[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1239-S1251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL INNOVATION LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2019--MOTION TO
PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2657, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 2657, a bill to support innovation
in advanced geothermal research and development, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Anti-Dairy Activism
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, our U.S. dairy farmers have had a tough
decade. Margins are thinner than ever, and new milk substitutes can be
found in every grocery store. While dairy farmers scored a major
victory in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement with increased market
access to Canada, there is a scary new trend that is very disturbing.
Hollywood jokers have taken a stand against raising cows with the so-
called hashtag ``mootoo'' movement. This is udderly irresponsible. U.S.
dairies produce the highest quality milk and cheese in the world under
the highest standards of care. Drink and eat dairy products. It is good
for you--especially ice cream. Help our dairy farmers.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Coronavirus
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, over the weekend, cases of the
coronavirus have been confirmed in New York, Rhode Island, and Florida.
Officials in Washington State have also reported that now six Americans
have died from the coronavirus--the first fatalities in the United
States.
At this critical moment, we need an administration that acts with
persistent and unrelenting transparency and decisiveness, and that
leans on the expertise of our scientists and doctors. But this
administration, unfortunately, has spent years hollowing out the
domestic and global health security teams in the executive branch. It
has proposed cutting funding from the infectious disease rapid response
fund, the emerging infectious disease account, and public health
preparedness and response programs. Undoubtedly, the Trump
administration would have been better prepared to respond to the
coronavirus if the President had prioritized these programs rather than
urged them to be cut.
The administration's early response efforts have not instilled much
confidence either. Testing kits were not promptly sent to the hospitals
and medical labs around the country, political personnel have overruled
the recommendations of the CDC, and the administration was slow to
appoint any single official with public health expertise to coordinate
our government's response.
Even now, President Trump seems to be spending more of his time
blaming the media and blaming the Democrats than being constructive. In
fact, he blames everyone not named Donald Trump. The President is
downplaying--he is downplaying--the threat of the coronavirus to a
dangerous degree, and his Chief of Staff, amazingly, said to Americans:
``Turn off your televisions.''
We know the history of how these viruses spread and work. When you
deny them, when you don't let people know what is happening and what to
do about it, things get worse. Yet the President, being as self-
centered as he is, only cares about himself and his image. As usual,
instead of solving the
[[Page S1240]]
problem, he tries to blame somebody else.
The deflection and finger-pointing and denial must stop. President
Trump must take responsibility to ensure that everyone in the public
health community has the authority and the resources needed. We need
the President and his team to level with the American people and get a
handle on the situation.
Later this week, appropriators will put together an emergency
supplemental package to surge resources into the domestic and global
response and to help local communities quickly prepare for the
coronavirus. I have said that we need about $8.5 billion, and, from all
reports, the appropriators are very close to that number, rather than
the $2.5 billion the President talked about early on. That is good
because when it comes to Americans' health, when it comes to our
safety, and when it comes to dealing with this problem head-on,
skimping doesn't make any sense at all. If there was ever something
that is pennywise and pound foolish, that is it.
As this package comes together, I am going to have more to say, but,
at a minimum, any package needs to have provisions that ensure that the
President cannot transfer these new funds to anything other than the
coronavirus and American and global preparedness to combat epidemics
and infectious diseases.
Vaccines must be affordable and available to all who need them.
Yesterday, I called for vaccines, when developed, to be fully covered
by Medicare, because seniors who need the vaccines most should not have
to worry if they can afford it once it is available.
There should be interest-free loans made available for small
businesses impacted by the outbreak, and State and local governments
should be reimbursed and provided new grants for response activities.
In the meantime, the administration needs to keep working with local
communities--including schools, universities, and local agencies--on
the steps they must take to prepare for an increase in coronavirus
cases.
Specifically, the administration needs to do the following: First,
issue coherent guidance on what school districts should do in the event
the virus is detected in a community; second, establish a uniform
screening policy for airports and ports of entry, as our frontline
transportation professionals at TSA and CBP need clear guidance on the
coronavirus; and, third, make it clear that our Federal scientists and
medical experts can speak out freely and be heard by the American
people--no gag rule, no downplaying this because that makes things
worse when people don't know the facts.
Democrats are ready to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure
Federal, State, and local officials are ready for whatever scenario the
coronavirus presents. The President and his administration and our
colleagues in the Senate must be ready to do the same.
Energy Bill
Mr. President, on the Energy bill, tonight the Senate will vote on a
motion to proceed on a bill that will make changes to our Nation's
energy policy. Ranking Member Manchin and I have had several
discussions with Chairwoman Murkowski and the Republican leader about
having a fair amendment process on this legislation. As a result of
these conversations, I will be voting yes on the motion tonight as a
show of good faith.
Democrats want amendments to the Energy bill so we can make real
progress on climate change. That is what we are hoping to achieve this
week. Few pieces of legislation offer more opportunity for progress on
climate than those that concern our energy policy. We cannot miss this
opportunity to make real, substantive progress on climate change. I am
hopeful that our amendments this week and the potential progress we can
make on climate change this week can be bipartisan.
For months, Republicans have been trying to adjust their posture on
the most pressing issue facing our planet--the climate crisis. This
bill provides a real test for Senate Republicans. Will they join Senate
Democrats in fighting for and passing bipartisan legislation that will
address climate change in a significant way, or will our Republican
friends continue to do what they have done for the last several years--
do the bidding of corporate polluters and Big Oil and block amendments
with bipartisan support?
Director of National Intelligence
Mr. President, finally, on the DNI, on Friday, after dismissing
Acting Director of National Intelligence Maguire and replacing him with
Rick Grenell, a partisan loyalist with no experience, President Trump
proposed installing as a permanent Director of National Intelligence
Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas.
Replacing one highly partisan operative with another does nothing to
keep our country safe. At a time when Vladimir Putin is once again
interfering in our elections, we need a nonpartisan leader with a high
level of expertise and trust on both sides of the aisle, someone who
sees the world objectively and speaks truth to power, at the helm of
the intelligence community. Neither Acting Director Grenell nor
Representative Ratcliffe comes close to that standard. Representative
Ratcliffe, in particular, falls short of that high bar.
John Negroponte became DNI after decades of working in the Foreign
Service. Former Directors Dennis Blair, James Clapper, and Mike
McConnell--whatever you think of them individually--came from both
parties, and all had decades of experience in and working with the
intelligence community. Dan Coats, the President's last nominee to this
position, served as a diplomat, a Senator, and a sergeant in the Army
before assuming the post. Representative Ratcliffe, on the other hand,
is a three-term tea party Congressman. He has shown extreme
partisanship in the House. He lacks the experience required to lead a
community of 17 intelligence agencies.
The experience Mr. Ratcliffe does have in Congress has been
alarmingly partisan. He was a fierce critic of the Mueller
investigation and earned praise from deep-state conspiracy theorists.
During the Mueller hearings, Ratcliffe badgered the former special
counsel with baseless lines of questioning--highly partisan and not at
all related to fact. He didn't seem to care. He showed little regard
for the seriousness of Putin's interference in our elections and the
need for election security.
Since World War II, since OSS, and since the formation of the CIA,
the intelligence agencies have, by and large, been immune from
politics. Like he does with everything else, this President seems to
make them the arm of his likes and dislikes, of what is good for him
and what is not good for him, even if he denigrates these fine men and
woman. He doesn't seem to care that we need intelligence agencies who
find the truth and tell the Congress and the American people the truth.
Now he appoints a rank partisan to this agency, someone he probably
sees on FOX News mouthing the conspiracy theories that only the
President and his avid supporters seem to believe.
It is such a decline in America when this great agency, where people
have risked their lives for America quietly, is made into a political
football to serve one man, Donald Trump, who we all know doesn't really
have a penchant for truth, for honor, and for decency.
With this nomination, President Trump has again shown a lack of
respect for the rule of law and for the intelligence community, which
Republican and Democratic Presidents have all shown in the past.
Republicans must join Democrats in swiftly rejecting the nomination
of the partisan Mr. Ratcliffe.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Coronavirus
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the new coronavirus, or COVID-19,
continued to capture headlines over the weekend. News of the first
American deaths related to the disease confirm this is a public health
challenge that is upon us.
The Senate's immediate role is clear: We need to support the Federal,
State,
[[Page S1241]]
and local public health officials and healthcare professionals who are
working overtime to blunt, delay, and mitigate the spread of the virus.
I am grateful that our colleagues Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy,
along with their appropriations counterparts in the House, worked
through the weekend on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to provide
supplemental appropriations for the coordinated response.
It goes without saying that a challenge like this leaves no time for
moving goalposts or performative outrage. The American people deserve
for their Congress to meet this subject head-on, with a bipartisan and
collaborative approach, and I am confident that is exactly what can and
will happen.
I am glad our prospects for supplemental appropriations rest in the
hands of a bipartisan group of negotiators. I would encourage my
Democratic colleagues in both Houses to let them do their work. It will
be important to pass this first benchmark and supply these important
funds within the next 2 weeks.
Taliban
Mr. President, on another matter, on Saturday, President Trump
announced a new agreement with the Taliban that is designed to promote
a peaceful end to the civil war in Afghanistan.
First and foremost, we must recognize the brave men and women of the
U.S. Armed Forces. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops have deployed
to Afghanistan since our national security compelled us in 2001 to
confront the terrorist threats emanating from that failed state that
Afghanistan had become. More than 2,400 American servicemembers have
given their lives in Afghanistan. More than 20,000 have been wounded.
Our coalition partners, such as the United Kingdom and Canada,
sustained casualties as well.
Obviously the worst burden of all has fallen on the Afghan people.
Tens of thousands of Afghan security forces and civilians have been
killed during this long, long war.
It is largely due to these brave, heroic, and sustained efforts to
keep pressure on the terrorists that Afghanistan has not come roaring
back as an international headquarters for terrorists. Thanks to these
efforts, the United States and its Afghan partners are hopefully in a
position to bring about a negotiated end to the conflict.
After nearly 20 years, two basic principles are clear: No. 1, we
should welcome any serious opportunity to bring greater stability to
that land, but, No. 2, we must make certain that the progress won
through great sacrifice by Afghans and Americans is not undermined by a
precipitous rush for the exits.
I do not trust the Taliban, so I am grateful the linchpin of the
agreement is a conditions-based approach that will provide our
commanders with leverage to test the will and the capacity of the
Taliban to abide by the agreement. If all goes well at first, our
American presence would stabilize with 8,600 troops for the time being.
Having heard from our commanders, I agree that presence will remain an
important tool as we combat the ongoing threats posed by the likes of
al-Qaida and ISIS and support for the Afghans' ability to fight
terrorism themselves.
Since further drawdowns would require even further progress and
cooperation from the Taliban, I look forward to hearing from
administration officials, intelligence analysts, and military officers
about how they will judge compliance and determine whether the
conditions are, in fact, met. For my part, I believe the intra-Afghan
negotiations are especially critical to the future of that country and
to our own significant security interests over there. We should do what
we can to help the Afghans achieve a peaceful solution to their
conflict.
I am glad to hear there are no secret annexes to this agreement which
Congress will be denied, as there were with President Obama's Iran
deal. The secret documents detailing implementation arrangements are
available for the review of all Senators in Senate Security, and I
encourage our colleagues to review the full details.
Republicans spent much of the Obama administration reminding our
colleagues that hope--hope--is not a strategy. We argued President
Obama's reckless withdrawal from Iraq would set the stage for chaos and
a resurgence of terrorism. Unfortunately, the rise of ISIS proved us
correct.
That is why, more than a year ago, I offered an amendment so the
Senate could affirm that withdrawing from Syria or Afghanistan the
wrong way could strengthen the hand of terrorists and competitors such
as Russia and Iran while weakening our own vital interests.
I believe from my conversations with senior administration officials
that they went into these negotiations with their eyes wide open about
the Taliban's duplicitous nature. I expect Members of both parties will
have many questions about this agreement and look forward to briefings
from the administration about the path forward to protect American
interests in Afghanistan and ensure this war ends on terms favorable to
those interests.
Our fight against ISIS, al-Qaida, and other radical Islamic
terrorists is not over. As my colleagues and I have said for years,
even if the United States were to choose to walk away from the
conflict, the conflict would not walk away from us. We learned that on
September 11. We relearned it with the rise of ISIS. I hope we never
need to learn it again.
So the war is not over, but this agreement may foster the
negotiations and discussions within Afghanistan that would be necessary
to bring it to a close.
John Ratcliffe
Mr. President, on one final matter, on Friday, President Trump
announced he intends to nominate Representative John Ratcliffe of
Texas to serve as Director of National Intelligence. I am glad the
President has elected to nominate a permanent DNI so the Senate can
provide our advice and consent on this crucial position.
As I mentioned last week, the men and women of the intelligence
community fulfill a wide array of sensitive and critically important
missions. The Office of the DNI is central to coordinating these
efforts in a strong fashion. It gives no quarter to politicization or
partisan bias. I am glad the administration will seek Senate
confirmation for the position.
President Trump has a strong track record of sending the Senate
impressive nominees for national security posts who are well prepared
to protect our Nation and defend our interests.
The impressive leadership of Secretary Esper at the Department of
Defense, Director Haspel at the CIA, General Nakasone at the National
Security Agency, and other leaders have proven that President Trump has
an eye for talent and confirms that the Senate's trust in each of them
was well placed.
I hope Congressman Ratcliffe will impress Senators just as did the
other members of the President's team and earn a bipartisan
confirmation vote. I trust Chairman Burr and our colleagues on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will oversee a prompt and
fair confirmation process, and I look forward to meeting the nominee
myself.
The Trump administration has worked overtime to unwind the failures
of the 8 years that preceded it. We have taken big strides to renew
America's national security and our strength on the world stage. We
must keep up this crucial work.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Tribute to Josh Speidel
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, everybody has a story. Actually, everybody
has a journey, when you think of life. Some are heartbreaking, but some
are uplifting, and some are hopeful. Tomorrow night, during senior
night, the University of Vermont men's basketball team is going to
celebrate one story that is all of these things: heartbreaking,
uplifting, and hopeful. They will celebrate that when senior Josh
Speidel takes the court for the first time--and what will be the only
time--in his college career.
Josh is a native of Columbus, IN. He dreamed from a very young age of
playing college basketball. At Columbus North High School in Indiana,
Josh was the basketball team's all-time lead
[[Page S1242]]
point scorer and an Indiana All-Star. In November of 2014, just before
his senior basketball season, he committed to play for the University
of Vermont, and he accepted a scholarship at the university to play for
the team.
Here is the heartbreaking part. Just a few months later, in February
of 2015, Josh's dream was derailed when he suffered a traumatic brain
injury, resulting from a devastating car crash. Josh would go on to
spend the next 4 months in the hospital and in rehab. But just a few
days after the accident, the University of Vermont's head coach, John
Becker, went to Indiana and visited Josh there with a simple message
for him: You are still welcome at UVM. Your scholarship will be
honored, and we will help you in any way we can. That is, after all,
the Vermont way.
Josh would ultimately arrive at UVM in August of 2016. While he
hasn't suited up with the team, he has worked with trainers; he has
improved his physical condition; and he has remained active on the
court. What is so inspiring, his team was at his side throughout. He
has been a constant fixture of the team, on the sidelines at games,
cheering his teammates on. I have been at games and have seen him doing
that.
Off the court, Josh has been working toward a degree through the
College of Education. He is choosing a self-designed major to prepare
him to work with children through sports, with a double minor in
behavior change and coaching.
He has been a committed student throughout his time at UVM. He is set
to graduate this May. After graduation, Josh hopes to use both his life
experience and his education to work with children.
Tomorrow night, the University of Vermont men's basketball team will
celebrate senior night. In a special arrangement with their opponent,
Albany, Josh, wearing number 32, will suit up, take the court, and
notch the night's first basket after the tip-off.
I so wish I could be there because when Josh steps off the court, it
will surely be to the standing ovation of this young man--the
personification of perseverance, determination, dedication, and hope he
so richly deserves. I know my fellow Vermonters who are at these games,
and I know there will be very few dry eyes in the house.
We are, all of us, the product of our life experiences, of the
community that supports us, and of the will we carry to press on. Josh
Speidel is a remarkable young man. At the packed gym tomorrow night,
there is going to be an emotional and vibrant celebration.
Josh, from the floor of the U.S. Senate, I congratulate you on a
recognition so richly deserved.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record an article from the Burlington Free Press highlighting Josh's
journey, dated March 1, 2020.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Burlington Free Press, Mar. 1, 2020]
UVM's Josh Speidel and His Remarkable Journey Set for Emotional Stage
on Senior Night
(By Alex Abramif)
Fruit was a big part of Josh Speidel's diet when he first
arrived at the University of Vermont in the summer of 2016.
``He just loved bananas, it was his main food,'' said
Everett Duncan, Speidel's dorm roommate that year, ``I'm
personally OK with bananas, but I was wondering, `Where are
we getting all these fruit flies?' And at the time Josh was
leaving them in this little trash can that he had on the
right side of his desk.''
A brief argument ensued.
``I was like, `You are not eating bananas in here anymore,
just keep it at the dining hall,' '' Duncan recalled. ``But
then I realized that I'm yelling at this man for eating
bananas. It's funny now when we think about it.''
The next year, Speidel roomed with another teammate, Ben
Shungu. The duo would take advantage of the 5-minute walk
from their University Heights dorm to Patrick Gym, routinely
setting the alarm clock before 6 a.m. for workouts. Most
mornings the UVM men's basketball players had the gym to
themselves.
On one end of the court, there was Shungu working on his
jumper with a shooting machine. And on the other end, there
was Speidel putting up layups and doing his exercises.
``We would get up and do our thing,'' Shungu said.
Fast-forward to the past two years: Speidel moved into an
off-campus house with Duncan, Shungu and the rest of his
upperclassmen teammates on the UVM men's basketball team, the
sort of thing college student-athletes everywhere do.
Except none of it was guaranteed for Speidel when he
stepped onto the Burlington campus in 2016.
Already committed and signed with the Catamounts when he
was a senior at Columbus North High School in Indiana,
Speidel was in a car accident on Super Bowl Sunday in 2015--
one that caused a traumatic brain injury, left him in a coma
for weeks and nearly took his life.
The 6-foot-8, 215-pound star forward went from averaging
25.6 points and 9.3 rebounds a game to learning how to walk
and talk again. Basketball, his passion, remained a guiding
light on his road to recovery, on his path back to being an
independent person.
``It's unbelievable what's he's gone through,'' Shungu
said. ``To see him stand on his own two feet and just living
his life--it's just incredible, an incredible story.
``His story definitely inspires.''
And more than five years after that accident, Speidel will
finally fulfill a dream he's had since he was a little kid:
Play in a Division I college basketball game.
The Catamounts' senior night on Tuesday has afforded
Speidel the chance to suit up and start for the first and
only time in his career. In a pre-game arrangement, Speidel
and Albany, UVM's opponent, will trade baskets after the
opening tip. Then Speidel will exit, surely to a lengthy
standing ovation from the Vermont faithful.
``I didn't get to experience my senior night in high
school, I didn't get to walk out with my parents,'' Speidel
said. ``I don't think it's hit me fully yet, but just being
able to walk them out and embrace them and thank (my
parents), thank coach (John Becker) for all he's done--it
will be pretty emotional. It's hard to put into words.
``For four years I've been hearing the starting lineup and
I've always envisioned my name said. I think that'll be
something.''
Speidel's parents, Dave and Lisa, have also waited--and
hoped--for a day like this to arrive.
``It's a moment we believed would happen. We never wanted
Josh to give up,'' Lisa Speidel said. ``Without basketball,
Josh wouldn't be where he is. Without UVM, Josh wouldn't be
where he is.''
Determination, faith drive recovery
About six months after the accident, a doctor's evaluation
didn't forecast a favorable outcome for Speidel's reading
comprehension.
``He said Joshua wouldn't be above a fourth-grade level,
ever,'' Lisa Speidel said.
``I told him that you are not going to tell Joshua that and
he agreed,'' she said. ``I still have those results in an
envelope, but I have yet to open it.''
Not long after that, Josh Speidel began an online course at
a community college and started seeing noticeable gains in
his recovery.
``Things really started clicking for Joshua then, it was
really amazing,'' Lisa Speidel said. Positivity was a must.
There was no room for negative vibes or prognoses that
didn't align with the Speidels' confidence for a full
recovery.
Josh Speidel and his parents also relied on their religious
beliefs for strength and direction.
``Faith has always been instrumental in my well-being and
having that relationship with God has always been first in my
life,'' Josh Speidel said. ``Sticking with that through the
ups and downs, my parents never wavered in their faith, they
never took a step back and questioned God. Seeing how they
handled it, I think helped me and continues to help me.''
Becker, in his ninth year as bench boss of the Catamounts,
flew out to Indiana during a snowstorm just a couple days
after Speidel's accident. Becker told the Speidels that their
son had a scholarship waiting for him when he was ready (the
NCAA later granted UVM a scholarship waiver).
``You could see the qualities that made him a great player,
just really determined and hardworking and competitive,''
Becker said. ``He's just a wonderful person off the court and
takes time with people.
``Only a special person can come as far as he has in just a
couple years.''
UVM has reached the NCAA Tournament twice, produced the
America East Conference's first unbeaten season and garnered
the league's top seed in four straight seasons during
Speidel's time in Burlington--achievements Becker believes
are forever tied to Speidel.
``I told Josh that the (four) years he's been here are the
best years of this program's history arguably. I don't think
that's a coincidence,'' Becker said. ``It's hard to know why.
I just think there's something that you can't really explain
and you don't know what it is, but there's something there--
he's been in some way a big part of it and he'll always be
linked to this program's history in my mind.''
Speidel continues to inspire UVM team
UVM associate head coach Kyle Cieplicki was the lead
recruiter on getting Speidel to commit to UVM back in Aug.
2014. Cieplicki spent about a year on the recruitment trail
of a rising star from a hoops-crazed state who was fielding
more than a dozen D-1 offers and had drawn interest from Mark
Few of Gonzaga.
``We've never recruited a kid harder than when we recruited
Josh. He went on a limb
[[Page S1243]]
to choose us,'' Cieplicki said. ``His commitment was really
special to me and the rest of the staff.''
The accident and how Speidel approached his life on a daily
basis revealed a side Cieplicki had yet to see.
``He's shown me and all of us how to handle adversity,''
Cieplicki said. ``To have to work as hard as he did to get
back and then to deal with the emotional component, the
mental component of physically not being what he once was and
to see him deal with that every day and maintain his work
ethic and work habits--that's the biggest inspiration.
``A lot of things have changed for him but it's never
allowed him to slow down.'' While senior night can't replace
a playing career that didn't come to fruition, Speidel can
soak in the achievement of earning this moment in front of
hometown fans.
``To see him out there and participating, it's going to be
a crazy thing,'' Everett Duncan said.
Duncan's the lone player left on the team when Speidel was
honored before a Jan. 2016 game vs. Stony Brook. Duncan said
his fellow Indiana native continues to motivate the
Catamounts.
``I think he's meant everything. I know that every single
guy in the locker room wants him to play,'' Duncan said.
``There are days we see him on the sidelines watching every
single second of practice. For some of us like Benny, Anthony
and me, we've known him for such a long time, he's one of our
best friends.
``Even now, this is our last go-round, Josh is with us.
He's more a part of this senior class than me or Anthony.
He's a big part of this senior class who's done a lot for
us.''
Speidel will graduate in May
Driven to return to the game he loves, Speidel came to
grips with one harsh reality: He wasn't going to play
basketball for UVM. Though that didn't make it any easier to
accept.
``It's a tough question but I've battled with that for a
while. Obviously, I'm OK with that I'm not able to play and
I'm not back to where I was,'' Speidel said. ``That was a
tough pill to swallow, but when I think about all that I've
gained, maybe I didn't get back to playing, but I'm still
bettering myself by working out every day and being in the
best shape physically and basketball has helped me with
that.''
Speidel put his focus and much of his energy into his
classes and becoming more independent away from school. He
learned to cook for himself--a crockpot came in handy--and
manage his money.
And when it came to living off campus, it was Speidel who
pushed for it.
``I told my parents that I just wanted to test myself. I
wanted to see if I was able to take care of myself,'' Speidel
said.
In school, Speidel has earned a 3.40 grade-point average,
the highest on the team, through an individualized major in
education and social services. He also has a double minor in
behavior change and coaching.
``Josh has always had a knack for working with kids and
relating to kids. To see that more amplified after his
accident is just awesome,'' said Lisa Speidel, an elementary
school principal.
Speidel will graduate this May--in four years' time. How
remarkable is that?
Speidel shied away from praising himself.
``It's kind of hard to say that for myself because I'm
living it. But I love when people say, `Oh Josh, you've come
so far' or `Josh, you are walking so much better,' '' Speidel
said. ``It's those little things that go such a long way and
it gives me a sense that all this hard work is doing
something.''
The network of support at UVM--from academic advisors,
teachers, teammates, coaches and athletic trainers--hasn't
been lost on Speidel and his mother.
``I can't put into words how thankful and how blessed and
lucky I am,'' Speidel said.
Lisa Speidel: ``We love UVM and everything they have meant
and done for us. It's amazing.''
Josh Speidel is 24 years old. He said he could write a book
of all the things he's been through and learned over the last
five years. If anything stood out above it all, if there was
anything Speidel wanted others to absorb from his story, it
was this: Don't give up on your dreams.
``I tell this to people: Always have an end goal in your
head and chase after it as hard as you can,'' Speidel said.
``And whenever you need help, ask the people around you
because I think there are more people than you think who are
there to help you.
``I've held on to that and really tried to live by that.''
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to do this because in an era where
we hear so much bad news, it is wonderful to hear inspiring news. This
is an inspiring young man. I congratulate him and the University of
Vermont for what they have done.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I note that somebody else is not waiting
to speak. When somebody does, I, of course, will yield the floor.
Coronavirus
Madam President, I want to bring my colleagues up to date on where my
head is as vice chairman of Appropriations. All of us worked very hard
throughout the weekend and all last week--Republicans and Democrats
together--along with our counterparts in the other body.
Each one of us looks with some trepidation to the latest report on
the virus attacks, including the serious ones in the United States, and
the deaths that have occurred around the world. We are trying to put
together an appropriations bill that will give our administration the
tools they need to protect America and to help our allies, not only to
protect us from having what has come to our shores but what is already
in our shores, the coronavirus--that we be able to protect Americans
from it.
I want to compliment those who have been working on it in both
parties. As often happens in the Appropriations Committee, we pretty
well leave our labels at the door. We work together--both Republicans
and Democrats--to get a good bill. I urge both the majority leader and
the Democratic leader that, once we have it and as soon as the House
acts, there will be an appropriations bill. They will go first, but we
move very quickly.
Frankly, when I look at the dangers facing America, I am perfectly
willing to stay here throughout the weekend, if need be, as many of us
did last weekend, to get this passed and on the President's desk. We
are not Republicans or Democrats in this matter. We are Americans, and
we are U.S. Senators. The Senate has so often set the standards for the
rest of the country. We can do it here. I hope that as soon as we can
vote on this, we will.
I commend Senator Shelby. He is the chairman of the committee. I am
the vice chairman of the committee. We have worked together. I also
commend all the other Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who
have worked with us.
I hope this body will be able to vote, ideally this week--if not this
week, the very first part of next week. This is an important matter.
Cancel the weekend, if need be. Stay here and get it done.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Texas Independence Day
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, today is Texas Independence Day. One
hundred eighty-four years ago today, Texans declared our independence--
declared our independence from Mexico and fired a shot for liberty that
was heard around the world.
As I have a number of years in the past, I am going to read the
letter from the Alamo that LTC William Barret Travis wrote calling for
help. It is a letter that energized the Texans across our great State,
that energized lovers of liberty. It is also a letter that I read the
very first time I spoke on this Senate floor, and these are words to
inspire everyone.
Commandancy of the Alamo
Bejar, Feby. 24th, 1836
To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens & compatriots--
I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under
Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment &
cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has
demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison
are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, & and our flag still
waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or
retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of
patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to
come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or
four thousand in four or five days. If this call is
neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as
possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due
to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death.
William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Comdt.
P.S. The Lord is on our side--When the enemy appeared in
sight we had not three bushels of corn--We have since found
in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels & got into the walls 20
or 30 head of Beeves.
Travis
[[Page S1244]]
The brave men and women of the Alamo gave their lives for liberty.
But shortly thereafter, in the Battle of San Jacinto, the Texans were
victorious, and the Republic of Texas was formed, an independent nation
from 1836 to 1845. For 9 years, we were our own nation. Then Texas
joined the United States of America. We are proud Americans, but we are
proud of the history of the brave Texans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The senior Senator from Alaska.
S. 2657
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here on the floor this afternoon
because we will very shortly have a vote on the motion to proceed to S.
2657. This is the vehicle for our bipartisan American Energy Innovation
Act.
I am here today to kick things off and just let colleagues know some
of the highlights of this measure that my colleague and ranking member
on the Energy Committee, Senator Manchin, and I have been working on
for some time. When I say ``some time,'' I think those here in the
Senate know that when you take up substantive energy bills, whether
they are focused on energy or whether they are focused on lands, we
spend a lot of time giving good committee process to bring these
matters to the floor.
The measure that we have in front of us is the American Energy
Innovation Act. You will hear it referred to by its acronym, AEIA,
which makes you want to do a joke about the vowels--a, e, i, o, u, and
sometimes y. I can give you that, but I am not going to do that today.
The reality is that we have been working on energy reform now for
almost a dozen years. Twelve years is a long time, since we have last
refreshed and updated our energy policies. This act contains priorities
from more than 60 Members of the Senate. So to suggest that it is a
bipartisan bill--it is more than bipartisan. It has Republican
priorities and Democratic priorities and priorities from urban and
rural areas. It is a package that really does help move the ball
forward when we think about energy and energy innovation and energy
security.
I want to extend my particular thanks to my good friend and ranking
member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Manchin
of West Virginia. He is going to be on the floor in just a couple of
minutes to speak, as we take up this motion to proceed. From the start
of this Congress, he and I have really been focused on modernizing our
Nation's energy policies, and this bipartisan package that we have
assembled will do just that. So, again, I credit my ranking member.
I also credit the great work that both of our teams have brought to
this very important national discussion. It has been a long process but
one where I think Members will look critically at the package that is
in front of them and realize that we have worked hard to address what
more we could be doing to modernize our energy policy.
I have been framing this American Energy Innovation Act into two
buckets, if you will--innovation and security. Innovation includes
everything from the renewables to vehicle technologies, to carbon
capture utilization, to efficiency. Then you have the security side,
which is the security of your supply chain and what that means to make
sure you have access to minerals that allow you to build out your
renewable energy projects. You view that security from a defense
perspective. How do we ensure that our grids are secure and modernized
and, again, secure from the perspective of economic security, when we
ensure good jobs for Americans, from Alaska to Arkansas.
So our bill promotes energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy
storage--this is what so many of us have been speaking about for so
long--advanced nuclear, industrial and vehicle technologies, carbon
capture utilization and storage.
We review a number of broad-based support programs, including
weatherization assistance. In so many of our communities, especially in
our cold States, which we are thinking about right now--but also during
the summer months, when it is hot--weatherization assistance programs
are a key for so many of the people whom we work for.
We also renew ARPA-E. ARPA-E is that innovation hub within the
Department of Energy that has really helped to build out so much in
energy innovation.
We have also included timely provisions to strengthen our Nation's
mineral security and cyber security, as we modernize the electric grid
and bolster workforce development.
What we have worked to build are consensus policies that will help
this country maintain its status as a global energy leader--and we are
a global energy leader.
We also want to ensure that we are providing affordable energy for
our families and businesses and know that all of this helps to
strengthen our national security and increase our global
competitiveness.
These policies will also lead to the development of low- and zero-
emissions technologies that will help us address climate change and
protect our environment.
Now, you are going to have some people who might say: Well, this
measure doesn't solve climate change. You haven't worked to reduce
emissions to zero.
I will stand before you and acknowledge that is the case, but what we
are doing is recognizing that this is a necessary first step to update,
to refresh, and to modernize energy policies that haven't seen an
upgrade, if you will, in a dozen years, and to help incentivize these
technologies that will get us to that cleaner energy future and really
allow for a level of transition that will help protect the environment.
These are the steps that we are taking today to focus on innovation in
the energy space and the security of supply, economic security for the
workforce, and physical security, when it comes to our energy grids.
The American Energy Innovation Act is a good bill. You are going to
hear me say that a lot this week. It is a good bill. It was developed
the right way, through regular order--something that we don't see often
enough around here. It is one of those things that the Energy Committee
has developed a reputation for--using regular order--and we will see
that regular order demonstrated here on the floor.
This measure deserves to advance through the legislative process and
to become law. We have an opportunity to legislate in a meaningful way
for the American people. I think all of us have a little bit of pent-up
energy, if you will, to get to legislating. We will have that
opportunity in just a little bit.
I would strongly encourage every Member to vote in favor of the
motion to proceed to this important legislation.
Mr. President, I see that my friend, the Senator from West Virginia,
the ranking member, has come to the floor. I know he is going to give
more extended remarks about the measure, speaking to some of the
priorities.
After we complete the vote here in about 15 minutes on the motion to
proceed, I will have an opportunity to speak more fully about some of
the details, but, again, I want to repeat, while my friend is here with
me, that this opportunity to really shape legislation in a space that
is so needed is one that he embraced from the minute he assumed the
role as ranking member. The two of us asked: What is it that we can
build?
We are not interested in messaging. We are not interested in having
hearings to have hearings for hearings' sake. We are interested in
making a difference when it comes to our Nation's policy, and I think
that we have done it. We have done it because of a good, cooperative
process. So I want to thank my colleague.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, before my colleague leaves, I want to
thank the Senator from Alaska, my chairman, for all the hard work,
because it has been a labor that both of us have worked on together. It
is something our country needs very desperately, and it is something
that we have been working on for some 12 or 13 years. So the time has
come.
With that, I am pleased that we are starting the process of turning
to the American Energy Innovation Act, which last year Senator
Murkowski and I kicked off in the 116th Congress with a hearing on the
outlook of energy innovation.
[[Page S1245]]
Over the course of the last 14 months, we have heard from experts who
have come before the committee to testify on the importance of
advancing a broad range of technologies. Where we stand today, we have
no silver bullet to solve the problems that we face--namely,
maintaining our affordable, reliable energy and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, while also making sure that hard-working families and
communities are not left behind.
It is for this reason that I say we need to innovate, not eliminate.
I repeat that--innovate, not eliminate. There is a misconception that
all these emissions are coming from just the power industry, just one
source. It is all we hear about. It is not true.
The facts are these: In 2017, the power sector was responsible for
27.5 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The power industry--
coal-fired powerplants and natural gas plants now are determined--was
responsible for 27\1/2\ percent. Twenty-nine percent of our emissions
come from transportation. How we come to work and what we use in
everyday life--29 percent comes from that. Twenty-two percent comes
from industry--the jobs that we do, the industries we have that we
need, jobs that are provided, and the products they produce. Then 11\1/
2\ percent was commercial and residential sectors--the buildings we are
in, commercial and residential, but basically a lot of government
buildings.
With that in mind, we focused on an ``all of the above'' approach. We
didn't leave any rock unturned. Our bill will help reduce emissions in
all of these sectors, except for agriculture. Agriculture represents
about 9 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, and that was not in
our jurisdiction.
Innovation is a critical step to help us reliably meet tomorrow's
energy needs while reducing emissions, not just in our energy sector
but also in industry, buildings, and vehicles. We all know greenhouse
gas emissions are a global issue, and investing now in these
technologies will position the United States as a global leader and
maintain our competitive edge.
It is time to seek practical solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions and find ways to ensure that our energy sector, the
environment, and workers can all benefit. Once we vote to proceed to S.
2657, we will be laying down the American Energy Innovation Act of 2020
as a substitute amendment. This legislation brings together the strong,
bipartisan work of our committee over the past year and draws from 53
bills. And I will repeat--39 of those are bipartisan. Once it is
enacted, it will provide the first comprehensive Senate energy policy
update in 13 years.
This bill represents an important downpayment on research and
development at the Department of Energy for a range of technologies to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it would advance innovative
technologies that can help us reduce emissions across sectors of the
economy that account for 90 percent of current U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions.
This piece of legislation will put us on the path to reduce 90
percent of the current greenhouse gas emissions. That includes energy
storage, renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon capture, advanced
nuclear, vehicles, and provisions to help get those technologies out of
DOE and into the market.
As I have said before, there is no silver bullet, and this bill alone
will not solve climate change, but it is critical. It is a critical
step in the right direction, not just here in the United States but
also for the rest of the world. I am going to take a few minutes to
touch on a few of these now.
Let me start with our existing zero-carbon, baseload generation,
nuclear. Unfortunately, the U.S. nuclear industry has been losing
ground to international competitors, especially those with state-funded
nuclear programs like China and Russia. That is why I worked with
Senator Murkowski to create a robust R&D program that will develop new
technologies to not only usher in a new era of nuclear but also reduce
the operating costs of the current nuclear fleet that will be required
to operate into the middle of this century if we as a nation are to
meet our emission-reduction objectives.
We also included my EFFECT Act, which invests in research and
development and, just as importantly, demonstration and deployment for
each aspect of carbon capture, utilization, and storage. This includes
coal and natural gas technologies, utilization, storage, and even
atmospheric CO2 removal.
Fossil fuels are projected to continue to be a significant source of
electric generation in the near future, not just here in the United
States but around the world. We need to get ahead of the curve and
invest in the technologies that will allow us to continue using them
but in the cleanest way possible so we are reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
We also included provisions to target industrial emissions that are
particularly hard to get to with existing technologies.
With all of this, we need to continue to create quality jobs in this
transitioning energy landscape. All of these provisions will protect
and create jobs while addressing carbon emissions--a win-win for
communities in West Virginia and rural communities across this country.
The American Energy Innovation Act also covers a lot of territory
when it comes to renewable energy, from the skies and hilltops to the
rivers and oceans. The bill includes incentives for small hydropower
facilities and an expansion of the Department of Energy's work on
marine renewable energy. It also tackles expanding geothermal energy
beyond the Western States.
Lastly, the energy package reauthorizes two incredibly successful
programs at DOE that have already helped transform our energy landscape
in large and small ways; that is, wind and solar technologies. The bill
focuses these programs on new materials, enhanced efficiency in design
and operation, and their full life cycle from manufacturing to
recycling. I want to make sure these clean energy technologies are
aiding the grid and the communities that need distributed or microgrid
connections to them from Alaska to Puerto Rico.
Of course, storage is a key enabling technology for a low-carbon,
modern grid that will help us achieve our emission reductions and
address climate change all while keeping energy reliable and
affordable. Our bill builds on DOE's existing energy storage R&D
efforts but with additional focus on advancing long-duration energy
storage technologies and with a fivefold increase in authorizations
from current levels.
The bill will also help to shore up our supply chain of critical
minerals because we are currently depending on imports from other
countries--namely China--for many of the mineral commodities required
to manufacture everyday items like our phones, security assets like
satellites, and emissions-reducing technology like electric vehicles
and wind turbines.
It is important to strike the right balance between supply chain
concerns and environmental stewardship, and I appreciate Senator
Murkowski working with me to remove a provision that was concerning to
some in our caucus and outside groups.
Of course, the energy package also has a robust energy efficiency
title that would promote efficiency in commercial and public buildings,
homes, industry, and the Federal Government.
Energy efficiency really is the low-hanging fruit, and 40 percent of
the Nation's energy is consumed in buildings. I will repeat that
again--40 percent of the Nation's energy is consumed in buildings. The
Department of Energy estimates that efficiency improvements can save
U.S. consumers and businesses 741,000 gigawatt hours of electricity
between 2016 and 2035, which is equal to 16 percent of electricity use
in 2035. We can reduce the amount of demand by 16 percent while not
deterring quality of life.
Multiple studies have shown that energy efficiency is cheaper than
investing in any other type of new generation. It is truly the cheapest
kilowatt. It is also readily available. There are lots of opportunities
to improve efficiencies in buildings, industry, and transportation.
These investments in policy changes can and will have a real,
positive impact on the lives of everyday Americans while saving both
energy and money. I call that a win-win, which we don't have many of.
I hope we have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to add
voluntary building codes back into the efficiency title of this bill,
both to help
[[Page S1246]]
consumers save on energy bills and to really advance carbon savings.
Finally, the electric grid is undergoing a rapid transformation. It
is becoming more complex, more flexible, and more diverse in terms of
energy resources. That means we have to continue focusing on shoring up
our vulnerabilities and anticipating future weaknesses in the ever-
changing environment.
Our bill supports investments in programs that are of vital
importance to securing and protecting our critical energy
infrastructure. As I said before, this bill represents a critical step
in the right direction. I believe this package is well balanced with
many of my colleagues' priorities on both sides of the aisle. It is
truly a bipartisan bill. It represents a true effort. I thank Chairman
Murkowski and the other members of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee for their work over the last 14 months to provide the basis
of this package.
I encourage my fellow Members to vote yes today, and I look forward
to working with you this week on this important piece of legislation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 357, S. 2657, a bill to support
innovation in advanced geothermal research and development,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Steve Daines, Bill
Cassidy, John Barrasso, Martha McSally, Deb Fischer,
Richard C. Shelby, John Hoeven, Thom Tillis, John
Thune, Pat Roberts, Richard Burr, Mike Rounds, Shelley
Moore Capito, Roy Blunt, Mike Crapo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 357, S. 2657, a bill to support
innovation in advanced geothermal research and development, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas. (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from
Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Leahy
Loeffler
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--3
Lee
Paul
Schatz
NOT VOTING--13
Cornyn
Graham
Inhofe
Jones
Klobuchar
McSally
Rounds
Sanders
Sinema
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 3.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, here we are; we have successfully voted
to proceed to S. 2657, which is our vehicle for the American Energy
Innovation Act. We are now at the point that many of us have been
waiting for for some time; that is, the opportunity to debate, to offer
amendments, and to pass this measure, hopefully on a strong bipartisan
basis.
I want to encourage all Members to look at the bill that is now
before us and to ask those questions and look at how, with this update
to our energy policies, we will be moving forward with innovation; we
will be moving forward with energy security, grid modernization, cyber
security, workforce security. We are at a good place this evening.
As I mentioned in my very brief remarks before the vote, it has now
been more than 12 years--more than a dozen years--since Congress
enacted comprehensive legislation to update our energy laws. When you
think about what has happened in a time period of a dozen years--12
years ago, we didn't have iPads. Twelve years ago we weren't even
thinking about this shale revolution and what that would mean to
America, turning us into an energy superpower. Over the course of 12
years, the costs of renewable resources have come down dramatically.
New technologies are emerging.
What hasn't kept pace are our policies. When they don't keep pace, we
miss out on opportunities to further our energy leadership, and we are
failing to adequately address what I think are some very significant
challenges.
That is why the innovation package that Senator Manchin and I have
put forward is so important at this time. What we are seeking to do is
to modernize our energy laws to ensure that we remain a global energy
leader. We seek to keep energy affordable, to strengthen our security,
and to increase our competitiveness. We do all of this while making our
energy cleaner and cleaner, to protect the environment and to reduce
the impacts of climate change. Within this measure--this American
Energy Innovation Act--we have included more than 50 related measures
that reflect the priorities of more than 60 different Senators.
What we have done is gone through this committee process, and, as I
mentioned, it has been a very robust, very thorough committee process.
We have arranged these 50-some-odd measures into two titles. The first
is focused on technological innovation, and the second title is focused
on security and workforce development.
Starting with the first title, which is innovation, we really start
with the first fuel. First fuel is energy efficiency, which has
tremendous potential to lower energy bills and to meet growing demand.
We certainly know and understand that in a place like Alaska, a cold
State. It helps our families, our businesses, and the environment alike
when we can be more efficient in our energy consumption.
I think we recognize that efficiency is often the easiest and often
the cheapest option. That is why, within our bill, we take steps--
reasonable steps--to improve the efficiency of everything from schools
to data centers.
I mentioned also that we will renew vital programs like
Weatherization Assistance. Again, that is so key to so many in States
that are cold or very warm in the summertime.
The second subtitle in the bill is focused on renewable energy. When
you think about what has happened in the
[[Page S1247]]
energy sector in a 12-year period, the progress we have made with
renewable energy is remarkable. With this provision, we focus on
resources like wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, marine, and
hydrokinetic energy, which offer the potential of virtually unlimited
energy. Again, as I mentioned, the costs of these technologies have
come down in recent years. What we aim to do with our bill is to keep
that going so that as we make our energy cleaner and more renewable, it
is also more affordable.
The third subtitle in the innovation package focuses on energy
storage. We talk a lot about energy storage, and folks look at that as
being the holy grail. It really is critical to overcoming the
variability of certain renewable resources.
I want to recognize a colleague, my friend here, Senator Collins,
from the State of Maine. She has been a real leader on this issue. We
have taken her legislation and called it the Better Energy Storage Act,
the BEST Act. We took the BEST Act and included four other bipartisan
bills, all focused on storage, to advance these technologies.
Another subtitle within the innovation space is carbon capture,
utilization, and storage--technologies that reduce, and even eliminate,
greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas plants. Within this
subtitle, we reflect both the EFFECT Act, which was sponsored by
Senator Manchin, as well as the LEADING Act from Senators Cornyn and
Cassidy, and this will help us build on the work that Congress has done
to promote CCUS through the Tax Code.
Another area of great focus within the bill is nuclear energy, which
is clearly our largest source of emissions-free energy. Here in this
country, we created nuclear energy. American ingenuity created nuclear
energy, but conventional reactors are closing. What has happened is we
have ceded our global leadership in recent decades. Through my Nuclear
Energy Leadership Act, called NELA, the Nuclear Energy Renewal Act from
Senator Coons, as well as the Integrated Energy Systems Act from
Senator Risch, we seek to restore that leadership for next-generation
reactor concepts.
We also support innovation and smart manufacturing for industrial and
vehicle technologies, which will help create good jobs in America's
heartland. These are some of the toughest sectors for emissions
reductions. So in this space, particularly, innovation is really key.
I want to thank our colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse,
who just left the floor, for his leadership on the Clean Industrial
Technologies Act.
The last part of our first title will provide updated direction and
authority to the Department of Energy, which is really at the heart of
Federal efforts to promote energy innovation. To give a couple of
examples here, we renew the popular ARPA-E program, and we improve the
Office of Technology Transitions.
Then the second title of the bill is more broadly focused on security
and workforce development. We start off with focusing on supply chain
issues as they relate to minerals themselves. I have included the
American Mineral Security Act, which recognizes that our foreign
mineral dependence is really our Achilles' heel. Right now in the
United States, we import at least 50 percent of 46 minerals, including
100 percent of 17 of them.
What we have seen is a foreign dependence that has grown
significantly over the recent years. What we seek to do is to take some
real steps to reverse that and rebuild our domestic supply chain. If we
can do that, everyone from our military to our manufacturers will
benefit.
When we think about the securities space, we also have to focus on
cyber security. We all understand a successful cyber attack against our
Nation's critical infrastructure, including the electric grid, could
have devastating and far-reaching consequences. To guard against that,
we provide new mechanisms and incentives to protect our cyber security
and modernize the domestic grid.
Then again, when we think about security, we think about economic
security through good jobs. We recognize the importance of a well-
trained, highly skilled workforce. That is essential to our ability to
produce energy, to develop clean technologies, rebuild our domestic
supply chain, and ultimately remain a global energy superpower.
To address workforce challenges, we have incorporated several bills
from colleagues that will meet the needs of companies and our national
labs alike. We are going to focus almost all of the debate on title I,
``Innovation,'' and title II, ``Security.''
Title III is really my favorite. It is the last title. We call it
``Cleaning up the Code.'' That is not very fancy, but we are working to
repeal a number of sections of law that are either duplicated by the
American Energy Innovation Act or simply outdated. We don't do this
often enough. We need to take the old stuff off the books. There are
reports that are no longer required that are parts of provisions of law
that are just not in place; yet somebody out there still does the
reports because we haven't taken them off the books. Let's get rid of
things that are redundant or outdated.
We repeal old studies. One of the items that we repeal is a
requirement for motorists to purchase at least $5 worth of gas; we
actually have on the books a requirement that motorists have to
purchase at least $5 when you go to the fuel tank. We are getting rid
of that.
We have some other provisions in there that we believe are no longer
needed. We did this very carefully. It was not just quickly going
through things. We checked with the Department of Energy during both
the last administration and this one to ensure they agree these are
outdated or duplicative.
As proud as I am of the substance of our innovation package, I am
equally proud of the process that we followed to put it together. I
mentioned earlier that, on the Energy Committee, we developed somewhat
of a reputation for doing things the old-fashioned way, through regular
orders, spending some time in committee, and really trying to build
consensus products so that, when we can come to the floor, we have
measures that enjoy broad support from both sides of the aisle.
I think our bill is a textbook example of the benefits of working
together across the aisle in a regular order process. It is not quick
to do it this way. This is the result of a full year's worth of
hearings, business meetings, and bipartisan negotiations. I think that
it shows what is possible when we focus on what most of us agree on,
rather than those things that will serve to divide us.
I am certainly aware that, even with the strong vote that we just had
to move to proceed to this bill, not all Members plan to support the
measure. Some think it has gone too far; others think it doesn't do
enough. I heard from Members who want to add energy tax provisions. I
will have an opportunity to have that discussion, but I will remind
colleagues that, when we originate here in the Senate--if there are any
tax measures--that results in a blue slip from the House and
effectively kills our bill. This is too good a bill to kill.
A few would like to reduce its authorization levels, while others
would have us multiply them by 10 times. I think by doing either of
this, what you lose is the balance that we have worked very hard to
achieve with this.
Last point I am going to raise--and just very briefly because I will
have plenty of time on the floor and I see we have colleagues here. One
criticism I find disappointing is that we are not doing enough in this
bill to tackle climate change. I think what is important for Members to
know is this package, without question, is a good step, a strong step,
a necessary step in the right direction to continue to reduce our
Nation's greenhouse gas emissions.
When you say we need to tackle climate change, you can't get there
without innovation. You can't get there without technology. That is
exactly what this bill promotes. To say that perhaps we should not pass
a good bill because it doesn't go far enough, in my view, is a mistake
that will result in absolutely nothing happening, and that is not good
for anybody.
I am excited to be here. I am proud to be managing a strong bill with
the Senator from West Virginia. It is a strong bill that will benefit
our economy, our security, our competitiveness, and our environment. I
want to thank all the
[[Page S1248]]
Members who have contributed to it and who will help us move this
forward. I think we have a lot to be proud of. I hope that we will have
a productive week in front of us as we begin to work through possible
amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I applaud the work of Senator Murkowski,
who is perhaps uniquely qualified here to find ways of doing bipartisan
work. I applaud her for her efforts on this bill and other things.
Housing
Mr. President, for too many people, hard work isn't paying off. Even
people with supposedly middle-class jobs don't feel stable. Wages are
flat, the cost of everything is up: healthcare, childcare, college,
prescription drugs, and especially housing. When you love this country,
you fight for the people who make it work. You fight for dignity of
work, but you can't talk about dignity of work without tackling the
biggest item in most family's budget: housing.
Dignity of work means living with dignity, whether you write a rent
check or pay a mortgage, whether you are saving for a down payment or
just looking for a safe place to lay down your head at night, whether
you live in a city or a suburb, in Hamilton County where my colleague,
Senator Portman, who is in the Chamber, lives, in Richland County,
where I grew up, a medium-sized city or a rural community.
Fundamentally, we all pretty much want the same thing: a place that
is safe in a community where we care about, where we can get to work
and our children have a chance to have a good school with room for our
family, whether that is three kids, an aging parent, or beloved pet--in
our case, our dogs Franklin and Walter. You should get to define what
home looks like for you. You should be able to find it. You should be
able to afford it without crippling stress every single month when the
rent check is due or when your mortgage payment is due.
People feel like that is out of reach, even when they work hard and
do everything right. Right now, a quarter of renters, one out of four
renters, spend more than half their income on housing. Think of that.
One out of four renters pay more than half of their income on housing.
If one thing goes wrong in their life--their car breaks down, their
child gets sick, they get laid off from work for 1 week, they need to
repair the roof--one thing goes wrong and their life turns upside down.
Seven out of the ten fastest growing jobs in this country don't pay
enough for a two-bedroom apartment. We know housing is central to every
aspect of family's lives.
Matthew Desmond is the author of ``Evicted,'' a book I have spoken
about on this floor in the past and to people all over my State and
around the country. Matthew Desmond's book is ``Evicted.'' I asked him
to come in. I bought his book and brought in a number of Senators to
listen to him. When inscribing his book, he wrote: ``Home equals
life.'' If you don't have a decent, safe, clean, affordable place to
live, your life is so often turned upside down. The housing crisis
affects different families in different ways, but it touches pretty
much everyone.
A safe, stable home is the foundation for opportunity. It determines
where your kids go to school. It determines how far you have to travel
to get to work. It determines where you go shopping. It determines
whether you feel safe walking around at night.
We know where you live, maybe most importantly, affects the quality
of your healthcare. It affects your education, your job opportunities--
where you live affects your life expectancy. Housing stress affects
people with all kinds of jobs in all parts of the country. That is why
I have been holding roundtables all over my State, beginning over the
past 2 weeks, to talk with Ohioans about their struggle with housing
and what we can do to make it easier for everyone to find and afford a
home.
So far, I have done roundtables in Toledo and Youngstown, Western
Ohio, and Eastern Ohio. I heard from Ohioans about the challenges that
too many people face. We heard about how interconnected housing is with
other issues in people's lives. We heard about wages that don't keep up
with the cost of living, how housing instability can affect your stress
levels and your health, and how hard it can be to get financing to buy
a house or start a business in neighborhoods that have been left
behind.
In Youngstown and Toledo, we heard about the power shady landlords
have on tenants and predatory lease-to-own land contracts. People also
talked about how up-front costs aren't just an issue about the down
payment you make on buying a home to get a mortgage, but if you rent,
you often have to have the first month's rent, last month's rent, and a
security deposit. That could be a huge obstacle to so many moderate and
low-income families.
Forty percent--this number is stunning--40 percent of Americans say
they can't come up with $400 in an emergency. Forty percent of
Americans can't come up with $400 in emergency. When it is that hard
for so many people to save, a deposit could seem just impossible.
We can't untangle many of these issues from the legacy of redlining
and decades of bad public policy decisions by Members, I would
acknowledge, from both parties, at all levels of government that have
systemically denied people of color the ability to choose where they
live and build wealth for homeownership.
More than half of African Americans and Latino renters are spending
more than 30 percent of their income on housing. More than half of
people of color spend 30 percent or more on their housing, making them
much more likely to have a high housing cost burdens than White seniors
have had. That means Black and Latino families have less to spend on
healthcare, less to spent on food, less to spend on transportation. It
is not just about differences in income, which are all very real.
More than 50 years after we passed the Fair Housing Act to prohibit
discrimination in housing, African Americans make up 13 percent of the
population, and 21 percent of the people experiencing poverty in this
country are African American, but 40 percent of the people experiencing
homelessness are African American.
Think about that. There are 21 percent of people who are experiencing
poverty, but there are 40 percent of people who are experiencing
homelessness. That tells you this isn't just about income. We have
talked to people who are homeless, but none of us gets out as much as
we should, as President Lincoln said, to get our public opinion bath.
We don't talk to people like that enough, but when we do, we learn that
so many people who are homeless have jobs. The jobs don't pay much, and
they may be part time. People may also cobble together two jobs, but
they are still homeless.
We see the same thing when we look at homeownership. The African-
American homeownership rate is 30 percent below the White homeownership
rate. Analysts have tried to explain this with income and education,
but that doesn't tell the whole story. Something more troubling is
going on. With everything else being equal, similarly situated African
Americans are less likely to own homes than their similarly situated
White counterparts. That is a legacy of redlining, and that is a legacy
of racial exclusion at work. It may be in Arkansas, and it may be in
Ohio. It is all over this country.
From 1934 through 1962--get this--98 percent of all FHA mortgages
went to White homeowners. We were a country that was, probably, 85-87
percent White, but 90 percent of all FHA mortgages went to White
homeowners. That is not just a problem of the past. Housing is how
people build wealth for generations. Yet, with there being millions of
families struggling to afford housing, with the massive disparities and
access to housing, this administration is turning its back on families,
communities, and communities of color.
For 3 years, President Trump has been trying to undermine the Fair
Housing Act of 1968. I spoke about this on the floor last week with
Mitt Romney, the Senator from Utah. Senator Romney's father was
President Nixon's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and he
worked very hard to implement the Fair Housing Act. He made a lot of
progress in 1969 and 1970, but so much of that progress is now being
scaled back. That landmark civil rights law made discrimination of the
[[Page S1249]]
sale, rental, and financing of housing illegal for the first time. It
was supposed to set us on the path of being a country in which everyone
could find a safe, stable home--regardless of one's gender and
regardless of one's race--and have access to opportunity.
Yet, instead of getting us closer, the Trump administration is making
things worse. It is trying to make it harder to root out policies and
practices that have a hidden discriminatory effect on people by its
cutting the decades-old disparate impact standard. The administration
is rolling back the 2015 HUD rule that would have finally implemented
the Fair Housing Act's requirement that we affirmatively further fair
housing throughout our communities.
President Trump's budget will only make the affordable housing crisis
worse for families who are struggling in every community in this
country. The administration would eliminate the funds that communities
use to create and preserve affordable housing and that make
homeownership possible for working families. The Community Development
Block Grant is an example, as is the HOME Investment Partnership
Program.
The administration wants to cut the already insufficient Federal
rental assistance we have. It wants to get rid of the funding for the
housing trust fund and capital magnet fund--even though this funding
comes from the GSEs, the government-sponsored enterprises, and not the
Federal budget--to make it still harder to build homes and apartments
that people can actually afford.
To add insult to injury, the Trump administration proposes to make
mortgages more expensive for working families in order to reduce the
deficit that it created. We know we have trillion-dollar deficits now,
even in times of growth with the economy, because of the tax cut that
went overwhelmingly to the rich. The administration made these
mortgages more expensive for working families in order to reduce the
deficit it created and to supposedly level the playing field for Wall
Street, as if Wall Street doesn't have enough advantages without our
continuing to shovel money to it.
We need to fight back. Any economic policy that doesn't put housing
front and center ignores a family's biggest expense and biggest need.
We see housing problems in Appalachian Ohio or in Toledo or in big
coastal cities or in small towns. It is clear this is a national
problem that needs a national response.
I will keep hosting roundtables around Ohio so as to hear directly
from Ohioans about the struggles they face. I invite Ohioans to go to
my website, Brown.senate.gov, to share their stories about housing.
They can do it with their names attached, or they can do it
anonymously, but we value these stories. We have already gotten
hundreds just out of these two roundtables, and with the attention
around the roundtables, we have gotten hundreds of many heartbreaking
stories and instructive stories and ideas for changes.
We need to hear your struggles, and we need to hear your ideas.
Congress cannot ignore these challenges. Whether people are in small
towns or big cities, we cannot just let the administration take away
the tools that we have and that we have used for years to try to make
this better and to make people's lives better. If we want to make this
country work better for everyone, we cannot shrink from these
challenges. When work has dignity and when people live their lives with
dignity, everyone can find and afford a safe place to call home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Ohio.
S. 2657
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to talk about the
legislation that is now before this body. We just passed the motion to
proceed to the energy legislation, and we just heard about the
legislation from my colleague from Alaska and the Presiding Officer's
colleague from Alaska: Senator Murkowski, who chairs the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. The legislation is a good package.
As she said very well, it both helps in terms of the economy and jobs
and in terms of the environment. Who wouldn't be for that? It also has
a whole series of proposals with which to do it. The ones I am going to
talk about tonight are the energy efficiency proposals that she talked
about. In particular, I am going to talk about a concern I have that
the legislation that was offered tonight took out part of our energy-
efficiency package, which we hope to add later by amendment, but I want
to talk about why it is so important to add it back in.
The legislation on energy efficiency is something I have introduced
with Senator Shaheen, of the great State of New Hampshire, for 9 years
now, going back to 2011. Some of it has gotten passed over time, but
most of it has not, so we are, once again, bringing it up. The
legislation is entitled the Energy Savings and Industrial
Competitiveness Act, which is why we commonly call it Portman-Shaheen,
because it is shorter.
Our legislation has been voted on by this body before. Back in 2016,
it passed the U.S. Senate. It has also passed out of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee five separate times with bipartisan
votes. In 2016, the vote was 85 to 12. Again, it was part of a larger
package at that time.
There is a reason this legislation has received such broad,
bipartisan support over the years. It lowers energy bills, which is a
good thing. It reduces emissions, and it creates new jobs. It does it
all without putting any new mandates on the private sector. It provides
incentives but not mandates, and that is great news for the working
families and businesses, large and small, that I represent.
It accomplishes all this by improving energy efficiency in three key
sectors. One is buildings, commercial buildings and residential
buildings. The second is in the manufacturing sector, the industrial
sector, of our economy. Then the third is with regard to our U.S.
Government.
Residential and commercial buildings, by the way, account for,
roughly, 40 percent of the total U.S. energy consumption, which is why
it is so important we have these sections with regard to buildings.
With regard to our industry sector, manufacturers are excited about
this legislation because it makes them not just more efficient in terms
of energy, but it makes them more competitive globally. That is why the
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers and
other groups are strongly supportive of the legislation, as are well
over 100 businesses.
The Federal Government's part of this bill is also important. Guess
what entity uses the most energy in this country--the Federal
Government. It is the No. 1 consumer of energy in the United States. We
think it is probably the No. 1 consumer in the world. This may not
surprise you, but it is not terribly efficient. Our Federal Government
sometimes preaches to the rest of us to be efficient, but our own
Federal Government is lacking in that.
So this legislation focuses on those three areas and makes a real
difference. It moves the needle, as they say. It makes smart
improvements to energy efficiency across these sectors.
A recent analysis of Portman-Shaheen found that, over the lifetime of
the legislation, the bill will save consumers $51 billion on their
energy bills. It will result in an energy savings that is equivalent to
the total energy use of all U.S. industry in 1 year, and it will reduce
the carbon dioxide emissions--these are CO2 emissions--by
the equivalent of taking nearly 4 million cars off the road every
single year until 2050.
As Senator Murkowski said very well earlier today, this is about
reducing emissions. For those who are concerned about climate change
and who want to reduce emissions, energy efficiency is a great way to
do it--and, by the way, by creating jobs not eliminating jobs. Previous
studies have shown that our legislation will also add more jobs to the
economy. As I say, 100,000 jobs is our estimate.
I must tell you that I am supportive of the package, and I am
supportive of what Senator Murkowski said tonight. My disappointment is
that the underlying legislation we are debating does not include two
provisions in the Portman-Shaheen legislation. Those two provisions are
two of the most important ones, for they result in the energy savings I
talked about, in the additional jobs I talked about, and in the savings
to the taxpayers I talked about.
[[Page S1250]]
The first one is what is known as the SAVE Act. Now, the SAVE Act
allows the energy savings of an energy-efficient home to be considered
when determining the loan amount that a home buyer is qualified for
when he goes to get a mortgage. In other words, it helps to immediately
offset the cost of a more energy-efficient home by recognizing the
reduced energy bill, which is often the second biggest expense a
homeowner will incur after the mortgage payment.
This bipartisan legislation was first authored by our friend and
former colleague Johnny Isakson, along with Senator Michael Bennet, of
Colorado. As a real estate person himself, Johnny championed this
legislation over many years, and I thank him for his efforts. It is in
our Portman-Shaheen bill. I was pleased to work with Senators Isakson
and Bennet and include it in Portman-Shaheen. I am sorry it is not part
of the energy bill tonight, but it is not the only important provision
that has missed the boat on this package.
Another important section of my energy-efficiency legislation that
has been left out of the energy bill is known as the building codes
section. This section focuses on providing best practices on how to
make homes more energy efficient. We know that one of the most
effective ways to ensure that a homeowner's energy bills are affordable
is to build a home that is more energy efficient to begin with.
It is important to note at the outset that the building codes we are
talking about tonight are and will remain under this legislation as
voluntary. You are going to hear that a lot tonight. There are no
mandates in this legislation of any kind for new homes. It is up to
States, local governments, and Tribes to adopt the building codes on
their own that they deem fit for their communities.
In fact, some States have building energy codes. Some States don't.
Some States adopt part of what is called the model code, which we will
talk about in a minute, and some States have no model code at all that
they are going to adopt. In my home State of Ohio, for example, we have
adopted parts of the 2009 model building energy code and parts of the
2012 model building energy code. So, instead of mandates or a heavy-
handed government approach, this provision we are talking about is an
incentive-based, opt-in program that is open, transparent, and cost-
effective.
It is not that the mandates haven't been tried before. Mandated
building energy codes and mandated energy savings were included as part
of the 2009 energy bill that passed out of the House of
Representatives. There was even legislation introduced today over in
the House that would impose mandates. Our legislation does not. It
takes a much more commonsense approach, in my view, and leaves it up to
the States to adopt which, if any, of the model building codes work
best for them.
Some of you might not know that these model building codes for
commercial and residential buildings are developed and updated not
through our government but through an independent organization outside
of the Federal Government. For residential buildings codes, it is
called the International Code Council, or the ICC. Every 3 years, this
group, the ICC, conducts a process to update the residential model
building energy code. Every 3 years, it does it.
During that process, many stakeholders, including industry, builders,
developers, State code officials, and the Department of Energy, can all
weigh in with proposals or amendments. Then they vote to approve the
inclusion of the proposals in the updated code. They all have a vote,
including home builders.
Today, the Department of Energy plays a role in the code development
process just like other stakeholders. It has general authorities to
offer and support proposals and to vote on the proposals. It has the
authority to set targets to reach a certain percentage of energy
savings during a code update. Since 1992, the DOE has had the authority
to provide technical assistance and funding for States, local
governments, and Tribes that want to update their building codes.
So that is the current practice. It is not mandatory. The DOE can set
targets and can provide technical assistance. However, there have been
concerns from some stakeholders that the DOE has not been transparent
enough or has not adequately considered the costs of proposals and
targets. That is why, in this legislation, in addition to codifying
much of what the DOE was already doing, our legislation establishes a
rulemaking process that requires, for the first time, the DOE to work
with States, Tribes, local governments, and other interested
stakeholders to set these energy savings targets in advance of the
model building code update. We require the DOE to do that.
The purpose of the target is to set an energy savings percentage
improvement from one model code to the next. It is intended to be a
benchmark for stakeholders to consider when proposing, supporting, and
voting on amendments, but it is not mandatory.
In response to stakeholders' concerns that the target might not be
cost effective--in other words, that DOE would establish a target that
wasn't cost effective for homebuilders, as an example--or that it
wasn't transparent and that what they were doing wasn't open, our bill
also requires DOE to publish its methodology and provide a ``return on
investment'' analysis, not previously required, and the estimated cost
and savings as a result of the target.
So we are forcing DOE to do much more than they do now--to be more
transparent, to look at the cost benefit here, and to come up with a
cost-effective analysis.
Then, at the end of the day, the target itself is nonbinding on the
model code process. DOE makes a determination on whether the target was
met, and then this group, the ICC, sends their options, which they can
choose to adopt in order to meet the target. They do not have to accept
the changes, nor does this model code have to meet the target. So it is
not mandatory even at that stage. They set a target, but it is not
mandatory for the ICC to adopt it.
It is also important to again note that the proposed model building
code at the end that is ultimately published by the ICC is not an
automatic mandate for new buildings. States are encouraged to take a
look at the new proposed code and to let DOE know that they have
considered the proposed code and determined whether to adopt it or not.
Again, some States adopt it, and some States don't.
So, as you can see, this whole process is one where the
recommendation is made, but it is not mandated.
Just as in the current law today, our bill authorizes DOE to provide
funding and technical assistance to States to incentivize them to
update their code. But, ultimately, the updated code and whether the
States want to consider the updated model code or not is completely
nonbinding and voluntary.
I have heard concerns that our legislation will make new homes
unaffordable. However, DOE's analysis found that, for example, if the
2015 code was fully adopted--so that was the 2015 code we talked about
earlier that Ohio has partly adopted--it would result in a 33-percent
reduction in energy use for that home and cost $2,787 per new home
compared to the 2006 code. So, remember, this is a recent model code,
2015. They do it every 3 years. If it had been fully adopted, it would
result in a 33-percent reduction in energy use for that family, and yet
only an additional cost of $2,787, compared to the previous code.
We also know that these upfront costs are typically financed entirely
by these energy savings through the life of the mortgage, which is
typically 30 years. So you know there is a little more upfront cost,
but a 33-percent reduction in energy use would more than finance that
over the time that the person owned the home.
So, ultimately, our legislation is going to ensure that energy
efficiency features of a home will continue to save homeowners money
throughout the life of the building.
This incentive-based approached to improving energy efficiency in new
buildings has bipartisan support from a broad group of stakeholders. In
particular, my colleagues on this side of the aisle support an
incentive-based approach rather than a mandated approach.
Our legislation has the support of the National Association of
Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. It has the support of commercial and real estate developers,
like BOMA and the
[[Page S1251]]
Real Estate Roundtable. It has the support from efficiency advocates
and the environmental community, like the Alliance to Save Energy, the
ACEEE, NRDC, and the BlueGreen Alliance.
There is not a lot in Washington, DC, these days that has that broad
group of stakeholders--strange bedfellows, you might say--but this bill
does because what we do here makes sense. It doesn't take a heavy-
handed government approach, but it takes an incentive-based approach,
not mandated but providing the information so States, localities, and
communities can make their own decision and can help to ensure that the
best practices out there in energy efficiency are known, and where
people want to use it, they can use it.
If my colleagues are serious about both protecting the environment
and growing the economy and increasing jobs, I believe this is the
right legislation for them and that the voluntary business code
language in the energy bill has to be included.
So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us with
regard to an amendment we plan to offer later in this process to ensure
that we do have the ability to both create jobs, improve the economy,
and improve the environment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________