[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6350-S6367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to S. 1392 is agreed to and the clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1392) to promote energy savings in residential 
     buildings and industry, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank 
the leader for making sure we could have this opportunity to deal with 
one of the crucial issues of our time. Leader Reid has a long history 
in energy efficiency, in renewable energy. I thank him for his 
leadership and particularly the opportunity to be on the floor this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President and colleagues, today the Senate has the chance to put 
more points on the board for the creation of good-paying jobs, a more 
productive economy, and greater energy security.
  Before the August recess, the Congress put some initial points up by 
passing hydropower legislation. This legislation was called, by the New 
York Times: The first significant energy legislation to become law 
since 2009. Those hydropower bills might have been called small by 
some, but experts say they can generate a large amount of power.
  Hydropower is 60 percent of the renewable, clean power in America. 
And hydropower has the potential to add 60,000 more megawatts of 
capacity by 2025, according to the National Hydropower Association. 
That is enough energy to power more than 46 million homes. Hydro helps 
to make our economy less dependent on fossil fuels, and it does it in a 
way Democrats and Republicans can come together on.
  Today, as we look at another critical part of modernizing energy 
policy, I want to start by saying it has almost become obligatory for 
Members of Congress to say they are for an ``all of the

[[Page S6351]]

above'' energy policy. It is almost as though a U.S. Senator has to say 
that on energy they are for ``all of the above'' three or four times 
every 15, 20 minutes or else it is not a real discussion about energy 
policy.
  But here is what is important and I think critical as we start the 
debate--where I see my friend from New Hampshire and my friend from 
Ohio--the reality is, you cannot have an ``all of the above'' energy 
policy in this country without energy efficiency. It is that simple. If 
you are serious about an ``all of the above'' energy policy--and we 
have essentially several Democrats and several Republicans on the floor 
now to demonstrate the seriousness of this issue--you cannot have an 
``all of the above'' energy policy without energy efficiency.
  So this legislation is on the floor today thanks to the tireless 
bipartisan efforts of Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman.
  I am also very pleased the ranking minority member of the committee 
is here, Senator Murkowski of Alaska. She consistently meets me halfway 
in terms of trying to deal with these kinds of issues. As we begin this 
debate--which I would also mention to colleagues is essentially the 
first stand-alone energy bill to be debated on the floor of the Senate 
since 2007--it would not be possible without the cooperation and the 
good counsel of the ranking minority member, Senator Murkowski. I want 
her to know how much I appreciate our partnership. We just got through 
our weekly session this morning as we look at various kinds of 
businesses. We hope to be able to bring to the Senate helium 
legislation, which we know a lot of Senators care about, very quickly 
as well. But there is a reason we are back to energy policy in the 
Senate, and that is, to a great extent, because of the cooperation 
Senator Murkowski has shown.
  This bill--and one of the reasons it is bipartisan--gives us a chance 
to cut waste in our energy system and create jobs. This bill would take 
the biggest step in years toward tapping the potential for energy 
policy.
  The legislation saves about 2.9 billion megawatt hours of electricity 
by 2030, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy. I say to my colleagues, I thought I would start by translating 
that into something that becomes a little easier to put your arms 
around.
  To generate those kinds of savings in electricity--2.9 billion 
megawatt hours--the United States would have to build 10 new nuclear 
powerplants at a cost of billions of dollars each and run them for more 
than 20 years.
  The heart of this bill is updating voluntary building codes to make 
homes and businesses more efficient, and it is about installing new 
wires and pipes and machines and insulation. Here is what I want 
colleagues to know as we start this discussion: There is money to be 
made in those pipes and that installation. Businesses know that. That 
is why more than 250 companies and associations have endorsed this 
bill, including the Chamber of Commerce.
  When you look at those who have endorsed this piece of legislation, 
it is not a who's who of sort of bleeding-heart environmental folks. I 
was particularly struck by the headline in a Forbes article last month. 
They say: ``The Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings Act: It's The Economy, 
Stupid.'' They sure got that right.
  If the Congress passes this bill, it is going to immediately become a 
significant job creator, generating an estimated 136,000 new jobs by 
2025.
  It will also make a significant difference in our country's energy 
productivity, and that means savings for families, building fewer 
powerplants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  If we continue business as usual--people say: Oh, gee, we are not 
really going to pursue this now--the U.S. Energy Information 
Administration--that is really our statistical arm of the Energy 
Department--predicts that our country would use 30 percent more 
electricity by 2040.
  But there is an alternative, and that is harnessing the potential of 
efficiency technologies that actually reduce electricity from today's 
demand and reduce the use of energy even as our economy and population 
grows.
  The amount of new energy productivity we gain would be like doubling 
the number of houses in America and then powering all of them without 
ever adding a new powerplant to the grid.
  Choosing the more efficient path we are going to advocate for on the 
floor of the Senate would mean adding 1.3 million jobs by the middle of 
the century. Families could shave off one-third of their electricity 
bills, an average savings of about $600 per year, according to experts 
in the field, a big increase in productivity.
  So already we have talked about job creation, we have talked about 
productivity, two areas where I do not see some kind of artificial line 
between Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate. I see areas we 
all feel strongly about.
  On the other hand, meeting our country's projected electricity demand 
with today's energy mix and 40 percent coal requires building at least 
100 new coal-fired powerplants over 25 years.
  We are also going to make the case during this debate that the 
Federal Government ought to be a leader in this. It is one thing to 
talk about how everybody in America ought to do something, and then 
say, oh, the Federal Government might get around to it someday. So we 
are saying, this is a chance for the Federal Government to save 
taxpayers money and to play a strong role, a strong leadership role, 
particularly by improving efficiency at the Federal data centers.
  As more and more businesses move to the cloud, reducing energy use 
there is extremely important. Again, the experts estimate these steps 
on data center efficiency would save about 35 million megawatt hours of 
electricity by 2030. We would save the same amount of energy by 
powering down 60 of the NSA's newest data centers for a year, but I am 
going to save that one for another day.
  There is obviously room for Federal agencies to do more. The 
government owns nearly 500,000 buildings. The Federal Government is the 
largest landlord in America. Agencies are directed to buy and use 
highly efficient equipment under two different executive orders. But 
according to staff at the Energy Department, less than half of 
commercial building equipment that agencies buy actually even complies 
with the government's own rules. So I am going to be offering an 
amendment to the bill that at least will provide some incentive to 
ensure that agencies actually follow the rules of the government.
  This bill, as I have indicated, is bipartisan. We have been able to 
pass 62 bills out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, each 
one with bipartisan support. This is what Senators have said they care 
about, this is what the other body has said they care about.
  Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the third ranking House Republican, said 
earlier this year, ``All American energy independence means taking a 
hard look at energy production, distribution, reliability and 
efficiency.'' In the House there is a bipartisan companion to this. In 
other words, we have the good fortune of having Senator Shaheen and 
Senator Portman working in a bipartisan way.
  In the other body--and Senator Murkowski and I have met with the 
House Members interested in this issue--you have Congressman Peter 
Welch and Congressman Cory Gardner actually creating a bipartisan 
caucus to promote new financing tools that aid energy efficiency 
projects. Congressman Welch and Congressman McKinley have introduced 
companion legislation to the one we debate today.
  If anything, one of our challenges is there is a pent-up demand to 
debate energy issues in this Congress. If we voted for all of the 
amendments I hear people say they want to do, we would probably be here 
until New Year's Eve being fed intravenously trying to figure out how 
to process all of them. We may not have time to address each and every 
amendment, but I know of at least a dozen bipartisan amendments that 
colleagues plan to offer that will produce even more energy savings for 
businesses and consumers, produce more jobs for the U.S. economy.
  Nobody is going to be able to say this is part of a dumb Federal 
mandate or some kind of ``run from Washington, one size fits all'' 
approach. These are approaches that look to productivity, the private 
sector for leadership and fresh ideas. For example, Senator Bennet and 
Senator Ayotte have a better building amendment. It strikes me as a 
very sensible one.

[[Page S6352]]

  Senator Inhofe and Senator Carper have an amendment on thermal 
efficiency. Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hoeven have an amendment to 
help our nonprofits save energy. How can you make a logical case that 
we should not try to work that out? Our nonprofits are being stretched 
to the limit. I saw that when I was in Alaska with Senator Murkowski. 
We talked to some of the nonprofits. We see it in Oregon as well.
  We have a bipartisan amendment from Senators Hoeven and Klobuchar to 
try to help these nonprofits save energy. These are just a few of the 
good amendments, in my view, that build on the outstanding work done by 
Senators Shaheen and Portman lo these several years. These amendments 
and the bill are going to help homes and businesses use less energy, 
save money, create jobs, without mandates, without spending new Federal 
money.
  It got out of our committee by a 19-to-3 vote. I believe the reason 
it did is because people said this is a commonsense approach to cutting 
energy waste and showing folks across the land that there are things 
you can agree on in the Senate and come together.
  I am pleased to be here with Senator Murkowski. We have talked about 
this a long time, to get the Senate back in the business of a modern 
energy policy that creates jobs, that promotes energy security and 
productivity. We started that with the hydropower legislation that was 
signed into law right after we broke for the August recess. This is the 
next logical step.
  I will say to colleagues, I do not see how a Senator can say they are 
for an ``all of the above'' energy policy in America without supporting 
energy efficiency. This is the time. This is the bill.
  I look forward to working with our colleagues. I hope they bring us 
their various and sundry amendments.
  I yield the floor. I know Senator Murkowski has important comments to 
make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman of 
the Energy Committee, for his comments on not only this very important 
legislation but his leadership on energy issues as we have worked 
together on the Energy Committee, a committee that I know the Presiding 
Officer enjoyed his time on, recognizing that there is so much we can 
be doing as a Nation on a bipartisan basis to make a difference within 
our communities, across our regions, not only for the economy and jobs 
but to make a difference globally in terms of how we handle our energy 
and our energy resources.
  We talk a lot about the ``all of the above'' strategy, and perhaps 
that has different interpretations depending upon what part of the 
country you are from. But one of the slogans that was going around a 
few years back was: Produce more. Use less. Well, now we are talking 
about the ``use less'' side of that ledger, equally important. I come 
from a producing State. But let me tell you when you come from a State 
where our energy costs are some of the highest in the Nation, if not 
the highest in the Nation, we are also pretty good and wise about how 
we use less.
  I am very pleased that we are at this point today where we are 
finally taking up the energy efficiency bill. The chairman has 
mentioned it has been a long time since we have seen energy legislation 
debated here on the floor. I do find it troubling that we have gone so 
long without meaningful and sustained debate about energy policy.
  Each year our committee sends dozens of bills to the floor with our 
signature stamp of bipartisan approval which I think is key. Yet for 
years we have kind of seen the bills come to the floor and that has 
been the end of the road for those particular efforts. While a small 
number of our public lands bills are able to pass through by unanimous 
consent, those that are related to energy, those that often need a 
little more work to pass this Chamber, are virtually never brought up 
for further consideration.
  I do understand we have all kinds of pressing matters in front of 
us--obviously the debate over the Syria resolution clearly one of them, 
the continuing resolution that we will have in front of us as we work 
to fund the government, critically important. If we do reach agreement 
on how we should proceed to either of those measures, I will certainly 
be the first to agree they need to be brought forward for debate. But 
when we have finished those, I am hopeful we will return, if we have 
not yet concluded, to energy legislation because it has been too long 
neglected in this Chamber.
  I came to the position as ranking member of the Energy Committee back 
in 2009. I was very optimistic about what we would accomplish in this 
area. All of those of us on the committee had worked to deliver three 
major energy bills during the proceeding years I had been on the 
committee. We had the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we had the Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, we had the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007. All of them were partially or entirely written by 
our committee. They all received strong support in the Chamber, and 
they all eventually became law.
  Fast forward to where we are today. Our floor debate in 2007 remains 
the last time, the last time the Senate truly engaged on energy policy. 
In the interim, about the best we have seen are some amendments here 
and there along the process or perhaps dueling side-by-sides that seem 
are inevitably voted down.
  But the lack of action on energy legislation is not because we have 
abandoned a bipartisan approach in committee. It is not because we have 
perhaps run out of good ideas. It is certainly not because we are 
somehow unable or unwilling to report legislation to the full Senate. 
We reported a comprehensive bill back in 2009 that sat on the calendar 
untouched for 17 months. We unanimously reported a bill to help prevent 
another offshore spill in 2010. That too was ignored.
  The reality is we have one of the most bipartisan and active 
committees in the Senate. But, unfortunately, we are almost regularly 
in a situation where we are not provided the floor time needed to 
complete our work.
  I am not complaining here, I am just pointing out some facts. But the 
chairman noted there has been this pent-up demand, this frustration, 
about not only where we are in the process but the opportunities that 
are lost. When you think about the changing dynamic in this country 
since 2009, I think about what has changed in the energy sector during 
that course. The fact that we have not addressed real, fulsome energy 
legislation is quite telling.
  But I am hopeful the Senate is now finally on the verge of reversing 
its unfortunate approach to energy policy. As the chairman has noted, 
we have already ordered more than 50 bills--50 bills--to be reported to 
the Senate this year alone. Today, as we begin debate on the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act--I do not even know why we 
are calling it that; we just call it Shaheen-Portman around here. The 
work the authors of this legislation have done I certainly applaud.
  But we are here at this point because of the very concerted efforts 
of the authors of this bill, Senators Portman and Shaheen, their great 
bipartisan work, months and months of negotiation, months of waiting. 
So to be here today, to stand in support of this bill, is wonderful.
  I have spent some time on this floor talking about an energy 
blueprint I had crafted back at the beginning of the year, Energy 20/
20. I said this is 115 pages of energy policy, but it can be summed up 
in one bumper sticker. It says: Energy is good. The fact we are here on 
the floor talking about energy efficiency is absolutely key.
  When I mentioned that 20/20 blueprint, in it I make the point, I make 
the push that we need to strive to make our energy more abundant, more 
affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. While we often focus on the 
more obvious efforts to advance energy policy, in my case more 
production on Federal lands, passage of approval of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, the restoration of some real balance in new regulation, and I 
think a much greater focus on innovation, it is also critically 
important that we look to the efficiency side. It must be a larger part 
of our energy debate. It deserves to be a larger part of our Nation's 
energy policy.
  The reasons why are no mystery. Efficiency is good for the economy 
and for our environment. It enables us to waste less and to use our 
resources

[[Page S6353]]

more wisely--great conservative principles.
  At the same time it can help create jobs and deliver lasting 
financial benefits. Study after study--and the chairman has pointed out 
some of those--has shown we could save billions of dollars every year 
through reasonable efficiency improvements, whether in small 
appliances, large buildings, or someplace in between. These potential 
savings cannot be overlooked at a time when we see so many of our 
families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet, when our debt 
is escalating and the price of energy remains well above where most of 
us want it to be.
  As policymakers, I can't think of efficiency as an energy issue 
alone. It is also a bottom-line issue that affects every one of us and 
every one of our constituents back home.
  While we can all agree on the importance of efficiency, we can also 
agree there is a legitimate debate over the Federal Government's role 
in this area. In my judgment, that role should be limited and the costs 
associated with it should be minimal.
  The Federal Government must itself be efficient as it pursues 
efficiency. I think these are areas we can work to enhance. We cannot 
simply lavish subsidies, pass bill after bill, or impose mandate after 
mandate, and suggest that is somehow a pursuit of a greater good.
  Instead, I think the Federal Government should strive to fulfill 
three pretty distinct roles. It can act as a facilitator of information 
that consumers and businesses need to make sound decisions. It can 
serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage or prevent rational 
efficiency improvements from being made. As the largest consumer of 
energy in our country, it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce 
its own energy usage.
  Those are the criteria by which we can evaluate whether the Federal 
Government is on the right track on energy efficiency and also the 
criteria by which we can judge whether this particular bill, the 
Shaheen-Portman bill, would improve our current policies.
  Let me move to the bill for a moment and explain why I support it. 
First, the scope. The scope is both limited and appropriate. It does 
not contain new mandates for the private sector, not for buildings, not 
for appliances, not for anything. The provision on building codes is a 
good example of what the bill does and does not do.
  I would not be supporting a provision if it required the mandatory 
adoption of those codes, but in this bill it is voluntary, with the 
Federal Government stepping in to help facilitate new models that 
others can choose to follow.
  The second point here is the cost. We are all focusing on costs 
nowadays. The costs of this bill are fully offset. It contains no 
direct spending. The only provision that received a score from the 
Congressional Budget Office has been dropped. A grants program that 
passed our committee has now been dropped as well. Some of these things 
we look at and say we would rather they had been in there, but we are 
trying to deal with the cost side.
  I appreciate both Senators Shaheen and Portman for working with us on 
that. The authorizations that remain in the bill have been fully offset 
by cutting a provision from the 2007 Energy bill. Any Federal dollars 
that are ultimately spent on this legislation will have to be secured 
through a future appropriations process within the context of our 
larger debate about the overall Federal budget.
  The third point here is I support this bill because of the process 
that was followed to bring it to this point. Again, I wish to give the 
chairman credit, and clearly Senators Shaheen and Portman. It was 
bipartisan from the beginning. The Senator from New Hampshire got 
together with the Senator from Ohio to lead its development.
  I can remember the conversation years ago when he said: I am working 
on this. It was long before there was any draft. It was working through 
in the kind of good old-fashioned, roll up your sleeves, let's work on 
doing good things in energy policy when it comes to efficiency. I give 
him full credit.
  The committee held a hearing on this bill. We had testimony from the 
Department of Energy and other experts. We moved through to a markup. 
This could be considered regular order. We improved the bill in the 
markup. We reported it favorably by a vote of 19 to 3. Possible 
amendments have been worked on by members and staff alike over these 
past several months. I think there are many good amendments we all 
assume will easily win passage.
  At the same time the bill's sponsors have continued to work to refine 
and improve the legislation leading to the product we have before us 
today. On scope and substance, on cost and on process, this bill has 
been a good example. This has been an example of regular order, working 
as usual, showing how the Senate can work, showing the Senate at its 
best. The only trouble we have encountered is securing the floor time 
necessary to try to secure its passage.
  It is my hope with the efforts of the sponsors of this bill, with the 
efforts of the chairman of the Energy Committee continuing to push to 
build good things--rather than trying to blow up things--we will have 
an opportunity to see this measure enacted into law.
  As I mentioned, we don't have an opportunity here on the floor of the 
Senate to debate energy often or as often as I would wish. By the looks 
of what we have pending in front of us, we recognize there may be 
interruptions. It is my hope we can move quickly and take up many of 
these bipartisan amendments Chairman Wyden has mentioned.
  Let us make the most of the opportunity we have before us now. Let us 
weigh the Federal Government's proper role in efficiency. Let us make 
sure this bill reflects all of that. Let us start working through the 
amendments that have been filed and move forward with a process that 
will yield good policy for this country.
  Again, I thank the sponsors for their yeoman's work in getting us to 
this point, and I look forward to the discussion and the debate we will 
have in the days ahead. I know Senator Shaheen, with all the work she 
has put into this, is anxious to finally discuss her bill in the 
Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. As my colleague Senator Murkowski said, I am thrilled 
to be here on the floor of the Senate today after 3 years of work with 
Senator Portman and so many other people to be talking about the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.
  I wish to begin by thanking Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member 
Murkowski for all of the support and great work the Energy Committee 
has done to help get this bill to the floor.
  As they pointed out, and as I know the Presiding Officer knows, the 
Energy Committee in the Senate has been very bipartisan. I had the 
opportunity to spend my first 4 years here on the Energy Committee and 
I can attest to that. I know what great work they have done. The fact 
they have moved so many bills through the committee already speaks to 
the consensus they have been able to build on the committee around 
energy policy. Thank you both very much for all of that great work.
  Thank you to my partner in this effort, Senator Portman of Ohio. He 
is not on floor right now, but I sort of claim him in New Hampshire 
because he went to Dartmouth, so we figure he has some New Hampshire 
roots. We have worked in a partnership on this legislation. It has been 
a very bipartisan effort.
  It reflects what I believe is an affordable approach to the use of 
energy efficiency technologies. It will help create private sector 
jobs. It will save businesses and consumers money. It will reduce 
pollution, and it will make our country more energy independent.
  I know we are all very aware of the crisis in Syria and how that 
looms over this discussion. It couldn't be more timely over how we can 
make this country more energy independent.
  This bill, which Senator Portman and I have been working on for 3 
years, has been the result of years of meetings and negotiations, of 
broad stakeholder outreach. It has been an effort to craft the most 
effective piece of energy legislation, efficiency legislation, with the 
greatest chance of passing both Chambers of Congress and of being 
signed into law.
  The legislation will have a swift and measurable benefit to our 
economy and our environment. In fact, as Senator

[[Page S6354]]

Wyden pointed out, we had a recent study by experts at the American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which found this legislation, 
if it is passed, has the potential to create 136,000 domestic jobs by 
2025. They did a study in the last Congress, when we first introduced 
the bill, which showed in addition to that job creation, it would also 
save consumers $4 billion by 2020 and be the equivalent of taking 5 
million cars off the road. It is a huge benefit to our environment and 
to job creation, which is probably at the top of our agenda right now, 
and also for savings to consumers.
  Simply put, as my colleagues have said, we need a comprehensive 
national energy policy. We have been overly dependent on foreign oil. 
We have been reliant on an outdated energy infrastructure. This is a 
situation that hurts business and that also gives our overseas 
competitors an advantage.
  We have to think about an ``all of the above'' strategy, as everybody 
has commented, that utilizes a wide range of energy sources: natural 
gas, oil, nuclear, and renewables such as wind, biomass, and solar. 
This will give us a stronger and more stable economy. We can't just 
focus on the supply side, we also need to think about how we consume 
the energy once we have it, the demand side.
  Efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to address our energy needs. 
Energy savings techniques and technologies, lower costs--they free up 
capital that allows business to expand and our economy to grow. I have 
been to so many businesses throughout New Hampshire in the last 3 years 
that, because of their ability to save on their energy costs, have been 
able to stay competitive and have been able to add jobs. This has a 
real benefit to our economy and to businesses.
  Efficiency, as I said, is the fastest way to address our energy 
needs. I think a lot of times people think about energy saving and 
energy efficiency as turning down the thermostat, turning off the 
lights, putting on a sweater, but energy efficiency today is about a 
whole lot more than that. We can start by improving our efficiency by 
installing ready and proven technologies. These are off the shelf. They 
are already available, such as modern heating and cooling systems, 
smart meters, computer-controlled thermostats, and low-energy lighting. 
These are all available today for the benefit of people who wish to 
save on their energy consumption and their energy bills.
  There are substantial opportunities that exist across all sectors of 
our economy to conserve energy and to create good-paying private sector 
jobs. As we have already said, I think efficiency has a great shot at 
passing both the House and Senate and becoming law. Energy efficiency 
has emerged as an excellent example of bipartisan and affordable 
opportunity to immediately grow our economy and improve our energy 
security.
  In addition to being affordable, efficiency is widely supported 
because its benefits aren't confined to a certain fuel source or a 
particular region of the country. So much of the energy debate over the 
last few years has been about who benefits, whether it is fossil fuels, 
alternatives, whether it is the Northeast, the South, the West. 
Everybody benefits from energy efficiency. It is one of the policy 
areas where we can come to a real agreement.
  It is no wonder that this legislation, Shaheen-Portman, enjoys such 
large and diverse support. It has received more than 250 endorsements 
from a wide range of businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and 
trade associations, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National 
Association of Manufacturers to the National Resources Defense Council. 
These are the types of nontraditional alliances that have helped us get 
this bill to the floor.
  Senator Portman and I worked with diverse groups to craft this year's 
bill, and we maintained a transparent and open process in which we 
tried to make sure all stakeholders had a meaningful opportunity to 
comment on existing and proposed provisions and to suggest their 
substantive additions. So using that process of coalition building, we 
were able to find common ground on a number of important provisions, 
including commercial and residential building efficiency codes, 
workforce training, and language that aims to create a more robust 
public-private partnership between DOE's Advanced Manufacturing Office 
and industrial energy consumers.
  To talk a little about what is actually in the legislation, this bill 
provides incentives and support but, as we have all said, no mandates 
for residential and commercial buildings in order to cut energy use. 
That is very important because buildings consume about 40 percent of 
the energy used in the United States.
  The bill strengthens voluntary national model building codes to make 
new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient, and it works 
with State and private industry to make the code-writing process more 
transparent.
  The legislation trains the next generation of workers in energy 
efficient commercial building design and operation through university-
based building training and research assessment centers.
  Shaheen-Portman assists our industrial manufacturing sector, which 
consumes more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy. The 
bill would direct the Department of Energy to work closely with private 
sector industrial partners to encourage research, development, and 
commercialization of innovative energy efficient technology and 
processes for industrial application. This is something we heard very 
clearly from businesses throughout the country. They really need and 
they want a more collaborative effort with the Department of Energy. 
They want to feel as though the Department of Energy is working with 
them. So hopefully these provisions will help make that happen.
  It also helps businesses reduce energy costs and become more 
competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy efficient electric 
motors and transformers.
  It also establishes a DOE voluntary program called SupplySTAR, which 
is modeled on something that has been a great success, the ENERGY STAR 
Program, to help make companies more aware of their supply chains and 
how to make them more efficient as well.
  The legislation requires the Federal Government, which is the single 
largest user of energy in the country, to adopt more efficient building 
standards and smart metering technology. The bill would require the 
Federal Government to adopt energy-saving technologies and operations 
for computers. Our data centers are huge users of energy. It would 
allow Federal agencies to use existing funds to update plans for new 
Federal buildings using the most current building efficiency standards.
  Finally, as has been said, this legislation is fully offset, so there 
is no new spending in this bill. We reallocate authorization from 
existing programs.
  To conclude--and I know we are going to have a lot of amendments to 
this bill--we have a number of bipartisan amendments that are going to 
make this bill better, that will make it more substantive, and I look 
forward to those amendments and to the debate we are going to have. I 
think this is a bipartisan, affordable, and I believe widely supported 
first step as we begin addressing our Nation's very real energy needs, 
particularly not just on the supply side but on the demand side.
  As I have said, a lot of people have worked very hard to get this 
bill to the floor, and while I am not going to walk through who all of 
those people are, I again thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member 
Murkowski for all of their support, and I thank Majority Leader Reid 
and Republican Leader McConnell for their support in reaching an 
agreement to get the bill to the floor.
  I also thank three staff members whose hard work has really made this 
possible--first, someone who was in my office earlier but who has now 
moved on, Trent Bauserman, who worked very hard to get us started on 
the legislation; Robert Diznoff, who has now taken over in my office to 
work on the bill; and Steve Kittredge from the office of Senator 
Portman. Without the three of them and without all of the other 
staffers both in my office and in the office of Senator Portman and all 
of the people on the committee who have worked so hard, we would not be 
here to have this debate today.
  So I thank all of them, and I look forward to hearing the amendments

[[Page S6355]]

and the robust discussion on the floor and to continuing to work with 
my colleague Senator Portman as we try to move this bill through the 
process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we are finally here on the floor, and I 
would like to thank my colleague Senator Shaheen for her comments and 
for working with me over the last few years to get to this point where 
we can be talking about something that brings us together, I hope, as a 
Senate, which is this effort to ensure that we have an energy plan for 
America that can help bring back jobs, help fix our trade deficit, and 
help spark an American manufacturing renaissance, and that is the 
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.
  This is about energy efficiency. It is about using what we have more 
efficiently, and I think that makes a lot of sense for us to move 
forward. As Senator Shaheen said, it is a first step, but it is an 
important step.
  I thank the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee--Senator Wyden, who spoke earlier, and Senator 
Murkowski, who is with us on the floor and who spoke earlier--for all 
the support they have given us over the last few years to get this 
through the committee process and the markup process and to add some 
important elements to the legislation, and we will see more as the 
amendment process proceeds. I also thank Leader Reid for helping us 
bring this bipartisan legislation to the floor today, and I thank 
Senator McConnell, who has been very supportive of us moving this 
process forward.
  As has been said on the floor this afternoon, this is really the 
first substantive energy legislation we have seen on the floor in a 
while--maybe 6 years--and it requires help from both sides of the aisle 
to get to this point. It is bipartisan.
  It is also supported, by the way, on both sides of the Capitol. We 
have people in the House, including some House Members I spoke to 
earlier today, who are very interested in what we are doing over here 
on this legislation because they have companion legislation--not 
identical but similar legislation--in the House they are working on on 
a bipartisan basis.
  So this is one that I think has a good shot of getting through the 
Senate. I think it also has a good shot of getting through the House 
and going to the President for signature and helping to move America 
forward with a more sensible energy policy.
  We are going to see a lot of amendments on the floor, and I think a 
number of these amendments will be bipartisan and will help improve the 
bill. In fact, I am looking at a list here of about a dozen bipartisan 
amendments. These are amendments--some of which we talked about in 
committee, some of which have come since the process--that involve some 
very thoughtful work done by our colleagues, and I am looking forward 
to having a debate on some of those. Actually, I have a list of 41 
energy efficiency-related relevant amendments here. So this is an 
opportunity for us to have a broader debate on energy but also to 
improve the energy efficiency legislation before us.
  Those of us on this side of the aisle talk about the need for an 
``all of the above'' energy policy, and I certainly believe in it. I 
think we need to do everything we can to make ourselves more energy 
independent so that we are not dependent on dangerous and volatile 
parts of the world, including the Mideast. We have certainly seen that 
here in the last couple of weeks where what is happening in Syria and 
what is happening in Egypt affects what goes on here in this country in 
terms of our energy costs and certainly our economy. So this need for 
energy efficiency should lead us to want to be sure we are including 
this legislation in the mix.
  We need a policy that harnesses more of our domestic resources. I 
believe in that. I believe we should be producing more energy in the 
ground here in America. I am for producing more, but I am also for 
making sure we don't miss the other part of the equation, which is 
using less. So I believe producing more and using less is a good 
policy.
  This is part of the using-less part that maybe we don't talk about as 
much on this side of the aisle, but it is also very important. It is 
important in part because it creates jobs. It is a bill that is 
supported, by the way, by over 260 businesses, business association 
advocacy groups, from the National Association of Manufacturers and the 
chamber of commerce to the Sierra Club and the Alliance to Save Energy. 
The Christian Coalition is supporting it.
  I have here a list of these 260 trade associations and business 
organizations because there are too many names to go through on the 
floor, but it is a very impressive list.
  I think the legislation got through the Senate Energy Committee with 
a vote of 19 to 3 partly because of this support because members 
realize this will help them and their constituents.
  Simply put, I think this legislation that the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire and I have worked on and proposed makes good environmental 
sense, I think it makes good energy sense, and I think it makes good 
economic sense too.
  I spent time visiting with businesses throughout my State of Ohio on 
this bill and on this whole issue of energy, and they all say the same 
thing, which is pretty obvious, and that is that energy is an important 
component of their business, it is part of the cost of doing business, 
and energy efficiency makes them more able to compete in the global 
economy.
  We do live in a global economy, and every day businesses in my State 
go up against businesses not just in other States but in other 
countries. We are not going to be able to compete on everything. We 
don't want to compete on wages with developing countries, for instance. 
We want to have good wages and good benefits in this country. We can 
compete on the quality of the goods we produce. We want to keep that 
quality high. But we have to be sure we are giving these businesses the 
ability to compete by helping to keep their energy costs low--again 
producing more and using less.
  What this legislation does--and it is very significant--is it helps 
the private sector develop the energy efficiency techniques, 
technologies of the future. We make it easier for employers to use 
tools that will reduce their costs, enabling them to put those savings 
toward expanding jobs, plants, equipment, and hiring new workers. The 
proposals contained in our bill are commonsense reforms we have needed 
for a long time.
  The bill contains no mandates. Let me repeat that. There are no 
mandates in this legislation on the private sector, period. In fact, 
many of our proposals come as a direct result of conversations we have 
had with folks in the private sector about how the Federal Government 
can help them to become more energy efficient and to save money, which 
they can then reinvest in their businesses and communities.
  Here is a brief overview of some of the major parts of the 
legislation, some of which have already been described ably by my 
colleague from New Hampshire, but I just want to review them quickly.
  First, it does specifically help manufacturing. It reforms what is 
called the Advanced Manufacturing Office at the Department of Energy by 
providing clear guidelines on its responsibilities, one of which ought 
to be to help manufacturers develop energy-saving technologies for 
their businesses. This is a shift. We think it is important. We think 
they have gotten away from that a little bit--the Department of 
Energy--and we need to be sure they get back to it.
  It facilitates the already existing efforts of companies around the 
country that are trying to implement cost-saving energy efficiency 
policies by streamlining the way government agencies in this arena work 
with them.
  It also increases partnerships with national labs. The national 
laboratories have a lot of great research, and we want to be sure it is 
commercialized and shared with the private sector.
  Also, it increases partnerships with energy and service technology 
providers and the national labs together to leverage private sector 
expertise toward energy efficiency goals.
  The legislation strengthens the model building codes so that builders 
in States that choose to adopt them will have the most up-to-date 
energy efficient codes developed anywhere--best practices.
  The legislation establishes university-based building training and 
assessment centers. Industrial assessments centers are located around 
the country.

[[Page S6356]]

There is one in Dayton, OH. I had the opportunity to visit with one of 
the researchers there recently, who was out working with midsized 
smaller companies, helping make them more energy efficient. They are 
strongly in support of this legislation because they want to expand the 
good work they are doing to help more businesses be more energy 
efficient, be more competitive, and add more jobs.
  Under this legislation, these centers also will be helping to train 
the next generation of workers in energy efficient building design and 
operation. Not only will these programs save energy, but they will also 
help provide our students and unemployed workers who need these skills 
with the skills they will need to compete in this growing energy field.
  To repeat, this bill is not about forcing companies to become more 
energy efficient or imposing mandates. It is about incentives, and it 
is about giving these companies the help they are asking for. And we 
can do it at no additional expense to the taxpayer. Why? Because the 
cost of this legislation is fully offset. In other words, we change 
other programs at the Department of Energy to pay for the cost of this 
legislation.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, it has no impact. It is 
deficit neutral. But in fact it will save taxpayers money, because all 
of us as taxpayers will save money because of another provision of the 
legislation, and that is because we go after the largest energy user in 
the world to try to make them more efficient. That is the United States 
Government. We want to be sure the United States Government starts to 
practice what it preaches, because as it talks to the rest of us about 
the need for more energy efficiency, we find that at the Federal 
Government there are lots of opportunities to make them less wasteful 
and more efficient.
  It directs the Department of Energy to issue recommendations that 
employ energy efficiency on everything from computer hardware to 
operation and maintenance processes.
  Senator Wyden had some good examples earlier of some of the waste in 
the Federal Government that this bill will go after. This is smart 
because it is the right thing to do in order to save energy, but also 
it helps taxpayers because it is going to reduce the cost at the 
Federal Government.
  It also takes an interesting commonsense step of allowing the General 
Services Administration to actually update the building designs they 
have to meet energy-efficient standards that have been developed since 
these designs were finalized, some of them many years ago, and they 
can't update them. We certainly want to be sure the new Federal 
buildings that are being constructed are using the most up-to-date 
efficiency standards. This legislation permits that to happen. The 
government has been looking for places to tighten its belt. This is 
one. Energy efficiency is a great place to start.
  All this adds up to a piece of legislation that Americans across the 
spectrum can support. It is fully offset, it contains no mandates, it 
requires the Federal Government to be more efficient.
  According to a recent study of our legislation, in 12 years, by 2025, 
Shaheen-Portman is estimated to aid in the creation of 136,000 new 
jobs. The report says it is going to save consumers $13.7 billion a 
year in reduced energy costs by 2030. A vote on this legislation is a 
critical step for achieving this goal of a true ``all of the above'' 
energy strategy. It produces more energy at home, yes, but also uses 
less energy--and uses it more efficiently.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come down to the 
floor, offer their amendments, let's have a good debate and discussion, 
and let's support this underlying bill. Let's be sure it leaves the 
Senate with a strong vote and, with it, rigorous debate to ensure it 
can pass the House of Representatives where, as I said earlier, there 
is a lot of interest, and that it can go to the President for his 
signature to take this important step toward making this country more 
competitive, more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign oil, and 
creating more jobs in the process while improving the environment. It 
is a win-win-win.
  I thank my colleague from New Hampshire and the chair and ranking 
member of the Energy Committee. We look forward to entertaining some 
amendments and look forward to being here on the floor talking about a 
way to move our country forward in a way that provides a model on 
moving the Senate forward on other bipartisan measures.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1858

  (Purpose: To provide for a study and report on standby usage power 
standards implemented by States and other industrialized nations)
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1858.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for Mr. Merkley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1858.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in my view, this is a very practical 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Oregon Senator 
Merkley. It involves a study on standby power.
  The amendment would, in effect, fund the study at the Department of 
Energy to look at standby power standards in States and other parts of 
the world to determine what is the most feasible and practical way to 
approach it. There is no authorization here.
  I think it is pretty obvious to Members of the Senate, there are a 
large number of electronic products, from televisions, cell phone 
chargers, to microwaves, that cannot be completely turned off without 
being unplugged, and we ought to find ways to reduce wasted standby 
power.
  It is my intention to support this amendment. I think it is a 
practical idea. I yield any time to Senator Merkley to explain his 
thoughtful amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague from Oregon. 
I appreciate very much his calling up this amendment and for his 
leadership on energy, and specifically energy efficiency.
  I would also like to compliment my colleagues from Ohio and New 
Hampshire, who have worked so hard on this very valuable piece of the 
energy puzzle: How do we more efficiently utilize energy that we 
generate?
  Specifically, this amendment is related to standby power, the power 
that is wasted keeping devices ready to use at a moment's notice. I 
prefer the term ``vampire'' power or ``vampire'' electronics. This is 
the power our electronics suck out of our power system when they are 
doing absolutely nothing. So this challenge of loss to vampire 
electronics is certainly something we ought to take on.
  Many electronic devices, from televisions to desktop computers, cell 
phone chargers, microwaves, use energy when they are turned off but are 
still plugged in. Often, you will see that little light that tells you 
it is still plugged in. This wasted energy accounts for roughly 5 
percent of residential electricity use. So about 1 kilowatt in every 20 
or $1 in every $20 is utilized to keep those little lights blinking.
  The United States has yet to establish standards for efficiency in 
products related to standby power. Some States have done so, and other 
industrialized nations have taken action. This amendment would simply 
tell the Department to look at the standards established elsewhere in 
the world, or in individual States, compare them and analyze them, so 
we can consider whether a lot more could be done in

[[Page S6357]]

the United States to make us more efficient. That efficiency is like 
producing free, available power by ending the waste. In fact, the EPA 
estimates 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity are wasted by 
vampire electronics each year. That adds up to $10 billion in extra 
energy costs.
  Depending on the age of components, running a cable box or large-
screen TV, a DVD player, a gaming console, surround sound setup, could 
be like running a significant refrigerator, a significant power draw, 
and DOE believes it is feasible to reduce this waste from standby power 
by about 75 percent.
  The value of that 75-percent reduction would be equivalent to 
erecting 25,000 3-megawatt wind turbines for free. That is a lot of 
wind power being utilized. So let's do it.
  Under this amendment, the Department of Energy is instructed to 
conduct a study of standards of standby power appliances and electronic 
devices that have been implemented by other States or other 
industrialized nations, and to evaluate which of the standards studied 
would be feasible and appropriate in the United States. It is a simple 
idea and an important study that can contribute substantially to the 
use of power effectively here in our economy.
  I thank my colleagues for bringing this amendment forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we are not going to vote on this amendment 
at this time. But when we do, I hope colleagues will support it. I 
think it is a very fine amendment.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think there is a little confusion on the 
floor. I have an amendment. I have talked to virtually everyone. In 
fact, I can't find one person opposed to it. It is very simple.
  What I would ask is that I be able to set aside the pending amendment 
for the purpose of considering my amendment No. 1851. Let me make that 
and see if there is objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me go ahead and tell the floor what it 
is all about. I know I am going to be wanting to come back to the floor 
and get this in the queue.
  It is very rare in this body that we come up with something everyone 
is for, something that wasn't a part of the original legislation, for a 
very good reason. We are talking about geothermal.
  Right now we all recall in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there is a 
provision that requires the Federal Government have a percentage of its 
energy be from renewable sources. The problem is this: Geothermal 
doesn't create any new energy. It lets you use the energy that is 
there, recover it, heat our homes, cool our homes, put it back, and 
then reuse it again.
  As I say, it is something everyone is for. It is 100 percent 
renewable. The only oversight originally was that it did not actually 
create energy. The amendment would change this to allow geothermal heat 
pumps to be among the renewable energies that could be used by the 
Federal Government to meet its obligation under the 2005 Energy law.
  This amendment doesn't cost anything, it doesn't mandate anything. It 
simply provides another acceptable way for the Federal Government to 
meet its obligations in a cost-effective way. It is noncontroversial 
and something everyone wants.
  It would be my hope after that explanation the Senator from Louisiana 
would be willing to let me bring it up for the purpose of considering 
it, putting it in the queue, and then going back to where we were, 
acknowledging objections that he might have to other amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Unfortunately, I am going to have to sustain my 
objection. But I am very hopeful this can be worked out in short order, 
as soon as a vote on my amendment is locked down. In fact, I will go 
this far. It doesn't even have to be on this bill. It does have to be 
in the near future, because the issue with regard to which I am very 
concerned happens on October 1. So this is an extremely time-sensitive 
issue.
  I have had good discussions with the majority, and it seems as though 
we are going to be able to lock down that agreement hopefully very 
soon. But until then, I am going to have to object.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I intend to support the Inhofe-Carper 
amendment. In my view, this is really a commonsense clarification of 
existing law. I want colleagues to have a sense that this is the kind 
of bipartisan work that Senator Murkowski talked about earlier, that we 
have been trying to do to try to come to the Senate with ideas that 
really pass the smell test. I mean they are common sense, they are 
practical.
  In that context, this amendment modifies the existing definition of 
renewable energy to provide that thermal energy that is generated 
from--from renewable energy sources ought to be considered renewable 
energy for Federal energy purchase requirements. For example, if a 
Federal agency has access to thermal energy from groundwater to heat or 
cool its facilities, under the Inhofe-Carper amendment that thermal 
energy would be considered renewable energy produced just as if the 
buildings had solar or wind power to produce electricity.
  I hope colleagues, in this spirit, will bring us these kinds of 
suggestions and ideas. Senator Inhofe brought this to us early on. I 
know we are going to have some more discussion because of its 
connection to other matters, but I hope we will get a vote. It is 
common sense. It is practical. I intend to support it. I want the 
record to reflect that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, as author, with Senator Shaheen, of the 
underlying bill, I have a list of a dozen or so bipartisan amendments 
that I would love to see us have a debate on, including the Inhofe 
amendment. The Inhofe-Carper amendment is a great example, as the 
chairman just said, of one that actually improves the bill. As I said, 
there are some amendments we may not find bipartisan, but this is one, 
and it is common sense. I appreciate him working with the committee and 
working with us, and I just wish we could get it up for a vote and get 
it filed today.
  I hope we can work out our differences on other amendments that are 
not relevant to the legislation so we can go ahead with some of this 
debate. My sense is that we have a good chance of doing that. Let's 
figure out how to come together with a practical solution to be able to 
provide a vote but also to allow us to proceed with this debate.
  Senator Inhofe came over here to offer his amendment. He wasn't able 
to. I hope we can, for the next good bipartisan amendment, have that 
opportunity.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, let me offer this truly friendly 
suggestion. I think we can proceed with this debate. Senator Portman 
said proceed with the debate. We can proceed with this debate right 
now. We can bring amendments to the floor, we can talk about them, we 
can have a full debate on any amendment folks want to bring to the 
floor. I encourage that. I think that will move the process along 
because we can basically do all of the substantive debate on these 
amendments. The only

[[Page S6358]]

thing I am talking about is a technicality, which is making the 
amendment pending. That is a technicality that does not have to stop or 
delay or prohibit any debate.
  My suggestion is to move full forward with that debate as we work out 
this agreement. I am fully prepared in the same way to discuss and 
debate my amendment. I am ready to do that whenever it is appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't recall this happening before. Regarding the very 
amendment that is an obstacle, keeping me from the vote, I ask 
unanimous consent right now to become a cosponsor of that amendment, 
the Vitter amendment I am talking about.
  I know what he is trying to do. I know he is going to make an effort 
to get this done maybe in other legislation if it does not happen here. 
I will be joining him in his cause. I see this as a separate matter 
here, as I say. We want to move this along. Everyone agrees to. I will 
stand by and see if anyone changes their mind.
  Thank you, I say to the chairman and ranking member. Thank you for 
the very kind comments on my amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I was next going to ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my 
amendment No. 1845. I understand the Senate is in an a bit of an 
impasse, but, if I might, I would like to talk about my amendment 
without calling it up with the hope that later my friend and colleague 
Senator Wyden will be able to call up my amendment and put it on the 
list of pending amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I am going to talk a little bit about this 
important effort which has been authored in partnership with my good 
friend from the wonderful State of Maine, Senator Collins. I wish to 
take a minute before I do that and say how important it is that we are 
finally debating, for the first time in years, an energy bill in the 
Senate. The fact that we are here today beginning this important debate 
is a huge testament to my colleague from the great State of New 
Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, and my good friend from the days I served 
in the House and now fellow Senator from the great State of Ohio, 
Senator Portman, and the leadership of Chairman Wyden and Ranking 
Member Murkowski.
  I think Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen are saying this in every 
way possible: For our country to truly realize energy independence, 
energy security, we need to efficiently use the energy we have. That is 
exactly what Senators Portman and Shaheen envision with their 
legislation. We support energy security, and we save Americans money.
  With that background, let me turn to our amendment. Improving the 
energy efficiency of our schools is a no-brainer, and that is why I am 
proud to partner with Senator Collins to make sure our efforts have the 
biggest bang for the buck. This is a bipartisan amendment. It will help 
streamline efforts to improve the energy efficiency of our Nation's 
schools while, most importantly, strengthening our children's 
education.
  Our schools are often confused by where to go and whom to work with 
to pursue energy efficiency efforts and education, and this is in part 
because of how many agencies, departments, State governments, and the 
like are involved. By providing a coordinating structure for schools to 
better navigate existing Federal programs and the financing options 
available to them, we are going to pare back duplicative efforts and 
make it easier for schools across my State of Colorado and across the 
United States to save thousands of taxpayer dollars each year that then 
can be reinvested in strengthening our education system.
  The amendment also has the dual benefit of making Federal programs 
work better for our schools while still leaving decisions to the 
States, school boards, and local officials to determine what is best 
for their schools.
  This is a commonsense amendment. I truly hope we get a chance to 
debate it and to have an up-or-down vote on it.
  Before I yield the floor, I would also like to point out--I know my 
colleague Senator Wyden is well aware of this, as are Senator Shaheen, 
Senator Portman, and Senator Murkowski--that when we have schools that 
operate on an energy efficient basis, studies show our young people, 
our children learn more effectively because if you are in an 
environment that is comfortable, where the light is appropriate, where 
you can see, where you can take in what is being taught, you are, of 
course, going to have a better educational experience.
  A better educated America means a stronger America, means a more 
productive America, a more competitive America. This has benefits 
across the board in every way imaginable--the broader effort that 
Senators Shaheen and Portman brought forth but also that Senators Wyden 
and Murkowski are handling here on the floor of the Senate.
  I wish to draw attention to this important amendment. I thank my 
colleague Senator Collins. I know she will be here later to talk about 
her perspectives and the other good work she is going to do when it 
comes to this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor of the Senate, I 
wish to commend my colleague from Colorado, Senator Udall. This is a 
practical, commonsense amendment. There is no new expenditure of 
Federal funds. I am very pleased my colleague brought it to the floor. 
It is reflective of the approach we see in the Energy Committee in a 
host of areas where the Senator from Colorado consistently tries to 
find common ground and act in a bipartisan way.
  One of the reasons I wanted to speak for just a minute is now we are 
seeing these bipartisan amendments are starting to sort of pile up. 
That is because colleagues are listening to what folks at home are 
saying. They are saying to Senator Udall and Senator Shaheen and 
Senator Portman and myself--Senator Murkowski, they are saying when you 
all are back there in the fall: Try to find some ways to get things 
done. Get people to work together.
  I think we all understand how important energy is--and energy 
security. It is about jobs. It is about a cleaner environment. It about 
productivity. When I look at the specifics of this amendment Senator 
Udall and Senator Collins are pursuing, sometimes I think it is maybe 
too logical for the beltway. People say it makes too much sense. When 
schools do retrofits under the Collins-Udall amendment to become more 
energy efficient and use cleaner power, the kids come out winners, the 
environment comes out a winner, and the taxpayers come out winners. 
That is the whole reason the Federal Government provides assistance to 
schools for these types of projects in the first place.
  It is an opportunity for the Federal Government to save money and 
ensure that we maximize educational opportunities for the kids. The 
reality is that Federal school efficiency programs are now strewn, 
really, all over the Federal Government. They are scattered among more 
than six different agencies. The States have all these different 
programs and incentives. What Senator Collins and Senator Udall seek to 
do is to have a straightforward mechanism for improved Federal 
coordination. In the real world that means we are going to have more 
energy projects built, and it means more schools are going to save 
energy and money.

  I would also note--because my friend Senator Murkowski is here--that 
the Udall-Collins amendment pretty much tracks something we have been 
interested in. The committee has been looking at S. 1048, which was 
heard by the Energy Subcommittee on June 25.
  Again, no authorization. The minimal costs are covered by existing 
DOE funds. I wish to commend the Senator from Colorado for his good 
work and particularly the bipartisan focus he has put on this and 
everything else that has to do with his Senate business. I hope we will 
be able to vote on it.

[[Page S6359]]

  As this debate starts, I want colleagues to see that we are going to 
start stacking up good, commonsense, bipartisan amendments, and that is 
why there is so much value in energy efficiency.
  Before Senator Udall came to the floor, I said we all get worked up 
around here by saying we are for ``all of the above'' energy policy. It 
is almost obligatory for a Senator to say they are for ``all of the 
above'' three times every 10 or 15 minutes. A Senator can't be for an 
``all of the above'' energy policy unless they are for energy 
efficiency, and Senator Udall is bringing some of that sensible 
thinking to the schools.
  I am looking forward to getting up this amendment so we can vote on 
it, and I commend Senator Udall for his good work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I, too, wish to thank the Senator from 
Colorado and the Senator from Maine for their leadership in this area. 
When we talk about being efficient, we think: OK. Let's coordinate, 
collaborate, and cooperate so we do better with what it is we are 
utilizing.
  I will give an example of how something such as this can make a 
difference in my State. I have noted before that our energy costs in 
Alaska are some of the highest in the Nation. Far too often our schools 
are in remote areas where basically they are not part of anybody's 
grid. They are in communities that are diesel powered. It is a tough 
way to heat a community. Think about how expensive it then becomes for 
the schools. The school has to absorb these energy costs.
  Where do these dollars come from? Effectively, they come out of the 
education budget, and the State does step in. The State provides 
substantial assistance, but anywhere, anytime or anyplace we can work 
together to, again, be more collaborative in our approach as to how we 
deal with our efficiency opportunities will ultimately help our 
schools.
  This is going to help the schools whether they are in Maine or Alaska 
or Colorado. Why these places are all colder I am not sure, but maybe 
it forces us to be a little more efficient. Maybe it forces us to 
figure out ways to work together better. I want to make sure we are 
able to get the education dollars into the classroom and not basically 
fueling the boilers to keep the kids warm.
  I applaud my colleagues in this effort. The goal to increase 
coordination and cooperation at Federal, State, and local agencies to 
be operating more efficiently and utilizing existing relationships is a 
positive.
  Again, I commend my colleagues for their efforts in bringing us 
forward on this particular aspect of energy efficiency. I look forward 
to the opportunity where we will be able to show a good bipartisan vote 
on this amendment and on others.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate the bill's 
sponsors, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for crafting the underlying 
bipartisan, commonsense energy efficiency bill.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of their legislation, and I am pleased 
to see that the bill is being considered and look forward to the debate 
on energy efficiency.
  I would hope that as we consider amendments to this bill, we could 
consider amendments that relate to the issue of energy so we can make 
real progress and that we don't end up--as happened before the recess 
when I was managing a bill on the transportation and housing 
appropriations for the minority side--distracted on two issues that had 
nothing to do with the underlying bill, important though it was.
  I am very pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished Senator 
from Colorado Mr. Udall in sponsoring an amendment to help streamline 
the available Federal Energy Efficiency Financing Program to help 
improve the health and lower energy costs of our Nation's schools.
  There are a number of Federal initiatives already available to 
schools to help them become more efficient. However, in many cases 
schools are not taking full advantage of these programs. I think this 
is particularly a problem in rural States such as Alaska or Maine, 
where the schools don't have the luxury of having grant writers who can 
spend all day searching for Federal funding that might allow them to 
upgrade their energy efficiency or reduce emissions from their energy 
systems.
  Large urban schools may have the ability to hire those full-time 
grant writers, but I know in my State of Maine it is very difficult for 
schools to even become aware of these programs. One of the purposes of 
the amendment that Senator Udall and I are offering is to help schools, 
regardless of their size, take advantage of existing programs.
  I wish to stress that we are not creating a whole lot of new 
programs. All we are doing is providing a streamlined coordinating 
structure for schools to help them better navigate available Federal 
programs and financing options. I also wish to emphasize--particularly 
to my Republican colleagues--that our amendment still leaves all the 
decisions to the States, local school boards, and local officials about 
how best to meet the energy needs of their schools.
  So what does our amendment do? Specifically, the amendment would 
establish the Department of Energy as the lead agency in coordinating a 
cross-developmental effort to help initiate, develop, and finance 
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and retrofitting projects for our 
schools. It would also require a review of existing Federal programs 
and financing mechanisms, the formation of a streamlined process of 
communication and outreach to the States, local education agencies, and 
schools of these existing programs to make them more aware of their 
existence, and the development of a mechanism for Governors, State 
energy programs, and local educational and energy officials to form a 
peer-to-peer network to support the initiation of these projects.
  Finally, the amendment would require the Department of Energy to 
provide technical assistance to help schools navigate the financing and 
development of these projects. Assisting our Nation's schools in 
navigating and tapping into existing Federal programs that will help 
them lower their energy usage and save the taxpayers' money at a time 
of very tight and constrained educational budgets simply makes good 
common sense.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Udall-
Collins amendment numbered 1845. I thank not only the sponsors of the 
bill but the leaders of the energy committee, Senator Wyden and Senator 
Murkowski, for their help and assistance to us.
  I hope we can start the debate on this bill on a positive note by 
adopting a bipartisan amendment that is going to help our schools save 
money, reduce energy costs, and also lower emissions. That is the way 
to start the debate on this bill.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Collins and Udall 
for coming to the floor with their positive amendment, laying it out, 
and debating it. I encourage everyone with an interest in this bill--
Democrats and Republicans--to do the same. Come to the floor, lay out 
amendments, and have that debate so we can move forward in a productive 
way as the first vote agreement is being worked on and finalized, and 
that is what I am going to proceed to do with regard to my amendment.
  My amendment is not related to this bill, but I have to bring it up 
now because it is very time sensitive. It is about something that is 
very wrong, in my opinion, that is happening October 1.
  Many of us in this Chamber, and certainly myself, regularly talk 
against the exemptions under ObamaCare that are created for the rich 
and powerful and politically connected. Many in this body, including 
myself, regularly talk about the abuses of this administration going 
beyond their legitimate authority and what is in the law. They are 
making up stuff through Executive orders, rulemaking, and Executive 
fiat. As I said, I am certainly in that group.
  I believe an action was taken recently that is a horrible, dangerous,

[[Page S6360]]

and offensive example of both of those things, and my amendment would 
correct that situation. I will back up and explain what I am talking 
about.
  Right after all of Congress left for the August recess--a little over 
1 month ago--the Office of Personnel Management, part of the Obama 
administration, issued a draft rule. This draft rule was basically 
designed to take any of the sting of ObamaCare away for Washington 
insiders--specifically Members of Congress and congressional staff.
  During the ObamaCare debate, we debated an amendment on the Senate 
floor, and it, to my pleasant surprise, was actually adopted. The 
amendment said that every Member of Congress and all congressional 
staff have to go to the exchange. They have to leave their very 
generous Federal employee health benefit coverage and go to the 
exchange. They have to go to the fallback position in terms of health 
care coverage that millions of Americans are dealing with and have to 
go to them right now or over the next several months. They have to live 
under those same rules and under those same circumstances of those tens 
of millions of Americans.
  I supported that. I think it is important that the ruling elite, if 
you will, need to live under the same laws they created across the 
board. Specifically, under ObamaCare, I think it is very important that 
everybody in Congress and in Washington--and I think this should be 
expanded to the administration--live under the same system in terms of 
the exchange that many of those folks created.
  That was the statute that was supposed to govern. After ObamaCare 
passed, to quote Nancy Pelosi, folks started looking and reading the 
bill to figure out what was in it. Lots of folks in Washington got very 
concerned once they read that revision and figured out what was in it. 
They understood it would create real dislocation and sting, not for 
America--although it does do that, but they were not concerned enough 
about that--but for Washington.
  For months, many people lobbied the administration to try to get 
around this and make up some regulation that would take the sting out 
of that provision. After intense lobbying, sure enough, the Obama 
administration issued this rule--again, as I mentioned a minute ago--
right after we left town and safely away at the start of the August 
recess.
  The rule did a few things, all of which I think are beyond the law, 
contrary to law, and outrageous. First of all, it says the statute, 
which says all official staff of Members of Congress need to go to the 
exchanges--the first thing the rule says is we don't know what official 
staff means, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member 
of Congress to decide if any member of their staff is official staff. 
So each Member of Congress can decide whether anybody on their staff 
has to go to the exchange at all. I think that is ludicrous on its face 
and completely contrary to the statute.
  But then the second big thing the rule did is made, out of thin air, 
the rule that the present subsidy we get from the taxpayer for our 
present health care coverage is going to somehow miraculously turn into 
a subsidy on the exchange, which doesn't exist. It doesn't exist for us 
under the law; it doesn't exist for any American. So they made up out 
of thin air this rule that the taxpayer-funded subsidy would follow all 
of these folks--Members of Congress and the staff who are required to 
go there--to the exchange. Again, that is not in the law. That is 
contrary to the letter and spirit of this provision. There is a 
separate provision of ObamaCare that specifically says with regard to 
all individuals going to the exchange that when they do this, when they 
go to a plan on the exchange, they lose their employer-provided 
subsidy. So that is specific about the situation of folks going to the 
exchange and directly contrary to this law.
  As I suggested at the beginning, I think this is a special exemption 
for Washington, a special bailout for Washington, to ensure Washington 
doesn't have to live by the same rules, in this case with regard to 
ObamaCare and the exchanges, that all of America does, and it is beyond 
the statute and it is beyond the President's constitutional authority. 
He can't make things up out of thin air. For that reason, I have joined 
with many colleagues to draft a bill which would make an amendment to 
this bill to propose that would fix that, and it is no Washington 
exemption from ObamaCare.
  Specifically, the bill would do three things: First of all, it does 
away with this OPM rule and it clarifies that Members don't get to pick 
and choose who is official staff. Congressional staff is congressional 
staff.
  Then it says, all Members of Congress, all congressional staff--and 
we expand it to the President and Vice President and all political 
appointees of the Obama administration--all of those folks have to go 
to the exchanges, the clear language of present law with regard to 
Members of Congress and their staff.
  Finally, we fix the other part of this illegal rule. We say this 
subsidy Members of Congress and staff currently enjoy under their 
present health care coverage can't follow them to the exchange. That is 
not the case for any other American. That is not in the law. In fact, 
in ObamaCare, there is a broader provision completely contrary to that, 
so we say that cannot happen.
  That is what our bill and our amendment is.
  I think it is a fundamental, a threshold, and a very important rule 
of democracy that the governors have to live by the same laws they pass 
and impose on the governed. I think that should be the case across the 
board and certainly that should be the case under ObamaCare.
  Tens of millions of Americans are experiencing having to go to the 
exchanges. Many of them didn't want to go there. Many of them had good 
coverage with their employer that they are losing because of the 
economics of this new situation, and they are being forced to the 
exchange. The clear language and intent of that provision in ObamaCare 
was for Members of Congress and staff to have to experience the same 
thing, and that is the clear language and that is the clear intent. So 
we should live by that, not get around it. And, in my opinion, we 
should expand it to the President, who has volunteered to go to the 
exchange, to the Vice President, and to all of their political 
appointees. That is what our amendment does. That is what our bill 
does.
  I wish to thank all of the Members, Senate and House, who were 
working hard on this proposal, including Senators Enzi, Heller, 
Johnson, and many others. I know I am missing several. There are 
several House Members, led by Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida, who 
are working on identical House language. They are hard at work, 
particularly in the context of the CR.
  The bottom line is this: There should be no special Washington 
exemption from ObamaCare. All laws we pass should apply to us every bit 
as much as other Americans, and certainly we, as is the clear language 
and is the clear intent, should live under that fallback plan of the 
exchanges just as every other American does. No other American gets 
this special subsidy the OPM rule gives to us.
  Folks in this class under my amendment and bill would be able to 
qualify for a subsidy, if it is the same subsidy that is available to 
other Americans, according to income category. So if a person qualifies 
by income, fine. But this is way beyond that. This is a special deal, a 
special exemption for Congress, and we need to say there should be no 
Washington exemption. This bill, this amendment does that clearly and 
categorically.
  I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this.
  Let me end by talking about a vote. I am bringing up this amendment 
on this bill. The reason is this issue is very time sensitive. This 
rule, which was made up out of thin air, in my opinion, goes into 
effect and all of this is set to happen October 1. So this debate has 
to happen, a change to this rule has to happen before October 1. That 
is why I am bringing it up now and demanding a vote. But, actually, 
that vote doesn't have to be on this bill. I will accept any fair, 
reasonable, substantive vote before October 1. But we need to lock that 
down. I think we are well on our way to locking that down, and I look 
forward to that.
  In the meantime, let me again urge my colleagues who have amendments

[[Page S6361]]

to this bill on the subject of energy or on any other subject to come 
down and present those on the floor, talk about them and debate them, 
as I have, as Senators Udall and Collins have. Let's move forward with 
the process as we nail down this first vote agreement.
  As we get to a vote on this amendment, I urge my colleagues to follow 
the first and, in many ways, most basic rule of democracy: that the 
rules we impose on the governed we should live by. That is absolutely 
essential. That should be the case across the board, certainly 
including ObamaCare, and in the case of ObamaCare, there is specific 
language which says that. That is what it says. That is what it is 
supposed to be about. This illegal OPM rule completely invalidates and 
gets around that rule, so we need to act to fix that now, well before 
October 1.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1847.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1847.

  Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as I made clear previously but I will 
restate, I objected to and I continue to object to laying aside any 
amendment and making another amendment pending. We made that clear 
between the floor staff of the minority and majority side. That was 
crystal clear, so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the amendment from the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the calling 
up of the amendment be vitiated out of respect for my colleague from 
Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to very briefly thank the Senator. 
That is a very generous and gentlemanly thing to do. This was the 
understanding between the floor staff. I know apparently it wasn't 
properly communicated to the Chair, but that was the clear 
understanding, and I appreciate that gesture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, through the Chair, I would say to the 
Senator from Louisiana that my understanding was he would object. He 
was on the floor when I offered it and I thought he was going to 
object. So knowing of his objection, I withdraw the amendment.
  Having said all of that, I think it is a shame that we can't get 
going with this bipartisan bill. I wish to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their incredibly great bipartisan work on this 
energy bill. I wish to thank Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire 
and Senator Portman from Ohio for the bipartisan work that has been 
going on for months, if not years, on this bill.
  I am pleased to come to the floor--I wish to introduce my amendment 
but not today because of the objection, but to at least talk about a 
bipartisan amendment we would like to get on this bill. I wish to thank 
my colleague Senator Ayotte for joining me in this important effort.
  Our amendment is based on stand-alone legislation we have written 
called the Better Buildings Act, which encourages energy efficiency in 
commercial buildings. Over the last several years we worked with 
building owners across Colorado and the country to craft the 
legislation. The economic and environmental benefits of improving 
energy efficiency in buildings are clear.
  A well-publicized retrofit of the Empire State Building in New York 
reduced energy usage by 38 percent--almost 40 percent--and it saved an 
estimated $4.4 million annually for the building owner. The retrofit 
also created over 250 construction jobs right here in the United States 
that can't be sent overseas.
  It is this example, and these ideas, that helped form the basis for 
the Better Buildings Act and this amendment.
  In crafting the measure, we started to think about efficiency in 
buildings not only from the top down where a building owner makes the 
improvements, but also from the bottom up where a tenant would see 
advantages from designing and configuring their rented office space in 
an energy-efficient manner. With all of that in mind, the amendment we 
have introduced accomplishes two principal goals. First, it allows for 
a first-of-its-kind study by the Department of Energy to chronicle 
private sector best practices as tenants build out their lease spaces 
in commercial buildings. This study would then inform a voluntary 
Department of Energy program to recognize tenants, to acknowledge 
tenants that design and construct high-performance lease spaces in the 
future.
  The second provision, called Tenant Star, would expand on the popular 
ENERGY STAR Program and make it available to tenants, not just 
landlords. Under our amendment, tenants will be recognized for the 
efficient performance of their leased office space. This will provide 
value to their customers, their investors, and ultimately to the 
building owner.
  The ENERGY STAR label has proven a very powerful tool to achieve 
whole building efficiency. Our language takes the next logical step and 
confers this recognition on tenants as well.
  This bipartisan amendment is broadly supported--from the Alliance to 
Save Energy to the Real Estate Roundtable, to the Sierra Club. It also 
received a favorable hearing in the Senate Energy Committee in June, 
and I thank the chairman for that. The Congressional Budget Office has 
confirmed it has no score.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan and commonsense 
amendment. I hope we can get to the business of legislating around this 
incredibly important bipartisan bill.
  With that, I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience, I yield 
the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado on a 
fine amendment. I hope we are going to get a chance to vote on it. I 
think he mentioned that commercial buildings consume almost half of the 
energy used in the United States.
  What I think is important for the Senate to see is the bipartisan 
amendments are now piling up. We started off with a very good 
amendment, the Inhofe-Carper amendment in terms of thermal power, 
Senator Udall and Senator Collins talking about retrofitting schools, 
getting more for the kids and for a better environment without spending 
new Federal money, and now we have the Bennet-Ayotte proposal to deal 
with commercial buildings consuming almost half of the energy consumed 
in the United States.
  You have bipartisan amendments, I say to my colleagues, in effect, 
stacking up on the floor of the Senate. I think the reason that is the 
case is because Senators are coming back from the August break. They 
were home having community meetings and talking to folks, and people 
said--whether you are from Ohio, like the Presiding Officer, or Oregon 
or New Hampshire, different parts of the country--you go back there and 
find a way to deal with some real challenges, and do it in a bipartisan 
way. So that is what the underlying bill does. That is what the three 
amendments we seek to be able to vote on do.
  In the case of this particular amendment, the voluntary ENERGY STAR 
Program has created an incentive for commercial building owners to 
increase the efficiency of their buildings by recognizing the most 
efficient. So today there are over 20,000 commercial buildings in the 
country certified as highly efficient ENERGY STAR buildings.
  The challenge, however, is that about half of the energy used in 
commercial buildings is under the control of the tenants, not the 
owners. This amendment would promote efficiency in commercial buildings 
by establishing a

[[Page S6362]]

Tenant Star program to recognize the energy efficiency achievements of 
building tenants, as ENERGY STAR does for the owners.
  We looked at this in the committee, particularly in the Energy 
Subcommittee on June 25. To me, again, trying to build on successful 
approaches is simply what the country wants us to be doing here in the 
Senate. It is the focus of the underlying bill. It is the focus of the 
amendments that are pending--each one of them supported in a bipartisan 
way.
  This amendment, as far as I can tell, has a real cross section of 
businesses interested, for obvious reasons. It constitutes almost half 
the buildings in the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support we 
received be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 24, 2013.
     Re Better Buildings Act (S. 1191--``Tenant Star'').

     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Chair, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Al Franken,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Energy, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Michael Bennet,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources,U.S. 
         Senate.
     Hon. Jim Risch,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Kelly Ayotte,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senators: We represent real estate owners, developers, 
     building managers, energy service companies, efficiency 
     financing sources, environmental and efficiency advocates, 
     and other stakeholders who support market-based solutions to 
     lower energy consumption in our built environment. As the 
     Senate considers energy legislation, we support proposals 
     that encourage cooperation by landlords and tenants in our 
     nation's commercial buildings to save energy as leased spaces 
     in these structures are designed, constructed, used, and 
     occupied.
       We thus commend Senators Bennet and Ayotte for introducing 
     S. 1191, the ``Better Buildings Act of 2013.'' The act takes 
     a market-driven, voluntary, ``best practices'' approach to 
     align building owners and their tenants to reduce demands on 
     the energy grid. As this proposal fits within existing 
     voluntary programs, it has no regulatory impact and does not 
     require new appropriations.
       To date, bills addressing energy efficiency have focused on 
     how real estate owners and developers may lower energy 
     consumption at the ``whole-building'' level. But in fact, 
     owners and managers of large buildings control only about 50% 
     of their structures' total energy; tenants consume at least 
     half. The Better Buildings Act takes a holistic approach by 
     considering office tenants' impact on energy consumption and 
     behaviors. Notably, the act brings the voluntary ENERGY STAR 
     rating for whole-buildings to the next level by authorizing a 
     ``Tenant Star'' program to certify leased spaces in buildings 
     as energy efficient. Considering the overwhelming success and 
     private sector acceptance of ENERGY STAR for buildings--which 
     are located in all 50 states, represent billions of square 
     feet of commercial floorspace, and saved American businesses 
     over $2.7 billion in utility bills in 2012 alone--it is sound 
     energy policy to evolve this program to the ``Tenant Star'' 
     level of leased spaces.
       We strongly support the Better Buildings Act and its 
     ``Tenant Star'' provisions. We urge the Senate to enact S. 
     1191 whether on its own or as part of any energy package that 
     may be put to a vote.


  better buildings act (s. 1191/h.r. 2126)--``tenant star'' endorsers

       Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-
     Efficient Economy, American Hotel & Lodging Association, 
     American Institute of Architects, American Resort Development 
     Association, American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), 
     ASHRAE, Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), Bayer 
     MaterialScience LLC, Boston Properties, Brandywine Realty 
     Trust, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) 
     International, CBRE, Inc., CCIM Institute, Danfoss, EIFS 
     Industry Members Association (EIMA), Empire State Building 
     Company/Malkin Holdings, Energy Systems Group, First Potomac 
     Realty Trust, Illuminating Engineering Society (IES).
       Institute for Market Transformation, Institute of Real 
     Estate Management, International Council of Shopping Centers, 
     Johnson Controls, Inc., Jones Lang LaSalle, LBA Realty, 
     LonMark International, Metrus Energy, Inc., NAIOP, the 
     Commercial Real Estate Development Association, National 
     Apartment Association, National Association of Energy Service 
     Companies (NAESCO), National Association of Home Builders, 
     National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, 
     National Association of REALTORS', National 
     Association of State Energy Officials, National Electrical 
     Manufacturers Association, National Fenestration Rating 
     Council (NFRC), National Multi Housing Council, Natural 
     Resources Defense Council.
       OpenADR Alliance, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--
     National Association, Prologis, Inc., Real Estate Board of 
     New York, Related Companies, Rising Realty Partners, Rudin 
     Management Company, Inc., Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning 
     Contractors National Association, Inc., Shorenstein 
     Properties LLC, Sierra Club, Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance 
     (SPFA), SUN DAY Campaign, The Real Estate Roundtable, The 
     Stella Group, Ltd., Tishman Speyer, Transwestern, U.S. Green 
     Building Council, USAA Real Estate Co., Vinyl Siding 
     Institute, Vornado Realty Trust.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to stay here to see if other 
colleagues would like to bring over their amendments. As I indicated in 
opening comments a couple hours ago, I think there are at least a dozen 
good amendments here--amendments that are going to be good for American 
productivity, they are going to create good-paying, high-skill jobs, 
and they are going to be winners for the environment. That is a 
trifecta of valuable concerns being addressed with one piece of 
legislation, being done in a bipartisan way.
  I know the popular wisdom is you cannot thread the needle on 
legislation and that even on something such as energy efficiency, these 
folks are going to try to see if they can get their bipartisan 
amendments passed, but at the end of the day, the forces who want to 
block legislation, because they care about a particular issue, are too 
strong. I hope Senators are going to see we are going to make sure 
people have a chance to have their issues heard. But we also want them 
to see that to lose the ability to have a key part of an ``all of the 
above'' energy policy--I have said you cannot have an ``all of the 
above'' energy policy if you are not for energy efficiency. To not 
advance this particular cause--and we passed the hydropower bill. It is 
a good bill. People said it was the first major energy bill since 2009. 
This is the next logical step. We ought to take it.
  I see the Senator from Ohio here, who has done so much good work, and 
I will yield at this time. I know he has a great interest in this 
topic. I hope, when we get a chance to vote on the Bennet-Ayotte 
amendment, Senators will support it.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I stand to strongly support this 
amendment. I think it is exactly as the chairman has suggested. It is 
bipartisan. It helps to solve a problem we have right now, and I 
applaud Senator Bennet who spoke earlier, and also Senator Ayotte from 
New Hampshire, who has joined with him to take a lead on this. They 
have worked with us. They have, again, by this amendment, I believe, 
offered a good opportunity to improve the underlying legislation. I 
think it is consistent with the underlying legislation.
  By the way, it is an amendment that makes sense because there is 
right now a disconnect between those who own commercial buildings and 
those who are tenants in those buildings. We have heard this around the 
country as we have talked about efficiency. It kind of gets the 
landlords and the tenants in sync with lowering energy costs. It is 
market driven. It is nonregulatory. It takes a ``best practices'' 
approach to address this issue.
  Owners and managers of large commercial buildings report that their 
tenants consume over 50 percent of the total energy in the structure, 
but again there is this disconnect because owners lease the space, but 
they do not pay the bills; therefore, there is often no motivation to 
cut energy costs by making the space more efficient. The owners do not 
have that incentive. The tenants do. They pay the bills. But they often 
have very limited choices in the design or the operation of the energy-
consuming aspects of the structure they lease.
  This is an attempt to address that issue, and I think it is a smart 
realistic approach. It encourages tenants to make structural 
investments when they enter into new leases or renew existing leases. 
The act asks the Department of Energy to study and learn from private 
sector ``best practices'' to achieve high-performance, cost-effective 
measures with viable payback periods on efficiency.
  It also builds on the success of the voluntary ENERGY STAR Program

[[Page S6363]]

that a lot of folks are familiar with and kind of moves ENERGY STAR 
into the tenant space, creating a tenant-oriented certification called 
Tenant Star for leased spaces, again, with the goal of transforming the 
way building owners and their tenants think about energy.
  By the way, this legislation is supported by the Real Estate 
Roundtable, a group that has looked at this underlying legislation, 
this amendment, and thinks this helps them to accomplish some of their 
goals in energy efficiency. It is also supported by the Restaurant 
Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and others.
  So this better buildings amendment Senator Ayotte and Senator Bennet 
have offered I think is strong. I wish they could have actually taken 
the amendment today off the calendar and actually been able to 
technically offer it. But we did have a good debate on it, and I am 
hoping soon we will be able to resolve these other issues and be able 
to move forward with an actual vote on this because this is a classical 
example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats, 
finding common ground on how to have a true ``all of the above'' energy 
strategy, not just produce more energy, which I strongly support, but 
also use the energy we have more efficiently.
  Since buildings are about 40 percent of energy usage, this is very 
smart legislation, building on the other amendments we heard about 
today--on using geothermal, being sure it is part of renewable energy; 
ensuring that our schools have the best information to be able to 
become more energy efficient; and other amendments. Again, I count 
about a dozen of them here that are bipartisan amendments that we hope 
to have on the floor as part of this underlying bill to help create 
more jobs, have a cleaner environment, make us less dependent on 
foreign oil, and move forward on this important leg of our national 
energy strategy.
  With that, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment No. 1856.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I object on behalf of my colleague who 
has an arrangement with the majority staff on this on the basis of his 
interest in objecting until he gets a unanimous consent agreement that 
I think is being worked on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would still like to talk about this 
amendment. And I want to thank both Senator Wyden for working with us 
on this amendment and also Senator Murkowski for working with us on 
this amendment. I appreciate their support.
  This is an amendment Senator Hoeven and I have submitted together. I 
will describe it to you because I think it is such a good amendment. We 
want to make sure we get moving on this very important bill that I 
support, as well as these amendments.
  The Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act would provide assistance to 
nonprofit organizations to help make the buildings they own and operate 
more energy efficient.
  Nonprofit organizations are the heart of our country and serve 
millions of Americans every day. Nonprofits include hospitals, schools, 
houses of worship--particularly supportive of this amendment--and youth 
centers. They face the choice of making facility improvements or 
serving more people, which is also difficult for them.
  That choice is clear for so many organizations. Nonprofits often 
operate in older, less efficient buildings, and because of their 
nonprofit status, they cannot participate in energy efficiency programs 
despite the financial benefits of energy efficiency retrofits and other 
improvements.
  This amendment is about allowing the Department of Energy to make 
grants of up to $200,000 for energy efficiency projects over the next 5 
years. The amendment requires a 50-percent cost share and includes 
provisions to ensure that the projects achieve significant amounts of 
energy savings and are done in a cost-effective manner.
  This amendment, the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, is fully offset. I 
appreciate the work of the committee and the committee staff on this 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act 
amendment.
  Before I yield the floor, I again want to thank Senator Shaheen and 
Senator Portman for their tireless efforts to move this important 
legislation forward. I believe energy efficiency is an area we can all 
agree is good for the economy, it is good for consumers, and it is an 
issue where we can find common ground, as you can see by the amendment 
I have done with Senator Hoeven.
  Senator Hoeven from North Dakota knows a little bit about producing 
energy with their oil production, natural gas production, the biofuel 
production they share with Minnesota. We are some of the top biofuel 
producers in the country. But in our States we also believe in 
conserving energy and in energy efficiency. We believe this bill is a 
good bill and also that this amendment is a very good addition to the 
bill, as it allows nonprofits, such as places of worship, to also share 
in the energy efficiency program, and they are very interested in 
moving ahead with this amendment.
  So I thank you. I thank the authors, and I thank the chair and the 
ranking member of the committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to commend Senator Klobuchar on her efforts. This is another 
one of the great bipartisan amendments that has been worked on to add 
to this energy efficiency legislation. It shows how great the 
opportunity is for this legislation to provide for savings for people, 
to get people engaged in the idea of how much energy they are using and 
what the costs of that energy are, and also what the environmental 
benefits and the benefits to consumers and the benefits to our national 
security are in encouraging energy efficiency. So I want to commend her 
and thank her for all of her efforts, and we will continue to have this 
discussion on the floor as we wait for some kind of an agreement from 
Senator Vitter.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that when we get a chance 
to vote on this amendment the Senate accepts it. I want to put it in 
the context of where we are, because we are seeing this pattern of 
Senators--and I was in North Dakota for Senator Hoeven a few days ago. 
We were listening to constituents, I am sure very similar to the kinds 
of concerns reflected by folks in Minnesota. They all were saying: Go 
back there in September and focus on real problems and come up with 
real solutions. We have seen all of this bickering. We have seen all of 
this quarreling. What we want to see is on the concerns that most 
affect us: our pocketbook, our environment, in this case national 
security.
  Senator Shaheen made an excellent point several hours ago when she 
pointed out that with the backdrop of Syria and national security 
issues, if there ever was a time while we wait for the next step in 
this debate to look at another issue, energy and energy efficiency 
would be a logical one, because we all understand how inextricably 
linked national security and energy security are.
  So, now, after we have had the thoughtful Inhofe-Carper amendment on 
thermal power, we had the Udall-Collins amendment in terms of school 
retrofits, we had the Bennet-Ayotte amendment which deals with 
commercial buildings, which comprise almost half of the energy used in 
America, we now have a very good bipartisan amendment brought to the 
floor of the Senate by the senior Senator from Minnesota, Senator 
Klobuchar, and Senator Hoeven.
  There are literally hundreds of thousands of museums in this country, 
houses of worship, youth organizations. All of these programs are 
looking at ways in which they can save energy. The reality is lots of 
the tools are not available to them because they are tax exempt. So 
what we have here is a pilot project. Let me kind of underline. 
Everybody talks about big programs and their ``one size fits all,'' 
they are ``run

[[Page S6364]]

from Washington'' and it is kind of one dastardly plot after another 
from the Federal Government.
  The Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Minnesota come and 
say they want to have a pilot project, a pilot project to award grants 
of up to $200,000, with a match by the Federal Government, to make 
efficiency improvements to these buildings and these houses of worship, 
museums, all of these institutions that every Member of the Senate 
cares a great deal about.
  I was especially appreciative, because Senator Klobuchar and Senator 
Hoeven were supportive of some of the ideas Senator Murkowski and I had 
to revise this. This is a good amendment. This is already the fourth in 
the queue of thoughtful, commonsense, low-cost proposals that have come 
to the floor of the Senate.
  I hope my colleagues will shortly give us the opportunity to get to 
this bill. This is the Senate. Senators like to address a variety of 
issues. But the reality is, while we had a very good hydropower bill 
passed right before the August recess, 60,000 megawatts of hydropower, 
responsible for 60 percent of the clean energy in the country, this 
bill is the first major piece of energy legislation on the floor of the 
Senate since 2007. That is light years ago in terms of the dramatic 
changes we have made in so many reforms in other areas.
  For example, I saw in North Dakota over this weekend dramatic changes 
in terms of natural gas policies. We have a host of issues to talk 
about there. We are ready to go on energy efficiency. So I am very 
appreciative to the Senator from Minnesota who has been working with 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  I would like to see somebody explain to houses of worship and museums 
and youth organizations why it does not make sense to start a pilot 
project so they can squeeze more value out of the scarce dollars they 
have for running their incredibly valuable programs. I do not think any 
Member of the Senate, Democrat or Republican, can make the case that 
that makes any sense. I appreciate the Senator from Minnesota coming 
over. I am prepared to stay here until all hours so Senators who are 
willing to do what we heard all summer the American people want us to 
do, which is to address real issues, do it in a bipartisan way. I hope 
other Senators will come over and approach this the way the Senator 
from Minnesota and the Senator from North Dakota have done.
  I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I think the chairman outlined it well. 
This is a thoughtful amendment to the underlying bill. Senator Shaheen 
and I are delighted to accept it and support it, but also to say this 
sort of fits a part of the overall energy efficiency effort we did not 
cover in the legislation, which is these nongovernmental organizations 
that own buildings, where they do not have the ability to get the kind 
of market-based support that is in our legislation.
  This is faith-based organizations, but it is also Boys and Girls 
Clubs, and it is all kinds of different groups that are interested in 
doing efficiency retrofits. They need a little help. This gives them a 
match.
  Significantly, what maybe we have not focused on earlier is the fact 
it is paid for. So we are not talking about any impact on the deficit. 
It is deficit neutral because they went out of their way to try to find 
good ways to reduce spending at the Department of Energy to have the 
offsets.
  Having a local match is important because that gets the local buy-in. 
I think that is important, that it be a full match. But it also does 
give them access to some of this expertise we talked about earlier to 
be able to have more energy efficiency and also ultimately to save 
energy in this country but also save money for those nonprofit 
organizations. So I commend my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar and 
Senator Hoeven. Senator Hoeven wants to come over and speak on this 
legislation. He is tied up right now but hopes to come over later. 
Certainly when it is actually offered and brought up on the floor he 
will have a chance to talk about it as well.
  I commend him and commend his colleague from Minnesota for again 
offering another bipartisan amendment on top of the geothermal 
amendment, the schools amendment, the amendment to encourage tenants to 
be more energy efficient, and now we have this amendment on nonprofits 
that own buildings that want to do the efficiency retrofits. I 
appreciate them working with us to find offsets and being sure it does 
not add to the deficit and that it is a responsible approach on the 
fiscal side as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I cannot help but join the bouquet 
tossing that is going on here today, about not only the amendment 
Senator Hoeven and Senator Klobuchar have introduced as it relates to 
our nonprofits, but again the other measures that have been brought up 
for discussion here this afternoon--geothermal, school efficiency. It 
really does drive us to the point of this energy efficiency 
legislation, how it is not just in one section or sector, it is 
economywide. It is all aspects of our lives.
  If we focus on how we live from day to day, the things that are 
important to us, we can incorporate greater efficiency into all aspects 
of it and we are better off, whether it is through our schools, our 
businesses, our government buildings, or through those nonprofits I 
think we all recognize give so much enrichment to our general lives. 
But when you think about some of the struggles our nonprofits are 
currently facing right now, as they are seeing declining budgets, 
Federal, local, State levels, they are looking to squeeze as much as 
they can out of every dollar. So when you have proposals such as we 
have here with pilot programs to award these grants of up to $200,000 
to help make these efficiency improvements to their buildings, this is 
significant stuff, if you will. This translates into real dollars, 
allowing them to do what it is they are providing so much better, 
whether it is Boys and Girls Clubs at a clubhouse, the ability to 
perhaps have other facilities, whether it is your church facilities, 
your faith-based organization, the outreach and all they are able to do 
and those they are able to serve. It is all made better when you do not 
have to spend as much for your energy costs to meet your energy 
demands. So it does seem somewhat common sense. It does seem rational 
and reasonable.
  Good heavens, what are we doing here on the floor of the Senate 
promoting something that is rational and reasonable and common sense? 
We need to do more of this. This is a good amendment and joins several 
other good amendments we are seeing as we look to the numerous 
amendments we talked to colleagues about and that we are anticipating 
will be up here in the next several hours.
  I do hope folks realize that what has been put together by the 
sponsors of this bill, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from New 
Hampshire, is worthy of our consideration, not only on these 
amendments, but, again, the fuller spectrum of how we are more wise in 
our energy consumption, how we are better stewards of that which we 
have when it comes to energy and our energy resources. So I will throw 
the bouquet to those who have got us to this point.
  I see the Senator from Wyoming has joined us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I filed an amendment to S. 1392 that will 
prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from a massive regulatory 
overreach. It has been cosponsored by Senators Barrasso and Flake.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It promotes the right of 
a State to deal with its own problems. It returns the regulation of 
regional haze to where it properly belongs, in the hands of State 
officials who are more familiar with the problem and the best ways to 
address it.
  I hope my colleagues will support my effort.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's move to partially disapprove 
the State of Wyoming regional haze plan will create an economic and 
bureaucratic nightmare that will have a devastating impact on western 
economies. The proposal by EPA ignores more

[[Page S6365]]

than a decade's worth of work on this subject by officials in my home 
State and seems to be more designed to regulate coal out of existence 
than to regulate haze. The haze we most need to regulate, in fact, 
seems to be the one that is clouding the vision of the EPA, as it 
promotes a plan that imposes onerous regulations on powerplants, that 
will, in turn, pass those increased costs in the form of higher energy 
prices on to consumers.
  That tells me the EPA's purpose is to ensure no opportunity to impose 
its chosen agenda on the Nation is wasted. It does not seem to matter 
to them that their proposed rule flies directly in the face of the 
States' traditional and legal role in addressing air quality issues.
  When Congress passed the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act to 
regulate regional haze, it very clearly gave the States the lead 
authority. Now the EPA has tossed them in the back seat and grabbed the 
steering wheel to head this effort in its own previously determined 
direction.
  That is not the kind of teamwork and cooperation Congress intended. 
The goal of regulating regional haze is to improve visibility in our 
national parks and wilderness areas. The stated legislative purpose for 
the authority is purely for aesthetic value and not to regulate public 
health. Most importantly, the EPA should not be using regulations to 
pick winners and losers in our national energy market. This is a State 
issue. Congress recognized that States should know how to determine 
what the best regulatory approach would be to find and implement a 
solution to the problem.
  The courts reaffirmed this position by ruling in favor of the State's 
primacy on regional haze several times. Unfortunately, that is not what 
happened in this case. The EPA ignored all of the clear precedents and 
instead handed a top-down approach that ignored the will and expertise 
of the State of Wyoming.
  This inexplicable position flies in the face of the strong and 
commonsense approach of the State of Wyoming to addressing regional 
haze in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. The EPA's approach 
would be much more costly, and it would have a tremendous impact on the 
economy and quality of life not only in Wyoming but in the neighboring 
States as well. Clearly, we can't allow this to happen.
  Preliminary estimates by the State of Wyoming show that the best 
available retrofit technologies and long-term strategies under the 
proposed rule would cost well over $1 billion--plus millions more every 
year in additional operational costs that gets passed on to the 
consumer.
  I mentioned that Cheyenne needed some additional powerplants. They 
went out and found the best natural gas technology available and then 
found it wouldn't meet the new requirements. This is the best worldwide 
technology, and it won't meet the new requirements they wish to put on 
it. Again, those costs would be passed on to the consumers in the form 
of higher energy prices. Every family knows that when the price of 
energy goes up, it is their economic security, as well as their hopes 
and dreams for the future, that is threatened and all too often 
destroyed.
  The EPA's determination to take such an approach would be 
understandable if it would create better results than the State plan. 
It doesn't. It admits that. One billion dollars in costs and then 
millions more each year, and it isn't going to give any better results 
than what the State plan is? What sense does that make? This is another 
reason why it makes no sense for the EPA to overstep its authority 
under the Clean Air Act to force Wyoming to comply with an all-too-
costly plan that in the end will provide the people of Wyoming with no 
real benefits. Again, it is $1 billion up front, millions a year, and 
no real benefits.
  The plan doesn't even take into account other sources of haze in the 
State, such as wildfires. We have those every year. They are a problem 
on Wyoming's plains and mountains. They are a major cause of haze in my 
home State. It makes no sense for the EPA to draft a plan that fails to 
take into consideration one of the biggest natural causes of the very 
problem they are supposed to be solving.
  This is one that can be solved. The State of Wyoming has spent over a 
decade producing a plan that is reasonable, productive, cost-effective, 
and focused on the problem. The EPA has taken an unnecessary and 
unreasonable approach that violates the legislatively granted job of 
State regulators to address this issue. We cannot afford to increase 
the cost of energy to families, schools, and vital public services by 
implementing an EPA plan that won't adequately address the issue of 
regional haze. Again, there will be no noticeable effect--$1 billion up 
front, millions each year, and no noticeable effect. What sense does 
that make?
  I know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter and 
support my amendment that will stop the EPA in its tracks and end its 
interference with Wyoming's efforts to address this very issue. It only 
makes sense to me that Wyoming's plan, which results from a more than 
10-year effort, be given a chance to work. It is not only fair, it is 
the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor, and 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. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here on what we are calling the 
Shaheen-Portman bill, the energy efficiency bill, and I note that the 
lead sponsor of the bill, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, as well as 
the ranking member of the energy committee, Senator Murkowski, are both 
here. I have been cleared by them to take a minute on the floor right 
now and talk about an amendment I would like to have offered and voted 
on and added to this bill. We call it the pay for success amendment. It 
is amendment No. 1852.
  What this amendment would do is something that is quite simple and 
bombproof for taxpayers. Ultimately, it would save money and save 
energy; that is, for the properties managed by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, if they do not have the capital to go 
back into that property and do retrofits and install efficiency 
measures that will bring down their cost of electricity, this amendment 
would allow them to contract with the private sector to bring in 
private capital to achieve those energy savings.
  There are significant restrictions in here that will protect 
taxpayers. Any money that goes back to these investors comes out of 
energy savings and only out of energy savings. If something goes wrong 
and the energy savings don't materialize, the investors lose. The 
taxpayers and the government are held harmless.
  Thanks to an amendment by Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, as we were 
drafting the amendment, we have even specifically exempted the 
administrative costs of HUD in administering the legislation. Those 
have to be paid before the investors take their profits. But once the 
investors are paid back, there is now a more efficient building and 
savings for taxpayers over the long haul.
  In addition, the result is a reduction of our energy footprint, 
increases our energy independence, and reduces the contribution of ill 
effects, such as pollution and climate change, by HUD buildings.
  Now is not the time to call it up--we are at too early a stage in the 
proceedings--but I did want to take a moment to urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment. We discussed it at length with Senator Collins 
of Maine when we were trying to add it to the Transportation and HUD 
appropriations bill, and I believe we have worked through issues 
presented by her office and issues presented by Senator Coburn. If 
anybody else has any concerns, we look forward to hearing from them, 
but I think this is a bombproof piece of legislation, from the 
taxpayers' point of view. It opens up a niche for private capital to 
come in and earn a return on their investment by capitalizing on the 
opportunity we have for energy savings in these buildings.
  With that, I yield the floor and look forward to a future opportunity 
to discuss the amendment further and, with any luck, call it up for a 
positive vote. I thank Senator Shaheen and yield the floor.

[[Page S6366]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Before the Senator from Rhode Island leaves, I wanted 
to commend him for this effort. I think it is a great proposal. I 
haven't had a chance to look at all the details, so I look forward to 
that, but using performance contracting to provide for savings on 
energy costs is a very effective way to address the upfront costs for 
these kinds of retrofits.
  As the Senator points out, the person who is doing the contracting--
the private company--is assuming the burden of those costs. Yet the 
benefits are going to taxpayers. Ultimately, the contractor that does 
the retrofits is also going to benefit over the long term, and those 
savings will keep coming back year after year. So once the initial cost 
is paid off, taxpayers will continue to get those savings year after 
year.
  As Governor, we started retrofitting State buildings exactly this 
way, and it saved the taxpayers of New Hampshire hundreds of thousands 
of dollars a year--it is still saving them that--and also thousands of 
pounds of pollution because, as we know, 40 percent of our energy is 
used by buildings. So if we save on that energy use in buildings, then 
that saves not only on those costs, but it also saves on the pollution 
that comes from heating and cooling those buildings.
  So I commend the Senator for his effort and I look forward to having 
a chance to debate it on the floor and to having a chance to review the 
proposal in greater detail.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for those 
comments. I wish to commend her for her leadership on this bill. This 
is a wonderful bill to have gotten to, and she and Senator Portman have 
put in an enormous amount of effort in getting us here. So that is 
immensely commendable.
  I would add something I omitted in my remarks earlier because the 
Senator from New Hampshire brought this up in a private discussion we 
had on the floor a moment ago; that is, how does CBO--the Congressional 
Budget Office--feel about this amendment. We have an e-mail from the 
Congressional Budget Office saying this will not add to the deficit. It 
is deficit neutral. In point of fact, it actually is viewed as 
negative--it shrinks the deficit in the long haul, but all we needed 
from them was the assurance it was deficit neutral and they would treat 
it as deficit neutral.
  As the Senator from New Hampshire very properly pointed out, the 
benefit of this isn't just on the energy side or on the pollution side. 
Somebody goes in and installs the new energy efficiency equipment, 
installs the new windows, insulates the roof, and does whatever it is 
that will achieve these savings and that is work and those are jobs and 
that is helpful to our economy.
  I will again yield the floor.


                        Voluntary Certification

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the Sessions-
Pryor Amendment No. 1879 to S. 1392, the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act. I would like to recognize the excellent work of my 
friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, who is an original 
co-sponsor of this amendment, and I would ask him for permission to 
engage in a brief colloquy concerning our amendment.
  Mr. PRYOR. I would welcome an exchange for the Record.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague for his willingness to discuss 
this amendment. I would ask my colleague, what is the purpose of our 
amendment?
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his question. In an 
effort to encourage energy efficiency compliance, reduce regulatory 
burdens, and save taxpayer dollars, the Sessions-Pryor amendment would 
require the Department of Energy to recognize voluntary certification 
programs for air conditioning, furnace, boiler, heat pump, and water 
heater products. Federal law requires these heating, cooling, and water 
heater products to comply with a complex set of Federal energy 
conservation and efficiency standards. Similar specifications apply to 
participants in the Energy Star program. The Energy Department 
currently spends millions of taxpayer dollars annually to conduct 
verification testing of these covered products. At the same time, U.S. 
manufacturers of these covered products spend millions of dollars 
themselves to participate in comprehensive voluntary certification 
programs that use independent, third-party laboratories to ensure 
compliance with applicable standards. Our amendment would require the 
Energy Department, when conducting routine testing to verify product 
ratings, to rely on data submitted through voluntary, independent 
certification programs that meet the robust list of criteria set forth 
in the amendment. To qualify, the voluntary certification program must 
be (among other things) nationally-recognized, maintain a publicly 
available list of certified models, and conduct verification testing on 
at least 20 percent of the product families using an ``independent 
third-party test laboratory.'' The amendment would require the Energy 
Department to reduce regulatory burdens for manufacturers participating 
in a voluntary certification program, as well as require testing of 
products that are not covered by a voluntary program.
  So, I greatly appreciate the leadership of my colleague Senator 
Sessions on this amendment. I would ask him: what are some of the 
policy reasons for supporting our amendment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Arkansas. Our amendment is 
sound policy for at least three reasons. First, the amendment saves 
taxpayer dollars by reducing redundant testing of products when already 
covered by a comprehensive, voluntary third-party testing program. At a 
time of record debt and deficits, this government needs to consider 
every option for making government lean and fiscally responsible. We 
have been informed by the Congressional Budget Office that our 
amendment does not impact the deficit.
  Second, the amendment reduces regulatory burdens on American 
manufacturers. We need to do all we can to help make U.S. manufacturing 
more competitive on the world stage. Our amendment promotes domestic 
manufacturing and competiveness.
  Third, our amendment increases DOE's enforcement capabilities to 
ensure that a greater number of products are verified every year. This 
will help achieve the kinds of energy efficiency improvements the law 
was intended to achieve. So I think this amendment should garner the 
support of this body.
  I recently received a letter from Rheem Manufacturing Company, which 
has a large manufacturing facility in Montgomery, AL that employs over 
1,000 people and manufactures heating and cooling products in Fort 
Smith, AR. The Rheem letter expresses support for our amendment and 
explains that it ``will enhance our ability to sustain American 
manufacturing jobs and competitiveness while conserving taxpayer 
resources and allowing federal agencies to focus enforcement on 
entities that do not voluntarily participate in rigorous industry-led 
efficiency certification programs.''
  I would, in turn, ask Senator Pryor: who else is supportive of this 
amendment?
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his remarks. I would 
answer his question by noting that a broad coalition of industry, 
energy efficiency, and environmental stakeholders are supportive of our 
amendment. As you referenced, employers in the State of Arkansas, your 
State of Alabama, and around the country are supportive. We are also 
pleased to have the support of the leadership of the Senate Energy 
Committee, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski. I am pleased 
that we have been able to work together on this amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask Senator Pryor one additional question. One 
of the purposes of this amendment is to reduce the testing burden on 
manufacturers for a number of Federal government programs. For 
instance, manufacturers who utilize accredited, independent third 
parties for testing and certification should not be compelled to 
undertake duplicative testing to demonstrate compliance with other 
Federal programs so long as the test methods used for evaluating 
product performance are the same. Additionally, this amendment does not 
intend to limit competition between private sector testing and 
certification programs, provided that accreditation and

[[Page S6367]]

other legitimate government requirements for recognizing such efforts 
are clearly defined. Would you agree?
  Mr. PRYOR. Yes, I would agree with that characterization.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Pryor for his work on this issue.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Honoring the Life of Jesse Owens

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Jesse Owens, 
an Olympic recordbreaker and pioneer on the track and off the track, 
who was born 100 years ago tomorrow.
  Born in Alabama as the youngest of 10 children, James Cleveland Owens 
moved with his family to Cleveland, OH, at the age of 9. Leaving the 
South during the great migration of those several decades between 1910 
and 1970, Jesse's family came north seeking economic opportunity and 
greater personal freedom. His father left his work as a sharecropper in 
the South--something difficult to do because so often the landowner 
held those sharecroppers by holding real or imagined debt over their 
heads--and found a job in the steel industry in Cleveland, OH.
  James Cleveland Owens enrolled in Bolton Elementary School on the 
east side of Cleveland. Because of his strong southern accent, when the 
teacher asked his name and he said J.C., the teacher misheard it and 
started calling him Jesse--a name that stuck.
  While in junior high, he met Charles Riley, who taught physical 
education and coached the track team. Charles Riley nurtured Jesse's 
obvious talent, helping him to grow stronger athletically and to set 
long-term goals that served him well as he went on to Cleveland East 
Technical School.
  In 1927, my hometown of Mansfield, OH started hosting the storied 
Mansfield Relays--maybe the biggest in the country--a sporting event 
that drew athletes from six States and Canada. I remember in the 1960s 
my family hosting many of the athletes who came to our town to compete.
  Obviously prior to my parents doing that, among these many promising 
athletes none shone brighter than the sprinter from an hour up north. 
At the Mansfield Relays, Jesse Owens sharpened his focus and won the 
1932 and 1933 relays for East Tech, setting records that lasted into my 
childhood in the 1960s and 1970s.
  He later went on to attend the Ohio State University, where he was 
known as the Buckeye Bullet, winning a record eight individual NCAA 
championships. The story goes that at the Big 10 track meet 1 year in 
Ann Arbor, MI, while competing in a 45-minute period, Jesse Owens set 3 
world records.
  We are used to seeing college athletes who are revered today. But in 
his day, Owens could not live on campus due to a lack of housing for 
Black students, and he could not stay at the same hotels when his track 
team traveled or eat at the same restaurants as the White players on 
the team who traveled with him. But he achieved global fame and heroism 
status because of what he did in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.
  While a hateful regime in Germany hoped to use the Olympics to 
promote the Aryan race and promulgate a wrongheaded, dangerous, and 
inherently racist belief in the superiority of that race, Jesse Owens 
turned this theory on its head. He won four gold medals in Berlin, and 
he set world records in three events while tying for a world record in 
a fourth event. He showed that talent and sportsmanship transcend race, 
and he embarrassed an evil dictator who hoped to manipulate the Olympic 
Games to further his political agenda.
  Interestingly, Adolph Hitler refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens 
when he won one of those events. The International Olympic Committee 
told the German Government that Hitler must either shake hands with all 
the winners or none of the winners. The story goes that Hitler refused 
to come back and observe the Olympics--again, a testament to the 
heroism, courage, and discipline of James Cleveland ``Jesse'' Owens.
  Despite these achievements--and the Rose Garden and Oval Office 
greetings that today's Olympians are accustomed to--Jesse Owens never 
received congratulations or recognition by President Roosevelt or 
President Truman. It was only during the presidency of Dwight 
Eisenhower, beginning to be a different time in race relations in this 
country, that a President of the United States actually recognized 
Jesse Owens' achievements.
  He was, by most measures, the best athlete in the world, but he 
returned to the United States of America a Black man in the 1930s to 
face economic challenges and racial discrimination that are far too 
familiar to far too many Americans. But he continued to travel and 
inspire athletes and fans across the globe. I had the honor of meeting 
Jesse Owens when he was the speaker at my brother Bob's high school 
graduation in 1965, when I was 12 years old.
  Jesse Owens worked alongside the State Department to promote good 
will in Asia, and worked in 1950 to promote democracy abroad as part of 
a Cold War effort.
  Think about that. A Black man who is the best athlete in the world, 
was a hero to large numbers of Americans--Black and White--in 1936, 
standing up in many ways against the Fascist machine of Adolph Hitler, 
not being recognized by a President of the United States who was 
winning a war against Hitler ultimately. Yet he went out 5 years later 
after that war to promote democracy abroad as part of a Cold War 
effort, still proud of his country, still knowing our country had work 
to do.
  In 1973 he was appointed to the board of directors of the U.S. 
Olympic Committee, where he worked to ensure the best training and 
conditions for U.S. athletes. He lent his skill and his talents to 
various charitable groups, notably the Boys Club of America.
  In 1976 Jesse Owens finally received the Presidential recognition he 
deserved. He was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom from 
President Ford.
  Jesse Owens was a pioneer. Despite facing adversity, he had the 
strength of mind and the discipline, common to almost all great 
athletes, to become the most elite of athletes. Despite being treated 
differently and shamefully from other athletes of his stature, he went 
on to shatter records. Despite the darkest of days globally, he did his 
part, standing up to fascism, dispelling racism, and promoting unity.
  Tomorrow we celebrate the 100th birthday of a hero to all Americans, 
James Cleveland ``Jesse'' Owens.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________