[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 71 (Monday, May 12, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2899-S2902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all filed 
amendments to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, be in order for floor 
consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we had an 
agreement to do the bill. Then we changed it to do it with Keystone. 
That is still our agreement. We are willing to do this bill, energy 
efficiency, which is such a good bill. We are in agreement that we 
could have an up-or-down vote very shortly thereafter on Keystone.
  So without going through all of the details, that is what I want to 
do. He does not want to do that. I object to his unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, therefore, I propose a different 
unanimous consent agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the only 
amendments in order be five amendments from the Republican side related 
to energy policy with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each 
amendment. I further ask that following the disposition of these 
amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
Rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 2262, a bill to 
     promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, 
     and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Jeanne Shaheen, Edward J. Markey, Christopher 
           A. Coons, Tammy Baldwin, Patty Murray, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Ron Wyden, 
           Robert Menendez, Jon Tester, Debbie Stabenow, Bill 
           Nelson, Thomas R. Carper, Patrick J. Leahy, Mark R. 
           Warner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2262, a bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings and 
industry, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Ayotte
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo

[[Page S2900]]


     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Boozman
     Corker
     Graham
     Heller
     Murkowski
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 55, the nays are 36. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on S. 2262.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand there are several Senators 
on the floor who wish to speak on several important subjects. I would 
like to talk for about 5 to 7 minutes on the vote that just occurred 
and to give some concluding remarks on the Keystone Pipeline and the 
failure of the Senate to take the opportunity presented today to move 
forward in a bipartisan, cooperative fashion and adopt two important 
and significant steps toward building a more aggressive, a more 
dynamic, and a more comprehensive domestic energy policy for the United 
States of America.
  It is a shame that after all of the hard work that has gone into 
this, it has basically ended in a draw tonight. Senators Shaheen and 
Portman could not have worked harder together to produce a bill that 
creates thousands of jobs for our country. They brought their bill, as 
is the order, to the Senate energy committee. Senator Wyden served as 
chair of that committee for the last several years. I just stepped into 
the chairmanship in the last 8 weeks, but I have committed to both 
these terrific leaders and the former chair that I would try to advance 
one of the important bills that came out of our committee.
  There have been 300 bills filed this Congress in the energy 
committee. There have been 13 that have passed. This would have been 
the 14th. I thought it was important to pair it with the Keystone 
Pipeline because while there is strong support for the efficiency bill 
on the Democratic side and significant support on the Republican side, 
the Republican leaders wanted to build--and many of us, including 
myself--the Keystone Pipeline. In fact, Senator McConnell said on April 
29--not too long ago--that Keystone ``would produce significant 
economic benefits.'' On May 6 Senator Thune said that we ``will have 
shovel-ready jobs associated with it.'' On May 7 Senator Cornyn said, 
`` build this pipeline so we can safely transport oil.'' Senator 
Alexander said that ``after 5 years of delays, there is simply no 
reason not to let the Keystone XL Pipeline move forward.'' On April 29 
Senator Enzi said, ``How many times have we been through this?'' 
Senator Inhofe: `` . . . no longer have a valid reason to stall.'' 
Senator Toomey said, ``It is time for Congress to step up and do what 
the President hasn't--authorize this pipeline.'' We had an opportunity 
just a few minutes ago for these Senators to do exactly that, but they 
chose to have an issue as opposed to having a pipeline, and that is 
very disappointing.
  The efficiency bill that came out of the committee, contrary to what 
has been said on this floor over and over again--that the problem was 
that Harry Reid would not allow amendments--was amended in committee 
several times before the bill came out. There are Republican and 
Democratic members of the committee, and it came out of the committee 
on a vote of I think 19 to 3.
  When the bill was brought to the floor approximately 6 or 7 months 
ago, Senators Shaheen and Portman allowed 10 additional amendments--10 
additional amendments--by Members on the Democratic and Republican 
side. I am going to read those amendments into the record so that 
nobody can report or continue to say that the reason we are here is 
because there weren't amendments that were offered.
  This bill was well negotiated. For the record, the first amendment 
was added by Senator Collins and Senator Udall on energy-efficient 
schools--Senator Collins, a Republican from Maine. No. 2 was a better-
buildings amendment by Senators Ayotte and Bennet--a Republican from 
New Hampshire. There was a data center amendment--the fourth amendment 
added to the base of this bill--by Senator Risch, a Republican Member. 
The fifth amendment was again a Collins amendment--low-income housing 
retrofits. That was a Collins-Whitehouse amendment. The ENERGY STAR 
third-party testing was an amendment I offered along with Senator 
Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi. Another was the Wicker-Landrieu-
Pryor amendment--Federal green buildings adjustment so that some of our 
products that are used to promote energy efficiency would not be 
disqualified. It was a very important amendment, and Senator Shaheen 
and Senator Portman agreed to that. Senator Hoeven, a Republican, 
offered an amendment creating an exemption for thermal storage water 
heaters. That amendment was put in. And then there was a Hoeven-
Manchin-Isakson-Bennet amendment--energy efficiency in Federal 
residential buildings. That amendment was put in the base bill. 
Finally, the 10th amendment was by Senator Sessions and Senator Pryor 
requiring DOE to recognize voluntary independent certification 
programs.
  So this argument that the reason we can't have a vote on the Keystone 
Pipeline is because Democrats will not allow amendments is completely 
bogus--completely bogus--and anyone following this debate knows that.
  Senators Shaheen and Portman compromised. And as the new chair of the 
committee, I thought that if the Republicans wanted a vote on Keystone, 
we could at least offer that, and I thought that was a big step--I 
mean, a big step. I guess it was so big they decided they didn't want 
to take it, because they could have had a vote on Keystone. They can't 
take yes for an answer. I thought that was a big step forward, a big 
improvement over where we were about 6 months ago where we had 3 
Democrats--we now have almost 11, and the number is growing--who 
supported Keystone.
  And it is not because people are not respectful of the President's 
position. He is entitled to have his own position. Some of us just 
strongly disagree with it. The studies are in. The environmental 
studies are in. This is a rounding error when it comes to increased 
carbon emissions. And it is a hugely important impact for safety to get 
oil transported by the safest route possible--pipeline--as opposed to 
these tankers rolling alongside our children and schoolbuses on our 
highways or rolling through our communities on rail. We have already 
seen a number of horrific accidents.
  So here I am, the new chair of the committee, and I thought, well, 
this could be possible. We have an efficiency bill Democrats like, and 
we have Keystone, which the Republicans really want to get done. Why 
don't we just offer them together? It makes perfect common sense to 
everyone in America--cooperation and common sense--but that is in short 
supply here in the Senate, and it is very disappointing.
  I know it is an election year. I am reminded about that every day by 
my colleagues. But I thought this was bigger than the campaign. It is 
about jobs, it is about middle class, it is about strengthening 
domestic energy, and it is about being balanced in our approach. I know 
if Democrats were completely in charge they would write an energy bill 
one way, and if Republicans were completely in charge they would write 
it a different way. But this isn't fairyland. This is Washington, DC, 
and we have a split Congress. So I thought bringing an efficiency bill 
that has over 200 organizations, from the Environmental Defense Fund to 
the chamber of commerce--and Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman have 
put together an absolutely magnificent coalition--not seen very often 
around here, to tell the truth. And the Keystone Pipeline has won over 
its critics. There were a lot of critics in the beginning. There still 
are very loud critics, but I think the evidence is showing the 
importance of building this Keystone Pipeline.
  As chair, I intend to be as fair as I can be with both parties, and 
putting things on this floor we can be proud of together, where 
everybody takes a little and gives a little and we move forward. But, 
no, that is not enough for

[[Page S2901]]

the Republican leader. The Republican leader wants an issue; he does 
not want the pipeline. I hope the people of Kentucky will remind him 
how important the pipeline is.
  So I am going to ask unanimous consent--I am going to read this into 
the Record, all this formal language, but I want people to know what my 
consent request really is. I am going to ask unanimous consent that at 
sometime before May 22, which would be about 2 weeks from today, or a 
week and a half, this Senate have a straight-up vote after 3 hours of 
debate on the Shaheen-Portman bill that already has 10 Republican 
amendments included in it and that 3 hours later or at some certain 
time later, we have a straight-up vote on the Keystone Pipeline.
  That is what this unanimous consent request I am going to read into 
the Record says, but it is a little bit confusing when you hear it, so 
I want people to know really clearly what it is I am asking.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that sometime before May 22 
there would be a vote straight up on Keystone and on the efficiency 
legislation, which already has 10 Republican amendments--bipartisan 
amendments led by Republican Members--included in the bill, and I ask 
for that now with a 60-vote threshold.
  So I ask unanimous consent that with respect to S. 2262, the pending 
motion to commit and amendments be withdrawn, with the exception of the 
substitute amendment; that at a time to be determined by the majority 
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 2262, that the substitute amendment be 
agreed to; that there be no other amendments, points of order or 
motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the 
applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 3 hours of debate on 
the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote 
on passage of the bill, as amended; that the bill be subject to a 60-
affirmative vote threshold; that if the bill is passed, the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 371, S. 2280--which would 
be Keystone--at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after 
consultation with the Republican leader, but no later than Thursday, 
May 22, 2014; that there be no amendments, points of order or motions 
in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the 
applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 3 hours of debate on 
the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote 
on passage of the bill; that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative 
vote threshold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FLAKE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I understand there are 75 amendments filed 
at the desk to this bill. Some of them are mine. Twenty-four of them 
have been filed by Democratic Senators who hope to offer them to this 
bill.
  We keep hearing about amendments that are being allowed. These are 
amendments or amendment language which has been drafted into a 
manager's amendment to the bill, not to be offered on the floor. I 
should note that the vote on the Keystone Pipeline is one of those 
amendments that could be offered to the bill if there was agreement to 
move ahead.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent be modified so 
that all filed amendments to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, be in order for 
floor consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify the request?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I reserve my right to oppose this modification, and I 
wish to briefly explain why, as my colleague explained his reason why 
he wanted to modify.
  I think what Senator Landrieu has offered is what everybody in this 
country thought we were going to do. Senator Landrieu and I disagree on 
Keystone. No one could be a stronger advocate for Keystone than she is, 
period.
  I believe tar sands should not be brought into this country the way 
they would be brought in at a 45-percent increase with this pipeline--
eventually 300 percent. We could have had a robust debate. The Senator 
and I would have been respectful and caring about each other, but we 
would have disagreed. We could have had the vote.
  Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe when you give your word, you 
keep your word. Leadership was very clear that if we were able to give 
the Republicans and Senator Landrieu a vote on Keystone, we could move 
forward with Shaheen-Portman, a bipartisan, incredibly important energy 
efficiency bill.
  Instead, what we know is Republicans want to offer--and it is in my 
jurisdiction so I can speak about it--environmental riders, the likes 
of which I have never seen in one grouping, essentially repealing the 
essence of the Clean Air Act that was signed into law in 1970 by 
Richard Nixon, and the 1990 amendments which were signed into law by 
George Herbert Walker Bush. They want to put those on this bill. You 
have got to be kidding. Something as serious as that?
  So I object to the modification.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Given Senator Boxer's comments, I am unable to modify 
my request. I hope we can move forward at some time with a vote on the 
energy efficiency bill and on the Keystone Pipeline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection to the modification. Is 
there objection to the original request?
  Mr. FLAKE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Shaheen and other Senators 
leave, I wish to say how disappointed I am, because energy efficiency 
is so good for this country, and they have stopped it because they want 
to repeal the Clean Air Act. Let's call it what it is. It is really a 
sad state of affairs.
  I was so looking forward not only to the debate on energy efficiency, 
but, frankly, the debate on the Keystone Pipeline, which my Republican 
friends say is a major priority. If they felt it was a major priority, 
why have they filibustered this bill when we could have made that deal 
which they came up with in the first place?
  So I am very disappointed. I hope we will have another chance to pass 
this bipartisan energy efficiency bill that Senator Shaheen and Senator 
Portman worked so hard on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, the notion that Republicans are trying to 
repeal the Clean Air Act--if somebody were offering an amendment to 
that, then it would simply be defeated on this floor.
  Let the amendments be offered. That is what the Senate is all about. 
This is a place of unlimited debate and usually unlimited amendments. 
But we are told now they can only agree to amendments the majority 
leader agrees should be offered. That is not right. That is not the 
Senate.
  Let's go ahead and allow the amendments to be offered. If the 
amendments are wild-eyed and out there, they will surely be defeated. 
But let's debate the bill. Let's actually have an opportunity to amend 
the bill with amendments of our own choosing, not somebody else's 
choosing. That is what this debate is about.


                         Production Tax Credit

  Mr. President, last month the Senate Finance Committee considered 
legislation to extend a number of expired tax provisions.
  We have become so accustomed to extending various tax credits and 
deductions on a year-by-year basis, we have given this bill the name 
``tax extenders'' when it comes up every year.
  Unfortunately, these short-term fixes passed by Congress fail to give 
any certainty to taxpayers in the future, other than the fact that the 
government continues to give preferential treatment to certain chosen 
industries.
  Now, rather than blindly extend these provisions, what we ought to do 
is eliminate these wasteful extenders which are really just subsidies. 
These benefit just a few. Those that are necessary for the economy 
let's extend permanently so we don't go through this exercise year 
after year.
  But today I will discuss for a minute one extender that is ripe for 
elimination--the Production Tax Credit, otherwise known as the PTC.

[[Page S2902]]

  In 1992, the PTC was temporarily established to promote development 
of renewable energy--electricity, particularly. This was for the then-
fledgling wind power industry.
  Congress gave energy producers a lengthy 7-year window to take 
advantage of and prepare for the eventual expiration of this tax credit 
in 1999. But as we know, here in Washington, very few of these programs 
are temporary. So here we are 15 years later, and the PTC is still 
hanging around.
  Since its inception, this credit has been extended eight times. 
Having expired on January 1 of this year, there is now another effort 
afoot to resurrect what can only be described as a zombie credit. Do we 
really need a ninth extension? Wouldn't it be more intellectually 
honest to decide, if this government's policy is worth it, to simply 
permanently renew? Yet we go through this exercise year after year.
  Last month there was a glimmer of hope that common sense would 
prevail. The tax extender package put forward by Senator Wyden and 
Ranking Member Hatch excluded the PTC--allowing the credit to finally 
expire so it wouldn't have been part of this package. However, it 
didn't take long for those who benefit from this government subsidy to 
activate the rallying cry.
  A few short days later, the PTC was back in the package to provide 
the wind industry 2 additional years, until the end of 2015, to start 
construction on projects that would be eligible for the subsidy.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this short extension 
would cost more than $13 billion over the next 10 years. But this isn't 
a true cost. Wind producers get to claim the credit for 10 years, 
beginning on the date of first production, as opposed to the start of 
construction.
  In reality, the Federal Government's financial commitment extends 
well beyond the 10-year period considered in the JTC's initial 
estimate. The government will still likely be passing out these credits 
in 2027 and beyond.
  That is a long commitment for a technology that former Energy 
Secretary Steven Chu said was mature in 2009. In fact, he projected 
that wind would be cost competitive with other forms of energy without 
subsidies by the end of this decade.
  Wind power generation is no longer an infant industry. It is no 
longer in need of Federal support. By the end of last year, more than 
61,000 megawatts of wind power capacity had been installed around the 
U.S., which is 15 times the amount that existed in 2001. In 2012, wind 
power was the top source of new generating capacity, beating out 
additional capacity from natural gas. The PTC is, in fact, so generous 
that at times it is more valuable than the wholesale price of 
electricity. That is a whopper of a subsidy. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, as a result of government subsidies, 
there are times when wind producers actually pay the market to take 
their power.
  Recently, some of my colleagues who support this tax credit have 
pointed to the growing share of wind power generation in the U.S. and 
more than 550 wind-related manufacturing facilities around the country 
which will supply tens of thousands of jobs.
  Rather than depicting an infant industry, these advances describe an 
industry that should be ready to stand on its own two feet.
  We all know the U.S. has a $17.5 trillion debt. All subsidies like 
this need to be eliminated.
  The production tax credit distorts the market by having the 
government favor one source of energy over another. An ideal energy 
market is one largely absent of the government's convoluted tax 
policies. Simply put, no industry's success should be predicated on 
congressional action.
  Instead of extending an energy subsidy that picks winners and losers 
and creates market inefficiencies, Congress should eliminate the PTC 
and support an energy policy that encourages entrepreneurs to satisfy 
demand by providing consumers with alternative sources of energy.
  This law has run its course. The PTC should meet its long overdue 
end.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am very disappointed at the actions of 
the Senate this evening: that we were not able to come together after 
all of the work and all of the support from groups across this country 
for energy efficiency legislation; that we cannot bridge our 
differences and get this bill done, despite the broad bipartisan 
support, despite the support of organizations from the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers to the NRDC 
environmental groups to the painters union. We had groups across the 
political spectrum supporting this legislation--the Alliance to Save 
Energy, which was really the brain child behind this legislation. Yet 
we were not able to come together to support a bill that would have 
made progress on the jobs front, progress on savings for consumers, and 
progress on preventing pollution.
  I thank Senator Landrieu, who has chaired the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, and Senator Boxer, chair of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, for their kind words about this legislation 
this evening. I also thank my partner, who worked as hard on this bill 
as I did, Senator Rob Portman from Ohio, and the good work of both his 
staff and my staff in trying to move this efficiency agenda forward.
  Unfortunately, we saw tonight that differences in this body have 
prevented positive progress. The reason that is so unfortunate is 
because energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest, cleanest way to 
address this country's energy demand, because energy that we don't use 
is energy that we don't have to produce. And efficiency saves money, 
lessens our dependence on imported energy, decreases pollution, and 
improves our Nation's global competitiveness.
  In addition, energy efficiency investments enable domestic businesses 
to leverage private capital, to reduce business risks associated with 
price volatility, to spur economic growth, and to create jobs. All of 
those are part of this Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 
Act that Senator Portman and I cosponsored along with a great group of 
bipartisan sponsors from this body. One of the aspects I like about 
energy efficiency is that it doesn't matter whether one supports fossil 
fuels or whether one supports alternative sources of energy; everyone 
benefits from energy efficiency. In the last 40 years we have saved 
more through energy efficiency in this country than we have produced 
through fossil fuels and nuclear power combined. So there is huge 
potential benefit in energy efficiency, and it is important for us to 
figure out a way to move this legislation forward.

  In the last 3\1/2\ years I have visited businesses across New 
Hampshire--small retail businesses, manufacturing companies, ski areas, 
apartment complexes, municipal buildings. Today I was at the opening of 
a new expansion of Airmar Technologies in New Hampshire, a beautiful 
new facility. They make sensors that go in everything from ships to 
weather instruments to detect weather. They were very proud that in 
constructing the new building they made it energy efficient. This is a 
win-win-win. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy, if we pass this bill this year by 2030 we will help create 
192,000 jobs, we will save consumers $16.2 billion a year, and it will 
be the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road, all because 
we are saving energy.
  We ought to all be able to come together behind this. I am not going 
to quit. I don't think the sponsors of this legislation are going to 
quit. All of those 260-plus businesses, organizations out there that 
have been advocating for this bill, are not going to quit because this 
is legislation that makes sense. It makes sense for job creation, it 
makes sense for saving on pollution, it makes sense for saving money, 
it makes sense to our national competitiveness, and we are going to 
keep at it until we pass this legislation.
  I hope politics will stay out of the way; that we will come together, 
we will agree on amendments we can all vote on, and that we will be 
able to move forward in a positive way.
  I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________