Hire More Heroes Act of 2013 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania and the discussion of why we are here on a late Thursday afternoon.

We started off the week with an air of optimism that with the energy efficiency bill before us, we could get to that place where we could be debating substantive issues of the day. As my colleague has noted, we have not seen a real energy bill on this floor now for 7 years. When we think about the energy landscape in this country and what has happened in 7 years' time--7 years ago, we were looking to build import terminals to receive LNG. Now we are debating--or hoping to debate--the export of our LNG.

I have kind of put a target on my back, if you will, and said: Let's talk about what is happening with our oil potential in this country and our opportunity as a nation to export our oil, given that next year we will actually be producing more oil in this country than the county of Russia, than Saudi Arabia, but that is going to require some debate, some discussion, some policy considerations.

If we cannot even get to the point where we can move forward on an energy efficiency bill, how are we ever going to advance some of these policy initiatives when it comes to our natural gas, when it comes to our oil or how we might be able to deal with issues such as nuclear waste, where, quite honestly, until we can resolve these issues, they are going to be holding back our opportunity to advance in these areas. How are we going to build out the potential in this country for our renewables and how we integrate them into an outdated system? There are so many policy issues we have to talk about.

So when people suggest all we want to do is talk about energy, I am one Senator who would love to do a lot of talking about energy. I would also like us to be able to legislate on energy initiatives. I would like us to update some of our energy policies, because as times have changed, unfortunately some of our laws have not.

My colleague from Pennsylvania has mentioned there was a time when we would have substantive debate. Take that back to the Energy bills that were before us when I first came to the Senate back in 2003. We took up an energy bill at that time that was on the floor, I know, for multiple weeks; it may have been multiple months.

On July 25, 2003, we resumed consideration of the Energy bill. We had a unanimous consent agreement at that time that more than 370--370--remaining amendments would be in order.

Now, 2003 may seem like a long time ago for some, but for me it seems like just yesterday. Thinking about that, it is like: Wow. We were able to come to a UC on 370 amendments.

If we go back to the Energy Policy Act, if we look at the amendment log, it shows that more than 130 amendments from Senators of both sides of the aisle were considered.

I think it speaks to the issues that were at play at the time. We are still basing most of our energy policy, of course, on those 2005 and 2007 energy acts.

I think it is important to recognize that when it comes to something as significant as our energy policy in this country, the debate is worthy, the debate is important, and legislating on these issues is critically important.

I know there are conversations yet underway as to whether an amendment opportunity will be made available, whether the four or five amendments the Republicans have offered that are being considered by the majority leader and the bill's sponsors of ShaheenPortman, whether we will be able to reach a fair consideration for the processing of those amendments. I would certainly hope we are able to do just that.

The energy efficiency bill, as I noted in my comments the day before yesterday, is good, sound policy. It is an important leg in the energy stool. When we talk about our energy resources and what we have available domestically, what we are able to be producing--whether it is our fossil fuels, whether it is our renewable fuels, whether it is other alternatives--the recognition is that our most readily available energy source is the one we do not waste. If we can be more efficient, if we can do more when it comes to conservation, this benefits all of us.

So let's figure out how we can move an energy efficiency bill. This is round No. 2 for us. Let us not allow the process to bog down a good bill and a bill that deserves to not only pass this body but to be worked through the body on the other side and to ultimately be signed into law by the President.

I want to start work. I want to be legislating. I also recognize this has been a difficult time for us all right now. We are not seeing a lot of legislation moving through this Senate, but I have been trying to use the time I have, as the ranking member on the energy committee, wisely, trying to focus on those areas where we can critically examine the energy policies we have in place and how we might refresh, how we might reimagine the energy architecture we have.

Last year I released a pretty major report. We called it ``Energy 20/20.'' It is a blueprint that kind of lays out my view of a sound, robust energy policy. I did not want a report that had taken a lot of time and energy and effort and love and passion to just sit on somebody's desk, so we have been working in this past year to flesh out some of the details we outlined in the blueprint.

I have released now four separate white papers stemming from ``Energy 20/20.'' The first one was on LNG exports. The second was on energy exports generally but also focusing on the specific issue of the prospect for oil exports. We released a very well-received white paper on electric reliability, and then earlier this week I had an opportunity to release a white paper on the nexus between energy and water. All of these are available on the energy committee's Web site.

I have given speeches on the floor. I have addressed small groups, large groups, basically anybody who will listen, not only in my State of Alaska but around the country. My colleagues and those who have been listening have heard me say multiple times that what I am looking for, what I am hoping for, what I am trying to build are laws and policies that will help us access our energy resources to be able to have a policy that says our energy should be abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure.

I joke about it and say there is no acronym for that, but I have arranged it alphabetically so you can remember it.

But when you think about these five components, when you incorporate these all together--abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, secure--it makes pretty good sense.

I think the effort we have engaged in, in the energy committee, has been a worthwhile effort, and I hope this broader conversation will forge consensus on what I think we recognize can be some tough issues.

I have been working hard, even though we are not moving a lot of bills through the floor right now, to try to advance the conversation on so many of these issues I think are a priority.

THE NEXUS BETWEEN ENERGY AND WATER

I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the most recent white paper I have released, and this is on the connection or the nexus between energy and water. I mentioned I had an opportunity to present this on Tuesday at the Atlantic Council here in Washington. It is entitled, ``The EnergyWater Nexus: Interlinked Resources That Are Vital for Economic Growth and Sustainability.'' It is a very timely subject, very relevant to the current discussion of measures we can take to support energy efficiency.

I think it is apparent, but it certainly bears repeating, that there are clear links between energy and water and water and energy. These fall into two categories. It sounds kind of simple, but it is water for energy and energy for water. Without water much of our energy--electricity included--cannot be produced. Our economy literally comes to a halt. Without energy--and particularly electricity--the treatment, the transport, the distribution of water does not function either. That all seizes up as well.

So we have water and energy just inextricably linked, and I think it is important to acknowledge that the continued availability and reliability should not be taken for granted. I think sometimes this is the part we fail to keep in perspective.

We are talking a lot about energy right now, but as we talk about energy, let's talk about how that energy source intersects with water. In an effort to produce this energy, how much water are we consuming? In an effort to use that water, how much energy is being consumed to move or treat? So, again, the nexus is tight.

When it comes to water-for-energy, an interesting statistic is that about 41 percent of our freshwater withdrawals in the United States are attributed to cooling the vast majority of our powerplants. This also consumes about 6 percent of our freshwater. Water is also routinely needed to produce the various energy resources we rely on, whether it is oil, coal, gas, or uranium. According to the Congressional Research Service, the production of biofuels has the highest water-intensity value, requiring 1,000 times more water than conventional natural gas. So, again, understanding the intensity is important as we talk about our energy resources. Altogether, more than 12 billion gallons of freshwater are consumed daily for the combined production of fuels and electricity across the country.

Turning to energy-for-water, one study on a national scale found that direct water-related energy consumption amounted to more than 12 percent of domestic primary energy consumption in 2010. That is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of about 40 million Americans.

We are seeing new technology, and we are seeing that really with the potential to provide a paradigm shift. But from today's vantage point, a steady population increase and the resource needs of a modern economy could make freshwater a limited resource in many parts of the country. We are certainly seeing that out in the West. Severe droughts in California and for that matter across most of the Western United States only serve to underscore the risks. Out West, of course, hydroelectric power is a major contributor to clean and cost-effective electricity generation, particularly in Washington State, Idaho, and Montana. So if rivers and reservoirs are running low, this power-generation capacity is at risk.

I believe the recent and rapid expansion of our domestic energy production is very good for our Nation, particularly the growth in unconventional oil and gas production. What we have seen is that it has created jobs, it has generated revenues, it has revived local economies, and it really does wonders for our energy security. As I mentioned, the United States is now producing and exporting more energy than ever before. Our net energy imports are at a 20-year low. They are projected to fall below 5 percent of total consumption by 2025.

With many new wells located in regions that have already experienced some water shortages, we are seeing producers who are moving in a direction to help ensure that there is going to be sufficient water available for both the work they are doing and other regional needs. New technological advancements and new methods to maintain a balanced use of freshwater resources have been continuously emerging.

I think it is important to recognize that folks are appreciating that you can't count on an unlimited supply of this water resource. Utilizing our technology to be smart, to be efficient, is going to put everyone in better stead.

Even in the case of conventional power generation stations, technological innovation and advances can assist in reducing--if not eliminating--the overall amount of water that is required for cooling purposes. But, again, the key is technology. Continued research and development is at the heart of innovation and advancement.

The questions that are appropriate to ask are what can we do to ensure an adequate supply of water and how can we responsibly minimize the amount of water that is used for energy and then also energy for water? Conservation, of course, can help reduce demand for both water-for-energy and energy-for-water activities, but we have to recognize that it can only go so far. As I just mentioned, innovative energy and water use strategies, coupled with advanced technologies, are equally important when trying to optimize our limited supplies.

I have called on all stakeholders in the private sector as well as in government to support R&D and demonstration of new technologies that can really work to reduce our energy and water consumption.

Again, talking about the bill that is on the floor--energy efficiency--everything we can do to reduce our energy consumption as well as our water consumption is all good. It is all good.

The genesis and sustainability of such efforts are highly reliant on open and continuous information exchange between the parties. I have suggested that the Federal Government not only can but should facilitate this exchange of information on a national and international scale. It can do that by forming genuine partnerships with the stakeholders--including industry, utilities, and academia--and teaming up to advance a better understanding of the energy-water nexus, adopt better practices through technological innovations, and really learn from one another about the procedures and implementation strategies.

This dialogue should also include international perspectives on the energy-water nexus, utilizing the experience and expertise from around the world. We have seen technological advancements and great work going on in Australia, the Gulf countries, Israel, and Singapore. The development of new and improved technologies can answer the needs of both the domestic and international energy-water markets. This could mean opportunities for job creation--good jobs--in high-tech, R&D, and manufacturing.

What I am advocating with this white paper and the proposals out there is really better planning and better collaboration. I am not looking for a top-down approach. I am not looking for more binding rules or mandates. I am certainly not advocating for the forceful implementation of any new policies or directives to use certain technologies. The adoption of best practices should always be on a voluntary basis.

But having said that, I do believe that if we can demonstrate savings and demonstrate efficiencies from new technologies and better resource management approaches, the stakeholders are going to figure this out, and they are going to say this is a win-win for their own bottom line. This makes sense for their customers. It is good to advance.

Along these lines, I have introduced energy-water legislation with Senator Wyden. We introduced it in January. Our bill is the Nexus of Energy and Water for Sustainability Act--we call it the NEWS Act--and it features some plain old commonsense policy improvements. What a concept.

Just think, in more ordinary times perhaps I would have even introduced the proposed NEWS Act as an amendment to the bill we have before us. But what we have--S. 1971--is a short bill, a simple bill that directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee or a subcommittee under the National Science and Technology Council to coordinate and streamline the energy and water nexus activities of our Federal departments and agencies. We are asking this panel--which would be chaired by the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, and representatives would be brought in from these and other agencies--to identify all relevant energy-water nexus activities across the Federal Government--because we know it is just a huge spaghetti mess here--and work together and disseminate the data to enable better practices and explore the relevant public-private collaboration. We also call for OMB to submit a cross-cut budget that details these Federal expenditures related to energy-water activities. What we are looking to do is to streamline these efforts not just to save water, not just to save energy, but to save taxpayer dollars.

It is good. It is sensible. I think it is a rationed approach. I would like to be able to legislate on this, and I hope we will get to that point where we are beyond the energy efficiency bill, the Shaheen-Portman bill we have been trying so hard to work to advance not only this week but for years now; where we are beyond arguing over whether we are going to be able to move on some amendments; where we will take up with great energy and enthusiasm--pun intended--these initiatives that will help our Nation to be more productive, to be more energy secure, to have a stronger national security, and to have energy policies that are current and sound.

I am one who tries to get up every morning optimistic, glass half full, and I want to believe we will work out an arrangement so that we can have a fair amendment process that allows Republicans to offer a small handful of amendments to be debated and voted on, that will allow us to move an energy efficiency measure that is important to our energy policy and to demonstrate that perhaps we can do a little bit of legislating, a little bit of governing, and advance the cause.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source