[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.
____________________