Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 69 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 69 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2831-S2836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 332, H.R.
3474.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 332, H.R. 3474, to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers to
exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the
Veterans Administration from being taken into account for
purposes of the employer mandate under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.

Schedule

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the
Republican leader, the Senate time until 11:15 a.m. will be equally
divided and controlled.
There will be a series of votes beginning at 11:15 today and another
series of votes at 1:45. This is to confirm a number of nominations.
There could be as many as nine votes. We will see what happens as the
day goes on.
Yesterday I filed cloture on S. 2262, the energy efficiency bill. As
a result, the filing deadline for all first degree amendments is today
at 1 p.m.

Obstructionism

Mr. REID. Mr. President, anyone who watches the Senate on C-SPAN
knows that the desks in the Senate Chamber are split between Democrats
and Republicans. But when I come to the Senate Chamber anymore, we
shouldn't have just Democrats and Republicans; we should have
obstructionists.
With the Democrats, there are 55 of us. With the Republicans,
anymore, there are six or seven on a good day. There are
obstructionists of about 40, for sure, on any day.
The legislators--Republicans who, like Senate Democrats, are tired of
all the useless obstruction, who want to get things done for Americans,
and the obstructionists--the guardians of gridlock, as the Republican
leader has proudly called himself--are playing politics and constantly
grinding the wheels of the Senate to a standstill, a stop.
Over the last few months, I have spoken with Republicans who are fed
up with obstructionism in this body. I

[[Page S2832]]

have spoken with them in my office when they come to see me, on the
Senate floor, and in various places. So these Republicans always have
the same message from me: We came to the Senate to get things done, so
let's work together. I am happy to work with them, as we did a few
months ago with the Child Care and Development Block Grant. That is who
I have always been in this Chamber. When I was the whip, my Republican
colleagues knew I was someone they could talk to and work with to get
things done.
It is a shame the Republican leader has decided that being the
``proud guardian of gridlock''--his words, not mine--is more important
than working with us to get things done for the American people.
The Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill before the Senate is a
perfect example. They brought their bipartisan legislation to the floor
last September. Regrettably, a Republican Senator on a one-man crusade
against health benefits for Senate staffers filibustered the bill. But
Senators Shaheen and Portman didn't give up. Instead, they worked with
Democrats and Republicans for seven months to strengthen the bill,
gaining more bipartisan support along the way.
This legislation will give our country more energy independence,
protect our environment, and save American families money on their
energy bills. It also creates 200,000 jobs that can't be exported.
When the legislation was finalized, Senators Shaheen and Portman were
ready to bring the bill to the Senate floor. In anticipation of the
bill's consideration, Republicans who worked on this bill came to speak
with me prior to the Easter recess. They told me the bill, which now
includes 10 Republican-supported amendments, was ready for passage.
They requested that I fill the legislative tree to ensure the bill
would pass.
I repeat: Republican Senators wanting to pass this bipartisan bill
asked me to bring the bill to a vote as soon as possible--as is.
And that is what I did.
For those Republicans acting in good faith, passage of the energy
efficiency legislation was most important. Unfortunately, the
obstructionist wing of the Republican caucus has decided once again to
block this bill. But this time it is not the junior Senator from
Louisiana bringing a bipartisan bill to a screeching halt; it is the
guardian of gridlock himself, my friend, the Republican leader.
Senators Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Hoeven, Isakson, Murkowski, and
Wicker have done good work on this legislation. What a shame they will
see their efforts scrapped by my friend the Republican leader.
This isn't the first time he has steamrolled members of his own
caucus. For example, the Senate considered a bipartisan transportation
bill. Subcommittee Chairwoman Patty Murray and Ranking Member Susan
Collins worked for months on that legislation. Notwithstanding the
bipartisan support for the bill or Senator Collins' hard work, the
Republican leader single-handedly dismantled the bill.
There are many other examples.
After the legislation was blocked, the senior Senator from Maine was
quoted as saying that she had never seen the Republican leader work so
hard to defeat a member of his own caucus.
If my Republican counterpart wants to keep blocking his own Senators'
bipartisan efforts, go ahead. But it is not good for the country.
Eventually, members of his caucus will break from the gridlock to get
their constituents the help they need, just as a handful of Republicans
did with the extension of unemployment benefits.
Let me just say this. I am pleading to Republicans to help us work.
Let's get things done. This is a good bill that deserves to pass. I
invite my friend the Republican leader to listen to Members of his own
caucus who worked so hard on this legislation.
I know back home in Kentucky the Republican leader said it wasn't his
job to create jobs, but most of us around here disagree with him and
want to work to create jobs. In this bill 200,000 jobs will be created.
So I say to my friend from Kentucky, honor your Members' efforts and
the bipartisan compromise that created this legislation and allow us to
vote on Shaheen-Portman. Bring this unnecessary obstruction to an end
today and pass this energy efficiency legislation. It is what Democrats
want. It is what Republicans want. More importantly, it is what the
American people want and need.

Measures Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 2824 and H.R. 3826

Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a second
reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bills by
title for a second time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2824) to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 to stop the ongoing waste by the
Department of the Interior of taxpayer resources and
implement the final rule on excess spoil, mining waste, and
buffers for perennial and intermittent streams, and for other
purposes.
A bill (H.R. 3826) to provide direction to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any
greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility
generating units, and for other purposes.

Mr. REID. I object to further proceedings with respect to these
bills.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The bills will be placed on the calendar.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

Welcoming the Guest Chaplain

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are all pleased today to welcome
Pastor Trevor Barton to the Senate as he delivered the opening prayer.
Pastor Trevor, as everyone calls him, serves as lead pastor at Hawk
Creek Church in London, KY. He is a laid-back guy, not big on fancy
titles--the kind of pastor who would rather be preaching in blue jeans
than a suit.
But under his leadership, Hawk Creek has exploded from a tiny
fellowship to a congregation of well over 1,000 souls. I hear some
parishioners drive all the way from Tennessee and Virginia just to
listen to his sermons. Apparently, Pastor Trevor's parishioners aren't
the only ones who have had a long commute to Hawk Creek. I hear the
pastor sometimes drove in from almost an hour and a half away in
Lexington. He did it so he could be close to his two young sons
Shepherd and Greyson and to his wife Allison as she worked on a
residency at UK Hospital.
Still, Pastor Trevor has developed important ties with the community
in and around London. Hawk Creek does a lot of work with the
Appalachian Children's Home. His church also has an important
partnership with the local jail. Pastor Trevor's sermons are piped in
live and loud every Sunday for the inmates to hear. One of my staffers
told me she heard of Hawk Creek performing a baptism for about 70
inmates in a parking lot of that jail.
I think that says a lot about Hawk Creek Church, and it underscores
something today's guest Chaplain once said: Whether ``you've messed up
in the past, present, future, you are welcome'' in his church.
So I am proud to introduce Pastor Trevor today. We have been pleased
to have him here as he dignified our proceedings with a prayer.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court did the right thing by affirming
his right to do so. I am delighted to welcome this fellow Kentuckian as
he carries out this proud American tradition

Senate Debate

Mr. President, the American people sent us to Washington to debate
serious issues. They expect us to take our jobs seriously, to develop
effective solutions to the issues that matter to them. That is our
charge. Throughout our Nation's history, the Senate has been the place
where the weightiest issues have been discussed and debated and, in
many cases, resolved.
It is where we wrestle with whether to go to war. It is where we pass
landmark bipartisan legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, the GI
bill, and the Welfare Reform Act. But over the past several years, and
very vividly in the past several months, that proud history has started
to erode.
Instead of a forum for debate and resolution of the most pressing
domestic and international issues facing our Nation, it has become
fodder for late-night TV. When the American people turn on C-SPAN these
days they do not

[[Page S2833]]

often see a majority party driving serious debate on the issues of the
day. They hear bizarre monologues about greased pigs and a couple of
Kansans the majority leader seems to be thinking about all the time.
They see a daily display of absurd political theater that has almost no
relevance at all to their daily lives.
It is quite disgraceful. But it is no surprise either since the
Democratic majority clearly ran out of ideas a long time ago. Their
refusal to engage in serious debate is just another symptom of that.
Senate Democrats are afraid to expose their party's empty playbook, so
they play games instead. They fill the time with aimless diatribes
against private citizens and legislative theatrics that are more about
satisfying their liberal patrons than addressing the real concerns and
anxieties of the American middle class.
It is all about revving up the far left for them, so they will show
up in November and save the President's Senate majority. That is the
hope, at least.
But the larger point is this: As Washington Democrats seek to
preserve their hold on power, they are becoming increasingly untethered
from the daily concerns of average Americans.
That is why you are seeing the Senate lose its sense of purpose. That
is why you are not seeing any real debates. Instead of listening to the
needs of the middle class, they dance to the tune of the left. That is
why you see Senate Democrats pushing legislation that would cost up to
1 million jobs--at a time when the middle class is practically begging
us to create jobs. That is why you see Senate Democrats basically
boasting that their legislative agenda was drafted by campaign
staffers--with no shame at all. And that is why you see Senate
Democrats killing job creation bills the House sends us, without even
so much as a vote.
No wonder the American people are so disgusted with Washington.
Wouldn't you be? The majority's antics this week were particularly
shameful. They shook their fists and declared that global warming was
the most important issue of our age--that to stand in the way of their
preferred solutions would be, at best, immoral. They shouted it from
the rooftops and, presumably, sent emails to leftwing supporters to let
them know just how serious they were and how Republicans were somehow
holding things up.
What they did not tell their supporters was that the Democrats' own
majority leader, who also spoke forcefully on the issue yesterday, has
been blocking the Senate from voting on global warming for years. Why?
Because he does not want his fellow Senate Democrats to have to take a
tough vote and because he knows it would never pass a Chamber Democrats
control anyway.
As I said, almost everything has become a show in the Senate now. The
needs of the middle class are simply lost in the shuffle, and the
institution itself is trivialized, it is diminished. The Senate used to
be a place where we would discuss the pressing issues of the day. We
would be able to do so again if the Senate floor were not being used as
a campaign studio.
On Iran, Republicans have tried for months to debate and vote on
additional sanctions to put an end to its nuclear program. We know a
huge bipartisan majority would vote for increased sanctions if the
majority leader would only allow the bill to come to the floor. But he
will not. Just as he stopped us from voting to approve the Keystone XL
Pipeline yesterday, resulting in headlines such as this one from the
AP: ``Democratic leader blocks Senate vote on Keystone.''
``Democratic leader blocks Senate vote on Keystone.''
In fact, at a time when we should have been debating energy, the
majority leader refused to allow a single Republican amendment on
energy this week--not a one. As I have noted in recent days, the
Republican-led House has offered Democrats 125 rollcall votes on their
amendments since last July. Here in the Senate, the majority leader has
allowed us nine--nine--rollcall votes on Republican amendments since
July.
But let me put a finer point on that. Democrats in the House have
received more than twice as many rollcall votes on energy-related
amendments alone as we have received on all amendments since July. That
is not the way this body was meant to function. It is disrespectful to
the millions of American citizens represented on the Republican side of
the aisle. They deserve a chance to be heard.
The way the Senate operates these days is a travesty--no real debate,
no amendments, no respect for the millions of Americans represented by
the minority party. It has become an arm of the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee. We owe the American people so much more than that.
It is time to focus on the middle class again--to let go of the
obsession with the far left and the next election. It is time for the
Senate to be the Senate again.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Sergeant Jeremy R. Summers

Mr. President, I want to speak today about a brave young U.S. Army
soldier from my home State of Kentucky who was lost in battle. SGT
Jeremy R. Summers, of Brooksville, KY, perished on July 14, 2011, from
wounds suffered when the enemy attacked his unit with small-arms fire
in the Paktika Province of Afghanistan. He was 27 years old.
For his service in uniform, Sergeant Summers received many awards,
medals, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple
Heart Medal, two Army Commendation Medals, the Army Achievement Medal,
the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the
Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on
Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service
Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, three
Overseas Service Ribbons, the NATO Medal, and the Combat Action Badge.

Kenneth Michael Summers, Jeremy's father, says this about his son:

He never hesitated to make a new soldier feel welcome into
the unit. There was one soldier who said he was so scared
because he was a newbie, but Jeremy stepped up and helped
him. [The other soldier] said for that, he was so thankful
and would never forget Jeremy. That was a common story when
soldiers told us about their experiences with Jeremy.

Jeremy was not only thoughtful and willing to help others, he was
also a dedicated and committed servicemember, and I am sure it was due
in part to his following the example that was set for him. Both
Jeremy's father and mother, Laura Jo Summers, served in the Army.
Jeremy, who graduated from Bracken County High School in Brooksville in
2002, enlisted in the Army in March of 2005 and served for 6 years.
At the time of his deployment to Afghanistan, he was serving as a
U.S. Army forward scout observer and was assigned to Headquarters and
Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st
Airborne Division, based out of Fort Campbell, KY. Previously Jeremy
had deployed to both Iraq and Korea.
Jeremy was a voracious reader and loved to watch scary movies. He was
known to indulge in a practical joke or two to scare his friends.
Jeremy was also a bright student in school, who earned a degree in
computer engineering after his first tour of duty. Jeremy asked his
parents for advice about reenlisting and decided to continue serving
his country in uniform.
Sergeant Summers has followed not only the tradition of his parents
but also the tradition of service of so many brave Kentucky men and
women who have worn our country's uniform.
``He felt more comfortable in the military lifestyle than he did as a
civilian,'' Jeremy's father recalls. ``I reckon it was only fitting . .
. since he started life as a military brat and ended as an honorable
soldier.''
Speaking for his family, Jeremy's father continues on to say this:

Jeremy was a good listener, a great friend, an awesome
brother and a terrific son. I wish all of you could have
known him like we did. He is still one of our hearts'
greatest treasures.

Mr. President, we are thinking of Sergeant Summers' family today
after the loss of one of their hearts' greatest treasures. These
include his parents, Kenneth Michael and Laura Jo Summers; his
grandparents Joyce Wagoner and Mary Fowler, his siblings Austin Hunter
and Jessica Elizabeth Summers, and many other beloved family members
and friends.
My colleagues and I here in the Senate extend our greatest sympathies
and

[[Page S2834]]

condolences to the Summers family for the loss of their son, brother,
grandson, and friend Jeremy. We are proud of him for following the
example set by his parents and volunteering to wear an American
patriot's uniform.
We are deeply humbled and honored to be the beneficiaries of his life
of service and his ultimate sacrifice. Without the bravery of men such
as SGT Jeremy R. Summers, our Nation would not be free.

Reservation Of Leader Time

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 Senator from Iowa.

Barron Nomination

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to discuss a
pending nomination, that of Harvard Law School Professor David Barron
to a seat on the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
This nomination is exceptionally controversial and was voted out of
our committee, the Judiciary Committee, on a 10-to-8 vote. Even a
cursory look at Professor Barron's record reveals views on the
Constitution and on federalism that are well outside the mainstream.
But I want to put all those views aside and speak about this nomination
from another point of view.
So today I discuss Professor Barron's service as Acting Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in 2009 and 2010.
According to multiple media sources, while heading up the Office of
Legal Counsel, Professor Barron was instrumental in formulating the
legal arguments that this administration used to justify the targeted
killing of American citizens by drone strikes.
According to press reports, Professor Barron wrote at least two legal
opinions laying out those arguments. We also know the Department of
Justice relied on the legal arguments Professor Barron formulated to
justify the targeted killing of an American citizen in a tribal region
of Yemen in September 2011.
In a May 2013 letter to the chairman of our Judiciary Committee, the
Attorney General wrote that ``since 2009, the United States, in the
conduct of U.S. counterterrorism operations against Al-Qaeda and its
associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has
specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen.''
According to press reports, that individual was the first American
citizen placed on the CIA's disposition matrix, better known as the
kill list. However, the Attorney General conceded that three additional
Americans located outside the United States have been killed by drone
strikes since 2011.

According to the Attorney General's letter, these Americans were
killed even though they ``were not specifically targeted by the United
States'' as part of a counterterrorism operation.
But today I am not debating Professor Barron's legal arguments
related to the drone strikes. The fact is that Senators aren't in a
position to make an informed judgment about the nominee because of the
way this administration has handled the issue, so I wish to address our
constitutional duty with respect to the nomination.
Article II, Section 2, instructs us to give advice and consent on the
President's judicial nominees. That is not a procedural technicality,
it is a constitutional imperative. These happen to be lifetime
appointments, and the men and women we confirm to the Federal bench
play a vital role in the life of our Republic.
It is my view this body cannot, as things stand today, fully and
appropriately discharge its constitutional duty to advise and consent
with respect to this nominee. I will briefly address some recent
developments in the courts that lead me to that conclusion.
On April 21 of this year, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in a
Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by two New York Times
reporters and the American Civil Liberties Union against the Department
of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the CIA. That lawsuit began
in December 2011 after the administration denied a Freedom of
Information Act request from the New York Times for documents on the
administration's targeted killing of American citizens outside this
country. Specifically, the Times requested ``a copy of all Office of
Legal Counsel memorandums analyzing the circumstances under which it
would be lawful for United States armed forces or intelligence
community assets to target for killing a United States citizen who is
deemed to be a terrorist.''
The administration refused to provide anything in response to that
request by the New York Times. In fact, initially the administration
wouldn't even acknowledge that any responsive documents even existed,
but as the litigation developed, the Department of Justice identified a
single document but claimed it was exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
That document is the so-called OLC-DOD memorandum.
Essentially, according to the Second Circuit, that is Professor
Barron's memo providing the legal justification for targeted killing of
American citizens abroad with drones. Basically, the court reasoned
that because the administration had leaked and then officially released
the so-called Department of Justice White Paper on the drone program,
the administration then waived any basis for withholding the Barron
drone memo under the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, the Second
Circuit ordered the administration to produce a redacted copy of this
Barron drone memo to the New York Times.
The Second Circuit's opinion confirms that Professor Barron wrote
this drone memo. However, according to press reports going as far back
as September 2010, Professor Barron had written at least one other
drone memo on the targeted killing of Americans while he was at the
Office of Legal Counsel. That second memo wasn't addressed by the
Second Circuit's opinion and hasn't been disclosed publicly.
We also don't know whether Professor Barron wrote or was involved in
producing other materials related to the drone program that have yet to
be provided to the full Senate. For example, the Second Circuit has
identified two additional memos from the Office of Legal Counsel that
it ruled were not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act. Moreover, according to some media reports, there are
quite a few additional memos on the drone program. In fact, the Second
Circuit opinion repeats the ACLU's contention that there may be as many
as 11 total memos related to this drone program.
This fact didn't escape the Second Circuit. In sending the case back
to the district court for further litigation, the circuit left open the
possibility that there might be other documents subject to disclosure
down the road. The court said, after giving the government another
chance to submit additional reasons for withholding the documents:
``The district court may, as appropriate, order the release of any
documents that are not properly withheld.''
Let me be very clear. My colleagues should be on notice that more of
these documents very well may be made public down the road. In my view,
that is all the more reason for the full Senate to receive all
materials on the drone program, written by and related to Professor
Barron, from the Office of Legal Counsel and do it now before Members
decide and are held accountable for their vote on this nominee.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of these materials to
our consideration of Professor Barron's nomination. The memos and
whatever other materials Professor Barron drafted as the acting head of
the Office of Legal Counsel provides the legal framework for the
administration's policies related to killing American citizens abroad.
We know this because the administration itself has said so. In
testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, CIA
Director Brennan testified that advice from the Office of Legal Counsel
on the drone program ``establishes the legal boundaries in which we can
operate.''
Once again, let me be clear. The Senate cannot properly discharge its
duty to advise and consent on this nomination without having a full
picture of this nominee's legal philosophy. A very legitimate question
is, How can the Senate predict what kind of a judge he will be if we
don't know what kind of a lawyer he has been?
The Senate simply cannot evaluate whether this nominee is fit for a
lifetime appointment to one of the Nation's most important courts
without

[[Page S2835]]

complete access to his writings. It is even more important now that we
know some of those writings concern perhaps some of the most
controversial issues the Office of Legal Counsel has addressed in
recent years; that is, the use of drones to kill American citizens
abroad.
Time and again this President and even this Attorney General have
promised transparency. They have made these promises to us. They have
made promises to the American people. We all know in our oversight
capacity of trying to get information out of this administration that
they haven't delivered on these promises.
In that letter from the Department of Justice to Chairman Leahy that
I mentioned just a few minutes ago, the Attorney General claimed this
administration ``has provided an unprecedented level of transparency as
to how sensitive counterterrorism operations are conducted.'' The
Attorney General also wrote that the administration was taking all
steps to ensure that congressional committees ``are fully informed of
the legal basis'' for targeted killings of American citizens.
Again, those assertions aren't accurate when it comes to this
nominee's track record at the Department of Justice. If press reports
are accurate, this administration hasn't made all the relevant
materials available to all Members of this body yet. I am not the first
Member of this body to point this out.
I give several of my Democrat colleagues credit for publicly drawing
attention to this administration's shortcomings in respect to this
administration sufficiently giving us information. I agree with them
that this nomination cannot go forward until this body, every Member of
this body, is given access to any and all secret legal opinions this
nominee wrote on this critical issue of the constitutional basis for
the President subjecting an American to killing by drone without trial.
Every legal opinion this nominee wrote related to this issue ought to
be made available. I wholeheartedly concur in the sentiment of my
colleagues, some of them Democrats, on this issue.
Again, I think all Senators should bear in mind that these documents
may very well become public in the future. Are Senators who are up for
reelection in a few short months ready to vote on this nominee without
knowing the full extent of his writings on a topic as serious as the
killing of an American citizen by a drone? Are those Senators ready to
go home to face their constituents and explain that they cast a vote on
that nominee without knowing all of the facts?
On Tuesday the administration announced it will provide the full
Senate access to the Barron drone memo that it was ordered to make
public by the Second Circuit.
Is this what the most transparent administration in American history
looks like, disclosing a memo that a court has already ordered it to
disclose?
Keep in mind this administration agreed to the disclosure only after
the Second Circuit order and a threat from the American Civil Liberties
Union. Is that transparency?
In fact, I am having a bit of a flashback to a statement I made
before this body just last week about another judicial nominee. That
nominee led the administration's effort to stonewall congressional
oversight into the murder of four Americans at our diplomatic mission
in Benghazi. That nominee refused to comply with congressional
subpoenas and assisted the administration's unlawful withholding of
documents from Congress. The Benghazi documents that should have been
turned over years ago weren't released until a judge forced the
administration to turn over those documents by issuing a court order in
a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Just like the memos I have been talking about today, I am starting to
see a pattern, and I am starting to understand what this administration
means by the word ``transparency.'' It means ``show me a court order
first.''
Incidentally, I have been for more transparency at the Office of
Legal Counsel for years, and even more so since January, when President
Obama threatened to aggressively use Executive orders to circumvent
Congress. It is the job of the Office of Legal Counsel to ensure that
Executive orders are constitutional.
On January 31 I wrote the Attorney General to ask him to disclose the
Office of Legal Counsel's work related to Executive orders issued by
the President. I still haven't received a response.
I will also note that Professor Barron himself has gone on record
publicly and urged increased transparency at his former workplace, the
Office of Legal Counsel, and for that we ought to give him due credit.
In fact, the nominee said this about the OLC--the Office of Legal
Counsel:

OLC should follow a presumption in favor of timely
publication of its written legal opinions. Such disclosure
helps to ensure executive branch adherence to the rule of law
and guard against excessive claims of executive authority.

It couldn't be said any better by me in regard to the letter I wrote
on January 31. He went on to say:

. . . transparency also promotes confidence in the
lawfulness of government action.

That is a very admirable standard. I would like to call it the Barron
standard, and I hope the administration follows the Barron standard
with respect to informing the full Senate about this nominee's work in
the Office of Legal Counsel. The administration's offer to disclose the
memo it was already ordered to make public by a court isn't good
enough, and it shouldn't be good enough for the other 99 Senators,
because this is already their legal obligation.
The administration must turn over not only the memo addressed by the
Second Circuit, but every legal opinion from the Office of Legal
Counsel written by and related to Professor Barron on this issue. Given
the lack of clarity thus far, I call on the White House to provide
every Senator with access to all Barron materials related to the
administration's drone program.
I am also calling on the White House to comply with the Second
Circuit's order and release to the public--not just to Senators--a
redacted copy of the Barron drone memo that it addressed in its
opinion. This is the administration's legal obligation.
Our obligation, as Senators, is to ensure our constituents have full
access to information a Federal Court has ordered to be made public
before we vote on the nomination. Without full disclosure to the full
Senate of all materials on this nominee's involvement in the legal case
for the administration's drone program, this nomination should not
proceed.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Energy Savings

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.
While there is much more to be done on energy issues, we have an
opportunity with this bill to make strides in increasing energy
efficiency across many sectors of our economy--from schools and homes
to commercial buildings, industry, and manufacturing.
I commend my colleagues, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for their
tireless efforts to craft a bipartisan energy efficiency bill that has
the support of a diverse range of businesses and environmental and
labor groups. This demonstrates the broad consensus that being smarter
about how we use energy will help strengthen our economy, create jobs,
improve our energy security, and protect our environment. Investing in
a cleaner, more efficient energy system is one of the fastest, most
cost-effective ways to increase our global competitiveness, support job
growth, and save families and businesses money through improved
efficiency and reduced energy consumption.
I have been particularly focused on addressing the burden of high
energy costs on families and businesses in my home State of Rhode
Island. One of the most pressing, far-reaching, and complex challenges
we face in Rhode Island is the high cost of energy to power and heat
homes and businesses. Rhode Island and the New England region face
significant energy transmission and distribution challenges, which
results

[[Page S2836]]

in consumers and businesses in the region experiencing some of the
highest, most volatile energy costs in the country. These high energy
costs are hurting Rhode Island families and businesses, threatening the
growth of our economy, and reducing our competitiveness.
After paying their monthly home energy bills, Rhode Island families,
who have been hit particularly hard during this period of high
unemployment, are left with few resources to meet other basic needs.
High energy costs also place Rhode Island businesses, manufactures, and
industrial users at a competitive disadvantage. To revitalize Rhode
Island's rich manufacturing history, we must find ways to lower energy
costs.

These were among the issues explored when I welcomed Secretary Moniz
to Providence last month as part of the Administration's outreach on
the Quadrennial Energy Review. Secretary Moniz had the opportunity to
hear directly from Rhode Islanders impacted by high energy costs and
engage in a dialogue of potential solutions.
While I continue working with my New England colleagues to find long-
term solutions to ensure an affordable, cleaner, and more reliable
energy system for the region, one of the things we can do to help
families and businesses in our States right now is to pass the Shaheen-
Portman energy efficiency bill.
Addressing the existing energy infrastructure constraints in New
England is just one piece of the puzzle. Energy efficiency will also be
an important tool in reducing demand, lowering energy costs, and
addressing and maintaining the reliability of our energy system.
Improved efficiency not only saves families and businesses directly
on their energy bills, but by also reducing demand, it helps to
alleviate stress on the power system and can help mitigate volatile
price spikes in the New England region, as we witnessed over the last
several months.
I would also like to take a moment to speak about an amendment I have
joined Senators Coons and Collins in filing to this bill to reauthorize
the Weatherization Assistance Program. I, along with Senator Collins,
yearly lead the fight in the Senate for funding for the Weatherization
and State Energy Programs. This amendment would reauthorize and enhance
these two well-established, cost-effective energy programs that support
jobs, contribute to the Nation's economic recovery, and help meet
important goals, such as improving energy efficiency and lowering
energy costs.
I know that we have many supporters of the Weatherization and State
Energy Programs here in the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to
work with each of you to ensure that these important programs remain
successful in improving energy efficiency, creating jobs, and reducing
the overall cost of heating and powering our homes and businesses.
While we should certainly do much more to advance our national energy
policy--and I hope that we can take greater steps very soon--I urge my
colleagues to join me now in supporting the Shaheen-Portman energy
efficiency bill.
I once again commend those two Senators for their extraordinarily
thoughtful, conscientious, and determined leadership. Now we must
follow their example and pass this legislation.

BARRON NOMINATION

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, the ranking member requested
that the administration provide materials relating to Anwar Al-Awlaki
so that all Senators would be able to properly evaluate Mr. Barron's
nomination. The administration has now made available unredacted copies
of any memo issued by Mr. Barron regarding the potential use of lethal
force against Anwar Al-Awlaki. I hope and expect that all Senators will
review these materials today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I would note the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________