Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 67 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2700-S2706]
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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

College Affordability

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the
great crises facing our country; that is, the high cost of college, and
the fact that hundreds and thousands of young people who are bright and
wish to get a higher education have now decided that, because they do
not want to leave school deeply in debt, they are not going to go to
college. What a loss that is, not only to the individuals and the
enhancement of their own lives, but it is a loss to our Nation because
in a highly competitive global economy we need the best educated
workforce possible. The fact that college is becoming a distant dream--
an unreachable dream--for millions of families is a horrendous
situation which this Congress must address.
Over the last 10 years, the cost of attending a public 4-year college
has increased by nearly 35 percent at a time when middle-class incomes
have remained flat and, in fact, many families have seen a decline in
their incomes. Of the students who do go to college, hundreds of
thousands graduate with significant debt--on average, over $27,000.
This morning I was talking to a staffer of mine who is $119,000 in
debt. And what was her crime? How did she accrue that debt? Did she go
on a spending spree? Did she lose her money in a gambling casino? Her
crime was that she wanted to go to law school, and she

[[Page S2701]]

came out of law school $150,000 in debt. Today that is down to
$119,000. I have talked to doctors and dentists who are now several
hundred thousand dollars in debt.
The important point to make is there was once a time in the United
States when that kind of college and graduate school indebtedness did
not exist. Only a few decades ago this country made a commitment to our
students that if you worked hard, if you studied hard, and if you
wanted to pursue a higher education, you could do so at little or no
cost. That was what we used to do. Unfortunately, in that very
important area we have regressed, and regressed significantly.
Until the 1970s, at the City University of New York, one of the
important and best educational systems in the country, the cost was
completely free. The University of California system, one of the
largest and best university systems in the world, did not begin
charging tuition until the 1980s. In fact, in 1965, average tuition at
a 4-year public university was $243.
We know we are living in a highly competitive global economy, and if
our Nation is to succeed, we need to have the best educated workforce
in the entire world. But the sad truth is we are now competing against
other nations around the world that make it much easier for their young
people to go to college and graduate school than is the case in the
United States of America.

According to a report released last year by the OECD--the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--the United
States was one of the few advanced countries in the world that did not
increase its public investment in education over the last decade.
From 2008 to 2010, most advanced countries experienced significant
economic decline as a result of the Wall Street collapse. Despite that,
the vast majority of countries increased educational spending by 5
percent or more. The United States was one of the few nations to
decrease overall educational spending.
I live about 1 hour away from Canada in northern Vermont. In Canada,
average annual tuition fees were $4,200 in 2010--roughly half of what
they were in the United States--and yet the OECD says Canada is one of
the most expensive countries for a student to go to school.
Germany, an international competitor of ours, is in the process of
phasing out all tuition fees. Even when German universities did charge
tuition, it was roughly $1,300 per student.
According to the European Commission in 2012, the following countries
do not charge their students any tuition--and these are countries we
are competing against. These are countries where young people go to
college without any out-of-pocket expenses. Those countries are
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden.
In Europe, university systems enjoy a very high level of public
funding. The EU average is 77 percent. In other words, in countries
throughout Europe--Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and all of the rest--what
governments understand is that investing in higher education is
terribly important for the individual students and their families. But,
in addition, it is enormously important for the competitive
capabilities of those countries.
So countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, each put in more than
88 percent of public funding into their universities. In the United
States, the number is 36 percent. Countries all over the world that
don't provide free higher education pump significantly more into their
university systems than we do.
The result is several very significant points. First, we have many
working-class and middle-class young people who are looking at the
economic picture we face as a nation and looking at their own lives,
and they are saying: Do I want to go to college and leave school
$50,000 or $60,000 in debt? How am I going to pay off that debt once I
leave school?
Many of these young people, tragically, are saying: I don't want to
take that risk. I don't want to leave school deeply in debt. I will not
go to college.
What a tragic situation that is for our entire country, because we
are losing the intellectual potential of all of those young men and
women.
Second, those who do go to college are coming out of school with an
incredible chain of indebtedness around their neck, which impacts every
aspect of their lives. It determines what kind of jobs they will get.
Will they do the job they had hoped to do their whole lives--their
life's dream, the work they were looking forward to doing or are they
going to gravitate to those jobs which simply pay them a lot of money
and enable them to pay off their debt?
For the first time in our country's history, American families have
more student debt than credit card debt, and that is an extraordinary
reality. All over this country families are struggling with debt in a
way they never have before. The average loan balance for American
graduates has increased by 70 percent since 2004. Average student debt
is now near $27,000. In Vermont, it is even higher at $28,000. One in
eight borrowers is carrying more than $50,000 in student debt. The
percentage of families in the United States with outstanding student
debt increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2010.
The bottom line here is we have a huge crisis which is impacting
millions of individual families and individual young people. But from a
national perspective, it is a crisis which is impacting our
competitiveness in the global economy.
There was once a time, not so many years ago, when we had the best
educated workforce in the world and we had a higher percentage of
college graduates than any other country on Earth.
That is not the case today. I think we have got to do some very hard
thinking about the crisis regarding college affordability and the
crisis regarding student debt. If this country is to remain
internationally competitive in the global economy, we need some bold
ideas in terms of how we address these crises.

I can tell you that in Vermont, as I speak to young people around my
State, this is the issue foremost on their minds. The young people in
high school are wondering about how they can afford to go to college.
The students in college are worried about how they are going to pay off
their college debt. Our job must be to say to every young person in
this country that if you are a serious student, if you study hard, you
are going to be able to get a higher education regardless of the income
of your family, and you are going to be able to get the best education
our Nation can provide you based on your ability and not on the income
of your family.
This is an issue of enormous importance to individuals around the
country, but it is an issue of huge consequence for the economic future
of this country. So in the coming weeks I will be introducing
legislation--I know there is a lot of other good legislation that is
going to be coming to the floor--because this is an issue of huge
consequence, and it is an issue that must be addressed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
We are on the measure again, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency
bill, also known as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness
Act--an efficiency bill. This should not be this difficult for us. When
we talk about the benefits of an all-of-the-above energy policy--the
benefits that can come to us as a nation when we are more resilient
with our energy sources, when we are able to access our domestic energy
sources, whether they be our fossil fuels, our renewables, or nuclear--
we all talk about it in good, strong terms because, quite honestly,
energy makes us a stronger nation, having access to our energy
resources.
I have defined a good, strong energy policy as one that allows energy
to be more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. An energy
policy is also about the energy we do not consume. It is about the
energy we save because we are more efficient.
It seems we have gotten to a point, at least with some aspects of
this discussion, where somehow or other the

[[Page S2702]]

efficiency side of the energy discussion is a partisan debate; that
Republicans do not support energy efficiency. I cannot think of a more
conservative principle than conserving energy. This is something we
should be embracing, and it is something, in terms of legislation that
is sound, that is good to move forward, something that I support.
This bipartisan efficiency bill has been refined. It has been
strengthened. It has been improved over the past 3 years. There have
been plenty of eyes upon this legislation. There has been plenty of
debate about it. We have a total of 13 Senators who are now on board
with it, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. So I am pleased
we have this legislation back on the floor again.
The last time this legislation came before us was in September. I
spoke then about the importance, the relevance to today, the many good
reasons the Senate should support it. I am not going to necessarily
repeat all of those points this afternoon, but I do want to highlight
quickly a couple of the main points.
The first is going directly to the policy side of it. Energy
efficiency should be a broader part of our Nation's energy policy. It
is good for our economy. It is good for the environment. It enables us
to waste less, to use our resources more wisely. Who can object to
this? Who could possibly say this is not a good thing we should
encourage?
And there is more. Think about what it does to help create jobs and
deliver financial benefits. Study after study shows we can save
billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency
improvements. Whether we are talking about small appliances or large
buildings, there are opportunities for gains in efficiencies throughout
the system.
The second reason for support of the bill is it envisions a more
limited role for the Federal Government. When I think about efficiency,
I think the Federal Government should seek to fulfill three key roles.
It can act as a facilitator of information that consumers and
businesses need. It can serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage
or prevent rational efficiency improvements. As the largest consumer of
energy in our country, it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce
its own energy usage.
This legislation helps us make progress in all of these areas, but it
is appropriately tailored as well. It has a number of voluntary
provisions. It does not contain any new mandates for the private
sector. I think that is worthy of repeating. There are no new mandates
in this bill.
When the legislation was first introduced some time ago, there was
some concern about impact on building codes. But the provision related
to model building codes is voluntary. It is not mandatory. No one has
to benefit from it if they do not want to.
The third reason to support the bill is the cost--or, really, the
lack of cost. We all know we are operating in a time of high deficits
and record debt. The good news is this efficiency bill actually
subtracts from our spending rather than adding to it. The CBO has
indicated it will yield a modest savings of about $12 million over the
10-year window. Again, this is good from a policy perspective. It is
good from a fiscal perspective.
Then the last point is one I want to make in support of process. We
have followed regular order, as well as ``regular order'' can be
defined around here, but we have done that from the beginning with this
legislation. Those of us who serve on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee reported it on an overwhelming bipartisan basis back in 2011,
and then again in 2013. So it has gone through a fulsome committee
process. Improvements were suggested and have been thoughtfully
considered and incorporated. Many, many of the ideas are now
incorporated in the text we have in front of us.
Then, finally, a few words about the amendments that are being filed
to this bill.
When we last had this bill before the Senate, we were unable to reach
agreement on amendments. We got bogged down and the bill was pulled
from the floor. The Senate moved on to other matters. We are back again
now, and I really do not want to see a repeat of that experience. Quite
honestly, we do not need to.
It is certainly true a lot of amendments have been filed to the bill.
We had more than 100 last September. That should not be evidence that
somehow this bill is flawed. But what it recognizes is there is this
pent-up demand for a discussion on the issue of energy. There is a
pent-up demand to bring forward ideas and concepts and innovation and
policy when it comes to energy debate.
It has been more than 6 years since we have had anything more than a
brief debate. When you think about what has happened in the energy
sector in the past 6 years, I say to the Presiding Officer, you are
sitting in the chair coming from a State that has seen an amazing--an
amazing--boom when it comes to natural gas production in your State.
You have seen technologies come in that are able to access areas where
you did not even know you had the resource.
Think about the changes we have seen in the energy sector in 6 years.
Six years ago we were talking about building LNG import terminals--
terminals so we could bring LNG in from other countries. Now we are
pressing the case for greater LNG exports. We are trying to build out
more facilities so we can move this abundant resource from our shores
to help our friends and allies around the world.
Six years ago, if I had stood on this floor and suggested to you we
were going to have a debate about the export of our crude oil from this
country, you would have laughed me off the floor. Nobody was talking
about it. But look at what is happening, coming out of the Bakken up in
North Dakota, what is coming out of Texas and New Mexico and out of
California, Colorado, out of States in the Midwest. We are producing
like we have not produced in ages. We are doing so because we have the
benefit of good, strong technologies that are allowing us to access a
resource safely and making sure we are being good stewards of the land
while we are doing it, and creating jobs and opportunities.
So when you think about what has happened in 6 years, and the fact
that we have not had a real debate and conversation about energy, it is
no wonder people want to present amendments. But we are in a situation
now where there is real debate about whether we are going to have any
amendments at all.
We have been sitting here in the Senate since last July--almost a
year--and there have been nine amendments allowed of the Republicans'
choosing to be heard, to be entertained, to be taken up on the floor of
the Senate.
We are not asking for an unreasonable number. Given everything that
is going on in the world, everything that is happening in the energy
sector, it is understood why we would want an opportunity to present
amendments. But we are not asking for the Moon here. Out of all the
amendments filed to the bill, we are seeking votes on four of them. If
we were to take just 15 minutes per vote, with a little extra time for
statements in support or opposition, we could work those out in an
afternoon.
There is no reason we need to stretch this out. Our other option is
to spend the next several days arguing about whether we are going to
vote at all. We are sent to the Senate to do good work, and this is a
venue where the work is demanding attention, so let's get to it.
Let's advance these measures. Let's get to the debate about whether
it is LNG export opportunities, whether it is the advantage from many
different perspectives about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and about what
more we can be doing as a nation to be a world leader with our energy
resources, accessing our resources for the good of Americans, the
creation of jobs to strengthen our economy, to help our trade deficit,
to help our friends, and to help our allies. We can be in a position to
do so much more, but we have to be able to get beyond the discussion,
the debate about whether we are just going to talk about whether we are
going to talk about it or whether we are going to get to it.
I am hopeful that throughout the afternoon, throughout tomorrow, and
throughout the balance of the week we will have an opportunity to
discuss and to vote on amendments that are energy-related amendments
that will help move this country in a more positive direction when it
comes to our energy policy and attach that to a fundamental anchor of a
good, strong energy

[[Page S2703]]

policy, which is energy efficiency, and that is what the Shaheen-
Portman bill allows us to do.

National Police Week

I want to pivot for a moment and move off the issue of energy
efficiency. I wish to speak for a few more minutes this afternoon about
National Police Week.
National Police Week is a week to honor our fallen law enforcement
officers. It occurs next week. Next week in Washington, DC, we will see
police vehicles from all over the Nation. We will see officers in
uniform, perhaps some with young kids in tow, flooding the Metro
system. The survivors of law enforcement tragedies will gather in
Alexandria, VA, for the annual meeting of Concerns of Police Survivors.
On Tuesday night, tens of thousands will gather at the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial, and they will read by candlelight the
names inscribed on the memorial walls this year. On Thursday, the
National Peace Officers Memorial Day Service will convene on the west
front of the Capitol. These are all very moving tributes to our fallen,
those who have served in the line of duty and who honor us all.
For the past 11 years, I have made it a habit of honoring the fallen
during National Police Week, regardless of whether any Alaska law
enforcement agency suffered a line-of-duty death during that preceding
year.
At times I have made note of a sad coincidence, a sad coincidence
that law enforcement tragedies in the twos and threes often seem to
occur in close proximity to the annual National Police Week observance.
About this time 8 years ago, the National Capital Region was grieving
the loss of Michael Garbarino and Vicky Armel, the first Fairfax County
police officers to die from gunfire in the line of duty. In April 2009,
Pittsburgh lost three of its finest.
This year, as we anticipate the arrival of National Police Week,
Alaska carries that tragic burden. Last week my home State lost two
members of the Alaska State Troopers in a single incident.
On May 1, Alaska State troopers Sergeant Scott Johnson and Trooper
Gabe Rich flew from Fairbanks to the village of Tanana. Tanana is an
Athabascan Indian community and there are about 238 people. Tanana sits
at the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers. It is a strong
community, it is a resilient community, but it is a community that is
truly suffering right now.
Similar to most of the Alaska Native villages, the only full-time law
enforcement presence in Tanana is a single, unarmed village public
safety officer. Law enforcement backup, when they are needed and called
in, will fly to Tanana. Tanana is not accessible by roads, so basically
the only way in and out is to fly in and out, coming in from Fairbanks,
so it is about a 1-hour flight away.
The village public safety officer asked for trooper assistance to
respond to an individual who had been waving a gun in the village. With
no backup, other than the unarmed village public safety officer,
Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich attempted to serve a warrant on the
offender. Both officers were shot and killed. The 19-year-old son of
the individual who was the subject of the warrant is now charged with
the shooting.
This is a horrible tragedy for Tanana, a tragedy for Alaska, and a
tragedy for the entire law enforcement community.
Tanana is, as I mentioned, a small village. It is an isolated
village. It has been a very resilient village. It is a very proud and a
very kind-hearted community. The Athabascan word for Tanana, known as
``Nuchalawoya,'' means ``wedding of the rivers,'' and the village has
played a very central role in Athabascan culture for thousands of
years.
But like many Alaska Native villages, it suffers from drug and
alcohol problems. Last October there was a group of young people from
the village of Tanana, and they traveled to the Alaska Federation of
Natives convention.
It is the largest gathering of Alaska Natives in the State, and they
did a very brave and heroic thing. They assembled on stage in front of
4,000 to 5,000 people to tell Alaskans that they had had enough of the
pain and the violence, and they were determined to make their community
a healthier place. It was an amazing moment. It was inspiring. There
was not a sound to be heard in the huge Carlson Center in Fairbanks as
these young people spoke.
So inspiring were the words of these young kids that I wrote Attorney
General Holder and I asked that his department invest prevention
resources in the village and others like it that were trying to turn
things around, trying to face the ugly side of what happens in a small
community when we have domestic violence and child sexual assault
brought on by drugs and alcohol.
Tanana is absolutely devastated by what happened last week. In the
words of Cynthia Erickson, who is the youth leader of the young people
I mentioned, last week's incident amounts to two steps back in Tanana's
effort to heal itself, but the healing process must begin and now is
the time for it to begin.
We remember fallen law enforcement officers for the way they lived
their lives. Vivian Eney Cross, who is the widow of a fallen U.S.
Capitol police officer, said:

It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it
is how they lived.

In that spirit I wish to share with the Senate a little about the
lives of our two fallen Alaskan heroes.
Sergeant Johnson was born in Fairbanks, and he grew up in the small
community of Tok, which is 150-plus miles out of Fairbanks on the road
system. He went to school in the Tok community, and he was a wrestler.
He joined the Alaska State Troopers in 1993 after serving as a North
Slope Borough police officer.
Sergeant Johnson spent his entire 20-year trooper career in
Fairbanks, where he rose through the ranks to supervise the Areawide
Narcotics Team and ultimately the Interior Rural Unit. Sergeant Johnson
also was an accomplished canine handler and a leader of the regional
SWAT team. We call it SERT in Alaska, the Special Emergency Reaction
Team.
His final assignment was leader of the Interior Rural Unit, a team of
four who respond to incidents in 23 Native villages. Sergeant Johnson
assumed that role this year. His territory covered hundreds of miles
end-to-end. Again, these are hundreds of miles without road access.
Sergeant Johnson was 45 years old. He is survived by his wife,
daughters aged 16, 14, and 12, and also survived by his parents and
siblings.
Trooper Gabe Rich was born in Pennsylvania. He moved to Fairbanks
shortly after he was born. He graduated from Lathrop High School in
2006. He was 26 years old at the time of his death.
Trooper Rich spent 4 years working as a patrolman with the North Pole
Police Department before deciding to become an Alaska State Trooper in
2011. He is survived by his fiance, their 1-year-old son, and his
parents. He was in the process of adopting his fiance's 8-year-old boy.
Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich were known to those who watched the
popular National Geographic series ``Alaska State Troopers.''
Undoubtedly, those who have watched the two in action are also grieving
the loss, along with the people of Tanana and all of Alaska.
I think I speak for all in this body when I say we are shocked and we
are saddened by the events in Tanana last week. On behalf of a grateful
Senate and a grateful nation, I take this opportunity to extend my
condolences to all who held Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich deep in
their hearts.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. We are going to have, as indicated, a briefing on Ukraine
at 5:30 this evening. I alert all Senators we will do our utmost to
start at 5:30, and we must end at 6:30. We need everybody on time. If I
am there on time, I am going to start it on time, and I will do my
utmost to be there on time. People can be called upon for questions in
the order they show up at the meeting.

Order of Procedure

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate
recess until 6:30 p.m. tonight for the purpose of an all-Senators
briefing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection.

[[Page S2704]]

Kidnapping of Schoolgirls in Nigeria

Mr. REID. I have had a number of titles, as all we Senators have over
the years, but the title that means the most to me has always been
``Dad,'' ``Father.'' It is so important that my five children recognize
me as their dad.
My oldest child is a daughter, Lana, but I also have 12
granddaughters. As a father and grandfather, I can't imagine the horror
of having one of these girls abducted, kidnapped, and stolen--even
though Nigeria is thousands of miles away from where we sit today.
My nightmare, our nightmare--we are always worrying about our girls--
is a reality in Nigeria.
On the night of April 14, more than 250 girls--I don't know the exact
number--were stolen from a school by a terrorist group called Boko
Haram. These kidnappers, a cowardly group of men--thugs and
terrorists--have announced their attention to sell the girls in the
marketplace.
It was only yesterday the leader of this organization was on
television saying we have them and we are going to sell them. How would
that make a mother or dad, family member feel? It is sickening to think
these girls are at the mercy of these slavers. These are terrible
reports. Some say--some of the reports we get--some of the girls have
already been sold into Chad and Cameroon. I hope that is wrong.
So I, with my colleagues, join with the rest of the world in
renouncing these heinous acts.
We must remember that this crime is only one of the many acts of
terrorism of this awful group Boko Haram. They have done it before
against children, against civilians.
Today the United States offered its assistance to rescue these girls.
Great Britain has done the same, and other countries have as well.
Nigeria, in my opinion, has been reticent to receive help. That is not
my opinion, but that is what the public reports say. We want to help
rescue these girls. We have some assets the Nigerians don't have, as do
the Brits and others who want to help.
I am concerned the Nigerian Government's response to this crime and
to dealing with Boko Haram is very tepid. Nigeria has missed
opportunities to collaborate with international partners to fight
terrorism in this instance and other instances. Instead of carrying out
its own operation--which has been very clumsy, and there has been a
disregard for human rights--they should let us help. Let the world
community help.
The Nigerian Government has been disastrously slow in responding to
these incidents--not on this one but on others. I urge the Nigerian
Government to use all of its resources and accept international
assistance to bring the abductors to justice. The world is watching.
Return these daughters to their families.
Today we adopted S. Res. 433, which condemned this abduction, to add
our voices to those calling for their release. I especially thank
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and all other cosponsors for their
hard work on this legislation. The Senate, along with the rest of the
world, will continue to do all we can to help our Nigerian friends. We
continue to hope and pray for the safe return of these girls to their
moms and dads.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in recess count
postcloture on the legislation that is now being considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I very rarely am motivated to come to
the floor simultaneously with current events, thinking that it is
important to reflect and learn as much as possible about a subject
before one begins to orate about it on the Senate floor. I am making an
exception, however, because of the extraordinarily heinous acts that
have occurred in the country of Nigeria.
I think it takes everyone's breath away in the United States of
America that a terrorist organization--Boko Haram--would attack a
secondary school in northeastern Nigeria and kidnap 200 girls. Most of
these girls are not that much younger than my daughters. These were
young women who wanted nothing more than to get an education. We are
now told these terrorists have proudly proclaimed they will enslave
these young women, they will sell them as slaves. They are proudly
taking credit for this despicable and inhumane act.
I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins for organizing a letter
to the President to urge him to include Boko Haram in the United
Nations Al Qaeda sanctions list. I thank the other Senators who
introduced the resolution we passed this afternoon condemning this
attack. But we have to do more.
It concerns me, honestly, that this is occurring in a country where
the leader not too long ago signed into law a measure that anyone
entering into a homosexual relationship can be imprisoned for up to 14
years. In this same country we have a terrorist organization capturing
young women and enslaving them for dollars to be child brides, proudly
proclaiming that it is a sin for these young women to want to get an
education, that this action was necessary to purge them of their sins
and marry them off.
I understand it takes all kinds of people to make up this great
world. I understand there are all kinds of beliefs. But it is very hard
for me to get my arms around the notion that there could be any faith
that would believe kidnapping young women by the hundreds and selling
them as indentured slaves to men could ever be part of any kind of
faith that we should recognize. These are not people of faith; these
are heinous criminals. I believe our country should look at them as
archenemies of who we are as a nation and what we stand for as a
government.
The name of this organization means ``Western education is a sin.''
Respect for young women is not a sin. Wanting an education is not a
sin. The opportunity to better oneself is not a sin.
These incredible crimes that have been committed should not go
unanswered, and I think it is incumbent on our Nation, with the great
resources we have, to make sure we send the appropriate message to the
world that this is Al Qaeda and this is our enemy--not just to our
values and our way of life but, importantly, an enemy to innocent young
women.
I wanted to come to the floor to make this statement because I cannot
imagine how the parents of these young girls must be feeling and how
helpless the feeling must be. I can only hope and pray that the
Government of Nigeria realizes this is a moment of truth for them. Will
they stand up to this kind of extremism that is not faith? They do a
disservice to their professed faith by these actions. Can this country
stand up to them, can we help them stand up to them and, most
importantly, can we do anything to save these young women?
When I go to bed tonight I will, in my faith, thank God for my family
and my children, and I will also ask for prayers for these young women
in hopes they can be rescued, that they can be reunited with their
desire to get educated, and that their families will not have to spend
days wondering if they will ever see their children again or if their
children will even survive.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support S. 2262, the Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings and Industrial
Competitiveness Act of 2014. The reason I do so is because I have long
felt we can't be for an all-of-the-above energy policy if we aren't
promoting state-of-the-art approaches in terms of energy efficiency.
I think the Presiding Officer and I both know it isn't even a speech
here in the Senate on energy policy unless the Senator says they are
for an all-of-the-above at least three times every 15, 20 minutes. So I
think what Senator

[[Page S2705]]

Shaheen and Senator Portman are doing is making it clear right at the
start that an all-of-the-above energy policy is their approach and
their effort to pull as many as possible colleagues into innovative
approaches in terms of promoting energy efficiency.
Senators Shaheen and Portman have been tirelessly pursuing this
legislation for 3 years now. I had a chance as the former Chair of the
Energy Committee to watch what they have been doing. I will walk back a
bit to make sure colleagues understand how constructive their efforts
have been, both substantively and in terms of promoting collaboration
here in the Senate, in hopes that these commonsense energy proposals
for creating good jobs and a cleaner and healthier environment will
prevail on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate.
With our colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, I have had a
front-row seat over the last couple years to watch Senator Shaheen and
Senator Portman in action and support their efforts. I think we should
all be very appreciative of the job our new Chair, Senator Landrieu, is
doing--again, in concert with Senator Murkowski--because the two of
them continue the committee's tradition, No. 1, of working in a
bipartisan way but, No. 2, trying again to promote collaboration here
within the Senate to promote an energy approach, which I think is not
only common sense but it is absolutely essential in order to be able to
go on to the other energy policy issues that surely are likely to be
more contentious than energy efficiency.
To walk back a bit through what has happened, I think our colleagues
know an earlier version of this legislation passed our Energy and
Natural Resources Committee last year by an overwhelming bipartisan
majority. It was then considered on the floor this past September, but
it was blocked by demands for a vote on a health care amendment which
had nothing to do with the premise of the underlying bill. I happen to
oppose that amendment, but however a Senator feels, it has nothing to
do with energy efficiency and productivity.
When the bill stalled on the Senate floor last fall, it looked pretty
grim for the cause of energy efficiency, and essentially people were
questioning the Senate's ability to consider an act on a range of
energy issues which confront our country. I think a lot of people would
have thrown in the towel at that point. They would have said: We put in
all of this work and effort to win such a strong bipartisan vote in the
Senate; then we were ready to go to the floor and faced unrelated
issues. And I could see why the sponsors would give up. But Senator
Shaheen and Senator Portman are not throw-in-the-towel type of
Senators, and in effect they doubled down and went back to work on some
of the most challenging issues.
So at that point, after the unfortunate setback of last September,
they in effect doubled down and worked to bring an even broader range
of Members and stakeholders together here in the Senate to form a
consensus and make this bill even better, improve the array of
commonsense approaches taken to promote energy efficiency, and increase
the chance of the best possible energy efficiency bill becoming law.
I wish to highlight at this point how challenging this work was and
how pleased I was the Senate was able to get together.
At that point one of the most challenging issues dealt with the
question of the then-existing requirements that new Federal buildings
be designed to phase out their use of fossil-fuel-generated energy by
2030. This is important for a variety of reasons. Of course, the
Federal Government is a major property owner in our country, No. 1. And
No. 2, I think we all look to the Federal Government at a minimum to
try to set some examples in terms of trying to deal with these issues.
In other words, it is fine for Washington, DC, to say: Everybody else
would do X, Y, and Z. But if they come back and say the Federal
Government is not willing to set an example, it is pretty hard to have
any credibility in terms of that particular field of public policy. The
reality was that while well meaning, the existing requirement that new
Federal Government buildings be designed to phase out their use of
fossil-fuel-generated energy by 2030 was not working particularly well
by anyone's calculus.
We had folks in the natural gas industry raising questions about
whether they would be able to participate. They made the point--one
that I think certainly has validity--that natural gas is 50 percent
cleaner than the other fossil fuels. They were saying: Well, how are we
going to be able to play a role with heating in Federal buildings,
which, of course, as I indicated, is very significant both because the
Federal Government owns so much property and because of the example the
Federal Government sets.
So reaching an agreement on how to balance repeal of this provision
in existing law--well meaning, but not working very well--with the
addition of provisions to enhance efficiency in Federal buildings
involved innumerable meetings--meetings that I participated in
personally and others were involved in that went on literally for
months with all of the stakeholders--the electric and gas utility
industries, the environmental advocacy organizations, the energy
efficiency groups--all of them in discussions that took place over
conference calls and in-person meeting after meeting.
I would submit that had those groups not been able to come together--
and I believe they deserve great credit because they did--I think it
may have been right at that point very difficult to advance this bill
because we would have generated, for the first time, significant
opposition around the core issue. Whether it be environmental groups or
electric and gas groups, we would have had significant friction over an
important public policy issue, which is how to promote renewable energy
to the greatest extent possible in new Federal Government buildings.
I will say to colleagues who may be following this, a number of times
in these discussions I thought things were going to blow up. I thought
one or more of these groups would walk out and say: We will take our
chances on the floor; we believe we are going to win, and if it takes
this bill down, so be it. But they stayed at the table and they worked
out an agreement.
As a result of their agreement--environmental organizations, those in
the advocacy of energy efficiency and a variety of industry groups--the
effort produced a significantly better bill, and a bill that now
includes some very important and powerful additions.
For example, as a result of rewriting the provision that new Federal
Government buildings be designed to phase out the use of fossil-fuel-
generated energy, very substantial financial savings were generated so
as to be able to include some very sensible and potentially far-
reaching changes in the energy efficiency field. For example, as a
result of that agreement it is possible to take some of the financial
savings generated in that redo of the requirements for renewable fuels
in Federal energy building and include in the legislation that is now
before the Senate, the SAVE Act, a bipartisan proposal championed by
our colleagues Senator Isakson and Senator Bennet. This provision would
for the first time facilitate the accounting of energy efficiency in
residential mortgages. A report by the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy and the Institute for Market Transformation estimates
that this proposal alone would create 83,000 new jobs in home
construction, renovation, and manufacturing by 2020. These are jobs for
American workers that cannot be outsourced. The agreement on Federal
building efficiency would also extend the 3 percent-per-year Federal
building efficiency target through 2017 and expand the coverage of this
efficiency target from new buildings to include major renovations as
well.

So what we have is a good bill that got out of committee. It was a
good bill last September that I would have liked to have seen pass this
body at that time. After it was not possible to move it forward, we had
the chief sponsors, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, work
continually to try to advance this legislation and broaden its appeal.
When they bumped up against a really serious problem, which was to fix
this policy with respect to the requirements for renewable energy in
Federal buildings, they worked with a variety of groups and
organizations and were able to make the bill better.
I wish to thank a number of Senators who were behind this effort to
redo the

[[Page S2706]]

requirements for new Federal buildings--in particular, our colleagues
on this side of the aisle, Senator Manchin and Senator Whitehouse, and
on the other side of the aisle I wish to thank Senator Hoeven. They
were very involved in the nuts and bolts of redoing this legislation.
Suffice it to say that the three of them would be the first to say they
don't agree on every possible energy policy subject matter. Yet the
three of them came together, worked with this coalition of groups I
have described, and made significant improvements in the already good
bill after September. As a result of their work, we have generated
financial savings that made it possible to include the Isakson-Bennet
legislation on residential mortgages, which is a very significant and
positive development in the energy efficiency field.
This is not a small matter, taking bold steps to improve energy
efficiency in residential mortgages the way our colleagues Senator
Isakson and Senator Bennet have done in a bipartisan fashion. The
reason this efficiency legislation is back is because it is sensible
and has bipartisan appeal. It is about cutting waste and creating jobs.
Passing this legislation would be the biggest step in years toward
tapping the enormous potential of energy efficiency, which is the most
sensible and cheapest energy source America has.
Here are the most relevant figures with respect to the benefits of
this bill. The bill will save about 2.8 billion megawatt hours of
electricity by 2030, according to the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy. To translate this into something people can put
their arms around, if we are going to generate 2.8 billion megawatt
hours--and that is the projection for this bill--our country would have
to build 10 new nuclear powerplants, at a cost of billions of dollars
each, and run them for more than 20 years. An additional provision of
the bill updates and promotes voluntary model building codes, making
residential and commercial buildings more efficient through the
installation of new equipment, insulation, and other efficiency
technologies. There is money to be saved and there is energy to be
saved. That is the kind of work this legislation accomplishes.
What I have described is possibly not the most flashy of stories we
might be contemplating here in Washington. It might not be at the top
of every single account on the nightly news, but businesses understand
how valuable this is. Businesses understand that there is money to be
made here. That is why more than 250 companies and associations endorse
the bill, including the chamber of commerce, which I think would be the
first to state that they don't see themselves as a bleeding heart
environmental organization. I was struck by a headline in forbes.com
not long ago that read ``The Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings Act: It's
the economy, stupid.'' Forbes, a prominent business publication, got it
right.
If Congress can pass this bill, it would immediately become one of
the largest job-creating efforts the Senate will enact this year,
creating an estimated 192,000 new jobs by 2030. It can also make a
tremendous difference in our country's economic competitiveness,
bringing savings to businesses and families, reducing demands on our
electric grid, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Having watched the development of this legislation as the former
chair of the Energy Committee and now chair of the Finance Committee, I
think every Member of the Senate understands how important it is to
secure a cleaner, more efficient, job-creating energy future. This
legislation provides that opportunity. It was a good bill when the
Senate considered it last September, it is an even better bill tonight,
and to a great extent it is made better because colleagues such as
Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Senator Hoeven
have worked together on a very contentious matter involving renewable
energy in Federal buildings. It is the latest demonstration of good
will and comity that has dominated this debate, at least as it relates
to the substance of discussing energy efficiency legislation.
I thank our chair Senator Landrieu for the first-rate job she has
done not only on this but on the matters before the Energy Committee. I
also thank my good friend and colleague Senator Murkowski for the same
sorts of efforts she made to work with me as the chair and Senator
Landrieu. I think those efforts are going to pay off. Let's make sure
they pay off immediately with the Senate this week moving forward and
passing the bipartisan Shaheen-Portman legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Georgia.

Tribute to Larry Walker, Jr.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a dear
friend of mine who last Friday, at the joint spring meeting in Las
Vegas, received the American Bar Association's Solo, Small Firm and
General Practice Division's 2014 Lifetime Achievement Award.
Larry Walker is a lawyer in Perry, GA. He is a lifetime resident of
Perry and went back to his hometown of Perry to practice in 1965. I am
so proud that Larry has been recognized by his peers--of which I am
one, as a practicing lawyer in Georgia before I came into government.
Larry epitomizes what lawyers look to when you think of someone who is
a good lawyer.
The award he received recognizes solo and small firm attorneys who
are widely accepted by their peers as having significant lifetime
distinction, exceptional achievement, and distinction in an exemplary
way. Winners are viewed by other solo and small firm practitioners as
epitomizing the ideals of the legal profession of solo and small firm
practitioners.
Larry began his law career, as I say, in 1965 when he came back to
Perry to practice law. He became a judge of the Perry Municipal Court
at the age of 23. In 1972 Larry ran for the General Assembly of Georgia
and won the seat that was formerly held by soon-to-be-Senator Sam Nunn.
He served in the General Assembly until 2005. In 1986 he was elected
majority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives and served in
that capacity for 16 years. He was the founding member of Walker,
Hulbert, Gray & Moore and served as chair of the State Legislative
Leaders Foundation. Larry also represented Georgia's Eighth
Congressional District on the Georgia Department of Transportation from
2007 to 2009, and in August of 2009 he was appointed by then-Governor
Sonny Perdue to the University System of Georgia Board of Regents,
where he continues to serve today.
Larry writes a weekly column for the Houston, GA, Home Journal and is
the author of a book entitled ``Life on the Gnat Line,'' a composition
of Larry's widely read columns on family, everything southern, reading,
politics, and, of course, just folks. Larry is a frequent speaker at
various community and State events, including continuing legal
education seminars.
Larry has been my dear friend for over 30 years. He is not just a
great lawyer, he is a great guy. He and I have had the opportunity to
knock down a quail bird or two in the woods of South Georgia. We have
had discussions late into the night over politics and life in general.
Larry is one of those individuals who make life fun and who are a
pleasure to be around, and that is why I am so excited the American Bar
Association has seen fit to recognize Larry's talents, his hard work,
his dedication, and his integrity to the law profession. He has been
successful not because he moved to his hometown where he was well
known; he has been successful because he is looked at as someone who
possesses all the finest characteristics a lawyer can hope to have.
I am indeed privileged to call him a dear friend. I am indeed
privileged to have an opportunity to say to Larry and to his wife
Janice, congratulations. This kind of award shows that people all
across this great country recognize you, Larry, for the great work you
have done in our profession for all of these years since you first hung
out your shingle in June of 1965.

____________________