America's Cup Act of 2011

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of job creation as well, specifically in regard to legislation I will be introducing that seeks to not only create jobs but also to truly reduce the cost of electricity to Americans throughout this country.

In North Dakota, we have a powerplant north of our State capitol, the city of Bismarck. It is about 1,100 megawatts. It consists of two separate plants, each of them 550 megawatts, so the complex provides 1,100 megawatts of electricity, power that fuels our State, as well as sending power to Minnesota and other places as well. This plant uses the latest in emission control technology. It is state of the art.

We also have an ethanol plant attached to the powerplant, so the waste steam that comes off the powerplant is used to power the ethanol plant to make low-cost transportation fuel as well.

In addition to those things, another innovation at this plant is that after they produce the electricity, they take hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash and, rather than landfilling it, they actually reuse it, and they use it to make concrete--they call it FlexCrete--for highways, they use it in building materials, and they even use it in products such as the shingles we use on our roofs.

Formerly, this plant paid about $4 million a year to landfill that coal ash. Now they sell it for all these products and generate around $12 million a year in revenue. If you take the $4 million they used to expend to landfill the material, figure in the $12 million they now make selling the product, that is a $16 million revenue benefit to the plant. That means a $16 million reduction in the cost of electricity to their customers throughout North Dakota and Minnesota.

At the same time, because they have partnered with a company out of Utah called Headwaters, right there at the complex they also have a facility that manufactures these building products, FlexCrete, and creates good-paying jobs as well.

Today I rise to introduce commonsense, bipartisan legislation--a jobs bill, if you will--the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. In fact, this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives with a large bipartisan majority.

In a true example of American ingenuity and innovation, entrepreneurs around the country are recycling coal ash. Millions of Americans now work in buildings that are either partially constructed from coal ash- strengthened building materials or they drive home from work on roads and over bridges that are made of coal ash concrete or, as I said, they live under roofs that are shingled, and those shingles are made out of this coal residuals material. In fact, in my home State of North Dakota, we have both our Heritage Center, which is under construction now, and also the National Energy Center of Excellence that were constructed with these materials.

First, this National Energy Center of Excellence, this is the Bismarck State College. They specialize in energy programs. This facility overlooks the Missouri River and it is about a $20-plus million facility. It is absolutely beautiful, and it is made with the coal residual building materials.

On this other slide, right now this facility is under construction. This will be a more than $50 million facility, which is, in essence, a museum and a heritage center for the State of North Dakota. The building materials in this state-of-art facility will have both static and interactive displays and is being built with what is called coal ash--but coal residual materials. These are materials coming out of powerplants that were formerly simply landfill, and now we are using them for all these purposes. The important point is, we need to be able to continue to do that. That is exactly why I am introducing this legislation.

It turns out that using this natural byproduct of coal combustion not only makes our buildings and infrastructure stronger, it makes homes, businesses, and highways more affordable to build. It also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process, while using this cost- effective material.

Meanwhile, by using coal ash in such an innovative manner, it is estimated the overall energy consumption in this country can be reduced by 162 trillion Btu's, British thermal units, and that water usage is reduced annually by 32 billion gallons a year. That is the equivalent of the amount of energy used by 1.7 million homes a year and the amount of water--actually one-third of the amount of water used in the entire State of California each year. So we can see from a conservation standpoint what an incredible impact using these materials has.

Unfortunately, the EPA is now considering whether to overturn 30 years of precedent and regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, and State regulatory agencies throughout the country, as well as EPA itself. EPA's own studies show the toxicity level in coal ash is well below the criteria that requires any type of hazardous waste designation.

In fact, the EPA's May 2000 regulatory determination--in that determination they concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and that doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. However, new regulations first proposed in June of 2010 would create a stigma for coal ash recycling and expose it to frivolous lawsuits that could undermine the industry, cost thousands of jobs, and take billions of dollars out of our economy at a time when working families can least afford it. But the damage to American's pocketbooks would not just stop with the undermining of this recycling industry.

It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton, as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. That could mean up to another $50 billion in costs, a burden on our electricity generators that use coal and, most important, customers-- American families, businesses, and farmers--again, Americans throughout this great country.

It is also estimated this regulation by EPA, this proposal, could mean the loss of more than 300,000 American jobs. That is why I have at the desk the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which I am introducing today, along with Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Michael Enzi, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Joe Manchin, and also Senator John Boozman; four Republicans and four Democrats. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation.

As I said, it is a companion to H. Res. 2273 that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday with strong--and I emphasize strong--bipartisan support. It takes a commonsense approach to ensuring we can continue

this vital industry and, in fact, build it, save millions of dollars for American consumers and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

This bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing the byproducts from being treated as hazardous, it establishes Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting programs for the management and disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permit program, then the EPA regulates the program for that State.

Importantly, States will know where they stand under this bill since the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program is set in statute. EPA can say: Yes, the State does meet these standards or, no, it doesn't. But EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a State's first approach that provides regulatory certainty. What is certain is, under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. These include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria and financial assurance and the recordkeeping needed to protect the public.

The Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act is legislation needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of home and road construction and electric bills.

I wish to thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who have taken a leadership role and are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I particularly wish to thank my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Kent Conrad. I urge our colleagues to join us and support this important measure.

Mr. President, today I wish to introduce the America's Cup Act of 2011. This legislation will enable foreign ships to compete for the 34th America's Cup, scheduled to begin in November.

I am happy to be joined by Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse as original cosponsors.

The America's Cup is one of the oldest global sporting competitions. Its economic impact is surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup of soccer.

The event will begin in San Diego on November 12th. Next year the events continue in Italy and Newport, Rhode Island, and they conclude in San Francisco in September 2013.

But the events in San Diego, Newport and San Francisco cannot take place unless we waive certain laws that prohibit foreign vessels from operating in U.S. waters.

My legislation waives the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act for all vessels participating in or supporting the America's Cup events.

However, this waiver is limited and narrow. It was carefully crafted to protect our domestic industry and passenger service operators. The legislation specifically states that the authority to operate in U.S. waters is strictly limited to activities that occur during and related to America's Cup Events.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting more than 25 individuals or from receiving compensation for transportation.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting merchandise between ports.

I understand that Jones Act waivers can be sensitive subjects for many, but I want to assure my colleagues that this is a noncontroversial bill.

The waiver is widely supported by local governments and business groups in California and Rhode Island.

Equally important, it is not opposed by the American Maritime Partnership, AMP. Like many of us, the AMP's neutrality was critical to me before I decided to pursue this legislation.

As many of my colleagues know, the American Maritime Partnership, formerly called the American Cabotage Task Force, is the voice of the U.S. domestic maritime industry. The group represents more than 450 member organizations ranging from vessel owners and shipboard unions to shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers.

These diverse interests recognize the importance of a strong domestic maritime industry and share my belief that the continued success of this industry is critical for America's economic security and independence.

Needless to say, Jones Act waivers are not an issue the AMP takes lightly, so I thank them for their willingness to work with me to bring this great event back to the United States.

The reason the American Maritime Partnership and so many other organizations support this legislation is that it will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

As I mentioned, the first event in the America's Cup World Series will occur in San Diego. This event alone is expected to bring $20 million to local businesses.

When the larger America's Cup Finals take place in San Francisco, the economic impacts are expected to be far greater. According to a recent study by Beacon Economics and the Bay Area Council the increase in economic activity in San Francisco could be nearly $1.4 billion. This is three times the estimated impact of hosting a Super Bowl, $300-$500 million.

The event could create as many as 8,840 jobs in San Francisco.

Local Governments could generate an additional $85 million in revenue.

Nationwide, the event is expected to increase domestic economic activity by $1.9 billion and create 11,978 jobs.

The economic impacts of these events are significant.

The waiver is widely supported by labor, business and members of both parties.

This is straightforward, common sense legislation that will facilitate international participation in a globally recognized sporting event.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to introduce the America's Cup Act of 2011. This legislation will enable foreign ships to compete for the 34th America's Cup, scheduled to begin in November.

I am happy to be joined by Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse as original cosponsors.

The America's Cup is one of the oldest global sporting competitions. Its economic impact is surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup of soccer.

The event will begin in San Diego on November 12th. Next year the events continue in Italy and Newport, Rhode Island, and they conclude in San Francisco in September 2013.

But the events in San Diego, Newport and San Francisco cannot take place unless we waive certain laws that prohibit foreign vessels from operating in U.S. waters.

My legislation waives the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act for all vessels participating in or supporting the America's Cup events.

However, this waiver is limited and narrow. It was carefully crafted to protect our domestic industry and passenger service operators. The legislation specifically states that the authority to operate in U.S. waters is strictly limited to activities that occur during and related to America's Cup Events.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting more than 25 individuals or from receiving compensation for transportation.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting merchandise between ports.

I understand that Jones Act waivers can be sensitive subjects for many, but I want to assure my colleagues that this is a noncontroversial bill.

The waiver is widely supported by local governments and business groups in California and Rhode Island.

Equally important, it is not opposed by the American Maritime Partnership, AMP. Like many of us, the AMP's neutrality was critical to me before I decided to pursue this legislation.

As many of my colleagues know, the American Maritime Partnership, formerly called the American Cabotage Task Force, is the voice of the U.S. domestic maritime industry. The group represents more than 450 member organizations ranging from vessel owners and shipboard unions to shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers.

These diverse interests recognize the importance of a strong domestic maritime industry and share my belief that the continued success of this industry is critical for America's economic security and independence.

Needless to say, Jones Act waivers are not an issue the AMP takes lightly, so I thank them for their willingness to work with me to bring this great event back to the United States.

The reason the American Maritime Partnership and so many other organizations support this legislation is that it will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

As I mentioned, the first event in the America's Cup World Series will occur in San Diego. This event alone is expected to bring $20 million to local businesses.

When the larger America's Cup Finals take place in San Francisco, the economic impacts are expected to be far greater. According to a recent study by Beacon Economics and the Bay Area Council the increase in economic activity in San Francisco could be nearly $1.4 billion. This is three times the estimated impact of hosting a Super Bowl, $300-$500 million.

The event could create as many as 8,840 jobs in San Francisco.

Local Governments could generate an additional $85 million in revenue.

Nationwide, the event is expected to increase domestic economic activity by $1.9 billion and create 11,978 jobs.

The economic impacts of these events are significant.

The waiver is widely supported by labor, business and members of both parties.

This is straightforward, common sense legislation that will facilitate international participation in a globally recognized sporting event.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community Wind

Act with my friend and colleague Senator Tester from Montana.

Rural renewable energy development has been one of my top priorities since coming to the Senate. America's rural communities have some of our country's most abundant renewable energy resources, and I strongly believe that community-owned renewable energy projects are among the most promising drivers of economic development in our rural communities.

Minnesota has a lot of wind. In the past decade, communities across southwestern Minnesota have been transformed by wind power, with turbines producing renewable energy to power homes and businesses across the midwest. These projects are helping Minnesota meet its ambitious goal of obtaining 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. As we look to develop more renewables in Minnesota and across the country, I want to make sure that rural communities are reaping the maximum benefit from these projects.

That is why community wind is so powerful. When a wind project has some level of local ownership, studies have shown that the project will have higher local economic impact than conventional projects. That is because profits from the project flow to members in the community. Those profits are then reinvested in the community, fueling economic activity that wouldn't have otherwise happened.

Like many small and distributed energy projects, community wind projects face unique challenges when compared to conventional wind, ranging from difficulties accessing financing to the inability to take full advantage of Federal tax benefits. Despite these barriers, community wind projects have devised innovative financing structures to move forward with projects across the country. However, like the larger wind industry, community wind still faces great uncertainty with the looming expiration of the federal production tax credit for wind at the end of 2012.

Our bill provides long-term certainty to community wind over the next 5 years by expanding the existing small wind Investment Tax Credit to projects with capacity up to 20 MW. There is no restriction on turbine size, and the bill prevents the subdivision of large wind projects to game the system and claim the credit.

This bill has support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the American Wind Energy Association to the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Minnesota Corn Growers, the Minnesota Soybean Growers, a broad coalition of Minnesota and national small and community wind developers, and rural businesses and nonprofits across the country. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Tester today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to garner support for its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Schumer, Sanders and Gillibrand as we introduce this legislation to hold accountable those criminals who fraudulently sell what they call ``maple'' syrup.

Vermont iconic maple syrup--painstakingly produced, and prized across the Nation and beyond--is one of our state's fine, high-quality, natural products. I have been alarmed by the growing number of individuals and businesses claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all. This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key part of Vermont's economy and reputation for quality that has been hard-earned through Vermonters' hard work. I know that diligent syrup producers in Maine, New York, and other States have been similarly hurt by this crime. Our bill, the Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement, or ``MAPLE''Act, will deter this criminal conduct.

The MAPLE Act creates a felony offense with a 5-year maximum penalty for fraudulently selling a product purported to be maple syrup that is not, in fact, maple syrup. Under current law, doing so is only a misdemeanor offense with a one year penalty.

The sale of fraudulent maple syrup is a real problem facing consumers and producers. Recently, Vermont U.S. Attorney Tris Coffin sought an indictment after a Food and Drug Administration investigation revealed that a Rhode Island man had been selling cane sugar-based syrup as ``maple'' syrup and representing to consumers that the syrup was authentic. The legislation we introduce today will more effectively protect consumers and the maple industry by punishing and deterring this deceptive conduct.

Vermonters, and consumers across the country, should be confident that when they buy food, they know exactly what they are getting. The fines that may result from criminal violations under current law are often not enough to protect the public from harmful or fraudulent products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our livelihoods in pursuit of their profits see fines as just a cost of doing business. We need to make sure that those who intentionally deceive consumers get a trip to jail, not a slap on the wrist. Schemers should not easily be able to sully the seal of quality that is associated with genuine Vermont maple syrup.

I have a longstanding commitment to comprehensive food safety and food integrity reforms, and our work is not done. Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously passed my Food Safety Accountability Act, which would hold those criminals who intentionally poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. I urge the House to pass that noncontroversial bill, and I hope that all Senators will join us in supporting the MAPLE Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.