{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6909", "2014-12-16", 113, 2, null, null, "UNANIMOUS CONSENTS REQUEST--H.R. 2126", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S6909", "S6911", "[{\"name\": \"Jeanne Shaheen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patrick J. Toomey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Kelly Ayotte\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rob Portman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lisa Murkowski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark L. Pryor\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2126\"}, {\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2126\"}, {\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2126\"}]", "160 Cong. Rec. S6909", "Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S6909-S6911]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                 UNANIMOUS CONSENTS REQUEST--H.R. 2126\n\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here with Senator Portman of Ohio\nto try--I think for about the sixth time--to get energy efficiency\nlegislation passed.\n  Senator Portman and I have been working on legislation called the\nEnergy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act for 4 years now. We\nhave tried to bring it to the floor, and it has been objected to not\nbecause of provisions in the bill but because of extraneous provisions\nthat have people holding it up.\n  Tonight we are again trying to pass a smaller version of that bill.\nIt is H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, which was\npassed out of the House with a strong bipartisan vote of 375 to just\n36. It was sponsored in the House by Representative McKinley from West\nVirginia and Representative Welch from Vermont. Senator Portman and I\nintroduced the same bill here in the Senate a couple of weeks ago.\n  I am going to be asking for unanimous consent that the Senate\nconsider passage of this legislation. Before I do that, it is my\nunderstanding it is going to be objected to again and that Senator\nToomey is here to do that. But I wonder if I could get an answer to a\nquestion from Senator Toomey about what his specific objections are to\nthe legislation.\n  I understand the Tenant Star provision in the bill is what he is\nobjecting to. Yet this would establish best practices, and it would set\nup a voluntary certification system for efficiency and commercial\ntenant spaces. What it does not do is provide financial incentives or\ncreate new regulations. It is a voluntary, market-based, business-\nfriendly approach to encouraging energy efficiency--which is the\ncheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs in this country. It\nis something everybody agrees we should try and do.\n  So I wonder if I can ask my colleague from Pennsylvania if he could\ndescribe his concerns about that provision in the bill.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.\n  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am objecting on behalf of a colleague\nwho is unavoidably detained. So the Senator from New Hampshire will\nhave to take this up with our colleague.\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, in that case, I ask unanimous consent\nthat the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of\nH.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, and the Senate\nproceed to its consideration; that the bill be read a third time and\npassed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon\nthe table with no intervening action or debate.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague who is\nunavoidably detained, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Ohio who I\nknow is here to talk about the legislation or my colleague from New\nHampshire who has been working on the Tenant Star provision with\nSenator Bennet from Colorado.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.\n  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Hampshire\nand my colleague from Ohio, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for their\nwork on this legislation.\n  As my colleague from New Hampshire has said, unfortunately this is a\npiece of legislation that is being blocked. As we saw on the floor, we\ndon't even know the reason it is being blocked. I think, when we have\nan objection on the Senate floor, we should have to come to the floor\nand state what our objection is.\n  So here we are. We are going to again ask for this legislation to be\nbrought forward that passed overwhelmingly in the House and in fact has\noverwhelming support from both the business community and environmental\ngroups.\n  If the Tenant Star provision is what is being raised--we are not\nquite sure what the objection is because we haven't heard here\npublicly.\n  This program is supported not only by commercial landowners but also\ntenants, the business community, and environmental groups. What it does\nis establish a market-based approach that is not a mandate but\nencourages both the commercial owners and tenants to be able to create\na voluntary Tenant Star certification to encourage commercial tenants\nto implement cost measures that will help reduce energy consumption.\n  Energy efficiency is a bipartisan way we can reduce energy costs, we\ncan protect our environment, and we can ensure that we don't have to be\ndependent on countries overseas. It is about security of this country\ntoo.\n  I thank my colleagues, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for working so\nhard on this bill. It is surprising, this bill that passed--obviously,\na smaller version of the bill that they have introduced and I am proud\nto cosponsor, but it has overwhelming support. It passed the House. It\nis unfortunate that we are here and aren't going to be able to get this\ndone because it is just common sense.\n  Again, the program is not a mandate. There is no tax incentive, no\ngrant program. It contains no regulatory authority, no new costs. This\nis one that just makes common sense.\n  So I am very disappointed that this bill is not going to be brought\nforward tonight. It is unfortunate that we are essentially here\nfighting against something we don't even know what the objections are\nbecause they haven't been stated publicly.\n  With that, I again thank my colleagues for working on this bill. I\nhope to support their efforts in the next Congress to get this\nbipartisan, commonsense energy efficiency legislation through this\nbody.\n\n[[Page S6910]]\n\n  With that, I turn to my colleague from Ohio.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.\n  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am also joined by our colleague from\nAlaska, the ranking member on the energy committee who will be the\nchair come January. I want to give her a chance to talk in a moment,\nbut let me state a few things.\n  First, this legislation represents a lot of hard work by a lot of\npeople, including Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, who spoke, Senator\nShaheen also from New Hampshire, Senator Bennet, and others. It is an\nexample of smart, bipartisan legislation that was worked out with the\nbusiness community, with folks who are concerned about energy\nefficiency who are in nonprofits. It has no objection, as far as I\nknow, in the real world; meaning there is no group, not a single group,\nthat has objected to it.\n  On the other hand, there are dozens of people who support it,\nincluding business groups, environmental groups, and people who want to\nhave the opportunity on a voluntary basis--no mandates, as the Senator\nfrom New Hampshire has said, to be able to know that there is a\ncertification that a building is energy efficient, to be able to have\ninformation.\n  Second, I want to make the point that it is part of four provisions,\none of which is urgent because it involves a decision we have to make\nnow--tonight--in the Senate in order to keep a regulation from the\nDepartment of Energy unfairly imposed on businesses and consumers in\nAmerica, and this is the water provision.\n  So not only are we objecting to something I don't think anyone\nobjects to in the real world, but also we are blocking something that\nwould be good for our consumers and good for business.\n  Because of our inaction tonight--because we had this objection for\nreasons we don't know because we have not been able in two nights on\nthe floor to get a reason. All we heard was: We object. No reason. We\nare stopping the ability for companies to produce water heaters that\nare then used by rural electric co-ops that are used in an energy-\nefficient way, because during a peak demand they are turned off. So\nthey could superheat the water and be turned off in peak demand, called\ndemand response. It is an efficiency measure.\n  The regulation doesn't make any sense that bans the production of\nthese water heaters, but it is because of legislation that Congress\npassed that DOE feels they have to oppose the regulation.\n  So tonight we had the opportunity not only to pass something good on\nTenant Star, not only to do other things that are good for the Federal\nGovernment to become efficient--the biggest energy user in the world,\nby the way--but also we have an urgent matter before us; that is, to\nchange this regulation before manufacturers are blocked from producing\nthese water heaters.\n  Rural electric co-ops all over the country are watching tonight, and\nthey are disappointed. Why? Because they use these water heaters, and\nthey use them in an energy-efficient way. They are not going to be able\nto do that going forward because manufacturers are literally having to\nstop producing these water heaters because we are not acting.\n  So after the first of the year I hope we will be able to, in regular\norder, take this forward, and hopefully some of these manufacturers\nwill begin to produce these water heaters again. Once we can take care\nof the regulations that are onerous on business owners and consumers\nand does not make sense for energy efficiency.\n  Finally, this is part of what I hope will be the past Congress. I\nhope in the future Congress, which will start in January, that we do\nthings in a different way. I hope we begin to look at ideas from both\nsides of the aisle, find common ground, and move forward in legislation\nto help the American people.\n  This is a small matter. I understand that. It is a big matter if you\nare a rural electric co-op or if you are one of these commercial\nbuildings that want to use Energy Star or if we care about the fact\nthat we think about $5 billion is wasted in energy inefficiency by\nthe Federal Government that could be addressed by some of the other\nprovisions here tonight.\n\n  I think this is, unfortunately, symbolic of where we are as a\nCongress. We can't even get simple things done.\n  This legislation was reported out of the committee in the House\nunanimously--all four provisions. We are talking about the Republican-\nled House unanimously on the floor of the House passed by a vote of\n375. I think it was 375 to 34, as I recall. We don't see those kind of\nbipartisan votes often.\n  Then it came over here. It has gone through the energy committee. The\nenergy committee's vote was something like 18 to 3, as I recall. It has\ncome to the floor now for the third time--the fourth time, if we\ninclude last night.\n  This legislation has been fully vetted. We have had hearings on it.\nWe have done all the right things. We have played by the rules, and\nthose of us who played by the rules on this legislation again are being\nstopped as we get to the floor of the Senate.\n  I hope we will see not just good energy efficiency legislation passed\nin the next Congress but other legislation as well to deal with our Tax\nCode that is out of date, antiquated, to deal with the overreach and\nregulations, some of the regulatory reform measures that the Presiding\nOfficer and I have talked about.\n  We can deal with the fact that we are falling behind in terms of\nexports; that we are not dealing with some of our urgent problems we\nshould be dealing with to get this economy moving.\n  We have to change the way we are doing business around here. We are\nletting things move only in very incremental and, unfortunately,\npartisan ways. We are not allowing the process to work.\n  So I am hopeful this legislation will be taken up in January. I am\nvery disappointed it was objected to again tonight for no apparent\nreason. I am hopeful this will lead us to be able to better represent\nthe people who hired us, the people who said: Go to Washington. I want\nyou to find common ground because there are big problems to solve, not\njust give speeches. We have had enough of those. There is enough\nrhetoric. It is time to get things done. This is a small example of\nwhat could have gotten done tonight but for an objection with no\napparent reason.\n  With that, I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Alaska has\nstayed late to be able to talk about this tonight. She will be the next\nchair of the energy committee, and she has the ability. Working with\nher colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to get some great\nlegislation accomplished, and I hope this will be one of them.\n  Mr. President, I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.\n  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues and express\nmy disappointment that we are again at this place: A good measure that\nhas good, strong, bipartisan, bicameral support has been blocked. It\nhas been objected to.\n  I made a comment last evening when we once again attempted to bring\nup the unanimous consent order to advance the energy efficiency bill.\nIt kind of feels like ``Groundhog Day,'' the movie, where it is just\nthe same scene over and over again, the third time to the floor on a\nmeasure that enjoys strong support. It kind of begs the question, why?\nWhat is the problem with it? But as both my colleagues Senator Shaheen\nand Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire have outlined in terms of the\nspecifics, there is no opposition there.\n  As the cosponsor, my colleague from Ohio has pointed out these four\nprovisions that are contained in this House measure have so much\nbipartisan support that it passed the House unanimously coming over\nhere.\n  So we have to ask: If we cannot advance a measure in this body such\nas energy efficiency that enjoys this level of support, how can we do\nanything around here?\n  I asked the question months ago, when I was being stopped in the\nhallway by reporters asking: What is going to happen to the energy\nefficiency bill, and I was bullishly optimistic because, as I said,\nthis is a measure that enjoys strong support. It enjoys strong support\nand it is common sense.\n  I said: If we can't demonstrate that, we can't get a measure such as\nenergy\n\n[[Page S6911]]\n\nefficiency through both Houses and enacted into law, how are we ever\ngoing to get to the really thorny, difficult issues?\n  I have been working with my colleagues on the appropriating side of\nenergy and water, the Senator from California and Senator Alexander\nfrom Tennessee working with us on the authorizing side. First it was me\nand Senator Wyden, and then it was me and Senator Landrieu, and in\nJanuary it will be Senator Cantwell.\n  We will be trying to figure out how we are going to deal with the\nissues surrounding nuclear waste disposal. These are tough issues.\nThese are contentious. We have got some issues that will face us in the\nnew Congress relating to the export of our energy resources. These are\nalso going to be contentious. How are we ever going to get to the tough\nones if--on the easy ones, what we describe around here as the low-\nhanging fruit--we cannot get through this process?\n  So I have to say, it is late--it is not the 11th hour; it is beyond\nthe 11th hour because we have just taken the last vote, the last vote\nof the 113th Congress. We are done, and what we are leaving people with\nis uncertainty. When we are talking about those ways that we as a\nCongress can help right some of the problems in this country--how we\ncan get our economy on a better track, how we can move towards more\njobs and job creation--the best thing we can do is offer a level of\ncertainty.\n  Well, right now you have these manufacturers of these water heaters\nthat are saying: We don't know whether we are going to have any kind of\na reprieve from this regulation or not. So we are not only not going to\nbe making these water heaters, but that means we don't have the\nworkers, those in the manufacturing companies who are going to be there\nor the people that are selling them. Think about what we have done with\nthis one hurdle that we just couldn't get around. Yet we couldn't get a\nstraight answer as to what the opposition--what the push-back--was.\n  Something is wrong with this process when we cannot advance measures\nsuch as the energy efficiency bill, a measure that has been worked on\nfor years--diligently and in good faith--in a very, very open and\nbipartisan way. So I am hopeful that the 114th Congress is going to\nbring with it not only some fresh air--fresh perspective--but a\nwillingness and a commitment to move through a process. If there is an\nobjection, it should be stated, and we can work it out. But to continue\nto block and block when we have the level of support on a measure that\nwe have, that is just not right. There has to be a better way. So I\nhave pledged to my colleagues, the sponsors of this bill and all of\nthose who have been working hard on it, that we are taking this back up\nagain in the new year. We are going to work to make sure this has, yet\nagain, the committee process, now for the third time, and we will work\nto advance it to the floor. It is my hope that if someone has problems\nwith it, they have a solution to fix it, and they then come down and\noffer their amendments, we will debate them, and we will move on. But\nwe have to be in a better place than where we have ended this evening.\n  So it is with regret that I say we will take it up again next year.\nBut my hope is that we will do right by our energy policy, by focusing\nnot only on the production side, not only the renewable side, but our\nefficiency measures that we have included in this bill. We are going to\ndo right for a lot of the right reasons.\n  With that, I yield the floor.\n  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum\ncall be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6909"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.3929609451442957, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}