[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6620-S6627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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.

  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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again to talk about the urgent 
need, as October 1 approaches, to vote on a ``no Washington exemption 
from ObamaCare'' amendment or bill. Again, this need isn't of my 
creating. I wish it weren't here, but it is because of an illegal rule 
issued by the Obama administration to completely reverse the clear 
language on the subject in ObamaCare.
  I will back up and give a brief history.
  During the ObamaCare debate, a proposal was made by many of us, led 
by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. The proposal was simple: Every 
Member of Congress and all congressional staff should live under the 
most onerous provisions of ObamaCare. Specifically, we should have to 
get our health care from the exchanges where millions of Americans are 
going against their will, having lost in many cases the previous health 
care coverage from employers that they enjoyed.
  So Senator Grassley said that is what Washington should have to live 
with, and there was explicit, specific language put in ObamaCare to 
that point for Congress--that every Member of Congress and all 
congressional staff have to go to the exchange. The intent behind this 
was crystal clear. As the Senator said, ``The more that Congress 
experiences the laws that pass, the better.'' I agree with that. I 
agreed with it then, and I agree with it now.
  Amazingly, that provision got in the final version of ObamaCare. Then 
I guess it was a classic example, if you will, of what Nancy Pelosi 
said: ``We have to pass the law to figure out what is in it.''
  It did pass. Folks around Capitol Hill did figure out what is in it 
with regard to that section and they said: Oh, you know what. We have 
to go to the exchanges. We don't like that. That is going to create 
out-of-pocket expense. We don't like that.
  Immediately, furious lobbying started, continued for some time, and 
sure enough, as a result President Obama personally intervened. He was 
personally involved, and his administration issued a rule on the 
subject right as Congress safely had left town for the August recess. 
That rule said two things, basically. No. 1, it said this official 
congressional staff--we don't know who that is, so every Member of 
Congress will get to decide what staff, if any, under their employment, 
will have to go to the exchange.
  That is ridiculous. I think that is ludicrous on its face. That is 
not what the statute says at all. It says ``all official congressional 
staff'' and every Member of Congress should not be able to decide 
differently, Member by Member, whether anyone at all on their staff has 
to go to the exchange.
  But the second part of this illegal rule is even more interesting. It 
said whoever does go to the exchange, in terms of Members and staff, 
gets to take their very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy from the 
Federal employee health benefits plan with them.
  The ObamaCare statute doesn't say that at all and, in fact, a 
different part of the ObamaCare statute says exactly the opposite. It 
is about employees in general who go to the exchange. It says when an 
employee goes to the exchange he or she loses any previous employer-
provided subsidy. That is section 1512. That is explicit in the 
ObamaCare statute.
  This special rule for Washington is illegal, flatout illegal and 
contrary to the statute in my opinion. But it goes into effect October 
1 and that is why my colleagues and I who support the ``no Washington 
exemption'' language had to take action, had to fight for a vote now. 
We need this debate and vote now, before October 1. That is what it is 
all about.
  As I said, my distinguished colleague from Iowa who authored this 
language could not have been more clear: ``The more that Congress 
experiences the laws it passes, the better.''
  Also, employment lawyers who have looked at the statute agree with me 
that there is no big subsidy we should be able to take with us to the 
exchange. For instance, David Ermer, a lawyer who has represented 
insurers in the Federal employee program for 30 years, said, ``I do not 
think Members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in 
the exchanges under the existing law.'' That was in the New York Times.
  Many other employment lawyers have said the same because it is 
crystal clear from the statute. As National Review Online reported:

       Most employment lawyers interpreted that 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.

  Yes. That is the clear language and the clear legislative history of 
the statute. Yet we have all this hocus-pocus to do exactly the 
opposite, contrary to the law. As the Heritage Foundation 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 law is the responsibility 
of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.
  Also, the Heritage Foundation said:

       Washington's political class and allied big special 
     interest lobbyists are responsible. And until this bad law is 
     fully repealed, the President's team and Congress should 
     submit fully to its multiple and costly requirements, just 
     like everyone else.

  The National Review Online has echoed the same, and they are right:

       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 supervises federal employment issues, to 
     interpret the law so as to retain the generous congressional 
     benefits.

  The Wall Street Journal opined:

       . . . 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.

  This is why we are here at this moment and this is why it is so 
important and necessary to have this debate and this vote now. I am 
very happy that at least some of my colleagues have properly recognized 
that, and that includes the distinguished majority floor manager of 
this bill, and have agreed in principle to this vote. The distinguished 
majority leader Senator Reid has agreed in principle to this vote. But 
it is interesting that at least in his case, although we have some 
agreement in principle, we have no vote and, frankly, I am not 
surprised. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you agree to a 
vote, then you have to have a vote. We need to have a vote. We need to 
have a vote by October 1 and I am going to keep fighting for a vote. 
That is basic fairness, to deal with this illegal rule. Again, the 
timing is here and now and that is not of my doing. I did not favor the 
illegal rule that makes the issue come before us. I did not favor the 
October 1 deadline. That should never have happened at all. But it is 
before us and that deadline is before us because of the illegal rule 
from the Obama administration. That is why we need a vote. We need a 
vote before October 1.
  As I said, the distinguished majority leader says he will permit a 
vote. He says that in theory but it does not happen in practice. Again 
we wait and wait and wait and demand a vote. It does not have to be on 
this bill. I will continue to come back. I will file this amendment 
with regard to the CR. That is a perfect place to have this debate and 
vote or we can do it as a stand-alone bill. We can do that easily next 
week, before October 1. We can do it without disrupting any other floor

[[Page S6621]]

business, without delaying any other action with regard to the CR or 
anything else.

  In that spirit, let me ask a unanimous consent in that regard. I ask 
unanimous consent that on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at 10 a.m., 
the Senate discharge the Senate Committee on Finance from consideration 
of my bill, the No Exemption For Washington from ObamaCare Act, proceed 
immediately to consideration of that bill, S. 1497; that without any 
intervening motions or debate, the Senate proceed with 60 minutes of 
debate on the bill evenly divided and controlled by the majority leader 
and myself; that the bill not be subject to any amendments, points of 
order or motions to commit; and that after debate has expired the bill 
be engrossed for a third reading, read a third time, and the Senate 
immediately vote on passage, subject to a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold; and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the 
table following that vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. I understand the floor leader is doing that for the 
majority leader and I think that is very unfortunate. If the 
distinguished majority leader agrees to a vote in principle, we need a 
vote in reality. I said at the time when he agreed to it in principle 
that is interesting but I did not think it would happen in reality, and 
sure enough, this week that is correct, it has not happened.
  I think the majority leader, frankly, is very concerned about this 
vote. That is why he and others actually relied on threats and 
intimidation to try to avoid this vote. That did not work. It is not 
going to work. I am coming back with this amendment. I am coming back 
with this bill. He has agreed to a vote in principle, so let's have a 
vote. Clearly, not from my doing, but because of the illegal Obama 
administration rule, that vote is timely now. That vote has to 
reasonably happen before October 1, which is why I proposed that 
unanimous consent. That is a way to have the vote which the majority 
leader agreed to in principle without disrupting any other business on 
the Senate floor. It would literally take 60 minutes of debate and a 
15-minute vote.
  I am sorry that was not accepted by the majority leader, but needless 
to say I will be back with my bill, with my amendment. The American 
people deserve a vote because, however it comes out, the American 
people should be able to know what Senators will stand through that 
vote with Washington and what Senators will stand with America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor let me say to 
the Senator from Louisiana, I want to talk a little bit about exactly 
this question of reality and how we can address the Senate's business 
and address the issue of the Senator from Louisiana as well--not in 
principle but with an actual vote, because the reality is there could 
have been already a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Louisiana. I will describe exactly why that has not taken place, but it 
could have and in my view should have already taken place. It should 
not have been about principles, it should have been about the reality 
of the vote the Senator from Louisiana is talking about.
  Here we are. Of course it is hard for the public to figure out 
exactly how the Senate works. The new Senator from Hawaii is a student 
of this. We have a bipartisan energy efficiency bill on the floor of 
the Senate now.
  As far as I am concerned, I describe it this way. This is a platonic 
ideal of what bipartisan consensus legislation ought to be all about. 
It is an extraordinary coalition built in favor of this--the Business 
Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of 
Commerce--with some of the country's leading business organizations 
that favor energy efficiency, and they are doing it for a reason. This 
is going to increase American productivity. We are going to save money 
because we are not going to waste so much energy and this is going to 
create good-paying jobs in a variety of new fields and technologies 
that are going to be good for people in our country.
  My view is we should have already finished this debate with relevant 
amendments--relevant amendments offered by both sides. In fact, when we 
started the debate, for the first 4 or 5 hours there was a good 
bipartisan amendment offered almost hourly. We have them all stacked up 
like planes hovering over an airport.
  At that point conservatives indicated there were two areas they felt 
strongly about getting a vote on. Again, I am not talking about 
principles here. We are talking about the reality of a vote, a vote 
that could have already taken place. One of them was on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Louisiana. I happen to disagree with the 
amendment strongly, but in all of the discussions I said it seems 
appropriate that there be a vote on that amendment and on another 
amendment which I disagree with, involving the Keystone Pipeline. At 
that point a very clear statement was made by the leadership that if we 
are talking about the energy efficiency bill and these two votes--not 
principles, but realities of having those two votes, a vote on the 
Vitter amendment and a vote on the Keystone Pipeline--and then have 
relevant amendments that relate to energy efficiency, we would be able 
to complete this bill. Since we started it last week, I am of the view 
that we would already have been done by now.

  After that message was communicated by the leadership on this side of 
the aisle, we saw the response to that. It was in response to a vote on 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, a vote on the 
proposal offered by Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, and a procedural 
agreement to vote on other relevant amendments. We had scores and 
scores of other amendments offered to this bill that were clearly not 
related to energy efficiency. So I say to the Senator from Louisiana: 
That is the reality--not the rhetoric from the Senator or principles--
of why there has not been a recorded up-or-down vote.
  By the way, this is a vote that would have met the Senator's 
principles, that he wanted the vote before October 1. We would have 
already had that up-or-down vote on the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana. It would have been done in accordance with the 
wishes of the Senator from Louisiana before October 1. The sole hurdle 
in terms of securing that has been the scores of amendments that have 
been offered primarily--really exclusively--from colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who want to deal with other energy issues.
  I want to make one other comment with respect to this. Senator 
Murkowski and I--because we have worked in a bipartisan way since we 
were given the opportunity to lead the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee at the beginning of this year, and we are honored to have the 
Senator from Hawaii on the committee--have said our sole focus is to 
try to find common ground on a host of energy issues that have been 
backed up, many of which colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel 
very strongly about.
  I would highlight, for example, nuclear waste legislation, where 
there has been no progress for years and years. Senator Murkowski and 
I, with Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, have a bipartisan bill 
we think would allow us to finally get on top of a critical issue. I 
feel very strongly--and I know the Senator from Louisiana cares a great 
deal about this--that we need to look at ways to cap the potential of 
natural gas, which is 50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels. I 
have been working with industry and environmental leaders on what I 
call a win-win solution where we could build more pipelines--the 
Senator from Louisiana knows it is important for the infrastructure of 
the natural gas business--and in the future we are going to make them 
better pipelines. We would have pipelines that don't leak so much 
methane, which would be good for consumers, good for the planet, and it 
would be good for the industry.
  We are interested in dealing with nuclear waste issues, natural gas 
issues, and offshore energy issues which, again, are important to the 
Senator from Louisiana. It is pretty hard to get Senators to focus on 
those kinds of issues if we cannot move a piece of legislation such as 
this energy efficiency bill which has an unprecedented coalition behind 
it. It has so many obvious benefits, without the mandates and

[[Page S6622]]

without a one-size-fits-all strategy from Washington.
  I wanted to set the record straight in particular on that point.
  The Senator from Louisiana and I are going to continue our 
discussions, as we have been doing, but I especially want to 
emphasize--since my colleague from Louisiana has been talking about 
whether people say you can vote in principle but you don't vote in 
reality--that the reality is: We could have already had a vote on the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana before the October 1 
date, that he said he felt strongly about, if colleagues on his side 
had not insisted on all of these other amendments not related to energy 
efficiency.
  By the way, I made it clear to them--coming from a State that doesn't 
produce fossil fuels--that I was willing to work with them, 
particularly in areas I have just described, such as tapping into the 
potential of natural gas.
  So the reality is there could have already been a recorded up-or-down 
vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana before 
October 1, and I hope he and others will continue to work with the 
bipartisan leadership so we can quickly get a finite list of additional 
relevant amendments that would be offered after the Senator from 
Louisiana gets his vote and after there is a vote on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota. Those are the realities of 
what has happened over the last week.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the 
distinguished majority floor leader, and I accept them. I know they are 
sincere in terms of his actions and in terms of his involvement.
  My point, of course, was not about him. My point is I don't think it 
was an accident that we never got to yes in practice. I don't think 
that was an accident at all. I don't think it was an accident from the 
point of view of the majority leader. I don't think it was an accident 
from others' point of view.
  If we want a clear glimpse into their true approach, we have to look 
at the amendments they floated last week, which were literally about 
threats, intimidation, and bribery. So that is a pretty clear window on 
where they are coming from. It is certainly not where the distinguished 
floor leader is coming from.
  Let me close by saying there is one more point of reality I would 
underscore, and that is this: In the Senate there is one Member who can 
virtually guarantee that a vote happens, and that is the majority 
leader. He has promised an up-or-down vote on this before October 1 in 
theory. He has the power to clearly make that happen one way or the 
other in practice, so we will see if he does. It is as simple as that.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to mark the 
fifth anniversary--the fifth birthday, if you will--the fifth 
anniversary of the application of the Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada 
applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline in September of 2008, 
and here we are, 5 years later to the date, without a decision.
  Normally, when we celebrate an anniversary or birthday, if you will, 
it is a good thing. It is positive. Obviously, in this case, that is 
not the case. Five years have gone by with no decision from this 
administration on the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is mind-boggling.
  How can we be following the laws, the rules, and regulations of this 
country when a company applies for approval of something and there is a 
decision the administration has to make--is it in the national interest 
or is it not? That is the decision before the administration. We have 
to make a decision. We elect Presidents to make decisions. So here we 
are 5 years later with no decision, not a yes, not a no--five years of 
study of the project and still no decision.
  This project will help generate more energy for our country, more 
jobs, economic growth, and tax revenue without raising taxes. It is a 
project that will help us become energy secure, energy independent, 
with Canada. Working with Canada, our closest friend and ally, will 
enhance national security so we don't have to get oil from the Middle 
East, something Americans very much want.
  As a matter of fact, there was a recent poll put out by Harris done 
this summer. In that poll--and I have it right here--in a Harris poll 
released this summer, 82 percent of voting Americans voiced support for 
the Keystone XL project--82 percent. Think about that: 82 percent of 
Americans want the project approved, but for 5 years the administration 
hasn't been able to make a decision, and they are still not making a 
decision. The indication now is this could go into next year. So now we 
are working on year 6.
  Think about our economy. Our economy is stagnant. Businesses aren't 
investing in new capital and equipment and creating jobs. One of the 
reasons is because of burdensome regulation. This is a clear example: 5 
years with no decision.
  This poll I referred to, some of the other results of it: 82 percent 
of voting Americans support the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That is 
not an old poll; that was done this summer. Some of the other 
information from that poll: 85 percent of people agree Keystone XL 
would help strengthen America's economic security--85 percent. Eighty-
one percent of people agree Keystone XL would strengthen America's 
energy security.
  Seventy-seven percent of the American people--voting Americans--agree 
that Keystone XL will help strengthen America's national security--as I 
just mentioned, not getting oil from the Middle East. That is a no-
brainer. Seventy-five percent agree that Keystone XL would benefit the 
U.S. military by increasing access to oil from Canada, our closest 
friend and ally.
  One of the issues this has brought up is concern about the 
environmental impact. Let's look at the facts: In the 5 years since 
TransCanada applied for approval--in that 5-year span--the State 
Department has done multiple environmental impact statements, I think 
on the order of four draft or supplemental environmental impact 
statements. The finding on the environment has been: ``No significant 
environmental impact.'' That is the Obama administration's own State 
Department: ``No significant environmental impact'' after 5 years of 
study. How many more years of study do we need? How is our economy 
going to work when businesses that want to invest billions in building 
vital infrastructure for our economy and create jobs have to wait 5 
years before they get a go-ahead? And we are wondering why we have a 
sluggish economy. We are wondering why we are still importing oil from 
the Middle East.
  This isn't just about working with Canada to produce energy for this 
country. My home State will put 100,000 barrels of oil a day into this 
pipeline--the lightest, sweetest crude produced anywhere in the 
country--and take it to our refineries in this country to be used by 
American consumers and businesses.
  Another criticism the opponents will sometimes bring up is that the 
oil is going to be exported.
  They say: Oh, no, the oil is going to be exported; we shouldn't 
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; we shouldn't work with Canada; we 
shouldn't move our own long-term refineries because it is going to be 
exported.
  Again, let's take a look at the facts. In June 2011, the Obama 
administration's Department of Energy put out a study which said 
specifically that the oil will be used in the United States. The oil 
will be used in the United States and it will help reduce gasoline 
prices for Americans.
  That wasn't some proponent who put that out; that was the Obama 
administration's own Department of Energy after doing their study.
  Again, let's take a look at the facts. In my State, this kind of 
pipeline, as I said, will move 100,000 barrels a day on this pipeline 
which we are now moving by truck and by train. This pipeline will help 
take 500 trucks a day off our

[[Page S6623]]

highways, saving incredible wear and tear but also providing greater 
safety because we will not have all of those trucks transporting this 
oil and gas.
  Another argument is, if we don't build the Keystone XL Pipeline, then 
the oil in the oil sands in Canada will not be produced. Those who are 
against using fossil fuels--folks who just say, no, we are not going to 
use fossil fuels anymore, we don't want to use them--they say we don't 
want to use the pipeline because then the oil sands in Canada will not 
be produced. Again, look at the facts. The facts are very 
straightforward. The oil is already being produced and it is moving by 
truck and train, not by pipeline. If we don't utilize it in the United 
States, then instead of coming to the United States, it will go to 
China, where now we are moving it by tanker across the ocean, and it is 
going to refineries that have much higher emissions. So we have worse 
environmental standards, and instead of us working with Canada to get 
our oil rather than getting it from the Middle East, which we are doing 
now, all of that oil goes to China.
  Think about it. Is this what Americans want? Go out and ask them. 
That is why I cited the poll just a minute ago, saying 80 percent-plus 
support this project. I think some of them who don't, aren't aware of 
the project. But if we ask any American, they are going to say they 
don't want to rely on the Middle East for oil. They would much rather 
work with Canada. They would much rather produce it here, such as in my 
home State, and work with Canada so we are energy independent, we are 
energy secure, we don't have to rely on the Middle East. Let China and 
the other countries work with the Middle East to get their oil. Ask any 
American what they think about that proposition and we know what answer 
we will get. But the President, for whatever reason--here we are 5 
years later and he is still not making a decision.

  Today is the fifth anniversary. We are starting on year 6, and the 
question is, How much longer does this go on?
  I have spoken about this in terms of energy and energy security for 
this country: low-cost, dependable energy, so when American families 
and businesses need energy to fuel their vehicles, they know it is 
reliable, dependable, it is produced in this country and in a country 
such as Canada, our closest ally, not in the Middle East, and that we 
are not going to have to send our men and women in uniform into a very 
difficult situation. We will not have to send them, at a minimum, into 
the middle of a situation where--look at what is going on in Syria. 
Look at the volatility. We want to depend on that area for our oil? Of 
course not.
  It is about energy. It is about energy security. It is a national 
security interest. It is about jobs.
  There have been many studies on the number of jobs; the proponents 
argue for one and the opponents argue for another. But let's go back to 
the State Department's own numbers after 5 years of study. They say 
more than 42,000 jobs will be created by the project. Don't take a 
study from the opponents of the project. Don't take a study from the 
proponents of the project. Take the State Department's own study: more 
than 42,000 jobs, at a time when our economy badly needs quality 
construction jobs, and it doesn't cost one penny of taxpayer money. As 
a matter of fact, the project produces hundreds of millions to help 
reduce debt and deficit without higher taxes.
  For all of these reasons, this project should be approved. For all of 
these reasons, this project is very much in the national interest.
  I have worked in this body, and I have worked with our friends and 
colleagues in the House, to see if we can't approve this 
congressionally. This is a Presidential decision. The decision before 
the administration is to decide is this project in the national 
interest or is it not in the national interest. The American people 
have already decided. In poll after poll, 70, 80 percent of the 
American people have decided--it doesn't take them 5 years--but the 
administration can't decide. So Congress should. Congress should step 
up and decide. I believe it is very clearly in the national interest 
for all of the reasons I have clearly laid out. I think we need to work 
with our colleagues in the House and find a way to make a decision that 
the President seems to be unable to make.
  I believe that this project is in the national interest; that we do 
need to be energy secure; that we do want the jobs and the economic 
activity for our people in this country. And I believe this decision 
needs to be made not on the basis of what special interest groups want 
but on the basis of what the American people want, and that verdict is 
in, and it is overwhelming.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Helium Stewardship Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there are four Senators on the floor who 
are each going to take about 5 minutes or so as we try--the leadership 
is now working to make it possible for us to have a unanimous consent 
request so that we can have a vote on the helium legislation after the 
respective caucus lunches.
  So as of now we all will take, the four of us involved--Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Barrasso, Senator Cruz--about 5 minutes. We hope to 
be able to propound the unanimous consent request as we all talk. We 
want all Senators to know that we hope to be able to vote on the 
legislation shortly after lunch.
  We know that in Washington, DC, it is almost as if there is an 
inexhaustible capacity to manufacture false crises. I am here to say 
that if Congress does not act immediately to pass the legislation we 
are discussing, scores of American manufacturing and technology 
companies employing millions of American workers are going to find it 
impossible to continue their current operations. That is because 
without this legislation, those workers and companies would no longer 
be able to get access to helium, which is a critical industrial gas 
without which these companies cannot operate.
  Every week in our country there are 700,000 MRI scans performed. 
Without liquid helium, which is used to cool these superconducting 
magnets, without which you cannot run MRIs--if you did not have that 
capacity, millions of Americans would lose access to a critical 
diagnostic test. Helium is also used for welding in the aerospace 
industry, and it is essential for manufacturing optical fiber for the 
telecommunications industry and for chip manufacturing in the 
semiconductor sector.
  Without going into all of the history, our government got involved 
with helium after World War I because the defense sector needed it.
  Ever since that time--I have been discussing this with colleagues--
President after President, Congress after Congress, has tried to come 
up with a policy that finally gets government out of the helium 
business while still ensuring the needs of the military business and 
our taxpayers were protected in the process.
  Senator Murkowski and I have worked for many months on this 
legislation in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we 
believe our bipartisan bill accomplishes this. That is because the bill 
requires the Federal Government to shift from selling helium at a 
government-set price to selling helium at a market-based price. The 
bill does this over a 5-year period, so there is no panic, no sudden 
changes in supply, and American businesses can stop worrying about 
whether the helium supply truck is going to actually show up in the 
next month.
  The bill phases out commercial sales over the next 7 or 8 years and 
then gets the Federal Government out of the helium business entirely. 
With prices for helium now reflecting their real value in the 
marketplace, the private sector would have the incentives it needs to 
invest in new helium supplies to replace what is now a Federal reserve. 
I will wrap up by saying there have been loads of bad puns over the 
years about Congress floating various ideas for new helium legislation, 
but this is no joke. If Congress does not pass legislation to extend 
operation of the Federal Helium Reserve, 40 percent of the U.S. supply 
of this absolutely necessary industrial

[[Page S6624]]

commodity will disappear at the end of the month.
  We have been informed the Federal agency that handles this, the 
Bureau of Land Management, would actually start closing the valves on 
October 1 if Congress has not acted.
  I note Senator Murkowski is here. I would ask my colleagues if 
Senator Murkowski could go next.
  Senator Cruz has been very gracious in terms of how we are trying to 
handle this. Both Senator Murkowski and Senator Cruz could speak and 
Senator Barrasso is here. I think we would all be done by the 12:30 
window.
  Let me say to my partner, once again, this is the kind of bipartisan 
approach we have tried to show in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. I am very appreciative of all she does to make our 
partnership to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. If I may, I would at this time defer to Senator 
Barrasso and Senator Cruz before my comments. I know both of them need 
to dash off the floor.
  If Senator Cruz wishes to speak at this point in time, then I will 
wrap up after he and Senator Barrasso have spoken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Oregon and my friend from Alaska for 
their leadership.
  As do they, I support extending the Helium Program. This is a good 
and important program that is critical to industry, it is critical to 
jobs, and it is critical to our high-tech community. I salute both the 
Senate and the House for a positive bill that generates revenue for the 
Federal Treasury and that gets the Government, in time, out of the 
helium business. I think that is a good and positive step.
  I would note the House of Representatives passed a bill that 
continued this program but that devoted the revenue that came from this 
to deficit reduction. At a time when our national debt is approaching 
$17 trillion, I think devoting that revenue to deficit reduction is a 
good and appropriate place to direct that revenue.
  When the bill came to the Senate--this bill is projected to generate 
approximately $500 million in new revenue for the Federal Government 
over 10 years. When it came to the Senate, roughly $400 million in new 
spending was added to the bill that came out of that $500 million that 
was generated.
  In my view, given the fiscal and economic challenges in this country, 
that revenue would be better spent paying down our deficit, reducing 
our national debt, than it would be on new spending. Indeed, over the 
course of this week, I have had numerous conversations with my 
colleagues where I have urged them that if new spending were to be 
added, for them to endeavor to find other areas of Federal spending 
that could be reduced, that could be cut to make up for that, so we 
could devote the full $500 million to reducing the deficit. I think 
that would be the most fiscally responsible approach to be taken.
  For that reason, I have had concerns about proceeding on this bill 
with unanimous consent, proceeding on this bill authorizing an 
additional $500 million in new spending without debate, without a vote. 
Earlier this week, I had lodged internally an objection to do so.
  I am pleased to note that in conversations with Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Wyden, we have reached an agreement where this matter will not 
proceed by unanimous consent but, rather, will proceed with a rollcall 
vote to be scheduled this afternoon, where each Senator will cast his 
or her vote.
  With that agreement, I am happy to withdraw any objection and allow 
us to go forward.
  I would note it is important for economic growth and for the high-
tech industry to maintain this program, but at the same time I hope 
going forward, when new spending is authorized, all of us will work to 
cut spending to compensate so we can devote the maximum resources 
possible to paying down our deficit and paying down our debt.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Do I understand the Senator does not oppose the bill as passed in the 
House that would have authorized this program to go forward, but the 
concern is new revenue has been generated that is being spent for other 
programs?
  Mr. CRUZ. That is correct. In terms of a technical offset, the 
spending is offset by the revenue. I am not arguing that it fails to 
offset in the typical language of the Senate; rather, my concern is 
that is $500 million in new revenue that could be directed to deficit 
reduction. Given the magnitude of our national debt, if we have $500 
million in new revenue from selling helium, sending it to the private 
sector, I would far rather see that $500 million used to pay down our 
deficit.
  What I have urged my colleagues to do is, if there are new spending 
programs that are of particular concern to the citizens of their 
States, to find other aspects of the Federal budget that could be cut 
to offset it so that entire $500 million could go to deficit reduction 
rather than to funding the new spending.
  Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator yield for a question--I am going to ask 
a question and respond to Senator Sessions' point in one second.
  There are differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. The 
House bill does not get the government out of the helium business 
permanently. The Senate bill gets the government out of the helium 
business permanently; A, it does it in a way that is fully offset and, 
B, not only is it offset under our proposal, passed unanimously in the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, $51 million would actually be 
used to lower the deficit. There is a full offset, A; get the 
government out of the helium business permanently, and $51 million 
would be returned to be used for deficit reduction.
  What I wish to do, by way of moving things along--and Senator Cruz 
has been very gracious in terms of the handling of this and saw me on 
short notice. I am very appreciative.
  I wish to propound the unanimous consent request at this time. I am 
asking the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, a question, if this is 
acceptable, and then we will go right back to my colleagues.
  I wish to ask the Senator from Texas if we would now move to ask 
unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. the energy committee be discharged 
from further consideration of the House bill and the Senate proceed to 
its consideration; that the substitute amendment at the desk, which I 
have been discussing and I have talked about, be agreed to.
  We would then have 15 minutes of debate equally divided between 
yourself and myself or our designees; that upon the use or yielding 
back of time, the bill would be amended and be read a third time and 
the Senate would proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; 
that motions to reconsider would be considered made and laid upon the 
table, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or 
debate.
  I ask the Senator from Texas would this unanimous consent request be 
acceptable?
  Mr. CRUZ. I am pleased to tell my friend it would be acceptable. I 
have no objection to that. I appreciate the willingness of the 
Chairman, along with Senator Murkowski, to allow this to come to a 
rollcall vote so each Senator may be on the record with their views.
  Mr. WYDEN. When the Senator--who was good enough to yield me time--
has completed with Senator Sessions and colleagues to whom he may wish 
to yield, I will then propound that unanimous consent request.
  I don't anticipate any objection. Colleagues will know that we would 
then have a vote shortly after 2 p.m.
  I thank Senator Cruz.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would just say this. We need to get in our heads in 
this body that just because you raise revenue and pay for a new 
spending program, that doesn't have implications for the Federal 
Treasury and the budget. In fact, we have rules that guard against it.
  I thank Senator Cruz for raising and highlighting that. We need to 
consider it. Because the idea that you can just do that is dangerous 
and it creates more taxing and more spending, more revenue and more 
spending.
  The Senator from Texas raised the point, just because you raised 
revenue doesn't mean the people who raise the revenue get to spend it 
on what they want. He is perfectly correct to say I think it should be 
used for deficit reduction. I thank the Senator for raising the issue.

[[Page S6625]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Alabama, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the fine work done by all 
of our colleagues.
  I wish to support this bipartisan helium bill, S. 783. This is a bill 
which is critical to maintaining a stable supply of helium now and into 
the future. This bill accomplishes that.
  As a physician, I know how important it is that helium is available 
for the newest technologies, specifically for use to cool MRI scanners 
and manufacture products such as semiconductors and fiber optic cables.
  Helium also has important applications for the Department of Defense, 
for NASA, and the scientific research community. This bill extends the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to sell helium from the 
Federal Helium Reserve in Texas, including important reforms such as 
provisions already outlined by the chairman of the Energy Committee: 
The Secretary sells helium at market prices and the Federal Government 
gets out of the helium business once and for all. This, to me, is one 
of the key components of this legislation.
  In June, the Energy Committee, on which I serve, voted to report the 
helium bill by voice vote--22 members of the committee. There were no 
objections stated. This was bipartisan.
  The House has already passed its own helium bill, which is different 
than this. I think the Senate should pass its helium bill as soon as 
possible today so we can have an opportunity to negotiate with the 
House, get something passed, and then to the President for signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased we are at this point. We 
will be able to move forward with this important legislation relating 
to our Nation's Helium Program. I would certainly encourage my 
colleagues to support passage of this bill that we have spent several 
years now developing in the energy committee to reform it.
  The bill, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, is a bipartisan 
bill. It was an important piece of legislation that was reported to the 
Senate floor in June by a voice vote. It is yet again another good 
product coming out of the energy committee.
  We need to move to pass this bill but also to reconcile the remaining 
issues we have with the House and we have to do this before October 1. 
October 1 is coming at us like a freight train on a lot of different 
issues. But if we want to prevent a shortage of helium gas in this 
country, we are going to need to do it and do it now.
  Again, the chairman referenced some jokes about helium. 
Unfortunately, a lot of folks associate helium with helium balloons, 
party balloons, and not the things we are talking about. It is such an 
essential component to everything from medical imaging equipment, 
semiconductor manufacturing, rocket engines, and precision welding. I 
think folks would be amazed at how helium plays such a significant part 
in our high-tech world and our manufacturing world.
  We have to act. What we need to do is prevent a massive disruption in 
the supply chains for all of these important economic sectors. We need 
to pass this bill.
  As has been mentioned, what we are doing is we are reforming and 
reauthorizing the Federal Helium Program. This program provides 40 
percent of our domestic and 30 percent of our global helium supplies 
from the Cliffside field near Amarillo, TX.
  The energy committee, as I noted, developed this bill before us. What 
we focused on was bringing market-based price discovery to the sale of 
this taxpayer-owned resource.
  The approach we have taken in committee will ensure a better return 
to the taxpayer, which is what we are all looking for. It prevents a 
small number of corporations from effectively being able to pocket 
value that which belongs to the American public. It will also improve 
the management of the Helium Program to account for diminishing 
production and provide greater transparency for a program that clearly 
needs it.
  So there are a lot of good reasons why we need to do this 
legislation. And as the chairman has mentioned, we are getting 
government out of the program. That ought to be something certainly all 
of us on this side of the aisle would agree on--getting the government 
out of the business altogether.
  This bill completes a privatization process Congress set in motion 
back in 1996. It sets a hard-and-fast deadline for getting the Federal 
Government out of the helium business once and for all.
  As has been mentioned, we do have a bill on the other side, in the 
other body, that doesn't take it all the way; it doesn't fully get the 
government out of the business. In our legislation, not later than 
2022, all of the assets that are associated with the helium reserve 
will be sold off and the Federal Government's involvement in what 
should be a private market will end.
  Of all the options before us for preventing an imminent helium 
shortage, this Senate bill is the only one that also addresses the 
long-term goal of exiting the sector and leaving the development of 
future supplies to private industry. As has been mentioned, when we do 
this--when we get out of the business, when we conduct these auction 
sales--we will generate revenue of approximately $500 million. That is 
both a good and important thing around here. So what the energy 
committee did, in a very bipartisan and very open process within our 
committee, we chose to devote some of this revenue to other programs 
within our committee's jurisdiction--not creating new programs but 
basically providing funding for obligations that have already been 
made.
  One way or another, we are going to be providing for these payments--
whether it is to the abandoned mine land fund, to the Secure Rural 
Schools Program, adjusting the royalty rates for the soda ash 
operators, or addressing the National Park Service backlog or the mess 
left by the Federal Government when it comes to drilling exploratory 
wells and then abandoning them. So what we have done is we have looked 
critically at these areas where we have had funding shortfalls within 
the energy committee's jurisdiction, and a portion of these revenues 
has been dedicated to that. But we also heard from our colleagues--
members on the committee and others--who said we need to make an effort 
to take some of these revenues and direct them to deficit reduction. So 
we have reduced the Federal debt by at least $56 million. This was a 
priority of Senator Flake and Senator Risch on the committee, and we 
have directed that.
  Again, all of these are priorities among programs within the 
jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and given 
the $56 million that is devoted to deficit reduction, the resources we 
have devoted to addressing them are more than offset. I think our 
success in striking this balance has been confirmed by both the 
Congressional Budget Office and the bipartisan staff of our Senate 
Budget Committee.
  We have an opportunity before us today, and I think we have a 
responsibility to act now, as this October 1 deadline is looming. First 
and foremost, we have to act to prevent a massive disruption to the 
helium supply chain that could harm so many sectors of our economy. 
This bill prevents that from happening. We also need to finish what the 
Congress started back in 1996 and fully and finally privatize the 
helium business so that the Federal Government can get out of the 
industry. And we should address these other priorities--including 
deficit reduction and other obligations the Federal Government has 
already taken on--by making responsible, thoughtful decisions about the 
use of the revenues associated with the reauthorization and the 
eventual closure of the Federal Helium Reserve.
  For these reasons I would certainly encourage my colleagues to 
support the bill when we go to a vote in just about an hour and a half.
  With that, I yield for my friend and colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for an 
excellent statement. It very much reflects our desire to make this 
bipartisan.
  I particularly appreciate her noting the contributions of two of the 
members of our committee, Senators Risch

[[Page S6626]]

and Flake, who also made the point that, yes, we are getting the 
government out of the helium business; yes, we are making sure we are 
not putting at risk millions of high-skilled, high-wage jobs; but we 
have to be serious, as my friend from Alabama likes to say, about this 
budget deficit. And so I will be. He and I have talked often about 
Medicare and other areas. We will be serious about that deficit 
reduction, as Senator Murkowski has talked about. And particularly in 
light of the comments of Senator Risch and Senator Flake, we were able 
to meet the needs of people, working families across this country who 
depend on these high-skilled, high-wage jobs. So we are meeting those 
needs, and we are contributing to deficit reduction. So I thought the 
Senator's points were well taken.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 527

  At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. 
today, the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 527 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that a Wyden 
substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that there be 
15 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Wyden and Cruz or 
their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote 
on passage of the bill, as amended; that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, with all of the above 
occurring with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me say to the Senators who have 
worked on ending the Federal Government's involvement in this program 
that this is a great accomplishment, and I thank them for that. I do 
think there is technically not a budget point of order for the process 
they have used in funding this bill, although I think Senator Cruz is 
raising a valid concern. I guess if we could do $50 million on deficit 
reduction, we could do more. But I did want to say that I am proud of 
the thrust of the legislation. I think it is good legislation. I thank 
them for it. And it does not, I am informed, violate the Budget Act.
  Mr. President, I have directed my staff on the Budget Committee to 
conduct a detailed analysis of the economic conditions facing working 
Americans--their wages, their employment conditions, and their 
household finances. I will give a series of talks over the coming weeks 
looking at that financial situation and the state of our Nation as a 
whole economically. I will also attempt to look at the causes leading 
to our current financial difficulties and suggest some steps to restore 
America's financial future.
  This topic is very important. The sad fact is that the state of 
middle and lower-income Americans is worsening on virtually every 
front. The slow growth of the economy (and this has been the slowest 
recovery from a recession since World War II or the Great Depression) 
is restraining the normal upward movement of income that previous 
generations have experienced. It has accelerated in the last several 
years, but it has been going on--we have to be honest with ourselves--
for a much longer period of time. If you don't have a job now, you are 
twice as likely to only find a part-time job as full-time work, if you 
can find one at all.
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, middle-class incomes have 
declined for 18 years. That has happened with different parties, 
different Presidents, and different majorities in the House and Senate. 
That decline means that savings for college and retirement are growing 
at alltime lows. Young people are not marrying as early as they want, 
sometimes due to bad economic prospects. That means families are 
launching later in life, which gives couples less years to pay down a 
mortgage or raise children.
  Perhaps the greatest single source of our economic anxiety, however, 
is the fear of losing a job or that our children won't be able to get a 
job or our grandchildren won't be able to get a good job.
  It is not just the unemployment rates that remain too high--at 7.3 
percent as of August 2013--it is the number of people we all know who 
are working well below their potential because nothing is available 
that uses their job skills. It is the number of people we know who have 
given up looking for work or who are working part time because nothing 
full time is available to them.
  Fewer people are working today than in 2007. Almost 4 million fewer 
people are working today than in 2007, but during that time our 
population has increased and the number of workers of working age has 
increased. Just before the recession hit in December 2007, about 62.7 
percent of the working-age population was working--62.7. If that same 
percentage was working today, we would have 154 million jobs. But we 
don't have 154 million, we have 144 million. And only 58.6 percent of 
the population is working, which is a marked decline. In short, we are 
missing 9.9 million jobs when we compare this economy to the one in 
2007.
  Here is another way to look at the job problem. In 2007 we had 
363,000 discouraged workers--people who had given up looking for work 
because they couldn't find a job but still had not disappeared from the 
rolls of employment security offices. Today we have 866,000. That is an 
increase of 140 percent in discouraged workers.
  Here is another barometer of the middle-class difficulties. We have 
1,988,000 fewer full-time jobs today than in December 2007; however, we 
have 3,627,000 more part-time jobs. How we calculate this is important. 
People with part-time jobs, according to the jobs people at the 
Department of Labor, are not counted as unemployed, they are counted as 
employed, although they may want a full-time job, and most do. So our 
economy is producing part-time jobs rather than full-time jobs. That 
has been going on for a long time, and it is not acceptable. These jobs 
often have no health care program or retirement plan.
  A very high percentage of all jobs created this year are not full-
time jobs, and workforce participation--the percentage of people who 
are actually working today--is the lowest since 1975. That is not 
acceptable. And these trends have been going on for some time.
  Let's take a look at median family income. The Census Bureau 
published new estimates of household income on Tuesday, August 17. They 
report that the median income of American households is lower than last 
year, lower than the year before, and, in fact, is lower than at any 
time since 1995, adjusted for inflation.
  This is a very serious trend. While we have done a lot of things to 
make this economy better, few benefits are going to main-line, hard-
working American people. They are struggling out there. You have to go 
back to 1995 to find median household income that is lower than today's 
household income.
  Even if we take broad measures of income, we get similar results. If 
we divide all of the income by the population to come up with a per-
capita income concept, per-person income is lower today than at any 
time since 1997. This is an unacceptable trend. It is clear it is not a 
short-term phenomenon. It is now a negative trend for almost 18 years, 
and it cannot continue.
  While the stock market has rebounded and corporate profits have 
remained strong, that should not and cannot be used to obscure these 
trends, trends that have accelerated after we emerged from the 
recession of 2008 and 2009.
  Many are concerned that the Federal Reserve is furthering the 
Nation's economic problems with a growing wealth gap. Their 
quantitative easing has boosted the wealth of the investor class but 
has not benefited the working class. This is not the way our policies 
should work. People who know what to do with low-interest money seem to 
be coming out ahead. But the people who don't have money, don't have 
jobs, who are working part time instead of full time, are slipping.
  Our civil society, the great foundation of the our economy, today has 
certain weaknesses that we have to talk about. I will address more in a 
separate speech, but let me give a few thoughts.
  Few social institutions are more important in helping us through 
difficult economic times than marriage. However, marriage is 
disappearing in the

[[Page S6627]]

bottom 50 percent of the income distribution. Many people stay too long 
in low-income unemployment situations, and it is not healthy. And too 
often, the fathers are not in those households. If you are in the 
bottom 50 percent of the income distribution and give birth, there is a 
greater than 50-percent chance that the father will not be living with 
you when the child comes home from the hospital. Perhaps, as many 
suggest, our welfare policies are exacerbating these trends. We need to 
look at that.
  Also worrying is the decline of charitable giving since 2007. Like 
the overall economy, this vital part of our social and economic system 
has not recovered effectively. Total charitable giving fell in 2008 to 
$303 billion from $326 billion. As of the end of 2012, total giving was 
only $316 billion--still 3 percent below what it was 6 years ago.
  I would conclude and note that the road we are on is leading to the 
continued erosion of the middle-class civil society, the quality of 
life for hard-working Americans is not improving financially, and the 
continued expansion of the welfare state and the permanent entrenchment 
of a political class that profits from the growth of government. It is 
time we recognize both the disastrous conditions facing working 
Americans and the moral obligation we have to replace dependency on 
government with the freedom and dignity that comes from work and 
independence. That has got to be our goal.
  There are things that can be done to improve these conditions. It is 
time for us to defend working Americans and their undeniably legitimate 
concerns about current trends. I will talk about that as we go forward. 
It is something we need to seriously consider.
  Relevant here is this question, can we bring into our country more 
people than we have jobs for? Won't that pull down wages and make it 
harder for people to get work? And this question, shouldn't we defend 
more effectively our workers against unfair trade and competition from 
around the world? Both of those policies are ones I hope we could have 
bipartisan support on, although I am worried. The Senate's immigration 
bill would increase permanent immigration by 50 percent, would increase 
guest workers--people who come and take jobs--by double, all in 
addition to the 11 million who would be given legal status here.
  I do think our colleagues are correct to say we should do more about 
trade and have fair competition on the world stage for our workers. I 
think we have got to convert more of this welfare spending, the 80-
some-odd programs that are fundamentally geared to lower income 
Americans, that spend $750 billion a year--which is larger than Social 
Security, larger than defense, and larger than Medicare--we need to 
convert some of that to better use.
  For example, for every $100 spent on these programs, only $1 goes to 
job training. Shouldn't we focus more on getting our unemployed, our 
people who need more training, trained, ready to move into the 
workforce, to take jobs? Can we afford to bring in millions of people 
to take jobs and to leave our people on welfare and the unemployment 
rolls?
  Those are some of the fundamental questions we as Americans need to 
be asking. But first and foremost, colleagues, we are not able to deny 
the unassailable fact that we have had a slide in the financial well-
being of millions of Americans, and that this has been going on for 
well over a decade.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________