that we're able to produce more here to reduce our vulnerability, energy security also needs to include that mineral security. we've also got provisions to promote our domestic supply of helium. a lot of people don't think about that in the energy space, to promote nuclear power, particularly our advanced nuclear power, to help promote a strong energy workforce. so when we talk about the direction that this energy bill goes, i mentioned yesterday that innovation is the key to so much of what we're trying to push out as we modernize our energy policies. but as important as innovation

is, supply is a case where more really is better. and as a result of this good title that we have contained in the energy policy modernization act, i think that our energy and our mineral supplies will increase in the years ahead to the benefit of americans. mr. president, i want to take just a few minutes -- i know my colleague from hawaii is here on the floor and i want to give him a chance to speak this morning, but the leader mentioned an individual in his office that has served him well, mike br brumice. mike has been working for leader mcconnell now for a period of years and has done a great job in the communications department. but i am just very privileged to

have had him leading my communications department between 2008 and 2010, and mike is one of those gentlemen -- you can call him a southern gentleman. he's got a little bit of a twang that didn't quite fit with the alaska reporters, but it didn't matter because he was so knowledgeable on all issues, all issues that we dealt with, including some of the most parochial and local of alaskan issues. mike brumice embraced his job with an enthusiasm and a professionalism that was genuinely and sincerely appreciated. i know that he and his wife ann are probably going to be spending a lot more time out on their bicycles and enjoying their time together. we happen to share timing.

their two sons are just about the same age as the two sons that vern and i have been raising and so we kind of shared parenting experiences as our sons grew into men and it's just been a delight to spend the time getting to know michael brumice, seeing him as an exceptional professional here serving the united states senate both for me and for leader mcconnell. so i wish him well and great adventures in his retirement. and as i am speaking about retirement, i must mention a woman who is not with us as we are debating and navigating this energy policy modernization act, and that woman is a friend and incredible professional who

headed up the energy and natural resources committee for me, for the majority for the past several years. and after 25 years in the senate, karen billups has said i'm moving on to more excitement, moving on to spend that time with a young son that she has. but she is an individual, again, with incredible reputation, incredible integrity, and a graciousness that will be long remembered on this floor and around this body. karen billups first joined the energy and natural resources committee back in 1995. before that she had served with distinction at the department of energy during the first bush administration. she was in private law practice and she was also on the staff of

the house committee on energy and commerce. so she had a breadth of experience on the private side, in the executive branch as well as in the house and then of course the senate. after joining the committee, again back in 1995, karen served as counsel and then she came on as senior counsel. and i think it's worth noting, karen -- karen has worked through or perhaps lived through two murkowskis, because when my father was the chairman of the energenergy and natural resourcs committee, karen billips worked for him. and when i came to the snoot have karen at the helm working as counsel, i have to tell you, it was really extraordinarily reassuring. in those early years, she

focused on a whole host of different issues that face our nation, from energy to civilian and defense, energy waste. she was also the troubleshooter. she mentored our younger committee staff, ensured that members and senior staff were all in alignment and that the direction was clear, and again with a focus that was firm but yet verappreciative of the difft dimensions that she had to deal w she was a woman that was really able to navigate with a level of finesse. she is a woman who is able to navigate with finesse. after her service in the private sector, karen came back as deputy chief counsel in 2003, and i was very grateful when she

accepted a promotion to be my chief counsel in 2009 and then in 2013 she agreed to step up to serve as my staff director and had been in that capacity until we concluded the end of 2015. but i think it's so important to acknowledge what karen not only lent to the committee, to me, to my office but to the many, many on the floor who worked with her on energy issues. karen really set a standard for excellence and achievement, and she worked tirelessly -- truly tirelessly to improve our policies, to upgrade, to improve our nation's energy resourc, re, lands, and forestry policies. you might say that she was a policy wonk, but you didn't get

that impression from her because she did it with a genuineness and a passion that clearly showed. she steered a wide range of legislation into law, everything from boundary adjustments to help the economies of small western towns to the landmark energy policy act of 2005. and then as we wrapped up last year, how she was able to pull together the end-of-year omnibus with the energy pieces that we had attached to that the transportation bill that had an energy title that had come over from the house side and how we navigated that, the tax extenders. she worked in a way that, again, was quiet and amenable but, again, firm and effective. and in many ways her work continues today through this bipartisan energy bill and the other legislation that she guided to introduction.

what we're seeing today has been so much the assistance, the mastermind, if you will, of karen billiips. as the ranking member and now chairman of the committee, i depended daily on karen's thoughtful leadership, her patient counsel, and her wise judgment. and i mean it when i say that she was not only a trusted advisor but deeply skilled and note vattemotivated by the bests of service to the senate and to the nation on really every issue that came before the committee. she had an understanding of the operations of this body, and i know that those who work thed te floor appreciated the evenhanded skills of of karen. she helped point the way for a strategic vision for policy and oversight. i think sh she's probably one of the best lawyers i've ever met.

and she was -- again, she was not just a leader for the staff, but she was a mentor for them. she was an advocate for them. and that's very telling of true leadership. karen's service to the senate was marked not by length but by distinction and by grace. she has truly earned the tremendous respect that she enjoys here and all throughout our nation's capital, and her leg circumstance legacy, i belir itself. a stronger energy policy that benefits every american and an energy and natural resources committee that continues to work together to tackle our toughest challenges. for all of these reasons and so many, many more, karen -- karen truly stands out in my mind, not hole as a leader but -- not only as a leader but as a real friend. as she embarks on this very well-deserved retirement she knows that i wish she and her family and her husband ray and her great son davis all the best as she goes off to her new

endeavor. i wanted to take a moment and acknowledge the good work of a great lady who's helped shepherd the bill that we have before us. madam president -- mr. president, excuse me, i notice that we have a couple members who are here on the floor who i'm assuming would like to speak to the energy bill before us, and so i would yield the floor. mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii.

mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. and i'd like to start by congratulating the chair of the energy and natural resources committee, the senior senator from alaska, for her leadership on this and so many other issues. she is a testament to how the senate should operate. shshe's a testament to the tradition of bipartisanship that characterized this body when it's behaving properly. and i want to thank her and congratulate her for her leadership on this issue and many, many others. i also want to thank the ranking member, senator cantwell from washington state, for her leadership on this and many other issues. they have formed a good and productive partnership. our energy system is undergoing a fundamental transformation. in the last eight years, wind power capacity has grown by more than 400%. and solar capacity has grown by more than 2,500%.

in 2015, wind and solar comprised 61% of new-generation capacity. last year in the united states, by far, the majority of new general reaga-- themajority of - it is actually happening. it's actually real and it is across the country. we've made incredible progress in driving down the cost of clean energy but we cannot let this progress stall out. we need to modernize our infrastructure in order to integrate greater amounts of renewable energy and save money for consumers through energy efficiency. this bill is a positive step in transitioning our energy system from the 19th and 20th

centuries into the 21st. there are a number of provisions that are worth highlighting. first, the bill proposes $500 million in research and development for grid-skill storage. this will -- grid-scale storage. this will allow us to use even more energy from renewable sources. the assumptions about the percentage of baseload power that we need in order to have good power quality across our grids are changing. for instance, in the state of hawaii, the basic assumption was that you couldn't have more than about 15% penetration of intermittent renewable energy. but we now have parts of our grid that are 35%, 45% renewable energy. so the oldassumptions are being thrown out the window. we're going to continue to need federal research and private-sector research into this question of how much intermittent renewable energy can a grid accommodate without

sacrificing power quality, and this $500 million investment is going to be a big help towards that. this bill will also continue investments in grid modernization that will help to smooth the integration of distributed renewable generation. this will make a real difference in improving reliability while reducing individuals' reliance on fossil fuels. and this bill would also permanently reauthorize the land and water conservation fund. this is not just the most successful conservation program in our nation's history -- and that would be a good enough reason to permanently reauthorize it -- it's also an economic driver, returning $4 in economic value for every $1 invested. and last but certainly not least, this bill increases funding for energy, research, and development at the -- energy research and development at the advanced research projects agency which is desperately needed, because only the federal government can undertake the

kind of high-risk, high-reward research that will allow us to maintain our economic dominance in this space. but i think we must do more on energy innovation and so i've introduced an amendment to increase the authorization for arpa-e above and beyond what is in this bill. the amendment sets forth authorization levels as follows: $325 million for fiscal years 2016-2018 a understand $375 until per year for fiscal year 23019-2020. this is an increase relatively modest of just $113 million over four years. *7 but it is important to remember that arpa-e was the brainchild of a national academies report which recommended to congress that they establish an par-e within the -- an arpa-e modeled after a program called calendar, the agency accredited c such

innovations as the stealth fighter and computer networking. in 2007, congress passed and president george w. bush signed into law the america competes act which officially authorized arpa-e authorization. president obama allocated $400 million to the new agency which funded arpa-e's first projects. in the years since, despite bipartisan support, arpa-e has not received more than the $280 million in funding. and yet this agency has had incredible success with even this modest amount of funding. for example, arpa-e awardees have developed a one-mega-watt transition the size of a finger nail and engineered microbes to make liquid transportation fuel. they invest in pioneering research that is groundbreaking, transformative, and just

amazing. think about what they could do with just a little more money. innovation in advanced-energy technologies can be a significant part of the solution to any number of challenges, increasing the reliability of our grid, lowering our electricity rates, hardening our energy infrastructure against cyber attacks, and many, many others. arpa-e is helping to fund projects at the cutting edge of all of these challenges and more, and so ai i'd encourage my colleagues to continue to support arpa-e and vote for this amendment and to support the underlying bill, which is an important step in paving the way to a revolution in the way we produce and consume energy in the united states. mr. president, i -- i ask that all time during the quorum call be equally charged to both sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schatz: i suggest the absence of a quorum. sphir officer the clerk will

call the roll. -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i rise first of all to commend the -- the presiding officer: the sna the is in a quorum call. mr. isakson: i rise to ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: now i rise to praise the ranking member and chairman of the committee on the great job they've done on this legislation. i have worked for years in senator murkowski. she is a great trooper and she has done a great job for our country and her state of alaska. i am glad to work with them on this particular piece of legislation which i support today. i am rising to talk about an

theament senator bennet and i will be introducing called the save afnlgt it is a way to encourage people to finance an andinclude in the purchase price of a new home the right type of energy-efficiency additions to that home which will lower the cost of energy to the home, improve the rate of energy consumption and make it easier for people to afford energy, therm mo pain for their doors ans windows and other treatments. i spent 33 years in the residential real estate. i don't know much about anything but i know a lot about people lying houses and housing laws. i know this: for the entry-level par which this addresses, it addresses f.h.a. longes, the most important thing is to be able to afford energy efficiency. the best way is to be able to finance it. you don't allow the additional factor for insulation and people

don't choose energy efficiency. they choose less efficient houses that burn more energy during their lifetime than they would have if we had not had a way to have people incorporate energy efficiency in the purchase of their new home. my story is very simple. we're here today to encourage energy efficiency, encourage savings on energy and energy people to focus on energy to be a more energy independent country. the best way is to take the mechanisms of purchase being the f.h.a. loan in this case to incorporate and consider for financial value purposes for the appraisal and loan-value ratio and qualifications purposes, the thermal pane improvements and other energy efficiency improvements put in. at the appropriate time i'll ask the chairman to recognize me sometime today to set aside the pending amendment and make this amendment pending. but until that time i wanted to come to the floor to let the members know we have an outstanding piece of legislation which scores at zero in terms of cost, applies only to f.h.a.

loans, encourages energy efficiency. it is a win-win-win and i'm proud to work with senator bennet on this legislation and i appreciate being recognized by the chair. and i -- in the absence of -- i'll yield to the minority whip. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise today to speak to two separate issues. first, i'd like to speak to the issue of for-profit colleges and universities. yesterday another for-profit college was accused by the federal, by a federal agency of misleading and deceiving students. the federal trade commission announced it filed suit against devry universities for advertisements that deceived students about the likelihood they would find jobs and earn money after they graduate.

devry's advertisements date back to at least 2008, about nine years that they have been claiming -- quote -- "since 1975, 90% of devry graduates system wide and the active job market held positions in their fields of study within six months of graduation." end of quote. they also claimed, starting in 2013 that devry graduates -- quote -- "had 15% higher incomes one year after graduation on average than graduates of all other colleges and universities." end quote. the department of education started investigating these claims in august of last year. and after asking devry for proof of their statements in these ads, the department announced yesterday that the company was -- quote -- "unable to substantiate the truthfulness of those representations as required by federal law." as such, the department of education ordered devry to stop making these false claims to require devry's future claims related to employability of

income to be verified by an independent monitor. at the same time it appears the department will allow devry to continue to participate in the federal title 4 programs. that means continue to receive taxpayers' dollars and enroll new students. how much federal funding does devry receive? in 2013 and 2014, devry incorporated brought in more than $1 billion in taxpayer funding through title 4. mr. president, the company's president, daniel hamburger, received $5.7 million in total compensation in 2014. $5.7 million. if you'll compare the salary that this president took from devry university, which receives the lion's share of all of its funds from the federal government, you will find that he is compensated dramatically more than college presidents

across the united states. the president of the university of illinois, a major flagship institution and research university, makes in the neighborhood of the base salary of $600,000 by comparison. devry's president, daniel hamburger, received $5.7 million in total compensation thanks to the taxpayers and students. meanwhile, according to a recent study by brookings, devry students cumulatively owe more than $8.3 billion in student loan debt. it's no wonder, considering the average cost of an associate's degree -- a two-year degree -- is about $40,000. in 2009, devry's five-year default rate on student loans was 43%. that means that of the students who left devry in the year 2009, 43%, almost half of them, had

defaulted within five years of leaving devry. i've said it before of corinthian, another for-profit school that in this case went out of business. i'll say it now of devry. students shouldn't be left holding the bag for the misdeeds of these private profit-making corporations that are skimming so much money from the taxpayers. the department of education has found that devry's claims could not be substantiated as required by federal law. the federal trade commission is also suing devry over claims of misleading students and customers. students who were harmed should be eligible for expedited federal student loan release through the defense to repayment. let me remind those who are following this debate, follow the money. taxpayers across america pay their taxes. the money goes into the federal treasury. then the money goes through the treasury and through pell grants

and student loans to students and their families to these private for-profit colleges and universities. the private for-profit colleges and universities like devry deceive and mislead the students about the value of their education. and whether they'll get a job after they graduate the students end up wasting their time and their money because they end up with a huge student debt when it's all over. and what happens? they default on their debt which means the taxpayers don't see the money going back to the treasury which we hoped for. or the schools in some cases, like corinthian, fail. and as a result the students are relieved of their debt obligation, so the taxpayers, again, are the ultimate losers. the for-profit colleges and universities of the united states of america are the most heavily subsidized private-sector businesses in our country. not a defense contractor, no form operation.

for-profit colleges and universities. devry news follows a particularly bad year for this industry. in 2015, more misconduct and schemes were exposed when it came to for-profit colleges and universities than ever before. enrollment across the industry is declining as students and their parents finally realize that these schools, many of them, are just bad news. state and federal regulators are shining a light on the illegal tactics of the for-profit college and university industry. stock prices for these private frorpt -- for-profit corporations are plummeting because investors realize that exploiting these students and swindling taxpayers is not a sustainable business model. years of bad behavior are catching up with for-profit colleges and universities and it shows in how for-profit companies are closing their schools across the country, even in my home state of illinois

we've seen dramatic changes this year. it started with the collapse of corinthian. this company was inflating its job placement rates to lure in new students, defrauding the students, their families and taxpayers and lying to the accrediting agencies in the federal government. when corinthian collapsed, more than 70,000 students were left in the lurch, many with more debt than they could ever possibly repay, and a corinthian education that turned out to be virtually worthless. in illinois, the campuses corinthian operated as everest college in the village and towns of bedford park, marionette park and skokie were sold to ecmc. ecmc was a new creation, a new for-profit college and university. this company that created this new for-profit college incidentally used to be the debt collector for the u.s. department of education. what qualified them to start a

college, i don't know. but fortunately ecmc maintained much of the old corinthian leadership and maintained practices to keep students from suing them for misconduct. after the illinois board of higher education pushed them on some of the issues, ecmc decided to teach out its newly required campuses in illinois and leave the state. thank goodness. then there's west wood. illinois attorney general lisa madigan sued west wood college for engaging in deceptive colleges. the focus was on west wood's criminal justice program. in order to lure students into the program, this private fortunate college, west wood, quintsed the students -- convinced the students they could get jobs with the chicago police department or the illinois state police if they would hang on and get a degree fre west wood. what happened when the students graduated?

took their degrees and dip ploam mass to the -- diplomas to the employer, the employers laughed at them. in november there was a settle reached with west wood. it agreed to forgive $15,000 none of the private student loans for illinois students. private loans, not government loans. shortly thereafter west wood announced it would stop enrolling students and end operation at its campuses nationwide including the four it operates in chicago-land area. thank goodness and good riddance to west wood. also in 2015, career education corporation announced another for-profit college, announced it would close its brand colleges, sanford brown, harring toj college and design and -- har rington college and design and le cordonblu, there an

associate's degree would have cost $42,000 and students had a one in five chance of defaulting on any loan they took out for that associate's degree. if a student walked a few blocks away to chicago city college's kennedy king campus in comparison, it could have received the same degree not for $42,000 but for $7,000. and the likelihood of defaulting on student loans for this degree not one in five like it was at le cordon bleu, one in 20. harrington, i talked about them before. harrington college of design exploited hannah moore, a young woman from chicago whom i've come to know. she got her degree from harrington after transferring from a community college. she couldn't find a job in her field with her harrington degree. it turned out to be worthless. what did it cost her to get the harrington degree? this for-profit college degree heavily marketed?

hannah paid $125,000. she still carries that debt to this day. but it's growing. she can't pay it off fast enough. and it's mushroomed to $150,000. this poor young woman, her life is compromised because of the exploitation of her ambition to do something important in life. she lives in her parents' basement. her dad has come out of retirement to try to help his daughter pay off her student loans because, you see, mr. president, the loans that are taken out to go to these schools, to go to any higher education school are not like money borrowed for a car are 0 a home -- car or a home. these student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. what does it mean? they're going to carry them to the grave. student loan debt now, many student loan debts which are in default are being collected in most unusual places.

grandmothers who befriended their granddaughters by cosigning their loan for college. when the granddaughter defaults, it's the grandmother and in some cases her social security payments which are levied on to pay off these student loans. these loans will haunt these students, many of them, for a lifetime, particularly if they have gone to these for-profit schools. even though it's not in illinois, i want to mention ashford university. a campus in clinton, iowa, across the mississippi river, ashford has shown itself to be one of the worst actors in the for-profit college industry. a bloomberg news story told of james long who suffered a brain injury when he was in service to his country in the army driving a humvee in iraq that was attacked. an ashford recruiter went after james long, got him to sign up to use his department of defense education benefits to enroll in classes that this individual

sadly could not even remember because of the traumatic brain injury which he suffered. in 2014, iowa attorney general tom miller announced a $7.25 million settlement with ash in ashford university. miller accused the school of violating consumer fraud act after the attorney general received multiple complaints filed by current and former ashford students. this included complaints that this for-profit school misled students to believe that an all in line ashford education degree would allow students to become classroom teachers with no further certification. i remember ashford because it was our former colleague, senator tom harkin of iowa held a hearing. he talked about how ashford bought what was a small college, took on their credit days and started peddling this for-profit education which was worthless. do you know what the faculty of

ashford university consisted of? one faculty member for every 500 students. do you know what the people that were running this scam operation were paid? millions. millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. the investigation found that ashford recruiters in addition misled prospective students, used high pressure sale tactics and failed to disclose information about the cost and likelihood of obtaining a degree. well, in 2015, ashford announced it was going to close its clinton, iowa, campus. thank goodness and good riddance. it is for the students who have been or could have been exploited by these companies that i say it's time for us to stand up as a congress and a federal government and put an end to this insidious scam of students and their families and the taxpayers. thousands of students in illinois and all across the nation have been lured into attending these for-profit schools with lies or deception. don't take this senator's word

for it. take a look at the litany of schools that are under investigation by state and local authorities for fraud. many students like hanna have so much debt, their lives and futures are compromised. over the last year, i've joined several of my senate colleagues to push the department of education to provide federal student loan debt relief to students who have been taken advantage by the for-profit colleges. but, mr. president, we have an obligation here. to think that we are shoveling $25 billion into these for-profit schools every single year without asking the hard questions about whether taxpayers' dollars and student debt is justified by the results, shame on us. we can do so much better. the numbers tell the story. 10%, 10%, one out of ten, college students attend for-profit colleges and universities.

20% of all the federal aid to education, $25 billion, goes to these for-profit colleges and universities. and despite only 10% of college students, these for-profit colleges and universities account for over 40% of student loan defaults. they charge too much, their diplomas are worth too little, and these students suffer as a result. what is our obligation here? is this a buyer beware situation when it comes to the students and their families? or is it a situation where congress beware. if we aren't more sensitive to the fact that we are propping up an industry that is exploiting these students and taxpayers. with the closure of east campuses in illinois at several of these companies moving out of the state altogether, the educational landscape is a little safer. the thousands of illinoisans try to do the right thing, get an education for themselves and their families. there is a sensible alternative in virtually every city and town in america, community colleges,

city colleges. affordable. ours are transferable to major universities in most cases and students don't incur the kind of debt that can compromise their lives for years and years to come. i have spoken on the floor many times about these for-profit colleges and universities. in one respect, it's a fairly easy issue and easy topic. they continue to be held accountable, devry is being held accountable by the department of education and the federal trade commission for their misconduct. now the question is will the united states congress step up to its responsibility to clean up the situation? mr. president, i ask consent to speak on a different topic and have it placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senate's currently considering a bipartisan energy bill that will help put our country on the pathway to build a 21st century economy. it contains several important provisions to develop domestic clean energy resources, and i look forward to working with my colleagues through the amendment

process to strengthen it. i want to congratulate senator lisa murkowski, republican of alaska, senator maria cantwell, democrat, of the state of washington, the chair and ranking member of the energy and natural resources committee, applaud them for their effort and thank them for bringing this bipartisan measure to the floor. the energy policy modernization act is a result of the committee's multiple hearings on over 100 individual bills. if passed, it would be the first major energy bill approved by congress in nine years. mr. president, a lot has changed in nine years. the u.s. has dramatically increased natural gas and oil production. renewable energy production is skyrocketing, and the cost of this has decreased. more americans are using it. we're also finding new and better ways to address our most pressing energy and climate change challenges. the bill before us takes those new developments into account and updates our policies. the act strengthens energy efficiency measures for federal

buildings and multifamily homes and reauthorizes important programs like weatherization and energy. in illinois, that means tens of thousands of low-income and elderly households would be able to receive critical upgrades that make their homes more efficient, allowing them to spend less money to keep their homes cool and warm. it will also help maintain illinois' leadership as the top state for leed-certified buildings as ranked by the u.s. green building council. the bill encourages the development of new energy resources, geothermal, hydropower and better ways to store carbon dioxide which will help us address the challenge of climate change. most importantly, the bill makes a substantial commitment to supporting basic science research, an innovation at universities and the department of energy's laboratories. the energy policy modernization act authorizes 4% annual budget increases for d.o.e. office of science and advanced research

projects agency. as cochair of the senate national laboratory caucus, i strongly support these increases as d.o.e.'s office of science -- at d.o.e.'s office of science because i know it will lead to new breakthrough scientific discoveries that will keep america competitive. since their creation in the 1940's, the national labs have really done some amazing things in energy innovation, scientific discovery and national security. in illinois, both oregon and fairmee serve as a meeting place for the world's best researchers. their work leads to advance in alternative fuel vehicles and improvements in energy efficiency. universities from across the country use the labs to conduct research and train others. that's why earlier this year, i introduced a bill, the american innovation act, to provide 5% real growth to d.o.e.'s office of science. mr. president, i hope to offer an amendment on this floor. 4% annual increase when it comes to, for example, the office of

science and the department of energy is good, but that is not 4% over inflation. if inflation is running at 2%, it's merely a 2% real christmas eve in investment and research. i think we ought to err on the side of investing more in research. i think we should have 5% real growth in investment in the national institutes of health, center for disease control, department of defense medical research, veterans administration medical research. and then when it comes to this side of the ledger, innovations, let's include the office of science and many other key agencies. i visited the department of energy a few months ago to have breakfast with earnest moniz who is the secretary. i talked with him about biomedical research. he said the office of science in the department of energy is developing the technology for imaging the brain so that we can detect early indications of alzheimer's. currently, unfortunately, the

only way to really say with any assurance that a person is suffering from alzheimer's with any objective assurance is through an autopsy. if we can through imaging devices while a person is still alive and before they have really started to decline, detect it and work on stopping the progress of alzheimer's, it would be an amazing achievement. once every 67 seconds in america, someone is diagnosed with alzheimer's. once every 67 seconds. i challenge my staff when they told me that. almost every single minute a person is diagnosed with alzheimer's. last year, in federal funds, we spent in medicare and medicaid $200 billion on alzheimer's patients. imagine what was spent on the private seek and imagine the kind of sacrifices in spending by families to try to maintain the care of an alzheimer's

victim in their own family. so putting a little extra money into biomedical research or in this case research at the office of science is money well invested. if we can slow down the progress of alzheimer's, if we can find a way to delay it even months, it will pay back this investment over and over again and god willing find a cure that will justify every penny we put into this research. so i will offer an amendment, and what i am asking is basic. 5% -- an authorization for 5% real growth that's over inflation, 5% real growth. that i think is the least we can do, but i think it would be a significant commitment, substantially more than is currently in the bill. the work at these labs has led to amazing advances, and i think there is more ahead of us. in addition to supporting basic science research, this act before us directs the department of education to build a research program to develop the next generation of computers, a

thousand times faster than our current super computers. is it possible? i believe it is. i'm not an expert in this field, but you have to step back and say it's amazing to me when they tell us that the cell phones that we carry around have more computing power than the early computers that steve jobs and others brought to market. currently companies around the world use super computers to solve problems and answer important questions. boeing and cummings have both used d.o.e. super computers to design better airplanes and trucks and use less energy so that they burn fuel for efficiently. this has led china, south korea and europe to get into the competition. they're in the race, too, for the next generation of super computers. i want america to win that race. this bill before us in the investment and research can make a difference. the government should invest in these labs and in research to create jobs and competitive businesses. this bipartisan energy bill can achieve that. it can lead this country to a brighter future with greater

energy resources that have a wider impact on the environment and build a stronger economy. because the energy choices we make now will determine the future of our children and our grandchildren, we've got to be serious about it. we ought to make the investments for a sustainable planet and a promising, bright future. i hope my colleagues will work together to improve this bill and help us create a 21st century energy economy. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. gardner: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: we just left of the foreign relations committee where we left with overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation to increase our sanction against the rogue regime in north korea. about a year ago i had a conversation with senator corker, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee with the need for the legislation. we both agreed that north korea poses a serious and growing threat to its neighbors, to the united states homeland and to global security. we agreed that we could not continue to ignore the forgotten maniac, the forgotten maniac who is kim jong-un. this past august i had an opportunity to travel to south korea to meet with the president

of south korea, president pok. we agreed the status quo with regard to north korea was no longer sustainable nor responsible. this past october i introduced the north korea sanction policy enhancement act and i want to thank the cosponsors of that bill, rubio, risch and isakson and thank the chairman and his staff for their encouragement and invaluable support to make that bill a reality today. along with senators cardin and menendez who worked so hard to make sure we took that bill, the work senator menendez has been leading on over the past year as well into a bipartisan product that came out of the committee and as the chairman announced today, will most likely see floor time in a couple of weeks. on january 6, 2016, our worst fears were realized when north korea conducted its fourth nuclear test. moreover, north korea has claimed the test was a hydrogen bomb, which is a vastly more powerful weapon. even if reports are not true, even if the reports out of north korea are not true that it is not such a weapon, it still

represents a significant advancement in north korea's nuclear weapons capability. i also know that north korea continues to advance its ballistic missile program. news reports recently out of both japan and here in the united states talk about equipment being moved for a possible additional missile launch. the head of the u.s. north com, northern command base at peterson air force base in colorado publicly stated that north korea may have already developed the ability to mount a nuclear warhead on their ballistic missile missile and shoot it at the homeland. admiral gortne included his feeling, his concern than the condition on the peninsula is perhaps at the most unstable point it has been since the armistice. north korea continues to grossly abuse the rights of their own people. they're up to 200,000 men, women and children in north korea's vast prison systems. the u.n. commission of inquiry

in 2014 found that north korea's actions constituted a crime against humanity. we've seen north korea entire capabilities grow into an asymmetric threat north korea utilized against south korea, japan as well as the united states as we all recall after the sony pictures hack in november of 2014. according to a november 2015 report by the center for strategic and international studies, north korea is emerging as a significant actor in cyberspace with organizations gaining the ability to conduct cyber operations. all these developments represent a failure of u.s. policy of strategic patience towards north korea and that's why this bill out of committee and the strong bipartisan support that it received today represents a change, final change in that failed policy. it allows us to change course and in just a couple of weeks we can put that legislation into effect. the house of representatives as we know passed 418-2 their own

version of a bill sanctioning north korea a few weeks ago and i thank the chairman for moving forward on our very strong substitute amendment. the gardner-menendez substitute represents a modified version. this legislation mandates not simply authorizes, it mandates the president to impose sanctions against persons that materially contribute to north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile developments. import luxury goods into north korea, enable censorship and human rights abuses, engage in money laundering, engage in activities undermining cybersecurity, sold supplies that transferred to or from north korea precious metal including aluminum, steel or coal for the benefit of its illicit activities. these are mandatory sanctions, a new direction from the discretionary sanctions of today. these mandatory sanctions on

north korea's cyber activities are unique to the senate legislation. this bill codifies executive orders 13687 and 13694 regarding cybersecurity with regard to north korea as they applied last year. this is a unique feature of the menendez bill and the gardner amendment. it will break new ground for congress if enacted and signed into law. perhaps providing precedent for future cyber violations around the globe. we need to look for every way to deprive pyongyang of income to build its weapons program, strengthen its cyber capabilities and continue the abuse of its own people. we must stop this regime's abuse. we must also send a strong message to china, north korea's diplomatic protector and largest trading partner, that the united states will use every economic tool at its disposal to stop the

forgotten maniac. and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation when it moves to the floor and congratulate senator corker, senator menendez for coming together with a bipartisan solution today and that this body, the house of representatives, can pass and put on the president's desk and into law. mr. president, i yield back my time. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i congratulate my colleague from colorado whose amendment moved forward. i'm here on a different subject which is to discuss an amendment that i introduced with senator isakson concern residential energy efficiency, so-called save act has always been thoroughly bipartisan, drawing the support of senators isakson, toomey, more -- moran, portman, boxer and others and attracting support from groups across the political spectrum from the chamber of commerce all the way to sierra club. our amendment would allow for a

home's energy efficiency to be considered when a borrower is applying for a loan by making a simple change to home underwriting and appraisal standards. specifically, when you apply for a mortgage, you can request under this legislation an energy audit. and if you have a loan that is backed by the f.h.a., the energy efficiency of your home and your energy bills will be taken into account by your mortgage lender. without this change, even though homeowners spend more on energy costs than taxes or home insurance, the amount you pay each l month for energy is not taken into account. this amendment isn't a mandate. it doesn't require anything. it simply allows mortgage lenders to account for energy costs in the same way they account for taxes and insurance. it makes no sense because improvements like new counter top increases a house's value but an energy efficient furnace which will save homeowners thousands of dollars does not. this amendment will create

thousands of jobs in manufacturing, construction jobs and energy efficiency. it will save homeowners money on their energy bills and will decrease foreclosures risks. it will increase the energy efficiency of our homes. it does all this by giving consumers a choice that they don't today have. i've heard from builders all across colorado support this amendment. people like jean myers, the c.e.o. and founder of thrive home builders. he's built more than 1,000 energy-efficient homes in the denver area, but he understands we won't fully attain the benefits of efficiency in the market until we properly value it. for these reasons a large and diverse coalition supports this amendment including the national association of manufacturers, national association of home builders, the u.s. chamber of commerce, and the national resource defense council, among others. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan and commonsense amendment to improve energy

efficiency and create american jobs, and i thank the senator from georgia, senator isakson, for his leadership and his sponsorshipship of this legislation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i rise to speak about the energy policy modernization act of 2016, legislation that's been advanced by our energy committee chairman, senator murkowski, along with the ranking member, senator cantwell. as a member of the committee, i appreciate their leadership on this important issue with this legislation we're now considering here on the floor. i think chairwoman murkowski is right when she speaks to the need to update our nation's

energy policy. in that spirit, i filed several amendments designed to advance our nation's energy policy in key areas. today i'd like to talk briefly about those three amendments. these three amendments would help provide regulatory certainty for cross-border infrastructure projects, the regulation and recycling of coal ash and reaffirm state primacy for energy development, particularly when it comes to hydraulic fracturing or fracking. first let me talk about the north american energy infrastructure amendment. one of the necessary components to leveraging our abundant energy resources and strengthening our energy security involves building the infrastructure to take energy from where it's produced to where it's consumed, whether it's transporting crude oil or natural gas or modernizing and connecting our electric grid, these projects require long-term planning and investment as well as the regulatory environment that promotes certainty and

transparency as well as impartial review. that is why i introduced an amendment identical to the north america infrastructure act, senate bill 1228 that would modernize the existing department of energy presidential permitting process for cross-border infrastructure projects. this amendment, which is cosponsored by senator done -- donnelly of indiana indiana, removes the need for a permit for construction, operation or maintenance of a oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission facility with canada or mexico and places the process in the proper federal agency. it does not alter the neap pa -- while it does not alter the nepa, the -- environmental review process, our amendment sets time limits for federal agencies to make recommendations once the reviews are committee.

this adds certainty to the permitting process and that will attract the kind of long-term investment necessary to help build the nrlg -- energy infrastructure we need. these projects are too important to our economy and national security to be dragged out virtually for years such as in the case of the keystone x.l. pipeline, more than seven years. we need a process that is fact based, transparent, consistent and nonpartisan and will help support the important energy relationship between the united states and our closest friend and ally, canada. the energy department publicly states that it requires approximately 6 to 18 months to issue a presidential permit. however, there are numerous examples of pipelines and electric transmission applications languishing far beyond that time line. the many inconsistencies involving these applications speak to the need to update this permitting process. so let's start with crude oil

pipelines. take, for example, the bureaucracyic delays for the pipeline which secured a presidential permit from the u.s. state department for its crude oil pipeline in 2007. in february 2013 the company sought a name change permit from the state department. however, it took until august of 2015 -- two and a half years -- before a name change was approved. the state department informed the company its application for a name change required a new national environmental policy act or nepa review because of the separate pipeline, the pipeline based wholly within the united states would connect to it. electric transmission lines. there have also been many delays citing electric transmission lines between the united states and canada. and in a lot of cases that's for renewable energy.

one example is the new england clean power lake, 1,000 megawatt project spanning 154 miles between vermont and quebec. the company filed its application for a presidential permit in may 2014. yet its application has been pending for over 20 months for a renewable energy electric transmission. another example is the great northern transmission line, a project that would connect minnesota and manitoba, bringing hydroelectricity and wind power across the border. the project's presidential permit application was filed in april of 2014. while the review is ongoing, an outcome we hope will come soon. this application has been pending for almost two years. third example is the champlain hudson power express project, the underground and underpawrt project will bring 1,000

megawatts of hydroelectric power from quebec to the new york city area. the application for presidential permit was initially filed in january 2010. yet, it took almost five years until october 2014 for the presidential permit to be issued. inconsistent delays in the federal review timelines which last longer than the energy department's six to 18-month target. that's their target. their target is six months to 18 months, not five years, not seven. and this, of course, injects an uncertainty risk and cost into all of these vital projects. commonsense reforms are needed so that both project proponents and consumers can benefit, and that's just exactly what this legislation does. specifically, this amendment would eliminate the presidential permit requirement for construction or modification of new oil and natural gas pipelines as well as electric transmission facilities across the national boundary of the

u.s. instead, it places the process in the proper agencies. it would require that the certificate of crossing will be issued by the secretary of state for oil pipelines, the energy department for electric transmission lines and both the ferc and the energy department for crossborder natural gas pipelines as currently configured. it requires the state department to issue a serk of -- certificate of crossing on a cross-border pipeline permit within 120 days of completion of a nipa environmental review process. so you have your nipa environmental review process, but 120 days after that they have to make a decision, and they have to issue a certificate of crossing unless the agency finds the construction of the cross-border section is not in the public interest of the united states. it would retain the nipa review process of the potential environmental impacts of a new project at a border crossing and leaves unchanged all other

environmental land or wildlife reviews currently applying to any other pipeline constructed in the country. in other words, the states would still oversee the nipa and permitting process as they do now. it would provide for an open, transparent rule-making process to determine the definition of cross-border segment which will be used to help determine the scope of the nipa review process. that's because requiring a nipa review for entire pipeline projects duplicates the multiple federal, state and local agencies, regulations, processes and authorities already in place. there are numerous existing state and federal laws and regulations for the review and approval of siting land acquisition, design and construction of projects. these remain unaffected by this amendment. for example -- this is important. state laws and regulations governing pipeline siting remain

unchanged by this amendment. federal laws and regulations governing design, construction, safety and environmental review of the pipelines remain unchanged. state and local laws and regulations regarding land and rights-of-way acquisition for infrastructure projects such as pipelines remain unchanged by the amendment. and construction and operation of a pipeline in the united states must comply with the safety regulations of the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration. this is a separate process from the nipa process and also remains in place. the measure would provide appropriate authority and scope to the state department for examination of cross-border -- border crossing impacts of the projects. other reviews by department of interior, bureau of land management, u.s. fish and wildlife service and u.s. army corps of engineers for issues such as environmental land and wildlife impacts are appropriate and remain unchanged. the amendment would require ferc

to approve natural gas crossing border pipelines consistent with current policy. it also requires the energy department to issue a permit within 30 days of receipt of the ferc action. again, rational timelines so there is some consistency and dependability in the process. finally, the amendment also specifies that existing projects do not need further approvals for new or revised presidential permits for certain modifications. these include alterations such as volume expansion, adjustment to maintain flow or changes in ownership. again, commonsense stuff. this is commonsense legislation that can help us build the vital energy infrastructure we need for this country. at this point, mr. president, i would ask how much time i have remaining. the presiding officer: six minutes remain. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. the next amendment that i would

like to review that i will be introducing is identical to a bill introduced by senator manchin and myself. it's the improving coal combustion residuals regulation act of 2016, s. 2446. this legislation which builds on our past efforts to find a bicameral, bipartisan approach to coal ash both ensures that there is safe disposal of coal ash and provides greater certainty for recycling. this is a win from the industry standpoint of more energy, more cost-effective, but it's also an environmental win in terms of recycling coal ash as well as making sure that when it's disposed of, it's done so safely. coal ash is a byproduct of coal-based electricity generation that has been safely recycled from buildings, roads, bridges and other infrastructure for years. in fact, i think it's important to take note of the environmental and financial benefits of coal ash recycling.

over 60 million tons of coal ash were beneficiarily used in 2014, including over 14 million tons in concrete. it's been calculated the taxpayers save $5.2 billion per year thanks to the use of coal ash in federally funded roads and bridge construction. products made with coal ash are often stronger and more durable and coal ash reduces the need to manufacture cement, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 13 million tons, for example, in 2014. in december of 2014, the e.p.a. put forth new regulations with a management of coal ash. the regulations made clear, at least for the time being, that coal ash would continue to be treated and regulated as a nonhazardous waste consistent with e.p.a.'s earlier findings. however, the regulation has a major flaw. it relies solely on citizen

lawsuits for enforcement. what this means is that neither the e.p.a. nor the states can directly enforce the rules through a permit program with which owners and operators of coal ash disposal facilities must comply. think about that. think about that. that means that the regulation does not create the constructive regulatory guidance and oversight necessary to ensure the proper management of coal ash. instead, the e.p.a. regulation has created a situation whereby the only enforcement mechanism for the rule is that an operator of a coal ash site can be sued for not meeting the e.p.a.'s new federal regulatory standards. those subject to this regulation is the responsibility it is for keeping the lights on for electricity consumers are left themselves in the dark, but how e.p.a. standards will be defined in court cases across the nation. instead of direct oversight, we'll have lawsuits brought by those who want to shut down coal

production. imagine building an addition to your house and there being no building permit process to go through with your local government. let's just take this as an analogy. so you want to build a house, but there is no building permit process to go through with the local government. you call the city or the county and they say well, you should just read the rules, and if you violate the rules, know that you can be sued at any time by anyone who maybe thinks you didn't build that addition according to the law. this process would leave you without any sort of assurance that you actually built your addition in accordance with the law. and worse, you would have the threat of litigation hanging over your head. does that make any sense? mr. president, think about it. you will build a house. i don't know, maybe a nice, beautiful house in phoenix where it's nice and warm in the winter, and you can't get a building permit, but if you don't build that house just right according to your

interpretation of the regulations, anybody, it might be your neighbor, it might be somebody who comes down from, say, the great state of north dakota and enjoy your lovely winter. they just decide to sue you and they would be able to do it. that's how the regulation of coal ash is set up. come on. it makes no sense at all. so that's how they're doing it, and that's why we need to fix it. our amendment will directly address this problem by taking the best parts of our e.p.a. rule, the standards for coal ash disposal, and incorporating all of them in an e.p.a.-approved -- i repeat, an e.p.a.-approved state permit program for both recycling and disposal. the states will have direct oversight over disposal sites designed in operation including inspections, criteria, run-on, run-off control, postcloture care. meanwhile, we offer state regulators the same flexibility

for implementing the groundwater monitoring and corrective action standards that are currently provided under both existing municipal solid waste and hazardous waste regulations, allowing state regulators to make tailored, site-specific adjustments. and we have been listening to the issues that the e.p.a. has brought up about our previous investigators of this -- previous versions of this legislation. in fact, we have changed the legislation to include a more traditional application process for the state permit programs. if the e.p.a. finds a state permit program deficient -- i would ask for two minutes to complete my remarks, with the indulgence of the senator from massachusetts. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none. without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you. and if the e.p.a. finds a solid -- finds a state's permit program deficient, then the e.p.a. can take direct control over the state's permit program in that state. if a state adopt want to have its own permit program, the e.p.a. runs the permit program for the state.

mr. president, the amendment is about responsible regulation. it's about certainty for recyclers and for the american public who will know that the state and federal regulators are actually working with energy producers to ensure safe disposable coal ash. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bipartisan approach by voting for the hoeven-manchin amendment. with that, i do have another amendment, but at this point due to the time constraint, we will defer to the senator from massachusetts, and i yield the floor and thank him for his courtesy. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, before i begin on my amendment, i want to take a moment to acknowledge the life of massachusetts christa mcauliffe. she lost her life along with six other crew members 30 years ago today when the space shuttle challenger exploded. she was an extraordinary teacher and was selected out of a pool of 11,000 applicants to lead the ultimate field trip as the first

teacher in space. her legacy lives on in many ways, but especially at the christa mcauliffe center for education and teaching excellence at her alma mater, framingham state university. mr. president, the omnibus spending bill that was enacted into law in december lifted the 40-year-old restriction on exporting u.s. oil overseas. during that debate, concerns were raised regarding the impacts that exporting american oil abroad could have on u.s. consumers and refined fuel prices, independent refineries and other sectors of the u.s. economy such as shipbuilding. however, the final language that became law did not include any requirement for analyzing and reporting on any potential imports -- impacts that exports could have on these industries or u.s. consumers. the markey amendment 2982 to the energy bill would create such a review. the amendment would require the

g.a.o. to review and report back annually for three years on the impacts of crude oil exports on u.s. consumers, independent refineries, shipbuilders and energy production. the language of my amendment is language that is bipartisan. the language of my amendment is identical to language included and legislation sponsored by chairman mikulski. it is also identical to language included in legislation introduced by other senators. exporting american crude oil could be a disaster for independent refineries in regions such as the east coast. upwards of 55% of our refining capacity on the east coast could potentially close as a result of oil exports. the energy department has said that exports could lead to as much as a $9 billion smaller investment and 1.6 million barrels less refining capacity in ten years. it could lead to up to $200 billion less revenue for the u.s. refining sector over

the next decade. it could raise prices for consumers who are currently saving $700 a year at the pump and $500 a year on home heating oil this winter because of low prices. and it could harm u.s. shipbuilders. we have been giving -- we have been having a shipbuilding renaissance in this country. we are currently seeing the biggest shipbuilding boom in 20 years. it has been because of our increasing oil production and the jones act which requires shipments between u.s. ports to be u.s. built, flagged and crude ships. this means that producing more oil is leading to investment in u.s. built ships to move that oil around the country. right now, u.s. shipbuilders have orders to expand our domestic tanker fleet capable of transporting crude oil by 40%. each oil tanker can represent an investment of $100 million to $200 million. five years ago, there were zero orders. now one company alone in

pennsylvania, acker a.s.a., has nearly $1 billion in back orders and has tripled employment over the last three years. exports could sto -- exports could stop all of this in its fracks. so that g.a.o. report is very important. i also want to compliment chairman mikulski and rank -- murkowski and ranking member cantwell in their partnering to produce the legislation which we are considering out here on the floor. it represents bipartisanship in the way it is meant to operate, and towards that goal, i have an amendment that i'm going to speak to right now, which is one that senator cassidy from louisiana and i have introduced, and it is an amendment to improve the way we are going to be selling oil from the strategic petroleum reserve.

our nation's oil stockpile is supposed to be there to protect american consumers and our security in the event of an emergency. we shouldn't be using it as a piggy bank to pay pour other priorities. but if we're going to sell oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, we should at least make sure that we do so strategically to get the best deal for taxpayers and american consumers. last year senator cassidy and i offered a nearly identical amendment to the transportation bill, which was adopted on the senate floor and ultimately became law. that amendment protects taxpayers by improving the way the sale required under the bill of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve are in fact conducted. the cassidy-markey fix gives the secretary of energy more flexibility to sell oil when prices are high and directs the department to stop selling oil when the revenue targeted required by the bill are reached. this fix should allow us to sell fewer overall barrels from the

strategic petroleum reserve and get a better return on these sales. however, the roughly $5 billion worth of spro oil that was required to be sold as part of the budget act that passed in november did not include this commonsense fix. the current cassidy-markey amendment that is pending to the energy bill contains virtually identical language to the amendment that was adopted ond the senate floor to -- on the senate floor to the transportation bill. it would apply the same fix to the sales required by the budget act in order to protect taxpayers. too often our policy with respect to spro has been to buy high and sell low. taxpayers have paid an inflation-adjusted average of roughly $75 a barrel for the oil that is in our nation's stockpiles. we should ensure that we get the best return for our taxpayers in these spro sales, and that is what our amendment would do. mr. president, i yield back my time.

markaz e taib-- a senator: mr. president, does the presiding officer: the snrr oregon. ms. murkowski: just an inquiry into how much time the senator is seeking at this moment. a senator: ten minutes. ms. murkowski: i also understand that senator whitehouse wished to peek to an amendment that is pending, is that correct? mr. whitehouse: i only wish a moment to speak in favor of the crapo-whitehouse amendment and i could do that in the minute for ten seconds later on. i don't need that now. we can get to the votes as soon as the chairman wishes. ms. murkowski: just going to be make sure we're going to be able to begin the vote at noon. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: the most important words in the

constitution are "we the people." the notion that we create a system of governance would be governance of the people, by the people and for the people. i will be rising periodically to address issues that affect american citizens across our nation that are important, that are urgent, and that this body should be addressing. this week i'm using my "we, the people" speech to highlight excerpts from an article written by nasa scientist peter sellers. peter sellers was an astronaut. he has been a nasa scientist, and he shared this article. "i am a climate scientist who has just been told i have stage-4 pancreatic cancer," and he continues, "this diagnosis puts me in an interesting position. i spent much of my life thinking about the science of climate change, which is best viewed

through a multi-decadal lens. i was sure that i would live to see the most critical part of the problem and its possible solutions play out in my lifetime. now that my horizon has been shortened, i am forced t ..." ho note the he examined his bucket list and found only two things that really mattered. spending time with his family, as he puts it "the people i know and love" and then get become ear-- gettingback to his officed addressing climate change. he notes "on the science side there's been a steady accumulation of evidence for the last 15 years that climate change is real, that it's trajectory could lead to us a very uncomfortable, if not dangerous, place. on the policy side, the just-concluded climate conference in paris set a goal

of average temperature to two degrees above celsius. it is doubtful that we'll hold the line at two degrees but we need to give it our best shot. with scenarios that exceed that target, we are talking about enormous changes in temperature patterns, huge impacts on water and food security and significant sea level rise." he continues "pope francis and a think tank of retired military officers have drawn roughly the same conclusion. the worst impacts will be felt by the world's poorest." he continues to examine this and notes that while heavy lifting will have to be done by policy-makers, kings "and he is speaking to all of us, "scientists can add a great deal and scientists at nasa can help by keeping track of the changes in the earth system and using

their powerful computer mod models to explore which approaches to addressing this problem are practical, trading off near-term impacts against longer-term impacts." and he observes that "engineers and industrialists must come up with new technologies to address the new challenges of storage and distribution and that they must be solved within a few decades." he continues later in the article to say, "history is replete with examples of us humans getting out of tight spots and that the winters tend to be realistic, pragmatic and flexibility and the losers are often in denial of the threat." and closes by say, "as for me, i've no complaints. i'm grateful for the experiences i've had on this planet. as an astronaut, i space-walked 220 miles above the earth, floating alongside the international space station. i've watched hurricanes cartwheel across the owe sharntion the amazon snake its

way through a brilliant green carpet of forests and gu gigantc sthorms flash for hundreds of miles along the equator. from this god's eye view, i saw how fragile and infinitely precious the earth is and i'm hopeful for its future." and so he concludes, "i'm going to work tomorrow." i simply want to thank pier for his lifetime commitment to science, his service as an astronaut, his continuing to work on this major challenge of addressing the planet and that he would see only in these days where he is fighting a battle against a forceful, powerful disease that he is dedicating his efforts to this challenge. isn't that a call for all of us to see how important it is for us to dedicate our efforts to take on this challenge as well, to recognize, as he points out, major strategies must be developed in a short period of

time to avoid catastrophic consequence. thank you, mr. president. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the aapproval of the majority and the minority leaders. and i would ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the crapo amendment, the senate then vote on the markey amendment with no second-degree amendments in order to the markey amendment prior to the votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. murkowski: now we are ready to dispose of a couple of amendments by voice vote. so, mr. president, i would call for the regular order with

respect to the barrasso amendment number 3017. the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. ms. murkowski: i send a modification to the desk for about a a so amendment 3017. the presidin the presiding officer: officer the the amendment is so modified. ms. murkowski: i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment 3017 as modified. all those i in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the dwries have it. -- the ayes do have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. ms. murkowski: i call for the regular order with respect to the shaheen amendment number 2968. the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. ms. murkowski: i know of no further debate on the amendment. the presiding officer: if ness no further debate, the question is on amendment 2968. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would now ask consent that senator crapo and senator whitehouse each have a minute of debate prior to the vote on the crapo amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. crapo: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: in a few minutes we will vote on the adoption of the nuclear energy innovation cooperation act, which we are seeking to toad this important energy bill. this bill will do a number of very critical things to help the united states increase and maintain and keep its lead in nuclear energy development globally. it will establish a modeling and simulation program that aids in the development of new reactor technologies, establish a user

facility for a versatile reactor-based fast neutral source, establish a center to help share 124 vital information between the government and private sector. it will allow the n.r.c. to apprise the department of energy of regulatory challenges early in the development process and require a report by the n.r.c. on the licensing of non-light-water reactors. this bill is a strong signal to the rest of the world that we intend to maintain the u.s. leadership in nuclear technology. this bill will enable the private sector and national lab labs to work together to create even greater achievement than in the last century. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: th the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: as the lead democratic cosponsor of senator crapo's amendment, i want to commend and salute him for his leadership. senators durbin and booker and i have all joined from our side. senator crapo, senator risch, senator hatch, and senator kirk on the republican side.

so this is truly a bipartisan amendment. i hope it will get a strong and positive vote. it is very important that america continue its innovation in the area of advanced nuclear technologies, they continue to confer immense promise, and we're seeing the promise of american innovation realized overseas where the first, for instance, traveling wave technologies are being constructed in china, not here. so we need to make sure we continue our investment. we need to make sure we're doing good regulation so that the innovation can proceed to the market, and we hope that this amendment will help move that forward. once again, senator crapo has shown great leadership by this and i'm pleased to support him. the presiding officer: question now occurs on amendment 2031 -- 3021. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote: