[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)] [Senate] [Pages S243-S247] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized. Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, in this Energy bill we are considering, we are going to offer an amendment regarding the renewable fuel standard--also called the RFS. The RFS requires that fuel sold in the United States contain a minimal amount of renewable fuels. You know it because when you go to the gas pump, it says: contains 10 percent ethanol. The RFS is outdated. It was created in 2005--a time when American energy consumption relied heavily upon foreign imports. It was thought that the renewable fuel standard will be good for the environment by decreasing the carbon footprint, but in the last 10 years our energy landscape has changed dramatically. We now have more domestic oil than almost ever before, and the drawbacks of the RFS greatly outweigh its benefits. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Americans will be forced to pay $0.13 to $0.26 more per gallon if the RFS is not repealed. For a mom and dad with two teenage sons, this would be $400 a year, but it doesn't stop at the pump. Over the last 10 years, the price of corn has drastically fluctuated. Corn costs have approximately doubled since before the RFS began. The corn price increasing has increased the cost of food as much as 7 percent to 26 percent it is estimated per year. It also raises costs all the way down. For example, your chain restaurants are estimated to spend $3.2 billion more for the food they purchase and serve to their customers because of the RFS. Perhaps paying more at the pump, paying more at the grocery store and more at the restaurant will be worth it if there are environmental benefits. Unfortunately, there is not only no environmental benefit, there is tremendous environmental harm. To begin with, an increase in corn production means that there is an increase in fertilizer use across the Midwest. That fertilizer runs into the rivers, goes down into the Mississippi River, hits the Gulf of Mexico, and causes algae blooms because of the high nitrogen and phosphorous, and that decreases the oxygen in the water, thereby devastating the fish population. If you look at maps of the dead zone in the Mississippi River, they have continuously increased in size since the RFS was put into law. But it is not just about our water quality. Let's talk about carbon footprint. One of the original rationales as to why we should have renewable fuels: The Union of Concerned Scientists state that certain types of ethanol have a worse carbon footprint than gasoline. So now we have something that not only increases the cost of food and hurts the water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and the rivers that feed it but also has a higher carbon footprint than the gasoline it dilutes. By the way, it is not just the Union of Concerned Scientists; the National Academy of Sciences says that the renewable fuel standard has little or no environmental benefit and actually increases the particulate matter and sulfur that is in the atmosphere and harms water quality. Let's just say that with the abundance of our domestic oil and increased vehicular efficiency standards, there is no need for the RFS. It is time to repeal the renewable fuel standard so that our farmers, anglers, ranchers, and consumers can reap the benefit. In addition to this, I wish to mention another amendment I am offering with Senator Markey. This amendment would save taxpayer dollars and preserve oil reservoirs in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located in my home State, in Harahan, LA. This amendment gives the Secretary of Energy the ability to sell Strategic Petroleum Reserve quantities of crude oil when the price goes up. Right now, he has been instructed to sell the oil to raise $5 billion but without regard to price. We clearly don't want to sell it when the price of oil is at $30. We want to wait until the price of oil goes back up and sell it then so we can reap multiple benefits. It will allow for more supply so consumers will have lower prices at the pump, and it will also get more money for the oil we do sell, which will be good for taxpayers who bought the oil in the first place. America is blessed with an abundance of oil. Taxpayers invested in this emergency oil stockpile. Yet some must be sold, and it should be sold at the highest price possible to get the best deal for the taxpayers. I urge my fellow Senators to support both of these amendments. They are important to American families, critical to America's energy security, and in the case of the RFS, it is critical to our environmental hopes. I yield back. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Homeland Security and the Threat of Violent Extremism Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss for a couple of moments the issue of homeland security and the threat of violent extremism in the United States. In the last 2 months in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we have experienced two very concerning incidents of violent extremism--first, in December, the arrest of a 19-year-old man in Harrisburg, PA, who allegedly used social media to propagandize and facilitate on behalf of the terrorist group ISIS. At the time of his arrest, law enforcement officers found ammunition and other signs that he might be preparing for an attack. Thank goodness [[Page S244]] law enforcement at the local and State level worked with the FBI and would have been able to thwart that attack if it were carried out. The second incident, and the one I will focus more of my attention on today, was the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett while he was on patrol on January 7 of this year. The gunman ran up to Officer Hartnett's patrol car and fired 11 rounds at very close range. Officer Hartnett was hit three times in his left arm before the attacker fled. In a truly remarkable act of bravery, Officer Hartnett was able to radio for backup and pursue the attacker. The gunman was apprehended as a result of Officer Hartnett's heroic action and the quick response of his fellow officers. Law enforcement professionals like Officer Hartnett and his colleagues are on the frontlines of protecting us and protecting our homeland every day. We have to remain vigilant against potential attacks from terrorist groups in foreign countries, of course, who seek to harm Americans, but we must also confront the threat of violent extremism here at home from individuals who are inspired by the hateful, evil ideology of terrorist groups such as ISIS. These are individuals who can often be categorized as lone wolves, planning and plotting without the direction of a terrorist group necessarily but motivated by violent rhetoric they find online or by other means. On January 18, I visited Officer Hartnett in the hospital to thank him for his bravery and his service. He was in much better shape that day than he was on the night of the attack. We are so happy that he continues to recover well from those injuries. Just last week he was able to leave the hospital in Philadelphia and go home. At the same time, I also received a briefing on the investigation from the FBI and met with Mayor Jim Kenny, the newly elected mayor of Philadelphia, and Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ross to discuss this emerging threat in Philadelphia and certainly in other places as well. What do lawmakers do, Members of this body and the other body as well, the House and the Senate? We have an abiding obligation to give our full support to local and State authorities confronting the threat of violent extremism whether it is in Pennsylvania or anywhere across the country. According to a recent assessment from the Foreign Policy Initiative, 71 individuals have been charged with ISIS-related activities since March of 2014. The profiles and motivations of these individuals differ dramatically, making it even more difficult for law enforcement officials to investigate and prevent attacks. But I believe that as Members of Congress--and, I also would add, the administration as well--we all need to listen to the professional advice of law enforcement officials, homeland security experts, and others rather than simply engaging in categorical condemnation or, unfortunately, oversight by sound bite. I have invited Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to Philadelphia to join me in a roundtable with community leaders and law enforcement officials in Pennsylvania so I can be briefed on and updated about homeland security issues in Philadelphia and throughout southeastern Pennsylvania. A recent Politico survey of leading mayors around the country evaluated the city executives' perspective on the challenges they confront in addressing terrorism and violent extremism in their communities. The mayors have told us that they identified lack of overall funding as the biggest challenge facing their cities in the context of counterterrorism. And I have to say that for at least a decade, local law enforcement and the FBI have been badly underfunded. Let's ensure that these communities have what they need. I will continue to urge the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to communicate better with local and State authorities. I will also urge the disbursement of Federal grant funding to support activities to counter violent extremism and to continue to train law enforcement in ways to help prevent and respond to complex terrorist attacks. I am supporting and I hope others will support Senator Carper's Community Partnerships Act of 2015, which is a piece of commonsense legislation that would bolster the Federal Government's support to local and State authorities. We owe it to our first responders, such as Officer Jesse Hartnett from Philadelphia, and we owe it to the communities they protect to give them the support and resources they need to help us confront and defeat violent extremism. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about the Energy bill that is before the Chamber right now. I thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell for bringing us to this point. This is called the Energy Policy and Modernization Act. It is my understanding that this is the first comprehensive Energy bill to come to the floor of the Senate in 7 or 8 years. It is something we ought to be focused on because it helps to create a better economy, and it helps to ensure that we do have a protected grid and that we can indeed improve our infrastructure around the country in terms of energy and improve the performance of Federal agencies. The bill allows more exports of LNG--liquefied natural gas--which is important to our economy. By focusing on energy and taking commonsense steps to help in terms of making our economy more efficient, we will help to create more independence in this country and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy as well. I commend them for that, and I am happy to support the broader legislation. Tonight I would like to talk about title I of the bill. As those of you who have looked at the bill know, title I is about energy efficiency. I again thank Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for including the Portman-Shaheen Energy and Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act in as title I of the legislation. This is energy efficiency legislation that has been to the floor a couple of times. We were not able to get it passed because of a disagreement over amendments, but it has come out of the committee with strong votes. In fact, the most recent vote was a few months ago when we reported the energy efficiency legislation out of our energy committee in the Senate by a vote of 20 to 2. That doesn't happen very often around this place. It is bipartisan because it makes sense. Senator Shaheen and I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle and groups all around the country over the past 4 or 5 years to put this legislation together. It is part of what I think is the right philosophy which I see embodied in this overall legislation, which is that we ought to be producing more energy in this country, but we also ought to be using it more efficiently. Producing more and using less is a good combination. It creates jobs, creates the opportunity for us to be more competitive in global markets, it helps us to be less dependent on foreign oil, and it helps us to improve the environment. This legislation we are looking at in title I is going to get across the finish line this year, I believe, because we do have strong support from not just Republicans and Democrats here in this Chamber but from people around the country who have helped us to put this together. Those on this side of the aisle often talk about the need for an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. I like to talk about that. I think it is the right approach. I think we should be focusing on all of our energy resources. When you talk about ``all of the above,'' though, one of the best sources of energy is the energy you don't use. It is the energy that is really economically viable, and that is energy efficiency. Sometimes we are pretty good at the produced part of the equation on my side of the aisle, but we need to focus more on the efficiency part. This legislation also helps the environment, as I said. It is actually the equivalent of taking about 20 million cars off the road within 15 years. Think about that. Through energy efficiency, it is the equivalent of taking about 20 million cars off the road within 15 years. By the way, it doesn't do it by overregulating, it doesn't do it by killing jobs, and it doesn't do it by the heavy hand of government. It does it without any mandates. It does it by [[Page S245]] incentivizing less energy use, which will help to reduce emissions in a way that doesn't kill jobs. In fact, our legislation will create more jobs. We have a study of our legislation now showing that it will create 136,000 new jobs while saving consumers about $13.7 billion a year in reduced energy costs within 15 years. The bill is supported by 260 associations, businesses, advocacy groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Sierra Club, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is supported by groups who don't normally get together to support legislation, but they are all together on this because they understand the importance of it. That is one of the reasons this passed the committee with big bipartisan numbers, and it is also why it actually works--because we got input from everybody. It makes good economic sense, good energy sense, and good environmental sense. In visiting with jobseekers around Ohio and going to businesses talking about this legislation, they are excited about it because it gives them the opportunity to have access to new energy efficiency technology that makes them more competitive. So it allows Ohio workers to be able to compete better with workers in places like Japan or Europe where there is more of a focus on energy efficiency, and it reduces the costs of production. This is why the manufacturing community in my home State of Ohio is really excited about it. They know this is going to help them to be competitive. It also helps with regard to our Federal Government. The Federal Government ought to practice what it preaches. The Federal Government is the largest user of energy in the country--probably the largest user of energy in the world--and, by the way, one of the more inefficient users of energy. So our legislation specifically focuses on the Federal Government and talks about how we need to use less energy at our call centers and how we need to make sure Federal buildings are more energy efficient. Just by doing that alone, we are going to save taxpayers billions of dollars. That makes sense for taxpayers, and it also makes sense for reducing emissions, and it makes sense to have our Federal Government be more efficient. The proposals contained in this bill are really commonsense reforms. There are no mandates on the private sector. They come as a result of direct conversations we have had with people at the local level and businesses to understand how we can actually help, without mandating, to create incentives. Our legislation does focus on manufacturing, and it does focus on the government and the General Services Administration and buildings. It also focuses on buildings to ensure that buildings are more efficient, both residential and commercial buildings, which is where we are going to see a lot of our savings. Again, this is not only going to create more jobs but save consumers a lot of money. It has been nearly 10 years since Congress passed legislation that focused on energy efficiency. A lot has changed and a lot needs to be updated. This legislation allows us to do that--to move forward in a smart way and in a bipartisan way to ensure that, yes, we are producing more energy, becoming less dependent on foreign sources and more independent here in this country, helping our economy but also doing so in a way that helps create a better environment for all of us. This is a true, ``all of the above'' energy strategy. Again, I applaud my colleagues for bringing forward the Energy Policy Modernization Act, and I thank them for including the Shaheen-Portman legislation. I wish to thank my partner, Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire, for her hard work over the years on this legislation. It is time for us to get it done. It is time to provide this incentive and give this economy a shot in the arm to help ensure that we can take advantage of the energy resources in this country, use them more efficiently, and, by doing so, create more economic opportunity for everyone. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are at the end of the day after having turned to the Energy Policy Modernization Act. We have had some Members come to the floor to speak to the significance and the importance of finally, after almost 8 years now, updating and modernizing our energy infrastructure, our energy supply, our energy efficiency and accountability within the energy space. I know that we are going to be continuing to work to address not only much of what is contained within the bill but also amendments from colleagues. We have solicited and have received a fair number of amendments today. The ranking member and I are processing these and looking, again, not only to set up a unanimous consent agreement here this evening, but I will take this opportunity to remind colleagues that if you have amendments that you wish to be brought up, please file them, and please come to the floor to speak to them. We will hopefully have a full opportunity tomorrow to do just that, but we do intend to work aggressively to get through this very important, very bipartisan measure. Amendments Nos. 2968, 2963, 3017, 2982, 3021, and 2965 En Bloc to Amendment No. 2953 Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number in the following order: amendment No. 2968, for Senator Shaheen; amendment No. 2963, for Senator Murkowski; amendment No. 3017, for Senator Barrasso; amendment No. 2982, for Senator Markey; amendment No. 3021, for Senator Crapo; and amendment No. 2965, for Senator Schatz. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for herself and others, proposes amendments numbered 2968, 2963, 3017, 2982, 3021, and 2965 en bloc to amendment No. 2953. The amendments are as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 2968 (Purpose: To clarify the definition of the term ``smart manufacturing'') Beginning on page 132, strike line 22 and all that follows through page 133, line 4, and insert the following: (5) Smart manufacturing.--The term ``smart manufacturing'' means advanced technologies in information, automation, monitoring, computation, sensing, modeling, and networking that-- (A) digitally-- (i) simulate manufacturing production lines; (ii) operate computer-controlled manufacturing equipment; (iii) monitor and communicate production line status; and (iv) manage and optimize energy productivity and cost throughout production; (B) model, simulate, and optimize the energy efficiency of a factory building; (C) monitor and optimize building energy performance; (D) model, simulate, and optimize the design of energy efficient and sustainable products, including the use of digital prototyping and additive manufacturing to enhance product design; (E) connect manufactured products in networks to monitor and optimize the performance of the networks, including automated network operations; and (F) digitally connect the supply chain network. Amendment No. 2963 (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to bulk-power system reliability impact statements) Strike section 4301 and insert the following: SEC. 4301. BULK-POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT. Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(l) Reliability Impact Statement.-- ``(1) Solicitation by commission.--Not later than 15 days after the date on which the head of a Federal agency proposes a major rule (as defined in section 804 of title 5, United States Code) that may significantly affect the reliable operation of the bulk-power system, the Commission shall solicit from the ERO, who shall coordinate with regional entities affected by the proposed rule, a reliability impact statement with respect to the proposed rule. ``(2) Requirements.--A reliability impact statement under paragraph (1) shall include a detailed statement on-- ``(A) the impact of the proposed rule on the reliable operation of the bulk-power system; [[Page S246]] ``(B) any adverse effects on the reliable operation of the bulk-power system if the proposed rule was implemented; and ``(C) alternatives to cure the identified adverse reliability impacts, including a no-action alternative. ``(3) Submission to commission and congress.--On completion of a reliability impact statement under paragraph (1), the ERO shall submit to the Commission and Congress the reliability impact statement. ``(4) Transmittal to head of federal agency.--On receipt of a reliability impact statement submitted to the Commission under paragraph (3), the Commission shall transmit to the head of the applicable Federal agency the reliability impact statement prepared under this subsection for inclusion in the public record. ``(5) Inclusion of detailed response in final rule.--With respect to a final major rule subject to a reliability impact statement prepared under paragraph (1), the head of the Federal agency shall-- ``(A) consider the reliability impact statement; ``(B) give due weight to the technical expertise of the ERO with respect to matters that are the subject of the reliability impact statement; and ``(C) include in the final rule a detailed response to the reliability impact statement that reasonably addresses the detailed statements required under paragraph (2).''. AMENDMENT NO. 3017 (Purpose: To expand the authority for awarding technology prizes by the Secretary of Energy to include a financial award for separation of carbon dioxide from dilute sources) At the end of subtitle G of title IV, add the following: SEC. 46__. CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY PRIZE. Section 1008 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16396) (as amended by section 4601) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(h) Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Prize.-- ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection: ``(A) Board.--The term `Board' means the Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Advisory Board established by paragraph (6). ``(B) Dilute.--The term `dilute' means a concentration of less than 1 percent by volume. ``(C) Intellectual property.--The term `intellectual property' means-- ``(i) an invention that is patentable under title 35, United States Code; and ``(ii) any patent on an invention described in clause (i). ``(D) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Energy or designee, in consultation with the Board. ``(2) Authority.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, as part of the program carried out under this section, the Secretary shall establish and award competitive technology financial awards for carbon dioxide capture from media in which the concentration of carbon dioxide is dilute. ``(3) Duties.--In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall-- ``(A) subject to paragraph (4), develop specific requirements for-- ``(i) the competition process; ``(ii) minimum performance standards for qualifying projects; and ``(iii) monitoring and verification procedures for approved projects; ``(B) establish minimum levels for the capture of carbon dioxide from a dilute medium that are required to be achieved to qualify for a financial award described in subparagraph (C); ``(C) offer financial awards for-- ``(i) a design for a promising capture technology; ``(ii) a successful bench-scale demonstration of a capture technology; ``(iii) a design for a technology described in clause (i) that will-- ``(I) be operated on a demonstration scale; and ``(II) achieve significant reduction in the level of carbon dioxide; and ``(iv) an operational capture technology on a commercial scale that meets the minimum levels described in subparagraph (B); and ``(D) submit to Congress-- ``(i) an annual report that describes the progress made by the Board and recipients of financial awards under this subsection in achieving the demonstration goals established under subparagraph (C); and ``(ii) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, a report that describes the levels of funding that are necessary to achieve the purposes of this subsection. ``(4) Public participation.--In carrying out paragraph (3)(A), the Board shall-- ``(A) provide notice of and, for a period of at least 60 days, an opportunity for public comment on, any draft or proposed version of the requirements described in paragraph (3)(A); and ``(B) take into account public comments received in developing the final version of those requirements. ``(5) Peer review.--No financial awards may be provided under this subsection until the proposal for which the award is sought has been peer reviewed in accordance with such standards for peer review as are established by the Secretary. ``(6) Carbon dioxide capture technology advisory board.-- ``(A) Establishment.--There is established an advisory board to be known as the `Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Advisory Board'. ``(B) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of 9 members appointed by the President, who shall provide expertise in-- ``(i) climate science; ``(ii) physics; ``(iii) chemistry; ``(iv) biology; ``(v) engineering; ``(vi) economics; ``(vii) business management; and ``(viii) such other disciplines as the Secretary determines to be necessary to achieve the purposes of this subsection. ``(C) Term; vacancies.-- ``(i) Term.--A member of the Board shall serve for a term of 6 years. ``(ii) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board-- ``(I) shall not affect the powers of the Board; and ``(II) shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made. ``(D) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which all members of the Board have been appointed, the Board shall hold the initial meeting of the Board. ``(E) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the Chairperson. ``(F) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold hearings. ``(G) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The Board shall select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the members of the Board. ``(H) Compensation.--Each member of the Board may be compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level V of the Executive Schedule for each day during which the member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Board. ``(I) Duties.--The Board shall advise the Secretary on carrying out the duties of the Secretary under this subsection. ``(7) Intellectual property.-- ``(A) In general.--As a condition of receiving a financial award under this subsection, an applicant shall agree to vest the intellectual property of the applicant derived from the technology in 1 or more entities that are incorporated in the United States. ``(B) Reservation of license.--The United States-- ``(i) may reserve a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license, to have practiced for or on behalf of the United States, in connection with any intellectual property described in subparagraph (A); but ``(ii) shall not, in the exercise of a license reserved under clause (i), publicly disclose proprietary information relating to the license. ``(C) Transfer of title.--Title to any intellectual property described in subparagraph (A) shall not be transferred or passed, except to an entity that is incorporated in the United States, until the expiration of the first patent obtained in connection with the intellectual property. ``(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as are necessary. ``(9) Termination of authority.--The Board and all authority provided under this subsection shall terminate on December 31, 2026.''. amendment no. 2982 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review and submit a report on energy production in the United States and the effects of crude oil exports) At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. ____. GAO REVIEW AND REPORT. (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 2 years, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of-- (1) energy production in the United States; and (2) the effects, if any, of crude oil exports from the United States on consumers, independent refiners, and shipbuilding and ship repair yards. (b) Contents of Report.--Not later than 1 year after commencing each review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that includes-- (1) a statement of the principal findings of the review; and (2) recommendations for Congress and the President to address any job loss in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry or adverse impacts on consumers and refiners that the Comptroller General of the United States attributes to unencumbered crude oil exports in the United States. Amendment No. 3021 (Purpose: To enable civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies by private and public institutions, to expand theoretical and practical knowledge of nuclear physics, chemistry, and materials science) [[Page S247]] (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'') AMENDMENT NO. 2965 (Purpose: To modify the funding provided for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy) Strike section 4201(b)(5)(A)(iv) and insert the following: (iv) by adding at the end the following: ``(F) $325,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2018; and ``(G) $375,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 and 2020.''; and Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon tomorrow the Senate vote on the Crapo amendment No. 3021 and at 1:45 p.m. the Senate vote on the Schatz amendment No. 2965; that no second- degree amendments be in order to the Crapo or Schatz amendments prior to the votes; finally, that the time until 12 noon and following the disposition of the Crapo amendment until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two managers or their designees. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Washington. Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I just want to point out to our colleagues that the chair has worked with us today to get a number of these pending amendments. I know she will probably express this, but it is our intent that hopefully we will have some votes on these other amendments either by voice or additional votes. So I hope colleagues who are interested in other amendments will come down. But I think this process gets us going on the voting and could be on some of these pending amendments as well. So I do not object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senators should be aware that we may add additional rollcall votes on amendments to both stacks of votes tomorrow, as the ranking member has said. It would certainly be our intent that we work to process as much as we can during the time that we have. ____________________