Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.

We are on the measure again, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, also known as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act--an efficiency bill. This should not be this difficult for us. When we talk about the benefits of an all-of-the-above energy policy--the benefits that can come to us as a nation when we are more resilient with our energy sources, when we are able to access our domestic energy sources, whether they be our fossil fuels, our renewables, or nuclear--we all talk about it in good, strong terms because, quite honestly, energy makes us a stronger nation, having access to our energy resources.

I have defined a good, strong energy policy as one that allows energy to be more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. An energy policy is also about the energy we do not consume. It is about the energy we save because we are more efficient.

It seems we have gotten to a point, at least with some aspects of this discussion, where somehow or other the efficiency side of the energy discussion is a partisan debate; that Republicans do not support energy efficiency. I cannot think of a more conservative principle than conserving energy. This is something we should be embracing, and it is something, in terms of legislation that is sound, that is good to move forward, something that I support.

This bipartisan efficiency bill has been refined. It has been strengthened. It has been improved over the past 3 years. There have been plenty of eyes upon this legislation. There has been plenty of debate about it. We have a total of 13 Senators who are now on board with it, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. So I am pleased we have this legislation back on the floor again.

The last time this legislation came before us was in September. I spoke then about the importance, the relevance to today, the many good reasons the Senate should support it. I am not going to necessarily repeat all of those points this afternoon, but I do want to highlight quickly a couple of the main points.

The first is going directly to the policy side of it. Energy efficiency should be a broader part of our Nation's energy policy. It is good for our economy. It is good for the environment. It enables us to waste less, to use our resources more wisely. Who can object to this? Who could possibly say this is not a good thing we should encourage?

And there is more. Think about what it does to help create jobs and deliver financial benefits. Study after study shows we can save billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency improvements. Whether we are talking about small appliances or large buildings, there are opportunities for gains in efficiencies throughout the system.

The second reason for support of the bill is it envisions a more limited role for the Federal Government. When I think about efficiency, I think the Federal Government should seek to fulfill three key roles. It can act as a facilitator of information that consumers and businesses need. It can serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage or prevent rational efficiency improvements. As the largest consumer of energy in our country, it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce its own energy usage.

This legislation helps us make progress in all of these areas, but it is appropriately tailored as well. It has a number of voluntary provisions. It does not contain any new mandates for the private sector. I think that is worthy of repeating. There are no new mandates in this bill.

When the legislation was first introduced some time ago, there was some concern about impact on building codes. But the provision related to model building codes is voluntary. It is not mandatory. No one has to benefit from it if they do not want to.

The third reason to support the bill is the cost--or, really, the lack of cost. We all know we are operating in a time of high deficits and record debt. The good news is this efficiency bill actually subtracts from our spending rather than adding to it. The CBO has indicated it will yield a modest savings of about $12 million over the 10-year window. Again, this is good from a policy perspective. It is good from a fiscal perspective.

Then the last point is one I want to make in support of process. We have followed regular order, as well as ``regular order'' can be defined around here, but we have done that from the beginning with this legislation. Those of us who serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported it on an overwhelming bipartisan basis back in 2011, and then again in 2013. So it has gone through a fulsome committee process. Improvements were suggested and have been thoughtfully considered and incorporated. Many, many of the ideas are now incorporated in the text we have in front of us.

Then, finally, a few words about the amendments that are being filed to this bill.

When we last had this bill before the Senate, we were unable to reach agreement on amendments. We got bogged down and the bill was pulled from the floor. The Senate moved on to other matters. We are back again now, and I really do not want to see a repeat of that experience. Quite honestly, we do not need to.

It is certainly true a lot of amendments have been filed to the bill. We had more than 100 last September. That should not be evidence that somehow this bill is flawed. But what it recognizes is there is this pent-up demand for a discussion on the issue of energy. There is a pent-up demand to bring forward ideas and concepts and innovation and policy when it comes to energy debate.

It has been more than 6 years since we have had anything more than a brief debate. When you think about what has happened in the energy sector in the past 6 years, I say to the Presiding Officer, you are sitting in the chair coming from a State that has seen an amazing--an amazing--boom when it comes to natural gas production in your State. You have seen technologies come in that are able to access areas where you did not even know you had the resource.

Think about the changes we have seen in the energy sector in 6 years. Six years ago we were talking about building LNG import terminals--terminals so we could bring LNG in from other countries. Now we are pressing the case for greater LNG exports. We are trying to build out more facilities so we can move this abundant resource from our shores to help our friends and allies around the world.

Six years ago, if I had stood on this floor and suggested to you we were going to have a debate about the export of our crude oil from this country, you would have laughed me off the floor. Nobody was talking about it. But look at what is happening, coming out of the Bakken up in North Dakota, what is coming out of Texas and New Mexico and out of California, Colorado, out of States in the Midwest. We are producing like we have not produced in ages. We are doing so because we have the benefit of good, strong technologies that are allowing us to access a resource safely and making sure we are being good stewards of the land while we are doing it, and creating jobs and opportunities.

So when you think about what has happened in 6 years, and the fact that we have not had a real debate and conversation about energy, it is no wonder people want to present amendments. But we are in a situation now where there is real debate about whether we are going to have any amendments at all.

We have been sitting here in the Senate since last July--almost a year--and there have been nine amendments allowed of the Republicans' choosing to be heard, to be entertained, to be taken up on the floor of the Senate.

We are not asking for an unreasonable number. Given everything that is going on in the world, everything that is happening in the energy sector, it is understood why we would want an opportunity to present amendments. But we are not asking for the Moon here. Out of all the amendments filed to the bill, we are seeking votes on four of them. If we were to take just 15 minutes per vote, with a little extra time for statements in support or opposition, we could work those out in an afternoon.

There is no reason we need to stretch this out. Our other option is to spend the next several days arguing about whether we are going to vote at all. We are sent to the Senate to do good work, and this is a venue where the work is demanding attention, so let's get to it.

Let's advance these measures. Let's get to the debate about whether it is LNG export opportunities, whether it is the advantage from many different perspectives about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and about what more we can be doing as a nation to be a world leader with our energy resources, accessing our resources for the good of Americans, the creation of jobs to strengthen our economy, to help our trade deficit, to help our friends, and to help our allies. We can be in a position to do so much more, but we have to be able to get beyond the discussion, the debate about whether we are just going to talk about whether we are going to talk about it or whether we are going to get to it.

I am hopeful that throughout the afternoon, throughout tomorrow, and throughout the balance of the week we will have an opportunity to discuss and to vote on amendments that are energy-related amendments that will help move this country in a more positive direction when it comes to our energy policy and attach that to a fundamental anchor of a good, strong energy policy, which is energy efficiency, and that is what the Shaheen-Portman bill allows us to do.

NATIONAL POLICE WEEK

I want to pivot for a moment and move off the issue of energy efficiency. I wish to speak for a few more minutes this afternoon about National Police Week.

National Police Week is a week to honor our fallen law enforcement officers. It occurs next week. Next week in Washington, DC, we will see police vehicles from all over the Nation. We will see officers in uniform, perhaps some with young kids in tow, flooding the Metro system. The survivors of law enforcement tragedies will gather in Alexandria, VA, for the annual meeting of Concerns of Police Survivors.

On Tuesday night, tens of thousands will gather at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, and they will read by candlelight the names inscribed on the memorial walls this year. On Thursday, the National Peace Officers Memorial Day Service will convene on the west front of the Capitol. These are all very moving tributes to our fallen, those who have served in the line of duty and who honor us all.

For the past 11 years, I have made it a habit of honoring the fallen during National Police Week, regardless of whether any Alaska law enforcement agency suffered a line-of-duty death during that preceding year.

At times I have made note of a sad coincidence, a sad coincidence that law enforcement tragedies in the twos and threes often seem to occur in close proximity to the annual National Police Week observance.

About this time 8 years ago, the National Capital Region was grieving the loss of Michael Garbarino and Vicky Armel, the first Fairfax County police officers to die from gunfire in the line of duty. In April 2009, Pittsburgh lost three of its finest.

This year, as we anticipate the arrival of National Police Week, Alaska carries that tragic burden. Last week my home State lost two members of the Alaska State Troopers in a single incident.

On May 1, Alaska State troopers Sergeant Scott Johnson and Trooper Gabe Rich flew from Fairbanks to the village of Tanana. Tanana is an Athabascan Indian community and there are about 238 people. Tanana sits at the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers. It is a strong community, it is a resilient community, but it is a community that is truly suffering right now.

Similar to most of the Alaska Native villages, the only full-time law enforcement presence in Tanana is a single, unarmed village public safety officer. Law enforcement backup, when they are needed and called in, will fly to Tanana. Tanana is not accessible by roads, so basically the only way in and out is to fly in and out, coming in from Fairbanks, so it is about a 1-hour flight away.

The village public safety officer asked for trooper assistance to respond to an individual who had been waving a gun in the village. With no backup, other than the unarmed village public safety officer, Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich attempted to serve a warrant on the offender. Both officers were shot and killed. The 19-year-old son of the individual who was the subject of the warrant is now charged with the shooting.

This is a horrible tragedy for Tanana, a tragedy for Alaska, and a tragedy for the entire law enforcement community.

Tanana is, as I mentioned, a small village. It is an isolated village. It has been a very resilient village. It is a very proud and a very kind-hearted community. The Athabascan word for Tanana, known as ``Nuchalawoya,'' means ``wedding of the rivers,'' and the village has played a very central role in Athabascan culture for thousands of years.

But like many Alaska Native villages, it suffers from drug and alcohol problems. Last October there was a group of young people from the village of Tanana, and they traveled to the Alaska Federation of Natives convention.

It is the largest gathering of Alaska Natives in the State, and they did a very brave and heroic thing. They assembled on stage in front of 4,000 to 5,000 people to tell Alaskans that they had had enough of the pain and the violence, and they were determined to make their community a healthier place. It was an amazing moment. It was inspiring. There was not a sound to be heard in the huge Carlson Center in Fairbanks as these young people spoke.

So inspiring were the words of these young kids that I wrote Attorney General Holder and I asked that his department invest prevention resources in the village and others like it that were trying to turn things around, trying to face the ugly side of what happens in a small community when we have domestic violence and child sexual assault brought on by drugs and alcohol.

Tanana is absolutely devastated by what happened last week. In the words of Cynthia Erickson, who is the youth leader of the young people I mentioned, last week's incident amounts to two steps back in Tanana's effort to heal itself, but the healing process must begin and now is the time for it to begin.

We remember fallen law enforcement officers for the way they lived their lives. Vivian Eney Cross, who is the widow of a fallen U.S. Capitol police officer, said:

It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived.

In that spirit I wish to share with the Senate a little about the lives of our two fallen Alaskan heroes.

Sergeant Johnson was born in Fairbanks, and he grew up in the small community of Tok, which is 150-plus miles out of Fairbanks on the road system. He went to school in the Tok community, and he was a wrestler. He joined the Alaska State Troopers in 1993 after serving as a North Slope Borough police officer.

Sergeant Johnson spent his entire 20-year trooper career in Fairbanks, where he rose through the ranks to supervise the Areawide Narcotics Team and ultimately the Interior Rural Unit. Sergeant Johnson also was an accomplished canine handler and a leader of the regional SWAT team. We call it SERT in Alaska, the Special Emergency Reaction Team.

His final assignment was leader of the Interior Rural Unit, a team of four who respond to incidents in 23 Native villages. Sergeant Johnson assumed that role this year. His territory covered hundreds of miles end-to-end. Again, these are hundreds of miles without road access.

Sergeant Johnson was 45 years old. He is survived by his wife, daughters aged 16, 14, and 12, and also survived by his parents and siblings.

Trooper Gabe Rich was born in Pennsylvania. He moved to Fairbanks shortly after he was born. He graduated from Lathrop High School in 2006. He was 26 years old at the time of his death.

Trooper Rich spent 4 years working as a patrolman with the North Pole Police Department before deciding to become an Alaska State Trooper in 2011. He is survived by his fiancé, their 1-year-old son, and his parents. He was in the process of adopting his fiancé's 8-year-old boy.

Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich were known to those who watched the popular National Geographic series ``Alaska State Troopers.'' Undoubtedly, those who have watched the two in action are also grieving the loss, along with the people of Tanana and all of Alaska.

I think I speak for all in this body when I say we are shocked and we are saddened by the events in Tanana last week. On behalf of a grateful Senate and a grateful nation, I take this opportunity to extend my condolences to all who held Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich deep in their hearts.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source