[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2685-S2697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, because of the conversation with Senator 
McConnell and me, the time ran much longer than it normally does, so I 
ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 11:15 rather than 11. 
Senator Durbin is here, as well as Senator Warren, with Senators Cornyn 
and Moran, so we will divide the time equally until then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.
  Under the previous order, the time until 11:15 a.m. will be equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees.
  The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I note on the floor the presence of 
Senators Moran, Cornyn, and Warren. May I enter into a consent 
agreement as to the sequence of speaking? I ask unanimous consent that 
after I have spoken, Senator Warren be recognized next on the 
Democratic side, and I ask which Republican Senator would like to be 
included and in what order?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, responding to the question of the 
distinguished majority whip, through the Chair, it would help if we 
could alternate between sides, if that is acceptable.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is agreed. Who would be first on the Republican side?
  Mr. CORNYN. My understanding is Senator Moran would be first. Then we 
would go to the Democratic side and then back to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was going to ask for a specific time for 
each, but I am going to try to be brief and yield more time for 
comments from others because I am sure time will be expiring.
  The issue we are trying to move to is called the Energy Savings and 
Industrial Competitiveness Act. Whenever we talk about energy and the 
environment, the Senate is up for grabs. There is a divided opinion as 
to what to do with the energy policy of America. There are sincere and 
profound differences between the two political parties. We recently had 
an all-night session talking about the issue of global warming and 
climate change and there was a real division between Democrats and 
Republicans about this issue.
  I had a statement early in the session, and I come to the floor and 
renew it today in the hopes one of my two friends on the other side of 
the aisle can respond to this. My statement is this: The only major 
political party in the world that denies the existence of global 
warming and climate change is the Republican Party of the United States 
of America. I am waiting for some Republican to come forward and refute 
me. Someone said there is a small party in Australia that doesn't 
accept global warming and climate change. That may be true, but I am 
looking for evidence of another major political party, other than the 
Republican Party of the United States of America, which denies the fact 
that our human activity on Earth and the pollution we are creating is 
changing the world in which we are living.
  I think there is ample evidence. Incidentally, 98 percent of the 
scientists

[[Page S2686]]

who look at it conclude the same--that we are going through climate 
change in this world. Look around. Glaciers are melting, the weather is 
changing, we have more extreme weather events, and our planet is 
heating up. Some people say: That is just an act of God. It happens 
every few centuries. That is the way it goes.
  I don't think so. I think what we are doing on Earth has something to 
do with it.
  This debate could go on all day and there would be severe differences 
of opinion on each side of the aisle as to whether what I have said is 
true, but here is something we should not disagree on--the pending 
legislation. This bipartisan piece of legislation steps aside from that 
hot issue--no pun intended--and asks if we can't all agree that energy 
efficiency is good. Well, sure. Whether one thinks there is an 
environmental impact of using energy or not, it costs less if you have 
energy efficiency to heat a home or run a business.
  What we are trying to do, thanks to the leadership of Senator Shaheen 
of New Hampshire and Senator Portman of Ohio, Democrat and Republican, 
is to have a bipartisan approach to it. What they have done is amazing. 
They took a bill, which frankly was supposed to come up last year and 
failed because of some problems on the floor, and made it even better 
and stronger and more bipartisan, with a long series of bipartisan 
amendments added to the bill to make it better in terms of trying to 
encourage energy efficiency in the buildings across America, 
manufacturing new techniques for energy efficiency, and requiring the 
Federal Government, when it builds a building, to think about energy 
efficiency.
  All of these are bipartisan in nature. Yet we are tied up in knots on 
the floor of the Senate as to whether we can even consider this 
bipartisan bill. That is a shame because, quite honestly, when we have 
a good bipartisan measure on an issue such as energy efficiency, which 
steps aside from underlying controversial issues, we should move on it. 
I worry about that. There are some on the other side who say: We don't 
have enough amendments. There are more we want to add. There is more we 
want to debate. There is nothing wrong with that, but let us not 
sacrifice this bill this time.
  What is at stake with this bill? It is not just the good ideas of 
energy efficiency but 190,000 jobs in America. When we start putting in 
better windows in buildings, when we start putting in better HVAC 
systems, and all the other things that are going to create energy 
efficiency, it puts Americans to work. If the Republicans stop us from 
moving to this bill today, if they stop us from considering this bill 
this week, it will be at the expense of American jobs. That is wrong.
  Now that we have a bipartisan bill, and a strong bill, for goodness' 
sake, let us put the procedural fights aside. There is a Republican 
Senator who stopped this bill last week from coming up because he wants 
to debate--are you ready--ObamaCare. Fifty times the House of 
Representatives has voted to repeal ObamaCare. It is going nowhere. Yet 
they continue to come back to it. So this Senator said we can't take up 
energy efficiency because he wants to debate one aspect of ObamaCare 
again.
  Please, save it for another day. Let us do something in a bipartisan 
fashion that can guarantee 190,000 people in America a good-paying job.
  Wouldn't that be something we can talk about when we come home at the 
end of the week instead of the fact that the Senate once again broke 
down into a partisan squabble.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side, save some of these really 
great and not-so-great ideas for another day. Let's pass this bill. It 
is strong, it is bipartisan, and it really tries to get something done 
in the Senate, which, sadly, is a rare occurrence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                               VA Backlog

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, there is no group of Americans whom I hold 
in higher regard than our Nation's veterans. Their service and 
sacrifice have allowed us to live in the strongest, freest, greatest 
country in the world.
  American veterans have fought tyrants and terrorists to keep our 
country safe and secure. Yet even after they return from war, veterans 
today continue to fight tough battles here at home. Many veterans find 
themselves struggling to find a job, they face difficulties accessing 
quality health care services--especially in rural areas such as mine at 
home in Kansas--and all too many veterans must wait long periods of 
time for benefit claims to be processed by the VA.
  As of April 2014 the backlog stood at 596,061 outstanding claims, and 
53 percent of those have been waiting longer than 125 days for an 
answer from the VA. It takes approximately 266 days for most new claims 
to receive an answer.
  If a veteran is unhappy with the outcome of their claim, they can 
file an appeal. The backlog for appeals is more than 272,000--in 
backlogs alone. Some have waited more than 1,500 days--more than 4 
years--to get a response on their appeal.
  These numbers represent real people. They are not just statistics. 
They are not just average, everyday Americans. They are our veterans 
whom we claim we hold in the highest regard and esteem.
  Americans who served our country are waiting to receive the benefits 
they earned. At a time when more and more troops are transitioning out 
of the military--and the needs are clear for our aging veterans--I am 
especially concerned that we are not keeping our promise to those who 
served our country.
  As I travel across Kansas and meet veterans in their communities 
across our State, I hear the stories about their VA claims process--
from systemic issues with the back-and-forth of how the claims are 
handled, to absurd waiting times in Washington. I hear from veterans 
organizations that come from Kansas--the American Legion, Disabled 
Veterans of America, Concerned Veterans of America, and Veterans of 
Foreign Wars--and they bring their stories of other veterans to me, 
outlining the problems the veterans back home are facing. The reality 
is that our veterans are losing hope that the VA will care for them.
  Americans recently heard the story about a whistleblower in Phoenix, 
AZ, at the VA in which there was a secret waiting list of veterans who 
had waited more than 7 months to see a doctor in order to avoid VA 
policies on reporting extended delays. The VA hospital figured out how 
to hide those claims for 7 months so that they weren't reported.
  Incidents of mismanagement and even death caused by the failures of 
the VA are far more numerous than we see in the news. Reports continue 
to pop up across the country, from Atlanta to Memphis, from St. Louis 
to Florida. The claims backlog, medical malpractice, mismanagement of 
cases, lack of oversight, and unethical environment all contribute to 
the VA's failure.
  It has become abundantly clear that the dysfunction within the VA 
extends from the top to the bottom--at the highest headquarters and at 
each VISN and down to the local level in some medical facilities. 
Community-based outpatient clinics and regional benefit offices are 
part of the problem. The VA suffers from a culture that accepts 
mediocrity, leaving too many veterans without the care they need. Our 
veterans deserve better, and they deserve the best our Nation knows how 
to offer.
  I highlight today the broken VA system and challenge the Department 
of Veterans Affairs to change. We need accountability and 
transformation within the VA system and its culture, top to bottom, all 
across the country. We must break the cycle of dysfunction today and 
take the steps necessary to make certain our veterans are no longer 
victims of their own government's bureaucracy.
  Here are some examples from across our State:
  Jack Cobos, a Kansan who sought medical attention at the Topeka VA 
hospital emergency room, is told his chest pains are related to muscles 
around his heart. He is sent home. A week later he returns and is 
transported to another emergency room. Ultimately, Jack dies of a heart 
attack--he never recovers--and we now pay tribute to that veteran who 
failed to receive the care he needed in a timely fashion.
  One year later the same Topeka emergency room closed its doors to

[[Page S2687]]

veterans seeking emergency treatment. And I am still waiting on a 
response from the VA to explain the closure of an emergency room at the 
VA hospital in Topeka, KS.
  An outpatient clinic in Liberal has been without a primary care 
provider for more than 3 years. While others try to fill in the gap, 
there is nothing to date that the VA has done to solve the underlying 
problems. There is still no primary care provider.
  I recently spoke about claims backlogs with a Kansas veteran involved 
in the American Legion named Dave Thomas from Leavenworth. He has 
waited since he filed his claim in 1970 and only this past year 
received an answer. He received a 90-percent disability rating from the 
VA, but it took 44 years for him to receive that answer.
  A veteran with Parkinson's disease was told recently--he filed his 
claim in March of last year. He was told this past week that it will 
now be processed only because his claim is now over a year old. You 
have to wait a year before you are in line in order for you to receive 
the process of your claim that you deserved more than 1 year ago. How 
can the VA establish a wait time benchmark of 1 year for veterans' 
claims to get the attention they deserve?
  It is so disappointing to hear these stories. I know it is 
unacceptable. Whether a veteran served in 1941, 1951, 1971, 1991, 2001, 
2011, or is currently serving, we owe the Nation's veterans our 
absolute best after their military service is complete. Unfortunately, 
the VA system continues on a glidepath of dysfunction and is only, at 
best, playing defense.
  The VA's failure is not a matter of resources. That is always the 
easy answer: more money. But just last week President Obama himself 
said:

       We've resourced the Veterans Affairs office more in terms 
     of increases than any other department or agency in my 
     government.

  VA funding levels have increased well more than 60 percent since 
2009. Each year there have been incremental increases of 3, 4, or 5 
percent, and this year the request from the President's budget is for a 
6.5-percent increase over last year's spending. Yet our veterans 
continue to struggle and are not getting the treatment they earned and 
deserve, and they are not getting their benefits.
  Republicans and Democrats have agreed on fully funding the VA to 
serve year after year, but this increase in spending results in no 
better service from the Department. To date, these increases have not 
in any way increased the service or support our veterans deserve and 
need. This is a problem with leadership and a lack of will to change.
  I have been a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for 18 years, 
both in the House and Senate. I chaired the Health Subcommittee in the 
House. I have worked with nine VA Secretaries. This is an issue on 
which I always thought we were making progress. Today it is so 
disappointing to report to my colleagues in the Senate that this 
Department is dysfunctional, and the services get worse, not better.
  We need accountability at the VA. The 44-year-old claims process of 
Dave Thomas and the untimely passing of Jack Cobos should not be 
forgotten, and the Department needs to make meaningful changes so that 
these cases and cases like these will never happen again.
  While we continue to push legislative action, it is time to hold 
people accountable in order to enforce meaningful change. GAO reports, 
inspector general reports, and VA whistleblowers all call for action. A 
list I find now of eight press and IG reports--from CNN, to FOX News, 
to military.com, to our IG, to the Washington Examiner--all report what 
we would not believe could ever happen within the VA in the United 
States of America.
  Veterans are waiting for action. Yet the VA continues to operate in 
the same old bureaucratic fashion, settling for mediocrity and 
continued disservice to our Nation's heroes.
  It is clear that accountability at VA is absent. Oversight doesn't 
mean much. And I sincerely and seriously question whether the 
leadership of the VA is capable and willing to enforce change. There is 
a difference between wanting change and leading it to happen.
  Today I am demanding accountability and true transformation within 
the VA system and its culture, from top to bottom, and all across the 
country. Secretary Shinseki seemingly is unwilling or unable to do so, 
and change must be made at the top. I ask the Secretary to submit his 
resignation, and I ask President Obama to accept that resignation.
  We must never forget that our Nation has responsibility to its 
veterans. That means receiving the care and support they earned.
  God bless our veterans and all those serving at home and abroad and 
all their families. We need a Department of Veterans Affairs that is 
worthy of your sacrifice.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  (The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the Introduction of S. 2292 
are printed in today's Record under ``Introduction of Senate Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. WARREN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to discuss the 
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act--which is why we call 
it Shaheen-Portman; it is a faster way to refer to it.
  It is a bill I coauthored with Senator Rob Portman from Ohio, and it 
represents more than 3 years of meetings, negotiations, compromise, and 
broad stakeholder outreach in an effort to craft the most effective 
piece of energy legislation with the greatest chance of passing both 
Chambers of Congress and of being signed into law. My partner in this 
effort, Senator Portman, was here on the floor last night talking about 
why this is a bipartisan bill that can pass not only this Chamber but 
the House and be signed into law.
  It is a bipartisan effort that reflects an affordable approach to 
boost the use of energy efficiency technologies in our economy. 
Efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to reduce our energy use. 
Energy-saving techniques and technologies lower costs; they free up 
capital that allows businesses to expand and our economy to grow.
  In addition to being an energy bill, it is a jobs bill. We can start 
improving our efficiency now by installing ready, proven technologies 
such as modern heating systems, computer-controlled thermostats, low-
energy lighting. Efficiency is no longer about putting on a sweater and 
turning down the thermostat. It is about making use of these 
technologies that are available today.
  There are substantial opportunities which exist across all sectors of 
our economy that would allow us to conserve energy, to create good-
paying private sector jobs, and to reduce pollution.
  Our bill reduces the barriers to efficiency in the major energy-
consuming sectors of our economy. It does that through buildings, which 
constitute about 40 percent of our use; through industrial efficiency, 
where we assist the manufacturing sector which consumes more energy 
than any other sector of the U.S. economy--we help them implement 
energy-efficient production technologies; and through the Federal 
Government, which as I think all of us know, is the single largest user 
of energy in the country.
  The legislation encourages the Federal Government to adopt more 
efficient building standards, smart-metering technology, to look at our 
data centers and see how we can reduce the costs there.
  Again, this bill will help create private sector jobs. It will save 
businesses and consumers money. It will reduce pollution and it will 
make our country more energy efficient.
  A recent study by experts of the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy found that by 2030 Shaheen-Portman, if it passes, has 
the potential to create 192,000 domestic jobs, to save consumers and 
businesses over $16 billion a year, and to reduce carbon pollution by 
the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. The bill does 
this without any mandates, without raising the deficit. All 
authorizations are offset and it even produces a $12 million deficit 
reduction, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  I have had the opportunity over the last 3\1/2\ years as we have been 
working

[[Page S2688]]

on this bill to visit businesses across New Hampshire that are making 
use of energy-efficient technology, and what I have heard from those 
businesses is they have adopted these energy efficiencies because it 
allows them to save money, it allows them to be competitive, it allows 
them to add jobs in their sectors. I think that is why this legislation 
enjoys such strong support from industry, from trade associations, and 
from labor groups as well as efficiency and environmental advocates.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, it is not often that we have groups 
such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the National 
Wildlife Federation supporting the same piece of legislation. I have a 
number of letters that have been sent by many of these organizations 
that illustrate the ever-growing support for the bill. The signatures 
on these letters go on and on, and they are signed by everyone from the 
Edison Electric Institute, the American Gas Association, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the Earth Day Network, and the National 
Association of State Energy Offices.
  At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these 
letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   April 30, 2014.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell: We 
     the undersigned, representing hundreds of thousands of U.S. 
     jobs, write to request that The Energy Savings and Industrial 
     Competitiveness Act of 2014 (S. 2262) be considered by the 
     full Senate as soon as possible.
       This sensible, bipartisan legislation enjoys broad support 
     in the business community. The bill's sponsors have worked 
     with industry every step of the way in crafting and vetting 
     this legislation. The reintroduced bill has generated even 
     greater consensus among a growing stakeholder coalition that 
     covers diverse economic sectors and environmental 
     organizations. The enhancements have only strengthened--and 
     broadened--the support of the U.S. business community, while 
     multiplying the energy security and environmental benefits 
     that will accrue from this landmark energy efficiency 
     legislation.
       Energy efficiency enjoys broad, bipartisan support as a 
     recent study commissioned by the National Electrical 
     Manufacturers Association and the National Association of 
     Manufacturers demonstrated. Nine in ten of those polled 
     support using energy efficient products and believe it is 
     important to include energy efficiency as part of our 
     country's energy solutions. 74 percent of those polled 
     support investing taxpayers' dollars on energy efficient 
     technologies, innovations and programs if it would save 
     consumers more money. Finally, 69 percent of those polled are 
     more likely to support investing taxpayers' dollars on energy 
     efficiency if those investments will not raise taxes or add 
     to the federal deficit and do not involve government mandates 
     on consumers.
       S. 2262 places no new mandates on U.S. businesses or 
     consumers. All new authorizations are fully offset. 
     Provisions in this legislation will promote energy savings in 
     commercial buildings and industrial facilities, which 
     together consume nearly 50 percent of the nation's primary 
     energy. The bill will also reduce energy costs within the 
     federal government, our nation's largest energy consumer, 
     saving taxpayers money.
       S. 2262 will also boosts the competitiveness of U.S. 
     manufacturers and real estate by creating jobs in the 
     manufacturing, contracting, construction, installation, 
     distribution, design, and service sectors.
       For these reasons, the Senate Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources roundly endorsed the legislation with a 
     strong bipartisan vote of 19-3. The legislation continues to 
     gain additional cosponsors with Sens. Landrieu, Coons, 
     Warner, Franken, Manchin, Collins, Ayotte, Wicker, Hoeven, 
     Isakson, Murkowski and Bennett. The House recently passed 
     several provisions contained in S. 2262 by a vote of 375-36, 
     another strong showing of support for energy efficiency.
       Now is the time to act on this important legislation and we 
     ask that S. 2262 be brought to the Senate floor as soon as 
     possible.
                                  ____



                                   American Chemistry Council,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2014.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell: As an 
     industry that creates many of the advanced solutions that 
     help society save energy, we support the Energy Savings and 
     Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 2262) and urge the 
     Senate's consideration and adoption as quickly as possible. 
     Enactment of this bipartisan legislation can elevate the role 
     of energy efficiency in a comprehensive, ``all of the above'' 
     national energy policy.
       American chemistry is a leader in energy efficiency. Our 
     companies invent and make materials and technologies that 
     empower people around the world to save energy and reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions. High-performance building 
     insulation and windows, solar panels, wind turbines, even 
     lightweight packaging and auto parts that reduce energy needs 
     in shipping and transportation all start with chemistry.
       In addition to supplying energy-saving products, we know 
     that being energy-efficient in our own operations helps 
     reduce costs and expand U.S. production and jobs. This 
     commitment has led to a 49 percent improvement in the U.S. 
     chemical industry's energy efficiency since 1974. ACC member 
     companies report on energy efficiency and other measures 
     through Responsible Care' an environmental, 
     health, and safety performance program.
       S. 2262 will achieve energy savings across the economy, 
     including homes, buildings, industry, and the federal 
     government. We encourage the Senate to approve this important 
     legislation as a key step toward a strong, secure, and 
     sustainable energy future.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Cal Dooley,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                   April 28, 2014.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, The Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, The Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: As 
     a broad coalition of energy efficiency and environmental 
     organizations, small and large businesses, trade 
     associations, and public interest groups, we urge you to 
     bring the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act 
     (S. 2074) to the floor for a vote as soon as possible.
       S. 2074, introduced on February 27, 2014 by Senator Jeanne 
     Shaheen and Senator Rob Portman, would help meet America's 
     goals of increasing energy productivity, enhancing energy 
     security, reducing harmful emissions, and promoting economic 
     growth in a financially responsible manner. The new version 
     of this bipartisan bill addresses energy savings in the 
     federal government--the nation's largest energy consumer--and 
     includes new provisions that expand energy efficiency savings 
     and benefits to all sectors of the U.S. economy, from schools 
     and homes, to commercial buildings, industry, and 
     manufacturing.
       Energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, and cleanest 
     way to tackle domestic energy demand. Wasted energy not only 
     weakens our national competitiveness on a global scale, but 
     also compounds the financial burdens of businesses and 
     consumers. An analysis of the new bill by the American 
     Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) estimates 
     that by 2030, the Energy Savings and Industrial 
     Competitiveness Act would create more than 190,000 jobs, save 
     consumers $16 billion a year, and cut carbon dioxide by the 
     equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road.
       Energy efficiency has always been a bipartisan issue. By 
     fully deploying the power of energy efficiency, we can help 
     create new jobs, save energy and money, and reduce carbon 
     emissions. This legislation affords Congress the opportunity 
     to assist the economy without undue cost or regulatory 
     burden.
       For these reasons, we urge you to schedule the Energy 
     Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act for a vote in the 
     near future so that Americans can begin reaping the many 
     benefits of energy efficiency.
                                  ____



                                      Alliance to Save Energy,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2014.
       Dear Senator: The Alliance To Save Energy strongly supports 
     S. 2262, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 
     Act, also known as Shaheen-Portman. When the bill comes to 
     the floor this week, the Alliance urges you to vote for 
     cloture and to vote for the underlying bill.
       Energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, and cleanest 
     way to reduce domestic energy consumption. Well-designed 
     programs such as those contained in the Energy Savings and 
     Industrial Competitiveness Act will help American families 
     and businesses lower their energy costs. Moreover, energy 
     efficiency policies offer Americans protection from rising 
     energy costs caused by political instability abroad, and move 
     us towards greater energy security.
       This bipartisan bill addresses energy savings in the 
     federal government--the nation's largest energy consumer--and 
     includes provisions that expand energy efficiency savings and 
     benefits to all sectors of the U.S. economy, from schools and 
     homes, to commercial buildings, industry, and manufacturing.
       More specifically, Shaheen-Portman contains provisions that 
     will create a national strategy to increase the use of energy 
     efficiency through a model building energy code; promote the 
     development of energy efficient supply-chains for companies; 
     encourage the federal government to adopt and implement 
     energy saving policies and programs; improve federal data 
     center efficiency; support the deployment of energy efficient 
     technologies in schools; improve commercial building 
     efficiency; and promote the benchmarking and disclosure of 
     buildings'

[[Page S2689]]

     energy use, among a number of other initiatives.
       Rather than squandering taxpayers' dollars on needless 
     energy costs, S. 2262 implements practical, cost effective 
     measures to tackle federal energy consumption, while creating 
     jobs and reducing emissions. It is estimated that by 2030, 
     Shaheen-Portman will create more than 190,000 jobs, save 
     consumers $16 billion a year, and cut carbon dioxide 
     emissions by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the 
     road.
       The American public wants bipartisan policies that will 
     spur economic growth and create jobs. There is consensus that 
     efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to start reducing 
     demand for the energy we currently use. We believe the Energy 
     Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act represents our 
     best chance to improve our demand-side energy policy.
       Again, we urge you to vote for cloture and to vote for the 
     underlying bill so that Americans can begin reaping the many 
     benefits of energy efficiency. If you have any questions or 
     need more background information, please have your staff 
     contact Elizabeth Tate at the Alliance To Save Energy.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kateri Callahan,
     President, Alliance To Save Energy.
                                  ____



                                      Advanced Energy Economy,

                                                      May 5, 2014.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of 
     Advanced Energy Economy, a national association of businesses 
     and business leaders who are making the global energy system 
     more secure, clean, and affordable, I am writing to encourage 
     you to bring bipartisan energy efficiency legislation (S. 
     2074) cosponsored by Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Senator Rob 
     Portman to the Senate floor.
       This bipartisan national strategy to increase energy 
     efficiency in the residential, commercial, and industrial 
     sectors of our economy reflects and accelerates the trend 
     toward greater energy efficiency many businesses are 
     embracing. Reducing costs for businesses and consumers and 
     increasing U.S. competitiveness by making our use of energy 
     more efficient is at the core of comprehensive energy policy.
       The Senate has an opportunity to join the House in passing 
     bipartisan legislation that moves us toward a more energy-
     efficient economy. S. 2074 highlights the many ways we can 
     increase energy efficiency. The bill addresses building 
     codes, financing, technical assistance, and rebate programs, 
     all positive steps toward saving money through improved 
     energy efficiency. All of these steps are important to our 
     business members, who stand ready to provide the technologies 
     and services that improve energy efficiency throughout the 
     economy. We strongly support the bill and look forward to 
     working with you as it continues through the legislative 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Graham Richard,
     CEO, Advanced Energy Economy.
                                  ____

                                           National Rural Electric


                                      Cooperative Association,

                                                      May 5, 2014.
       Dear Senator: The National Rural Electric Cooperative 
     Association strongly supports S. 2262, the Energy Savings and 
     Industrial Competitiveness Act sponsored by Senators Shaheen 
     and Portman. When the bill comes to the floor this week, 
     NRECA urges you to vote for cloture and the underlying bill.
       Approximately 250 co-ops in 34 states operate voluntary 
     demand response programs using electric resistance water 
     heaters that allow co-ops to reduce demand for electricity 
     during peak hours. In parts of the country, these water 
     heaters also allow co-ops to integrate renewable energy 
     sources like wind and effectively store that energy.
       In several major energy bills, Congress has declared the 
     promotion of demand response an important federal policy. A 
     2012 report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     (FERC) recognized co-ops' leadership in demand response. It 
     is through the use of large capacity electric resistance 
     water heaters that co-ops are able to meet such federal 
     goals.
       Electric co-ops have a straightforward mission: to provide 
     reliable electric service to their consumer-owners at the 
     lowest cost possible. However, on March 22, 2010, the 
     Department of Energy (DoE) issued a new efficiency standard 
     for water heaters that will effectively end our very 
     successful demand response programs beginning next April.
       S. 2262 will allow us to continue to use water heaters in 
     money- and energy-saving demand response programs by 
     establishing a new category of efficiency standard for water 
     heaters used in demand response programs. We have worked 
     closely with Congressional leaders, DoE, other utilities, 
     energy efficiency and environmental advocacy groups, and 
     water heater manufacturers over the past several years to 
     develop this common-sense approach to help continue the 
     beneficial use of electric resistance water heaters.
       Importantly, S. 2262 also includes consensus language to 
     resolve Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security 
     Act of 2007, that if not addressed would prohibit federal 
     facilities from using electricity generated from the use of 
     fossil fuels.
       Again, when the bill comes to the floor this week, we urge 
     your support. If you have any questions or need more 
     background information, please have your staff contact Julie 
     Barkemeyer at NRECA at 703-907-5809 or 
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
     Jo Ann Emerson.
                                  ____



                                 National Wildlife Federation,

                                                      May 5, 2014.
       Dear Senator, On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation 
     (NWF), and our over four million members and supporters 
     nationwide, I urge you to support passage of the bipartisan 
     Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 2262) 
     and oppose any controversial amendments or associated 
     legislation that does not meet the broadly agreed upon goal 
     of this bill to save money, save energy, and cut carbon 
     pollution. This includes a vote to approve the Keystone XL 
     tar sands pipeline.
       A product of cooperation and consensus under the leadership 
     of the bill's sponsors and Energy Committee leadership, S. 
     2262 applies a common-sense approach to adopting efficiency 
     measures for buildings, industry, and the federal government 
     that will promote significant cost-savings while helping to 
     protect the health of our communities and wildlife threatened 
     by climate change. Should amendments be adopted that do not 
     reflect the same consensus principle that went into producing 
     the current bill, or undermine current efforts by the federal 
     government to reduce carbon pollution, NWF will be forced to 
     oppose the legislation. We encourage you to oppose amendments 
     that would erode the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     ability to regulate carbon pollution, block federal agencies 
     from considering the social cost of carbon when assessing the 
     costs and benefits of major projects, or undermine the 
     National Environmental Policy Act.
       The Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill would be a big 
     step in the right direction. Reducing energy consumption 
     through efficiency measures is not only an important part of 
     carbon reduction strategies, but also provides wildlife and 
     habitat benefits by reducing energy-production related 
     pressure on America's wildlife and pristine lands. These 
     benefits must not be undermined by including controversial 
     amendments or tying the passage of S. 2262 to the approval of 
     the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
       The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would force America's 
     wildlife and communities to accept all the risk of oil 
     spills, contaminated water supplies, and climate-fueled 
     extreme weather like superstorm Sandy, and for what reward? 
     Higher Midwest gas prices and a handful of jobs.
       The Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, on the other 
     hand, is estimated to create 136,000 new jobs by 2025. By 
     2030, the bill will also net annual savings of $13.7 billion 
     and lower CO2 emissions and other air pollutants 
     by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. 
     These clear benefits must not be eroded by harmful amendments 
     or a mandated approval of the polluting Keystone XL tar sands 
     pipeline.
       Now is the time to implement common sense measures, like 
     efficiency standards, to create jobs, save money and reduce 
     carbon pollution. The National Wildlife Federation urges you 
     to support S. 2262, oppose any amendments or linked 
     legislation that will undermine the consensus and bipartisan 
     cooperation that the bill represents.
           Sincerely,

                                                     Jim Lyon,

                           Vice President for Conservation Policy,
     National Wildlife Federation.
                                  ____



                                          Business Roundtable,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2014.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leaders Reid and McConnell: On behalf of the more than 
     200 CEO members of Business Roundtable, who lead major 
     American companies operating in every sector of the U.S. 
     economy, I write to convey Business Roundtable's strong 
     support for the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 
     Act of 2014, S. 2262, and respectfully request that this 
     vital legislation be brought to the Senate floor for a vote 
     as expeditiously as possible.
       America's CEOs have consistently called upon Congress and 
     the Administration to adopt a more strategic approach to 
     energy policy that would capitalize on U.S. strengths to 
     promote economic growth, job creation, and enhanced energy 
     security. In our report, Taking Action on Energy: A CEO 
     Vision for America's Energy Future, Business Roundtable laid 
     out a comprehensive plan to boost U.S. energy security and 
     ensure a steady supply of reliable, affordable energy to 
     power increased growth. As noted in that report, energy 
     efficiency improvements over the last quarter century are an 
     American success story and a win-win for the U.S. economy.
       A Business Roundtable report released last month, Grow, 
     Sustain: Celebrating Success, highlights the sustainability 
     achievements of Roundtable member companies, including 
     remarkable progress in more efficient energy use. Private-
     sector innovation and CEO leadership have helped yield a 1.9 
     percent annual reduction in U.S. energy use per dollar of

[[Page S2690]]

     economic output (GDP) between 1992 and 2012. These steady 
     energy efficiency improvements are a major strategic 
     advantage for the United States.
       Enacting S. 2262 would be an important step toward 
     accelerating U.S. energy efficiency gains and facilitating 
     America's emergence as a global energy superpower. Senate 
     passage of this vital legislation would be a victory for all 
     Americans. We urge you to support S. 2262.
       Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
           Sincerely,
     David M. Cote,
       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Honeywell, Chair, 
     Energy and Environment Committee, Business Roundtable.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I think this nontraditional alliance 
clearly illustrates the sizable and diverse demand for this energy 
efficiency jobs bill and, simply put, the time is now for the Senate to 
take up and pass this bipartisan, commonsense proposal to grow our 
economy and create good-paying jobs for decades. We cannot let our 
extraneous debates about amendments or nonamendments, what amendments 
to include, which amendments not to include, to get in the way of 
getting this legislation done, because this creates jobs, it saves 
consumers money, and it saves on pollution.
  One of the great things about the bill, which I hope we are going to 
take up in a few minutes, is it includes 10 additional bipartisan 
amendments. Since our bill was taken up and pulled back from the floor 
in September, Senator Portman and I have worked closely with Senators 
from both sides of the aisle to add 10 new bipartisan provisions that 
expand current sections of our bill.
  The new bill has a section that puts in place commonsense and 
consensus-reached regulatory relief provisions that maintain the 
underlying principle of advancing energy efficiency in the private 
sector. As a result of these provisions, the legislation has more 
energy savings, more job creation, and more carbon dioxide reductions 
than the previous version of the bill.
  I want to briefly talk a little bit about some of the bipartisan 
amendments, because I think they point out the improvements in the 
legislation.
  Tenant Star builds on the success of EPA's long-running voluntary 
ENERGY STAR Program for commercial buildings and it creates a similar 
tenant-oriented certification for leased spaces. Again, it is 
voluntary. Commercial building tenants who design, construct, and 
operate their leased spaces in ways that maximize energy efficiency 
would receive the same kind of public recognition through Tenant Star 
that ENERGY STAR has produced for so many buildings and businesses.
  This bill also includes a provision for energy-efficient schools. 
Senator Susan Collins and Senator Mark Udall have an amendment included 
that would help schools' energy efficiency and streamline the 
government's programs to make them run more productively. This would 
help schools across the country that finance energy efficiency projects 
to make their buildings operate in a more sustainable fashion.
  The legislation also includes Senator Bennet's and Senator Isakson's 
amendment, called the SAVE Act, which would improve the accuracy of 
mortgage underwriting by including energy efficiency as a factor in 
determining the value and affordability of homes. It includes a 
proposal by Senators Hoeven and Pryor to create a regulatory exemption 
for thermal storage water heaters so rural cooperatives and others 
could continue to use certain large water heaters for their successful 
demand-response programs.
  In addition to what is in this legislation, we have seen in the last 
several months the House pass energy efficiency legislation, including 
a number of the provisions that are in the bill we will be taking up 
today. In fact, the House recently passed an energy efficiency package 
by an overwhelming 375-36 margin. Those provisions passed by the House 
are in the version we are introducing of Shaheen-Portman, and it shows 
how much support for energy efficiency there is throughout the 
Congress.
  We have a real opportunity to pass this legislation. This is a 
bipartisan, affordable, widely supported bill and, most importantly, an 
effective first step to address our Nation's very real energy needs.
  I thank Senator Portman for his partnership in bringing the bill to 
the floor. I thank the majority and minority leaders as well as the new 
energy Chair, Senator Landrieu, and Ranking Member Murkowski for their 
support, and thank former Energy and Natural Resources chairman, 
Senator Ron Wyden, for his support.
  I also thank the legislation's additional cosponsors: Senators 
Ayotte, Bennet, Collins, the Presiding Officer, Senator Coons, as well 
as Senators Franken, Hoeven, Isakson, Warner, and Wicker. I think the 
list of bipartisan cosponsors indicates the breadth of support for this 
legislation, that it shows the ideological breadth of support for it.
  I look forward to working with Senate leadership and with all of my 
colleagues in the Senate, because we can pass this legislation, we can 
create these jobs, we can save consumers money, and we can reduce 
pollution.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, a bill to promote 
     energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for 
     other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Jeanne Shaheen, Michael F. Bennet, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Christopher A. Coons, Bill Nelson, Tom Harkin, 
           Martin Heinrich, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Tim Kaine, Patty Murray, Tom Udall, Joe Manchin III, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Angus S. King, Jr., Mark R. 
           Warner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, a 
bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, 
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Flake
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter

[[Page S2691]]



                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Boozman
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are 
20. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 933

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, next week we are going to commemorate 
National Police Week, a time when the Nation pays tribute to the 
sacrifices made by all those who serve in law enforcement, particularly 
those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. These law 
enforcement officers risk their lives every day to protect our 
communities.
  We often speak eloquently on both sides of the aisle here about 
supporting law enforcement and their families. These tributes are 
important. They are well deserved. But the police officers in our 
communities deserve more than speeches; they deserve action and real 
support. We owe it to all who serve to help protect those who protect 
us. One important, tangible way to do so is to help provide them with 
lifesaving bulletproof vests.
  For more than 15 years the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program 
has helped to provide bulletproof vests to law enforcement officers 
around the country. Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell of 
Colorado and I worked across the aisle to design a program that helps 
local law enforcement agencies purchase bulletproof vests. We both had 
a background in law enforcement, and we drew on that. Mr. President, 
let me show you what has happened. Since 1987, this program has enabled 
over 13,000 State and local enforcement agencies to purchase over 1 
million vests.
  No one can dispute that this program saves lives. I will never forget 
a law enforcement officer who testified before our committee. He had 
his mother and father and his wife and children sitting behind him in 
the Judiciary Committee. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows how 
often we have witnesses speaking and their families are there.
  He said: I love law enforcement. I love law enforcement. The only 
thing I love more than law enforcement is my family. But there came a 
day as an officer when I thought I would never see my family again.
  It was when he stopped somebody in a routine traffic stop. The man 
came out of the car and shot him twice in the chest. He reached down 
underneath the witness table and pulled up the vest. You could see the 
two bullets still stuck in the vest.
  He said: I got a cracked rib out of it, but I saw my mother and 
father and my wife and children. I saw them when I was at the hospital, 
where they were treating me for the cracked rib. I saw them there. They 
did not have to go to the morgue to see me.
  That story is repeated all the time. No one disputes that this 
program saves lives. That is why Congress has historically acted 
quickly and decisively to support the bulletproof vests program. 
Between 2000 and 2010, the program enjoyed widespread bipartisan 
support. It was reauthorized three times by unanimous consent. This 
time around, every single Democratic Senator supports passage of the 
bill. It is also cosponsored by Senators Hagan, Cardin, Landrieu, 
Shaheen, Pryor, and Franken, to name just a few cosponsors. It has many 
other strong supporters of law enforcement, including the Fraternal 
Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, 
and the National Association of Police Organizations.
  For reasons I still do not understand, the bill is being blocked on 
the Republican side. Not a single Republican cosponsor has stepped 
forward. I cannot understand this. This has never been a partisan 
issue. It should not be a partisan issue. We are doing this to protect 
the lives of police officers.
  Senator Grassley and I developed a bipartisan reauthorization that 
included improvements to the program. One important change is that 
agencies are now given a grant preference for purchasing vests that are 
uniquely fitted to women officers. There are far more women as police 
officers today than there were even when Senator Ben Nighthorse-
Campbell and I first introduced this bill.
  The program is now stronger than ever. I think the vast majority of 
Senators want to see this program reauthorized. I do not know why 
Republican Senators have blocked it, especially when we are now 
protecting, as we had not before, women police officers too. I do not 
know how we can turn our backs on our police officers.
  I would also urge support for the National Blue Alert Act, which was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee with a strong bipartisan vote. It 
is sponsored by Senators Cardin and Graham. I am a proud cosponsor. The 
bipartisan Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which I coauthored with 
Republican Senator John Cornyn and which reauthorizes important 
programs such as the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant 
Program--named after a former Republican Senator--is another important 
bill to law enforcement that we should approve without further delay. 
It actually defies common sense that any Senator would object to these 
pieces of legislation.
  Next week I will attend, as I almost always do, the National Peace 
Officers Memorial Service, and there will be a wreath-laying at the 
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which now contains the 
names of over 20,000 fallen officers. I remember shortly after I became 
State's attorney going to the funeral of one of those fallen officers. 
I have never forgotten that--even though it was decades ago--the long 
line of police cars, with blue lights flashing. Snow was coming down, 
and the blue lights reflected off the snowflakes. The names, 
unfortunately, do not just stop with those over 20,000 fallen officers. 
The names of 286 fallen officers will be added to its walls, serving as 
another somber reminder of the brave men and women of law enforcement 
who risk their lives each and every day. They work tirelessly to keep 
our communities safe. They deserve our best efforts to do the same for 
them.
  I am, in a moment, going to ask consent that the Senate pass S. 933, 
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 
2013. It has always been bipartisan. We should not let ideology put 
officers' lives at risk now. I commend the fact that every single 
Democratic Senator supports it and we can honor the service of those 
who keep us safe by protecting their lives with bulletproof vests.
  Frankly, if somebody stands with law enforcement, now is the time to 
stand with them. I can assure you--and they will assure you--it matters 
here, and it matters to them.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of Calendar No. 162, S. 933, the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act; that the bill be read a 
third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Thank you.
  The most senior Member of our body understands the differences he and 
I have on a lot of issues. Most of what he said is true in his 
statement about the sacrifices and the effectiveness. Where we have a 
difference of agreement and a difference of understanding is in the 
enumerated powers of the Constitution of the United States.
  The fact is that every individual in this country today owes $50,000 
just on the debt, and every family is responsible for $1,100,000 in 
unfunded liabilities that your children and you will ultimately pay 
for.
  This is not about vests. This is about continuing to do the same 
thing that got our country in trouble. This is a $120 million 
authorization with no offset, no cutting of spending anywhere else. If 
it is a priority, we ought to cut spending somewhere else. But, more 
importantly, the Constitution lists the enumerated powers, and there is 
no role for the Federal Government in terms of funding local police 
departments. It would be nice to do if we were in surplus. We could 
ignore the enumerated powers. But we are not in surplus. We are 
borrowing tons of money

[[Page S2692]]

every year. We are going to borrow $580 billion this year--$580 billion 
against the future. And the small thing--this is small. It is only $120 
million. I do not object to our police officers having vests. I want 
them all to have vests. I want all the women to have vests. But it is 
not a role for the Federal Government. It is a role for my hometown 
police department in Muskogee, OK. The taxpayers there should protect 
our police officers.
  Our Founders were very clear, and the reason this country is in 
trouble is we continue to practice outside the parameters of a limited 
government and take away the responsibility and obligations of State 
and local communities.
  On that basis, I raise an objection and do not agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEAHY. Well, Mr. President, I am sorry to hear this. I hear 
people who supported a useless war in Iraq, and they will talk about 
how much money we spend. It was the first time in America's history----
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a moment, just for a question?
  Is the Senator aware that I never voted for any of the money for that 
spending?
  (Ms. HEITKAMP assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator will go back to what I 
said, it did not refer to him.
  I worry about those, however, who voted for that war and did not vote 
to stop that war and voted for the very first time that this country 
has ever gone to war in its history without a tax to pay for it. We 
voted for it on a credit card--an unnecessary war, a war that hurt the 
interests of the United States, and it will eventually cost us $2 
trillion. Nobody--nobody--talks about paying for that. But to protect 
the police officers, who are on the street every day protecting us, oh, 
we cannot do that. We cannot do that, even though we have done so 
before.
  I could name the six police officers who were killed in Oklahoma. I 
am not going to. I am not trying to make this personal. But the 
Presiding Officer understands law enforcement. She supported this. 
Everybody on this side of the aisle supports it. It is to protect our 
police officers.
  We will spend $2 trillion on a useless war, but we will not spend a 
tiny fraction of 1 percent--one one-thousandth of 1 percent--to support 
our men and women, especially when we now have a provision in here to 
protect women police officers as well as men police officers. What 
could be more--what could be more--nonpartisan than this? That is why 
Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and I joined together, why Republicans 
and Democrats have joined together.
  I am proud that every Democratic Senator is in favor of this 
legislation. I wish the Republicans would lift their objection. We 
should pass this bill. If you stand with law enforcement, then you need 
to stand with them when it matters most. I can assure you--and they can 
assure you--it matters here, and it matters now.
  I yield the floor. I think I have expressed my dismay that the other 
side of the aisle would not stand up to protect these police officers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about the 
issue that is before us now on the floor, the energy efficiency act, 
led by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman.
  The issue the Senators from Oklahoma and Vermont just spoke about is 
extremely important, and there will be, I am sure, appropriate time to 
debate that issue. I thank Senator Leahy for his extraordinary 
leadership for the safety and support of our police officers, for the 
many, literally dozens of years--decades--he has served, and he 
continues to do a magnificent job, and I will be supporting him in 
those efforts.
  But I came to the floor to speak today about the bill that is now 
before us, with a vote of 79 votes--a very strong bipartisan signal 
that Republicans and Democrats would like to debate an energy 
efficiency bill that came out of the Energy Committee on a vote of 19 
to 3.
  I just became the chair of this committee, but I have served on it 
now for almost 18 years and just a few weeks ago became the chair. I 
have had the privilege to work with Republican and Democratic chairs of 
this committee. I am excited about the opportunity to try to find a 
path forward with the Presiding Officer, who has been, although not a 
member of the committee, an absolutely outstanding leader on energy 
issues since arriving in the Senate, and really look forward to working 
with her and Members from both sides of the aisle to actually deliver 
what I think the American people want: a sensible mainstream energy 
policy for America that increases domestic energy production, 
efficiency, and conservation; creates millions of jobs right here at 
home; makes us more energy secure and energy independent; and works 
with our friends, not our enemies.
  I think we can get it done. I have been in the Senate long enough to 
know that things aren't easy, but I refuse to be cynical. I refuse to 
be, woe is me, the world is coming to an end, which I hear a lot around 
here. I think there are a lot of positive things going on in the 
country.
  In the Presiding Officer's home State, North Dakota, I think there is 
zero unemployment. I think we come in second at about 4.5 percent 
unemployment in Louisiana because we are busy working--not fighting but 
working--together to produce energy jobs for the country.
  I was very proud to support this efficiency bill in committee. I 
would like, of course, to see some additional things added to it, but 
to move it forward--I voted for it to move this bill forward to the 
floor.
  When I became the chair of the committee, I had committed to Ron 
Wyden, the former chair, and Lisa Murkowski, the ranking member--which 
it is really their work, along with Senators Shaheen and Portman, two 
outstanding members of the committee--to see what I could do to move 
this bill forward.
  I wanted to talk a minute about why this is important and frame this 
in a way that our Members can understand it.
  First--I am going to talk about the bill itself in a minute, but let 
me just step back and say this: There have been 302 bills filed in this 
Congress that relate to energy that have been sent to our committee for 
review. I am sad to say, and I think my constituents and others will be 
disappointed to hear, that only 13 of those bills have become law. I 
want to repeat that: 302 bills have been referred to the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources since the beginning of this 
Congress and only 13 have become law. One of the reasons I wanted to 
bring the energy efficiency bill to the floor is because I think we 
need to make that 14.
  I think this record is pretty dismal, and this is not a negative 
statement to the leadership of the committee prior to my being there. 
It is rather a reflection on the lack of cooperation that we are 
getting either at the committee level or in the Senate. It most 
certainly is not a reflection on the talents of the former chairman, 
Ron Wyden, and Lisa Murkowski, who couldn't have worked--and this is 
sort of the sad underpinning. You couldn't find two leaders who tried 
to work together more than these two. I know because I have sat next to 
them on that committee for 18 years and I have watched them. I am an 
eyewitness to their cordial, respectful conversations, both on and off 
the committee, when the cameras were on and when the cameras were off. 
Nobody can question this or deny it because everyone knows it is true, 
and there are many eyewitnesses besides myself.
  The question becomes, if a committee has two people who are working 
well together, a committee that is as important in jurisdiction as 
Energy and Natural Resources is in this country, how is it possible 
that we can only get 13 out of 302 bills passed? That is a very 
interesting question. Why couldn't we get 14 done this week? That is 
why I brought this bill to the floor or asked for it to come to the 
floor, particularly because it is important to both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  Let's talk for a minute about how important this bill is. I have 10 
pages of a single-spaced list of businesses, organizations that support 
this Shaheen-Portman bill, which I will submit for the Record. 
Remember, it came out of committee, one of the few of the 300 filed, on 
a 19-to-3 vote.

[[Page S2693]]

  There are roughly 200 organizations and businesses. I am going to 
submit all of their names for the Record, but I just wanted to read a 
few, to understand the breadth of support for this bill before I talk 
about what this bill does. They are: Alcoa, American Air, Inc., Aspen 
Skiing Company, BAE Systems, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Corning, Eastern 
Mountain Sports, Intel, International Paper, Owens Corning, Raytheon 
Company--one of the largest in the world, Solar Turbines Incorporated, 
Universal Lighting, American Jewish Committee, Christian Coalition, 
ConservAmerica, Earth Day Network, the National Wildlife Federation, 
the American Chemistry Council, American Lighting Association, Consumer 
Federation of America, League of Women Voters, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of 
endorsements.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (Shaheen-Portman) 
                              Endorsements


                              Businesses:

       A.O. Smith; Aberdeen Mechanical; ABM Energy; Acuity Brands 
     Lighting; Alcoa; American Air, Inc.; American Power 
     Conversion; Anvil Knitwear; Aspen Skiing Company; AT&T 
     Autodesk; Avon Lake Sheet Metal Co.; BAE Systems; Baldor; 
     BASF; Bayer; Best Buy; BJB Electric L.P.; The Brewer-Garrett 
     Co.; Bosch; Capital E; Capstone Turbine Corporation; 
     Caterpillar Inc.; Castle Heating & Air, Inc.
       Clif Bar; CLC Associates; Cooper; Coulomb Technologies; 
     Creston Electronics; D. L. Page, Inc.; Danfoss; Deco 
     Lighting; Direct Energy; Dow Corning; Duct Fabricators, 
     Incorporated; DwellTek Home Energy Solutions; Eastern 
     Mountain Sports; Eaton Corporation; eBay Inc.; ECOtality; EDA 
     Architecture; Eileen Fisher; eMeter; Energy Platforms; 
     EnerNOC; EnLink GeoEnergy; FlexEnergy; Frank & Fric. Inc.; 
     Fresh Energy; Fulton & Associates Balance Company; G&W 
     Electric; Geauga Mechanical Co., Inc.; General Electric; 
     Gilbert Industries, INC.
       Guardian Industries; Graftech; Green Strategies, Inc.; 
     HAVE, Inc.; Honeywell; HUBBELL INCORPORATED; Imperial Heating 
     & Cooling, Inc.; Industrial First, Inc.; Infineon 
     Technologies; Ingersoll Rand; Intel; International Paper; 
     Itron; JELD-WEN; Johns Manville; Johnson Controls; Kaiserman 
     Company; Knauf Insulation; LEDnovation; Legrand; Lennox 
     International; Leviton; Levi Strauss and Co.; Linde; 
     Litetronics International Inc.; LumenOptix; Luminus Devices, 
     Inc.; Lutron; Luxury Heating Co.; Magnaray.
       Masco Corporation; Middle Atlantic; Miles Mechanical, Inc.; 
     Nalco, an Ecolab Company; National Grid USA; Nexans USA Inc.; 
     Northern Ohio Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc.; Orion Energy 
     Systems; OSRAM SYLVANIA; Owens Corning; Owens Illinois; 
     Panasonic Corporation of North America; Philips Electronics; 
     PPG; Professional Balance Company (dba PBC, Inc.); Quanex; 
     RAB Lighting; Raytheon Company; Recycled Energy Development; 
     Regal-Beloit; RESNET; Rinnai America Corporation; Robert 
     Bosch LLC; Robertshaw Controls Company dba. Invensys 
     Controls; Rockwell Automation; RPM; Safety-Kleen Systems, 
     Inc.; Saint-Gobain; Schneider Electric; Schweizer Dipple, 
     Inc.
       Sibley, Inc.; Siemens Corporation; Sika Corporation; 
     SimplexGrinnell; Solar Turbines Incorporated; SPRI, Inc.; 
     Stonyfield Farm; Symantec; T. H. Martin Inc.; TE 
     Connectivity; TECO Westinghouse Motor Company; Tendril; 
     TerraLUX; The Dow Chemical Company; The Stella Group, Ltd.; 
     Thomas & Betts; Trane; TRI-C Sheet Metal, Inc.; United 
     Technologies Corporation; Universal Lighting; Ushio America; 
     Vantage; Veka Inc.; Vinyl Siding Institute; Watkins 
     Manufacturing; WattStopper; Westinghouse Lighting 
     Corporation; Willham Roofing Co., Inc.; Whirlpool 
     Corporation.


                       Faith Based Organizations

       American Jewish Committee, Christian Coalition, Interfaith 
     Power and Light, Union for Reform Judaism.


                        Environmental Advocates

       Clean Air-Cool Planet, Clean Water Action, Climate 
     Solutions, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Services 
     Group, ConservAmerica, Earth Day Network, Environment 
     America, Environment Northeast, Environmental Defense Fund, 
     Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Environmental Law 
     and Policy Center, League of Conservation Voters, 
     Massachusetts Climate Action Network, National Wildlife 
     Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, 
     World Wildlife Fund, The Wilderness Society, Oregon 
     Environmental Council, Earthjustice.


                     Trade Associations/Think Tanks

       Adhesive and Sealant Council, Air-Conditioning, Heating and 
     Refrigeration Institute, Alliance for Industrial Efficiency, 
     Alliance to Save Energy, American Architectural Manufacturers 
     Association, American Chemical Society, American Chemistry 
     Council, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 
     American Institute of Architects, American Lighting 
     Association, American Public Power Association, Appliance 
     Standards Awareness Project, ASHRAE, Association of Pool & 
     Spa Professionals, Association of State Energy Research and 
     Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI), Bipartisan Policy 
     Center, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Business for 
     Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, Business Roundtable, 
     Boulder Green Building Guild, Cellulose Insulation 
     Manufacturers Association, Center for the Celebration of 
     Creation, Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing, 
     Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), Combined 
     Heat and Power Association, Consumer Federation of America, 
     Consumers Union, Copper Development Association, Council of 
     North American Insulation Manufactures Association, Digital 
     Energy & Sustainability Solutions Campaign (DESSC), 
     Efficiency First.
       Energy Future Coalition, Federal Performance Contracting 
     Coalition, Friends Committee on National Legislation, 
     Geothermal Exchange Organization, Green Building Initiative, 
     Habitat for Humanity International, Illuminating Engineering 
     Society, Industrial Energy Efficiency Coalition, Industrial 
     Minerals Association, Information Technology Industry Council 
     (ITIC), Institute for Market Transformation, Institute for 
     Sustainable Communities, International Association of 
     Lighting Designers, International Association of Plumbing and 
     Mechanical Officials, International Copper Association, Ltd., 
     International District Energy Association, Large Public Power 
     Council, League of Women Voters, Midwest Energy Efficiency 
     Alliance (MEEA), NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate 
     Development Association, National Association for State 
     Community Services Programs (NASCSP), National Association of 
     Energy Service Companies (NAESCO), National Association of 
     Manufacturers, National Association of State Energy Officials 
     (NASEO), National Community Action Foundation, National 
     Electrical Manufacturers Association, National Restaurant 
     Association, National Roofing Contracting Association (NRCA), 
     National Small Business Association (NSBA), National U.S. 
     Clean Heat & Power Association.
       New England Council, New England Fuel Institute, North 
     Carolina Chamber, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 
     (NEEP), Northwest Energy Coalition, Northwest Energy 
     Efficiency Alliance, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, 
     Ohio Business Council for a Clean Economy, Ohio Chemistry 
     Technology Council, Ohio Manufacturers Association, Ohio 
     Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, Oil Heat 
     Council of New Hampshire, Oil & Energy Service Professionals, 
     Oregon Environmental Council, Outdoor Industry Association, 
     Petroleum Marketers Association of America, PEW Charitable 
     Trusts, Plumbing Manufacturers International, 
     Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA), 
     Rebuilding Together, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning 
     Contractor's National Association (SMACNA), Solar Energy 
     Industries Association, Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance 
     (SEEA), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, SPI: The Plastics 
     Industry Trade Association, The Aluminum Association, The 
     Vinyl Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors, U.S. Green Buildings Council, Utah Clean Energy, 
     Union of Concerned Scientists, Vinyl Building Council, Window 
     and Door Manufacturers Association.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I could go on and on, but the point I think is clear. 
There are organizations from the left, the right, the center, large and 
small, business coalitions, consumer coalitions, saying act now on 
energy efficiency.
  We may not be able to, and I doubt sincerely that in the next 4 days 
on floor of the Senate we can draft an energy policy for America. That 
would be a bar set a little too high for what we will be able to do 
between Tuesday and Friday.
  But we could do two important things for the country: pass this 
energy efficiency bill and pass the Keystone Pipeline, something I am 
proud to vote for. You will vote for it. It is a piece of the energy 
infrastructure this country needs, this country deserves, and we need 
to move forward on it.
  So in the spirit of balance, compromise, fairness, and common sense--
which we are not finding around here very often--I thought: Let's see. 
We have an energy efficiency bill that is supported by an 
extraordinarily broad and deep coalition of businesspeople and 
supported by two of the most respected Members of this body.
  May I remind everyone, Jeanne Shaheen was a Governor before she was a 
Senator. She has been serving for decades in public office and is well 
known and well respected.
  Bob Portman is not only a Senator from Ohio but was formerly the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, so he understands 
about finance, cost, and savings. I don't think either he or Jeanne 
Shaheen would have put their names on this bill,

[[Page S2694]]

which they have been working on now for 5 years. This is not an 
election-year bill, as some would call it. This is a 5-year, very hard 
effort by these two wonderful legislators to provide a bill the country 
needs. So why aren't we all jumping up and down voting for it? That is 
a good question.
  Rob Portman, who was also the U.S. Trade Representative under the 
Bush administration and saw firsthand when Congress passed very poorly 
thought-out bills or made mistakes in bills we passed, and seeing so 
many jobs leaving to go to China and India, probably jumped on a chance 
to create jobs in America. Thank goodness for Rob Portman. That is what 
our energy efficiency bill does. It creates jobs for America.
  When I go home and I am out in my parishes, whether it is Tangipahoa 
Parish or Richland Parish or De Soto Parish or Caddo Parish or East 
Baton Rouge or Orleans Parish, people look at me and say: Senator, I 
don't know why everybody is yelling and screaming in Washington. I 
don't know why everybody is yelling and screaming about the President 
or this or that. Would you please tell them we want high-paying jobs.
  Yes, raising the minimum wage is important. I am voting for the 
minimum wage. People don't want to make the minimum wage. They want to 
make $40-, $50-, $60-, $70,000 a year. They want an income for their 
families so their kids can go to school, go to college, so they can 
live in their homes and retire securely. Do you think you can do that 
at a minimum wage, whether it is $7 an hour or $10 an hour? No.
  We have a bill on the floor that is going to create American jobs 
with American manufacturers--maybe not all U.S. technology because 
frankly we get good energy efficiency technology from around the world, 
but Americans are very good at this--very good at it. In fact, it is so 
good that in an old graph--which I am going to have updated and blown 
up because no one can see this but me, unfortunately, because it is so 
small. If the cameras can pick it up--and I am going to have it updated 
by this afternoon--we can see that it says, ``Energy Efficiency: 
America's Greatest Energy Resource.''
  Energy efficiency supplies 52 percent of our overall resources, 
petroleum is 35, natural gas is 23, coal is 19, and nuclear is 8.
  Think about energy efficiency as our Nation's greatest resource. 
Energy savings from efficiency are real and save Americans money. Since 
1970, energy efficiency improvements have reduced U.S. energy costs by 
about $700 billion from what it would have been otherwise.
  When we think about energy saved, it is the cleanest energy. It is 
completely or almost completely American because we are the ones saving 
it. We may import a little of that technology from other places, but it 
is all American, all day, all clean. Why aren't we doing it?
  The other side--and I know Senator Thune is going to speak in a 
minute--said energy efficiency is not enough for us. We want to build 
the Keystone Pipeline, so I agree. I agree. I think it is time to do 
both; to do this energy efficiency bill, to build the Keystone 
Pipeline. Why? Not because I don't respect the process but because the 
process is over--5 years, 5 studies as required by law. Five studies 
were completed, the last of which was a State Department study that 
concluded it is actually environmentally safer to transport oil from 
Canada, from the oil sands in Canada to the refineries along the gulf 
coast to provide energy for this Nation and create anywhere from 30- to 
50,000 jobs, depending on conservative or liberal facts, talking 
points, to create jobs and to put America and Canada closer together. 
We already are together but even closer together to be a North American 
energy powerhouse.
  Canada has very high--as the Presiding Officer knows because she 
visited the oil sands. I am looking forward to going as soon as I can, 
but I do know, because she shared her experiences with me, that it is 
very spectacular to see the environmental safeguards Canada has used to 
produce this resource that is so important to them in the Alberta 
Province and to us.
  Why not have an energy efficiency bill that is very popular with 
Democrats and supported by Republicans and then an energy piece, just a 
piece, not the whole energy policy of the world, not the whole energy 
policy of the United States but two important pillars, efficiency and 
production, put them together, try to find compromise and move it 
forward on these two pieces of legislation. Then we can get it over to 
the House, let the House decide if they will do it, and move it to the 
President's desk separately because the President has powers in the 
Constitution, and we have our own powers.
  One would think that would make a lot of sense, and this is what I 
was hoping to do by asking the leadership to allow the Shaheen-Portman 
bill to come to the floor. But evidently, as balanced, as fair as that 
sounds, I think it is unfortunately probably not going to be sufficient 
to move this issue forward. We shall see. We are going to open this for 
debate.
  I wish the debate could be about energy efficiency and the importance 
of this bill, things that might improve this bill relative to energy 
efficiency and not on other matters that both sides know do not have 
this kind of broad-based support.
  Some of the matters colleagues want to file as amendments that are 
pending, or those I know of that might come to the floor, have not even 
come through our committee. This bill did come through the committee on 
a 19-to-3 vote. While the Keystone Pipeline has not yet come through 
committee, it can come to this floor and there may be enough votes to 
pass it--very, very close. We have about 57 to 58 votes, as I stand 
here. We need two or three or four more. We might get those votes as 
the debate goes on and as people listen to the importance of promoting 
America as an energy superpower.
  I will talk more about that later in the week. I have a lot more to 
say about the importance of the Keystone Pipeline. But for right now, I 
want to ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to really think about 
the benefits to their districts, to their people, and to our country, 
to support the energy efficiency bill and to agree on a vote on the 
Keystone Pipeline in hopes of getting a balanced effort moving forward.
  There will be time to talk about other issues that are much more 
controversial. Although I support many of them, they are much more 
controversial, if you can believe it, than these two. Even though 
Keystone is controversial, we still have almost 60 votes, so it is 
worth trying for. So that is my pitch--to try to be as cooperative as 
we can.
  I think Leader Reid has been extremely reasonable in allowing the 
efficiency bill to come to the floor, knowing there are lots--
hundreds--of amendments that could be talked about and that are 
extraneous to this issue. Technically, he is agreeing to a stand-alone 
vote on Keystone, which is a big concession for the leader of a party 
where the majority of our Members, unfortunately, aren't supporting it. 
I support it, Senator Begich supports it, Senator Tester supports it, 
and Senator Heitkamp supports it. But my friends on the Republican side 
should understand that when Boehner says he can't take up an issue 
unless a majority of his caucus is for it, they all jump up and down 
and say: Go Speaker Boehner, yes. That is the way to go. Yet when Harry 
Reid stands up and says, listen, I am going as far as I can go here--
the majority of my caucus doesn't even support Keystone, but I am going 
to allow a vote on it--my Republican colleagues want to just push that 
aside as if he is not cooperating. It is disingenuous, it is 
hypocritical, and it is unfair.
  Now, Harry can fight his own battles. He doesn't need me to fight 
them for him. But let me just say to the other side that I don't want 
to hear anything from you all: Well, we can't get that done because 
even though we have the votes in the House, we don't have a majority of 
Republicans. This is about Republicans and Democrats sometimes crossing 
the aisle to do what is right for our country and not being held 
hostage by the side wings of our parties. I wish I had a little more 
help around here doing that.
  Anyway, we will give it the old college try and try to get this 
energy efficiency bill through and get an up-or-down vote on the 
Keystone Pipeline. If people cooperate, we will get it done. If not, we 
will have had only 13 bills passed out of this Congress from the

[[Page S2695]]

energy committee, and we will have to roll up our sleeves and go back 
to work and figure out a better approach. This is the best one I could 
come up with. It may work; it may not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso be 
recognized, followed by the Senator from Arkansas Mr. Pryor.
  Madam President, I modify the unanimous consent request and ask that 
Senator Pryor be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks, followed 
by Senator Barrasso.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, yesterday USA Today and the Pew Research 
Center released a new poll that found Americans, by more than a 2-to-1 
margin, were dissatisfied with the direction the country is going. 
Sixty-two percent of Americans rate their personal financial situation 
as poor or fair. A whopping 65 percent want the next President to 
pursue policies different from those of the current President.
  What I would suggest is that the American people are tired--they are 
tired of seeing their bills go up while their paychecks don't. They are 
tired of having to work harder just to stay in place--to say nothing of 
getting ahead. They are tired of economic promises that are often 
repeated but never fulfilled.
  Our economy has supposedly been in recovery for years, but it is a 
recovery that feels a lot like a recession to ordinary hardworking 
Americans. More than 10 million Americans are unemployed, and more than 
one-third of them have been out of work for more than 6 months.
  While unemployment finally declined last month, the decline was 
driven more by the fact that 806,000 Americans dropped out of the 
workforce entirely than by any meaningful surge in the number of those 
who are employed. Had the number of Americans participating in the 
labor force stayed flat last month, the unemployment rate would have 
actually gone up, not down. In fact, if the labor force participation 
rate today were the same as it was when President Obama took office, 
our Nation would have an unemployment rate of 10.4 percent.
  So what is happening is more and more people are leaving the labor 
force. They are completely discouraged. But the labor force 
participation rate has fallen, and one of the main reasons it has 
fallen is because so many Americans have grown so discouraged that they 
have given up looking for work entirely.
  Our country has experienced recessions before, but we have always 
bounced back. But our recovery from this recession has been so slow--at 
times, seemingly nonexistent--that many are wondering if the last 5 
years of sluggish growth and recession-level unemployment could be the 
new normal. And they are right; it could be, if we continue the 
policies of the last 5 years.
  The widespread dissatisfaction with the economy reflected in the Pew 
poll may not be what Democrats want to see, but it is the natural 
outcome of their policies. They have spent 5 years pursuing policies 
that have not only been unsuccessful in creating jobs but have all too 
frequently actually hurt job creation.
  Take ObamaCare. It is hard to even know where to start when talking 
about the damage ObamaCare is wreaking on the jobs and the economy. 
There is the ObamaCare tax on lifesaving medical devices, such as 
pacemakers and insulin pumps, which has cost thousands of jobs in this 
industry already and is going to cost thousands more. There is the 30-
hour workweek rule, which has forced businesses, State and local 
governments, and nonprofits to cut the hours of workers in this 
country. There is the employer mandate, which has caused many 
businesses to rethink their plans to expand and hire new workers. Then, 
of course, there is the burden the law places on small businesses.

  The title of an article that appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal 
over the weekend summed it up nicely, and the headline went like this: 
``Own a small business? Brace for ObamaCare pain.'' This article 
pointed out something that is often overlooked in discussions of the 
law--that the people who will suffer the most from the small business 
health plan cancellations that ObamaCare will cause in Nevada and 
around the country are those who can least afford it--the kind of 
people the law was supposed to help.
  To quote from the article:

       Some workers are at higher risk than others of losing 
     company-sponsored coverage. Professional, white-collar 
     companies such as law or engineering firms will bite the 
     bullet and renew at higher prices. . . . But moderately 
     skilled or low-skilled people making $8 to $14 an hour 
     working for landscaping businesses, fire prevention firms or 
     fencing companies could lose work-based coverage because the 
     plans cost so much relative to salaries.

  That is right, Madam President. It is low-income workers in places 
like Nevada who stand in the greatest danger of losing their employer-
sponsored coverage. That is frequently the story when it comes to the 
Democrats' so-called job-creating policies. Democrats like to suggest 
that Republicans are indifferent to workers' plight, and that only 
Democrats really have a plan to offer help. But in fact the Democrats' 
plans to help often pose the most danger to low-income workers.
  There is ObamaCare, of course, as I mentioned, but there is also the 
minimum wage proposal, which the Congressional Budget Office says will 
eliminate up to 1 million jobs. Those 1 million jobs that will be 
eliminated are not doctors' jobs and they are not lawyers' jobs. They 
are positions held by low-income workers who will be the first to 
suffer when employers have to cut back on hiring or on hours as a 
result of the minimum wage hike.
  Then, of course, there is the Keystone Pipeline, which we are talking 
a little about today, and which the President has resolutely refused to 
approve, despite the fact that it would support, according to his own 
State Department estimates, 42,000 jobs without spending a dime of 
taxpayer money.
  The people who will be hurt the worst by the President's decision to 
cow to the relentless pressure of far-left environmentalists are the 
workers who would actually build the pipeline and the restaurants and 
small businesses who would benefit from pipeline workers' business 
during construction.
  It is not just Keystone. Almost all of the President's energy 
policies would do serious damage to our economy and to working 
Americans. Take the restrictions on ground-level ozone levels the 
President's EPA is scheduled to release by December of this year.
  In 2010, the EPA proposed lowering the permitted ozone levels from 75 
parts per billion to 60 to 70 parts per billion. Energy industry 
estimates suggest that lowering the ground-level ozone concentration to 
60 parts per billion would cost businesses--get this--more than $1 
trillion per year--$1 trillion per year--between 2020 and 2030. Job 
losses as a result of this measure would total a staggering 7.3 million 
by 2020, devastating entire industries--most especially U.S. 
manufacturing. My own State of South Dakota would lose tens of 
thousands of jobs in manufacturing, natural resources and mining, and 
construction.
  Take a look at what this would actually do. These are the areas under 
these proposals that have been put forward. Today there are probably a 
couple hundred counties in the country that are not in compliance, in 
what we call nonattainment areas--mostly urban, heavily populated 
areas. But if we take a look at what their proposal would do on this 
map, this map represents those who would be affected if we went to 60 
parts per billion as opposed to the 75 parts per billion today.
  So instead of focusing on those counties in this country that are not 
currently in attainment and getting them to full attainment first, we 
are talking about expanding dramatically the impact this would have all 
across the country.
  Look at my State of South Dakota, for example. We have areas that 
wouldn't be in attainment. We don't think of South Dakota as being a 
place where we have problems with clean air and ozone issues, but this 
is clearly a regulation which, if put into effect, would cost the 
economy literally billions and billions of dollars--in one estimate $1 
trillion per year between 2020 and 2030.

[[Page S2696]]

  If we look at where this hurts people the most, again, it is the 
people who are in the lower and middle-income range--people whose 
budgets are more heavily affected by hikes in their energy bills.
  Today the President will hold press events to raise the alarm about 
climate change and push for more job-killing, industry crippling energy 
policies, but it will be interesting to see if he spares a line or two 
for the millions of Americans whose jobs will be lost and whose 
household budgets will be shattered as a result of his proposals.
  This week the Senate is going to be considering the Shaheen-Portman 
energy legislation. I plan to introduce three amendments to check EPA 
overreach and to protect American workers from the devastating effects 
of the EPA's ground-level ozone and greenhouse gas proposal.
  The first amendment will require Congress to vote up or down on any 
EPA regulation that has an annual cost of more than $1 billion. Pretty 
straightforward. Let the people's representatives vote. If they are 
going to put regulations out there that are going to cost more than $1 
billion, let us have Congress vote on those.
  The second amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing 
greenhouse gas regulations for new and existing power plants if the 
Department of Energy and the GAO determine those regulations will raise 
energy prices or cost jobs. So if the Department of Energy and the GAO 
determine the regulations will not impact jobs or energy prices, the 
EPA can go forward and finalize those regulations.
  It is time to be honest with the American people about the cost of 
these regulations. Taken together, these two amendments are a strong 
step toward placing a check on EPA's regulatory train wreck.
  The final amendment I will offer is specific to the administration's 
upcoming proposal on ground-level ozone, which as I just mentioned is 
the most expensive regulation in EPA's history. The cost of this 
regulation is so great that when the EPA first proposed lower levels in 
2010, the White House delayed those regulations until after the 
President's reelection.
  My amendment is straightforward.
  First, it would require the EPA to consider the costs and feasibility 
of new ozone regulations. Many Americans would be surprised to know the 
EPA isn't even allowed to consider costs when setting these new 
regulations. My amendment would fix that.
  Additionally, my amendment would force the EPA to focus on the worst 
areas for smog before dramatically expanding this regulation to the 
rest of the country. As I mentioned on the map here, 221 counties 
across 27 States don't even meet the current standard of 75 parts per 
billion. It makes sense to focus on these urban areas before expanding 
ozone regulations to places such as western South Dakota, where we 
clearly don't have a smog problem.
  Under my amendment, 85 percent of these counties would have to 
achieve full compliance with the existing standard before the EPA can 
move forward with a lower level which dramatically expands the reach of 
ozone regulations. I hope the Senate will get the chance to vote on 
these proposals.
  I also hope the Senate will get a chance to vote on the Keystone 
amendment so we can get those 42,000 jobs opened to American workers.
  It has been a long time since we have had a real energy debate in the 
Senate. But given our sluggish economy and the danger the President's 
energy proposals pose to any future growth, I am hoping the majority 
leader will decide it is time for a debate.
  The election-year agenda offered by Democrats and the President is 
just more of the same job-killing, growth-stifling legislation that 
Democrats have been offering for the past 5 years. Like the legislation 
the Democrats and the President have offered for the last 5 years, it 
will do the worst injury to those Americans who can least afford it.
  Pundits may warn that our current economic malaise is the new normal, 
but it doesn't have to be that way. We can get the economy going again. 
We can lift the heavy burden of government regulation and free 
businesses to grow and create jobs. We can make it easier, not harder, 
for middle-class workers to find stability and for lower income workers 
to make it into the middle class.
  According to the Pew/USA Today poll, 65 percent of Americans want the 
next President to pursue different policies. It is still a couple more 
years until the next Presidential election, but there is no reason 
Congress can't start pursuing different policies today. The American 
people have been struggling for long enough.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                     Operation Razorback-Guatemala

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank my colleague who allowed me to 
jump in front of him in the line. I appreciate that.
  I am sorry for my voice today. I sound a little bit like Daffy Duck, 
but I have a cold, and I am working through that right now.
  I rise today to speak for a few minutes about something in this 
country we take for granted--and that is electricity.
  Ever since the Rural Electrification Act back in the 1930s passed, 
for the most part every person in this country has had access to 
electricity. I know there are a few exceptions, but basically that 
program has worked extremely well and continues to work. As the 
Presiding Officer, who comes from a rural State, knows, sometimes we 
have investor-owned facilities, sometimes we have these cooperative 
type utilities, and sometimes we have even municipalities.
  I rise today to focus on something the Arkansas electric cooperatives 
have been involved in, and I thank 25 power linemen in the 12 electric 
coops in Arkansas who recently completed a mission to electrify two 
remote Guatemalan villages. Combined with a 2013 project, Arkansas 
electric cooperative linemen have assisted in providing electric 
service to more than 770 rural Guatemalan residents who otherwise would 
not have electricity. This is the first time these people have ever had 
electricity in their lives.
  This rural electrification initiative is part of Arkansas's Operation 
Razorback-Guatemala that started in 2012 in cooperation with the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association International. After a 
year of planning, the linemen arrived in Guatemala on March 26 and then 
traveled approximately 9 hours to the remote villages of Las Flores and 
La Hacienda to ``light up'' the land. I commend them for giving their 
time, energy, and know-how to improve the lives of hundreds of 
Guatemalans who before this did not even know--because electricity is a 
critical element to improving the quality of life--the quality of 
health care, the quality of education, and some of the basics that, 
again, we often take for granted in this country--such as clean water 
and many other vital services.
  This area in Guatemala processes and exports coffee beans that end up 
at companies such as NESCAFE, McDonald's, Starbucks, and other coffee 
outlets. This new reliable access to electricity will help these 
villagers increase the quantity and quality of their locally grown 
coffee, resulting in economic prosperity and a better quality of life 
for present and future generations. So they will be even more connected 
with the global economy because of what these people from the Arkansas 
electric coops did to help these folks.
  Senator Boozman could not be here today; otherwise, he would be here 
sitting at his desk saying a few words. But he did pass on for me a 
brief statement he wanted me to read:

       We are proud of Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas's 
     willingness to support people around the world who need safe, 
     affordable and reliable electricity. Operation Razorback has 
     been a real success that will result in improved economic 
     prosperity, a higher quality of life and more opportunities 
     for Guatemalans today and for future generations. Sharing our 
     knowledge, expertise and technology will make a lasting 
     impact. These Guatemalan villages will never be the same 
     thanks to the progress made by the volunteers of Electric 
     Cooperatives of Arkansas.

  We have a few of those people with us today, and I wish to recognize 
them: Duane Highley, who is the CEO; Kirkley Thomas, who is the vice 
president of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation in Arkansas; 
Mel Coleman, CEO of the North Arkansas Electric Cooperative; Paul 
Garrison, one of the linemen who actually went on the trip.

[[Page S2697]]

  I asked him earlier: What is the first thing these people will get? 
He said: Lights. Naturally that is what they are going to try to get.
  Again, we appreciate them. And also, Jo Ann Emerson, a long-time 
friend and colleague on the House side, president and CEO of NRECA.
  In addition to donating their time and raising more than $100,000 to 
support this electrification effort, the group also trained local 
linemen, donated power infrastructure materials, and distributed 
humanitarian aid items to these local villages.
  I again thank the coops and acknowledge them for how they are making 
not only Arkansas better but also making the world better.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                       Environmental Stewardship

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, today President Obama is doing 
televised events talking about climate change. According to press 
reports, the President is ready to pivot to the environment as an 
issue.
  Well, I also want to talk about environmental stewardship today. I 
want to talk about what is going on in some of our States, where they 
are actually doing something, not just talking about it.
  Today the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses are issuing a new 
report called ``Washington Gets it Wrong--States Get it Right.''
  The report shows how regulations imposed by Washington are 
undermining the work being done at the State level to manage our lands, 
our natural resources, and to protect our air and water.
  More often than not, Washington regulations and one-size-fits-all 
mandates do get it wrong. In the West we take very seriously our 
commitment to ensuring the health and viability of land, wildlife, and 
the environment. That is at both the local and the State levels.
  Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of the Interior like to think of themselves as the ultimate 
protectors of our Nation's skies and open spaces. But we have seen time 
and time again that the work being done at the State level is more 
reasonable, more effective, and certainly less heavyhanded.
  Thousands of people are working across the West to protect their 
communities. These are people who live in the West, not bureaucrats in 
Washington offices. Nobody is better qualified than the folks who 
actually live in the West, because they actually walk the land and 
breathe the air--the land and the air they are trying to protect.
  So our report looks at the work being done by State agencies to 
protect not just the land they live and work on but also the people who 
rely on the health and safety of that land.
  As this report demonstrates, extreme regulations imposed by 
Washington undermine the work being done at the State level, whether it 
is to manage lands and natural resources, protect air and water, or 
conserve species.
  When we look at the work of these State agencies--as the Western 
Caucuses have done in this report--it is clear that when it comes to 
conservation and environmental efforts, the States do get it right. 
More often than not, Washington gets it wrong.
  It is time for Washington to stop its overreaching regulations and 
the continual drip, drip, drip of mandates. It is time for Washington 
to stop getting it wrong and start recognizing how States get it right.
  The report has details about specific things different States are 
doing, but I want to mention four categories where States are leading 
the way when it comes to environmental stewardship.
  The first is protecting species on the ground. This includes 
conservation policies that States are developing, where they work with 
industry and landowners to protect species without hampering multiple-
use policies; that is, multiple use of the land.
  Second, States are showing the right way to protect our water, land, 
and air. They are putting in place ideas that are tailored to the needs 
of their own communities. They are actually looking at what is unique 
about their State and the best way for people to solve problems 
locally.
  Third, States are promoting access to fish and wildlife. States 
understand they need to manage and protect lands and waters in a way 
that allows for public spaces to be enjoyed. That means ensuring those 
spaces remain intact for future generations. These are called natural 
resources for a reason--they are meant to be enjoyed by all of us, not 
sealed off under Washington's lock and key.
  Fourth, the report looks at what States are doing right when it comes 
to in-state scientific and support staff. State agencies are employing 
thousands of people who live in the communities they are trying to 
protect.
  Who has more incentive to protect the local environment? The people 
who are living there, the people who are working there, and the people 
who are raising their children in these communities, or some 
bureaucrats locked in a Washington, DC office? Who knows more about the 
specific unique features of a State or local area and what will work 
best there?
  The Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses have put out this 
report to highlight just a few of the State initiatives we believe are 
working. I hope the President will take some time today to not just 
talk but to actually listen and to read our report and see some of the 
ways States are getting it right and Washington is getting it wrong.
  If others are interested and wish to read the report, they can 
certainly find it at my Web site, www.barrasso
.senate.gov.
 Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________