[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.

                          ____________________