[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6554-S6588]
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 Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1392, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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


[[Page S6555]]


  Pending:

       Wyden (for Merkley) amendment No. 1858, to provide for a 
     study and report on standby usage power standards implemented 
     by States and other industrialized nations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I also would like to welcome the new 
Senator from Massachusetts to this body. I listened to his speech, and 
we will have some discussions over some of those items at some time, I 
am certain. But I also listened to the leader's speech following that, 
and I am a little bit disappointed in that speech.
  He mentioned that we were the least productive Senate in history. I 
think there is a reason for that, and the reason is that we are doing 
dealmaking now instead of legislating.
  I came here 16 years ago and have watched for a number of years as we 
have legislated--and ``legislated'' means getting votes on 
amendments. Getting votes on amendments happens much quicker than 
trying to make some kind of deal to limit amendments. Yes, some of the 
amendments in all those years have not been relevant to the bill we 
were talking about. Usually, once they have been covered, they are kind 
of done with and they do not come up on every bill. But the same tactic 
has been used to stifle amendments to bills, even relevant ones.

  Both sides are at fault. It is not just one side. Both sides are 
stopping amendments from being voted on. We need to vote on amendments. 
Of course, the first one up is one I have been working on. The reason 
it is being brought up on this bill is that this is the first bill 
after a recess on which we can put anything.
  During the recess, there was a huge change in the health care reform 
bill. That huge change was that the President decided he would exempt 
Congress from being under the bill, from having to do the same thing 
the rest of America will do. If you work in a business in America, a 
private business, and your business does not provide insurance and you 
have to go on the exchange--now, of course, the Senate and Federal 
Government provides insurance, but we all agreed we would go on the 
exchange because the American people had to go on the exchange. When we 
go on the exchange, we should have to abide by the same rules as 
anybody else who goes on the exchange.
  Private business, if they say we are not going to buy insurance, 
their people have to go on the exchange, and if they go on the 
exchange, they cannot get a contribution from their employer for their 
insurance. There is a subsidy for people who earn under, I think it is 
$42,000 a year as an individual or $92,000 as a family. They can get a 
Federal subsidy. They cannot get a subsidy from their employer.
  The President decided, through the Office of Personnel Management, 
that Senators should be able to move that contribution over to the 
exchanges. That is different from everybody else. We should have to 
live under the same laws we passed. That was the contention we made 
when we put that amendment in the bill. That amendment went in the bill 
in the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. It went in the 
bill in the Finance Committee. It was agreed to on the floor of the 
Senate. We said we ought to be under the same rules as everybody else 
when it comes to the health exchanges, and we ought to try those health 
exchanges so we can see what America is going through.
  We did that. We did it--maybe did it to ourselves--but that is the 
way government ought to work, with those who pass the law living under 
the law. All we are asking for is a vote to see if the Senate agrees we 
ought to live under the law the way the other people will have to live 
under the law.
  As far as delaying the bill, it only takes probably 30 minutes for a 
15-minute vote. It should only take 15 minutes for a 15-minute vote, 
but it takes 30 minutes at least, sometimes a couple hours for a 15-
minute vote, if it is a close one and they want to negotiate with some 
of the people voting on it, but we ought to have to vote on it. We 
ought to put our names on the line as to how we feel about having the 
American people in a situation where their employer cannot contribute 
to their health insurance if they go on the exchange and make that same 
law apply to us.
  I traveled Wyoming during the recess. We traveled about 6,000 miles 
by car, and I did a lot of listening sessions. I never heard anybody 
say, no, I think Congress ought to be able to continue doing what they 
have been doing before; instead, Congress ought to come under the same 
law.
  There is a little addition to this bill that we did not put in the 
original bill. Maybe that is what is holding it up. That little 
addition to the bill is saying the President and the Vice President and 
the President's appointees should come under the same rules as Congress 
in this instance, going into the exchange. I hope the President, since 
the bill is kind of named after him, would want to be under the bill 
just like everybody else. If we are not going to allow contributions 
from businesses to go to regular people who go onto the exchange, then 
the same rule ought to apply to us.
  That is pretty much what the amendment says. It clarifies the law and 
makes sure the Office of Personnel Management cannot exempt us without 
authority. It is more than a clarification, it is a complete reversal 
of what we passed in this body. When we passed it, I think on the floor 
it was unanimous. That means it was pretty bipartisan. That means we 
all agreed that maybe we ought to live under the same laws as the rest 
of the people in America.
  Let's just have a vote on it. As I say, 30 minutes is about all it 
would take for a 15-minute vote and we could move on to other issues. 
That is the way we used to do things around here. It was not unusual 
for a bill to have 150 amendments. I don't ever remember voting on 150 
amendments because there is some duplication in amendments that are 
turned in. There are also some people who realize, as the debate goes 
along, that their amendment would not pass and they do not want it to 
be voted on and lose when they might be able to win with it later. Of 
course I am in favor of doing relevant amendments on bills. You will 
find usually any amendment I am signed on to is relevant to the bill.
  The reason this is an exception is because it came up during the 
recess and the effect begins on October 1. I do not know what other 
bills are going to come up before October 1. At the pace we are going, 
this will not even make it by October 1. Just voting on bills rather 
than trying to negotiate it down to a 10-vote package--on the 
immigration bill I think we had 9 votes. It took us 3 weeks. There were 
about 200 amendments, probably 150 that could have been voted on and in 
3 weeks I think we could have been through 150 of them and it would 
have made it a better bill. That is what legislating is.
  All of those would not have passed. Maybe very few would have passed. 
Maybe only 9 would have passed. But people would have had a decision 
and would have been able to represent what their people back home are 
telling them, and that is what we are supposed to do here. The reason 
the Senate has the rules it does is so we can actually represent the 
people back home. One of the ways we do that is through amendments. 
Occasionally, there will be surprises that something that is not 
relevant might wind up on a bill. Usually, if it is not relevant, it 
gets defeated. There is usually a way to process a whole lot of 
amendments in a hurry; that is, with a tabling motion, but we are just 
not getting the vote. We ought to do some voting around here and move 
on.
  This is an important bill, and there are some good amendments that 
have been turned in on which we would also like a vote. We should go 
through them and then we can be a productive body. Then we could cover 
a lot of bills that would go through in about 3 days, but we spend days 
negotiating not having amendments, and when we have that pent-up 
objection to our amendments not getting on there, it gets more pent up, 
more angry, more divisive, more partisan as the process goes by.
  What I have referred to, the way the Senate used to work--just vote 
on amendments. We will not like all of them. We know some of them will 
wind up in an ad against us when we run, but that has always been the 
case and there is no reason to change it now.
  I hope we vote on amendments and get busy. It is an important bill. I 
would like to see the bill finished. We need to do a lot of things on 
energy for

[[Page S6556]]

this country, particularly to keep energy prices down where people 
expect them to be. Again, let's vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I certainly appreciate the comments 
from my friend and fellow Senator. He does speak to the obvious. We 
have an opportunity for some amendments on what I think most of us 
would agree is an important bill, this energy efficiency bill. How we 
move forward is indicative of whether this is a body that is going to 
start working, whether this is going to be a body that is defined as 
dysfunctional or, as was suggested earlier in a report that came out 
early in September, that this Senate could prove to be the least 
productive in our Senate history.
  That is not a title or a banner this Senator wants to wear. I think 
we want to work around here. I think we want to try to produce. I think 
we want to legislate. In fact, I know that is what I want to do. That 
is why I applaud my colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, 
for all of the effort they have given--themselves, their staffs working 
with the chairman of the energy committee, his staff, my staff working 
together for a couple of years now--to produce what I think is a pretty 
good bill. This is a bill that is focused on a piece of our energy 
portfolio, if you will, that is critically important: the aspect of 
efficiency and how we work to use less.
  What we have in front of us is not legislation that is controversial 
in the sense that it is pitting different philosophies against one 
another. We are bogged down in our own inertia and cannot figure out 
how we even get to start. That is a pretty poor reflection on us. The 
way we get to start is how we started this debate just a few days ago, 
when Senator Wyden and I came to the floor with the sponsors of the 
bill, Senator Shaheen, Senator Portman, and we said: OK, great bill. We 
talked about the advantages of energy efficiency and all that Shaheen-
Portman delivers, this very bipartisan product and effort.
  Then we started talking about amendments, amendments that would 
actually strengthen this bill. We had no fewer than one dozen Members 
come to the floor, on both sides of the aisle, talking about their good 
ideas, how we are going to build in more efficiencies--whether it is in 
our schools or public buildings; how we can help nonprofits. These are 
all good, strong, healthy ideas.
  Then we are here today and, as my friend from Wyoming has indicated, 
we are stalled out. We are not moving forward. The majority leader 
suggested this morning--his words, not mine--that we perhaps would not 
finish this legislation. That is quite disturbing to me. That is quite 
disturbing to me because if we cannot finish legislation such as an 
energy efficiency bill, something that most of us would recognize is a 
good approach to our energy issues in this country, what are we going 
to be able to do on the very big stuff?
  We talk about pent-up demand for amendments. Let me suggest there is 
a pent-up demand for real energy legislation. For 5 years now we have 
not seen an energy measure debated on the floor of the Senate. That 
doesn't mean we have not passed some good energy bills. In fact, I was 
pleased to work with the chairman in passing two hydroelectric bills 
just before the August recess. These are good bills. These are truly 
going to help us as we work to reduce our emissions, provide for jobs, 
provide for greater electrification across the country. These are good. 
But we have not had that good, comprehensive discussion about the 
energy issues that have impacted our Nation in the past 5 years.
  Think about what has happened in 5 years. Five years ago, if someone 
had mentioned the shale revolution, people would not have had a clue 
what they were talking about.
  Think about what has happened with natural gas over the past 5 years. 
The Presiding Officer knows full well because her State has the lowest 
unemployment in the Nation. The Presiding Officer represents a State 
where almost everybody has a job. In fact, most people have two or 
three jobs.
  When you think about the changing dynamics of an energy world, think 
about it in the context of a timeline. What happened over the last 5 
years? Boom. Think about what happened to the economy. We read the 
articles from just a couple of weeks ago about how natural gas is not 
only helping those who work in the industry, it is a rising tide that 
lifts all boats. When people are paying less for their utilities, it 
allows them to spend more on the economy, and as a result everyone is 
benefiting. Our economy is benefiting and the unemployment picture is 
improving.
  We are seeing good, positive things because of our energy future. 
Everybody seems to be bullish about it except us in the Senate because 
we cannot seem to get an energy bill to the floor. When we do finally 
have a bill, after years of good hard work by good folks wanting to do 
the right thing, we get to the floor and we get stalled out.
  Again, there is pent-up demand for amendments because what we have 
known as regular order has not been so regular anymore. The chairman of 
the energy committee, and I, as the ranking member, think we have 
worked very hard. We have worked diligently on a daily basis to make 
sure we are working within our committee. We are producing bills.
  In fact, as I understand, our committee has produced more than half 
of all the bills that have been reported and are ready for action on 
the floor. We have rolled up our sleeves and said: There are going to 
be areas where we disagree, but on those areas where we can come 
together and make some good happen, let's make it happen, and we have 
been doing that. But you know what. If a committee works hard and 
produces good things and still doesn't go anywhere--wow. After a while 
we wonder why we are working so hard around here.
  I know why I am working hard. I am working hard because the people in 
my State pay more for their energy than anyplace else in the country. I 
am working hard to make sure we have jobs for Alaskans and jobs for all 
people. I am working hard because I think the energy policy is 
fundamental to everything we do. We need to have the opportunity to 
have a full-on debate, and if we have some amendments that are tough, 
that is the way it is. Nobody asked me to come here and represent the 
people of Alaska because they knew that every vote was going to be 
easy. That is not how it works. Let's take some of the hard votes and 
let's get to the business at hand, which is a good, strong, bipartisan 
energy efficiency bill. Then when we are done with that one, I want to 
work with the chairman to address the unfinished business.
  I want to work on measures that will help us enhance our energy 
production, whether it is with our natural gas onshore or offshore, 
whether it is to do what we can so we truly become an energy-
independent nation or whether it is how we deal with some pretty hard 
issues, such as how we treat our nuclear waste and how we are going to 
move forward with an energy future that is based on renewables and 
alternatives, which I am all about.
  We all stand here and talk about an ``all of the above'' approach. 
But you know what. People stop believing it when we just talk about it 
and we don't do anything to enhance our policies because we cannot get 
a bill to the floor. Then, when we get a bill to the floor, we 
hamstring ourselves.
  I am not ready to give up on this energy efficiency bill. I am not 
ready to give up on energy policy or legislating in the energy sector 
just because we are getting bogged down. We have to demonstrate to the 
American public that we are governing. They are asking us to lead in an 
area on which we have not legislated in 5 years.
  I know my colleague from Oregon, the chairman, agrees with me when I 
say we had some issues within our committee, and we are proud of the 
work we have done. We have proposals that focus on how we can make 
existing programs better or perhaps we need to repeal them. We have 
worked hard on a bipartisan basis with the authorizers and the 
appropriators to develop a good, solid proposal for how we deal with 
nuclear waste. If we cannot move forward on energy efficiency, how are 
we going to tackle these hard issues? How are we going to tackle the 
issues as they relate to this amazing expansion of natural gas and the 
recognition that we need to have an infrastructure

[[Page S6557]]

that keeps up with demand and everything else that is going on?
  We are not giving up on this bill. We are not going to give up on the 
good bipartisan work Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman have crafted. 
There are many other Members who have stepped forward to say: This is 
good stuff. Let's make it happen. So there is a lot of pent-up demand. 
For those who have waited a couple of weeks for their amendment, good. 
We need to address those too. But let's not sacrifice a good, strong 
bill that can be made better by good amendments to the bill itself. 
Let's not sacrifice that. This is a bill that has been in process for a 
couple of years because folks are saying: I have to have my piece right 
now. We can figure out how we craft an agreement that is workable from 
both sides.
  I am certainly prepared to continue that work, and if the deal that 
has been offered at this point in time is not acceptable, OK, let's go 
back and figure out what is going to be acceptable. Let's not throw in 
the towel. This is too important. We have too much pent-up demand for 
energy solutions for this country.
  I am here to stay focused on the issues at hand, but what we have in 
front of us--the bill we are working on--is a good, strong, bipartisan 
energy efficiency bill, and I want to continue that. I know my 
colleague, the chairman of the committee, wants to continue with that, 
and I think that is our effort here.
  With that, I thank those who have stuck with us throughout this past 
week, but I am hoping we are going to be sticking with this for a while 
longer and we are going to see this bill cross the finish line.
  I know the chairman wants to speak as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I could see that we both--the Presiding Officer and I--
were riveted by Senator Murkowski and her remarks for a reason. Her 
remarks were truly inspiring. I will just say I think the Senate needed 
to hear Senator Murkowski's remarks, and I think that is why the 
Senator from North Dakota, and all of us, were listening so carefully.
  I just want to highlight some of what Senator Murkowski said. The 
bill we are considering now is pretty much the platonic ideal for 
consensus legislation. It pretty much follows the kind of rules Senator 
Enzi and Senator Kennedy used to talk about--that wonderful 80-20 rule. 
I remember Senator Enzi talking to me about how they would try to agree 
on 80 percent but may not agree on 20 percent.
  The Shaheen-Portman legislation has the Kennedy-Enzi type of 
principle, where 80 percent of it is common ground that makes sense, 
doesn't have any mandates, uses the private sector, and focuses on 
efficiency which creates jobs. Frankly, around the world, some of the 
other countries try to get ahead by paying people low wages. We are 
trying to get ahead with legislation such as this, so we can wring more 
value out of the American economy and save money for businesses and 
consumers.
  I think Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman are going to talk more 
about the 3 years they put into meeting that kind of Kennedy-Enzi 
principle of good government and finding common ground. I can tell 
everyone that when they write a textbook on how we ought to put 
together a bipartisan bill, these two fine Senators have complied with 
it.
  It is not by osmosis that they got the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable to 
meet halfway with some of the country's leading environmental groups. 
It is because--as the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from 
Ohio demonstrated--they were out there sweating the efforts to try to 
find common ground. Of course, neither side gets exactly what they 
want, but that is how they built this extraordinary coalition.
  Point No. 2 that Senator Murkowski addressed--and I think it is very 
important as it was highlighted by my visit to the Presiding Officer's 
State in the last few days--is the whole question with respect to 
future legislation.
  I come from a State--my colleagues know this--that doesn't produce 
any fossil fuels. We are a hydrostate and we have renewables, so a lot 
of people said: Ron is going to be chairman of the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources so nobody is going to talk about anything except 
hydro and renewables.
  The first hearing we held in our committee was on natural gas. The 
reason why Senator Murkowski and I made that decision jointly is 
because there ought to be bipartisan common ground on capping the 
potential of natural gas for our country, our consumers, and the 
planet. It is 50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels. We have 
it, the world wants it, and a lot of companies are talking about coming 
back from overseas because they want that pricing advantage.
  What I have been talking about to Senators--and I do it at every 
opportunity--is how do we find a win-win approach that is good for the 
consumer and good for business and good for the environment? For 
example, for natural gas we are going to need a way to get that gas to 
markets, and that is going to mean more pipelines. So one of the ideas 
that I want to talk about with Senators on our committee as well as off 
the committee is, wouldn't it make sense to say if we are going to need 
more pipelines, the pipelines of the future ought to be better, meet 
the needs of the industry, and also help us get that added little 
benefit for consumers and the planet by not wasting energy.
  I saw folks in North Dakota working really hard to try to deal with 
flaring and these methane emissions. So what I would like to do is 
exactly what Senator Murkowski described this morning. She wants to get 
a bipartisan energy efficiency bill, which is a logical place to start, 
as the Senator said, on the ``all of the above'' strategy.
  When we are done with that, we are going to move on to a whole host 
of other issues and in each case take as our lodestar this kind of win-
win concept that can bring people together to find some common ground 
so we can tackle big issues. If we do that in the energy context, we 
will be doing something that helps create good-paying jobs, helps the 
consumer, and is also good for the planet.
  My sense right now is that we have a number of issues colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have felt strongly about for quite some 
time.
  I think there is a real chance--and I have been advocating for it--to 
work out an agreement to deal with the two issues that have been 
particularly on the minds of some colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle--the health care issue and Keystone. Certainly I think there is a 
way to find common ground on those two issues procedurally so we could 
have a vote on two issues I have heard particularly conservative 
colleagues say are extraordinarily important to them. At that point, if 
our leadership could get an agreement on those two--and they could 
negotiate on any other matters where we could agree--but what we would 
ensure is we wouldn't have a situation where, in effect, a handful of 
colleagues who want to offer amendments unrelated to energy efficiency 
wouldn't be blocking dozens of Senators of both political parties who 
would like to offer bipartisan energy efficiency amendments. That is 
what we would face if we don't find a way to work this out.
  I am part of this ``we aren't giving up caucus'' Senator Murkowski 
described, because I think we came here to find a way to come together 
and deal with these issues. I will say, speaking for myself, if there 
is one thing I want to be able to take away from my time in public 
service--just one thing--and I would say to Senator Murkowski that 
apparently the Presiding Officer was a volunteer in my first campaign; 
I was a Gray Panther, had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and 
all that--she is denying that, I can tell--if there is one thing I wish 
to take away from my time in public service it is what Senator 
Murkowski alluded to, which is that we did everything on our watch to 
find common ground and deal with some of these issues.
  That is why Senator Isakson and I have a fresh approach that I think 
will appeal to both sides of the aisle on Medicare. I have been 
involved with Senators on bipartisan tax reform, and Senator Murkowski 
and I have been working on energy. She said, Let's not miss this ideal 
opportunity to put good government into action and that is by moving 
ahead with the Shaheen-Portman legislation.

[[Page S6558]]

  Let us get an agreement. I think it ought to be achievable in the 
next few hours. I am going to go back--I have met with leadership on 
both sides and I am making the case that I think there is a procedural 
way out. I think Senator Murkowski described it with the goodwill she 
demonstrated in what I thought was an inspiring address, and I can tell 
the Presiding Officer thought the same thing. I think we can find our 
way out of this.
  I see the sponsors of the underlying legislation, Senator Shaheen and 
Senator Portman, on the floor. I wish to thank them for the fact they 
have consistently said throughout this process they are willing to work 
with Senator Murkowski and me for this kind of procedural route 
forward, and I think it is achievable, particularly if Senators reflect 
on the outstanding remarks just given by the Senator from Alaska.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Wyden 
and Ranking Member Murkowski on the floor of the Senate today. I want 
to sign up for the ``get it done caucus,'' because I think this is 
legislation we can get done. It has bipartisan support from I believe 
the majority of the Members in this Senate. I think if we can get some 
agreement to move forward on this legislation and on the amendments, we 
can show the public, which is very frustrated with what is happening 
here in Washington, that we can actually get something done.
  I wish to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski for all of their 
great work on the energy committee. I had the opportunity to serve my 
first 4 years on the energy committee. It is a great committee. They 
have done a terrific job of showing what it is like to be able to get 
work done, to be able to get people to come together and figure out 
where they can get agreement and move forward. It was in that spirit 
that Senator Portman and I started working together 3 years ago, when 
we were both members of the energy committee, on energy efficiency 
legislation, working with the Alliance to Save Energy, and a number of 
members of the business community, and with all of these groups that 
have endorsed this legislation, to try and put together a bill where we 
could find some agreement. There has been a lot of division around 
energy issues in the last decade or so.
  That is why it has been I think 6 years--actually since 2007--since 
an energy bill has come to the floor of the Senate, because there are 
those of us who believe the best way forward is to focus on fossil 
fuels and more oil and gas. There are others who believe alternatives 
and renewables, hydro and solar and wind, are the best way forward.
  One of the aspects that is true in this entire energy debate, whether 
one comes from North Dakota, as the Presiding Officer does, or New 
Hampshire, as I do, is that energy efficiency benefits all of us. It 
doesn't matter which form of energy one supports or which region of the 
country one is from; this is a place where we can get some consensus. 
It is agreement that allows us to move forward on job creation; it 
allows us to move forward on saving on pollution.
  We have had several Senators on the floor over the last couple of 
days talking about the challenges of climate change and what is 
happening with our weather. This is a way to save on those emissions. 
It is a way to address cost savings. I have been to businesses all over 
New Hampshire that have been able to stay competitive because they have 
reduced their energy costs. In a State such as New Hampshire where we 
have the sixth highest energy costs in the country, it is important for 
us to figure out how we can lower those costs. That is one of the 
things this bill does.
  The other aspect of the legislation that we haven't talked about as 
much on the floor is it reduces our dependence on foreign oil and 
foreign sources of energy, so it is also critical to our national 
security. As we think about our energy challenges in the future, making 
sure we can produce the energy we use in the United States is very 
important. As we think about what is happening in the Middle East, as 
we think about the challenges we have to stay competitive in the world, 
energy, as Senator Murkowski said so well, is something that affects 
everything we do.
  This bill has been criticized by some quarters for not being robust 
enough. I appreciate there are provisions in the legislation I might 
not have chosen to put in. There are others I would like to have seen 
in it we didn't get consensus on. But I think that is what we are 
talking about when we are talking about how do we reach consensus on a 
bipartisan bill and how do we get something done that can get through 
not only the Senate but the House. I think we have a good start in this 
legislation.

  The bill would do several things. First, it would strengthen national 
model building codes to make new homes and new commercial buildings 
more energy efficient. We know about 40 percent of our energy used in 
this country is used in buildings, so making sure those buildings are 
more energy efficient is critical. It is particularly important for 
those of us who are in the northeast. In New Hampshire we have a lot of 
old buildings because we are an older part of the country, so we have a 
lot of buildings that have been there for a long time and we need to do 
what we can to make them more energy efficient.
  Then the legislation would also train the next generation of workers 
in energy-efficient commercial building design and operation. It would 
expand on university-based building training and research assessment 
centers--something that is very important as we think about the future 
workforce.
  Let me go back because when I talked about the national model 
building codes, I wanted to make sure everybody is clear that these 
building codes are voluntary; they are not mandatory. As Senator 
Portman has said so well, there are no mandates in this legislation. 
This is an effort to look at incentives, to look at how we can 
encourage the private sector and consumers to be more energy efficient.
  Then the bill also deals with the manufacturing sector, which is the 
biggest user of energy in our economy. It directs the Department of 
Energy to work closely with private sector partners to encourage 
research, development, and commercialization of innovative energy-
efficient technology and processes for industrial applications. That is 
a mouthful, but what it says is--and this is something we heard from 
stakeholders, from those businesses that work in the energy industry, 
which is they want to have a better working relationship with the 
Department of Energy. They want to be able to feel as though there is 
support there as they are trying to take technologies to 
commercialization. It also helps manufacturers reduce energy use and 
become more competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy-
efficient electric motors and transformers.
  About 4 percent of energy use in this country is through electric 
motors and transformers. I have been interested in transformers because 
we have a company in New Hampshire called Warner Power that has made 
the first breakthrough in transformer design in 100 years. If we can 
get their energy-efficient transformers, or something like them, into 
buildings and projects across the country, we could save significant 
amounts of energy.
  As we look at the manufacturing sector, the legislation also 
establishes a program called Supply Star, to help make companies look 
at their supply chains and figure out how to make their supply chains 
more efficient. I can remember when I was on the energy committee and 
we were talking about this whole issue of supply chains and we were 
debating whether it was important to encourage companies to look at 
their supply chains, people were saying, It doesn't make that much 
difference in terms of the actual energy use. I pointed out that we 
have a company in New Hampshire called Stoneyfield Farm that makes 
yogurt--great yogurt. If my colleagues haven't had it, they should try 
it. But they have been very interested in being more energy efficient. 
They have looked at all of their processes and they have figured out 
how they can do the best possible job at saving on energy. What they 
discovered is their biggest problem isn't how they produce the yogurt, 
it is the cows they depend upon for the milk to produce the yogurt 
because the cows release so much

[[Page S6559]]

methane. That was the problem in terms of their supply chain and with 
the amount of energy they were using. So helping companies take a look 
at their supply chain and figure out how to reduce the energy use 
through that supply chain is very important and it is an important 
piece of this bill.
  Then the third section in the legislation deals with the Federal 
Government. I know all of us know this because we are here and we are 
working hard on energy. The Federal Government is the biggest user of 
energy in this country. Most of that energy is used by the military. 
About 93 percent is used by the military. The military understands it 
is important for them to figure out how to be more energy efficient. 
They have been real leaders in government--the Navy in particular, but 
all branches in the military have looked at how they can be more 
efficient in using energy. Our legislation tries to incentivize the 
rest of the government to catch up with the military. So we would ask 
agencies to look at data centers--and we have some very good amendments 
from Senators Risch and Udall and Senator Coburn to take a look at data 
centers because they are a big waster of energy in the Federal 
Government. It would allow Federal agencies to use existing funds to 
update plans when they are constructing new buildings so they can make 
them more energy efficient. We have a number of amendments which would 
also address how we can make the Federal Government more energy 
efficient and be a leader as we look at what is happening in the 
private sector to save on energy, so this bill is a very good start for 
how to address energy efficiency. Senators Murkowski and Wyden have 
said we have over a dozen agreed to, bipartisan amendments that would 
make the bill even better. I hope we can get to those amendments. I 
think it is really important for us to do this.

  But to answer those people who say that this is just a little bill, 
that it is not going to make much difference, I would point to a new 
study that just came out from the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy. They looked at this legislation without the 
amendments--and the amendments are going to make it better--and they 
said that if we can pass this legislation, by 2025 the legislation will 
encourage the creation of 136,000 new jobs, not just in businesses that 
are going to be more efficient and so they can create more jobs but in 
businesses that are producing the energy-efficient technologies that 
are going to allow us to be more energy efficient. By 2030 the bill 
would net an annual savings of over $13 billion to consumers, and it 
would lower carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants by the 
equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. That is a pretty 
good savings and solution.
  So, as we have all said, this is a win-win-win. It makes sense for us 
to move on this legislation. It makes sense for what we can accomplish 
with the legislation itself. It makes sense in terms of other energy 
issues that are pending and what we need to do to make sure we position 
the United States and our businesses and our families to be more energy 
efficient to be able to compete in the new energy world we are 
entering.
  We need to start now to address energy, and I hope we are going to be 
able to get by the impediments that currently face us so we can begin 
to vote, so we can adopt the great amendments that have been proposed, 
and so we can actually act on this bill.
  Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I am pleased to see my partner on this legislation on the floor to 
talk about why we need to pass this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the 
Senator from New Hampshire on the important benefits of this 
legislation. I will start by saying I think we are pretty close to 
figuring out a way to move forward if we can get both the majority and 
the minority party leadership teams to look at the list. We have about 
a dozen bipartisan amendments ready to go on. In fact, more than half 
of those amendments have already been discussed at some length on the 
floor, so I think the time agreement could be relatively narrow, and we 
could move quickly. Some of them could be voice-voted. And then we have 
some amendments that are not directly related to energy efficiency but 
related to energy. I would hope we could take those up as well.
  My understanding is that there has been a general agreement to have a 
vote on the Vitter amendment. That is something I have heard on the 
floor from leadership. And then we also have a Keystone amendment that 
I think there is an agreement to move forward on that relates to energy 
more broadly and one where I think this body has a strong interest in 
expressing itself.
  I hope we could figure out how to move forward on this and do it 
quickly. We are wasting time right now. We have spent the last couple 
days on the floor, again, talking about all these amendments. So if 
there are concerns about time, let's get going because we can process 
these amendments quickly. I appreciate the fact that the majority 
leader is working with us. He is keeping the door open. So we are going 
back and forth.
  I really do believe this is a seminal moment in the sense that if we 
cannot even do a bipartisan bill like this on energy efficiency that 
came out of the committee with a 19-to-3 vote, what can we do? It is an 
important piece of legislation. It is not a major piece of legislation 
like the continuing resolution or the debt limit or tax reform or 
entitlement reform--things this body knows it has to address--but it is 
a step forward, and I think it would provide a model for how we can 
move forward on other issues.
  We have spent 2\1/2\ years working on this legislation. We have been 
able to garner the support of over 260 businesses and trade 
associations that believe this is good legislation for our country. 
That is one reason we got a 19-to-3 vote out of committee. That is one 
reason there is a lot of support on the floor for this underlying bill. 
It is ultimately about having a smart energy strategy.
  I believe we should produce more energy here in this country, 
particularly in the ground, in America, right now. I think that is good 
for our economy and our country. We should also use it more 
efficiently. This is an opportunity to have a true ``all of the above'' 
strategy--in this case, energy efficiency, going along with production 
and other important elements of an energy strategy that makes sense. I 
hope we will be able to make progress on this today and move forward 
and start to have some votes on these good amendments that actually 
improve the legislation, in my view.
  The jobs issue is also one that is paramount. Think about it. There 
is a report out that my colleague from New Hampshire talked about that 
says there will be 136,000 additional jobs created by this legislation 
by 2030. I think that is a low-ball estimate because there will be jobs 
created in energy efficiency. In other words, by encouraging--not 
through mandates because there are no mandates in this legislation 
except on the Federal Government to get them to practice what they 
preach, as we talked about yesterday--by encouragement and incentives, 
there will be more jobs created in the energy efficiency field. That is 
good for our economy.
  More significantly to me, there will be jobs created because American 
businesses will be more competitive. They will be able to spend less on 
energy and more on expanding plant and equipment and people, and they 
will be hiring more people as they level the playing field, in essence, 
on one of the essential costs of doing business, which is the cost of 
energy. We need that right now. Our economy is weak. We have not had 
the recovery all of us hoped for. They say it is the weakest economic 
recovery we have lived through since the Great Depression. We simply 
need to have that shot in the arm. This is one way to do it. It is not 
the only way to do it, but it would certainly help.
  Finally, it is going to help our economy in ways that are important. 
Right now we have a trade deficit, and it is driven by a couple 
factors. One is China and the other is energy. Taking those two out 
would be almost an even balance of payments. That trade deficit is 
driven in part by the fact that we still have this demand for a lot of 
foreign energy. By making these relatively small important steps in 
energy efficiency, it will actually reduce our dependency on foreign 
sources of energy.

[[Page S6560]]

  As I said earlier, I think we should produce more energy in this 
country. That is part of the answer, but part of it is also using it 
more efficiently, using it more wisely, which I believe is a 
conservative value, and it also happens to help on the trade deficit 
and therefore will help our underlying economy.
  These are all positive aspects of this legislation that I would think 
Members on both sides of the aisle acknowledge. If we cannot move 
forward again on something that makes so much sense, that does have 
that kind of support across the aisle, I worry about whether we can 
deal with these bigger issues that we must deal with for the American 
people.
  It also, of course, leads to a cleaner environment. Why? Because of 
having to build fewer powerplants. And through efficiency you are going 
to have fewer emissions.
  This is why you have groups from the chamber of commerce--which is 
key voting this legislation, by the way--to groups on the environmental 
side saying this is good legislation. It makes sense. Strange 
bedfellows when you have the National Association of Manufacturers and 
the chamber of commerce and other business groups with environmental 
groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, saying this 
makes sense. Let's move forward with it.
  I am hopeful we can move forward not just on resolving these 
differences on what amendments can be offered and voted on but also 
move forward on this underlying bill, send it to the House, where there 
is interest in this bill, where there is on both sides of the aisle an 
interest in taking up efficiency legislation, and then send it to the 
President for his signature and actually be able to go home and say: 
You know what. We did something here to help create jobs, grow the 
economy, have a cleaner environment, deal with our trade deficit, and 
again create a model for how other issues can be resolved.
  For Members who are listening and who have not come to the floor yet 
to talk about their amendments, I hope they will do that because we may 
have a relatively narrow window now because of the fact that we are 
spending so much time trying to resolve these differences on which 
amendments can get a vote. I am hopeful we will have the opportunity to 
start voting today yet. If we do, we can move quickly and we can 
dispose of these issues.
  By the way, some of the issues are not directly related to energy 
efficiency. If they do not come up on this bill, they are going to come 
up on another bill, so it is better, in my estimation, for us to go 
ahead and have some of these debates, have some of these discussions, 
go ahead and see the votes. Again, they should be subject to time 
limitations. We should have a reasonable list. We think we have a 
reasonable list now, going back and forth, and I am hopeful we will be 
able to resolve that. But in the meantime, if Members can come down and 
talk about their amendments, that would be very helpful for us to 
ensure we can get to the underlying bill and move forward.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member because they have been 
working very closely with us not just for the last 2\1/2\ years to put 
together legislation that has this broad support, but more recently 
they have been helping Senator Shaheen and me to ensure that we do have 
on both sides of the aisle good lines of communication and the ability 
to move forward with an energy bill. They care about efficiency. I will 
let them speak for themselves, and they have done that ably earlier 
today. But they also care about an energy agenda for our country, and 
they view this as one of the first major pieces of energy legislation 
that can lead then to other bills.
  For those who would like to discuss broader energy topics but would 
not have the ability to do it on this legislation--or maybe they do not 
have their amendments fully formed on that--the commitment from the 
chairman and ranking member is that they are going to have additional 
energy legislation. I serve on the committee. I can tell you, I have a 
strong interest in moving forward on some of the fossil fuel 
legislation, for instance. They have made a commitment to do that.
  So there will be other opportunities where we will have broader 
energy legislation that deals with the production side, deals with the 
important part of our energy strategy--in addition to energy 
efficiency--that lets us truly have an ``all of the above'' energy 
strategy. I thank them for that commitment and for their strong work on 
this legislation. Once we move this, it will be much easier then to see 
us move forward on these other bills. Success begets success.
  With that, I am hopeful that Members will come to the floor and talk 
about their amendments--I see one of my colleagues coming to the floor 
now--and we can move forward with a good discussion on energy issues 
and move to these amendments as soon as possible and then move to final 
passage.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish to thank my two colleagues from 
New Hampshire and Ohio and, of course, my colleagues from Alaska and 
Oregon as well for their leadership on this very important piece of 
legislation.
  I have four amendments that I would love to be considered, that I 
would love to be included in the legislation, and I hope we are able to 
move these forward. But let me just talk about two of those. I do not 
want to take the Senate's time. I understand other Senators may be on 
their way over to the floor to speak.
  Let me first start with the Quadrennial Energy Review. This is 
something on which I have worked with the Senator from Alaska and many 
others in this Chamber. In fact, it is a bipartisan amendment. It is 
amendment No. 1881. Our cosponsors are Senators Alexander, Begich, 
Boozman, Coons, Heinrich, Tester, Tom Udall, and Wyden. Again, it is a 
bipartisan group of Senators.
  Basically, one of the things we have learned from the Department of 
Defense is every 4 years they do a Quadrennial Defense Review, and that 
helps them determine what is going on within their agency as an agency. 
It helps them determine the strengths and weaknesses, the needs that 
need to be addressed. It helps them plan, and it also helps us make 
decisions. We want to make good defense decisions. The only way you do 
that is by knowing what you have on hand and what you need.
  Well, this is the same for energy. We have a lot of very well-
intentioned energy programs and ideas that either float around this 
Capitol Building or float around the various Departments or that are 
law right now. A lot of these programs exist, but they are not 
necessarily coordinated. There is no one there who is really making 
sure all of the dots connect and we are able to have a smart energy 
policy.
  So I feel like a Quadrennial Energy Review, every 4 years we would 
go--the Federal Government--top to bottom, look at all of our energy 
needs, look at our capabilities, look at our shortcomings, look at 
where we need to focus our resources. Should we be doing research in 
one area and should we be focusing on manufacturing somewhere else? But 
this will allow us to have a good, solid review every 4 years so we can 
make good decisions, so the various Departments can make good 
decisions. Also, it will help industry know kind of what is coming down 
the pike. It will help bring us together and coordinate in a very 
positive and constructive way.
  So the Quadrennial Energy Review, from my standpoint, is a very 
important piece and building block. It is laying the foundation for 
having a smart energy policy for this country. That is one thing we 
need to recognize, quite honestly, here in the Senate. Again, we have 
good intentions, but we do not always have a good, cohesive, and smart 
energy policy. So the QER is something I hope we would be able to get 
through on this legislation and get this legislation moving through the 
process.
  Let me give you one example, Madam President, on the Quadrennial 
Energy Review.
  We have in our country now a lot more domestic energy than we have 
had in years past, and it is very exciting. In my State we produce a 
lot of natural gas through horizontal drilling and fracking, et cetera, 
and that is common in many other States around

[[Page S6561]]

the country. I see some Senators here where they have the same thing. 
Sometimes it is oil, sometimes it is gas, sometimes it is both.
  Let's take natural gas for one moment. We have people come into my 
office, and they will say: Hey, this is great that we have all of this 
natural gas now. Why don't we liquefy it and export it? Okay. That is 
an idea. We ought to talk about that and think about that.
  Or another group will come in and say: Hey, we have all of this 
natural gas. Why don't we actually turn it into diesel fuel? Okay, 
apparently you can do that. The technology is there. Let's talk about 
that.
  Then we have other folks who come to us and they say: Why don't we 
take this natural gas and let's convert our diesel fleet over to 
natural gas? Here again, okay, that all sounds good. But I do not think 
you can do all three of those things. We do not have any mechanism 
right now to coordinate that and put all of that together and get 
consistent with our energy policies.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, it strikes me that the Senator's idea is 
practical right now. Because you look at the changes we have seen in 
the last 4 or 5 years--particularly in areas such as natural gas. We 
were talking about it with the Senators from North Dakota. This would 
be the point of the Senator's amendment, to get the policies of the 
government to start being reflective of what goes on in the 
marketplace. Four or five years ago in our State we were having pitched 
battles whether to develop import facilities for natural gas. They were 
pretty spirited discussions. People were getting hauled out by the 
gendarmes and all of that.
  Now we are having the same kind of battles about whether we ought to 
build export facilities. Is that the Senator's desire, to make sure the 
government and the policies of the government sort of keep up with the 
times? It strikes me the Senator from Arkansas is proposing an 
amendment that is particularly timely right now.
  Mr. PRYOR. That is exactly right. I thank the Senator from Oregon for 
his good question, because that is exactly right. We need some 
mechanism to make sure we are consistent and coherent and cohesive in 
our energy policy in the country. Things change. That is why you want 
to do this about every 4 years. You do not need to do it every year. It 
is too much work and too much going on. But just as with the Department 
of Defense, things change. What happens is you get a benchmark from 4 
years ago that suddenly you have a good comparison. You have a baseline 
that you can look back to 4 years ago and see if you are making 
progress, if your policy is going in the right direction.
  Maybe in this case we have a lot of energy programs that are not 
working very well. This will help us identify those. Maybe we have some 
that are working great, that we ought to be spending more money on. 
This will help us identify those.
  I do thank the Senator for his question.
  I do see we have other Senators coming to the floor.
  Let me talk very quickly about one other amendment I have. It is the 
voluntary certification program, here again, bipartisan, working with 
Senator Sessions. It is amendment No. 1879. This is a very specific 
amendment for some very specific industries: heating, cooling, 
commercial refrigeration and water-heating products. This is not 
economywide. This is very specific to those industries. But right now 
what they do is they self-certify. They self-certify. I think they 
should be allowed to continue to do that, assuming their certification 
meets certain credible and scientific standards, which I think they do 
now. If they do not now, they should.
  But what this will do is actually save the government money. There is 
no reason why the Department of Energy and others should be reviewing 
this and making them do extra certification and more testing, et 
cetera, when it has already been done right now to the standards 
everyone should accept.
  I could talk more about this. I do see I have a couple of colleagues 
here on the floor. It is my understanding they would like to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I hope we are moving to votes on this 
bill, to votes on our ``no Washington exemption'' language. I certainly 
continue to encourage that and continue to support that.
  The reason that is important, particularly on this ``no Washington 
exemption'' language is because unless we act on October 1, what I 
think is a completely illegal rule from the Obama administration that 
does create a special Washington exemption will go into effect.
  First of all, I think it is very unfortunate, sure is frustrating, 
that I and others have to be here on the floor blocking an illegal rule 
in the first place. Because, you see, on this point ObamaCare is clear. 
The actual statutory language of ObamaCare says clearly that all 
Members of Congress and their congressional staff go to the exchange. 
It is crystal clear about that. All of us. In another section, section 
1512, it also says clearly any folks going to the exchange lose their 
employer-based subsidy. That is crystal clear.
  Chuck Grassley, our distinguished colleague, authored this provision. 
He could not have been more clear about where he was coming from about 
the intent. He said at the time, ``The more that Congress experiences 
the laws it passes, the better.'' He is exactly right. That is what 
this is all about. That is what that provision is all about. Legal 
experts such as David Ermer, a lawyer who has represented insurers in 
the Federal employee program for 30 years, said clearly, ``I do not 
think members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in 
the exchanges under existing law.''
  That is very clear, particularly from the precise language of the 
ObamaCare statute. So it is pretty darn frustrating that my colleagues 
and I who are pushing this ``no Washington exemption'' language have to 
be here doing this to begin with. It is all because of an illegal rule 
to bail out Congress, to create out of thin air a Washington exemption 
that will go into effect, unless we act, October 1. So that is why we 
must act. That is why we must vote in a timely way.
  The first thing this illegal rule says is, we do not know what staff 
are covered so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of 
Congress to even decide which, if any, of their staff have to go to the 
exchange. That is a ludicrous interpretation of the clear statutory 
language. It is ludicrous on its face, because that language says ``all 
official staff.''
  Secondly, and even more outrageous in my opinion, this illegal rule 
says: Whoever does go to the exchange from Congress, from staff, gets 
this very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy transferred from the Federal 
employees health benefits plan which we are leaving to the exchange. 
Where did that come from? That is not in ObamaCare. In fact, section 
1512 of ObamaCare says exactly the opposite with regard to all 
employer-based contributions. So where did that come from? It came out 
of thin air. It came from intense lobbying to have President Obama 
create this special Washington exemption.
  I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and say, you know 
what, the first most basic rule of democracy is we should be treated 
the same as America under the laws we pass. That should be true across 
the board, certainly including ObamaCare.
  That is why the Heritage Foundation recently said:

       Obama's action to benefit the political class is the latest 
     example of this administration doing whatever it wants, 
     regardless of whether it has the authority to do so. The 
     Office of Personnel Management overstepped its authority when 
     it carried out the President's request to exempt Congress 
     from the requirements of the health care law. Changing laws 
     is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not the 
     executive.

  They also said:

       Millions of Americans are going to be losing their existing 
     coverage and paying more for health insurance. Under the 
     Vitter amendment, so would the Obama administration's 
     appointees, Congress and congressional staff. They baked that 
     cake, now they can eat it too.

  Similarly, National Review said recently:

       Most employment lawyers interpreted that--

[[Page S6562]]

  Meaning the ObamaCare language

     --to mean that the taxpayer-funded federal health insurance 
     subsidies dispensed to those on Congress's payroll--which now 
     range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year--would have to end.

  A little later in the same opinion piece they wrote:

       Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress 
     in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August 
     recess to personally order the Office of Personnel 
     Management, which supervisors Federal employment issues, to 
     interpret the law so as to retain the generous Congressional 
     benefits.

  The Wall Street Journal has also weighed in. I think they are right.

       The issue is the White House's recent ObamaCare bailout for 
     members of Congress and their staffs. If Republicans want to 
     show that they stand for something, this is it. If they 
     really are willing to do whatever it takes to oppose this 
     law, there would be no more meaningful way to prove it.

  As I said, the author of this original provision of ObamaCare made it 
perfectly clear where he was coming from. That is our distinguished 
colleague Chuck Grassley. ``The more that Congress experiences the laws 
it passes, the better.'' The distinguished lawyer regarding this area 
of law, David Ermer, also said, it is clear: ``I do not think members 
of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges 
under existing law.''
  That is why we have to act and have to vote before October 1.
  Finally, in closing, let me say, I want to be very direct and ask 
Members and the public to beware of another approach to defeating this 
``no Washington exemption'' language. That approach is pretty clever 
and it is pretty cynical. That approach is to say: Oh, this is a great 
idea, but we actually need to expand this to all Federal employees.
  There are Members promoting this approach, particularly on the 
Republican side. That will have one effect and one effect only: It will 
help ensure absolutely, no ifs, ands, or buts, that my language does 
not pass or that language does not pass. In fact, one of the main 
Republican proponents of that language said in a meeting which I 
attended: This will be perfect because under that scenario, under that 
language, all Republicans can vote yes, all Democrats can vote no, and 
it will be killed and we will keep the subsidy.
  That is the game. That is the point. That is what is going on. We 
need a straight up-or-down vote on this ``no Washington exemption'' 
language which is filed as an amendment to this bill on the floor, 
which is filed as a separate bill. I very much look forward to that 
before October 1.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the introduction of S. 1518 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HATCH. 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. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. I wish to commend Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for 
their hard work in bringing a bipartisan bill to the floor that will 
boost energy efficiency in government, in industry, and in commercial 
and residential buildings. This bill will help increase our economic 
competitiveness, enhance our national security, and combat global 
climate change.
  Energy efficiency improvements are a smart, cost-effective way to 
reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our manufacturers, 
and put people back to work in the building trades.
  We don't have an energy problem in this country; we have a waste 
problem. Last October the Department of Energy and Lawrence Livermore 
National Labs calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy 
produced--57 percent. We are becoming more energy efficient, but we 
have a long way to go, which is why the Shaheen-Portman bill is so 
important.
  I wish to speak about two changes I would like to see in the Tax Code 
that would help us achieve our goals of energy efficiency. I have 
worked on two bills in this regard and I will be speaking about them as 
we go through this session of Congress. I have noted amendments, but as 
I think the Presiding Officer is well aware, to try to put a tax 
provision on a bill that originates in the Senate causes what is known 
as the blue slip when the bill is taken to the House, since all tax 
bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I will 
be looking for opportunities to advance these two energy-related bills 
but will not have the opportunity on the legislation that is before us.
  Energy efficiency is as important as renewables, nuclear, and fossil 
fuels in an ``all of the above'' strategy to meet the Nation's energy 
demands. In fact, the cheapest, cleanest ``energy'' we have is the 
energy we don't need because of energy efficiency improvements.
  Our Tax Code in turn can be an effective tool in promoting energy 
efficiency. Consider that buildings account for more than 40 percent of 
our energy consumption in the United States. So by encouraging 
businesses to make energy-efficient upgrades in their buildings, we can 
reach substantial energy savings. A recent study by McKinsey & Company 
backs me up. The study concluded that maximizing energy efficiency for 
homes and commercial buildings could help our country reduce energy 
consumption by 23 percent by 2020 and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 
1.1 gigatons annually. This is the equivalent of taking all passenger 
cars and light trucks off the road for a year.
  Making buildings more efficient is more cost-effective than 
developing new energy sources. Current building codes are already 
making new construction significantly more efficient, but a boost is 
needed for older structures.
  Up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here 
in 2050, so encouraging the retrofitting of existing buildings needs to 
be a priority. Even buildings that are fairly new can benefit from 
retrofitting. For example, Bush Stadium, home of the St. Louis 
Cardinals, was built in 2006, but energy improvements in 2011 reduced 
energy consumption by 23 percent.
  We could see more successful projects such as this proliferate across 
the Nation, but our current tax policies have not yet proved to be 
meaningful incentives for making energy-efficient upgrades to existing 
buildings. For example, the landmark upgrade of the Empire State 
Building, which is under contract to lower energy consumption by almost 
40 percent, could not qualify for a 179D deduction under the law's 
current structure. Senator Feinstein and I are working on legislation 
that would make commonsense reforms to the existing section 179D tax 
deduction.
  Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provides a tax deduction 
that allows cost recovery of energy-efficient windows, roofs, lighting, 
and heating and cooling systems that meet certain energy savings 
targets. Section 179D allows for an accelerated depreciation that 
encourages real estate owners to make the significant front-end 
investments in energy-efficient upgrades. The deduction is scheduled to 
expire at the end of this year. By extending, modifying, and 
simplifying this important provision, we can encourage energy savings, 
create thousands of retrofitting jobs in the construction industry, and 
reduce energy bills for all consumers--a win-win-win situation. Our 
legislation would make this critical incentive more accessible and 
effective for existing buildings that are currently using inefficient 
lighting systems, antiquated heating and cooling systems, and poor 
insulation. Upgrading and improving the 179D deduction will make 
thousands of businesses more competitive and create good-paying jobs 
right here in the United States.
  In addition to commercial properties, our bill will also help promote 
energy efficiency in private residences. Homes consume more than 20 
percent of our Nation's energy, so we need to give American homeowners 
a helping hand to increase the energy efficiency of their properties. 
Our legislation does this by establishing a section 25E tax credit for 
homeowners. Homeowners would receive a 30-percent tax credit of up to 
$5,000 for making an investment in energy efficiency and reducing 
energy consumption and costs. Simply

[[Page S6563]]

put, it is an incentive that encourages homeowners to choose the most 
inexpensive option for saving energy. At a time of Federal budget 
constraints, we must prioritize tax policies so they promote the most 
cost-effective methods of bolstering our energy security. Performance-
based energy efficiency improvements can transform America's homes and 
lower energy bills for the families who live in them.
  Finally, our legislation targets the sector with the largest 
potential for increasing energy efficiency in our country--the 
industrial sector. Our bill offers focused, short-term incentives in 
four areas to help manufacturers make the efficiency investments 
necessary to innovate and compete. These critical areas include water 
reuse and replacing old chillers that harm the atmosphere.
  I have a letter dated September 17, 2013, from a large coalition of 
business, labor, and environmental groups supporting the Cardin-
Feinstein approach to the reform of section 179D. The Real Estate 
Roundtable spearheaded the letter, but 50 different organizations have 
signed on. I want to quote one part of that letter. This is a quote 
from the letter that was sent in support of the legislation:

       The Section 179D deduction is a key incentive to leverage 
     significant amounts of private sector investment capital in 
     buildings. It will help spur construction and manufacturing 
     jobs through retrofits, save businesses billions of dollars 
     in fuel bills as buildings become more energy efficient, 
     place lower demands on the power grid, help move our country 
     closer to energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions.

  I think that is exactly what we should be doing. These are the types 
of incentives we should be working for. If you look at the groups that 
have signed on to this letter, these are groups that understand how to 
create jobs and that Congress can help in that regard.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter 
be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  Senator Crapo and I will be introducing legislation that will fix a 
problem that is keeping energy-efficient roofing materials from being 
deployed. This is a separate bill that I think could help us create 
jobs, save energy, and help our environment.
  The current Tax Code acts as an obstacle to retrofitting old roofs 
with energy-efficient ones because, generally speaking, commercial 
roofs are depreciated over 39 years. Our bill would shorten the 
depreciation schedule to 20 years for roofs that meet certain energy 
efficiency standards and that are put in place over the next 2 years. 
By shortening the depreciation schedule, we are lowering the amount of 
tax businesses would otherwise have to pay. They get the advantage of 
their savings in the early years.
  This change will create more jobs by encouraging the construction of 
new roofs and by putting more cash into the hands of businesses. It is 
good tax policy because the average lifespan of a typical commercial 
roof is only 17 years. So this legislation corrects an inequity in the 
Tax Code by aligning the depreciation period closer to the lifespan of 
commercial roofs.
  Securing America's energy and economic future requires a renewed 
focus on energy efficiency. I hope we can pass the legislation that is 
before us and send it to the House. I hope the House will send us a tax 
bill that can serve as the basis for using the Tax Code to promote 
energy efficiency.
  Energy efficiency gains are a win-win for families, businesses, job 
seekers, taxpayers, our human health, and the environment. We can 
create jobs, we can help our economy, we can become more competitive, 
and we can have a cleaner environment if we do the right thing with the 
legislation before us and are able to improve our Tax Code to help 
achieve those goals.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 17, 2013.
     Re: 179D Tax Deduction for Energy Efficient Buildings.

     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Finance,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Sander Levin,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: Our organizations and 
     companies represent a broad spectrum of the U.S. economy and 
     include real estate, manufacturing, architecture, 
     contracting, building services firms, financing sources, and 
     environmental and energy efficiency advocates. Many of the 
     entities we represent are small businesses that drive and 
     sustain American job growth. We support the tax deduction at 
     section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code, which encourages 
     greater energy efficiency in our nation's commercial and 
     larger multifamily buildings. As Congress continues to assess 
     comprehensive tax reform, we support section 179D's extension 
     and necessary reforms to spur retrofit projects in existing 
     buildings.
       The section 179D deduction is a key incentive to leverage 
     significant amounts of private sector investment capital in 
     buildings. It will help spur construction and manufacturing 
     jobs through retrofits, save businesses billions of dollars 
     in fuel bills as buildings become more energy efficient, 
     place lower demands on the power grid, help move our country 
     closer to energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions.
       Section 179D provides a tax deduction (not a credit) that 
     allows for cost recovery of energy efficient windows, roofs, 
     lighting, and heating and cooling systems meeting certain 
     energy savings performance targets. Without section 179D, the 
     same building equipment would be depreciated over 39 years 
     (business property) or 27.5 years (residential property). 
     These horizons do not meaningfully encourage real estate 
     owners to bear the immediate and expensive front-end costs 
     associated with complex energy efficiency upgrades. Section 
     179D allows for accelerated depreciation of high performance 
     equipment that achieves significant energy savings.
       Current law has the perverse effect of discouraging energy 
     improvements. Utility bills and the costs of energy 
     consumption are part of a business's ordinary and necessary 
     operating expenses, and are thus fully and immediately 
     deductible. Section 179D is a critical provision because, by 
     encouraging greater building efficiency, it aligns the code 
     to properly incentivize energy savings. Moreover, relative to 
     the code's incentives for energy creation, taxpayers get more 
     ``bang for the buck'' through efficiency incentives like the 
     section 179D deduction. Dollar for dollar, it is much cheaper 
     to avoid using a kilowatt of energy than to create a new one 
     (such as through deployment of fossil fuel or renewable 
     technologies). As a matter of tax, budget, and an ``all of 
     the above'' energy policy, section 179D checks all of the 
     right boxes.
       Regardless of the ultimate result of comprehensive tax 
     reform, the section 179D deduction is scheduled to expire at 
     the end of this year. While the provision should be carefully 
     considered as part of the code's possible overhaul, Congress 
     should also extend this important incentive with reasonable 
     improvements that better facilitate ``deep'' energy retrofit 
     improvements in buildings. In this regard, the Commercial 
     Building Modernization Act (S. 3591) from last Congress--
     introduced by Senators Cardin and Feinstein, and former 
     Senators Bingaman and Snowe--is a step in the right direction 
     of a ``performance based'' and ``technology neutral'' 
     deduction that both of your committees have emphasized must 
     be the hallmarks of any energy tax incentive. Revisions of 
     the sort proposed by S. 3591 would improve the section 179D 
     deduction by providing a sliding scale of incentives that 
     correlate to actual and verifiable improvements in a 
     retrofitted building's energy performance. S. 3591 does not 
     select technology ``winners or losers'' but respects the 
     underlying contractual arrangements of building owners and 
     their retrofit project design teams, who are best suited to 
     decide which equipment options in a given structure may 
     achieve high levels of cost-effective energy savings.
       Furthermore, any 179D reform proposal should ensure that 
     building owners have their own ``skin in the game'' of a 
     retrofit project--such as S. 3591's specification that the 
     financial benefits of the tax deduction cannot exceed more 
     than half of project costs.
       Congress should extend and improve the section 179D tax 
     deduction before it expires at the end of 2013. We urge you 
     to look to S. 3591 from last Congress as the starting point 
     for further deliberations and refinements this fall.


                        SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

       ABM Industries; Air Conditioning Contractors of America; 
     Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute; 
     American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; American 
     Gas Association; American Hotel & Lodging Association; 
     American Institute of Architects; American Public Gas 
     Association; American Society of Interior Designers; ASHRAE; 
     Bayer MaterialScience LLC; Building Owners and Managers 
     Association (BOMA) International; CCIM Institute; Concord 
     Energy Strategies, LLC; Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc.; 
     Council of North American Insulation Manufacturers 
     Association.
       Danfoss; Empire State Building Company/Malkin Holdings; 
     Energy Systems Group; First Potomac Realty Trust; Independent 
     Electrical Contractors; Institute for Market Transformation; 
     Institute of Real Estate Management; International Council of 
     Shopping Centers; International Union of Painters & Allied 
     Trades (IUPAT); Johnson Controls, Inc.; Mechanical 
     Contractors Association of America (MCAA); Metrus Energy,

[[Page S6564]]

     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 
     REALTORS'; National Association of Real Estate 
     Investment Trusts.
       National Association of State Energy Officials; National 
     Electrical Contractors Association; National Electrical 
     Manufacturers Association; National Lumber and Building 
     Material Dealers Association; National Multi Housing Council; 
     National Roofing Contractors Association; Natural Resources 
     Defense Council; Owens Corning; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors--National Association; Polyisocyanurate 
     Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA); Real Estate 
     Board of New York; The Real Estate Roundtable; The Sheet 
     Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation International 
     Association; Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' 
     National Association; U.S. Green Building Council; Window and 
     Door Manufacturers Association.

  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, 5 years ago, as a result of the greed and 
the recklessness and the illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country 
was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression 
of the 1930s. As a result, millions of people lost their homes, lost 
their jobs, and lost their life savings. And about 5 years ago we were 
looking at a situation where some 700,000 Americans a month were losing 
their jobs--an unbelievable number. The stock market plummeted. There 
was panic in the financial sector.
  The good news is that to a significant degree we have stabilized that 
situation. We are not losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. The 
stock market is, in fact, doing very well. But what is important to 
understand is that it is imperative we not accept the ``new normal'' 
for the economy as it is today because the reality is that today, while 
the situation is better than it was 5 years ago, for the middle class 
and for the working families of this country the economy is still in 
very bad shape. And I am not just talking about a 5-year period; I am 
talking about a generational situation.
  Mr. President, you may have seen that just yesterday the Census 
Bureau came out with some new and extremely disturbing statistics, and 
it tells us why so many Americans are frustrated and angry with what is 
going on in Washington and why so many people respond to pollsters and 
say: Yes, we believe the country is going in the wrong direction.
  What they are saying is true. They have every reason to be angry, 
every reason be frustrated. Of course, economically this country is 
moving, in a very significant way, in the wrong direction.
  This is what the Census Bureau reported yesterday: They said the 
typical middle-class family, the family right in the middle of American 
society, that median family income today is less than it was 24 years 
ago. Median family income today for that typical American family is 
less than it was 24 years ago.
  In 2002, typical middle-class families, that family right in the 
middle, made $51,017. Back in 1989, that family made $51,681. What does 
that mean? It means that 24 years later, after all of the effort and 
the hard work of people, today they are worse off than they were 24 
years ago.
  Let's think about what that means. It means that despite the 
explosion of technology and all of the robotics, all of the cell phones 
and everything else that has made this economy more productive, the 
median family income today is worse than it was 24 years ago.
  I will give you an example of what that means. If during the period 
from 1989 through 2012 that typical American family had received just a 
2-percent increase in their income--just 2 percent, a very modest 
increase--that family today, instead of making $51,000 a year, would be 
making $81,000 a year. That is a $30,000 gap.
  If over that 24-year period people had seen a modest--I am not taking 
about a huge increase--a modest increase in their income of 2 percent, 
which people certainly deserve, that family would make $81,000 a year. 
Today that family is making $51,000 a year--less than that family was 
making 24 years ago.
  This is what the Census Bureau also reported. They said the typical 
middle-class family has seen its income go down by more than $5,000 
since 1999, after adjusting for inflation--$5,000.
  They told us the average male worker made $283 less last year than 
that same worker made 44 years ago. Do you want to know why people are 
angry? They see an explosion of technology, they see an explosion of 
productivity, and yet a male worker today is making less than a male 
worker--the average male worker--made 44 years ago.
  The average female worker earned $1,775 less than they did in 2007. A 
recordbreaking 46.5 million Americans lived in poverty last year. That 
is more people living in poverty than at any time in American history. 
Sixteen million children live in poverty. That is almost 22 percent of 
all kids in America. That is the highest rate of childhood poverty in 
the industrialized world. That is the future of America. Over one out 
of five kids in the country is living in poverty.
  A higher percentage of African Americans lived in poverty last year 
than was the case 15 years ago, and 9.1 percent of seniors lived in 
poverty last year, higher than in 2009. More American seniors were 
living in poverty last year than in 1972. Today, 48 million Americans 
are uninsured, no health insurance. That will change as a result of 
ObamaCare. But as of today, 48 million Americans are uninsured, 3 
million more than in 2008.
  So when people call the Presiding Officer's office in Delaware or my 
office in Vermont and they say: You know what: we are hurting, they are 
telling the truth. What they are saying is Congress seems to deal with 
everything except the reality facing the middle class and working 
families of this country.
  People worry desperately not only for themselves, they worry more for 
their kids. What kind of education will their kids have? Will there be 
enough teachers in the classroom? Will their kids be able to afford to 
go to college or will young working families be able to find quality, 
affordable child care? What kind of job will their kids have when they 
get out of high school or they get out of college?
  Those are the questions that tens of millions of Americans are asking 
all over this country. Here in Washington, we are not giving them clear 
and straightforward answers. What makes this moment in American history 
unique is that while the great American middle class is disappearing 
and while the number of Americans living in poverty is at an alltime 
high, something else is going on in this society; that is, that the 
people on top, the top 1 percent, have never, ever had it so good. Last 
week we learned an astounding fact I want everybody to hear clearly; 
that is, between 2009 and 2012, the last years we have information on, 
95 percent of all new income created in this country went to the top 1 
percent--95 percent of all of the new income created in America went to 
the top 1 percent.
  The bottom 99 percent shared in 4 percent of the new income. So what 
we are seeing as a nation is the disappearance of the middle class, 
millions of families leaving the middle class and descending into 
poverty, struggling desperately to feed their families, to put gas in 
their car, to get to work, to survive on an $8-an-hour wage.
  You have that reality over here, and then you have another reality; 
that is, the people on top are doing better than at any time since 
before the Great Depression.
  Today, the top 1 percent own 38 percent of the Nation's financial 
wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 60 percent, the majority of the American 
people together, own only 2.3 percent of the wealth in this country. 
When I was in school we used to--and I am sure all over this country--
study what we called an oligarchy. An oligarchy is a nation in which a 
handful of very wealthy people control the economy, control the 
politics of the nation. It does not matter about political parties 
because they own those parties as well.
  Guess what. What we used to look at in Latin America and laugh about 
or worry about has now come home to

[[Page S6565]]

this country. In America today, we have the most unequal distribution 
of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. That gap between 
the very rich and everybody else is growing wider.
  I do not believe the American people feel that is what this great 
country should be about; that the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the 
wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns barely 2 percent of the 
wealth. That is not the dream of what this great country is about.
  Earlier this week Forbes magazine reported that the wealthiest 400 
Americans in this country--400 people--are now worth a recordbreaking 
$2 trillion--400 people worth $2 trillion; in other words, the 
concentration of wealth is getting greater and greater and greater. The 
wealthiest 400 Americans now own more wealth than the bottom half of 
Americans, over 150 million Americans.
  We could probably squeeze 400 people into this room. If we did and 
they were the wealthiest people in this country, 400 people in this 
room would own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the American 
people.
  Just one family, one family in America, the Walton family, the owners 
of Walmart, are worth over $100 billion and own more wealth than the 
bottom 40 percent of the American people. One family owns more wealth 
than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
  While the middle class disappears, while children in this country go 
hungry, while veterans sleep out on the streets, corporate profits are 
now at an alltime high, while wages, as a share of the economy, are at 
a record low.
  Wall Street--the major financial institutions in this country whose 
greed and recklessness drove us into this economic downturn and the 
group of people the American middle class bailed out 5 years ago--is 
now doing phenomenally well. So Wall Street drives the country into a 
severe economic downturn. Wall Street is bailed out by the American 
middle class. Wall Street now is doing phenomenally well while the 
middle class is disappearing.
  You want to know why the American people are angry and disgusted and 
frustrated? That is why. In fact, the CEOs on Wall Street, the 
executives there, are on track to make more money this year than they 
did in 2009. That is the time in which Wall Street greed destroyed our 
economy.
  The American middle class is disappearing. Poverty is increasing. The 
gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider. That 
is the economic reality facing this country. The time is long overdue 
for this Congress and this President to start, in a very forceful, 
aggressive way, to address that issue.
  But where are we today? Are we having a major debate on the floor of 
the Senate as to how we are going to rebuild our crumbling 
infrastructure and create millions of jobs? I do not hear that debate. 
Are we having a debate on the floor of the Senate that says it is an 
outrage that working people throughout the country are trying to 
survive on a minimum wage of $7.25 and we need to raise that 
substantially so that when people work 40 hours a week they can 
actually take care of themselves and their families and not go deeper 
into debt? Are we having that debate? I do not hear that.
  Are we having a debate which says that not only should we not cut 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but we should join the rest of 
the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all of our people 
as a right of citizenship? I do not hear that debate; quite the 
contrary, this is the debate I hear. This is what I am hearing from my 
colleagues over in the House and the Republican leadership over there. 
What I am hearing them say is that while poverty is at an alltime high, 
while our childcare system, early childhood education is a disaster, 
what they want to do is continue sequestration and push for more 
across-the-board spending cuts to Head Start, while elderly people 
throughout the country who are fragile and hurting are dependent on the 
Meals On Wheels Program, they want to continue cuts in that program.
  They want to continue cuts in that program. While millions of 
families are wondering how they are going to send kids to college, they 
want to continue sequestration, making it harder for families to send 
their kids to college. They want to continue cuts to unemployment 
insurance and a number of other vital programs; in other words, instead 
of addressing the very serious problems facing the middle class and the 
working class of this country, what I am hearing from my Republican 
colleagues is let's make a bad situation even worse.
  Let me conclude by saying, instead of cutting the Head Start Program, 
we should be expanding the Head Start Program. Study after study makes 
it clear that the most important years of a human being's life are 0 to 
3. Giving those little kids the intellectual and emotional nourishment 
they need so they will do well in school is perhaps the most important 
work we can do.
  We have to increase funding for Head Start, not cut funding for Head 
Start.
  It is a moral outrage in this country that anybody here talks about 
cutting back on the Meals On Wheels Program, which provides at least 
one nutritious meal per day to fragile and vulnerable citizens. We 
should not be cutting back on that program; we should be significantly 
expanding that program.
  I can tell you that in Vermont, if you talk to the people in my 
State, they will tell you we have significant problems with our 
bridges, significant problems with our roads, significant problems with 
rail, significant problems with wastewater and water plants. People 
want to invest in our crumbling infrastructure and make us a productive 
nation. When we do that, we can create jobs.
  Right now on the floor--I don't know if we are going to get to vote 
on it--there is a very modest bill brought forth by Senators Shaheen 
and Portman which talks about energy efficiency. In Vermont and 
throughout this country, people are paying higher fuel bills than they 
should, wasting enormous amounts of energy, and contributing to global 
warming through greenhouse gas emissions because we are not aggressive 
on energy efficiency, making our homes more efficient. We should be 
investing in energy efficiency and creating jobs doing this.
  The bottom line is we are in a pivotal moment in American history. 
The rich are getting richer, the middle class is disappearing, and 
poverty is at an alltime high. People are demanding that we create jobs 
and address the problems facing this country. Yet we have folks who 
want to make a bad situation worse by protecting the tax breaks that 
have been given to the wealthy and large corporations and then cut back 
on the needs of ordinary Americans.
  I hope the American people will stand and say enough is enough and 
that they will demand that, finally, Congress stands with the middle 
class of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I rise to talk about the relentless assault on the poor 
and hungry in this country that is being waged right now in the House 
of Representatives and too often on the Senate floor.
  The meltdown on Wall Street caused a recession in this country, as we 
know, that was worse than anything we have experienced since the Great 
Depression. Eight million people, eight million Americans lost their 
jobs. Trillions of dollars in the stock market were wiped out. With 
that money went the life savings of many middle-class families.
  Many families lost their homes. Small businesses closed up shop. This 
was an economic disaster that hit communities across this country as 
hard as any natural disaster we have seen.
  While Wall Street is doing well again these days, millions of 
families on Main Street are still waiting for their situation to 
improve. We are seeing new job creation, but millions of Americans are 
still out of work. In fact, when we look at the chart on employment 
rates, we see what happened in 2008 and 2009, the numbers of people who 
lost their jobs. While based on the population we are holding our own, 
we are just barely at this point keeping up with the population and 
beginning to grow again.
  What the House Republicans are saying is get a good-paying job or 
your family will just have to go hungry. But there aren't enough good-
paying jobs, as we all know. To add insult to injury,

[[Page S6566]]

they are slashing job-training money, which makes absolutely no sense, 
job-training money that States get to help Americans find work.
  Economists point also to the irresponsible sequestration cuts as a 
cause for this sluggish job growth.
  In the Senate we have passed a budget that will replace the sequester 
with a balanced solution to reduce the debt and balance the budget, but 
a handful of Senators on the other side of the aisle are blocking us 
from even being able to send negotiators to the House to finalize the 
budget. We are now stuck with a policy that makes absolutely no sense, 
that economists say is slowing down our economy and costing us jobs 
because of political games, pure and simple, in Washington.
  This is having a very serious effect on the wallets of Americans who 
continue to find it difficult to put food on the table for their 
families. This is very real. It is not a political game for American 
families all across the country and certainly in my great State of 
Michigan. Even those people who are able to find work are working for 
less. In fact, wages as a percent of the economy are at 30-year lows.
  When we look back, what has happened is not only is job growth not 
coming back as fast as it should, we are seeing people who have been in 
the middle class struggling by their fingertips trying to hold on or, 
most of the time, much of the time, losing ground because we are seeing 
wages going down, down, and down, even for the jobs that are available. 
This is a situation that millions of Americans find themselves in 
today. They are struggling to find work. When they do find work, the 
salary isn't even close to what it was before the recession.
  Many people have taken pay cuts to keep their jobs or they have had 
their pay and benefits frozen for 4 or 5 years. Families who only 5 or 
10 years ago were doing fine are now in dire straits.
  Now the same Republicans who refuse to fix the sequester, who refuse 
to work with us to get the economy moving again for millions of middle-
class families, again are trying to take temporary food assistance away 
from the children and families who are out of work or who are working 
one, two or three part-time jobs trying to make ends meet.
  Let me stress as we debate the question of hunger and food assistance 
in America, we know that many families receiving SNAP, the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, are working. They are working.
  About half of those families receiving food help are working. They 
are people with children and whose wages are falling behind so they are 
no longer able to feed their families.
  For those who have lost their jobs, SNAP is a short-term lifeline to 
keep food on the table while they search for work. We know the average 
new SNAP recipient only receives help for 10 months or less. Let me 
repeat that. A person who is coming onto this program during this 
recession worked before they needed help. They are getting an average 
of 10 months' worth of help so their family doesn't starve while they 
are looking for work and trying to put the pieces back together. Then 
after that they are going back to work.
  What we also know is men, women, families on supplemental nutrition 
assistance are using that money to feed their children. Nearly half of 
the people who are getting food assistance help in this country are 
children. We are looking now at nearly half being children, children 
who are going to bed hungry at night while their parents are doing the 
best they can to get back on their feet.
  We see senior citizens who find themselves in a situation where their 
only income is Social Security. That little bit of food help makes a 
difference of whether they can go to the grocery store and put food in 
the cupboard or not.
  The real faces of food assistance are veterans who went to war for 
this country, many of whom were injured and returned home only to find 
they couldn't get a job or their disabilities made it impossible to 
work. People with disabilities are the faces of food assistance. 
Instead of honoring these men and women for their service, House 
Republicans want to take away the little bit of help they get each 
month to buy food.
  If we add all of this, 85 percent of the faces of food assistance, of 
SNAP, are children with their parents, people with disabilities, 
including our veterans, and senior citizens--85 percent. The bill being 
considered in the House of Representatives would kick millions of 
children and their families off food assistance.
  This is how majority leader Eric Cantor and House Republicans will 
cut $40 billion in food assistance. That is what they will be voting 
on, probably tomorrow. They do it by cutting off individuals and 
families who need the assistance the most.
  Under the Republican plan, which Eric Cantor says encourages people 
to get back to work, benefits for a jobless adult without children 
would be limited to 3 months every 3 years. They better eat a lot 
during those 3 months.
  That means if you lose your job and you are unemployed for 6 months, 
half of the time you will be able to have help in order to be able to 
put food on your table. Once you find a new job, you had better make 
sure your company doesn't close and doesn't go overseas within the next 
2\1/2\ years or you will not be able to have any help to put food on 
the table as well.
  It is important to note that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office has said that 14 million people will stop receiving food 
assistance over the next 10 years the right way. As the economy 
improves, they will get back on their feet financially and be able to 
find a good-paying job. We built into our farm bill reduced costs in 
SNAP because the economy is beginning to improve. But the House of 
Representatives, the House Republican majority leader's bill, 
eliminates families from food assistance the wrong way--by eliminating 
food help to those who most need it: 1.7 million poor, unemployed 
adults next year, whose average income is about $2,500 a year--$2,500 a 
year; those are the folks who would lose help with food--2.1 million 
low-income working families and seniors next year alone, 210,000 
children who would receive cuts and would lose their school lunches 
under the House Republican plan, and other unemployed parents and their 
children--parents who want to work but can't find a job or a training 
program to join--will be eliminated from help.

  The Republicans say it is about getting people back to work. But this 
bill cuts worker training and job placement for people who are trying 
to get back to work, who are mortified that, probably for the first 
time in their lives, they have needed help with food. They are people 
who have paid taxes their whole lives and who got caught up in this 
great recession and are trying to climb out but need a little help with 
one of the things I think we would all consider pretty basic--the 
ability to eat and provide food for their families.
  People on SNAP want to work. They are like any American wanting to 
work, but there currently are not enough jobs, which is why we should 
be focusing on jobs and growing the economy. Right now we have three 
unemployed workers for every job opening. It is better. I can remember 
standing on the floor a few years ago saying the number was six 
unemployed workers for every job, and then five, and now it is three. 
But it is still three for every job opening.
  Does the Republican plan do anything to help people find jobs or the 
job training skills they need to get a good-paying job so they can care 
for their families? No, absolutely not. In fact, the Republican plan 
would offer cash-strapped States a truly perverse incentive. I had to 
read this several times to see whether this was actually written down 
this way. They are allowing States to keep half of the Federal money 
that would be spent on food whenever they cut somebody off the program. 
So the incentive is to eliminate help for people so the State can keep 
half the money and use it for something else. That is in the House 
bill.
  Let me be clear: We have seen occasions of fraud and abuse in the 
food assistance program, and that is why the Senate farm bill includes 
major reforms to crack down on misuse and to make sure only people who 
truly need help are getting help. We heard reports of people winning 
the lottery, two in my home State, but who are still getting SNAP 
benefits. That will not happen again under our bill. We have seen 
liquor stores accepting food stamps

[[Page S6567]]

when they do not sell much food. We have reformed that to make sure 
that cannot happen again, as well as a number of other areas where we 
can bring more accountability and tighten up the program.
  We want every dollar to go to the people I am talking about today--
who work hard all their lives, find themselves in a bad situation and 
are trying to climb out but they need a little bit of help because 
their children are hungry, because they are hungry. Maybe they are a 
veteran or maybe they are a senior or maybe they are somebody with a 
disability who needs a little bit of help. So we have passed real 
reforms to crack down on abuses we have found, and we did it in a 
bipartisan way in the Senate. I am very proud of that.
  What House Republicans are voting on is nothing more than an 
extremely divisive, extremely partisan political exercise that is, by 
the way, going nowhere, and it is jeopardizing the passage of a 5-year 
farm bill. We have never seen this kind of partisanship injected into 
agricultural policy in our country before. It is shocking what has 
happened in the last 2 years in the House of Representatives. And shame 
on the majority floor leader and his allies for doing it now.
  Our farmers, our ranchers, our small towns and rural communities and 
our children and families do not deserve this. The 16 million people 
who work in this country because of agriculture do not deserve this. 
What is happening this week in the House of Representatives is not 
about reality, it is about some fiction they have made up--an idea if 
the stock market is doing well, if wealthy Members of Congress and 
others are doing well, then surely everyone in America must be doing 
well too. And anyone who isn't must be lazy or not trying hard enough.
  The reality is most people in America are still struggling to get 
back on their feet from the recession. There still aren't enough jobs 
for every person who needs and wants one. The jobs that are there pay 
less than they did 5 years ago, and families getting food help are 
making about $500 a week. They do not have money in the stock market. 
They do not have investment income. In fact, the average SNAP family 
doesn't have more than $300 in assets--things they own. What they do 
have, though, because of our policy of supporting those families, is 
$4.53 a day to eat. That is right, $4.53 a day to eat--less than the 
cost of one specialty coffee at our favorite stores.
  But some Members of the House of Representatives have decided that is 
too much, that $4.53 a day is too much for our disabled veterans, too 
much for our senior citizens living on Social Security, too much for 
our children, for families working multiple part-time jobs and trying 
to figure out how to get out of the hole that was created not by them 
but by others in the great recession.
  We all want to spend less on food assistance, and the good news is, 
under the Senate farm bill we all voted on, we do spend less. The 
baseline for food assistance is going down. Why? Because the economy is 
improving. There is $11.5 billion in reduced spending built into our 
farm bill because people are finding jobs, and that is added to the $4 
billion in fraud and misuse we have included.
  Again, the Congressional Budget Office projects that 14 million 
people will leave the supplemental nutrition program as the economy 
improves because they will no longer need temporary help. Costs are 
going down the right way, because the economy is beginning to improve. 
And as it improves more aggressively, which is what we should be 
working on together, we will see those costs go down.
  I should also add that SNAP recipients are already going to see an 
arbitrary cut, unfortunately, to their benefits on November 1 because 
of the expiration of the Recovery Act help that temporarily boosted 
assistance to families in need, which we did in 2009. So they are 
already going to see less available for food.
  If we want to continue to cut spending the right way, we should be 
working together to invest in our economy, to support our businesses, 
large and small, to outinnovate the global competition, to get rid of 
the sequester and to help people get the training they need to find 
good-paying jobs.
  The Republican approach is like saying: You know, we are so tired of 
spending money on wildfires--forest fires--so we will cut the budget 
for the fire service. That isn't going to work. The fires will rage on 
and they will only get worse. If we want fewer fires we have to find 
ways to prevent fires and contain the fires in order to reduce the 
cost.
  The Republican approach is also like saying: We are tired of paying 
for the cost of drought, flooding, and other crop disasters so we will 
cut crop insurance. The government's cost of crop insurance went up 
over $5 billion--50 percent--last year because of droughts and flooding 
and so on. It went up 50 percent. And while we are seeing increases in 
crop insurance, it is projected that food assistance is actually going 
down $11.5 billion over the next 10 years.
  Are the House Republicans proposing we eliminate help for farmers in 
a disaster or just low-income families--children, seniors, disabled 
veterans--when they have a disaster?
  What is happening in the House right now is a complete reversal of 50 
years of great American values. Today, in the United States of America, 
one in six people say they do not know where their next meal will come 
from--one in six Americans in the greatest, the wealthiest country in 
the world. We have a long history in this country of making sure that 
poverty and hunger are kept in check. In fact, Presidents on both sides 
have understood this. President Ronald Reagan said:

       As long as there is one person in this country who is 
     hungry, that's one person too many.

  That is one person too many. I wish our House Republicans could hear 
that and understand what he was saying. What would he have to say about 
this effort now in the House of Representatives to blame the victims of 
poverty and unemployment, to blame the children, to blame the seniors, 
to blame the veterans, who only want enough food to be able to eat and, 
for those who are able, to work and to get back on their feet and get a 
job?
  The House Republicans who are proposing these drastic cuts all have 
enough to eat. We in the Senate are not living on $4.53 a day for food. 
We have enough to eat. None of us wonder where our next meal is going 
to come from, like the one out of six Americans. None of us have to 
worry about whether our children will go to bed hungry tonight. None of 
us have to skip meals so our children don't have to.
  We in America are better than the debate that is being waged in the 
House of Representatives. The good news for children, families, 
seniors, the disabled and veterans across America is that the House 
bill will never see the light of day in the Senate. It is time to stop 
the political games around hunger in America. It is time to work 
together and pass a 5-year farm and food bill, to grow the economy and 
reduce the need for food assistance the right way--by making sure every 
American has the ability to have a good-paying job so they can feed 
their families and achieve their part of the American dream.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. A parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Just to make sure, because Senator Roberts--I had a 
question. He has gotten some time from Senator Cruz; is that correct? 
Senator Heitkamp wanted to make comments for a couple of minutes 
following Senator Stabenow.
  So this is what I would ask: After Senator Heitkamp is recognized, I 
would be recognized. If Senator Cruz comes, I will stop at that time 
and yield the time to Senator Cruz and then continue after he has 
finished. That would be a consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Reserving the right to object, my remarks will only take 
4 minutes to identify myself with Senator Cruz's effort on Benghazi. I 
know Senator Inhofe would like to say a few words.
  So perhaps I could start?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, if I could just say that I am happy to allow that 
to go forward, but there needs to be a definite time. How much time 
will all three Senators--my understanding was that Senator Cruz--for 
how many minutes?

[[Page S6568]]

  Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was 15 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. So if the Senator is asking that he take Senator Cruz's 
15 minutes, I have no objection.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I am not going to take all of the 15 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, if the Senator is asking that he take part of the 
Senator's 15 minutes and count against Senator Cruz's time, I have no 
problem with that whatsoever. So I would revise that to say that 
Senator Heitkamp would be going for 3 minutes, Senator Roberts would be 
going for 5 minutes, and then I would be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Reserving the right to object, it is a 15-minute slot 
that we had intended, and I am sure the Senators will arrive.
  Mrs. BOXER. When Senator Cruz arrives to take the additional 15 
minutes, that is fine. So in other words, the Senator takes 5 minutes, 
Senator Cruz comes, and I would yield to him for the rest of the 15 
minutes. He is not here.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I withdraw any objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I will be very brief, recognizing the 
other urgent business the Senate needs to address, but I did want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the very able and capable 
chairwoman of the agriculture committee, Senator Stabenow.
  We have a disaster in the making. It is called the farm bill. Months 
ago this body passed a comprehensive farm bill recognizing a 50-year 
compromise, a 50-year association of nutrition assistance with the 
ability to provide disaster assistance to our farmers in this country. 
For 50 years that effort has served us very well.
  Today and this week in the House of Representatives, they will do 
something that is unprecedented in 50 years: They will segregate, pass 
separate bills, and do a disservice to struggling, unemployed, 
underemployed American families; that is, dramatically reduce the food 
stamp allocation.
  Food stamps are there when people need them in the same way that farm 
disaster payments are there when farmers need them. Anyone who thinks 
someone is living high on the hog, so to speak, on food stamps needs to 
spend time with people who are trying to make it work and feed their 
families on $1.40 per meal.
  We know that with a recovering economy we are going to see a 
dwindling number of those folks move on. Yet we see this move almost in 
a way that is going to challenge this long-term relationship that has 
basically enabled a great partnership between many of our urban and 
rural legislators, Senators, and Members of the House of 
Representatives, but also something that speaks to a very important 
value we have, which is that kids ought not to go hungry in this 
country. That is not who we are. We are not a country that allows 
children and families who are working, in many cases, to go hungry. And 
when they need that help, that temporary help they have been receiving, 
they ought to get it because it makes sense. It makes them better 
citizens, and it makes them better students. It tells us that, yes, 
when times are very tough--as they have been for so many American 
families--we will be there.
  Let's not let this happen. Let's fight back. Let's continue to have 
this conversation, and let's pass a comprehensive farm bill that 
recognizes the need to feed people as well as provide disaster 
assistance for farmers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Cruz is now on the floor, and he 
will be speaking right after me.
  I thank Senator Cruz for his efforts to keep the focus on the 
Benghazi terrorist attacks.
  It seems to me to be a great shame that 1 year after the heinous 
attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and four Americans being murdered 
and--this is tremendously important--shaking the confidence of our men 
and women deployed in service to this Nation that the United States 
would never leave one of their own behind--I was told that when I 
joined the Marine Corps a long time ago--it is a great shame that we 
are still in the same place.
  Justice has yet to be seen or done. The families of those killed at 
the consulate in Benghazi are waiting for answers about what happened 
that night, and they simply want to know that this President and this 
administration are working to seek justice for what actually happened. 
Yet it appears that what is happening is that the administration is 
doing everything but seek justice. Quite frankly, I think Americans--
and I share their concern and frustration and anger--are sick and tired 
of hearing excuses, delays, and even silence. The President and his 
administration have stonewalled us on this case, in my personal view.
  This should have been called a terrorist attack a long time ago. The 
Intelligence Committee should be handling this, but that is not the 
case. Today the FBI continues to seek tips from Libyans. The FBI has 
even posted an entire page on their Web site dedicated to finding 
suspects. There are photos of 29 suspects on that page. Twenty-nine. No 
arrests have been made. CNN and The New York Times have even had access 
to one of the chief suspects, Ahmed Abu Khattala, to interview him 
while he mocks the U.S. investigation. This is unbelievable.
  The administration refuses to answer simple questions:
  Who told the military to stand down?
  Who is responsible for misleading the American public and the 
victims' families?
  What actionable intelligence did our government have?
  I know that there was actionable intelligence. People asked for that 
security. Why was it ignored? This is why we need a joint select 
committee.
  At the very least, this deserves a vote. So I urge my colleagues, 
please drop your hold. Let us at least have a vote. If you want to 
defeat it, defeat it. But at least allow the Senator from Texas to have 
an opportunity to debate this bill.
  I thank Senator Cruz for introducing this legislation. I believe this 
should be a top priority for our government.
  I yield back any remaining time I have to the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas for his 
leadership and for his reasonable call that we ascertain the truth on 
this very important matter.
  As we do every year, last week as a nation we marked the somber 
anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For the 
first time this year we also remembered the victims of Benghazi: 
Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and 
Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was our first 
Ambassador murdered while serving since Adolph Dubs in 1979.
  The anniversary of the Benghazi attacks, however, should not simply 
be an act of remembrance; it should serve as a wake-up call. An entire 
year has gone by since these American heroes lost their lives in the 
service of our Nation, and we still have far too many unanswered 
questions:
  Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level 
of security in Benghazi?
  Why were no military assets mobilized while the attacks were going on 
even if they might not arrive before the attacks were over?
  If then-Secretary Panetta had ``no question'' in his mind that this 
was a coordinated terrorist attack while it was going on, why did 
Ambassador Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the 
American people that the cause was a spontaneous demonstration about an 
Internet video in the days after September 11, 2012?
  Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to 
delete the references to ``Islamic extremists'' and ``Al Qaeda''?
  Why did the FBI not release pictures of militants taken the day of 
the attack and released them only 8 months after the fact? Why not 
immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing last April?
  What role, if any, did the State Department's own counterterrorism 
office play during the attack and in its immediate aftermath?
  Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?
  Why do the Benghazi whistleblowers still fear retaliation and 
retribution?

[[Page S6569]]

  To get the answers to these questions, we need to hear from the 
survivors of the attack to gain firsthand understanding of what 
happened that night. We need to ensure that the whistleblowers on 
Benghazi can tell their stories without fear of reprisal. We need the 
President to make good on his promise of September 12, 2012, ``to bring 
justice to the killers who attacked our people.'' That still has yet to 
happen.
  Over the past year it has become evident that we need a joint select 
committee to get these answers because we have an administration that 
is actively trying to avoid learning more about Benghazi. We have a 
former Secretary of State who responds to congressional inquiries about 
why we were attacked in Benghazi with ``what difference at this point 
does it make?'' We have a current Secretary of State who responds to 
congressional inquiries about why the administration deliberately 
misidentified the nature of the attack by saying that he does not want 
to spend a whole year ``coming up here talking about Benghazi'' to 
Congress. We have a White House Press Secretary who responds to press 
inquiries about difficulties in interviewing the survivors by simply 
dismissing Benghazi as something that ``happened a long time ago.'' And 
we have a President who complains that ``phony scandals'' are 
distracting him from his domestic agenda, by which, his Press Secretary 
clarified the next day, he meant the IRS targeting and Benghazi.
  In addition, we have seen in recent weeks an escalating pattern of 
obstruction by the administration into any investigation into Benghazi 
and a reluctance to take any action to retaliate against the attack or 
to prevent a future episode.
  On August 14 there were press reports that the team of special 
operators who were in Libya to track down those responsible for the 
Benghazi attack were being pulled out despite repeated recommendations 
for action, some as recent as August 7.
  On August 20 we learned that the only disciplinary action taken after 
Benghazi would be reversed as the four State Department employees who 
had been placed on administrative leave after the attacks were 
reinstated.
  On August 23 the State Department said it was ``not prepared'' to 
allow the Benghazi survivors to testify to Congress--a denial that was 
reportedly reiterated by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 10.
  On September 11 we learned from the State Department's own internal 
review that the Department is ``lagging behind'' in implementing the 
new security measures recommended after the Benghazi attack, with, for 
example, only 100 of the recommended 1,000 marines being deployed for 
potential hotspots.
  On September 15 we learned of serious allegations in a draft House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report that the 
Accountability Review Board report requested by Secretary Clinton 
whitewashed the responsibility of senior State Department officials for 
the decisions that resulted in the lack of proper security at the 
Benghazi facilities.
  Just today at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Under 
Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted that the FBI 
investigation in Benghazi has ground to an indefinite halt because of 
the security situation in Libya. Mr. Kennedy also asserted in this 
hearing that the reassignment of four State Department employees 
represented ``serious accountability'' for the four Americans who died 
in Benghazi.
  This state of affairs is, in a word, unacceptable. Truth is not 
partisan, and every Member of this body should want to ascertain what 
happened. Given the yearlong collective failure of our government 
either to gain clarity on what happened in Benghazi on September 11 or 
to extract any retribution for the terrorist attacks, Congress should 
now form a joint select committee to launch a proper investigation.
  The attacks on our diplomatic facilities in Benghazi are part of a 
larger threat we have faced for the last 12 years from radical Islamic 
terrorists. We cannot let this anniversary pass with just ``a thought, 
a hope, a prayer or a wish'' as Secretary Kerry recommended in an all-
staff e-mail to the State Department regarding the Benghazi attack. We 
need a chief counsel who can systematically ascertain the truth and can 
follow the actual facts of what happened that night to their full and 
logical conclusion, wherever that may lie, so that we can honor these 
American heroes and we can ensure that we are doing everything we can 
to prevent this sort of attack from ever happening again. If we refuse 
to seek the answers to these questions, then we are inviting future 
tragedies.

  We have four dead Americans. It has been a full year. My cosponsors 
on this resolution and I have had enough without answers and without 
the truth.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 225

  I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 225, that the Senate 
proceed to its consideration, that the resolution be agreed to, the 
preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the 
table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. I object and I would like to explain why, if that would 
be appropriate for the next 2 minutes--if I could?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator may proceed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud be a longtime member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee for many years. When this Benghazi tragedy 
occurred, the Foreign Relations Committee held hours of hearings. I sat 
through those hearings.
  I want to say to my friends, I share their dismay that we have not 
caught the perpetrators. But I want to remind them that the President 
who caught Osama bin Laden--who killed so many of our people--was 
President Obama, and when he says he is going to do something he will 
not rest until he does it.
  Secretary Clinton immediately called for an Accountability Review 
Board. That Accountability Review Board was not partisan. What my 
colleague wants to do is set up some kind of committee filled with 
politicians--of which I happen to be proud that I am one--but I put 
more faith, frankly, in the professionalism and the nonpartisanship of 
the Accountability Review Board.
  Who headed that Accountability Review Board? Ambassador Thomas 
Pickering, who was first picked for public service by George H.W. Bush; 
and Admiral Michael Mullen, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  There are many other reasons why I oppose this. Secretary Kerry has 
addressed this and continues to address it. We had two classified 
briefings. The Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing to release 
a bipartisan report on the events that occurred in Benghazi and, last 
December, the Senate Homeland Security Committee released a bipartisan 
report on the security deficiencies, and the good news is: Of course as 
a result of this tragedy, changes have been made all over the world.
  I sense there is politics here. I sense there is politics here. I do 
not think it is right to inject politics into such a tragedy. 
Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I can't disagree there is politics here. 
This is the Senate. But let me say one thing. I strongly support this 
amendment. Let me ask in the order of things right now, does the 
Senator from Texas still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Very good. I appreciate that.
  One thing, as I read this resolution that my good friend Senator Cruz 
has, I thought it really does not go far enough. I think all that 
people are talking about now is how can we preclude this from happening 
again, what happened and all that. To me that is not even the issue. 
The issue is the coverup.
  I sat there as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. I watched the day that this happened, 9/11, then of course 
the annex came after that, 9/12, the next day. When that happened there 
was never any doubt but that it was an organized terrorist attack--
never any doubt.

[[Page S6570]]

  I happened to know Chris Stevens. He happened to be in my office 
right before he was deployed there. He was telling me in my office how 
dangerous it was over there. He said, you know, there are threats, 
there are terrorist threats. Al Qaeda has a presence over there and we 
do not have a lot of security, and he started requesting security. This 
is a long time before this happened. I have all the dates. I did not 
bring them down with me because it would be redundant. It has been in 
the Record so many times, that he knew this was happening. We knew 
there was this kind of activity in that part of the world and he wanted 
to do something about it, offer more security.
  He is dead now, and he knew what he was getting into at that time. 
When the threats came for what happened on 9/11, people were aware of 
that. Remember the Brits, they left and several others just up and left 
because they knew what kind of threat was out there.
  Anyway, what we did right after 
9/11--and it is just a matter of hours after that they attacked the 
annex. They cannot say for certain that the original attack was 
organized. I think it was; it was an organized terrorist attack. But 
they can say with certainty, and I will not use my words, I will use 
their words, it was ``unequivocal,'' unequivocal that we knew at that 
time it was an organized terrorist attack.
  I remember when Secretary Panetta came forward and he used the same 
word ``unequivocal.'' Then the CIA Chief Brennan, at that time--that 
was his job--said, sitting in my office and then again before a 
hearing, it was unequivocal that we knew it was an organized terrorist, 
Al Qaeda-related attack. We knew it.
  The coverup is this. I have studied coverups for a long time. Iran-
Contra, I went all the way through that. I remember that well. The 
Pentagon Papers, Watergate, all of these things were coverups. But this 
one, where 5 days after all of our people and the top security people 
knew it was an organized attack, to send Ambassador Rice to the talk 
shows to say, for purely political reasons and cover up the reality of 
it, that this was due to some video--I will only say this. I would like 
to pursue this in terms of the coverup, which is not covered in the 
resolution we are discussing right now. I think it should be--it should 
have been. I was not part of drafting it. I strongly support it. I know 
where we are coming from, and I think we need to get to the bottom of 
it. All the questions need to be answered. But the big issue that needs 
to be discussed, that nobody likes to talk about, is the coverup.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from the 
Foreign Relations Committee having already objected, but I wish to make 
a few remarks because there are those--regardless of what is reviewed, 
regardless of who comes forth, regardless of all the information--who 
want to keep this alive for what are ultimately election purposes. I 
know the next Presidential election is a few years away, but it seems 
it is very alive in the Senate.
  Look, I am always for getting to the truth, particularly when the 
lives of American diplomats have been lost. That is an honorable 
pursuit. But by the same token, from my perspective--and let me say why 
I am going to have this perspective. My perspective is we have two of 
the most outstanding individuals in Ambassador Pickering and Admiral 
Mullen. Certainly, no one questions their integrity. At least I have 
not heard their integrity questioned on the Senate floor. They 
conducted the Accountability Review Board. In the process, they yielded 
29 recommendations that are, in fact, being implemented, that our 
committee has continued to pursue oversight in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. We have held two hearings. We have had multiple 
level--high-level briefings, including intelligence briefings, bringing 
all the respective parties who are responsible together.
  In fact, we had the former Secretary of State before the committee at 
a hearing I chaired at the time who addressed all of these issues. We 
had before that, former Chairman Kerry, now Secretary Kerry. He held a 
hearing of the committee on the events that transpired with Deputy 
Secretary Burns and Deputy Under Secretary Nyes. We had two classified 
briefings on December 13 and 19, specifically on the circumstances 
surrounding the attack.
  In those classified briefings, we had the key individuals who could 
get us to the truth. I understand the Select Committee on Intelligence 
is presenting a bipartisan report on the events that occurred in 
Benghazi. Last December, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs chairman at the time, Senator Lieberman, and Ranking Member 
Collins released a bipartisan report on the security deficiencies at 
the temporary U.S. mission in Benghazi that led to the deaths of those 
four Americans, including our Ambassador Chris Stevens. The House has 
conducted its own hearings and investigations. Yet we have those who 
want to continue to pursue this, despite all of these different 
efforts, independent of the Senate, between the House, the 
Accountability Review Board.
  There is a lot of culpability, and maybe there is coverup in a 
different sense. The coverup is a Congress that doesn't want to put the 
money where it is necessary, to ultimately take the high-risk, high-
threat posts of this country and ultimately protect them. It is nice to 
talk about who is responsible. Let's talk about who is also responsible 
in terms of obligations. We have over 30 high-risk, high-threat posts 
in the world right now--right now as we speak on the Senate floor--that 
are at risk and that do not meet the present security standards. Yet 
Congress seems to move ever so slowly toward getting to the resources 
that would accelerate the pace on which we create the physical and 
other protections for those high-threat, high-risk posts.
  Those, of course, are the 30 that exist today. We know from history 
that in fact what exists today as a high-risk, high-threat post, 
tomorrow there could be another one on the list. So we have diplomats 
who are at institutions that do not meet the present standards. Yet at 
the pace we are going, based upon the appropriations of this Senate, we 
would find ourselves a decade from now dealing with just those 30 
posts. I would like to see the Members who do not seem to be willing to 
vote for the security of diplomats abroad, before the next attack 
comes--and inevitability, unfortunately, in the world in which we live 
that is very possible--put their resources to work to accelerate the 
pace to where we would succeed in preventing injuries or death.
  Let's be honest about this process. Yes, there was a process that 
ultimately led to a series of recommendations. The legislation that the 
committee has ultimately reported out in a bipartisan basis--working 
with Senator Corker, the ranking Republican on the committee--would 
deal with these challenges. It would deal with language issues. It 
would deal with the funding issue. It would deal with diplomatic 
security preparation, which we have scattered across a whole bunch of 
institutions that do not meet the goal. It would deal with all of these 
elements. It would create greater accountability.
  Do you know what else it would do? It would let the Secretary of 
State have the ability to ultimately fire those individuals who might 
be found derelict in their duty, which is not presently in the law--the 
ability for the Secretary to pursue that.
  So let's move that legislation. I hope my colleagues are going to 
support that as we move forward, to try to find the success that we 
want in making sure that our diplomats across the globe are as safe as 
humanly possible as they advocate America's national economic 
interests, its national interests, its national security interests, 
still always facing a risk but minimizing those risks to the greatest 
extent. If not, then I certainly believe the garish light of attention 
should be placed upon the institution of the Congress, which is not 
meeting its responsibility as it relates to our diplomats abroad.

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be acknowledged 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S6571]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have had a carefully constructed list 
of who would speak. I wonder how long the Senator wishes to speak.
  Mr. INHOFE. I do want to accommodate the Senator from California. I 
have three different subjects I want to talk about----
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time does my friend need to talk about his first 
subject?
  Mr. INHOFE. I need 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. What was supposed to happen was that I was going to speak 
next. I will give up my place so Senator Murray can speak, followed by 
Senator Coons, followed by Senator Inhofe for 9\1/2\ minutes.
  I don't know how many minutes my friend needs--5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will need about 12 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would follow Senator Inhofe's 9\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Is that a unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from California would follow the Senator from 
Washington?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the consent I made was that we would go to 
Senator Murray for 12 minutes, followed by Senator Coons for 5 minutes, 
Senator Inhofe would be next for 9\1/2\ minutes, and then I would get 
to go for about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, point of inquiry: Is this after I speak 
now or is that starting now? In other words, we would have four 
Democrats before I speak?
  Mrs. BOXER. No, two.
  Mr. INHOFE. The Senator already had one and then Senator Coons.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Republicans had quite a few on their side speak. The 
Republicans had three speakers--one right after the other--so now we 
are going to have three speakers, and then it goes back to Senator 
Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if two of 
them speak now and then let me speak and then the Senator can speak 
after that, that is still 2 to 1.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that is what I said. I said Senator 
Murray, Senator Coons, Senator Inhofe, and then Senator Boxer. That is 
what I said. Is that all right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for 
accommodating all of us.
  I wish to join my colleagues who have spoken on the floor and express 
my deepest condolences to the families of those who lost someone in 
Monday's tragic shooting. I know the thoughts and prayers of the Nation 
are with those who are still recovering.
  I know I speak for my constituents in Washington State in thanking 
the law enforcement community here in Washington, DC. They put their 
lives on the line every day to protect our families and workers in the 
Nation's capital. We don't have all the answers to the many questions a 
tragedy such as this raises, but those questions will continue to be 
asked, and I am hopeful the answers will help our Nation heal and guide 
our continued work to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future.
  I am here today because, like many of my colleagues, I spent this 
past August traveling around my home State and meeting with my 
constituents. I heard from Washington State families about a wide range 
of issues facing our Nation, but the one sentiment I heard over and 
over from every part of my State was they were sick and tired of the 
constant lurching from crisis to crisis.
  They told me how disappointed and disgusted they were that every time 
they turned on their televisions over the past few years they would see 
another story about Congress hurtling toward another official deadline, 
hurting our economy and causing more uncertainty for our businesses. 
They told me they want Congress to work together; they want us to focus 
on the economy; they want us to put our country and the families we 
represent before partisanship and political gains.
  I couldn't agree more. Like them, I am frustrated that we seem to be 
once again headed toward another completely avoidable, completely 
unnecessary, self-inflicted crisis.
  It has now been 179 days since this Senate and the House passed our 
budgets. When the Senate budget passed, I was optimistic that because 
both Republicans and Democrats said they wanted to return to regular 
order, we might be able to get back to a responsible process. At that 
time we had 192 days to reach a bipartisan budget agreement and I 
thought the next step would be a budget conference where the two sides 
would get in a room, hash out our differences, and work together toward 
a deal. But as we all know, some of our Republican colleagues had other 
ideas. They immediately seemed to regret their push for a Senate budget 
and started running away from a debate as quickly as they could.
  I came to the Senate floor with my colleagues a total of 18 times to 
ask for consent to start a budget conference with the House, but every 
time we tried a member of the tea party here in the Senate, backed by 
Republican leaders, stood up and blocked us. Instead of using the 
months we had to work out a compromise, Republicans seemed to think it 
was in their best interest somehow to stall as long as possible under 
some misguided theory that a crisis would give them more leverage.
  I had hoped my Republican colleagues spent their time back home 
talking to their constituents and would be ready to come back to DC so 
we could get to work on a balanced and bipartisan budget deal, but, 
sadly, the opposite has happened. While I believe the majority of 
Republicans are interested in working with us as Democrats to get to a 
fair budget deal, a few of my Republican colleagues spent the summer 
riling up the tea party and making them promises they could not keep.

  Since Republican leaders know they need to find a way to avoid 
another crisis that would be blamed on them, a full-scale civil war has 
broken out within the Republican Party. They are in disarray. They are 
having trouble figuring out how to pull themselves out of the hole they 
have climbed into. And while we wait for Republicans to join us at the 
table, the tea party is pushing our country closer and closer to a 
government shutdown and closer to what would be a catastrophic default 
on our laws.
  Why are they doing this? It is not because they are concerned about 
the budget, not because they are interested in jobs or economic growth. 
To them it seems it is all about ObamaCare. Everything they are doing 
now they are doing in order to cut off health care coverage for 25 
million people, to end access to free preventive health care, to cause 
seniors to pay more for their prescriptions, to cut off young adults 
from their coverage, to bring back lifetime coverage caps and let 
patients with preexisting conditions be denied care, put the insurance 
companies back in charge of our health care system, and so much more.
  These political games might play well with the tea party base, but 
here is the reality: ObamaCare is the law of the land. It passed 
through this Senate with a supermajority. It passed through the House. 
The President signed it into law. This Supreme Court upheld it. It is 
already helping millions of Americans stay healthy and financially 
secure, and it is on track to help millions more.
  When I see some of my colleagues working so hard to defund ObamaCare, 
I have to wonder whether they have taken the time to meet some of their 
own constituents who are already benefiting from this law.
  This last month I was home in Washington State, and I met an 
incredible woman named Nikki Mackey who lives in Seattle. On September 
16 of 2010, Nikki was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive form of 
breast cancer. She was 36 years old and terrified of what this disease 
would do to her. To make matters worse, instead of focusing on her 
treatment, she had to worry about her coverage, and that is because a 
few months before her diagnosis, in the midst of the recession, Nikki 
had been laid off from her job. So there she was, with her coverage at 
risk and years of treatment ahead of her. But thanks to ObamaCare, a 
law some of my colleagues want to undermine at any cost,

[[Page S6572]]

Nikki will never have to worry about reaching a lifetime cap. She will 
never have to worry about not getting coverage due to her now 
preexisting condition. That is why we have worked so hard to pass this 
law because it says now in America: You shouldn't go broke because you 
get sick, and you shouldn't be denied care simply because you cannot 
afford it.
  Let's be clear about what is happening here and the political 
calculation some of my colleagues have made. They have decided they are 
willing to play politics with Americans' health care, they have decided 
it is better for them to sabotage this law rather than improve it, and 
they have decided that beyond all that, they are also willing to 
devastate our Nation's economy to kill this law. Well, we are not going 
to let that happen.
  Nikki told me when she turns on her TV and sees Members of Congress 
using every trick in the book to kill this law, she feels her ``own 
well-being is under attack.''
  I want to be clear: Democrats are not going to defund or delay health 
care reform. It is not going to happen. We should all be working 
together right now to make sure it is implemented in the best possible 
way for our families, our businesses, and our communities. We are 
certainly very interested in hearing from anyone, Democrat or 
Republican, who has good ideas about how the law could be improved. We 
are not going to allow the health care of Nikki or millions of other 
Americans to be used as a pawn in a political game. We are not going to 
let this law get sabotaged as it continues to benefit millions of 
families and small business owners. The sooner Republicans realize 
this, the sooner we can get to work diffusing this latest artificial 
crisis.
  We know the families we represent don't support the Republicans' 
sabotage tactics. Recent polls show that fewer than 1 in 4 people 
supports efforts to make health care reform fail. A majority of people 
believe we in Congress should be trying to make the law work. It is 
also clear that Americans would rightly blame Republicans if the law 
shuts down--especially over an issue such as this--and a lot of 
Republicans know that.
  My colleague Senator Johanns said these defunding and delaying 
efforts have ``zero chance of being successful.'' Senator Burr said 
``the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.'' House Republicans know this 
too. That is why they introduced a bill last week that would allow a 
government funding bill to pass while giving House Republicans a vote 
to defund health care that has no chance of becoming law. As we now 
know, the tea party is not interested in that. They don't want a 
showboat, they want a shutdown, and they are going to keep fighting 
until they get it.
  We now have less than 2 weeks before the end of this fiscal year and 
a potential government shutdown. It is a shame that we have gotten to 
this point, but we are here. We owe it to the American people to come 
together and find a solution and a path forward that is good for our 
economy and fair for our middle class.
  My goal has been and will continue to be a long-term budget agreement 
that replaces sequestration, tackles our debt and deficit responsibly, 
and invests in our workers and our economy. But since it seems clear 
that the House won't be able to get its act together in the next few 
weeks, the least they should be able to do is send us a clean, short-
term extension of the current budget levels so the government doesn't 
shut down while we continue to negotiate on this longer term budget 
deal.
  I want to be clear: Democrats are not going to negotiate over whether 
Congress should allow the Federal Government to pay its bills. As 
Speaker Boehner said in the past, default would be ``a financial 
disaster, not just for us, but for the worldwide economy.'' Republicans 
need to take those words to heart and stop threatening the economic 
recovery with their saber rattling and brinkmanship.
  We went through this earlier in the year. Back then--after spending 
months saying they wouldn't raise the debt limit unless they got 
dollar-for-dollar spending cuts, Republicans dropped their demands, 
dropped the so-called Boehner rule, and allowed the debt ceiling to be 
increased. Going back now to that reckless approach of 2011 and 
drumming up this uncertainty again is nothing but a huge and harmful 
waste of time.
  It is ridiculous that we find ourselves on the brink of an artificial 
crisis again. We should be doing everything possible to support the 
economic recovery and help our workers get back on the job. We should 
be spending time finding common ground to tackle our long-term fiscal 
challenges responsibly, and we should be working together to build on 
the Affordable Care Act to continue improving our health care system 
for all of our families and small business owners. As we know, we are 
now mired in the muck of perpetual partisanship and constant crises. 
The American people deserve better. Nikki and the millions of families 
such as hers deserve better.

  I am hopeful that the Republican leadership stops focusing so much on 
their extreme party minority and comes to the table with us to work on 
a balanced and bipartisan deal the vast majority of Americans want. I 
hope they don't make us reach a crisis to get to that point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks 
of the Budget Committee chair. As a member of the Budget Committee, I 
join her in expressing her strong view that this country does not need 
another shutdown or another pointless fiscal cliff but needs us to 
listen and to work together in this Chamber and with the House of 
Representatives and move forward on the agenda on which all of our 
constituents want us to proceed.
  I rise today specifically to speak to the bill that is on the floor 
that has been the subject of debate and discussion, S. 1392, the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013.
  This is a broadly bipartisan bill. Its two primary authors, my 
colleagues from New Hampshire and Ohio, Senators Shaheen and Portman, 
have worked tirelessly to make sure it respects the priorities of 
Members of both parties. Its passage by a vote of 19 to 3 out of the 
energy committee on which I serve speaks to its support across partisan 
lines. Yet, sadly, now that it is on the floor, a few Republicans have 
decided they want to use it to carry out their own narrow or partisan 
political agenda rather than showing our constituents and the American 
people that we can come together across our differences of region and 
party to pass this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. They would 
rather confirm the frustration and even disgust so many of our 
constituents feel about this body.
  We were all home last month. We all heard from our constituents. I 
don't know about my colleagues but what I heard from Delawareans about 
what they want and deserve is not more displays of selfish partisanship 
that frustrates them but, rather, that we can listen to each other and 
work together on bipartisan bills that move this country forward.
  Energy efficiency--the topic of this bill and the topic we should be 
moving forward on today--its only agenda is creating a stable, dynamic, 
and prosperous future. The Shaheen-Portman bill has been written with 
only that goal as its north star. It is not about who is right or who 
is wrong, about whether climate change is real, about whose science we 
are going to choose to believe today; energy efficiency is 
fundamentally something that makes sense. It allows us to bridge 
competing interests and concerns because it promotes energy 
independence, it helps our environment, and it promotes American jobs--
jobs today and jobs tomorrow.
  When we need to purchase new equipment to promote the efficiency of 
our buildings, whether it is DuPont's Tyvek wrapping or Dow's foam 
spray insulation--both made here in America--we create good 
manufacturing jobs in our country. When we install new energy-efficient 
equipment in homes and buildings, we hire Americans to do that work--
sheet metal workers, electricians, laborers. And when we set voluntary 
new goals for efficiency, as this bill does, we incentivize the kind of 
research and innovation that will create jobs well into the future. It 
is simple. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to get this done.

[[Page S6573]]

  I come to this debate today as someone who has seen the power of 
energy efficiency up close in the private sector and public sector in 
my work in Delaware. When I was in the private sector more than 15 
years ago, I came to understand that power when our then-Governor Ruth 
Ann Minner appointed me to chair the Conservation and Efficiency 
Working Group of her Energy Task Force. In over 2 years of meetings I 
grew to appreciate how powerful energy efficiency can be for the 
commercial and industrial balance sheet of our country. It later 
translated into my work as county executive of New Castle County, DE, 
where I led a countywide effort to make our buildings more energy 
efficient. We had old and energy wasteful buildings and we knew that by 
investing in energy efficiency upgrades, we could save taxpayer money 
and put Delawareans to work.
  We started with our old City/County Headquarters, a building 
constructed in the 1970s, almost designed to be monumentally energy 
inefficient. As we audited it, the auditor was stunned at how energy 
inefficient it was--high ceilings, bad insulation, poorly sealed 
windows--so we overhauled. We upgraded the lights and put in new 
management energy systems, replaced the boilers and chillers and 
cooling towers and got that building up to ENERGY STAR standards. We 
did a host of other things on a constrained budget and it was a 
resounding and lasting success. With the improvements just to that one 
small building, the county saved $350,000 a year, and it will pay for 
itself over 15 years. Because of that success, the county has gone on 
to do retrofits to 20 more buildings in total, providing work for more 
than 150 Delawareans and reducing emissions by 12 million pounds of 
carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of taking 1,000 cars off the 
road. Those jobs can't be offshored. These are jobs for electricians, 
laborers, and sheet metal workers. These are good-quality building 
trades jobs. They are also sustainable because as each contractor 
learns how to do an energy efficiency retrofit in one building, they 
can go on and do it for more.
  What I found is that once folks understood the impact, once they saw 
the difference we could make in that county, it became an issue that 
transcended partisanship or political loyalties. That should be the 
case here, if we had a healthy and functioning Senate, because this 
issue is no more partisan across the United States than it was in our 
county. It saved us money, it helped our environment, it put 
Delawareans to work, and the same is true for the Shaheen-Portman bill 
that should be moving forward today.
  Earlier this year I had the chance to visit Dover Air Force Base, our 
largest military facility in Delaware, and see what the U.S. military 
is doing to use less energy and employ alternative energy solutions. 
They are making dramatic progress, looking across every corner of that 
base to reduce their energy use and to be more efficient in how they 
transport materiel in the U.S. Air Force.
  These are real ideas and technology-based solutions that could be 
applied nationally. There are companies up and down our State in the 
private sector which have applied the same approach, the same 
initiative this bill would take and seen real savings. Businesses such 
as Hirsh Industries, PPG, Kraft, and AstraZeneca all have realized 
savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars that add to their balance 
sheet and their bottom line.
  This bill has been scored as creating 136,000 new jobs by 2025, 
saving consumers $13 billion and nearly 3 billion megawatt hours by 
2030. In total, this is exactly the sort of bill we should be coming 
together to pass. Instead, sadly, what I am hearing is that it is 
likely the partisanship of this Chamber is going to defeat our 
opportunity to take up and consider this important balanced and 
bipartisan bill.
  Americans are looking to us to take action to create jobs, save them 
money, and build a better future for our country. This bill genuinely 
gives us a chance to do all of those things. I am a proud cosponsor of 
this bill. I had hoped to have a chance to debate, discuss, and vote on 
many amendments directly relevant to this bill that deal with energy 
efficiency and would strengthen it. Instead it seems we are again mired 
in partisanship as folks here seek to add to this bill amendments 
utterly irrelevant to the core of what should be the focus today: 
helping to create high-quality jobs for Americans, improving our 
environment, and adding to our Nation's bottom line on this commonsense 
matter.
  It is my hope we can get past the partisanship and back to the real 
work our constituents expect and demand of us in the weeks ahead.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when we were establishing our time, I 
would say to my good friend and colleague from California, I was joking 
around a little bit about using 9\1/2\ minutes. Is it all right if I 
make that 19\1/2\ minutes, maximum?
  Mrs. BOXER. No. I say to my friend, I was promised to be able to 
speak at 3:30 so I am already giving up so much time, so if the Senator 
from Oklahoma could just take 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. OK. I will do that. I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from California I be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I wasn't going to do this, 
but since my good friend from California is on the floor and it is our 
favorite subject to talk about, I thought I would. I wish to take the 
opportunity to talk about the first round of the major global warming 
regulations the President is set to release this week. These rules will 
govern the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from 
powerplants and they are the first round of rules following the 
President's major speech on global warming in June.
  The rules represent the most aggressive representation of the war on 
fossil fuels we have seen in this administration, and we have seen a 
lot of them. We know the rules will require any coal-fired plant to 
have carbon-capture and sequestration technology; that is, CSS 
technology. While the Clean Air Act only allows feasible technology to 
be mandated, the CSS technology is not feasible. It is really not there 
yet. No powerplant has ever been built with the technology unless it 
has been supported by massive taxpayer subsidies. The rule would kill 
the coal powerplant industry.
  While the rules may be constructed in a way that allows natural gas-
fired powerplants to meet the mandate, we have to know that is coming 
next. After all, natural gas is a fossil fuel as well. There have been 
several statements of people saying, Well, wait around until fossil 
fuel, which is going to be next. The only thing these new rules will do 
is cause energy prices to skyrocket. I expect the rules to be one of 
the key issues covered by the media this week.
  While the exact details of the rule will not be known until it is 
published later this week, there are a few things that we know right 
now. First, the science behind global warming is now more uncertain 
than ever. I spoke about this this morning in our hearing. Just last 
week it was reported all over the media--the Telegraph--this is in 
London, one of their largest publications--the Guardian, also in 
London, the Wall Street Journal, and others, that this year there has 
been 60 percent more ice coverage in the Arctic than there was this 
time last year.
  My colleagues might remember the hysterical people were saying at one 
time that there would be no more icecaps by 2013. Instead, we find out 
it has actually increased by 60 percent. This is the equivalent of 
almost 1 million square miles, and this is being observed before the 
winter refreeze has even set in.
  What makes it more interesting is that in 2007, the BBC reported that 
global warming would leave the entire Arctic ice-free in the summers by 
2013. The scientist who made this claim, Professor Wineslaw Maslowski, 
said, in the typical bravado we have come to expect from climate 
scientists, that ``This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the 
end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.'' That is in 2013. 
Well, here we are in 2013 and guess what. They are wrong again. There 
is 60 percent more ice than there was at

[[Page S6574]]

this time last year. A lot of the yachts and the ships that expected to 
use the Northwest Passage can't use the Northwest Passage; it is 
closed, closed because the ice is there.
  This follows reports earlier this year, notably from The Economist, 
showing that global warming has been on a pause for the last 15 years. 
The Economist wrote: ``Over the past 15 years, air temperatures and the 
Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have 
continued to soar.''
  The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not expect 
this development to occur, nor did its models predict that there would 
be a 15-year stall in global warming.
  Professor Anastasios Tsonis, at the University of Wisconsin, recently 
concluded that:

       We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will 
     continue for the next fifteen years at least. There is no 
     doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

  This reminds me of all the hysteria in the 1970s that a global 
warming trend is coming. I can't tell my colleagues how many times on 
the Senate floor I have talked about how these cycles come and go about 
every 25 years, and here it is, right on schedule, going into a cooling 
period. Starting back in 1895, every 15 to 20 years, they start out 
with the new Ice Age is coming, everyone is hysterical, and then in 
2007--1970--1919, they went into a period of warming, and then in 
1995--or 1945--they went into another cooling spell and that happened 
to coincide with the year they had the greatest surge in CO2 
on our planet.
  I only want to say this finally has come to our attention that we are 
looking at a situation that is quite different than we have seen in the 
past. I mentioned that later in this month the long-awaited event is 
going to happen. It comes up every 5, 6, or 7 years. That is when the 
IPCC comes out with its assessment. This just came up--I saw that it is 
dated today in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read this:

       Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened 
     in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken 
     to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment 
     report.

  That is what we are talking about. They go on to say they have 
learned from some leaks what is in that assessment. ``There have 
already been leaks''--I am reading now--``from this 31-page document 
which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a 
senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at 
the heart of the document.
  Keep in mind, this is IPCC, United Nations. The big news is that for 
the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new 
one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can 
expect as a result of manmade emissions from carbon dioxide is lower 
than the IPCC expected.
  This is something we did not anticipate would happen just as recently 
as a few days ago.
  Real quickly, it is my hope we get to some of these amendments, and I 
am going to mention one that is a very significant amendment.
  A few months ago, when we were debating the continuing resolution, 
the Senate adopted amendment No. 29, which prohibited the EPA from 
enforcing this Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Rule. 
That is the SPCC rule.
  As we all remember, they were going to enforce this against farmers. 
The reason we did this is clear: EPA first threatened to enforce this 
rule against farmers at the beginning of the Obama administration, but 
they did very little outreach. Most farmers do not even know today 
about this rule or what they would have to do to comply. The only 
reason other Members know about this rule is because of the work 
Senator Pryor and I have done to highlight the problem for what it is.
  This rule was originally drafted for compliance by major handlers of 
oil--refineries, pipelines--players such as the ones that are shown on 
this chart I have in the Chamber.
  This chart actually shows part of Cushing, OK, which is a major hub 
of oil pipelines. Millions of barrels of oil are transported through 
and stored in this small town each day, and it is incredibly important 
that the handlers of the oil follow appropriate regulations to make 
sure accidents do not cause significant environmental damage. They 
understand why the regulations are in place, and they follow the rules 
with precision. And we are talking about the people in the adjoining 
towns.
  These refineries and tank operators are who the rule was designed for 
in the first place, and that makes sense. But now EPA wants to enforce 
that rule against farmers.
  What would it look like if we did this?
  First, take a look at this second chart. This is a diesel fuel 
container on a farm. It is small. It does not hold that much fuel. But 
right now it is subject to the same regulations you would have for oil 
companies and refineries.
  I asked a friend of mine, Keith Kisling, a wheat farmer in western 
Oklahoma, what it would take for him to comply with this rule that was 
designed for refiners.
  He said: First I have to purchase a new double-wall container that 
would cost thousands of dollars. EPA justifies this by saying it would 
prevent leaks. Keith, like all other farmers I know in Oklahoma, thinks 
diesel is expensive. So Keith is not going to let his tanks leak, 
whatever kind it is. You would sit on a farm and realize that is 
leaking money. Obviously, they do not want to do that.
  The next thing he would have to do is build a berm all the way around 
his tank to contain a spill if all of the diesel fuel came out of it. 
This would be expensive and difficult to operate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 3 more 
minutes and conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Keith would have to hire and pay a professional 
engineer to certify his spill plan, if he can find one. In Oklahoma, 
farmers cannot find professional engineers because they are all working 
for oil and gas companies, which makes compliance with this particular 
requirement virtually impossible. All told, Keith would have to pay 
somewhere between $10 and $30,000 to comply with the rule, and the 
environment is not any better for it.
  After we secured the amendment prohibiting the EPA from enforcing the 
rule back in March, Senator Pryor and I worked to secure a permanent 
exemption, and we did this. We put it in, as the Senator from 
California will remember, the WRDA bill, and, of course, it is not 
final law yet. This is the amendment that we have right now.
  Last month, during the August recess, I received word from the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association that producers in Kansas and 
other areas out West were hearing from EPA enforcement officers that 
they were at risk of having the SPCC rule retroactively enforced 
against them once the prohibition on enforcement expires on September 
23. This comes despite the clear actions Congress has been taking to 
provide relief to farmers. I honestly do not know of anyone who wants 
to subject our farmers in the United States of America to the same 
requirements that refineries and oil companies and these operations 
have.
  So I do have an amendment that would go on. It is my hope we will be 
able to get to the amendments on the bill, the underlying bill that is 
under consideration today, and I think this is one of two amendments I 
have that should be accepted unanimously.
  With that, I thank the Senator from California for giving me that 
additional time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first I want to add my voice of condolence 
to that of Senator Murray's and say to the Navy family how heavy our 
hearts are and that I stand ready, any minute, any hour, any second, to 
work with my colleagues to make sure mentally ill people do not get 
their hands on weapons. As soon as we can get a breakthrough on that--
and maybe on background checks--maybe we can finally do something for 
90 percent of the American people who want us to.
  I also want to note that Senator Inhofe and I have an ongoing 
dispute, though it is quite friendly, on climate change. We went 
through this this morning. He sees evidence that climate change is 
probably still a hoax, and he talks about the great news that we do not 
have climate change. I think you should tell that to the people in 
Colorado. But notwithstanding that--forget

[[Page S6575]]

that--I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record four 
articles that appeared in the recent days about how the consensus on 
climate change is growing, and there is 95-percent certainty that the 
cause is human activity.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Reuters, Aug. 16, 2013]

 Experts Surer of Manmade Global Warming but Local Predictions Elusive

              (By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle)

       Oslo (Reuters).--Climate scientists are surer than ever 
     that human activity is causing global warming, according to 
     leaked drafts of a major U.N. report, but they are finding it 
     harder than expected to predict the impact in specific 
     regions in coming decades.
       The uncertainty is frustrating for government planners: the 
     report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
     (IPCC) is the main guide for states weighing multi-billion-
     dollar shifts to renewable energy from fossil fuels, for 
     coastal regions considering extra sea defenses or crop 
     breeders developing heat-resistant strains.
       Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of 
     experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 
     95 percent likely that human activities--chiefly the burning 
     of fossil fuels--are the main cause of warming since the 
     1950s.
       That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 
     2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily 
     squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists 
     that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
       That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises 
     and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic. 
     Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by 
     the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.
       ``We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change 
     . . . is largely manmade,'' said Reto Knutti, a professor at 
     the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. ``We're 
     less certain than many would hope about the local impacts.''
       And gauging how warming would affect nature, from crops to 
     fish stocks, was also proving hard since it goes far beyond 
     physics. ``You can't write an equation for a tree,'' he said.
       The IPCC report, the first of three to be released in 2013 
     and 2014, will face intense scrutiny, particularly after the 
     panel admitted a mistake in the 2007 study which wrongly 
     predicted that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. 
     Experts say the error far overestimated the melt and might 
     have been based on a misreading of 2350.
       The new study will state with greater confidence than in 
     2007 that rising manmade greenhouse gas emissions have 
     already meant more heatwaves. But it is likely to play down 
     some tentative findings from 2007, such as that human 
     activities have contributed to more droughts.
       Almost 200 governments have agreed to try to limit global 
     warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above 
     pre-industrial times, seen as a threshold for dangerous 
     changes including more droughts, extinctions, floods and 
     rising seas that could swamp coastal regions and entire 
     island nations.
       The report will flag a high risk that global temperatures 
     will increase this century by more than that level, and will 
     say that evidence of rising sea levels is now 
     ``unequivocal''.
       For all that, scientists say it is proving harder to 
     pinpoint local impacts in coming decades in a way that would 
     help planners.
       Drew Shindell, a NASA climate scientist, said the relative 
     lack of progress in regional predictions was the main 
     disappointment of climate science since 2007.
       ``I talk to people in regional power planning. They ask: 
     'What's the temperature going to be in this region in the 
     next 20-30 years, because that's where our power grid is?''' 
     he said.
       ``We can't really tell. It's a shame,'' said Shindell. Like 
     the other scientists interviewed, he was speaking about 
     climate science in general since the last IPCC report, not 
     about the details of the latest drafts.


                            WARMING SLOWING

       The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, 
     while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 
     1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit 
     repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial 
     emissions by China and other emerging nations.
       An IPCC draft says there is ``medium confidence'' that the 
     slowing of the rise is ``due in roughly equal measure'' to 
     natural variations in the weather and to other factors 
     affecting energy reaching the Earth's surface.
       Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-
     expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims 
     sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-
     year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep 
     oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less 
     sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.
       ``It might be down to minor contributions that all add 
     up,'' said Gabriele Hegerl, a professor at Edinburgh 
     University. Or maybe, scientists say, the latest decade is 
     just a blip.
       The main scenarios in the draft, using more complex 
     computer models than in 2007 and taking account of more 
     factors, show that temperatures could rise anywhere from a 
     fraction of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) to almost 5C 
     (9F) this century, a wider range at both ends than in 2007.
       The low end, however, is because the IPCC has added what 
     diplomats say is an improbable scenario for radical 
     government action--not considered in 2007--that would require 
     cuts in global greenhouse gases to zero by about 2070.
       Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C (1.4F) since the 
     Industrial Revolution in the 19th century.
       Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a 
     final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from 
     September 23-26, is simply greater confidence about the 
     science of global warming, rather than revolutionary new 
     findings.


                               SEA LEVELS

       ``Overall our understanding has strengthened,'' said 
     Michael Oppenheimer, a professor at Princeton University, 
     pointing to areas including sea level rise.
       An IPCC draft projects seas will rise by between 29 and 82 
     cm (11.4 to 32.3 inches) by the late 21st century--above the 
     estimates of 18 to 59 cm in the last report, which did not 
     fully account for changes in Antarctica and Greenland.
       The report slightly tones down past tentative findings that 
     more intense tropical cyclones are linked to human 
     activities. Warmer air can contain more moisture, however, 
     making downpours more likely in the future.
       ``There is widespread agreement among hurricane scientists 
     that rainfall associated with hurricanes will increase 
     noticeably with global warming,'' said Kerry Emanuel, of the 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       ``But measuring rainfall is very tricky,'' he said.
                                  ____


                   [From The Guardian, July 22, 2013]

     Climate Change Slowdown Is due to Warming of Deep Oceans, Say 
                               Scientists

       Climate sceptics have seized on a pause in warming over the 
     past five years, but the long-term trend is still upwards.

                           (By Fiona Harvey)

       A recent slowdown in the upward march of global 
     temperatures is likely to be the result of the slow warming 
     of the deep oceans, British scientists said on Monday.
       Oceans are some of the Earth's biggest absorbers of heat, 
     which can be seen in effects such as sea level rises, caused 
     by the expansion of large bodies of water as they warm. The 
     absorption goes on over long periods, as heat from the 
     surface is gradually circulated to the lower reaches of the 
     seas.
       Temperatures around the world have been broadly static over 
     the past five years, though they were still significantly 
     above historic norms, and the years from 2000 to 2012 
     comprise most of the 14 hottest years ever recorded. The 
     scientists said the evidence still clearly pointed to a 
     continuation of global warming in the coming decades as 
     greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contribute to climate 
     change.
       This summer's heatwave, the most prolonged period of hot 
     weather in the UK for years, has not yet been taken into 
     account in their measurements.
       Peter Stott of the Met Office said computer-generated 
     climate models all showed that periods of slower warming were 
     to be expected as part of the natural variation of the 
     climate cycle, and did not contradict predictions. Given that 
     variation, current temperatures are within expectations.
       As well as the heating of the deep oceans, other factors 
     have played a significant part in slowing temperature rises. 
     These have included the solar minimum--when the sun is less 
     active and generating slightly less heat, as occurred in 
     2008/2009--and a series of small volcanic eruptions, 
     including that of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano in 2010. 
     Ash from volcanoes reflects light back into space, and major 
     eruptions in the past have had a severe, albeit temporary, 
     cooling effect.
       Despite the slowdown in warming, by 2060 the world is still 
     likely to have experienced average temperatures of more than 
     2C above pre-industrial levels--a threshold that scientists 
     regard as the limit of safety, beyond which climate change 
     impacts are likely to become catastrophic. Prof Rowan Sutton, 
     director of climate research at the National Centre for 
     Atmospheric Research at Reading University, said the current 
     pause would only delay reaching this point by five to 10 
     years.
       The ``pause'' in the rise of global temperatures has been 
     seized on by climate sceptics, however, who have interpreted 
     it as proof that the science of climate change is mistaken. 
     But despite the slowdown in warming, the warmest years on 
     record were 1998, 2005 and 2010, according to the US National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
       Prof Sutton said more research was needed on the effects of 
     warming on the deep oceans, as observations of deep ocean 
     temperatures have only been carried out in detail over the 
     past decade and more are needed. Higher temperatures could 
     not only have a devastating effect on marine life, he said, 
     but could also contribute to increases in sea levels as sea 
     water expands.
       The Met Office warned early in the summer that the UK could 
     be in for a decade of

[[Page S6576]]

     ``washout'' summers, like those of the past six years, 
     because of the effect of climate change on global weather 
     systems, partly as a result of changes in wind patterns 
     caused by the melting Arctic.
       But no sooner had the meteorologists made their prediction 
     than the weather bucked this trend, with a shift in the 
     Atlantic's jet stream air circulation system giving rise to 
     high-pressure weather fronts and a long period of settled 
     sunny weather.
                                  ____


                       [From NOAA, May 10, 2013]

 CO2 at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory Reaches New Milestone: 
                              Tops 400 ppm

       On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in 
     the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per 
     million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 
     1958. Independent measurements made by both NOAA and the 
     Scripps Institution of Oceanography have been approaching 
     this level during the past week. It marks an important 
     milestone because Mauna Loa, as the oldest continuous carbon 
     dioxide (CO2.) measurement station in the world, 
     is the primary global benchmark site for monitoring the 
     increase of this potent heat-trapping gas.
       Carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel 
     burning and other human activities is the most significant 
     greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change. Its 
     concentration has increased every year since scientists 
     started making measurements on the slopes of the Mauna Loa 
     volcano more than five decades ago. The rate of increase has 
     accelerated since the measurements started, from about 0.7 
     ppm per year in the late 1950s to 2.1 ppm per year during the 
     last 10 years.
       ``That increase is not a surprise to scientists,'' said 
     NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans, with the Global Monitoring 
     Division of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in 
     Boulder, Cob. ``The evidence is conclusive that the strong 
     growth of global CO2 emissions from the burning of 
     coal, oil, and natural gas is driving the acceleration.''
       Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, 
     global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the 
     last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about 
     180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm 
     periods. Today's rate of increase is more than 100 times 
     faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age 
     ended.
       It was researcher Charles David Keeling of the Scripps 
     Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, who began 
     measuring carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa in 1958, initiating now 
     what is known as the ``Keeling Curve.'' His son, Ralph 
     Keeling, also a geochemist at Scripps, has continued the 
     Scripps measurement record since his father's death in 2005.
       ``There's no stopping CO2 from reaching 400 
     ppm,'' said Ralph Keeling. ``That's now a done deal. But what 
     happens from here on still matters to climate, and it's still 
     under our control. It mainly comes down to how much we 
     continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy.''
       NOAA scientists with the Global Monitoring Division have 
     made around-the-clock measurements there since 1974. Having 
     two programs independently measure the greenhouse gas 
     provides confidence that the measurements are correct. 
     Moreover, similar increases of CO2 are seen all 
     over the world by many international scientists. NOAA, for 
     example, which runs a global, cooperative air sampling 
     network, reported last year that all Arctic sites in its 
     network reached 400 ppm for the first time. These high values 
     were a prelude to what is now being observed at Mauna Loa, a 
     site in the subtropics, this year. Sites in the Southern 
     Hemisphere will follow during the next few years. The 
     increase in the Northern Hemisphere is always a little ahead 
     of the Southern Hemisphere because most of the emissions 
     driving the CO2 increase take place in the north. 
     Once emitted, CO2 added to the atmosphere and 
     oceans remains for thousands of years. Thus, climate changes 
     forced by CO2 depend primarily on cumulative 
     emissions, making it progressively more and more difficult to 
     avoid further substantial climate change.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, May 10, 2013]

           Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears

                           (By Justin Gillis)

       The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the 
     atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared 
     milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a 
     concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.
       Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an 
     average daily level above 400 parts per million--just an 
     odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder 
     that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions 
     under control are faltering.
       The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas 
     in the air has not been this high for at least three million 
     years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise 
     portends large changes in the climate and the level of the 
     sea.
       ``It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in 
     tackling this problem,'' said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the 
     monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration that reported the new reading.
       Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the 
     Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, said a 
     continuing rise could be catastrophic. ``It means we are 
     quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below 
     what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,'' he 
     said.
       Virtually every automobile ride, every plane trip and, in 
     most places, every flip of a light switch adds carbon dioxide 
     to the air, and relatively little money is being spent to 
     find and deploy alternative technologies.
       China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been 
     consuming fossil fuels extensively for far longer, and 
     experts say the United States is more responsible than any 
     other nation for the high level.
       The new measurement came from analyzers atop Mauna Loa, the 
     volcano on the big island of Hawaii that has long been ground 
     zero for monitoring the worldwide trend on carbon dioxide, or 
     CO2. Devices there sample clean, crisp air that 
     has blown thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean, 
     producing a record of rising carbon dioxide levels that has 
     been closely tracked for half a century.
       Carbon dioxide above 400 parts per million was first seen 
     in the Arctic last year, and had also spiked above that level 
     in hourly readings at Mauna Loa.
       But the average reading for an entire day surpassed that 
     level at Mauna Loa for the first time in the 24 hours that 
     ended at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday. The two 
     monitoring programs use slightly different protocols; NOAA 
     reported an average for the period of 400.03 parts per 
     million, while Scripps reported 400.08.
       Carbon dioxide rises and falls on a seasonal cycle, and the 
     level will dip below 400 this summer as leaf growth in the 
     Northern Hemisphere pulls about 10 billion tons of carbon out 
     of the air. But experts say that will be a brief reprieve--
     the moment is approaching when no measurement of the ambient 
     air anywhere on earth, in any season, will produce a reading 
     below 400.
       ``It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,'' 
     said Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty 
     Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia University.
       From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, 
     scientists know that going back 800,000 years, the carbon 
     dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from about 180 
     parts per million in the depths of ice ages to about 280 
     during the warm periods between. The evidence shows that 
     global temperatures and CO2 levels are tightly 
     linked.
       For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 
     years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near 
     that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused 
     a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the 
     Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and 
     scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they 
     expect far larger changes in the future.
       Indirect measurements suggest that the last time the carbon 
     dioxide level was this high was at least three million years 
     ago, during an epoch called the Pliocene. Geological research 
     shows that the climate then was far warmer than today, the 
     world's ice caps were smaller, and the sea level might have 
     been as much as 60 or 80 feet higher.
       Experts fear that humanity may be precipitating a return to 
     such conditions--except this time, billions of people are in 
     harm's way.
       ``It takes a long time to melt ice, but we're doing it,'' 
     Dr. Keeling said. ``It's scary.''
       Dr. Keeling's father, Charles David Keeling, began carbon 
     dioxide measurements on Mauna Loa and at other locations in 
     the late 1950s. The elder Dr. Keeling found a level in the 
     air then of about 315 parts per million--meaning that if a 
     person had filled a million quart jars with air, about 315 
     quart jars of carbon dioxide would have been mixed in.
       His analysis revealed a relentless, long-term increase 
     superimposed on the seasonal cycle, a trend that was dubbed 
     the Keeling Curve.
       Countries have adopted an official target to limit the 
     damage from global warming, with 450 parts per million seen 
     as the maximum level compatible with that goal. ``Unless 
     things slow down, we'll probably get there in well under 25 
     years,'' Ralph Keeling said.
       Yet many countries, including China and the United States, 
     have refused to adopt binding national targets. Scientists 
     say that unless far greater efforts are made soon, the goal 
     of limiting the warming will become impossible without severe 
     economic disruption.
       ``If you start turning the Titanic long before you hit the 
     iceberg, you can go clear without even spilling a drink of a 
     passenger on deck,'' said Richard B. Alley, a climate 
     scientist at Pennsylvania State University. ``If you wait 
     until you're really close, spilling a lot of drinks is the 
     best you can hope for.''
       Climate-change contrarians, who have little scientific 
     credibility but are politically influential in Washington, 
     point out that carbon dioxide represents only a tiny fraction 
     of the air--as of Thursday's reading, exactly 0.04 percent. 
     ``The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rather 
     undramatic,'' a Republican congressman from California, Dana 
     Rohrabacher, said in a Congressional hearing several years 
     ago.
       But climate scientists reject that argument, saying it is 
     like claiming that a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom 
     cannot have much effect. Research shows that even at such low 
     levels, carbon dioxide is potent at trapping heat near the 
     surface of the earth.
       ``If you're looking to stave off climate perturbations that 
     I don't believe our culture is

[[Page S6577]]

     ready to adapt to, then significant reductions in 
     CO2 emissions have to occur right away,'' said 
     Mark Pagani, a Yale geochemist who studies climates of the 
     past. ``I feel like the time to do something was yesterday.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to ask Senator Durbin how much time 
he needs, and I will make a request that he be recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the gentle lady from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am not the gentle lady anymore.
  Mr. DURBIN. Pardon me?
  Mrs. BOXER. I remember 10 years of being a gentle lady.
  Mr. DURBIN. Well, I still think she is a gentle lady.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, that is so nice of the Senator to say.
  Mr. DURBIN. In addition to being the Senator from California.
  I see on the floor the Senator from Wisconsin. I do not want to step 
in front of him.
  All right. Then I ask unanimous consent to be given 5 minutes to 
speak after the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to talk about what is happening in 
this Congress or, better yet, what is not happening. We have to pass a 
continuing resolution so we can fund this government. That means all 
the functions--whether it is air traffic controllers, whether it is 
building our highways, whether it is FBI agents, whether it is paying 
Social Security. All the things we do--Medicare--we have to pass a 
continuing resolution to keep this government going--sending meat 
inspectors out to make sure we do not get poisoned, and the rest; you 
name it.
  And where is the House? All spending bills have to start over there. 
The Republicans control it. They have not sent us a continuing 
resolution. We also have to make sure we pay our debts--just like all 
Americans--debts we voted for. Whether it is military spending, 
domestic spending, spending to help our farmers, spending to help 
recover from Hurricane Sandy, we have to pay our debts. To do that, we 
have to increase the debt ceiling.
  October 15; it is coming. If we do not do it, if the Republicans play 
games, we will see a crash in the stock market. I am sure every 
American looks forward to that. They are not doing their work because 
they are obsessed--they are obsessed--with repealing a law they have 
tried to repeal 41 times. They are obsessed.
  They tried to get it overturned in the Supreme Court. The Supreme 
Court said it is constitutional. They are trying to take away a law 
that is helping every American, and I am going to talk about it. They 
are obsessed.
  They refuse to understand that raising the debt ceiling is not about 
future spending, it is about past spending. So their reason is, they 
are very upset about the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare, however you 
want to call it--and they are very upset about the deficit, which has 
come down by half from its height with this President's leadership.
  Here is the thing: I do a lot of speaking to youngsters in school. 
When I explain to them what the role of a Senator is, I say, in 
essence, it is to make life better for the people--that is what I think 
it is--and to do it in a smart way, and to work with your colleagues to 
make sure you can compromise and get things done. Whether it is 
building highways or making sure our ports are dredged or funding the 
military, we must work together. No one gets everything he or she 
wants. That is life. You have to compromise. You cannot be an ideologue 
and say: My way or the highway.
  To go after a law that was passed years ago--that you tried to repeal 
41 times and failed, that you tried to overturn in the Court and 
failed--and then not to do your most fundamental responsibility of 
keeping the government open? There is something really wrong about 
this.
  Let's take a look at this economy. Why are they so upset at what the 
President has been able to achieve?
  President Clinton left office with a surplus--over $200 billion. 
Remember that.
  Eight years later, President Bush left office with a $1.3 trillion 
deficit. I will not go into why because I do not have the time, but 
that is the fact, and no one can erase it from the books.
  Since President Obama took office, the projected annual deficit has 
been cut in half. It is less than $650 billion. Yet they are willing to 
shut the government down by making believe no progress has been made, 
when we have cut the deficit in half and we are trying to get out of a 
disastrous recession.
  Under the Clinton administration, the economy created more than 20 
million private sector jobs. Under George W. Bush, we lost 665,000 
jobs.
  Remember, Clinton, millions of jobs created; George Bush, the 
Republican, hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs lost.
  Under President Obama, we have added 3.9 million private sector 
jobs--coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. You 
can say what you want, but President Obama and the Democrats here--even 
though it has been a bear to do it--we have managed to wrap our arms 
around this recession and get us on a course.
  How about housing? Home prices are up more than 12 percent over the 
last year. Home sales have increased 47 percent since their crisis low. 
Recent housing starts are up 75 percent from April 2009.
  Housing was the cause of this recession. People sliced and diced 
mortgages and sold them on Wall Street and brought everything down. 
Deregulation; that was the Republican mantra. It went too far, and we 
lost our way, and people suffered through the worst recession since the 
Great Depression.
  The Republicans, instead of working with us to keep the progress up, 
want to shut the government down, want to say we are not going to pay 
our bills, even though they voted to rack up those bills.
  Look at the auto industry. In 2009, the auto industry lost more than 
100,000 jobs. Rescuing the auto industry saved more than 1 million 
jobs, and the news is great coming out of Detroit. People are buying 
cars.
  The Republicans put it all at risk by shutting down the government 
and not paying the bills.
  There are going to be no more bailouts. I was so proud. I offered the 
first amendment. I think my friend remembers: No more government 
bailouts to the big banks. So we are on our way to saying, once and for 
all, we are not going to let this crisis happen again.
  The stock market. Do you know the Dow fell to 6,500, Mr. President? 
Since then, it has rebounded to 15,000--almost 2,000 points above its 
precrisis record. But yet they will put it all at risk because they are 
saying they are going to play games, shut down the government, not pay 
the debt.
  The last time they played these games--the Republicans--GAO found 
that threatening to breach the debt limit cost the Treasury $1.3 
billion just in 2011, and $18 billion over the next 10 years.
  The next time a Republican tells you how fiscally conservative they 
are, ask them why it is they added $18 billion to the debt by playing 
games with the debt ceiling.
  I want to quote Republican President Ronald Reagan, one of the heroes 
of my friends' party. He said:

       The full consequences of a default--or even the serious 
     prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to 
     predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full 
     faith and credit of the United States would have substantial 
     effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of 
     the dollar.

  That is Ronald Reagan. In 1983 he said that even talking about a 
default had terrible consequences. They are not even talking about a 
default, they are planning for a default.
  My friend, who is such a great leader in the Senate, Senator Durbin, 
informed us and Senator Reid informed us that the Republicans in the 
House have a bill they love. We call it Pay China First. If there is a 
default, they will keep paying China the interest we owe them, but they 
will default on all of the Americans here and all of the contractors, 
the highway contractors, the people who dredge our ports. They will 
default on what they owe the American people, but they will pay China.

[[Page S6578]]

  Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the CBO Director under George W. Bush, said:

       It's a bad idea. Little defaults, big defaults; default's a 
     bad idea period and there should be no one who believes 
     otherwise.

  He said that in 2011. There is no such thing as a good default.
  I have shown how far we have come with this economy. If we do not 
have the far right of the Republican Party taking America's country 
hostage, we will continue to grow this economy. But if they play games 
and try to shut down this government, it could all turn around. If they 
play games and they try to default on the debt, they could turn it all 
around in a bad way, and we will see the results as Social Security 
recipients start to worry, as Medicare receipts start to worry, as 
contractors start to worry, as Federal FBI agents can no longer get 
paid--it goes on and on and on.
  One of the reasons they are so crazed is they are obsessed over the 
Affordable Care Act, which they call ObamaCare. In my time, I want to 
tell you what the Affordable Care Act does and see whether you think it 
is worth shutting down the government over this bill. They tried it 41 
times, but they hope 42 will be their winner. Over 1 million 
Californians--this is just in my State--are already newly insured. 
Three million young adults are now insured on their parents' plans--3 
million are now insured, 400,000 in my State. Now 71 million Americans 
are getting free preventive care, such as checkups and birth control 
and immunizations. They do not like that, I guess. They are willing to 
shut the government down over it. Now 17 million kids with preexisting 
conditions, such as asthma, can no longer be denied coverage. Insurance 
companies cannot cancel your health insurance because you get sick. 
There are no more lifetime limits on coverage. Anyone who has had a 
catastrophic disease knows it is pretty easy to hit that cap. No more 
caps in a year. No more lifetime caps. This is what they are so 
obsessed about. So they are willing to shut down the government to take 
away these benefits.
  They said: Oh, health care costs are going to go up because of the 
Affordable Care Act. Well, guess what, health care costs are growing at 
the slowest rate in over 50 years. Insurance companies now have to 
justify their premium hikes. Before, they just hiked your rates and 
they could do it with impunity. Now, insurers have to spend at least 80 
percent of your premiums on your medical care, not on overhead. They 
cannot pocket the money; they have to spend it on health care. Also, 
8.5 million Americans have received rebate checks from their insurance 
company because they were overcharged. Is that what the Republicans are 
so upset about? They are willing to shut down the government to take 
away these benefits from the people.
  Insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge more for 
preexisting conditions. They cannot charge women more than men. There 
is no more discrimination. Again, in a single year, they cannot impose 
dollar limits on you.
  The Republicans are upset about the deficit. The deficit has been cut 
in half.
  I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. The House has voted 41 times to defund the Affordable 
Care Act. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court, the Republican 
attorneys general. They lost. They made it a centerpiece of the 2012 
election. They lost the Presidential election. Now they are willing to 
shut down the government unless they get their way.
  So I would conclude by asking some rhetorical questions.
  Why are the Republicans obsessed with kicking young people off their 
parents' insurance?
  Why are the Republicans so obsessed with stopping preventive care, 
such as checkups and birth control and immunizations?
  Why are Republicans so obsessed with repealing benefits that 
guarantee insurance coverage for children and adults with preexisting 
conditions?
  Why are they so obsessed with stopping 13 million people from getting 
insurance who never had the chance before?
  Why are they so obsessed with stopping 24 million people from getting 
insurance under the new State health exchanges?
  Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that prevents insurance 
companies from canceling an insurance policy when someone gets sick? 
Why are they obsessed that we are stopping that practice?
  Why are they so obsessed when we say you can no longer have an annual 
dollar limit on benefits?
  Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that says to an 
insurance company: You cannot have a lifetime limit on benefits.
  Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that finally stops 
discrimination against women? You know, being a woman was considered a 
preexisting condition. Honestly. You would have to pay twice as much as 
a man for your health care. If you were a victim of some kind of 
spousal abuse, that was considered a preexisting condition and your 
payments went up or maybe you never even got insurance.
  I have to that say finally, why are they so obsessed with doing away 
with the Affordable Care Act when CBO--the Congressional Budget 
Office--says it will save $109 billion over 10 years and over $1 
trillion the following decade?
  I cannot answer these questions. All I can think is that it is 
politics. It is politics. I have been here a long time. I am proud of 
it. I thank my people in California for allowing me to have this honor. 
There were many laws I did not like, believe me. I have served with 
five Presidents. I did not agree with quite a few of them--two or 
three--but when I lost a battle, I did not try to shut down the 
government. When I lost a battle, I did not say: We cannot pay our 
debts. Oh, maybe I voted once or twice as a symbolic vote, but I knew 
the votes were there.
  So I would say to my friends, get over your obsession and proceed 
with your responsibilities to keep this government open. Forget about 
repealing a health care law that is about to kick in that is good for 
the people and pay your debts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                         Tribute to Tom Lamont

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank a good friend for his 
service to our Nation, America's soldiers, and their families. Tom 
Lamont of Springfield, IL, is retiring this week as Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, the Army's top personnel 
officer. It is a post Tom has held for more than 4 years. These were 
not 4 ordinary years; they were 4 of the most challenging in the Army's 
modern history. The list of challenges Tom Lamont faced from day one 
was daunting. At the top of his list, he had to help coordinate the 
drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. At the same time he had to support a 
surge of troops in Afghanistan and then help the return home of those 
same troops. He also had to address many of the most important issues 
facing the military and our Army today, including post-traumatic 
stress, traumatic brain injuries, sexual assault in the military, and 
the disturbingly high incidence of suicide among Active-Duty soldiers 
and veterans.
  I was proud to introduce Tom Lamont at his confirmation hearing 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee 4 years ago. I said then 
that with the tremendous strain the war in Iraq and Afghanistan had 
created for soldiers and their families, the Army needed a leader like 
Tom Lamont.
  As he prepares to complete his mission in the Pentagon, I am proud 
but not at all surprised that Tom was every bit the leader our Army 
needed. In the time of this historic challenge for the Army, Assistant 
Secretary Thomas Lamont has consistently risen to the challenge. He 
made clear from the start that his No. 1 priority was the well-being of 
America's soldiers and their families, especially those coping with 
multiple deployments.
  He also supervised the development of the Army's first Total Force 
Policy--a new policy that integrates the Active Duty, Guard, and 
Reserve components of the Army into a single, effective, unified force. 
It was signed by Secretary of the Army John McHugh just last September. 
The new Total Force Policy reflects a fundamental fact that, as decades 
of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, our Army Guard, and 
Reserve are now as integral to the fight as the Active-

[[Page S6579]]

Duty component and we are not going back. Very few people could bring 
to that task the experience and personal commitment that Tom Lamont 
did.
  Assistant Secretary Lamont also oversaw a review of the Army's 
Integrated Disability Evaluation System. The IDES system is a 
partnership between the Defense Department and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. It is used to evaluate the wounded, ill or injured 
servicemembers, to determine whether they are fit for duty, and if not, 
what disability rating or benefits they receive. Thanks to Tom's focus, 
the Army's IDES wait times are down more than 40 percent, and the 
process is more consistent and less adversarial. We need to cut back on 
that backlog even further, and we will. Tom Lamont's leadership over 
the last 4 years has made a real difference in reducing the so-called 
benefits gap for servicemembers transitioning to civilian life.
  One reason Tom has been such an effective Assistant Secretary of the 
Army is the respect he brought to this position for the sacrifices made 
by all soldiers, whether they are Active Duty, Guard, or Reserve. That 
respect is something Tom learned during his 25 years as a judge 
advocate general in the Illinois National Guard. He retired from the 
Guard with the rank of colonel in 2007. His years of experience in the 
Illinois Army National Guard gave Tom Lamont a deep understanding of 
the needs of the Army.
  Tom is also a respected attorney in our hometown of Springfield, IL, 
and a former partner in two distinguished law firms. One of those 
firms, the Springfield firm of Brown, Hay & Stephens, is the oldest law 
practice in Illinois. From 1837 to 1841, it employed a young lawyer by 
the name of Abraham Lincoln. Later, in his second inaugural address, 
President Lincoln spoke of the solemn obligation of any nation that has 
been through a war. He said we have a moral responsibility ``to bind up 
the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle 
and for his widow and orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a 
just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' Tom 
Lamont has kept faith with that moral responsibility Abraham Lincoln 
spoke to.
  Tom Lamont has also served the people of Illinois in many important 
positions: executive Director of the Office of the State Attorney 
Appellate Prosecutor, director of civil litigation in the Office of the 
Illinois Attorney General, executive director of the Illinois Board of 
Higher Education, special counsel to the University of Illinois, and 
member of the Senate Judicial Nomination Commission.
  A while back, GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, gave a speech in which he described the historic challenges 
facing the U.S. Armed Forces. He said in those remarks that ``if we 
don't get the people right, the rest of it won't matter.'' He went on 
to say, ``We might get the equipment right, the organizational design 
right, modernization right, but if we don't get the people right, we're 
going to put the country at risk.''
  When President Obama nominated Tom Lamont to be Assistant Secretary 
of the Army, he got the people right. His service these last 4 years 
leaves our Army stronger and better prepared for what lies ahead.
  In closing, I wish to thank Tom for his extraordinary record of 
public service.
  Tom and his wife Bridget are good friends of Loretta's and mine. I 
know better than most the personal sacrifices both have made so Tom 
could serve this President in the U.S. Army and the Nation he loves. I 
wish Tom and Bridget the best in life's next challenge.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I wish to salute my colleague from California Senator 
Boxer. The statement she made before I spoke summarized what we face: 
People say to me are we really going to shut down the Federal 
Government? Is that what we were elected to come here to do, to reach 
an agreement between the parties, between the House and the Senate, to 
shut down the government and cut off the basic services of the 
Government of the United States of America, the leading Nation in the 
world when it comes to striving for social justice as well as peace? 
Are you going to shut down the government? Is that the best you can do 
in this Congress?
  The answer is it is not worthy of this great institution or this 
great Nation for us to entertain the thought of shutting down this 
government or, even worse, to default on America's debt for the first 
time in our history.
  People don't understand this term ``debt ceiling.'' Let me explain 
it. Do you have a mortgage on your home? What would happen if you 
didn't make a payment next month? Oh, you might get by with it, but by 
the second month there would be a knock on the door, a call, or an e-
mail. They would be saying to you: You missed your payment, and if you 
want to stay in this house you better make it.
  Even if you made that payment, the next time you negotiate a 
mortgage, someone will remember you defaulted, you failed to pay your 
mortgage, and you are likely to pay a higher mortgage rate.
  Translate that into the United States of America. If we don't pay our 
mortgage, if we don't lift the debt ceiling to reflect spending that 
this Congress has already engaged in by both political parties, we will 
have defaulted on America's debt for the first time in history. We may 
get through it. I am sure we will. But at the end of the day what will 
happen is the interest rate paid by Americans to borrow money will go 
up. It means that $1 sent to Washington in taxes will no longer buy $1 
worth of goods and services. No. It will buy less because more of that 
is to be paid in interest to someone loaning money to the United 
States. Golly, it is an awful outcome. I wish we could avoid it.
  The answer is we can avoid it. The default on America's debt, the 
failure to extend the debt ceiling, is a self-imposed crisis generated, 
sadly, by the majority in the House of Representatives who happen to 
believe this is good politics. The American people will rally to the 
notion that we are going to default on our debt for the first time and 
we are going to stop funding the government.
  What a glorious day for this great Nation, closing the doors of our 
government in every single agency, virtually every single agency, and 
defaulting on our debt for the first time in history.
  If that is what the tea party Republicans think is leadership, God 
save the United States of America. We need leadership where Democrats 
and Republicans sit down and act as adults, not as squealing political 
pigs trying to get attention. We need to basically sit down, both 
political parties, and solve this problem.
  I have been waiting patiently, watching. We have asked for a budget 
conference committee to work out our differences. Time and again we 
have come to the floor over the last 6 months and said Senator Murray's 
budget which passed the Senate is ready to be negotiated with the 
House. Consistently, four Senators on the Republican side of the aisle 
have taken turns standing up and objecting to working out our 
differences and coming up with an agreement on how much we will spend. 
That is not how you should govern this Nation. I don't believe that is 
how you should serve in the Senate.
  The latest excuse--and I won't go into detail--is, of course, 
Republicans have said: Of course, we have to shut down the government 
and we have to default on our debt for the first time in history to 
stop ObamaCare.
  Senator Boxer went through the details of what ObamaCare means to 
millions of families and the opportunity for health insurance for the 
first time for many of them in their entire lives. It is working, and I 
think that is what infuriates many Republicans the most.
  We can fix it, it can be better, and we should do it. But to bring 
this government to a halt and to default on our debt over this question 
of a bill that passed over 3 years ago and is the law of the land, 
found constitutional by the Supreme Court, is the height of 
irresponsibility.
  The American people have a right to be angry with Congress, but 
please take a moment and realize that this desperate, awful strategy is 
inspired by one political party, which thinks that

[[Page S6580]]

somehow this is going to appeal to the American people. I don't believe 
it will. The American people are too smart to fall for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I sat through the speech given by the 
junior Senator of California. I have a long list of things with which I 
disagree and I am going to get to as many of those as I can in a 
minute. I feel an obligation to make a statement about some important 
policy issues that nobody talks about, certainly not partisan in any 
way. I wish to get that out of the way first and then I will have time, 
on the time that I have been given, to go back and cover as many of the 
issues that were misrepresented by my good friend, the junior Senator 
from California.


                               Sri Lanka

  I wish to encourage the Obama administration to review its current 
policies regarding the country of Sri Lanka and seek further engagement 
to assist them as they continue their progress toward reconciliation 
and reconstruction after 30 years of a bloody civil war against the 
Tamil Tiger terrorists.
  Just 4 years ago Sri Lanka defeated the Tamil terrorists and is 
currently recovering from economic, political, and social upheaval 
caused by this destructive civil war. I think there are a lot of people 
who didn't expect this to happen with this new administration, but it 
is. Good things have happened. Peace has brought historic postconflict 
recovery and Sri Lanka is bringing the dividends of peace in an 
exclusive manner, particularly to those in the north and to the east of 
the country, from where Tamil suicide bombers and other terrorist 
attacks were once launched.
  Specifically, since the war ended, those two areas have seen an 
economic growth of 22 percent compared to an average of 7.5 percent for 
the rest of the country.
  Sri Lanka has removed half a million antipersonnel mines, resettled 
300,000 internally displaced people, and reestablished vital social 
services in the areas of health and education.
  It is also conducting local elections in the formerly Tamil-
controlled north on the 21st of September. I see this as an important 
step toward political reconciliation. Such processes take time, as we 
learned from our own Civil War.
  It seems to me that Sri Lanka is developing into a key economy, both 
in its own right and as a gateway to India. A lot of people don't know 
where Sri Lanka is. It is that little island at the bottom of India and 
that part of the world.
  Sri Lanka's geostrategic location, the deepwater ports, could be 
vital to the long-term financial and national security interests of the 
United States. We want them on our side. Some 50 percent of all 
container traffic, for example, and 70 percent of the world's energy 
supplies pass within sight of Sri Lanka's coast.
  U.S. diplomatic efforts there, however, have lagged. As a result, I 
believe our long-term economic and national security interests are 
suffering. At a time when the United States is pivoting or rebalancing 
toward Asia, we may be giving this island nation reason not to consider 
the United States a friend and strategic partner.
  Understandably, the policies of the United States toward Sri Lanka 
have focused on accountability for what happened during the last phases 
of the civil war, as well as on steps toward political reconciliation 
and respect for human rights. While these aspects are very important 
and deserving of support, I also believe there is the opportunity to 
engage in a wider simultaneous approach that also takes into account 
economic and national security consideration. Maybe this wider, dual-
track approach would have a positive influence overall and make up for 
lost ground.
  I have expressed these views in letters to both Secretary Kerry and 
Secretary Hagel in recent months. While both of them agree with me 
about Sri Lanka and its economic and geostrategic importance to the 
United States, both still point to the lack of political transparency 
and poor human rights record to reject a review of the administration's 
position, which restricts military-to-military relations and foreign 
assistance funding.
  I take Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel at their word and believe 
the upcoming September 21 provincial council elections in the north can 
be a meaningful act of political reconciliation that would be between 
the Sinhala majority and the Tamil minorities. If they are conducted in 
a free and fair manner, free of human rights violations, I will 
strongly renew my request to the administration to reassess our current 
policies toward Sri Lanka.
  I know it is a little bit controversial, but we have watched what has 
happened over the years. We have watched the civil war. Then when you 
consider the very strategic location of Sri Lanka, it is very 
important, in my view, that we establish these relationships and 
recognize them.
  Let me mention a few things I took issue with. Some of them I had a 
hard time understanding what the junior Senator from California was 
talking about when she was singing the praises of this administration.
  First, I agreed with her on the tragedy at the Navy Yard. I have been 
down there many times. I was envisioning as I was coming from Tulsa up 
here on Monday--at that time they said Ronald Reagan Airport was going 
to be closed. They thought it was going to be closed down because of 
the proximity to the Navy Yard. It didn't turn out that way and we 
ended up landing there.
  When I went down and I saw the scene, which I have seen many times 
before, and I looked at it, it was gut-wrenching to think that one 
deranged person could do this. We saw it before in Waco. We have seen 
it in Boston. We have seen it in other places. It is something that I 
assume is going to be with us. I don't know how it can be precluded.
  I will say this, though. I fully expected several of my liberal 
friends would use that to try to come up with an excuse for more 
stringent gun regulations. I would only suggest that the District of 
Columbia has the most stringent anti-Second Amendment gun control laws 
anywhere in the country, and that is where this took place. You can't 
say this has anything to do with it, but I knew it was going to happen.
  Another thing my friend talked about was the debt, all of this, 
talking about the other administrations. I would only remind you, this 
is something that is incontrovertible, the amount of debt this 
President has had up to today. He has increased our deficit by $6.1 
trillion, which is more than all of the other Presidents from George 
Washington on up through recent administrations combined. You wonder 
where is all of that money, where did it all go? It went to his social 
programs.
  My major concern--the Presiding Officer may have heard I was making 
quite an issue out of the fact the President wanted to send cruise 
missiles into Syria. I don't think there is anyone naive enough to 
believe you can do that and not have repercussions.
  We have heard from Iran, which I consider to be the greatest threat 
to the United States, in that our intelligence has told us since 2007 
Iran would have the nuclear weapon and the delivery system in place by 
2015. That is a year and a half from now. Yes, it is something where we 
would be going in.
  However, in the disarming of America, as I have referred to, I 
remember going to Afghanistan 4\1/2\ years ago. It was after the 
President's first budget. I went there because I knew what was going to 
happen to the military in spite of all this spending that has given us 
new debt, $6.1 trillion. Where did it go? I can tell you a lot of 
places where it didn't go. It didn't go to defending America.
  I went over there. In that very first budget the President had, the 
first thing he did was do away with our only fifth-generation fighter, 
the F-22. He did away with our lift capability, the C-17. He did away 
with our future combat system, the only advancement of ground 
capability in some 60 years. He did away with the ground-based 
interceptor in Poland, which now puts us in a position where we are 
hustling all over trying to figure out where we can get a third site to 
protect the United States of America against a missile coming in from 
the East. We have 33 of them out there but they are all on the west 
coast. That doesn't help us here.
  On top of that, this administration, in its extended budget, has 
taken now already $487 billion out of our defense

[[Page S6581]]

budget and is talking about another $\1/2\ trillion through his 
sequestration.
  I know nobody believes this, and that is why none of the Members on 
this floor will talk about it, but this disarming of America puts us in 
a very serious situation.
  The junior Senator from California was praising this President and 
all of the things she felt he has been doing, but it is time to hear 
the truth. She was praising him on ObamaCare and how wonderful this is 
and how thankful everyone is. Why is it the most recent polling showed 
88 percent of the people in America want to do away with the individual 
mandate, and the vast majority of them say it is a bad idea? Those are 
the words they use. So it is not working.
  I can remember back when we were going to have Hillary health care, 
back during the Clinton administration, and we asked the question--and 
you can ask any liberal who wants to get to a single-payer system or 
ultimately have socialized medicine, which I think will be down the 
road in the vision of this administration--if this hasn't worked in 
Great Britain, it hasn't worked in Denmark and it hasn't worked in 
Canada, why would it work here? They will never tell you this, but they 
were saying if they were running it, it would work here.
  Anyway, this is something that is not popular, as was misrepresented 
by the junior Senator from California. Then she said: ``The news is 
great coming out of Detroit.'' That is fine, except they filed 
bankruptcy last week.
  So when we hear all the things that are stated, just keep in mind 
this is still America, we still have certain values that have been 
completely reversed by this administration, and it is time to keep that 
in mind and to move on ahead.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about two 
overarching issues that are confronting the Senate and the House at the 
same time. Both, unfortunately in this circumstance, are directly 
related. Normally, we would talk about these two issues separate and 
apart.
  First of all, the Affordable Care Act and what that means for the 
country, what it means for families, the impact it is having now in a 
very positive way but also what it means for those families in the 
future and also the concerns I have about what a small group, but a 
very powerful group in the Congress, want to do that I would argue 
would adversely impact the economy.
  Let me talk first about the Affordable Care Act. I was a strong 
supporter, worked hard for its passage, and will continue to work hard 
on the implementation. We have seen in the last couple of years, since 
implementation began in 2010, continued in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the 
benefits the Affordable Care Act have brought to this country. We have 
also seen where we have had to make changes, where we have had to come 
together, often in a bipartisan manner, to make changes to the 
legislation to make it work. There will be plenty of other changes in 
the future, but the worst thing we could do right now is to pretend, as 
some in this body and in the other body do as well, that nothing has 
changed for the better for families.
  Let me give a couple of examples. I will use Pennsylvania examples, 
but of course in every one of these there is a national number that 
corresponds to the State-by-State numbers.
  Consider this: In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 222,703 
Pennsylvania seniors saved money on prescription drugs directly as a 
result of the Affordable Care Act. Health care reform provides seniors 
who hit the so-called doughnut hole with more than a 50-percent 
discount on brand name drugs. Already, just in Pennsylvania, that many 
seniors have had some measure of support when they got into that 
doughnut hole. That is a very nice way of saying a coverage gap, where 
they have to come up with the dollars for prescription drugs. I 
mentioned the number of 222,000 seniors in Pennsylvania who have 
already saved $168 million on prescription drugs directly as a result 
of this legislation. So if you are for repealing this, you have to tell 
us how you are going to help those 222,703 Pennsylvanians with their 
prescription drug coverage if you want to take away that benefit.
  Two more examples. I will not go through all of these. There are 
5,489,162 Pennsylvanians with preexisting conditions who will no longer 
have to worry about being denied coverage. That part of the 
legislation, as the Presiding Officer knows so well, is an enlargement 
of what we had before. What we had in the first couple years of 
implementation was a legal prohibition that a child who had a 
preexisting condition would not be denied coverage. Imagine where we 
were before this legislation. The Federal Government and the Nation 
were saying to those families: We know your child has coverage, we know 
you are paying the premium for that child, we know that technically 
your child has some kind of health insurance coverage, but if that 
child has a preexisting condition, he or she does not get covered.
  That was the prevailing policy before the Affordable Care Act was 
passed. What we said in the act was that is unacceptable. The United 
States is not going to say any longer to a family: If your child has a 
preexisting condition he or she will be denied coverage and treatment. 
We wiped that out by virtue of passage of the act and then 
implementation.
  Now we are saying, as implementation proceeds in 2014, that same kind 
of coverage for preexisting conditions will apply to adults as well. We 
couldn't afford to do it right away, but now we are able to move in 
that direction. Imagine what happens upon repeal, if we repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, if we go back to the old and, I would argue, very 
dark days, where children and adults with preexisting conditions don't 
get the coverage they need and surely deserve.
  What kind of a country are we if we say a child whose parents have 
health insurance and have been paying premiums should not be covered or 
treated because an insurance company says they are not entitled to 
coverage? If we repeal the bill, we are going back to those days. 
Whether it is a child or an adult, the least we can do is say we will 
have a health insurance system in the United States where if you are 
paying your premiums, you will be given the coverage you are paying for 
and that you are entitled to. We couldn't say that before the passage 
of this act.
  So repeal of the Affordable Care Act means preexisting conditions are 
no longer covered.
  I haven't heard a lot from the other side about how they would 
achieve that. Maybe they will. Maybe they will come up with a plan to 
do that.
  Finally, this is the third example. There are 91,000 young 
Pennsylvanians who have been able to find health care coverage. Under 
the act, young adults, ages 19 to 25, are able to stay on their 
parents' plan in order to maintain coverage.
  A lot of families out there had a lot of worry and, frankly, a lot of 
financial burden but especially the anxiety of knowing a young person 
who may have been in college for years--maybe they had a 2-year college 
or 4-year education, but somewhere in that time period of being in 
college, roughly that age and after college up through age 25--had no 
coverage. This has solved that problem. Imagine the numbers across the 
country.
  In both of these instances--young people having coverage on their 
parents' plans and children being covered for preexisting conditions--
we are talking in the tens of millions of Americans, children and young 
adults.
  Those are just three examples--seniors getting help with their 
prescription drug coverage, which they never got before at this level 
of protection and help; children with preexisting conditions, now 
adults; and then, thirdly, young people across the country.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary 
entitled ``The Affordable Care Act Is Providing Stability and Security 
for Middle-Class Pennsylvanians.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

The Affordable Care Act Is Providing Stability and Security for Middle-
                          Class Pennsylvanians

       The Affordable Care Act is providing middle-class families 
     with stability and security. Instead of refighting old 
     political battles over health care, Republicans should work 
     with us to improve the law, help make sure people are aware 
     of and take advantage of its benefits, and strengthen the 
     economy.

[[Page S6582]]

     Republicans want to go back to the days when insurance 
     companies were in charge and could deny coverage to children 
     with pre-existing conditions, charge women more than men, and 
     run up premiums.


              Providing Benefits for Pennsylvania Seniors

       222,703 Pennsylvania seniors saved money on prescription 
     drugs. Health reform provides seniors who hit the so-called 
     ``donut hole'' with a more than 50% discount on brand name 
     drugs. Seniors will receive larger discounts each year until 
     the ``donut hole'' closes completely in 2020. 222,703 
     Pennsylvania seniors have saved $168 million on prescription 
     drugs under health reform, for an average savings of $753.
       1,034,635 Pennsylvania seniors have received free 
     preventive health services. As a result of health reform, 
     seniors have access to free preventive health services such 
     as cancer screening, diabetes screening, and annual wellness 
     visits.


  Providing Stable and Secure Coverage for Middle-Class Pennsylvanians

       5,489,162 Pennsylvanians with pre-existing conditions will 
     no longer have to worry about being denied coverage. Under 
     the Affordable Care Act (ACA), insurance companies are 
     already barred from denying coverage to children with pre-
     existing conditions. Starting in 2014, that protection will 
     be afforded to all Americans, ensuring that those with 
     conditions like cancer, diabetes, asthma, or heart disease 
     will not be denied coverage or charged higher premiums. 
     5,489,162 non-elderly Pennsylvanians have been diagnosed with 
     a preexisting condition.
       91,000 young Pennsylvanians have been able to find health 
     coverage. Under the ACA, young adults aged 19-25 are able to 
     stay on their parents' plan in order to maintain coverage.
       3,151,000 Pennsylvanians have received free preventive 
     health services. The Affordable Care Act ensures that most 
     insurance plans provide recommended health services like 
     colonoscopies, Pap smears, mammograms, and well-child visits 
     without cost-sharing or out of pocket costs. 3,151,000 
     Pennsylvanians have benefited from these services, including 
     1,218,000 women and 761,000 children.
       4,582,000 Pennsylvanians no longer have to worry about 
     lifetime or annual limits on coverage. Under the ACA, 
     insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those who 
     need it most by imposing arbitrary lifetime or annual dollar 
     limits on coverage.


           Making Pennsylvanians Health Care More Affordable

       123,581 Pennsylvanians have received rebates and greater 
     value from their health insurance. Under the ACA, Americans 
     get greater value from their health insurance. Insurance 
     companies are required to spend at least 80 cents of every 
     dollar paid in premiums on health care as opposed to 
     administrative expenses, executive salaries, or padding their 
     profits. For every dollar spent above that limit, they are 
     required to give rebates back to the American people. Last 
     year, 123,581 Pennsylvanians received an average rebate of 
     $77 for a total of $6,875,277.
       Pennsylvania has received $5,312,084 in lower premium 
     increases. Because of the ACA, for the first time, insurance 
     companies are required to publicly justify their actions if 
     they want to raise rates by 10% or more. As a result of this 
     effort to fight unreasonable premium hikes, Pennsylvania has 
     received $5,312,084.

  Mr. CASEY. There is a lot more we could talk about, but we don't have 
time. I will not go into the national numbers because I know others 
have done that, but these are just some of the examples of what this 
legislation has meant.
  The act is not perfect. No act that has been passed by this Senate 
has ever been perfect, especially something as challenging as health 
care, and we will make changes to make it work. But the worst thing we 
could do is for the Senate to turn its back on children and say: You 
don't deserve to have coverage if you have a preexisting condition or 
turn our back on older citizens who fought our wars, worked in our 
factories, taught our children, gave us a middle class, and gave us and 
younger generations life and love and helped us in so many ways and say 
to them: You know what. You can be on your own when it comes to 
prescription drug coverage.
  That is the Affordable Care Act. But unfortunately this isn't just a 
debate about the act. Now we are getting into a debate about some 
people in Washington wanting to use the Affordable Care Act as a 
political weapon in other contexts. They say if they do not have a 
repeal of or a defunding of the Affordable Care Act, that somehow they 
think a government shutdown would be the right way to go or that we 
would default on our obligations.
  Of course, I and many others don't believe that is the right way to 
go; in essence, in the case of the debt limit, holding the debt limit 
hostage to a relitigation of the Affordable Care Act. That is dangerous 
for the economy, but I think it is also very bad for those families I 
just mentioned.
  This debt limit crisis that is ahead of us, just as the end of the 
fiscal year crisis is ahead of us, is manufactured. We don't need to 
have a crisis on the debt ceiling, but it is being manufactured to make 
a political point by some in Washington. Not all Republicans agree with 
this, certainly not around the country but even here in Washington. But 
some seem to believe this is the right way to go.
  This is the kind of edge-of-the-cliff brinkmanship we saw in 2011, 
which had a substantial--and I think this is irrefutable--adverse 
impact on the economy. The Dow dropped 2,000 points because of the last 
debt ceiling debate, a debate which resulted in us getting an agreement 
at the very last minute, not going over the deadline. But some 
apparently think it is a good idea to default on our obligations for 
the first time since 1789.
  What does that mean for most Americans? If we have the Dow drop 2,000 
points or maybe lower, if we actually go over the deadline, it means a 
loss of savings for Americans. It may not affect people in the Senate 
who are wealthy or people in the Senate who have job security and 
health care security and everything else, but it will hurt a lot of 
Americans, and it will crater the savings of Americans if that happens.
  An adverse credit rating, another adverse consequence, means more 
expensive credit for everyone. It translates into higher costs for 
housing, education, and other critical household expenses. Local 
governments would also bear the burden of a lower credit rating--a drop 
in the credit rating of the United States--which makes every project 
that much more difficult and expensive.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Wall Street 
Journal op-ed entitled ``Uncertainty Is the Enemy of Recovery,'' dated 
April 28, 2013, and written by Bill McNabb, the CEO of Vanguard.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 28, 2013]

                  Uncertainty Is the Enemy of Recovery

                            (By Bill McNabb)

       Anyone hoping for signs of a healthy economic recovery was 
     disappointed by lower-than-expected GDP growth for the first 
     quarter of 2013--a mere 2.5%, far short of the forecast 3.2%. 
     Meanwhile, the stock market continues to soar, hitting record 
     levels in recent weeks. It's a striking disconnect, and one 
     that is discouraging and confusing for Americans as they seek 
     to earn a living and save for the future.
       Companies and small businesses are also dealing with the 
     same paradox. Many are in good shape and have money to spend. 
     So why aren't they pumping more capital back into the 
     economy, creating jobs and fueling the country's economic 
     engine?
       Quite simply, if firms can't see a clear road to economic 
     recovery ahead, they're not going to hire and they're not 
     going to spend. It's what economists call a ``deadweight 
     loss''--loss caused by inefficiency.''
       Today, there is uncertainty about regulatory policy, 
     uncertainty about monetary policy, uncertainty about foreign 
     policy and, most significantly, uncertainty about U.S. fiscal 
     policy and the national debt. Until a sensible plan is 
     created to address the debt, America will not fulfill its 
     economic potential.
       Uncertainty comes with a very real and quantifiable price 
     tag--an uncertainty tax, so to speak. Over the past two 
     years, amid stalled debates in Washington and missed 
     opportunities to tackle the debt, the magnitude of this 
     uncertainty tax has gotten short shrift.
       Three economists, Stanford University's Nicholas Bloom and 
     Scott Baker and the University of Chicago's Steven Davis, 
     have done invaluable work measuring the level of policy 
     uncertainty over the past few decades. Their research 
     (available at policyuncertainty.com) shows that, on average, 
     U.S. economic policy uncertainty has been 50% higher in the 
     past two years than it has been since 1985.
       Based on that research, our economists at Vanguard isolated 
     changes in the U.S. economy that we determined were 
     specifically due to increases in policy uncertainty, such as 
     the debt-ceiling debacle in August 2011, the congressional 
     supercommittee failure in November 2011, and the fiscal-cliff 
     crisis at the end of 2012. This gave us a picture of what the 
     economy might look like if the shocks from policy uncertainty 
     had not occurred.
       We estimate that since 2011 the rise in overall policy 
     uncertainty has created a $261 billion cumulative drag on the 
     economy (the equivalent of more than $800 per person in the 
     country). Without this uncertainty tax, real U.S. GDP could 
     have grown an average 3% per year since 2011, instead of the 
     recorded 2% average in fiscal years 2011-12. In

[[Page S6583]]

     addition, the U.S. labor market would have added roughly 
     45,000 more jobs per month over the past two years. That adds 
     up to more than one million jobs that we could have had by 
     now, but don't.
       At Vanguard we estimate that the spike in policy 
     uncertainty surrounding the debt-ceiling debate alone has 
     resulted in a cumulative economic loss of $112 billion over 
     the past two years. To put that figure in perspective, the 
     Congressional Budget Office estimates that sequestration may 
     reduce total funding by $85 billion in 2013. Clearly, the 
     U.S. debt situation is the economic issue of our generation.
       But it's not just about the numbers. Every time lawmakers 
     seemingly get close to a deal that will restore fiscal 
     responsibility but instead fail, we at Vanguard hear the 
     concerns of investors. They ask: How does this affect my 
     retirement fund? What about my college savings account? How 
     does this affect my taxes? Would I be better off putting my 
     savings under the mattress?
       Investor anxiety is a critical component in all of this. 
     We'd be foolish to take comfort in the strength of recent 
     stock-market performance. Until the U.S. debt issue is 
     resolved for the long term, market gains and losses will be 
     built on an unstable foundation of promises that cannot be 
     kept.
       Developing a credible, long-term solution to the country's 
     staggering debt is the biggest collective challenge right 
     now. It should be America's biggest collective priority, too. 
     Any comprehensive deficit reduction must take on the 
     imbalance between revenues and expenditures as a share of 
     GDP. That means entitlement reforms, spending reductions and 
     additional tax revenues.
       This does not have to be about European-style ``instant 
     austerity.'' Because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve 
     currency, America doesn't have to balance the budget 
     tomorrow.
       The key is to provide clarity to businesses, financial 
     markets and everyday savers and investors. Make no mistake: A 
     comprehensive, long-term, binding plan that brings the budget 
     into balance over a reasonable time frame is essential. If 
     Washington fails to achieve one, the consequences will be 
     harsh.
       The good news is that if reform is enacted, and the costly 
     pall of uncertainty is lifted, the U.S. economy has the 
     potential to bounce back, creating the growth and jobs that 
     are so badly needed. I am confident that our leaders in 
     Washington can make it happen.

  Mr. CASEY. I will not read the article, but I was certainly struck by 
it. Obviously, the author talks about this problem of uncertainty and 
what it causes. In support of his op-ed he mentioned the work done by 
two economists in measuring and calculating the cost of this 
uncertainty.
  Here is what they concluded just as it relates to the uncertainty 
that results from a debt ceiling battle:

       At Vanguard we estimate that the spike in policy 
     uncertainty surrounding the debt-ceiling debate alone has 
     resulted in a cumulative economic loss of $112 billion over 
     the past two years.

  This is what Bill McNabb, who is someone who knows something about 
markets and related issues, said in April of this year.
  So there is a 2-year impact of $112 billion because of a politically 
motivated and manufactured crisis, because some people want to make a 
political statement about the debt ceiling, which puts the economy at 
risk. I hope that some folks come to their senses because we can have 
and should have debates about reducing spending in a bipartisan 
fashion, how to reduce spending the way a business does, how to reduce 
spending the way a family does. But does it make any sense to do this 
kind of high-wire act? This is very dangerous for the economy.
  This isn't theoretical. We had a dry run, unfortunately. We had a 
rehearsal of this in 2011. We didn't go over the line, we didn't 
default, but we came very close. We came within days of defaulting. 
Getting close to that alone had an adverse impact on the economy.
  So to say this is fiscally reckless is a vast understatement. I don't 
know how to express it beyond saying that. To say that it is dangerous 
for the economy, for jobs, for families, for the middle class, for 
companies all over the country; to say that to default on our 
obligations or coming close to that--playing with fire, in a sense--to 
say that is dangerous is an understatement.
  Here is what we should do: We should stop the games and the fiscal 
high-wire act, and we should focus on what middle-class families want.
  When I go home to Pennsylvania, they say to me in a couple of short 
words what they want me to do: Work together to create jobs. Work 
together to create the conditions for growth, whether that is tax 
credits or tax policy, whether it is efforts to jump-start the economy.
  One of the more depressing charts I have seen in 6 months or maybe 
even 6 years is a chart that was in the New York Times called ``A 
Shifting Economic Tide,'' dated July 25, 2013. It depicts the change in 
income from 1995. There is a long line going up and down with spikes 
and then the line going down. But the two most relevant numbers here 
are the comparison between the top 1 percent during the recession and 
then in the recovery. The top 1 percent got hit pretty hard, as a lot 
of people did. Even the very wealthy got hit. They lost a little more 
than 36 percent of their real income. But in the recovery, even though 
they lost 36 percent, they are up plus-11 in the recovery. So they went 
down by 36, but they are up plus-11. So they are still not back yet.
  But what happened to the bottom 90 percent--not the top 1 percent, 
but what happened to the bottom 90 percent in the recession and 
recovery? According to this chart, the bottom 90 percent lost 12 
percent of their real income, but they are still at minus 1.5. They 
haven't even gotten to zero. They haven't even gotten to positive 
territory yet when you compare their real income in the recession and 
the hit they took and where they are today.
  So what does that mean for us? It means that both parties have a lot 
of work to do. It means that both parties should be working together to 
create more jobs and create more economic certainty instead of playing 
this game, which is dangerous, fiscally reckless for sure, and very 
damaging to the economy and even the morale of the country. They want 
us to work together. They don't want us to play a games like some want 
to play here.
  I appreciate the fact that we are having a debate about the 
Affordable Care Act. It is very important to have that debate and make 
sure we get the implementation right. But we should not be using the 
Affordable Care Act as a political weapon in these debates about our 
fiscal policy. I believe we can do that in a rational way as long as 
people are willing to set aside their political ideology for a short 
period of time so we can resolve some of these issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending parliamentary 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 1392 is pending.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Are there any amendments that need to be set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, there are not.


                           Navy Yard Tragedy

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to speak from the heart--a 
heavy heart--because six Marylanders died at the Navy Yard on Monday.
  I join with all Americans in expressing my deepest condolences to all 
of the families of those killed and injured in the Navy Yard shooting, 
and I particularly express my condolences to the Maryland families.
  I also thank our first responders, including the local and Federal 
law enforcement officers who were first to arrive at the scene and took 
control of this terrible, horrific situation. I thank the doctors and 
all the support staff at MedStar trauma center who worked so hard to 
help the injured and saved lives that day and every one of those who 
played such an important role in responding to that emergency.
  My heart goes out to the victims and the families and to everyone who 
is mourning the loss of the men and women who died there. This has 
deeply affected those of us in Maryland, as it has those in nearby 
Virginia and the District of Columbia. But for us in Maryland, this is 
whom we mourn, a cluster of people, the dead, the shooting victims. 
This is Maryland and Virginia--hands across the Potomac--and we just 
can't believe it.
  We think of Kenneth Bernard Proctor. He was 46 years old. He was a 
civilian utilities foreman at the Navy Yard. He worked for the Federal 
Government for 20 years. He lived in Charles County and married his 
high school sweetheart in 1994. They have two boys, now teenagers. He 
loved his sons and the Redskins.
  Then there was Sylvia Frasier, who was 52 years old. She was a 
resident of Maryland and one of seven children. She studied computer 
information systems at Strayer College. She received

[[Page S6584]]

an undergraduate and her master's degree in computer information 
systems. She worked hard to get her education, and she wanted her 
education to work hard for America. She had worked at the Navy Sea 
Systems Command since 2000, and she worked a few nights a week at 
Walmart as a customer service manager, helping her family, paying off 
student debt. Sylvia really was a remarkable person.
  Then there is Frank Kohler. He was 50 years old. He lived in a 
community called Tall Timbers, MD. And we certainly say that Frank was 
a tall timber when it came to working for his country. He too was a 
computer specialist. He worked as a contractor for Lockheed Martin. He 
was a graduate of Pennsylvania's Slippery Rock College, where he met 
his wife Michelle. He was president of the Rotary Club and was honored 
for his Rotary Club work. Down in southern Maryland, in St. Mary's 
County, they have an oyster festival that is coming up. He held the 
title ``King Oyster'' for his community service and organizing the 
Rotary Club's annual festival to raise money for the much needed Rotary 
Club Challengers. He was a great family man and loved by many.
  There is John Roger Johnson, who was a civilian employee for the Navy 
who lived in Derwood, MD, for more than 30 years. He was the father of 
four daughters and a loving grandfather. His 11th grandchild is due in 
November. Like so many who live in our community, he loved the 
Redskins. His neighbors described him as smart, always had a smile, and 
was always there for his neighbors.
  Then there is Vishnu Pandit, who was 61 years old. He came from India 
in his early twenties. He lived with his wife Anjali in North Potomac, 
MD. He was the father of two sons. He was well liked in his community 
and was known for helping people and particularly those who are part of 
the Indian heritage community in Maryland. He was known for talking 
about job opportunities, educational opportunities, and was a strong 
advocate for them. He was proud of his heritage from his mother 
country, but he was proud of being a citizen of the United States of 
America.
  Richard Michael Ridgell, 52 years old, was a father of three. This 
guy, though, was a Ravens fan. When the Ravens came into Baltimore at 
No. 1, he bought season tickets and has owned them for the last 17 
years. He grew up in a community called Brooklyn, MD, but settled in 
Carroll County in Westminster. He was a Maryland State trooper before 
he came to work in Federal service, a brave guy, and someone who really 
liked to protect and defend people in many ways.
  Those are six of the 13 who died, and there are those who are 
recovering. It is just a heavy heart we have. In the wake of yet 
another senseless tragedy and mass casualties, I hope we do take action 
to end this kind of senseless act of violence that takes innocent lives 
in our communities. I hope we do something about it.
  There are those who are calling for renewed background checks, and I 
support that, and renewed efforts to get guns out of the hands of 
dangerous people, and I support that. But there are also people who 
suffer from mental illness. This case is currently under investigation, 
so I am not going to comment on the person we know did this horrific 
act and the struggles he had with the demons inside of him. I just know 
we have to come to grips with problems. Yes, background checks are one 
thing, but really--and this is where I truly agree with the NRA--we 
have to do something about mental illness and early detection and early 
treatment.
  We mourn for those whose lives were lost on Monday. We mourn for 
their families. And we hope now that out of this something positive 
grows. But I want to say to their families that today is not really the 
day to talk about public policy. The men and women who were at that 
Navy Yard were Federal employees. They worked hard every single day. 
They were proud to work for the U.S. Government. They were proud to do 
everything from IT service to security service. Some had master's 
degrees, some had a high school education. Whatever their education, 
whatever ZIP Code they came from, they really served one Nation and one 
flag.
  I acknowledge their tremendous service to this country. I also 
acknowledge the wonderful way they were involved with their families 
and their communities. And on behalf of all of Maryland, I know Senator 
Cardin and I express our deepest gratitude to them for their lives and 
express our heartfelt sympathy and condolences.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for 
her beautiful remarks on behalf of her constituents and their families. 
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families. I also thank her for 
her thoughts on some of the policy ramifications that come out of the 
terrible tragedy. I know the Senator stands by those families as she 
has stood by so many military families in the State of Maryland.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brown follow me after my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013. I believe the 
beneficial role that energy efficiency improvements can have for 
consumers and also for industrial competitiveness often gets overlooked 
in today's debate about energy policy. When I travel around my State I 
am always hearing from businesses and manufacturers about the 
importance of keeping energy affordable. That is why it is so important 
we are having this debate and that we are looking at taking real steps 
on meaningful energy legislation.

  This legislation will help consumers save money on their utility 
bills and help our businesses be more competitive. Minnesota has long 
been an example of leadership in energy policy, with the 25 by 25 
renewable energy standard. Our largest energy provider, Xcel Energy, 
agreed to a 30-percent standard by 2020. So we have been one of the 
leading States in a bipartisan way. This bill was signed by Governor 
Pawlenty, then-Governor Pawlenty, with strong bipartisan support in our 
State legislature. I would say it was also as a result of other things, 
but I would say it certainly has not hurt our economy. We have one of 
the lowest unemployment rates. We are at 5.2 percent. It came out today 
the Twin Cities had its biggest year in the last year of any year in 
terms of economic gain.
  Minnesota is also leading the way with a 1.5-percent energy 
efficiency standard. Each year our utilities work with consumers and 
businesses to find ways to save energy and reduce waste from energy 
efficiency improvements, much like those contained in the Shaheen-
Portman bill.
  I believe we need an ``all of the above'' plan to get serious about 
building a new energy agenda for Minnesota, a plan that helps 
businesses compete in the global economy, preserves our environment, 
and restarts the engine that has always kept our economy going forward; 
that is the energy of innovation.
  Although Senators may differ on the specific details of an ``all of 
the above'' energy plan, I believe we can find broad agreement that 
energy efficiency, as we see in this bill, must be a part of any plan. 
Senators Shaheen and Portman have produced a very good bill that I 
strongly support, but I also know there are many good ideas, many of 
them bipartisan, that promote energy efficiency, and I thank them for 
the opportunity to build on their legislation to boost energy 
efficiency.
  One goal that I share with my friend and colleague from North Dakota 
Senator Hoeven was to find new opportunities to engage the nonprofit 
community in making energy efficiency improvements.
  I spoke briefly on the Senate floor earlier in the week about this 
important issue. When faced with the choice, nonprofits including 
hospitals, schools, faith based organizations and youth centers often 
make the decision to delay or forgo improvements in energy efficiency 
to help stretch budgets and serve more people.
  But we know investing in energy efficiency improvements today can 
lead to savings over time that go beyond the cost of the initial 
investment. So it is a difficult question. Should we do a little less 
for a year or two so that upgrades can be made to our heating system so 
that we can use the long term

[[Page S6585]]

savings to protect our ability to serve well into the future?
  That is why I introduced the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act as an 
amendment with Senator Hoeven, and we have the support of Senators 
Blunt, Pryor, Risch, Schatz, and Stabenow.
  Our amendment, which is fully offset, would provide $10 million each 
year for the next 5 years to create a pilot grant program so that non-
profits can save through energy efficiency. We worked with stakeholders 
to ensure that grants will achieve significant amounts of energy 
savings and are done in a cost effective manner. The grants would 
require a 50 percent match so that there is complete buy in from the 
nonprofits, and grants would also be capped at $200,000.
  Our amendment has the support of National Council of Churches, the 
YMCA of the USA, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support for the 
Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act be included in the Record.
  I again thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski as well as 
Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for their tireless efforts to move 
this important legislation forward.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, the 
Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act, and also support the underlying 
Shaheen-Portman legislation.
  I want to raise another important energy issue that I have worked on 
this year that impacts nearly every family, business, and industry in 
America--and that is the price of gasoline.
  This past May in Minnesota in just one week we saw gas prices spike 
40 cents higher per gallon and over 80 cents higher over the course of 
one month.
  We know that this sharp spike in prices was caused when a number of 
refineries that serve Minnesota and the region went offline for both 
scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, in part to prepare for summer 
fuel blends.
  I understand the need to adjust for seasonal gasoline blends and 
perform upgrades to protect worker safety and make necessary repairs. 
But scheduled, routine maintenance should not be an excuse for major 
gasoline shortages and steep price spikes.
  Gas prices in Minnesota have subsided after setting records this 
spring of over $4.25 a gallon, but we know refinery outages will 
continue to have significant impacts, disrupting commerce and hurting 
consumers, small businesses and farmers if we do not act.
  That is why I introduced the Gas Price and Refine Capacity Relief Act 
of 2013 with Senators Hoeven, Franken, and Durbin. Our bill requires 
refineries give advance warning of any planned outage and immediate 
notification for any unplanned outage.
  This information would serve as an early warning system and protect 
consumers from paying the price at the pump when there are production 
problems within the refining industry. With more transparency--and more 
lead time--fuel retailers will have the opportunity to purchase fuel at 
prices that better reflect the underlying costs of crude oil and better 
reflect supply and demand across the country.
  When we had this recent increase you couldn't explain it by supply 
and demand. We had ample supplies. Demand was down. The only reason we 
could find, besides perhaps speculation, was these refineries that had 
planned closures. What we are trying to do is create an early warning 
system and I appreciate the bipartisan support for this bill.
  The bill would also require the Secretary of Energy look at the 
potential for additional refined fuel storage capacity in our region. 
Minnesota has less storage capacity for refined products than other 
parts of the country and that makes us more vulnerable to the kinds of 
refinery outages we've experienced this year--both planned and 
unplanned--that led to dramatic spikes in the price of gas.
  I thank Chairman Wyden for holding a hearing on this issue in July. 
Although this amendment will not come up for a vote as a part of the 
bill being considered by the Senate, I look forward to continue working 
on this issue so we can prevent another unnecessary spike in gas prices 
like we saw in Minnesota this spring.
  Most people wouldn't tie the last issue I wish to discuss today to 
energy policy. But just ask any power company or construction crew 
across the country, or even operators of ice skating rinks in Minnesota 
and you would quickly learn about the growing national problem of metal 
theft and it must be addressed.
  I have filed my bipartisan bill, the Metal Theft Prevention Act, to 
the energy efficiency bill to bring attention to metal theft. I 
introduced it last February with Senators Hoeven, Schumer, Graham, and 
Coons.
  The bill is the much-needed Federal response to the increasingly 
pervasive and damaging crime of metal theft.
  Metal theft has jumped more than 80 percent in recent years, hurting 
businesses and threatening public safety in communities throughout the 
country. Metal theft is a major threat to American businesses, 
especially to power companies. In a recent study, the U.S. Department 
of Energy found that the total value of damages to industries affected 
by the theft of copper wire is approximately $1 billion each year.
  Across the country, copper thieves have targeted construction sites, 
power and phone lines, retail stores, and vacant houses. They've caused 
explosions in vacant buildings by stealing metal from gas lines, and 
they've caused blackouts by stealing copper wiring from streetlights 
and electrical substations. Thieves are even taking brass stars from 
our veterans' graves. On Memorial Day in 2012, thieves stole more than 
200 bronze star markers from veterans' graves in Minnesota.
  In another case that shows just how dangerous metal theft can be, 
Georgia Power was having a huge problem with thieves targeting a 
substation that feeds the entire Atlanta-Hartsfield International 
Airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. The airport was 
getting hit 2 to 3 times a week and surveillance didn't lead to any 
arrests.
  Last winter, at a recreation center in St. Paul thieves stole $20,000 
worth of pipe from the outdoor ice rink, causing the center to close 
until local businesses donated labor and materials to make the repairs.
  This rise in incidents of metal theft across the country underscores 
the critical need for Federal action to crack down on metal thieves, 
put them behind bars and make it more difficult for them to sell their 
stolen goods.
  Our Metal Theft Prevention Act will help combat this growing problem 
by putting modest record-keeping requirements onto the recyclers who 
buy scrap metal . . . limiting the value of cash transactions . . . and 
requiring sellers in certain cases prove they actually own the metal . 
. . The amendment also makes it a Federal crime to steal metal from 
critical infrastructure and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to 
review relevant penalties.
  This amendment respects State law. Our intention is not to preempt 
State laws, so if a State already has laws on the books regarding metal 
theft, they would not apply the Federal law.
  I realize that the majority of cases will likely continue to be 
handled by State and local law authorities, but the Federal government 
needs to be a strong partner, and the Metal Theft Prevention Act will 
send the clear message that metal theft is a serious crime.
  The Metal Theft Prevention Act has been endorsed by the National 
Rural Electrical Cooperatives, American Public Power Association, APPA, 
American Supply, Edison Electric Institute, National Electrical 
Contractors Association, National Association of Home Builders, 
National Retail Federation, U.S. Telecom Association, and about a dozen 
other businesses and organizations.
  It also has the support of the major law enforcement organizations--
Major Cities Police Chiefs, Major County Sheriffs, National Sheriffs, 
Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police 
Organizations. I would love to just bring this bill to the Senate after 
I have gotten it through the committee already in Judiciary, 
unanimously, but there are people still holding it up.
  The Metal Theft Prevention Act will not come to a vote in relation to 
the bill currently pending before the Senate, but it must be a 
priority. We need to do everything we can to protect our critical 
energy industry infrastructure from unscrupulous metal thieves. And,

[[Page S6586]]

I hope my colleagues will support the Metal Theft Prevention Act as 
well when it does come before the full Senate.
  Again, I commend Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman on their 
legislation to encourage energy efficiency. The bill would save 
consumers and taxpayers money through reduced energy consumption, help 
create jobs, make our country more energy independent, and reduce 
harmful emissions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 17, 2013.
     Senator Amy Klobuchar, 
     Senator John Hoeven,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators, We write to you on behalf of our 
     organizations, to express our strong support for a bipartisan 
     amendment (#1940) you have sponsored toward the Energy 
     Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S.1392; sponsored 
     by Senators Shaheen and Portman and supported by ENR 
     Committee Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski.
       Amendment 1940 will create a pilot grants program in the 
     Department of Energy to award limited, but impactful, 
     matching grants to nonprofit organizations to make their 
     buildings more energy efficient. It authorizes $10 million 
     per year for the next 5 fiscal years (importantly the funding 
     is fully offset by reallocating other DoE spending). The 
     pilot program will provide grants of up to 50% of a 
     nonprofit's building energy efficiency project, with a 
     maximum grant of $200,000.
       Such a program is much needed. According to the U.S. 
     E.P.A., nonresidential buildings in the U.S. consume more 
     than $200 billion annually in energy costs. The United States 
     is also home to 4000 Boys & Girls Clubs, 2700 YMCAs, 2900 
     nonprofit hospitals and more than 17,000 museums. These 
     buildings also account for a significant portion of annual 
     greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the energy efficiency 
     incentive or support programs that have been in place the 
     past several years have been structured in the form of tax 
     credits and rebates. Nonprofits--being tax exempt entities--
     have not been able to take advantage of these programs. 
     Moreover, nonprofit entities are often least able to surmount 
     the ``front end'' investment cost of efficiency retrofits.
       The Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, based upon S.717, received 
     consideration in the Senate Energy Subcommittee earlier this 
     year. It is good public policy that enjoys bipartisan support 
     and the support of a broad coalition of nonprofit 
     organizations. We urge you to support Amdt. 1940's inclusion 
     in the Shaheen Portman legislation.
           Thank you,
       Association of American Museum Directors, The Baha'is of 
     the United States, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 
     Friends Cmte. on Nat'l Legislation (Quakers), Gen'l Conf. of 
     Seventh Day Adventists, Jewish Federations of North America, 
     National Council of Churches, Sojourners, Union of Orthodox 
     Jewish Congregations, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
     YMCA of the U.S.A.
                                  ____

                                               September 12, 2013.
       Dear Senator: The YMCA of the USA is the national resource 
     office for the 2,700 YMCAs in the U.S. The nation's YMCAs 
     engage 21 million men, women and children--of all ages, 
     incomes and backgrounds--with a focus on strengthening 
     communities in youth development, healthy living, and social 
     responsibility. YMCAs are led by volunteer boards and depend 
     upon the dedication of their 550,000 volunteers for support 
     and strategic guidance in meeting the needs of their 
     communities.
       We are writing to express our support for an amendment, 
     #1856, sponsored by Senators Klobuchar and Hoeven, to the 
     Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, S. 1392.
       The amendment creates a pilot grants program in the 
     Department of Energy that awards limited, but important, 
     matching grants to nonprofit organizations to make their 
     buildings more energy efficient. It authorizes $10 million 
     per year for the next five fiscal years and is fully offset 
     by reallocating other DOE spending.
       The U.S. EPA has found that nonresidential buildings 
     consume more than $200 billion in energy costs. Many of the 
     energy efficiency programs are structured as tax credits and 
     rebates. Because nonprofits are tax exempt organizations they 
     have not been able to take advantage of these programs. In 
     addition, many nonprofits don't have the financial resources 
     to invest in energy efficient retrofits. This amendment would 
     help nonprofits significantly cut energy costs.
       The Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment is sound public policy and 
     has both bipartisan support and broad support among nonprofit 
     organizations. Please support including this amendment in S. 
     1392, the Shaheen, Portman legislation.
           Thank you,
     Neal Denton,
       Senior Vice President and Chief Government Affairs Officer, 
     YMCA of the USA.
                                  ____

                                            The Jewish Federations


                                             of North America,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 2013.
       Dear Senator: It is our understanding that the Senate will 
     commence consideration this afternoon of the Energy Savings 
     and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013 (S. 1392). In this 
     regard, we wanted to share with you our strong support for 
     Amendment Number 1856 filed by Senators Klobuchar and Hoeven.
       This amendment would establish an energy efficiency pilot 
     program for nonprofit institutions. The Jewish Federations of 
     North America, one of North America's oldest, largest and 
     longest-serving health and social services network supports 
     this amendment for the following reasons:
       --JFNA has a long history of public private partnerships 
     and working with Congress to promote innovations and 
     efficiencies in nonprofit human services delivery. As such, 
     we endorse the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment as a timely and 
     necessary pilot program to assist nonprofits to become more 
     energy efficient and environmentally responsible.
       --JFNA is comprised of 153 Jewish Federations and 300 
     independent Jewish communities. Within our umbrella, we 
     support and operate thousands of agencies (i.e., schools, 
     community centers, hospitals, health centers, day care 
     facilities, museums, and more) that serve millions of 
     individuals and families within most major population centers 
     across the country. Many of our institutions are several 
     decades old--some were built more than a century ago. The 
     need for these institutions to upgrade and retrofit 
     antiquated and unreliable operating systems is great.
       --As nonprofits, we know only too well the importance of 
     creating energy efficiencies to our bottom line--to ensure 
     that we maximize the use of philanthropic dollars to best 
     serve the most vulnerable populations and to maintain healthy 
     and vibrant communities across the country. We also know the 
     power and opportunity that is created through 
     congressionally-derived pilot projects. They help to shed 
     needed light on issues of importance to the country. They 
     help to galvanize support for needed public policy shifts. 
     They help to bolster and promote positive change within the 
     nonprofit sector. In this regard, Amendment Number 1856 would 
     provide an important catalyst for energy improvements and 
     modernization within the nonprofit sector.
       Comprehensive energy efficiency reform cannot succeed 
     without Congress also addressing the issues facing the 
     nonprofit sector. With your support, Senate adoption of 
     Klobuchar-Hoeven Amendment 1856 would be a needed bi-partisan 
     improvement to S. 1392.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert B. Goldberg,
     Senior Director, Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

                                          United States Conference


                                          of Catholic Bishops,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 2013.
     Senator Amy Klobuchar,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Senator John Hoeven,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hoeven: I write in 
     support for your amendment (#1856) to the Energy Savings and 
     Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 1392). This amendment 
     reflects the policy of your bill, S. 717, The Nonprofit 
     Energy Efficiency Act, which was endorsed by our Committee on 
     Domestic Justice and Human Development.
       As our committee chair noted back in June, this amendment 
     would ``establish a pilot program at the U.S. Department of 
     Energy to provide grants to non-profit organizations to help 
     make the buildings they own and operate more energy 
     efficient.''
       I would like to thank both of you for championing 
     innovation in energy policy and ask that your colleagues 
     support your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jayd Henricks,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                         Art Museum Directors,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2013.
     Hon. Amy Klobuchar,
     Hon. John Hoeven,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Klobuchar and Hoeven, On behalf of the 
     Association of Art Museum Directors, its members and board of 
     trustees, I write to express our strong support for the 
     bipartisan amendment (#1856) that you have sponsored to the 
     Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S.1392), 
     which would create a pilot grants program in the Department 
     of Energy to award limited, but impactful, matching grants to 
     nonprofit organizations to make their buildings more energy-
     efficient.
       Many of the energy efficiency incentive or support programs 
     that have been in place the past several years have been 
     structured in the form of tax credits and rebates. As 
     nonprofits we have not been able to take advantage of these 
     programs. Your amendment would give museums, schools, houses 
     of worship and other nonprofit institutions the opportunity 
     to make our systems more energy-efficient and thereby allow 
     us to reduce our energy costs. In our case, the cost savings 
     will go into programs that museums offer to the public.
       The grants program would be particularly useful to the 
     museum field, because many of our institutions are in large 
     buildings that are many decades old and were not designed to 
     modern efficiency standards.

[[Page S6587]]

       Thank you for your leadership on this important piece of 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Christine Anagnos,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Health Policy

  Mr. BROWN. I thank the senior Senator from Minnesota for her words 
and especially work on this bill and the consumer issues. She has made 
a real name in this body for her work.
  I rise today to discuss the most significant reform of our Nation's 
health policy in decades. The Affordable Care Act is a result of 
extensive policy discussions, late-night deliberations, 400 amendments 
that we considered in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension 
Committee, more than 100 of those amendments that we adopted coming 
from Republican ideas and Republican Senators. There is a reason that 
people across the country, mothers and fathers and students and faith 
leaders and business owners and workers, are paying attention. It is 
because the law benefits all Americans, a wide range of Americans and 
especially in my home State, which I will discuss.
  More than 900,000 people in Ohio will be eligible for financial 
assistance to buy insurance that provides good coverage at a price they 
can afford. Ohioans suffering from preexisting conditions will no 
longer be denied coverage or charged higher premiums. Young Ohioans 
stay on their parents' plan until the age of 26, giving them a chance 
to finish school and secure a job that provides coverage.
  Those with the greatest need will get the greatest help. For years we 
have heard countless stories, story after story of Americans frustrated 
by and failed by our health system. Last fall my wife Connie was 
waiting in line at the local drugstore in an affluent community outside 
of Cleveland. The woman in front of her was, for all intents and 
purposes, negotiating price with the pharmacist to save money. ``What 
if I cut my pill in half and then take it twice a day,'' she asked. The 
very understanding pharmacist wanted her to take her full medication 
twice a day.
  ``But isn't it better, since I can't afford this, to take half a pill 
twice a day than the whole pill just once,'' she asked.
  After the woman left my wife asked how often does this happen? The 
pharmacist answered, ``Every day, every day all day.''
  The tide is turning. I hear from constituents at roundtables, in 
restaurants, in letters and tweets and e-mails about their concerns for 
their family's health. A woman in Cuyahoga Falls, a community near 
Akron, explained to me she recently graduated law school. She is a type 
1 diabetic. Without the health care law she would have been paying out 
of pocket for extremely costly lifesaving medication because she could 
not afford it on her own.
  I can imagine, she said, there are many Ohioans like me, working hard 
for my future but finding myself in a tough demanding spot while still 
needing to care for my health needs. Health care enrollment marks a 
milestone for millions of Ohioans, including myself. Twenty years ago I 
was running for Congress and made a promise in 1992 that I would not 
accept congressional health care; I would pay my own health insurance, 
until similar coverage was available to all Americans. I did that for 
well over a decade. I can now say I will be enrolling in the health 
care marketplace, alongside hundreds of thousands of people from 
Ohio. While millions will be able to enroll in benefits beginning in 
less than 2 weeks, the health care law has already provided measurable 
benefits.

  I wish to share how Ohioans are already helped by provisions in this 
law signed by the President 3 years ago. There are 97,000 young adults 
who are now able to stay on their parents' health insurance until their 
26th birthday. We are closing the doughnut hole. The Senator from 
Pennsylvania mentioned what that means for his State. There are similar 
numbers in Ohio. Closing the doughnut hole for seniors' prescription 
drugs saves Ohioans an average of $774 a year on medication benefits.
  There are 6,300 Ohioans who receive rebates from their insurance 
companies because those companies failed to follow the new Federal law 
that required them to spend at least 80 to 85 percent--depending on the 
kind of insurance--of their premium dollars on health care. In other 
words, if these companies spend more than 15 percent of your dollar 
that you pay to these insurance companies on marketing, executive 
salaries, and various kinds of administrative expenses, they owe you 
money back because not a high enough percent--85 percent--of your 
health care dollar was spent on health care itself.
  There are 900,000 Ohioans who have received free preventive care, 
with no copays and no deductibles. Seniors have been tested for 
osteoporosis, diabetes, and all the other kinds of screenings that 
seniors should get.
  Children are no longer denied coverage for preexisting conditions. My 
wife was diagnosed with asthma at a young age--way before I knew her. 
She might have been denied coverage today. She, and young people like 
her at that stage in their life, cannot be denied coverage for 
preexisting conditions such as asthma, diabetes, cancer or whatever 
they might have.
  Soon all Ohioans will have access to quality, affordable health care. 
In 2014, we will see all aspects of this health care law fully 
implemented, which will make a huge difference for business--especially 
small businesses--families, and communities.
  From Ashtabula to Athens, from Bryan to Bellaire, from Mansfield to 
Middletown, middle-class families across Ohio have been in the horrible 
position of paying monthly premiums only to find they were stripped of 
coverage or that the coverage was so minimal as to be useless when they 
became sick. That worry will no longer exist.
  For students at Ohio State or Wooster, Youngstown State or Xavier, 
the choice between paying for another semester at school or health 
insurance will not be the concern it has been for so many years. For 
Ohioans from Cleveland to Cincinnati already covered, they can keep 
their current plan without lifting a finger. The only change they will 
see are new benefits, better protections, and more bang for their buck. 
For millions in my State, the new law will mean less worry, less 
anxiety, and more money in their wallets.
  For some Americans, the health insurance marketplace will lower 
premiums at least 10 percent more than previously expected. Work needs 
to be done. The system is not perfect, but this law is already bringing 
our health care into the future. It is a forward-looking law. I have 
been proud to support it.
  On October 1, frustrations, worry, and failed health care protections 
will soon become a thing of the past for millions in my State and tens 
of millions around the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes in 
support of the bill currently before the Senate, S. 1392, the Energy 
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013.
  It has taken a long time for this bipartisan legislation to make it 
to the floor of the Senate, and I commend Senators Shaheen and Portman, 
as well as Senators Wyden and Murkowski, and all of their staffs for 
their hard work.
  Energy efficiency doesn't grab headlines in the same way as fracking 
or nuclear reactors or even renewable energy policies for wind and 
solar, but this bill is good, solid policy that will shrink energy 
bills for families and businesses. It is exactly the kind of 
legislation the Senate should be working on, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  This bill strengthens and updates the voluntary building codes States 
and tribes can adopt in order to determine and meet targets for energy 
efficiency and continues to strengthen the Federal Government's efforts 
to reduce energy use.
  As the Nation's largest energy consumer, the Federal Government can 
play a significant role in helping to provide a market for innovation 
in energy-efficient technologies and in turn

[[Page S6588]]

reduce our Nation's CO2 emissions while also saving 
taxpayers money. This is the kind of policy everyone should be able to 
agree to. The bill also provides resources to train workers on energy-
efficient building design and operation, a crucial component of making 
sure advances in energy efficiency translate into real, well-paying 
jobs. In addition, the bill provides incentives for more energy-
efficient manufacturing and the development and deployment of new 
technologies.
  Finally, the bill would establish a Supply Star Program which will 
help provide support to companies looking to improve the efficiency of 
their supply chains. This program could be particularly helpful to 
Hawaii, where transportation of goods from the mainland and other 
places can be very costly.
  While individually these provisions may sound like modest proposals 
or changes, when taken together, the policies in this bill make 
significant progress toward reducing energy costs. That is good for 
consumers and businesses, driving innovation, reducing environmental 
harm, and positioning the United States as a leader in clean energy 
technology and jobs.
  It goes without saying that the cost of energy is an important 
consideration for families and businesses across our country. When 
energy costs go up, they can be a drag on the economy. We see this very 
clearly in Hawaii, where we are uniquely impacted by the price of oil.
  In 2011, Hawaii's energy expenditures totaled $7.6 billion--almost 
equal to 11 percent of our entire State economy. In addition, no other 
State uses oil to generate electricity to the extent we do in Hawaii. 
As a result, we have electricity prices that average 34 cents per 
kilowatt hour. That is over three times the price on the mainland.
  Moreover, 96 percent of the money we spend on energy leaves our 
islands to buy oil from places outside of Hawaii. That is money that 
could be better used to create jobs, bolster paychecks or to make 
investments in Hawaii's future.
  Obviously, our State's energy security and economic potential is 
severely undermined by a reliance on fossil fuels. While breaking that 
reliance is a challenge, it is also an opportunity. Hawaii has set some 
of the Nation's most aggressive goals for generating renewable energy 
and improving energy efficiency. We are working to show that renewable 
energy and energy efficiency technologies are not just good for the 
environment, they can be an engine for economic growth and innovation. 
That is what makes the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 
Act such an important bill. At its core, this legislation is about 
updating Federal energy efficiency policies to better meet the needs of 
today's marketplace.
  For example, updating voluntary building codes will give States and 
tribes the opportunity to reduce their energy use while also giving the 
private sector signals that there will be demand for innovation. The 
use of energy savings performance contracts is an example. Energy 
savings performance contracts are private agreements that make energy 
and water efficiency retrofits more affordable. A third-party company 
covers the cost of the upgrade, and it is repaid over time from the 
resulting savings in energy costs.
  Thanks to the State of Hawaii's commitment to improving energy 
efficiency, Hawaii is the Nation's No. 1 user of energy savings 
performance contracts. In fact, just a few weeks ago the State of 
Hawaii was awarded the Energy Services Coalition's Race to the Top 
Award which recognizes the State's commitment to pursuing energy 
savings through performance contracting. This is the second year in a 
row that Hawaii has won this award.
  These are the types of innovative financing models and partnerships 
that can happen when there is clear, sustained demand for improving 
energy efficiency.
  Another aspect to keep in mind is that even something as unglamorous 
sounding as improving building codes or advancing energy-efficient 
construction techniques can have a profound impact on the lives of 
families across the country.
  In 2011, Hawaii's first net-zero affordable housing community of 
Kaupuni Village opened on Oahu. The 19 single-family homes and 
community center at Kaupuni Village were constructed to maximize energy 
efficiency and use renewables to achieve net-zero energy performance. 
The development has earned a LEED Platinum status. Each home in the 
community was designed with optimal building envelope design, high-
efficiency lighting, natural ventilation, solar water heating, and 
ENERGY STAR appliances.
  Kaupuni Village also provides affordable homes to Native Hawaiians--a 
population that has faced many challenges in achieving independence, 
home ownership, and economic success. These homes were completed at an 
average cost of less than half the median sales price of homes on Oahu, 
which are some of the Nation's highest home costs.
  Thanks to technical assistance from the National Renewable Energy 
Lab, or NREL, this partisanship between the Department of Hawaiian 
Homelands, Hawaiian Electric Company, the State of Hawaii, and private 
and Federal partners is a model for other communities.
  Homeowners in Kaupuni Village are able to conserve energy and save 
money by optimizing their high-tech homes while also maintaining a 
lifestyle firmly rooted in traditions that go back thousands of years.
  Homeowner Keala Young described her new life at Kaupuni Village by 
saying:

       We grow our own vegetables. We raise our own fresh-water 
     tilapia.
       We are passionate about net-zero living. There is so much 
     pride in our home and our community. We feel we can be an 
     example to others.

  These are the types of stories I imagine every Member of the Senate 
wants to tell in order to help bring about stories of strong 
communities, happy, vibrant families, and new opportunities that create 
a bright future.
  The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act is bipartisan 
legislation that can help to make those stories real for more people in 
Hawaii and across the country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________