[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6844-6850]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                         College Affordability

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the 
great crises facing our country; that is, the high cost of college, and 
the fact that hundreds of thousands of young people who are bright and 
wish to get a higher education have now decided that, because they do 
not want to leave school deeply in debt, they are not going to go to 
college. What a loss that is, not only to the individuals and the 
enhancement of their own lives, but it is a loss to our Nation because 
in a highly competitive global economy we need the best educated 
workforce possible. The fact that college is becoming a distant dream--
an unreachable dream--for millions of families is a horrendous 
situation which this Congress must address.
  Over the last 10 years, the cost of attending a public 4-year college 
has increased by nearly 35 percent at a time when middle-class incomes 
have remained flat and, in fact, many families have seen a decline in 
their incomes. Of the students who do go to college, hundreds of 
thousands graduate with significant debt--on average, over $27,000.
  This morning I was talking to a staffer of mine who is $119,000 in 
debt. And what was her crime? How did she accrue that debt? Did she go 
on a spending spree? Did she lose her money in a gambling casino? Her 
crime was that she wanted to go to law school, and she came out of law 
school $150,000 in debt. Today that is down to $119,000. I have talked 
to doctors and dentists who are now several hundred thousand dollars in 
debt.
  The important point to make is there was once a time in the United 
States when that kind of college and graduate school indebtedness did 
not exist. Only a few decades ago this country made a commitment to our 
students that if you worked hard, if you studied hard, and if you 
wanted to pursue a higher education, you could do so at little or no 
cost. That was what we used to do. Unfortunately, in that very 
important area we have regressed, and regressed significantly.
  Until the 1970s, at the City University of New York, one of the 
important and best educational systems in the country, the cost was 
completely free. The University of California system, one of the 
largest and best university systems in the world, did not begin 
charging tuition until the 1980s. In fact, in 1965, average tuition at 
a 4-year public university was $243.
  We know we are living in a highly competitive global economy, and if 
our Nation is to succeed, we need to have the best educated workforce 
in the entire world. But the sad truth is we are now competing against 
other nations around the world that make it much easier for their young 
people to go to college and graduate school than is the case in the 
United States of America.
  According to a report released last year by the OECD--the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--the United 
States was one of the few advanced countries in the world that did not 
increase its public investment in education over the last decade.
  From 2008 to 2010, most advanced countries experienced significant 
economic decline as a result of the Wall Street collapse. Despite that, 
the vast majority of countries increased educational spending by 5 
percent or more. The United States was one of the few nations to 
decrease overall educational spending.
  I live about 1 hour away from Canada in northern Vermont. In Canada, 
average annual tuition fees were $4,200 in 2010--roughly half of what 
they were in the United States--and yet the OECD says Canada is one of 
the most expensive countries for a student to go to school.
  Germany, an international competitor of ours, is in the process of 
phasing out all tuition fees. Even when German universities did charge 
tuition, it was roughly $1,300 per student.
  According to the European Commission in 2012, the following countries 
do not charge their students any tuition--and these are countries we 
are competing against. These are countries where young people go to 
college without any out-of-pocket expenses. Those countries are 
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden.
  In Europe, university systems enjoy a very high level of public 
funding. The EU average is 77 percent. In other words, in countries 
throughout Europe--Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and all of the rest--what 
governments understand is that investing in higher education is 
terribly important for the individual students and their families. But, 
in addition, it is enormously important for the competitive 
capabilities of those countries.
  So countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, each put in more than 
88 percent of public funding into their universities. In the United 
States, the number is 36 percent. Countries all over the world that 
don't provide free higher education pump significantly more into their 
university systems than we do.
  The result is several very significant points. First, we have many 
working-class and middle-class young people who are looking at the 
economic picture we face as a nation and looking at their own lives, 
and they are saying: Do I want to go to college and leave school 
$50,000 or $60,000 in debt? How am I going to pay off that debt once I 
leave school?
  Many of these young people, tragically, are saying: I don't want to 
take that risk. I don't want to leave school deeply in debt. I will not 
go to college.

[[Page 6845]]

  What a tragic situation that is for our entire country, because we 
are losing the intellectual potential of all of those young men and 
women.
  Second, those who do go to college are coming out of school with an 
incredible chain of indebtedness around their neck, which impacts every 
aspect of their lives. It determines what kind of jobs they will get. 
Will they do the job they had hoped to do their whole lives--their 
life's dream, the work they were looking forward to doing or are they 
going to gravitate to those jobs which simply pay them a lot of money 
and enable them to pay off their debt?
  For the first time in our country's history, American families have 
more student debt than credit card debt, and that is an extraordinary 
reality. All over this country families are struggling with debt in a 
way they never have before. The average loan balance for American 
graduates has increased by 70 percent since 2004. Average student debt 
is now near $27,000. In Vermont, it is even higher at $28,000. One in 
eight borrowers is carrying more than $50,000 in student debt. The 
percentage of families in the United States with outstanding student 
debt increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2010.
  The bottom line here is we have a huge crisis which is impacting 
millions of individual families and individual young people. But from a 
national perspective, it is a crisis which is impacting our 
competitiveness in the global economy.
  There was once a time, not so many years ago, when we had the best 
educated workforce in the world and we had a higher percentage of 
college graduates than any other country on Earth.
  That is not the case today. I think we have got to do some very hard 
thinking about the crisis regarding college affordability and the 
crisis regarding student debt. If this country is to remain 
internationally competitive in the global economy, we need some bold 
ideas in terms of how we address these crises.
  I can tell you that in Vermont, as I speak to young people around my 
State, this is the issue foremost on their minds. The young people in 
high school are wondering about how they can afford to go to college. 
The students in college are worried about how they are going to pay off 
their college debt. Our job must be to say to every young person in 
this country that if you are a serious student, if you study hard, you 
are going to be able to get a higher education regardless of the income 
of your family, and you are going to be able to get the best education 
our Nation can provide you based on your ability and not on the income 
of your family.
  This is an issue of enormous importance to individuals around the 
country, but it is an issue of huge consequence for the economic future 
of this country. So in the coming weeks I will be introducing 
legislation--I know there is a lot of other good legislation that is 
going to be coming to the floor--because this is an issue of huge 
consequence, and it is an issue that must be addressed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We are on the measure again, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency 
bill, also known as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 
Act--an efficiency bill. This should not be this difficult for us. When 
we talk about the benefits of an all-of-the-above energy policy--the 
benefits that can come to us as a nation when we are more resilient 
with our energy sources, when we are able to access our domestic energy 
sources, whether they be our fossil fuels, our renewables, or nuclear--
we all talk about it in good, strong terms because, quite honestly, 
energy makes us a stronger nation, having access to our energy 
resources.
  I have defined a good, strong energy policy as one that allows energy 
to be more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. An energy 
policy is also about the energy we do not consume. It is about the 
energy we save because we are more efficient.
  It seems we have gotten to a point, at least with some aspects of 
this discussion, where somehow or other the efficiency side of the 
energy discussion is a partisan debate; that Republicans do not support 
energy efficiency. I cannot think of a more conservative principle than 
conserving energy. This is something we should be embracing, and it is 
something, in terms of legislation that is sound, that is good to move 
forward, something that I support.
  This bipartisan efficiency bill has been refined. It has been 
strengthened. It has been improved over the past 3 years. There have 
been plenty of eyes upon this legislation. There has been plenty of 
debate about it. We have a total of 13 Senators who are now on board 
with it, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. So I am pleased 
we have this legislation back on the floor again.
  The last time this legislation came before us was in September. I 
spoke then about the importance, the relevance to today, the many good 
reasons the Senate should support it. I am not going to necessarily 
repeat all of those points this afternoon, but I do want to highlight 
quickly a couple of the main points.
  The first is going directly to the policy side of it. Energy 
efficiency should be a broader part of our Nation's energy policy. It 
is good for our economy. It is good for the environment. It enables us 
to waste less, to use our resources more wisely. Who can object to 
this? Who could possibly say this is not a good thing we should 
encourage?
  And there is more. Think about what it does to help create jobs and 
deliver financial benefits. Study after study shows we can save 
billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency 
improvements. Whether we are talking about small appliances or large 
buildings, there are opportunities for gains in efficiencies throughout 
the system.
  The second reason for support of the bill is it envisions a more 
limited role for the Federal Government. When I think about efficiency, 
I think the Federal Government should seek to fulfill three key roles. 
It can act as a facilitator of information that consumers and 
businesses need. It can serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage 
or prevent rational efficiency improvements. As the largest consumer of 
energy in our country, it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce 
its own energy usage.
  This legislation helps us make progress in all of these areas, but it 
is appropriately tailored as well. It has a number of voluntary 
provisions. It does not contain any new mandates for the private 
sector. I think that is worthy of repeating. There are no new mandates 
in this bill.
  When the legislation was first introduced some time ago, there was 
some concern about impact on building codes. But the provision related 
to model building codes is voluntary. It is not mandatory. No one has 
to benefit from it if they do not want to.
  The third reason to support the bill is the cost--or, really, the 
lack of cost. We all know we are operating in a time of high deficits 
and record debt. The good news is this efficiency bill actually 
subtracts from our spending rather than adding to it. The CBO has 
indicated it will yield a modest savings of about $12 million over the 
10-year window. Again, this is good from a policy perspective. It is 
good from a fiscal perspective.
  Then the last point is one I want to make in support of process. We 
have followed regular order, as well as ``regular order'' can be 
defined around here, but we have done that from the beginning with this 
legislation. Those of us who serve on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee reported it on an overwhelming bipartisan basis back in 2011, 
and then again in 2013. So it has gone through a fulsome committee 
process. Improvements were suggested

[[Page 6846]]

and have been thoughtfully considered and incorporated. Many, many of 
the ideas are now incorporated in the text we have in front of us.
  Then, finally, a few words about the amendments that are being filed 
to this bill.
  When we last had this bill before the Senate, we were unable to reach 
agreement on amendments. We got bogged down and the bill was pulled 
from the floor. The Senate moved on to other matters. We are back again 
now, and I really do not want to see a repeat of that experience. Quite 
honestly, we do not need to.
  It is certainly true a lot of amendments have been filed to the bill. 
We had more than 100 last September. That should not be evidence that 
somehow this bill is flawed. But what it recognizes is there is this 
pent-up demand for a discussion on the issue of energy. There is a 
pent-up demand to bring forward ideas and concepts and innovation and 
policy when it comes to energy debate.
  It has been more than 6 years since we have had anything more than a 
brief debate. When you think about what has happened in the energy 
sector in the past 6 years, I say to the Presiding Officer, you are 
sitting in the chair coming from a State that has seen an amazing--an 
amazing--boom when it comes to natural gas production in your State. 
You have seen technologies come in that are able to access areas where 
you did not even know you had the resource.
  Think about the changes we have seen in the energy sector in 6 years. 
Six years ago we were talking about building LNG import terminals--
terminals so we could bring LNG in from other countries. Now we are 
pressing the case for greater LNG exports. We are trying to build out 
more facilities so we can move this abundant resource from our shores 
to help our friends and allies around the world.
  Six years ago, if I had stood on this floor and suggested to you we 
were going to have a debate about the export of our crude oil from this 
country, you would have laughed me off the floor. Nobody was talking 
about it. But look at what is happening, coming out of the Bakken up in 
North Dakota, what is coming out of Texas and New Mexico and out of 
California, Colorado, out of States in the Midwest. We are producing 
like we have not produced in ages. We are doing so because we have the 
benefit of good, strong technologies that are allowing us to access a 
resource safely and making sure we are being good stewards of the land 
while we are doing it, and creating jobs and opportunities.
  So when you think about what has happened in 6 years, and the fact 
that we have not had a real debate and conversation about energy, it is 
no wonder people want to present amendments. But we are in a situation 
now where there is real debate about whether we are going to have any 
amendments at all.
  We have been sitting here in the Senate since last July--almost a 
year--and there have been nine amendments allowed of the Republicans' 
choosing to be heard, to be entertained, to be taken up on the floor of 
the Senate.
  We are not asking for an unreasonable number. Given everything that 
is going on in the world, everything that is happening in the energy 
sector, it is understood why we would want an opportunity to present 
amendments. But we are not asking for the Moon here. Out of all the 
amendments filed to the bill, we are seeking votes on four of them. If 
we were to take just 15 minutes per vote, with a little extra time for 
statements in support or opposition, we could work those out in an 
afternoon.
  There is no reason we need to stretch this out. Our other option is 
to spend the next several days arguing about whether we are going to 
vote at all. We are sent to the Senate to do good work, and this is a 
venue where the work is demanding attention, so let's get to it.
  Let's advance these measures. Let's get to the debate about whether 
it is LNG export opportunities, whether it is the advantage from many 
different perspectives about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and about what 
more we can be doing as a nation to be a world leader with our energy 
resources, accessing our resources for the good of Americans, the 
creation of jobs to strengthen our economy, to help our trade deficit, 
to help our friends, and to help our allies. We can be in a position to 
do so much more, but we have to be able to get beyond the discussion, 
the debate about whether we are just going to talk about whether we are 
going to talk about it or whether we are going to get to it.
  I am hopeful that throughout the afternoon, throughout tomorrow, and 
throughout the balance of the week we will have an opportunity to 
discuss and to vote on amendments that are energy-related amendments 
that will help move this country in a more positive direction when it 
comes to our energy policy and attach that to a fundamental anchor of a 
good, strong energy policy, which is energy efficiency, and that is 
what the Shaheen-Portman bill allows us to do.


                          National Police Week

  I want to pivot for a moment and move off the issue of energy 
efficiency. I wish to speak for a few more minutes this afternoon about 
National Police Week.
  National Police Week is a week to honor our fallen law enforcement 
officers. It occurs next week. Next week in Washington, DC, we will see 
police vehicles from all over the Nation. We will see officers in 
uniform, perhaps some with young kids in tow, flooding the Metro 
system. The survivors of law enforcement tragedies will gather in 
Alexandria, VA, for the annual meeting of Concerns of Police Survivors.
  On Tuesday night, tens of thousands will gather at the National Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial, and they will read by candlelight the 
names inscribed on the memorial walls this year. On Thursday, the 
National Peace Officers Memorial Day Service will convene on the west 
front of the Capitol. These are all very moving tributes to our fallen, 
those who have served in the line of duty and who honor us all.
  For the past 11 years, I have made it a habit of honoring the fallen 
during National Police Week, regardless of whether any Alaska law 
enforcement agency suffered a line-of-duty death during that preceding 
year.
  At times I have made note of a sad coincidence, a sad coincidence 
that law enforcement tragedies in the twos and threes often seem to 
occur in close proximity to the annual National Police Week observance.
  About this time 8 years ago, the National Capital Region was grieving 
the loss of Michael Garbarino and Vicky Armel, the first Fairfax County 
police officers to die from gunfire in the line of duty. In April 2009, 
Pittsburgh lost three of its finest.
  This year, as we anticipate the arrival of National Police Week, 
Alaska carries that tragic burden. Last week my home State lost two 
members of the Alaska State Troopers in a single incident.
  On May 1, Alaska State troopers Sergeant Scott Johnson and Trooper 
Gabe Rich flew from Fairbanks to the village of Tanana. Tanana is an 
Athabascan Indian community and there are about 238 people. Tanana sits 
at the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers. It is a strong 
community, it is a resilient community, but it is a community that is 
truly suffering right now.
  Similar to most of the Alaska Native villages, the only full-time law 
enforcement presence in Tanana is a single, unarmed village public 
safety officer. Law enforcement backup, when they are needed and called 
in, will fly to Tanana. Tanana is not accessible by roads, so basically 
the only way in and out is to fly in and out, coming in from Fairbanks, 
so it is about a 1-hour flight away.
  The village public safety officer asked for trooper assistance to 
respond to an individual who had been waving a gun in the village. With 
no backup, other than the unarmed village public safety officer, 
Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich attempted to serve a warrant on the 
offender. Both officers were shot and killed. The 19-year-old son of 
the individual who was the subject of the warrant is now charged with 
the shooting.

[[Page 6847]]

  This is a horrible tragedy for Tanana, a tragedy for Alaska, and a 
tragedy for the entire law enforcement community.
  Tanana is, as I mentioned, a small village. It is an isolated 
village. It has been a very resilient village. It is a very proud and a 
very kind-hearted community. The Athabascan word for Tanana, known as 
``Nuchalawoya,'' means ``wedding of the rivers,'' and the village has 
played a very central role in Athabascan culture for thousands of 
years.
  But like many Alaska Native villages, it suffers from drug and 
alcohol problems. Last October there was a group of young people from 
the village of Tanana, and they traveled to the Alaska Federation of 
Natives convention.
  It is the largest gathering of Alaska Natives in the State, and they 
did a very brave and heroic thing. They assembled on stage in front of 
4,000 to 5,000 people to tell Alaskans that they had had enough of the 
pain and the violence, and they were determined to make their community 
a healthier place. It was an amazing moment. It was inspiring. There 
was not a sound to be heard in the huge Carlson Center in Fairbanks as 
these young people spoke.
  So inspiring were the words of these young kids that I wrote Attorney 
General Holder and I asked that his department invest prevention 
resources in the village and others like it that were trying to turn 
things around, trying to face the ugly side of what happens in a small 
community when we have domestic violence and child sexual assault 
brought on by drugs and alcohol.
  Tanana is absolutely devastated by what happened last week. In the 
words of Cynthia Erickson, who is the youth leader of the young people 
I mentioned, last week's incident amounts to two steps back in Tanana's 
effort to heal itself, but the healing process must begin and now is 
the time for it to begin.
  We remember fallen law enforcement officers for the way they lived 
their lives. Vivian Eney Cross, who is the widow of a fallen U.S. 
Capitol police officer, said:

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

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


                           Order of Procedure

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


                  Kidnapping of Schoolgirls in Nigeria

  Mr. REID. I have had a number of titles, as all we Senators have over 
the years, but the title that means the most to me has always been 
``Dad,'' ``Father.'' It is so important that my five children recognize 
me as their dad.
  My oldest child is a daughter, Lana, but I also have 12 
granddaughters. As a father and grandfather, I can't imagine the horror 
of having one of these girls abducted, kidnapped, and stolen--even 
though Nigeria is thousands of miles away from where we sit today.
  My nightmare, our nightmare--we are always worrying about our girls--
is a reality in Nigeria.
  On the night of April 14, more than 250 girls--I don't know the exact 
number--were stolen from a school by a terrorist group called Boko 
Haram. These kidnappers, a cowardly group of men--thugs and 
terrorists--have announced their attention to sell the girls in the 
marketplace.
  It was only yesterday the leader of this organization was on 
television saying we have them and we are going to sell them. How would 
that make a mother or dad, family member feel? It is sickening to think 
these girls are at the mercy of these slavers. These are terrible 
reports. Some say--some of the reports we get--some of the girls have 
already been sold into Chad and Cameroon. I hope that is wrong.
  So I, with my colleagues, join with the rest of the world in 
renouncing these heinous acts.
  We must remember that this crime is only one of the many acts of 
terrorism of this awful group Boko Haram. They have done it before 
against children, against civilians.
  Today the United States offered its assistance to rescue these girls. 
Great Britain has done the same, and other countries have as well. 
Nigeria, in my opinion, has been reticent to receive help. That is not 
my opinion, but that is what the public reports say. We want to help 
rescue these girls. We have some assets the Nigerians don't have, as do 
the Brits and others who want to help.
  I am concerned the Nigerian Government's response to this crime and 
to dealing with Boko Haram is very tepid. Nigeria has missed 
opportunities to collaborate with international partners to fight 
terrorism in this instance and other instances. Instead of carrying out 
its own operation--which has been very clumsy, and there has been a 
disregard for human rights--they should let us help. Let the world 
community help.
  The Nigerian Government has been disastrously slow in responding to 
these incidents--not only this one but on others. I urge the Nigerian 
Government to use all of its resources and accept international 
assistance to bring the abductors to justice. The world is watching. 
Return these daughters to their families.
  Today we adopted S. Res. 433, which condemned this abduction, to add 
our voices to those calling for their release. I especially thank 
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and all other cosponsors for their 
hard work on this

[[Page 6848]]

legislation. The Senate, along with the rest of the world, will 
continue to do all we can to help our Nigerian friends. We continue to 
hope and pray for the safe return of these girls to their moms and 
dads.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in recess count 
postcloture on the legislation that is now being considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I very rarely am motivated to come to 
the floor simultaneously with current events, thinking that it is 
important to reflect and learn as much as possible about a subject 
before one begins to orate about it on the Senate floor. I am making an 
exception, however, because of the extraordinarily heinous acts that 
have occurred in the country of Nigeria.
  I think it takes everyone's breath away in the United States of 
America that a terrorist organization--Boko Haram--would attack a 
secondary school in northeastern Nigeria and kidnap 200 girls. Most of 
these girls are not that much younger than my daughters. These were 
young women who wanted nothing more than to get an education. We are 
now told these terrorists have proudly proclaimed they will enslave 
these young women, they will sell them as slaves. They are proudly 
taking credit for this despicable and inhumane act.
  I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins for organizing a letter 
to the President to urge him to include Boko Haram in the United 
Nations Al Qaeda sanctions list. I thank the other Senators who 
introduced the resolution we passed this afternoon condemning this 
attack. But we have to do more.
  It concerns me, honestly, that this is occurring in a country where 
the leader not too long ago signed into law a measure that anyone 
entering into a homosexual relationship can be imprisoned for up to 14 
years. In this same country we have a terrorist organization capturing 
young women and enslaving them for dollars to be child brides, proudly 
proclaiming that it is a sin for these young women to want to get an 
education, that this action was necessary to purge them of their sins 
and marry them off.
  I understand it takes all kinds of people to make up this great 
world. I understand there are all kinds of beliefs. But it is very hard 
for me to get my arms around the notion that there could be any faith 
that would believe kidnapping young women by the hundreds and selling 
them as indentured slaves to men could ever be part of any kind of 
faith that we should recognize. These are not people of faith; these 
are heinous criminals. I believe our country should look at them as 
archenemies of who we are as a nation and what we stand for as a 
government.
  The name of this organization means ``Western education is a sin.'' 
Respect for young women is not a sin. Wanting an education is not a 
sin. The opportunity to better oneself is not a sin.
  These incredible crimes that have been committed should not go 
unanswered, and I think it is incumbent on our Nation, with the great 
resources we have, to make sure we send the appropriate message to the 
world that this is Al Qaeda and this is our enemy--not just to our 
values and our way of life but, importantly, an enemy to innocent young 
women.
  I wanted to come to the floor to make this statement because I cannot 
imagine how the parents of these young girls must be feeling and how 
helpless the feeling must be. I can only hope and pray that the 
Government of Nigeria realizes this is a moment of truth for them. Will 
they stand up to this kind of extremism that is not faith? They do a 
disservice to their professed faith by these actions. Can this country 
stand up to them, can we help them stand up to them and, most 
importantly, can we do anything to save these young women?
  When I go to bed tonight I will, in my faith, thank God for my family 
and my children, and I will also ask for prayers for these young women 
in hopes they can be rescued, that they can be reunited with their 
desire to get educated, and that their families will not have to spend 
days wondering if they will ever see their children again or if their 
children will even survive.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support S. 2262, the Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act of 2014. The reason I do so is because I have long 
felt we can't be for an all-of-the-above energy policy if we aren't 
promoting state-of-the-art approaches in terms of energy efficiency.
  I think the Presiding Officer and I both know it isn't even a speech 
here in the Senate on energy policy unless the Senator says they are 
for an all-of-the-above at least three times every 15, 20 minutes. So I 
think what Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman are doing is making it 
clear right at the start that an all-of-the-above energy policy is 
their approach and their effort to pull as many as possible colleagues 
into innovative approaches in terms of promoting energy efficiency.
  Senators Shaheen and Portman have been tirelessly pursuing this 
legislation for 3 years now. I had a chance as the former Chair of the 
Energy Committee to watch what they have been doing. I will walk back a 
bit to make sure colleagues understand how constructive their efforts 
have been, both substantively and in terms of promoting collaboration 
here in the Senate, in hopes that these commonsense energy proposals 
for creating good jobs and a cleaner and healthier environment will 
prevail on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate.
  With our colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, I have had a 
front-row seat over the last couple years to watch Senator Shaheen and 
Senator Portman in action and support their efforts. I think we should 
all be very appreciative of the job our new Chair, Senator Landrieu, is 
doing--again, in concert with Senator Murkowski--because the two of 
them continue the committee's tradition, No. 1, of working in a 
bipartisan way but, No. 2, trying again to promote collaboration here 
within the Senate to promote an energy approach, which I think is not 
only common sense but it is absolutely essential in order to be able to 
go on to the other energy policy issues that surely are likely to be 
more contentious than energy efficiency.
  To walk back a bit through what has happened, I think our colleagues 
know an earlier version of this legislation passed our Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee last year by an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
majority. It was then considered on the floor this past September, but 
it was blocked by demands for a vote on a health care amendment which 
had nothing to do with the premise of the underlying bill. I happen to 
oppose that amendment, but however a Senator feels, it has nothing to 
do with energy efficiency and productivity.
  When the bill stalled on the Senate floor last fall, it looked pretty 
grim for the cause of energy efficiency, and essentially people were 
questioning the Senate's ability to consider an act on a range of 
energy issues which confront our country. I think a lot of people would 
have thrown in the towel at that point. They would have said: We put in 
all of this work and effort to win such a strong bipartisan vote in the 
Senate; then we were ready to go to the floor and faced unrelated 
issues. And I could see why the sponsors would give up. But Senator 
Shaheen and Senator Portman are not throw-in-the-towel

[[Page 6849]]

type of Senators, and in effect they doubled down and went back to work 
on some of the most challenging issues.
  So at that point, after the unfortunate setback of last September, 
they in effect doubled down and worked to bring an even broader range 
of Members and stakeholders together here in the Senate to form a 
consensus and make this bill even better, improve the array of 
commonsense approaches taken to promote energy efficiency, and increase 
the chance of the best possible energy efficiency bill becoming law.
  I wish to highlight at this point how challenging this work was and 
how pleased I was the Senate was able to get together.
  At that point one of the most challenging issues dealt with the 
question of the then-existing requirements that new Federal buildings 
be designed to phase out their use of fossil-fuel-generated energy by 
2030. This is important for a variety of reasons. Of course, the 
Federal Government is a major property owner in our country, No. 1. And 
No. 2, I think we all look to the Federal Government at a minimum to 
try to set some examples in terms of trying to deal with these issues.
  In other words, it is fine for Washington, DC, to say: Everybody else 
would do X, Y, and Z. But if they come back and say the Federal 
Government is not willing to set an example, it is pretty hard to have 
any credibility in terms of that particular field of public policy. The 
reality was that while well meaning, the existing requirement that new 
Federal Government buildings be designed to phase out their use of 
fossil-fuel-generated energy by 2030 was not working particularly well 
by anyone's calculus.
  We had folks in the natural gas industry raising questions about 
whether they would be able to participate. They made the point--one 
that I think certainly has validity--that natural gas is 50 percent 
cleaner than the other fossil fuels. They were saying: Well, how are we 
going to be able to play a role with heating in Federal buildings, 
which, of course, as I indicated, is very significant both because the 
Federal Government owns so much property and because of the example the 
Federal Government sets.
  So reaching an agreement on how to balance repeal of this provision 
in existing law--well meaning, but not working very well--with the 
addition of provisions to enhance efficiency in Federal buildings 
involved innumerable meetings--meetings that I participated in 
personally and others were involved in that went on literally for 
months with all of the stakeholders--the electric and gas utility 
industries, the environmental advocacy organizations, the energy 
efficiency groups--all of them in discussions that took place over 
conference calls and in-person meeting after meeting.
  I would submit that had those groups not been able to come together--
and I believe they deserve great credit because they did--I think it 
may have been right at that point very difficult to advance this bill 
because we would have generated, for the first time, significant 
opposition around the core issue. Whether it be environmental groups or 
electric and gas groups, we would have had significant friction over an 
important public policy issue, which is how to promote renewable energy 
to the greatest extent possible in new Federal Government buildings.
  I will say to colleagues who may be following this, a number of times 
in these discussions I thought things were going to blow up. I thought 
one or more of these groups would walk out and say: We will take our 
chances on the floor; we believe we are going to win, and if it takes 
this bill down, so be it. But they stayed at the table and they worked 
out an agreement.
  As a result of their agreement--environmental organizations, those in 
the advocacy of energy efficiency and a variety of industry groups--the 
effort produced a significantly better bill, and a bill that now 
includes some very important and powerful additions.
  For example, as a result of rewriting the provision that new Federal 
Government buildings be designed to phase out the use of fossil-fuel-
generated energy, very substantial financial savings were generated so 
as to be able to include some very sensible and potentially far-
reaching changes in the energy efficiency field. For example, as a 
result of that agreement it is possible to take some of the financial 
savings generated in that redo of the requirements for renewable fuels 
in Federal energy building and include in the legislation that is now 
before the Senate, the SAVE Act, a bipartisan proposal championed by 
our colleagues Senator Isakson and Senator Bennet. This provision would 
for the first time facilitate the accounting of energy efficiency in 
residential mortgages. A report by the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy and the Institute for Market Transformation estimates 
that this proposal alone would create 83,000 new jobs in home 
construction, renovation, and manufacturing by 2020. These are jobs for 
American workers that cannot be outsourced. The agreement on Federal 
building efficiency would also extend the 3 percent-per-year Federal 
building efficiency target through 2017 and expand the coverage of this 
efficiency target from new buildings to include major renovations as 
well.
  So what we have is a good bill that got out of committee. It was a 
good bill last September that I would have liked to have seen pass this 
body at that time. After it was not possible to move it forward, we had 
the chief sponsors, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, work 
continually to try to advance this legislation and broaden its appeal. 
When they bumped up against a really serious problem, which was to fix 
this policy with respect to the requirements for renewable energy in 
Federal buildings, they worked with a variety of groups and 
organizations and were able to make the bill better.
  I wish to thank a number of Senators who were behind this effort to 
redo the requirements for new Federal buildings--in particular, our 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, Senator Manchin and Senator 
Whitehouse, and on the other side of the aisle I wish to thank Senator 
Hoeven. They were very involved in the nuts and bolts of redoing this 
legislation. Suffice it to say that the three of them would be the 
first to say they don't agree on every possible energy policy subject 
matter. Yet the three of them came together, worked with this coalition 
of groups I have described, and made significant improvements in the 
already good bill after September. As a result of their work, we have 
generated financial savings that made it possible to include the 
Isakson-Bennet legislation on residential mortgages, which is a very 
significant and positive development in the energy efficiency field.
  This is not a small matter, taking bold steps to improve energy 
efficiency in residential mortgages the way our colleagues Senator 
Isakson and Senator Bennet have done in a bipartisan fashion. The 
reason this efficiency legislation is back is because it is sensible 
and has bipartisan appeal. It is about cutting waste and creating jobs. 
Passing this legislation would be the biggest step in years toward 
tapping the enormous potential of energy efficiency, which is the most 
sensible and cheapest energy source America has.
  Here are the most relevant figures with respect to the benefits of 
this bill. The bill will save about 2.8 billion megawatt hours of 
electricity by 2030, according to the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy. To translate this into something people can put 
their arms around, if we are going to generate 2.8 billion megawatt 
hours--and that is the projection for this bill--our country would have 
to build 10 new nuclear powerplants, at a cost of billions of dollars 
each, and run them for more than 20 years. An additional provision of 
the bill updates and promotes voluntary model building codes, making 
residential and commercial buildings more efficient through the 
installation of new equipment, insulation, and other efficiency 
technologies. There is money to be saved and there is energy to be 
saved. That is the kind of work this legislation accomplishes.
  What I have described is possibly not the most flashy of stories we 
might be contemplating here in Washington. It might not be at the top 
of every single

[[Page 6850]]

account on the nightly news, but businesses understand how valuable 
this is. Businesses understand that there is money to be made here. 
That is why more than 250 companies and associations endorse the bill, 
including the chamber of commerce, which I think would be the first to 
state that they don't see themselves as a bleeding heart environmental 
organization. I was struck by a headline in forbes.com not long ago 
that read ``The Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings Act: It's the economy, 
stupid.'' Forbes, a prominent business publication, got it right.
  If Congress can pass this bill, it would immediately become one of 
the largest job-creating efforts the Senate will enact this year, 
creating an estimated 192,000 new jobs by 2030. It can also make a 
tremendous difference in our country's economic competitiveness, 
bringing savings to businesses and families, reducing demands on our 
electric grid, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  Having watched the development of this legislation as the former 
chair of the Energy Committee and now chair of the Finance Committee, I 
think every Member of the Senate understands how important it is to 
secure a cleaner, more efficient, job-creating energy future. This 
legislation provides that opportunity. It was a good bill when the 
Senate considered it last September, it is an even better bill tonight, 
and to a great extent it is made better because colleagues such as 
Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Senator Hoeven 
have worked together on a very contentious matter involving renewable 
energy in Federal buildings. It is the latest demonstration of good 
will and comity that has dominated this debate, at least as it relates 
to the substance of discussing energy efficiency legislation.
  I thank our chair Senator Landrieu for the first-rate job she has 
done not only on this but on the matters before the Energy Committee. I 
also thank my good friend and colleague Senator Murkowski for the same 
sorts of efforts she made to work with me as the chair and Senator 
Landrieu. I think those efforts are going to pay off. Let's make sure 
they pay off immediately with the Senate this week moving forward and 
passing the bipartisan Shaheen-Portman legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Georgia.


                      Tribute to Larry Walker, Jr.

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

                          ____________________