quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i've spoken with the white house. i've spoken with the republican leader. and we've agreed on a way forward based on the president's speech last night. as the president told the nation last night, the president has asked congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force in syria and pursue a diplomatic solution to see if that works. tomorrow sometime in geneva,

secretary kerry is meeting with with -- anyway the foreign secretary of russia, lavrov is his name. sorry about that. so it's right that the senate turn from the syria resolution while the secretary of state pursues these important diplomatic discussions. as i said this morning, congress will be watching these negotiations very closely. if there is any indication they're not serious or they're being used as a ploy to delay, then congress stands ready to return to that syria resolution to give the president the authority to hold the assad regime accountable for the pain, suffering and death that he caused with those chemical weapons. in the meantime, the republican leader and i have agreed that the senate will return to the shaheen-portman energy efficiency bill.

shaheen-portman and the chairman of the committee, senator wyden, have talked to me many, many times over a period of more than a year to move this legislation forward. so i think it's appropriate that rather than sit here and tread water and do nothing, we should move forward on this legislation. and as the agreement will indicate, so as not to interfere with the diplomatic discussions going on, we've agreed that the senate will consider no amendments on the energy efficiency bill relative to the syria or use of force. i talked to a u.n. republican senators and that is -- talked to a number of republican senators and that is fine with them. we look forward to issues that are domestic in nature and passing this important piece of legislation. i ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to s.1392 be agreed to, there be no motions

or amendments in order relative to syria or the use of military force during the consideration of this legislation, the time until 6:00 p.m. tonight be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. president, i think it would certainly be appropriate that we have this -- at this time statements from the chairman, ranking member, and senator shaheen and portman, sponsors of this legislation. then i would hope, i would hope, mr. president -- madam president, at that time -- how long do you need for your statement? 20 minutes. we'll give senator murkowski the same. 15 minutes for shaheen, 15 minutes for portman. when that time is expired, we will see if we can have some

amendments. so that would be the case. those four senators will be recognized for the next 30 -- 70 minutes. as i indicated, madam president, it is for debate only. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the motion to proceed to s. 1392 is agreed to and the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 154, s. 1392, a bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry and for other purposes.

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, before he leaves the floor, let me just thank the leader for making sure that we could have this opportunity to deal with one of the crucial issues of our time. leader reid has a long, long history in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and i just want to thank him for his leadership and particularly the opportunity to be on the floor this afternoon. mr. president and colleagues, today the united states senate has the chance to put more points on the board for the creation of good-paying jobs, a more productive economy, and greater energy security. before the august recess, the

congress put some initial points up by passing hydropower legislation. this legislation, mr. president, was called by "the new york times" the first significant energy legislation to become law since 2009. those hydropower bills might have been called small by some, but experts say they can generate a large amount of power. hydropower is 60% of renewable clean power in america, and hydropower has the potential to add 60,000 more megawatts of capacity by 2025, according to the national hydropower association. that's enough energy to power more than 46 million homes. hydro helps to make our economy less dependent on fossil fuels, and it does it in a way,

mr. president, that democrats and republicans can come together on. now today as we look at another critical part of modernizing energy policy, i want to start by saying that it has almost become obligatory for members of congress to say that they are for an "all of the above energy policy." it's almost like a united states senator has to say on energy they are for all of the above three or four times every 15 or 20 minutes or else it's not a real discussion about energy policy. but here's what's important and i think critical as we start the debate, where i see my friend from new hampshire and my friend from ohio, the reality is you cannot have an all-of-the-above energy policy in this country

without energy efficiency. it's just that simple. if you're serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy -- and we have essentially several democrats and several republicans on the floor now to demonstrate the seriousness of this issue -- you cannot have an all-of-the-above energy policy without energy efficiency. so this legislation is on the floor today, thanks to the tireless bipartisan efforts of senator shaheen and senator portman, and then i'm also very pleased that the ranking minority member of the committee is here, senator murkowski of alaska. she consistently meets me halfway in terms of trying to deal with these kinds of issues. and as we begin this debate, which i would also mention to colleagues is essentially the first stand-alone energy bill to be debated on the floor of the

senate since 2007. it wouldn't be possible without the cooperation and the good counsel of the ranking minority member, senator murkowski. and i want her to know how much i appreciate our partnership. we just got through our weekly session this morning as we look at various kinds of businesses. we hope to be able to bring to the senate helium legislation, which we know a lot of senators care about, very quickly, as well. but there is a reason we're back to energy policy in the united states senate, and that's to a great extent because of the cooperation that senator murkowski has shown. this bill, and one of the reasons it is bipartisan, is it gives us a chance to cut waste in our energy system and create jobs. and this bill would take the biggest step in years towards tapping the potential for

energy, energy policy. the legislation saves about $2.9 -- 2.9 billion megawatt-hours of electricity by 2030, according to the american council for an energy-efficient economy. and i thought i'd just start, colleagues, by translating that into something that becomes a little easier to put your arms around. to generate those kinds of savings in electricity -- 2.9 billion megawatt-hours -- the united states would have to build ten new nuclear power plants at a cost of billions of dollars each and run them for more than 20 years. the heart of this bill is updating voluntary building codes to make homes and businesses more efficient, and it's about installing new wires and pipes and machines and insulation. and here's what i want colleagues to know as we start this discussion.

there is money to be made in those pipes and that insulation. businesses know that. that's why more than 250 companies and associations have endorsed this bill, including the chamber of commerce. mr. president, when you look at those who have endorsed this piece of legislation, it is not a who's who of sort of bleeding heart environmental folks. i was particularly struck by the headline in a forbes article last month. they say -- quote -- "the shaheen-portman energy savings act: it's the economy, stupid." they sure got that right. if the congress passes this bill, it's going to immediately become a significant job creator, generating an estimated 136,000 new jobs by 2025. it will also make a significant difference in our country's

energy productivey, and that means savings for families, building fewer power plants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. now, if we just continue business as usual, people say, oh, gee, not really going to pursue this on now. the u.s. energy information administration -- that's really our statistical arm in the energy department -- predicts that our country would use 30% more electricity by 2040. but there is an alternative, and that is harnessing the potential of efficiency technologies that actually reduce electricity from today's demand and reduce the use of energy even as our economy and population grows. the amount of new energy productivity we gain would be like doubling the number of houses in america and then powering all of them without ever adding a new power plant to

the grid. now, choosing the more efficient path that we're going to advocate for on the floor of the senate, mr. president, would even adding 1.3 million jobs by the middle of the century. families could shave off one-third of their electricity bills, an average savings of about $600 per year, according to experts in the field. a big, big increase in productivity. so already we've talked about job creation, we've talked about productivity, two areas where i don't see some kind of artificial line between democrats and republicans here in the senate. i see areas that we all feel stongly about. -- strongly about. on the other hand, meeting our country's projected electricity, you know, demand with today's energy mix -- and 40% coal requires building at least 100 new coal-fired power plants over 25 years. now, we're also going to make

the case during this debate, mr. president, that the federal government ought to be a leader in this. it's one thing to talk about how everybody in america ought to do something and then say, oh, the federal government might get around to it someday. so we're saying, this is a chance for the federal government to save taxpayers money and to play a strong role -- a strong leadership role, particularly by improving efficiency at federal data centers. as more and more businesses move to the cloud, reducing energy use there is extremely important. again, the experts estimate that these steps on data center efficiency would save about 35 million meg l megawatt hours of electricity by 2030. we would save the same amount of energy by powering down 60 of the n.s.a.'s data centers for a year. but i'm going to save that one for another day, mr. president. there is, obviously, room for

federal agencies to do more. the government owns nearly 500,000 buildings. the federal government is the largest landlord in america, and agencies are directed to buy and use highly efficient equipment under two different executive orders. but according to the staff at the energy department, less than half of the commercial building equipment that agencies buy actually even complies with the government's own rules. so i'm going to be offering an amendment to the bill that at least will provide some incentives to ensure that agencies actually follow the rules of the government. now, this bill, as i indicated, is bipartisan. we have been able in our committee to pass 62 bills out of the committee, each one with bipartisan support. and this is what senators have

said they care about. this is what the other body has said they care about. congressman kevin mccar think, the third-rank house republican, said earlier this year, "all american energy independence means taking a hard look at energy production, distribution, reliability, and efficiency." in the house, there is a bipartisan companion to this. in other words, we have the good fortune of having senator shaheen and senator portman working in a bipartisan way. in the other body -- and senator murkowski and i have met with the house members interested in this issue -- you have congressmecongressmenman peter d congressman garner creating a bipartisan caucus to promote new financing tools that aid energy efficiency projects and congressman welsh and congressman mckinley have introduced companion legislation to the one we debate today. if anything, one of our

challenges is that there's a pent-up demand to debate energy issues in this congress. so if we voted for all of the amendments, senator murkowski, that i hear people say they want to do, we'd probably be here until new year's eve or just sort of fed intravenously trying to figure out thousand process all of it d. figure out how to process all of it. so we may no have time to address each an every amendment, but i know of at least a dozen bipartisan amendments that colleagues plan to offer that will produce even more energy savings for businesses and consumers, produce more jobs for the u.s. economy, and nobody is going to be able to say this is part of a dumb federal mandate or some kind of run from washington, one-size-fits-all approach. these are approaches that look to productivity, the private sector for leadership and fresh

ideas. for example, senator bennet and senator ayotte have a better buildings amendment. it strikes me as a very sensible one. senator inhofe and senator carper have an amendment tossen thermal efficiency. senator klobuchar and senator hoeven have a bill to help our nonprofits save energy. now, how can you make a logical case that we shouldn't try to work that out? our nonprofits are being stretched to the limit. i saw that when i was in alaska with senator murkowski and we talked to some of the nonprofits. we see it in oregon as well, and so we have a bipartisan amendment from senators hoeven and klobuchar to try to help these nonprofits save energy. these are just a yo few of the d amendments, in my view, that build on the outstanding work done by senator shaheen and portman these several years. these amendments in this bill are going to help homes and businesses use less energy, save

money, create jobs without mandates, without spending new federal money. it got out of our committee by a 19-3 vote, and i believe that the reason it did is because people said this was a commonsense approach to cutting energy waste and showing folks across the land that there are things that you can agree on in the united states senate and come together. so i'm pleased, mr. president, to be here with senator murkowski. we've talked about this a long time, to get the united states senate back in the business of a modern energy policy. it creates jobs. it promotes energy security and productivity. we started that with the hydropower legislation that was signed in to law right after we broke for the august recess. this is the next logical step, and i'll just say to colleagues, i don't see how a senator can

say they are for an all-of-the-above energy policy in america without supporting energy efficiency. and this is the time, this is the bill. i look forward to working with our colleagues. i hope they bring us their various and sundry amendments. and with that, i yield the floor. and i know senator murkowski has important comments to make, and i yield the floor, mr. president. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i thank my colleague, the chairman of the energy committee, for his comments on not only this very important legislation but his leadership on energy issues as we have worked together on the energy committee, a committee that i know you enjoyed your time on, mr. president, recognizing that there is so much that we can be doing as a nation on a

bipartisan basis to really make a difference within our communities, across our regions, not only for the economy and jobs but really to make a difference globally in terms of how we handle our energy and our energy resources. we talk a lot about the all-of-the-above strategy, and perhaps that has different interpretations, depending on what part of the country you're from, but one of the slogans that was going around just a few years back was "produce more, use less." well, now, mr. president, we are talking about the use-less side of that ledger. equally important. i come from a producing staivment but le let me tell yo, when you come interest a state where our energy costs are the highest in the nation, we are good and wise will how we use less.

-- good and buys about how we use less. i am very pleased that we're at this point where we're take up this energy efficiency bill. the chairman has mentioned that it has been a long time since we have seen energy legislation debated here on the floor. and i do piends i find it troubt we have gone so long without meaningful and sustained debate about energy policy. each year our committee sends dozens of bills to the floor, with our signature stamp of bipartisan approval, which i think is key, and yet for years we have kind of seen the bills come to the floor and that's been the end of the road for those particular efforts. well, a small number of our public lands bills are able to pass through by unanimous consent. those that are related to energy -- those often need a little more work to pass this chamber -- are virtually never brought

up for further consideration. i do understand that we've got all kinds of pressing matters in front of us. obviously the debate over the syria resolution, clearly one of them. the continuing resolution that we have have in front of us, as we work to fund the government, critically upon. if we do reach agreement on how we should proceed to either of these measures, i will certainly be the first to agree that they need to be brought forward for debate. but when we have finished those, i am hopeful that we will return, if we have not yet concluded -- that we will return to energy legislation because it has been long -- too long neglected in this chamber. came to the position as ranking member of the energy committee back in 2009, and i was very, very optimistic about what we

would accomplish in this area. all of those of us on the committee had worked to deliver three major energy bills during the preceding years that i'd been on the committee . we had the energy policy act of 2005, we had the gulf of mexico energy security act of 2006, we had the energy independence and security act of 2007. all of them were partially or entirely written by our committee. they all received strong support in this chamber, and they all eventually became law. so fast forward to where we are today. our floor debate in 2007 remains the last type -- the last time that the senate truly engaged on energy policy. in the interim, about the best we've seen are some amendments here and there along the process or perhaps dueling side by

sides, that are inevitably voted down. but the lack of action on energy legislation is not because we have abandoned a bipartisan approach in committee. it is not because we have perhaps run out of good ireds. -- good ideas. and it is certainly not because we are somehow unwilling or unable to support legislation to the full senate. we reported a comprehensive bill back in 2009 that sat on the calendar, untouched for 17 months. we unanimously reported a bill to help prevent another offshore spill in 2010. that, too, was ignored. the reality -- the reality is that we have one of the most bipartisan and active committees in the senate. but, unfortunately, we're almost -- we're almost regularly in a situation where we're not provided the floor time needed to complete our work. i'm not complaining here. i'm just pointing out some facts

here. but the chairman noted that there has been this pent-up demand, this frustration about not only where we are in the process but the opportunities that are lost. when you think about the changing dynamics in this country since 2007 -- excuse me, 2009, i think -- think about what has changed in the energy sector during that course and the fact that we have not addressed real full some energy legislation is really quite telling. i am hopeful that the senate is now finally on the verge of reversing its unfortunate approach to energy policy. as the chairman has noted, we have already ordered more than 50 bills -- 50 bills to be reported to the senate this year alone. today, as we begin debate on the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act, i -- i don't even know where we're calling it that.

we just call it shaheen-port ma- shaheen-portman around here, and the work that the authors have done i certainly applaud. is i have spent some time on this floor talking about -- i have an energy blueprint that i crafted at the beginning of the year, energy 2020. and i said, this is 115 pidges pages of energy policy but it can be summed up in one bumper sticker. it says "energy good." so the fact that we're here on the floor talking about energy efficiency i think is absolutely key.

when i mentioned that 2020 blueprint, in that i make the point -- i make the push that we need to strive to make our energy more abundant be, more affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. and while we often focus on more obvious efforts to advance energy policy, in my case more production on federal lands, passage of approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline, the restoration of balance in new regulations and a greater focus on innovation, it is also critically important that we look to the efficiency side. it must be a larger part of our energy debate, it deserves to be a larger part of our nation's energy policy. and the reasons why -- there's no great mystery here. efficiency is good for the economy and for our environment.

it enables us to waste less and use our resources more wisely. great conservative principles there. at the same time, it can help create jobs and deliver lasting financial benefits. study after study -- and the chairman has pointed some of those out -- study after study has shown we could save billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency improvements whether through small appliances, large buildings or someplace in between there. these potential savings cannot be overlooked at a time when we see so many of our families and businesses that are struggling to make ends meet, debt is escalating, the price of energy remains well above what most of us want it to be. so as policymakers i can't think of efficiency as just an energy issue alone. it's also a bottom-line issue that really affects every one of us and every one of our

constituents back home. now, while we can all agree on the importance of efficiency, we can awlings agree that there's a legitimate debate over the federal government's role in this area. in my judgment, that role should be limited and the cost associated with it should be minimal. the federal government must itself be efficient as it pursues efficiency and i think these are areas that we can really work to enhance. we cannot simply lavish subsidies or impose mandate after mandate and suggest that that is somehow a pursuit of a greater good. instead, i think that the federal government should strive to fulfill three pretty distinct roles. it can act as facilitator of information that consumers and businesses need to make sound decisions. it can serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage or prevent rational efficiency improvements from being made.

and as the largest consumer of energy in our country it can lead by example, by taking steps to reduce its own energy usage. those are the criteria by which we can evaluate whether the federal government is on the right track on energy efficiency. and also, also the criteria by which we can judge whether or not this particular bill, the shaheen-portman bill, would improve our current policies. so let me just move to the bill for a moment and explain why i support it. first, the scope. the scope is both limited and i think appropriate. it does not contain new mandates for the private sector, not for buildings, not for appliances, not for anything. the provision on building codes is a good example of what the bill does and does not do. i would not be supporting a provision if it required the mandatory adoption of those codes but this bill is voluntary with the federal government stepping in to help facilitate

new models that others can choose to follow. second point here, is the cost. we're all focusing on cost nowadays. the cost of this bill are fully offset. it contains no direct spending. the only provision that received a score from the congressional budget office has been dropped. a grants program that passed our committee has now been dropped as well. some of these things i think we look at and we say we would rather they had been in there but we're trying to deal with the cost side and i appreciate both senators shaheen and portman for working with us on that. the authorizations that remain in the bill have been fully offset by cutting a provision from the 2007 energy bill and any ferg dollars that are ultimately spent on this legislation will have to be secured through future appropriations process within the context of our larger debate about the overall federal budget.

and the third point here is i support this bill because of the process that was followed to bring it to this point. and, again, i want to give the chairman credit and clearly senators shaheen and portman. but it was bipartisan from the git-go. the senator from new hampshire got together with the senator from ohio to really lead its development. and i can remember the conversation years ago about we said i'm working on this, and it was long before there was any draft, just working through and just kind of the good old fashioned roll up your sleeves let's work on doing good things in energy policy when it comes to efficiency. so i give full credit. our committee held a hearing on this bill, we had testimony from department of energy and other experts. we moved through to a markup. my goodness, this could be considered regular order here. we improved the bill in the markup there. we reported it favorably by a

vote of 19-3, possible amendments have been worked on by members and staff alike over these past several months. i think there are many good amendments that i think we all assume will easily win passage. and at the same time, the bill's sponsors have continued to work to refine and improve the legislation leading to the product that we have before us today. so on scope and substance and on cost and on process, this bill has been a good example, this has been an example of what regular order working as usual, showing -- showing how the senate really can work, showing the senate at its best. the only real trouble we've encountered is securing the floor time necessary to secure its passage. so here we are. here we are. and it is my hope,

mr. president, that with the efforts of the sponsors of this bill with the efforts of the chairman of the energy committee, continuing to push to build good things rather than trying to blow things up, we will have an opportunity to see this measure enacted into law. as i mentioned, we don't have an opportunity here on the floor of the united states senate to debate energy often, as omnibus as i would like to. by the looks of what we have pending in front of us, we recognize that there may be interruptions. it is my hope that we can move quickly, take up many of these bipartisan amendments that chairman wyden has mentioned. let's make the most of the the country that we have before us now. let's weigh the federal government's proper role in efficiency, let's make sure that this bill reflects all of that. let's start working through the amendments that have been

filed, and move forward with a process that will yield good policy for this country. again, i thank the sponsors for their yeoman's work in getting us to this point and i look forward to the discussion and the debate that we will have in the days ahead. and with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor. i know that senators -- senator shaheen with all the work that she's put into this is anxious to finally be discussing her bill on the floor of the senate chamber. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: as my colleague, senator murkowski says, i'm thrilled to be on the floor of the senate today, after three years of work with senator portman and so many other people to be talking about energy -- the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act. i want to begin by thanking chairman wyden and ranking member murkowski for all of the

support and great work that the energy committee has done to help get this bill to the floor. as they pointed out and as i know you know, mr. president, the energy committee in the senate has been very bipartisan. i had the opportunity to spend my first four years here on the energy committee, and i can attest to that and know what great work they have done and the fact they have gotten so many bills through the committee already really speaks to the consensus that they've been able to build on the committee around energy policy. so thank you both very much for all of that great work. and thank you to my partner in this effort, senator portman from ohio. i have to say he's not on the floor right now, but i sort of claim him in new hampshire because he won't to dartmouth so we figure he has some new hampshire roots. and we really have worked in a partisanship on this legislation. it has been a very bipartisan effort, and it reflects what i

believe is an affordable approach to the use of energy efficiency technologies. it will help create private-sector jobs, it will save businesses and consumers money, it will reduce pollution, and it will make our country more energy independent. and i know we're all very aware of the crisis in syria, of how that looms over this discussion, and so it couldn't be more timely to be talking about how we make this country more energy independent. this bill, which senator portman and i have been working on now for three years, has been the result of years of meetings, negotiations, of broad stakeholder outreach. it's been an effort to craft the most effective piece of energy legislation -- efficiency legislation with the greatest chance of passing both chambers of congress and of being signed into law.

the legislation will have a swift and measurable benefit to our economy and our environment, in fact, as senator wyden pointed out we had a recent study by experts at the american council for an energy efficient economy which found that this legislation if it's passed has the potential to create 136,000 domestic jobs by 2025. they did a study in the last congress when we first introduced the bill and showed in addition to that job creation, it would also save consumers $4 billion by 2020 and be the equivalent of taking five million cars off the road. so a huge benefit to our environment, to job creation, which is probably at the top of the agenda right now, and also to savings to consumers. now, simply put, as my

colleagues have said, we need a comprehensive national energy policy. we have been overly dependent on foreign oil. we've been relientd on an outdated energy sphras fast, and this is -- infrastructure, and this is situation that hurts both business and also gives our overseas competitors an advantage. so we have to think about an all-of-the-above strategy as everybody has commented that utilizes a wide range of energy resources, natural gas, oil, nuclear, renewables like wind, biomass and solar. this will give us a stronger and more stable economy. but we can't just focus on the supply side. we also need to think about how we consume the energy once we have it, the demand side. efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to address our energy needs. energy saving techniques and technologies, lower costs,

they free up capital that allows business to expand and our economy to grow. i've been to so many businesses in new hampshire throughout the last three years who because of their ability to save on their energy costs have been able to stay competitive, been able to add jobs. so this has a real benefit to our economy and to businesses. efficiency, as i said, is the fastest way to address our energy needs, and i think a lot of times people think about energy saving and energy efficiency as turning down the thermostat, turning off the lights, putting on a sweater. but energy efficiency today is about a whole lot more than that and we can start by improving our efficiency by installing ready and proven technologies, these are off the shelf, they're already available, things like modern heating and cooling systems, smart meters, computer controlled

thermostats, low energy lighting, these are all available today for the benefit of those people who want to save on their energy consumption and their energy bills. now, there are substantial opportunities that exist across all sectors of our economy to conserve energy and create good-paying private-sector jobs. as we've already said, i think efficiency has a great shot at passing both the house and senate and becoming law. energy efficiency has emerged as an excellent skpapl pell of bipartisan -- example of bipartisan and affordable opportunity to immediately grow our economy and improve our energy security. in addition to being atpoerbl, efish -- affordable, efficiency is widely supported because its benefits aren't confined to a certain fuel source or particular region of the country. so much of the energy debate over the last few years has been

about who benefits, whether it's fossil fuels, alternatives, whether it's the northeast, the south, the west. everybody benefits from energy efficiency. it is one of the policy areas where we can come to real agreement. so it's no wonder that this legislation, shaheen-portman, enjoys such large and diverse support. it received more than 250 endorsements from a wide range of businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, trade associations from the u.s. chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers to the national resources defense council. these are the types of nontraditional alliances that have helped us get this bill to the floor. now senator portman and i worked with diverse groups to craft this year's bill, and we maintained a transparent and open process where we tried to make sure that all stakeholders had a meaningful opportunity to

comment on existing and proposed provisions and to suggest their substantive additions. so using that process of coalition building, we were able to find common ground on a number of important provisions, including commercial and residential building efficiency codes, workforce training, and language that aims to create a more robust public-private partnership between d.o.e.'s advanced manufacturing office and industrial energy consumers. now, to talk a little bit about what's actually in the legislation, this bill provides incentives and support, but as we've all said no mandates for residential and commercial buildings in order to cut energy use. and that's very important because buildings consume about 40% of the energy used in the united states. it strengthens voluntary

national model building codes to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient and it works with state and private industry to make the code writing process more transparent. it would train the next generation of workers and energy-efficient commercial building design and operation through university-based building, training and research assessment centers. shaheen-portman assists our industrial manufacturing sector which consumes more energy than any other sector of the u.s. economy. the bill would direct the department of energy to work closely with private-sector industrial partners to encourage research development and commercialization of innovative efficient energy technology and processes for industrial application. this is something we heard very clearly from business throughout the country that they really need. they want a more collaborative effort with the department of energy. they want to feel like the department of energy is working with them. so hopefully these provisions

will help make that happen. it also helps businesses reduce energy costs and become more competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy-efficient electric motors and transformers and establishes a d.o.e. voluntary program called supply star that's modeled on something that's been a great success. that's the energy star program, to help make companies more aware of their supply chains and how to make them more efficient as well. and finally, the legislation requires the federal government, which is the single largest user of energy in the country, to adopt more efficient building standards and smart metering technology. the bill would require the federal government to adopt energy-saving technologies and operations for computers. our data centers are huge users of energy. it would allow federal agencies to use existing funds to update plans for new federal buildings

using the most current building efficiency standards. and finally, as has been said, this legislation is fully offset so that there's not new spending in this bill. we reallocate authorization from existing programs. so to conclude today -- and i know we're going to have a lot of amendments to this bill. we have a number of bipartisan amendments that are going to make this bill better, that will make it more substantive, and i look forward to those amendments and to the debate that we're going to have. i think this is a bipartisan, affordable and i believe widely supported first step as we begin addressing our nation's very real energy needs, particularly not just on the supply side, but

on the demand side. and as i've said, a lot of people have worked very hard to get this bill to the floor, and i'm not going to walk through who all of those people are, but i want to again thank chairman wyden and ranking member murkowski for all of their support. i want to thank majority leader reid and republican leader mcconnell for their support in reaching an agreement to get the bill to the floor. and finally, i want to thank three staff members whose hard work has really made this possible. someone who was in my office earlier who has now moved on trent bowserman, who worked very hard to get us started on the legislation. robert disnoff who has taken over to work on the bill and steve kitrich from senator portman's office. without the three of them and without all the other staffers both on, in my office and in

senator portman's office, all of the people on the committee who have worked so hard, we would not be here to have this debate today. so thank you to all of them, and i look forward to hearing the amendments to the robust discussion on the floor and to continuing to work with my colleague, senator portman, as we try to move this bill through the process. thank you very much. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, we're finally here on the floor, and i want to thank my colleague, senator shaheen, for her comments and -pls working with me over the last few years to get to this point where we can be talking about something that brings us together, i hope, as a senate, which is this effort to ensure that we have an energy plan for america that can help bring back jobs, help fix our trade deficit and helps spark an american manufacturing renaissance. and that's the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act. it is about energy efficiency.

it is about using what we have more efficiently and i think makes a lot of sense for us to move forward. as senator shaheen said, it's a first step but it's an important step. i also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the senate energy and natural resources committee, senator wyden, who spoke earlier; senator murkowski who spoke earlier, for all the support they have given us in this effort over the last few years to get it through the committee hearing process, markup process and add some important elements to the legislation. we'll see more as the amendment process proceeds. i also want to thank leader reid for helping us bring this bipartisan legislation to the floor today. and i want to thank senator mcconnell who has been very supportive of us moving this process forward. this is, as has been said on the floor this afternoon, really the first substantial energy legislation we've seen on the floor in a while, maybe six years. and it requires help from both sides of the aisle to get to that point. it is bipartisan. it's also supported, by the way, on both sides of the capitol. so you have people in the house, including some house members i

spoke to earlier today who are very interested in what we're doing over here on this legislation because they have companion legislation. not identical, but similar legislation in the house they're working on on a bipartisan basis. so this is one that i think has a good shot of getting through the senate significantly. i think it also has a good shot of getting through the house and going to the president for signature and hoping to move america forward with a more sensible energy policy. we're going to see a lot of amendments on the floor, and i think a number of these amendments will be bipartisan and will help improve the bill. in fact, i'm looking at a list here of about a dozen bipartisan amendments. these are amendments, some of which we've talked about in committee, and i think, again, a lot of them involve some very thoughtful work done by our colleagues, and i'm looking forward to having that debate on some of those. i actually have a list of 41 energy efficiency-related relevant amendments here. so this is an opportunity for us to have a broader debate on energy, but also to improve the energy efficiency legislation before us. those of us on this side of the

aisle talk a lot about the need for an all of the above energy policy and i agree with it. i think we need to do everything we can to make ourselves more energy independent so we're not dependent on dangerous parts of the world including the mideast. we've seen that in the last couple of weeks where what's happening in egypt, syria affects what's going on in this country in terms of our energy cost and certainly our economy. this need for energy efficiency should lead us to want to be sure that we're including this legislation in the mix. we need a policy that harnesses more of our domestic resources, and i believe in that. i think we ought to be producing more energy in the ground here in america. i'm for producing more, but i'm also for being sure we don't miss the other part of the equation which is using less. i believe producing more and using less is a good policy. i think this is the part, using less part that maybe we don't

talk about as much on this side of the aisle that's also very important. i think it's important in part because it creates jobs. it's a bill that's supported by the way, by over 260 businesses, business association advocacy groups from the national association of manufacturers and the chamber of commerce to the sierra club and the alliance to save energy. the christian coalition is supporting it. and i've got a list here of these 260 trade associations, business organizations. mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to include this in the record at this time because there's too many names to go through on the war but it's a very impressive list. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i think the legislation got through the senate energy committee with a vote of 19-3 partly because of this support, because members realize this is going to help them and their constituents. simply put, i think this legislation that the senior senator from new hampshire and i have worked on and proposed makes good environmental sense. i think it makes good energy sense. and i think it makes good economic sense too. i spent time visiting with

businesses throughout my state of ohio on this bill and on this whole issue of energy and they all tell me the same thing. that is energy is an important component of their business. it is a part of the cost of doing business. and energy efficiency makes them more able to compete in the global economy. we do live in a global economy, and every day businesses in my state go up against businesses not just in other states but in other countries. and we're not going to be able to compete on everything. we don't want to compete on wages with developing countries, for instance. we want to have good wages in this country and good benefits. we can compete on the quality of the goods we produce. we want to keep that quality high. we've got to be sure that we are giving these businesses the ability to compete by helping to keep their energy costs low. again, producing more, using less. what this legislation does, it's very significant, is it helps the private sector develop the energy efficiency techniques, technologies of the future. we make it easier for employers

tools that will reduce their costs enabling them to put those savings towards expanding jobs, plant, equipment, hiring new workers. the proposals contained in our bill are commonsense reforms we've needed for a long time. the bill contains no mandates. let me repeat that. there are not mandates in this legislation on the private sector period. many come as a direct result of conversations we had about the private sector about how the federal government can help them become more energy efficient and save money they can reinvest in their businesses and their communities. here's a brief overview of some of the major parts of the legislation, some of have have been described ably by my colleague from new hampshire. i want to review it quickly. first it does specifically help manufacturers. it reforms what's called the advance manufacturing office at the department of energy by providing clear guidelines on its responsibilities one of which ought to be to help manufacturers develop energy savings technologies for their businesses. and this is a shift, we think it's important. we think they've gotten away

from that a little bit, the department of energy. we need to make sure they get back to it. it facilitates already existing efforts around the country trying to implement cost saving energy efficiency policies by streamlining the way government agencies work with them. it also increases partnerships with national labs. the national laboratories have a lot of great research. we like to be sure it is commercialized shaeurpbd with the private sector. -- and shared with the private sector. it increases partnerships with energy and service technology providers and the national labs together to leverage private sector expertise towards energy efficiency goals. the legislation strengthens the model building codes so buildings and states that choose to adopt them will have the most up-to-date energy efficiencies codes energy. industrial assessment centers are located around the country. there is one in dayton, ohio. i had the opportunity to visit with one of the researchers there recently and was out working with mid-sized smaller

companies on helping make them more energy efficient. they are strong pourters of this -- supporters of this legislation because they want to be able to help more businesses be more energy efficient, be more competitive and add more jobs. these centers will be helping train the next generation of workers in energy efficient building commercial design and operation. not only will these programs save energy but help provide our students and unimplied workers who -- and unemployed workers who need these skills with the skills needed to compete in this field. this bill is this is not about forcing companies to become more energy efficient. it's about incentives. it's about giving these companies the help they're asking for. we can do it, by the way, at no additional expense to the taxpayer. why? because the cost of this legislation is fully offset. in other words, we pay other programs at the department of energy to pay for the cost of this legislation. it has no impact, it's deficit neutral, but in fact it will

save taxpayers money. it will save taxpayers money because of another provision of the legislation, and that's because we go after the largest energy user in the world to try to make them more efficient. that's the united states government. we want want to be sure the united states government starts to practice what it preaches. as it talks to the rest of us about the need for energy efficiency, we find that the federal government, there are lots of opportunities to make them less wasteful, more efficient. it directs the department of energy to issue recommendations and employ energy efficiency on everywhere from computer hardware to operation and maintenance processes, energy efficiency software and power management tools. senator wyden had some good examples earlier of some of the waste in the federal government that this bill will go after. this is smart because it's the right thing to do in order to save energy, but also it helps taxpayers because it's going to reduce the costs of the federal government. it also takes a really interesting commonsense step of allowing the general services administration to actually update the building designs they have to meet energy efficient standards that have been

developed since these designs were finalized, some of them many years ago, and they can't update them. so we certainly want to be sure of the new federal buildings that are being constructed are using the most up to date efficiency standards. this legislation permits that to happen. the government has been looking for places to tighten its belt. this is one. energy efficiency i think is a great place to start. all this adds up to a piece of legislation that americans across the spectrum can support. it's fully offset. it contains no mandates. it requires the federal government to be more efficient. according to a recent study of our legislation, in 12 years, by 2025, shaheen-portman is estimated to aid in the creation of 136,000 new jobs. the report says it's going to save consumers $13.7 billion a year. in reduced energy costs by 2030. a vote on this legislation is a critical step to achieving this goal of a true all of the above energy strategy. it produces more energy at home, yes, but also uses less energy

and uses it more efficiently. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come down to the floor, offer their amendments, let's have a good debate and discussion and let's support this underlying bill. let's be sure it leaves the senate with a strong vote. and with a rigorous debate to ensure that it can pass the house of representatives where as i said earlier there is a lot of interest and that it can go to the president for his signature to take this important step toward making our country more competitive, more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign oil, and again creating more jobs in the process while improving the environment. it's a win, win, win. i think there is at least three wins there. thank you very much again to my colleague from new hampshire and the chair and ranking members of the energy committee. we now look forward to entertaining some amendments and we look forward to being here on the floor talking about a way to move our country forward in a way that i think provides a model for moving the senate forward on other bipartisan measures. with that, mr. president, i yield back my time.

mr. wyden: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i call up amendment 1858. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: madam president, this is, in my view, a very practical amendment offered by my friend and colleague from oregon,

senator merkley. it involves a study on stand-by power. the amendment would in effect fund the study at the department of energy to look at stand-by power standards in states and other parts of the world to determine what is the most feasible and practical way to approach it. there is no authorization here. i think it's pretty obvious to members of the united states senate there are a large number of electronic products, televisions, cell phone chargers to microwaves that cannot be completely turned off without being unplugged, and we ought to find ways to reduce wasted standby power. i want to yield to my friend and colleague from oregon. it's my intention to support his amendment. i think it's a practical idea, and i would just yield any time to senator merkley to explain his thoughtful amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president, and thank you to my senior colleague from oregon. i appreciate very much your calling up this amendment and for your leadership on energy and specifically energy efficiency. and i would also like to compliment my colleagues from ohio and new hampshire who have worked so hard on this very valuable piece of the energy puzzle. how do we utilize the energy that we generate more efficiently? and specifically, this amendment is related to stand-by power, the power that is wasted keeping devices ready to use at a moment's notice, and i really prefer the term vampire power or vampire electronics. this is -- this is the power that our electronics suck out of our power system when they are doing absolutely nothing, and so this challenge of loss to

vampire electronics is certainly something we ought to take on. many electronic devices from televisions to computers, cell phone chargers, microwaves, they use energy when they are turned off but are still plugged in. often you will see that little white that tells you that it's still plugged in. this wasted energy accounts for roughly 5% of the residential electricity use, so about one kilowatt in every 20 or $1 in every 20 is utilized to keep those little lights blinking. now, the u.s. has yet to establish standards for efficiency in products related to stand-by power. now, some states have done so and other industrialized nations have taken action, and this amendment would simply tell the department to look at the standards established elsewhere in the world or in individual states, compare them and analyze them so we can consider whether a lot more can be done nationally here in the united states to make us more

efficient, and that efficiency really is like producing free available power by ending the waste. in fact, the e.p.a. estimates that 100 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity is wasted by vampire electronics each year, and that adds up to $10 billion in extra energy costs. now, depending on the age of components, running a cable box, a large screen tv, a d.v.d. player, a gaming console, surround sound setup, these can be like running a second refrigerator, a significant power draw. and d.o.e., department of energy, believes it is feasible to reduce this waste from stand-by power by about 75%. now, the -- the value of that 75% reduction would be

equivalent to four free electing 45,000-megawatt wind turbines. that's a lot of wind power being utilized, so let's do it. under this amendment, the department of energy is instructed to conduct a study for standards of power devices and electronic devices that have been implemented by other states or other industrialized nations and to evaluate which of the standards studied would be feasible and appropriate in the united states. a simple idea, an important study that could contribute substantially to the use of power effectively here in our economy. thank you very much, mr. president, and thank you to my colleagues for bringing this bill forward. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: we are not going to vote on this amendment at this time, but when we do, i hope colleagues will support it. i think it's a very fine

amendment, and with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that my intern, donny

turner, have privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call -- are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that it be

vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i think there is a little confusion here on the floor. i have an amendment. i have talked to virtually everyone. in fact, i can't find one person who is opposed to it. it's a very simple thing. of course, what i would ask is that i be able to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of considering my amendment number 1851. now, let me make that and see if there is objection to that. a senator: mr. president? i object. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. vitter: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: mr. president, let me just go ahead and tell you what it's all about because i know i'm going to be wanting to come back to the floor and get this in the queue. it's very rare in this body that we come up with something that everyone is for, something that wasn't a part of the original legislation for a very good reason. we're talking about geothermal. right now, the -- we all recall

that in the energy policy act of 2005, it was -- there was a provision that requires the federal government have a percentage of its energy to be from renewable sources. now, the problem is this -- geothermal doesn't create any new energy. it just lets you use the energy that is there to recover it, heat our homes, cool our homes, put it back and then reuse it again. as i said, it's something that everyone is for. it's 100% renewable, and the only oversight originally was that it didn't -- it did not actually create energy. so the amendment would change this and allow geothermal heat pumps to be among the renewable energies that can be used by the federal government to meet its obligation under the 2005 energy law, and as i say this amendment doesn't cost anything, it doesn't mandate anything. it simply provides another acceptable way for the federal government to meet its

obligations in a cost-effective way. it's noncontroversial. it's something that not everyone wants. it would be my hope that after that explanation the senator from louisiana would be willing to let me bring it up just for the purpose of considering it, putting it in the queue and then going back to where we were, acknowledging the objections that he might have to other amendments. mr. vitter: mr. president, unfortunately, i'm going to have to sustain my objection but i am very hopeful that this can be worked out in short order as soon as a vote on my amendment is locked down, and, in fact, i'll go this far, it doesn't even have to be on this bill. it does have to be in the near future, because the issue with regard to which i'm very concerned happens on october 1, so this is an extremely

time-sensitive issue. i've had good discussions with the majority, and it seems like we're going to be able to lock down that agreement, hopefully very soon. but until then, i'm going to have to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i intend to support the inhofe-carper amendment. in my view, this is really a commonsense clarification of existing law, and i just want colleagues to have a sense of this is the kind of bipartisan work that senator murkowski talked about earlier that we have been trying to do, is to try to come to the senate with ideas that really pass the smell test. i mean, they are common sense, they are practical, in that context this amendment modifies the existing definition of renewable energy to provide that thermal energy that is generated

from or avoided by renewable energy sources ought to be considered renewable energy for federal energy purchase requirements. for example, if a federal agency has access to thermal energy from groundwater to heat or cool its facilities, under the inhofe-carper amendment, that thermal energy would be considered renewable energy produced you just as if the buildings had solar or wind power to produce electricity. and i hope that colleagues in this kind of spirit will bring us these kinds of suggestions and ideas. senator inhofe has brought this to us, you know, early on, and i know that we're going to have some more discussion because of its connection to other kinds of matters, but i hope that we will get a vote on this. it is common sense, it is practical, and i intend to support it and i just wanted the record to reflect that, mr. president. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: as author with senator shaheen of the underlying bill i have a list here of a dozen or so bipartisan amendments that i'd love to see us have a debate on including the inhofe amendment which i think the inhofe-carper amendment is a great example as the chairman said of one that improves the bill. there will be some amendments that we may not find bipartisan consensus on but this certainly one and i think it's common sense and i appreciate him working with the committee and working with us and i just wish we could get it up for a vote and get it filed today. and i do hope we can work out our differences on other amendments so that -- that are not relevant to the legislation so we can move ahead with some of this good debate and my sense is we have a good chance of doing that. i would urge both sides of the aisle let's figure out how to come together with a practical solution to be able to provide a vote but to also allow us to proceed with this debate. senator inhofe came over here to

offer his amendment, wasn't able to and i hope we can for the next good bipartisan amendment have that opportunity. with that i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: let me offer this truly friendly suggestion. i think we can proceed with this debate. senator portman said proceed with the debate. we can proceed with this debate right now. we can bring amendments to the floor, we can talk about them, we can have a full debate on any amendment folks want to bring to the floor. i would encourage that and i think that will move the process along because we can basically do all of the substantive debate on these amendments. the only thing i'm talking about is a technicality which is making the amendments pending. that's a technicality that doesn't have to stop or delay or prohibit any debate. so my suggestion is to move full forward with that debate as we work out this agreement and i'm

fully prepared in the same way to discuss and debate my amendment, and i'm ready to do that whenever it's appropriate. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i don't recall this ever happening before, the very amendment that is keeping the obstacle for me is one that i would ask unanimous consent right now to become a cosponsor of that amendment, the vitter amendment i'm talking about, and i know what he's trying to do and i know he's going to make an effort to get this done in other -- maybe other legislation if it doesn't happen here. so i will be joining him in his cause, and i see this as a separate thing here, because as i say, we want to move this along, i do have an amendment that everybody agrees to so i'll stand by and see if anyone changes their mind and thank you, i say to the chairman and to the ranking member, thank you for your comments, your

very kind comments about my amendment. mr. wyden: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: let me start by asking for a simple unanimous consent approval. i want to ask kevin reed, a legislative fellow in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of consideration of senate bill 1392.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i was next going to ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment 1845. i understand the senate is at a bit of an impasse but if i might, i'd like to talk about my amendment without calling it up with the hope later my friend and colleague senator wyden would be able to call up my amendment and put it on the list of pending amendments. the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. udall: so i'm going to talk a little bit about this important effort which has been authored in partisanship with my -- partnership with my friend from the state of maine, senator collins. i want to say how important it is we're finally debating for the first time in years an energy bill in the senate. and i think the fact that we're here today is a huge testament to my colleague from the great state state of new hampshire,

senator shaheen, and my friend frend from my days in the house, senator portman, and the leadership of chairman wyden and ranking member murkowski that we're here today beginning this important debate. and for i think senator portman and senator shaheen are saying this in every way possible, for our country to truly realize energy independence and security, we need to efficiently use the energy that we already have and that's exactly what senator shaheen and portman envision with their legislation. we promote energy security and we save americans money. so with that backdrop, mr. president, let me turn to our amendment. improving the energy efficiency of our schools is a no-brainer and that's why i'm proud to partner with senator collins to make sure our efforts have the biggest bang for the buck. this is a bipartisan amendment, it will help streamline efforts to improve the energy efficiency

of our nation's schools while most importantly, strengthening our children's education. our schools are often confused by where to go and who to work with to pursue energy efficiency efforts in education and this is in part because of how many agencies and departments and state governments and the like are involved. so by providing a coordinating structure for schools to better navigate existing federal programs, and the financing options available to them, we're going to pare back duplicative efforts and make it easier for schools across my state of colorado and across the united states to save thousands of taxpayer dollars each year that then can be reinvested in strengthening our education system. the amendment also has the duel benefit -- dual program of making federal programs work better for our schools while leaving diggs decisions to states and school boards and

local officials to determine what is best for their schools. this is a commonsense amendment, and i truly hope we get a chance to debate it, to have an up-or-down vote on it. and before i yield the floor, mr. president, i also would like to point out and i know my colleague, senator wyden is well aware of this and senator shaheen and senator portman, senator murkowski, when we have schools that operate on an energy efficient basis, studies show that our young people, our children learn more effectively because if you're in an environment that's comfortable where the light is appropriate, where you can see, where you can take in what's being taught, you're, of course, going to have a better educational experience and a better educated america means a stronger america, a more productive america, a more competitive america. so this has benefits across the board in every way imaginable. the broader effort that senators shaheen and portman have brought forward but also that senator

wyden and murkowski are helming here on the floor of the senate. i want to draw attention to this amendment. i know senator collins will be here later to talk about her perspectives and the good work sheers going to do with this important piece of legislation. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: i just want before he leaves the floor of the senate just commend my colleague from colorado, senator udall. this is a practical, commonsense amendment. there is new expenditure of federal funds. i'm very pleased that my colleague brought it to the floor. it's reflective of the approach we see in the energy committee and a host of the areas where the senator from colorado consistently tries to find common ground and act in a bipartisan way. and one of the reasons i wanted to speak for just a minute is now we're starting to see, mr. president, and colleagues,

these bipartisan amendments are starting to sort of pile up. and that's because colleagues are listening to what folks at home are saying. they're saying to senator udall and senator sheen and senator -- shaheen and senator murkowski and myself, they're saying when you're back there in the fall, try to find some ways to get things done to get people to work together, i think we all understand how important energy is and energy security, it's about jobs, it's about a cleaner environment, it's about productivity, and when you look at the specifics of this amendment that senator udall and senator collins are pursuing, sometimes you think it's maybe too logical for the beltway because people say it just makes too much sense when schools do retrofits under the collins-udall amendment, to become more energy efficient and

use cleaner power, the kids come out winners, the environment comes out a winner, and the taxpayers come out in a -- you know, winners. that's the whole reason, mr. president, the federal government provides assistance to schools for these types of projects in the first place. it's an opportunity for the federal government to save money and ensure that we maximize educational the countries for the kids. but the reality is federal school efficiency programs are now strewn ruly all over the federal government. they're scattered among more than six different agencies. the states have all these different programs and incentives, and so what senator collins and senator udall seek to do is to have a straightforward mechanism for improved federal coordination. in the real world that means we're going to have more energy projects built. it means more schools are going

to save energy and money, and i also note, because my friend senator murkowski is here, that the udall-collins amendment pretty much tracks something that we've been interested in, that the committee has been looking at, s. 1048, which was heard by the energy subcommittee on june 25. so, again, no authorization. the minimal costs are covered by existing d.o.e. funds. i want to commend the senator from colorado for his good work, particularly the bipartisan focus he's put on this and everything else about his senate business. i hope we'll be able to vote on it and i wanted colleagues, as this debate starts, to see that we're going to start stacking up these good commonsense, bipartisan amendments. that's why there is so much value in energy efficiency. senator udall, before you came, i said, we all get worked up

around here saying that we're for all of the above energy policy. it is almost obligatory to say you're for all of the above, every 10, 15 minutes. you can't be for that unless you are for energy efficiency. you're bringing some of that sensible thinking to the school. so i'm looking forward to getting your amendment up and voting on it and commend you for your good wonch i would yield back, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i, too, want to thank the senator from colorado and the senator from maine for their leadership in this area. when you think about being efficient -- okay, let's coordinate, let's cooperate, let's rea do better when what we utilizing. i am going to give an example of how something like this can make a difference in my state. i've noted before that our energy costs in alaska are some

of the highest in the nation. far too often our schools are in remote areas where basically they're not part of anybody's grid. they're in communities that are diesel-powered. it is a tough way to heat a community. but think about how expensive it then becomes for your school. your school has to absorb these energy costs. where do these dollars come from? they come, effectively, out of your education budget. and the state does step in. the state provides substantial assistance. but anywhere, anytime, anyplace that we can be working together to again be more collaborative in our approaches as to how we deal with our efficiency opportunities is going to help

you are schools. this is going to help the schools whether they are in maine or whether the they're in alaska or colorado -- why are all these places coaler, i' plat sure. but maybe it forces us to figure out ways that we can be working together better. i want to be sure that we're able to get the education dollars into the classroom and not basically fueling the boilers to keep the kid kids wa. so i applaud my colleagues in this effort. the goal to increase coordination and cooperation of federal, state, and local agencies to be operating more efficienting, utilizing existing relationships, i think, is a positive here. so, again, i commend my colleagues for their efforts in bringing this forward on this particular aspect of energy efficiency. and i, too, look forward to the opportunity where we'll be able to show a good bipartisan vote on this amendment and on others.

thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mest. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to congratulate the bill's sponsors, senators shaheen and portman, for crafting the underlying bipartisan, commonsense energy efficiency bill. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of their legislation, and i'm pleased to see that the bill is being considered and look forward to the debate on energy efficiency. i would hope that, as we consider amendments to this bill, that we could consider amendments that relate to the issue of energy so that we can make real progress and that we don't end up, as happened before the recess when i was managing a bill on the transportation and

housing appropriations for the minority side, that we became distracted on two issues that had nothing to do with the underlying bill, important though it was. so i'm very pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senator from colorado, mr. udall, in sponsoring an amendment to help streamline the available federal energy efficiency programs and financing to help improve the health and lower energy costs for our nation's schools. now, mr. president, there are a number of federal initiatives already available to schools to help them become more efficient. however, in many cases, schools are not taking full advantage of these programs, and i think this

is particularly a problem in rural states like alaska or like maine where the schools don't have the luxury of having grant writers who can spend all day searching for federal funding that might allow them to upgrade the energy efficiency or reduce emissions from their energy systems. perhaps large urban schools may have the ability to hire those full-time grant writers, you i know in my state of -- but i know in my state of maine that it's very difficult for schools it even becomto even become awae programs. and one of the purposes of the amendment that senator udall and i are offering is to help

schools, regardless of their size, take advantage of existing programs. and i want to stress that we're not creating a whole lot of new programs here. all we're doing is providing a streamlined coordinating structure for schools to help them better navigate available federal programs and financing options. i also want to emphasize, particularly to my republican colleagues, that our amendment still leaves all of the decisions to the states, to local school boards, to local officials about how best to meet the energy needs of their schools. so what does our amendment do? specifically, the amendment would establish the department of energy as the lead agency in coordinatingcoordinating a

cross-developmenting initiative to help finance energy efficiency, renewable energy and retrofitting projects for our schools. it would also require review of existing federal programs and financing mechanisms before mention of a streamlined process so communication and outreach to the states, local education agencies, and schools of these existing programs, to make them more aware of their existence, and the development of a mechanism for governors, state energy programs, and local educational energy officials to form a peer-to-peer network to support the initiation of these projects. finally, the amendment would require the department o departy to provide technical assistance to help schools navigate the

financing and development of these projects. mr. president, assisting our nation's schools in navigating and tapping into existing federal programs that will help them lower their energy usage and save taxpayer dollars, save money at a time of very tight constrained educational budgets, simply makes good common sense. so i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the udall-collins amendment, number 1845. i want to thank not only the sponsors of the bill but the leaders of the energy committee, senator wyden and senator murkowski, for their help and assistance to us. and i hope that we can start the

debate on this bill up on a positive note by adopting a bipartisan amendment that's going to help our schools, save money, reduce energy costs, and also lower emissions. that's the way to start the debate on this bill. thank you, mr. president. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i want to thank senators udall and collins for chg tcoming to the floor with tr amendment, laying it out and debating it. i would encourage everyone with a interest in this bill, democrats and republicans, come to the floor, lay out amendments, have that debate, so we can move forward in a productive way as the first vote agreement is being worked on and finalized. that's what i'm going to do --

proceed to do with regard to my amendment. so let me dough tha me do that o let me do that now. my amendment is not related to this bill but i have to bring it up now because it is very time-sensitive. it is happening october 1. mr. president, many of news this chamber, certainly myself, regularly talk against the exemptions under obamacare that are created for the rich and powerful and politically connected. many in this body, including myself, regularly talk about the abuses of this administration going beyond their legitimate authority, going beyond what's in the law, making up stuff through executive orders, through rule making, through executive fiat. and as i said, certainly, i am in that group. i believe and action was taken

recently that is a horrible, dangerous, and ow offensive exae of both of those things. and my amendment would correct that situation. so let me back up and explain just what i'm talking about. right after all of congress left for the august recess, a little over a month ago, the office of personnel management, part of the obama administration, issued a draft rule. and this draft rule was basically designed to take any of the sting of obamacare away for washington insiders, specifically members of congress and their staff. during the obamacare debate, we debated a on the floor and it ws actually adopted. the amendment said, every member of congress -- all congressional staff have to go to the exchange

have, to leave their very generous health coverage, have to go to the fallback position in terms of health care coverage that millions of americans are dealing with and have to go to right now and over the next several months and have to live under those same rules and under those same circumstances as those tens of millions of americans. i supported that. i think it's important that the ruling elite, if you will, need to live under the same laws they create, across the board. and specifically, under obamacare, i think it's very, very important that everybody in congress and in washington -- and i think this should be expanded to the administration -- live under the same system in terms of the exchange that many of those folks created. now, that was the statute. that's supposed to govern.

after obamacare passed, to quote nancy pelosi, folks started looking and reading the bill to figure out what was in it. and lots of folks around here in washington got very concerned once they read that provision to figure out what was in it. and they understood that that would create real dislocation and sting, not for america. it does that but they weren't concerned enough about that, but for washington. and so many people for months lobbied the administration to try to get around this to make up some reg that would take the sting out of that provision. and sure enough, after intense lobbying, sure enough the obama administration issued this rule, again, as i mentioned a minute ago, it was right after we left town and were safely away right at the start of the august recess. the rule did a few things, all

of which i think are beyond the law, contrary to law and really outrageous. first of all, it said that the statute which says that all official staff of members of congress need to go to the exchanges, the first thing the rule says is we don't know what official staff means. so we're going to leave it up to each individual member of congress to decide if any member of their staff is official staff. so each member of congress can decide whether anybody on their staff has to go to the exchange at all. now i think that's ludicrous on its face and completely contrary to the statute. but then the second big thing the rule did is made out of thin air the rule that the present subsidy we get from the taxpayer for our present health care coverage is going to somehow miraculously turn into a subsidy

on the exchange which doesn't exist, doesn't exist for us under the law, doesn't exist for any american. and so they just made up out of thin air this rule that that taxpayer-funded subsidy would follow all of these folks, members of congress and the staff who are required to go there to the exchange. again, that is not in the law. that is contrary to the letter and spirit of this provision, and there is a separate provision of obamacare that specifically says with regard to all individuals going to the exchange, that when they do this, when they go to a plan on the exchange, they lose nature employer -- they lose their employer-provided subsidy. so that is specific about the situation of folks going to the exchange and directly contrary to this law. well, mr. president, as i suggested at the beginning, i

think this is a special exemption for washington, a special bailout for washington to ensure that washington doesn't have to live by the same rules -- in this case, with regard to obamacare and the exchanges -- that all of america does. and it's beyond the statute and it's beyond the president's constitutional authority. he can't just make things up out of thin air. for that reason, i join with many colleagues to draft a bill which would make an amendment to this bill to propose that would fix that. and it is no washington exemption from obamacare. specifically, the bill would do three things. first of all, it does away with this o.p.m. rule and it clarifies that members don't get to pick and choose who is official staff. congressional staff is

congressional staff. then it says all members of congress, all congressional staff, and we expand it to the president and vice president and all political appointees of the obama administration, all of those folks have to go to the exchanges. the clear language of present law with regard to members of congress and their staff. and finally we fix the other part of this illegal rule. we say that this subsidy that members of congress and staff currently enjoy under their present health care coverage can't follow you to the exchange. that's not the case for any other american. that's not in the law. in fact, in obamacare there's a broader provision completely contrary to that. so we say that cannot happen. and that's what our bill and our amendment is. i think it is a fundamental, a

threshold, and a very important rule of democracy that the governors have to live by the same laws that they passed and imposed on the government. i think that should be the case across the board and certainly that should be the case under obamacare. tens of millions of americans are experiencing having to go to the exchanges. many of them didn't want to go there. many of them had good coverage with their employer that they're losing because of the economics of this new situation, and they're being forced to the exchange. the clear language and intent of that provision in obamacare was for members of congress and staff to have to experience the same thing. and that is the clear language, and that is the clear intent. so we should live by that, not

get around that. and in my opinion, we should expand that to the president who has volunteered to go to the exchange, to the vice president, to all of their political appointees. and so that's what our amendment does. that's what our bill does. i want to thank all of the members, senate and house, who were working hard on this proposal. senators enzi and heller, johnson, many others. i know i'm missing several. there are several house members led by congressman ron desantos of florida working on identical house language, they are hard at work particularly in the context of the c.r.. the bottom line is this, there should be no special washington exemption from obamacare. all laws that we pass should apply to us every bit as much as other americans. and certainly we, as is the

clear language and is the clear intent, should live under that fall-back plan of the exchanges just like every other american does. and no other american gets this special subsidy that the o.p.m. rule gives to us. folks in this class under my amendment and bill would be able to qualify for a subsidy if it's the same subsidy that's available to other americans, according to income category. so if you qualify by income, fine. but this is way beyond that. this is a special deal, a special exemption for congress, and we need to say there should be no washington exemption. this bill, this amendment does that clearly and categorically. and i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to support this. now, mr. president, let me end by just talking about a vote.

i'm bringing up this amendment on this bill. this reason is this issue is very time sensitive. this rule which was made up out of thin air, in my opinion, goes into effect, and all of this is set to happen october 1. and so this debate has to happen. it changed to this. has to happen before october 1. and that's why i'm bringing it up now and demanding a vote. but actually that vote doesn't have to be on this bill. i will accept any fair, reasonable substantive vote before october 1. but we need to lock that down. i think we're well on our way to locking that down, and i look forward to that. in the meantime, mr. president, let me just again urge my colleagues who have amendments to this bill on the subject of energy, on any other subject, come on down. present those. talk about those. debate those, as i have, as

senators udall and collins have. let's move forward with the process as we nail down this first vote agreement. and as we get to that vote on this amendment, i urge my colleagues to follow the first, in many ways most basic rule of democracy, that the same rules we impose on the governed we should live by. that is absolutely essential. should be that case across the board, certainly including obamacare. and in a case of obamacare, there is specific language that says that. that's what it says. that's what it's supposed to be about. and this illegal objection? without objection. the clerk will report. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk: the senator from

colorado mr. bennet proposes amendment 1847. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. vitter: mr. president? mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: as i made clear previously but i will restate, i objected to, i continue to object to laying aside any amendment and making another amendment pending. we made that clear between floor staff of the minority and majority side. that was crystal clear. so i object. the presiding officer: we are on the amendment from the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, i'd ask that my calling up of the amendment be vitiated out of respect for my colleague from louisiana. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: mr. president, if i can just very briefly thank the

senator. that is a very generous and gentlemanly thing to do. this was the understanding between floor staff. i know apparently it wasn't properly communicated to the chair, but that was the clear understanding and i appreciate that gesture. mr. bennet: through the chair, i say to the senator from louisiana my understanding was that you would object. you were on the floor when i offered it, and i thought you were going to object. and knowing of your objection, i withdraw the amendment. and having said all that, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: having said all that, i think it's a shame that we can't get going with this bipartisan bill. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their incredibly great bipartisan work on this energy bill. i'd like to thank jeanne shaheen from new hampshire and senator portman from ohio for the bipartisan work that's been going on for months if not years

on this bill. and i'm pleased to come down to the floor. i wish to introduce my amendment but not today because of an objection, but to at least talk about a bipartisan amendment that we'd like to get on this bill. i'd like to thank my colleague, senator ayotte, for joining me in this important effort. our amendment is based on stand-alone legislation we've written called the better buildings act, which encourages energy efficiency in commercial buildings. over the last several years, mr. president, we worked with building owners across colorado and the country to craft the legislation. the economic and environmental benefits of improving energy efficiency in buildings are clear. a well-publicized retrofit of the empire state building in new york reduced energy usage by 38%, almost 40%, and it saved an estimated $4.4 million annually for the building owner. the retrofit also created over

250 construction jobs right here in the united states that can't be sent overseas. it's this example and these ideas that helped form the basis for the better buildings act and this amendment. in crafting the measure, we still have to think about efficiency in buildings not only from the top down where a building owner makes the improvements, but also from the bottom up where a tenant would see advantages from designing and configuring their rented office space in an energy-efficient manner. with all that in mind, the amendment that we've introduced to accomplish these two principal goals. first, it allows for a first of its kind study by the department of energy to chronicle private sector best practices as tenants build out their lease spaces in commercial buildings. the study would then inform a voluntary department of energy program to recognize tenants, to acknowledge tenants that design and construct high-performance

lease spaces in the future. the second provision called tenant star would expand on the popular energy star program and make it available to tenants, not just landlords. under our amendment, tenants will be recognized for the energy-efficient performance of their leased office space. this will provide value to their customers, their investors and ultimately to the building owner. the energy star label has proven a very powerful tool to achieve whole building efficiency. our language takes the next logical step and confers this recognition on tenants as well. this bipartisan amendment is broadly supported from the alliance to save energy to the real estate round table to the sierra club. it also received a favorable hearing in the senate energy committee in june, and i thank the chairman for that. the congressional budget office has confirmed that it has no score. so i would urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan and commonsense amendment. i hope we can get to the

business of legislating around this incredibly important bipartisan bill. with that, mr. president, i thank you for your patience and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: first, let me vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: and commend the senator from colorado on a fine amendment, and i hope we're going to get a chance to vote on it. i think he mentioned commercial buildings consuming almost half of the energy used in the united states, and what i think is important for the senate to see is that the bipartisan amendments are now piling up

here. we started off with a very good amendment, the inhofe-carper amendment in terms of thermal sewetor udall senator collins talking aboutre for thes better envme new feral money ane soounumed e are were folks, and oregon indsh way a bipartisan wha the o on in the case thisnt, thear increase theilng by recognizingn fwould prote recogni efficiencyo as energytahiin thee, particulan

h simplye doing it's the focus of the focf amendment and this real cross section of obviouss. i would objection, so o stay othergo, haeceive be inserted hefice witt least a here, for productivity, goodaying,re going to be wne ofe one pi now, i know that t wisdom, yout you on th they can their day,ust wa a particular issue are to seeha going ard. but w wt them to see a have a key any policy.

inerg policy .f you aren'nergy this particular cause, and we passed the hydropow bilpele said it was tht major009. this is the senator fro ohio here who has done souc i'll yiet this time because i know he's got a great interesn to vote one senators will srt and i yield back,side? the presidingff senator from ohio is recognized. mr. portman: endment. helps solve the bne earlie ayotte has in with him to t ons. they have again by thi amendment i believe offered a good opportunity to legislation, underlying hinkt is consistent with the underlying legislation. by the w amendment sense because there is right now who e

who are tenants in those buildings, and we've heard this ou talked about efficiency. it kind of gets the landlords th lowering energy costs. it's market driven, it's nonregulatory, it takes a best practices approach to address this issue. owners and managers of their tenants consume over 50% of the totaly inhe structure, but again there is e the spaceon't because owners y bills. therefore, there is often no motivation to cut energy cg thee efficient. the owners don't have that incentive, the tenants do. icey pay the bills, but they in the design the operation of thenets of the strucre they a attempt ti

enurages tenants to makeand structural investments when they renew leases or existing leases. learn from private study best practices to aieve high-performance cost-effective measures with viable efficiency. it also builds on the success of the voluntary energy star program that a lot of folks are familiar with and kind of moves energy star into the tenant space,g tenant-oriented certification called tenant star fo tse spaces. again transformin building owners and their tenants think about energy. by the way, thi legislation is supported by the real estate roundtable, a group that has looked at this underlying legislation, this amendment, thinks this really helps them accomplish some of their goals in energy efficiency. it's also supported by the restaurant association, by the national association of manufacturers and others. so this better buildings amendment that senator ayotte, senator bennet have offered i think is strong.

i wish they could have actually taken the amendment today off the calendar and actually been able to technically offer it, but we did have a good debate on it and i'm hoping that soon we will be able to resolve these other issues and be able to move forward with an actual vote on this. this is a classic example of where we can come together with republicans and democrats, finding common ground and how to have a true all of the above energy strategy. not just produce more energy which i strongly support but also use the energy we have more out 40% of energy usage, thisre is very smart legislation. building on the other amendments we've heard about today on using geothermal, being sure that it is part of renewable energy, ensuring that our schools have the best information to be able to become more energy efficient, and other amendments. again, i count about a dozen of them here that are bipartisan amendments we hope to have on the floor here as part of this underlying bill to help create more jobs, have a cleaner environment, make us less

dependent on foreign oil and move forward on this important leg of our national energy strategy. with that, mr. president, i yield back my time. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? i ask that the pending amendment be set aside and i call up my amendment number 1856. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i'm objecting on behalf of my colleague who has an arrangement with the majority staff on this on the basis of his interests in objecting until he gets a unanimous consent agreement that i think is being worked on. ms. klobuchar: thank you. i'd still like to talk about this amendment, and i want to thank the -- the -- both senator

wyden for working with us on this amendment and also senator murkowski for working with us on this amendment, and i appreciate their support. this is an amendment that senator hoeven and i have introduced together, and i will just describe it to you because i think it's such a good amendment, we want to make sure we get moving on this very important bill that i support as well as these amendments. the nonprofit energy efficiency act would provide assistance to nonprofit organizations to help make the buildings they own and operate more energy efficient. nonprofit organizations are the heart of our country and serve millions of americans every day. nonprofits improve hospitals, schools, houses of worship particularly supportive of this amendment and youth centers. they face the choice of making facility improvements or serving more people, which is also

difficult for them, and that choice is clear for so many organizations. nonprofits often operate in older, less efficient buildings, and because of their nonprofit status, they can't participate in energy efficiency programs despite the financial benefits of energy efficiency retrofits and other improvements. this bill is about allowing the department of energy to make grants of up to $200,000 for energy efficiency projects over the next five years. the amendment requires a 50% cost share and includes provisions to ensure that the projects achieve significant amounts of energy savings and are done in a cost-effective manner. this amendment, the klobuchar-hoeven amendment, is fully offset and i appreciate the work of the committee and the committee staff on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the nonprofit energy efficiency act amendment. before i yield the floor, i again want to thank senator shaheen and senator portman for

their tireless efforts to move this important legislation forward. i believe that energy efficiency is an area where we can all -- that we can all agree is good for the economy. it's good for consumers, and it's an issue where we can find common ground, as you can see by the amendment i have done with senator hoeven here. senator hoeven in north dakota who knows a little bit about producing energy with their oil production there, natural gas production, the biofuel productions that they share with minnesota. we're some of the top biofuel producers in the country. but in our states, we also believe in conserving energy and in energy efficiency, and we believe that this bill is a good bill and also that this amendment is a very good addition to the bill as it allows nonprofits such as places of worship to also share in the energy efficiency program, and they are very interested in moving ahead with this amendment. so i thank you, i thank the authors and i thank the chair and the ranking member of the

committee. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i just wanted to commend senator klobuchar on her efforts. this is another one of the great bipartisan amendments that has been worked on to add to this energy efficiency legislation. it shows just how great the opportunity is with this legislation to provide for savings for people, to get people engaged in the idea of how much energy they're using and what the costs of that energy are, and also what the environmental benefits and the benefits to consumers and the benefits to our national security are in encouraging energy efficiency, so i just wanted to commend her and thank her for all of her efforts, and we will continue to have this discussion on the floor as we wait for some kind of an agreement from senator vitter.

thank you. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: i'm very hopeful that when we get a chance to vote on this amendment that the senate accepts it. i want to put it in the context of where we are because we're seeing this pattern of senators and i was in north dakota for senator hoeven just a few days ago, and, you know, we were listening to constituents, i'm sure very similar to t kind of concerns reflected by folks in minnesota, they all were saying go back there in september and focus on real problems and come up with real solutions. and we've seen all this bickering and we've seen all this quarreling and what we want to see is on the concerns that most affect us. our pocketbook, our environment -- and in this case national security.

senator shaheen made an excellent point i thought several hours ago when she pointed out with the backdrop of syria and national security, you know, issues, if there ever was a time while we wait for the next steps in this debate to look at another issue, energy and energy efficiency would be a logical one because we all understand how inextricably linked national security and energy security are. so now after we have had the thoughtful inhofe-carper amendment on thermal power, we had the udall-collins amendment in terms of school retrofits, we had the bennet-ayotte amendment which deals with commercial buildings which compromise almost half of the energy used in america. we now have a very good bipartisan amendment brought to the floor of the senate by the senior senator from minnesota,

senator klobuchar, and senator hoeven. there are literally hundreds of thousands of museums in this country, houses of worship, youth organizations, all of these programs are looking at ways in which they can save, you know, energy and the reality is that lots of the tools aren't available to them because they're tax-exempt. so what we have here is a pilot project. let me kind of underline. everybody talks about big programs and their one size fits all and run from washington and one dastardly plot after another from the federal government and the senator from minnesota and the senator from north dakota come and say they want to have a pilot project, a pilot project to award grants of up to $200,000 with a match by the federal government to make efficiency improvements to these

buildings in these houses of worship, museums, all of these institutions that every member of the united states senate cares a great deal about. and i was especially appreciative because senator klobuchar and senator hoaive were supportive -- hoeven were supportive of some of the ideas senator murkowski and i had to revise this. this is a good amendment, this is already the fourth in the queue of thoughtful, commonsense, low-cost proposals that have come to the floor of the united states senate. and i hope my colleagues will shortly give us the opportunity to get to this bill. this is tiewns senator, senators -- the the united states senate, senators like to address a variety of issues but we got a very good hydrobill passed right before the august recess, 60,000 megawatts of

hydropower, responsible for 60% of the clean energy in the country, this bill is the first major piece of energy legislation on the floor of the senate since 2007. that is light years ago in terms of the dramatic changes. we've made so many reforms in other areas, i mean, for example, i saw in north dakota over this weekend the dramatic, you know, changes in terms of natural gas policies. we have a host of issues to talk about there. we are ready to go on energy efficiency. so i am very appreciative what the senator from minnesota has been working on with the senator from north dakota. i'd like to see somebody explain the houses of worship and museums and youth organizations, why it doesn't make sense to start a pilot project so they can squeeze more

value out of the scarce dollars that they have for running their incredibly valuable programs. i don't think any member of the senate, democrat or republican, can make the case that that makes any sense. i really appreciate the senator from minnesota coming over. i'm prepared here to stay till all hours so that senators who are willing to do what we heard all summer the american people want us to do, which is to address real issues, do it in a bipartisan way. i hope other senators will come over and approach this just the way the senator from minnesota and the senator from north dakota have done, and i thank my colleague and, mr. president, with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. portman: mr. president, i think the chairman outlined it well. this is a thoughtful amendment to the underlying bill, and senator shaheen and i are delighted to accept it, and support it, but also to say

that this does sort of fit a part of the overall energy efficiency effort that we didn't cover in the legislation which is these nongovernmental organizations that own buildings where they don't have the ability to get the kind of market-based support that is in our legislation. and this is faith-based organized, but it's also boys' and girls' clubs, and it's all kinds of different groups that are interested in doing efficiency retrofits, they need a little help, this gives them a 34567. significantly, is the fact that it's paid for so we're not talking about any impact on the deficit. it's deficit neutral because they went out of their way to try to find good ways to reduce he spending at the department of energy to have the offsets. having the local match is important because it gets the local buy-in, it's important that it be a full match but also does give them access to some of

the expertise we talked about earlier to be able to have more energy efficiency and ultimately save energy in this country but also money for these nonprofit organizations. i commend my colleague, senator klobuchar and senator hoeven. senator hoaive wants to come over and speak on this legislation, he is tied up but wants to speak later, and certainly when it's offered and brought up on the floor he'll have a chance to talk about it as well. i commend him and his colleague from minnesota for, again, offering another bipartisan amendment on top of the geothermal amendment, the schools amendment, the amendment to encourage tenants to be more energy efficient and now this legislation on nonprofits that own buildings that want to do the efficiency retrofits and i appreciate them working with us to find offsets to be sure it doesn't add to the deficit and is a responsible approach on the fiscal side as well. with that, mr. president, i

note the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry, i yield the floor. a senator: the presiding officer: the senior senator from alaska alaska is recognized. ms. murkowski: i can't help but join the bouquet tossing that's going on here today, not only about the amendment that senator hoeven and senator klobuchar have introduced but again the other measures that have been brought up for discussion here this afternoon, geothermal, school efficiency. it really does drive us to the point of this energy efficiency legislation. how it's not just in one section or sector, it really is economywide. it's all aspects of our lives. if we focus on how we live from day to day, the things that are important to us, we can

incorporate greater efficiencies in into all aspects of it and we are better off, whether it's through our schools, our businesses, our government buildings or through those nonprofits that i think we all recognize give so much enrichment to our general lives. but when we think about some of the struggles that our nonprofits are currently facing right now as they're seeing declining budgets, federal, local, state levels, they are looking to squeeze as much as they can out of every dollar. and so when you have proposals such as we have here with a pilot program to award these grants of up to $200,000 to help make these efficiency improvements to their buildings, this is -- this is significant stuff, if you will. this translates into real dollars, allowing them to do what it is that they are

providing so much better, whether it is boys and girls clubs and a clubhouse, the ability to perhaps have other facilities, whether it is your church facilities, your faith-based organizations, the outreach and all they are able to do and those that they are able to serve, it's all made better when you don't have to spend as much for your energy cost, to meet your energy demands. so it does seem somewhat common sense, it does seem somewhat rational and reasonable. good heavens, what are we doing here on the floor of the united states senate, promoting something that is rational and reasonable, and we neeo do more of this. this is a good amendment and joints johanns the several other good amendments that we are seeing, as we look to the numerous amendments that we've

talked to colleagues about and that we are anticipating will be up here in the next several hours. i do hope that folks realized that what has been put together by the sponsors of this bill, the senator from ohio, the senator from new hampshire, is really worthy of our consideration. not only on these amendments but, again, the fuller spectrum of how we are more wise in our energy consumption, how we are better stewards of that which we have when it comes to energy and our energy resources. so i'll throw the bouquet to those -- to those who have got us to this point, and with that i see that the senator from wyoming has joined us. i will yield the floor.

mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: mr. president, i filed an amendment to s. 1392 that will prevent the environmental protection agency from a massive regulatory overreach. it's been cosponsored by senators barrasso and senator flake, my amendment is simple and straightforward, it promotes the right of a state to deal with its own problems, it returns the regulation of regional haze to where it properly belongs, in the hands of state officials who are more familiar with the problem and the best ways to address it. i hope my colleagues will support my effort. the environmental protection agency's move to partially disapprove the state of wyoming's regional haze plan will create an economic and is for aesthetic value. bureaucratic nightmare that will have a devastating impact on most importantly the e.p.a. western economies. shouldn't use regulations to the proposal by e.p.a. ignores pick winners and losers in the more than a decade's worth of energy market. this is a state issue and work on this subject by congress recognized that states

officials in my home state and should know how to determine seems to be more designed to regulate coal out of existence what the best regulatory approach would be to find and than to regulate haze. implement a solution to the the haze we most need to problem. the courts then reaffirmed, the regulate, in fact, seems to be the one that's clouding the courts reaffirmed this position vision of the e.p.a. by ruling in favor of the as it promotes a plan that would states' primacy on regional haze impose onerous retions on -- several times. fortunately that's not what regulations on power plants that happened in this case. will pass the increased costs in the e.p.a. ignored all of the the form of higher energy prices clear precedent and instead on to consumers. that tells me the e.p.a.'s handed the top-down approach purpose is to ensure that no the that ignored the will and the country to impose its chosen expertise of the state of agenda on the nation is wasted. wyoming. it doesn't seem to matter to this inexpoliticcabl inexplicabs them that their proposed rule flies directly in the face of the state's transitional and legal role in addressing air flies in the state of wyoming's quality issues. strong and common sense approach when congress passed the 1977 to addressing reasonable haze in amendments to the clean air act to regulate regional haze, they a cost-effective manner. the e.p.a.'s approach would be much more costly and have a very clearly gave the states the tremendous impact on the economy lead authority. and quality of life, not only in now the e.p.a. has tossed them in the back seat and grabbed the wyoming but in the neighboring states as well.

steering wheel to head this clearly, we can't allow that to effort on its own previously happen. determined direction. preliminary estimates by the that isn't the kind of teamwork state of wyoming show that the best available retrofit and cooperation congress intended. the goal of regulating regional technologies and long-term haze is to improve visibility in strategies under the proposed rule would cost well over $1 our national parks and wilderness areas. billion, plus millions more every year in additional operational costs that gets gets passed 0en to the consumer. i mentioned that cheyenne needed some additional power plant and they went out and found the best natural gas technology available and then found out that it wouldn't meet the new requirements. that's the bes best worldwide technologies and it won't meet the requirements they want to put on it. those costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy prices. every family knows when the price of energy goes up, it's their economic security as well as their hopes and dreams for the future that are threatened and all too often destroyed.

the e.p.a.'s determineation to take such an appropriation would be understandable if it would create better results than the state plan. it doesn't. it admits that. $1 billion in cost and then millions more each year and it isn't going to give any better results than what the state plan is? what sense does that make? that's another reason why it makes no sense for the e.p.a. to overstep its authority under the clean air act to force wyoming to comply with an all-too-costly plan that will provide the people of wyoming with no real. again, $1 billion up front, millions year, no real benefits. the plan doesn't even take into accounter sources of haze in the state such as wildfires. we have those year, and they're a problem on wyoming's plains and mountains. it is a major cause of haze in

my home state. it makes no sense for the e.p.a. to draft a plan that fails into take into consideration one of the biggest natural causes of the very problem tear a supposed to be solving -- they're supposed to be solving, and that is one that can be 1068d. -- that can be solved. the state of wyoming spent over a decade producing a plan that is reasonable, productive, cost-effective, and focused on the problem. the e.p.a. has taken an unnecessary and unreasonable approach that violates the legislatively granted job of state regulators to address this issue. we cannot afford to increase the cost of energy to families, schools, and vital public services by implementing an e.p.a. plan that won't adequately address the issue of regional haze. again, there will be no noticeable effect. $1 billion up front, millions each year, no noticeable effect. what sense does that make?

i know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter and support my amendment that will stop the eac e.p.a. in its tracks and end the efforts to address this very issue. wyoming's plan which results in more than ten years' worth of effort should be give an chance to work. it is not only fair, it's the right thing to do. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask consent that the pending quorum call be lifted? the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm here on the, what we're calling the shaheen-portman bill, the energy efficiency bill. and i note that the lead sponsor of the bill, senator shaheen of new hampshire, as well as the ranking member of the energy committee, senator murkowski, are both here. and i'm cleared by them to take a minute on the floor right now and talk about an amendment that i would like to have offered and

voted on and added to this bill. we call it the pay for success amendment. it's amendment number 1852. and what it would do is something that is quite simple. proof for taxpayers and would ultimately save money and save energy. and that is for the department of housing and urban development for properties that they manage, if they don't have the capital to be able to go back into that property and do retro fits and install efficiency measures that will bring down their cost of electricity, this amendment would allow them to contract with the private sector to bring in private capital to achieve those energy savings. and there are significant restrictions in here that will

protect taxpayers. any money that goes back to these investors comes out of energy savings. only out of energy savings. if something goes wrong and the energy savings don't materialize, the investors lose the taxpayers and the government are held harmless. thanks to an amendment to the bill as we are drafting it by senator coburn of oklahoma, we've even specifically exempted the administrative costs of h.u.d. in administering the bill. those have to be paid before the investors take their profits. but once the investors are paid back, you now have a more efficient building and savings for taxpayers over the long haul. in addition, it reduces our energy footprint, increases our energy independence and reduces h.u.d. buildings' contribution to ill effects like pollution and climate change. so now is not the time to call

it up. we're at too early a stage in the proceedings, but i did want to take a moment to urge my colleagues to support this bill. we discussed it at length with senator collins ohen we were trying to add it to the transportation and h.u.d. appropriations bill. and i believe we've worked through her office's issues and through senator coburn's issues. and if anybody else has any concerns, we look forward to hearing from them. but i think this is a bomb proof piece of legislation from the taxpayers' point of view that opens up a niche for private capital to come in and earn return on vary investing by capitalizing on opportunity savings we have. with that, i yield the floor and look forward to a future opportunity to discuss the bill further and with any luck call it up for a positive vote. i thank the senator shaheen and yield the floor.

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: before the senator from rhode island leaves, i want to commend him for this effort. i think it's a great proposal. i haven't had a chance to look at all the details, so i look forward to that. but using performance contracting to provide for savings on energy costs is a very effective way to address the upfront costs for these kinds of retrofits. and as you point out, the person who is doing the contracting, the private company, is assuming the burden of those costs, and yet the benefits are going to taxpayers and ultimately the contractor who does the retrofits is also going to benefit over the long term. and those savings will keep coming back year after year. so once the initial cost is paid off, taxpayers will continue to get those savings year after

year. as governor, we started retrofitting state buildings exactly this way, and it saved the taxpayers of new hampshire hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. it is still saving them that. and also thousands of pounds of pollution, because as we know, 40% of our energy is used by buildings. and if we save on that energy use in buildings, then that saves not only on those costs, but it also saves on the pollution that comes from heating those buildings and cooling them. i commend you for this effort. i look forward to having the chance to debate it on the floor and to having a chance to review the proposal in greater detail. mr. whitehouse: i thank the senator from new hampshire for those comments. i want to commend her for her leadership on this bill. this is a wonderful bill to have gotten to and she and senator portman put an normal mouse --

normallous amount of -- an enormous amount of work to putting us here. the senator from new hampshire brought this up in a private discussion we had on the floor a moment ago, and that is how does c.b.o., the congressional budget office, feel about this amendment. and we have an e-mail from the congressional budget office saying that this will not add to the deficit. it is not -- it is deficit-neutral. in point of fact, it will actually be deficit-positive in the long haul. but all we need from them is the assurance it is deficit-neutral and they treat it as deficit-neutral. as the senator from new hampshire properly pointed out, the benefit isn't just on the energy side, isn't just on the pollution side. somebody goes in and installs the new energy efficiency equipment, installs the new windows, insulates the roof, does whatever it is that will achieve these savings. and that is work, and that is jobs, and that is helpful to our economy. with that, i'll again yield the floor with my appreciation to the senator from new hampshire.

mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise to honor the memory of jesse owens, an olympic record breaker and pioneer on the track and off the track who was born 100 years ago tomorrow. born in alabama as the youngest of ten children, james cleveland owens moved to cleveland, ohio,

with his family at the age of 9, leaving the south during the great migration, those several decades between 1910, roughly, and 1970. jesse's family came north seeking economic opportunity and greater personal freedom. his father left his work as a sharecropper in the south, something difficult to do because so often the landowner held those sharecroppers by holding real or imagined debt over their head -- over their heads. he left his work as a sharecropper in the south and found a job in the steel industry in cleveland, ohio. jesse james cleveland owens enrolled in bolton elementary school on the east side of cleveland. because of his strong southern accent, when the teacher asked him his name and he said j.c., the speech teacher misheard it and started calling him jesse, a name that stuck. while in junior high, he met

charles riley who taught him about physical education and coached the track team. charles riley nurtured jesse's obvious talent, helping him to grow stronger athletically and set long-term goals that served him well as he went on to cleveland east technical school. my hometown of mansfield, ohio, started hosting the storied mansfield relays, one of the biggest relays, maybe the biggest in the country, beginning in 1927, a sporting event that drew athletes from six states and canada. i remember my family in the 1960's hosting many of the visiting athletes that came to our town to compete in the mansfield relays. among these many promising athletes, obviously prior to my parents doing that, none shined brighter than the sprinter from just an hour up north. at the mansfield relays, jesse owens sharpened his focus and won the 1932 and 1933 relays for east tech, setting records that lasted into my childhood, into the 1960's and 1970's. he later went on to attend the ohio state university where he

is known as the buckeye bullet, winning a record eight individual ncaa championships. the story goes that at ann arbor, at the big ten track meet one year in ann arbor, michigan, while competing in a 45-minute period, jesse owens won -- set three world records. we're used to seeing college athletes that are revered today, but in his day, owens could not live on campus due to a lack of housing for black students. he could not stay at the same hotels when his track team traveled or eat at the same restaurants as the white players on that team while they were traveling with him. but he achieved global fame and heroism status because of what he did during the 1936 olympics in berlin. while a hateful regime in germany hoped to use the olympics to promote the aryan race, to promulgate a

wrongheaded, dangerous and inherently racist belief in the superiority of that race, jesse owens turned this theory on its head. he won four gold medals in berlin. he set world records in three events while tying for a world record in a fourth event. he showed that talent and sportsmanship transcended race, and he embarrassed an evil dictator who hoped to manipulate the olympic games to further his political agenda. interestingly, adolf hitler refused to shake hands with jesse owens when he won one of those events. the international olympic committee told the german government that -- that hitler either would shake hands with all the winners or none of the winners, and hitler -- the story goes hitler refused to come back and observe the olympics. again, a testament to the heroism and the courage and the discipline of james cleveland

"jesse" owens. despite these achievements, in the rose garden and oval office greetings that today's olympians are accustomed to, jesse owens never received congratulations or recognition by president roosevelt or president truman. it was only during the presidency of dwight eisenhower that -- in a different time, beginning to be a different time in race relations in this country, that a president of the united states actually recognized jesse owens' achievement. he was -- already was by most measurements the best athlete in the world, but he returned to the united states of america, a black man in the 1930's to face economic challenges and racial discrimination that are far too familiar to far too many americans. he continued to travel and inspire athletes and fans across the globe. i had the honor of meeting jesse owens when i was 12 years old when he was the speaker at my brother bob's high school graduation in 1965.

jesse owens worked alongside the state department to promote goodwill in asia and worked in 1950 to promote democracy abroad as part of a cold war effort. think about that. a black man who was the best athlete in the world was a hero to large numbers of americans, black and white, in 1936, standing up in many ways against the fascist machine of adolf hitler, not being recognized by a president of the united states who was winning a war against hitler ultimately, yet he went out five years later after that war to promote democracy abroad as part of a cold war effort. still proud of his country, still knowing our country had work to do. 1973, he was appointed to the board of directors of the u.s. olympic committee where he worked to ensure the best training and conditions for u.s. athletes. he lent his skill and his talents to various charitable groups, notably the boys club of america.

1976, jesse owens finally, finally received the presidential recognition he deserved and was presented with the presidential medal of freedom from president ford. jesse owens was a pioneer despite facing adversity, he had the strength of mind and the discipline common to almost all great athletes to become the most elite of athletes, despite being treated differently and shamefully from other athletes of his stature, he went on to shatter records. despite competing in the darkest of days globally he did his part standing up to fascism, dispelling racism and promoting unity. tomorrow we celebrate the hundredth birthday, a hero to all americans, james cleveland jesse owens. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. hurricane katrina i ask that the quorum call be lived. officer without objection. mrs. shaheen: ask that the senate be in a period of morning business until 7:00 p.m. with senators prime ministered to speak phon for up to ten minutes eachment officer without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i ask that the quorum call be resumed. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum

call: quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed in morning business. the presiding officer: senator, we're in a quorum call. ms. collins: thank you. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed as if in morning business for up to 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. hreupbs thank you, mr. president. mr. president -- ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the decision on whether or not to authorize the president of the united states to use the military might of our great nation against another country is the most significant vote that a senator can cost. the constitution vests this responsibility in congress, a duty that rests heavily on the shoulders of each and every member. we are now engaged in a serious debate about what the appropriate response should be

to the horrific use of chemical weapons by the regime of syrian president assad, who killed his own people using chemical weapons on august 21. this was not the first use of chemical weapons by president assad. he launched several smaller-scale attacks, murdering his citizens and notably many, if not all of those attacks, occurred before the president -- occurred after the president drew his red line a year ago. but it was not until the large-scale august 21 attack of this year which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,400

people that president obama decided that a military strike against syria was warranted. the fact is assad violated the international convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and crossed president obama's red line many times during the past year. deciding whether or not to grant the president this authority is a very difficult decision. i have participated in numerous discussions with the president, the vice president, and experts in and out of government. i've attended many classified briefings as a member of the senate select committee on intelligence, and i have carefully weighed the assessments of the intelligence

community and military and state department officials. my constituents have also provided me with valuable insights that helped to guide my decision. after much deliberation and thought, i have decided that i cannot support the resolution that was approved by the senate foreign relations committee last week. mr. president, one of the criteria for the use of military force is surely whether or not the adversary poses an imminent threat to the american people. more than once president obama has stated that syria's chemical weapons and delivery systems do not pose a direct imminent

threat to the united states. neither the united states nor any of our allies have been attacked with chemical weapons. instead, president obama justifies the attack that he is proposing as a response to the violation of international norms, despite the fact that we currently lack international partners to enforce the convention on chemical weapons through military means. mr. president, although the term limited airstrikes sounds less threatening, the fact is even limited airstrikes constitute an act of war. if bombs were dropped from the air or cruise missiles were

launched into an american city, we would certainly consider that to be an act of war. and that is why this decision is fraught with consequences. american military strikes against the assad regime, in my judgment, risk entangling the united states in the middle of a protracted, dangerous and ugly civil war. general martin demsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has warned us that the use of u.s. military force -- quote -- "cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious, and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict."

end quote. the introduction of american armed forces into this violent conflict could escalate to the point where we are perceived to be or actually are involved in a syrian civil war or a proxy war with hezbollah or iran. in this complex conflict, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to sort out the good guys from the bad. there is no doubt that assad is a brutal, ruthless dictator who murders his own citizens and who is supported by thousands of hezbollah terrorist fighters. the opposition, however, is not

pure. it is now been infiltrated by not one, but two affiliates of al qaeda as well as by criminal gangs. caught in the middle are millions of syrians who simply want to leave peaceful lives. the tragic result has been more than 100,000 people killed, four million displaced internally, and two million refugees. we do not know how assad or his allies would respond to a u.s. military attack, but an a symmetric attack aimed at one of our embassies or other american interests abroad

certainly is one potential response. my concern is that reprisals followed by subsequent retaliations, followed by still more reprisals could lead to an escalation of violence that never was intended by the president but which may well be the result of the first strike. i have raised this issue directly with administration officials. since the one and done strike, as retired general michael hayden puts it, may well not work. i have asked the administration what would they do if assad waits until the 91st day when the authorization for the use of military force expires and then conducts an attack using

chemical weapons that kills a much smaller number of people? what would we do then? in each case where i have raised this question, i have been told that we would likely launch another military strike. in addition to my concern about being dragged into the syrian civil war, i questioned whether the proposed military response would be more effective in achieving the goal of eliminating assad's stockpile of chemical weapons than a diplomatic approach would be. let us be clear the strikes proposed by the president would not eliminate assad's chemical weapons nor his means of

delivering them. in the president's own words, the purpose of these strikes is to degrade assad's capabilities to deliver chemical weapons. indeed, mr. president, you will not find any military or intelligence official who believes that the strike contemplated by the administration would eliminate serious chemical weapons stockpiles or all of the delivery systems. general dempsey wrote to armed services committee chairman carl levin that even if an explicit military mission to secure syria's chemical weapons were undertaken, it would result in the control of some but not all chemical weapons in syria, and

that is not what is being discussed because that would undoubtedly involve boots on the ground. according to the president, the purpose of his more narrow objective is to deliver a calculated message to convince assad not to use his remaining chemical weapons and delivery systems ever again, but would such a strike be effective in preventing assad from using these weapons again on a small scale after he has absorbed this strike just to deliver his own message that he retains the capability to do so? assad would retain a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons,

and he knows that we did not respond to smaller chemical weapons attacks that he undertook before the august 21, 2013, event. so on the one hand, the president is seeking to conduct a precision military strike that is sufficient to deter assad from using any chemical weapons again. on the other hand, he wants to narrow the scope of a military strike so that assad does not perceive this act as a threat to his regime. yet the president has previously stated that u.s. policy is the removal of assad. well, administration officials have gone out of their way to state that the military strikes are only to deter and degrade

assad's chemical weapons use, and they are not intended to pick sides in the cold war. the text of the resolution before us is at odds with the administration's repgz. the text states that it is the policy of the united states to -- quote -- "change the momentum on the battlefield in syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in syria. well, mr. president, no one could ever consider the assad dictatorship to be a democratic government in syria. furthermore, on september 3, secretary of state john kerry

testified that it is -- quote - "not insignificant that to deprive assad of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity actually deprives him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war, and that has an impact. that's a very mixed message from this administration about the purpose of these strikes. now, all of us want to see a peaceful syria no longer led by assad nor controlled by the radical islamic extremists that are part of his opposition, but it's military action that could well get us involved in syria's

civil war the right answer? when i think about the proper response to assad's abhorrent use of chemical weapons, i am mindful of the suffering and death that have occurred, as well as the international conventions banning chemical weapons. since this is an international norm, however, where are our international partners? the united nations, nato, the arab league? i have grave reservations about undertaking an act of war to enforce an international convention without the international support we have previously had when undertaking similar action in the past such

as in kosovo, afghanistan and even iraq. while nato's secretary-general has expressed support for consequences, nato's north atlantic council, which is the body that approves military action for nato, has not approved this military action. the arab league has condemned with words the use of chemical weapons, but there is yet to be any arab league statement that explicitly endorses military action or promises to be engaged in that action. even our ally who has been most supportive, france, has asked for a delay to allow the u.n.

inspectors to deliver their report next week, and let me add that i believe that report early next week will verify that it was the assad regime that used sarin gas. that is my expectation. a military strike may well enforce the international norm with respect to chemical weapons, but at the same time would it weaken the international norm of limiting military action to instances of self-defense or those cases where we have the support of the international community or at least our allies in nato or the arab league? in addressing this difficult and

tragic crisis in syria, the administration initially presented us with only two choices -- take military action or make no response at all. i reject and have rejected from the start the notion that the united states has only two choices of undertaking an act of war or doing nothing in response to president assad's attack on his citizens. there are a variety of nonmilitary responses to consider that may well be more effective. the most promising of these options proposed by the russians, one of assad's strongest allies, would place syria's chemical weapons stockpile in the custody of the

international community before they would ultimately be destroyed. mr. president, i am not naive about trusting the russians. my point is that this option may well be in russia's own interests, would be more effective in securing the stockpile of chemical weapons in syria, and would involve the international community. this debt diplomatic alternative would put syria's chemical weapons under verified international control and would once and for all prevent assad or anyone else in syria from using those weapons. a risk of attacking assad's facilities is that the chemical weapons could fall into the

hands of terrorist elements in the country. that risk would be eliminated if the weapons were removed completely from syria. one of the arguments advanced by proponents of the authorization for the use of military force resolution is that america's credibility is on the line. this is a legitimate concern. to be sure, it was unfortunate that the president drew a line in the sand without first having a well-vetted plan, consulting with congress and obtaining the necessary support for doing so. i would maintain, however, that the credibility of our great

nation is beyond that of just one statement by the president, even in his important capacity as commander in chief. the credibility of the united states is backed by a military that is the most advanced and capable in the world. the strength of our military sends the clear, unmistakable message that the united states is capable of exerting overwhelming force whenever we decide that it is the right thing to do and it is necessary to do so. it would be a mistake for our adversaries to interpret a single vote regarding a military response to syria's chemical weapons program as having

ramifications for our willingness to use force when our country or our allies face direct imminent threats, especially with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities. at the very least, we have an obligation to pursue all nonmilitary options that may well be more effective and -- in preventing the future house use of assad's chemical weapons than the military option the president has proposed to undertake. for these reasons, should the authorization for the use of military force approved by the senate foreign relations committee come to the floor, i

shall cast my vote in opposition my hope, however, is that the negotiations underway with the russians will pave the way for the removal of chemical stockpiles from syria and for their verified ultimate destruction. that is the best outcome for this crisis, and that would lead to a safer world. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i understand members can speak up to 10 minutes or so? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. ms. landrieu: i'd like to speak

about an issue separated from the international concerns we all share because closer to home there was an action taken today by the house of representatives that has me extremely concerned as the senior senator from louisiana, and a leader in our delegation and an issue i've worked on literally since the first day that i came to the senate now almost 17 years ago. today the house of representatives, unfortunately, in presenting their wrda bill, which is a bill that was negotiated at great length, with great skill by senator barbara boxer, the chair of the committee of jurisdiction and the ranking member, senator vitter, who did an outstanding job for the country and for louisiana, negotiated quite skillfully a bill that was very balanced. it contained no earmarks, as has been eliminated by the

majority of the congress. it did give a green light for projects that had received a positive chief's report, which is the signal to go forward with the project for flood protection or navigation or dredging under the jurisdiction of the corps of engineers. and unfortunately for unexplained public reasons today -- which we will find out as soon as we can and report -- the house of representatives, the leadership decided to drop probably the most important project in the bill for louisiana, and that project is-hour gansa to the gulf. the saddest thing about this, mr. president, the saddest thing about all of this that the house removed this project is this project has already been authorized three times in the

last 15 years by the united states senate and twice by the house of representatives. and the people that would be benefited by this project, which are about 200,000 people that live in south louisiana, tear abone parish, the same area battered by katrina, ike, gustav, ike and the oil spill, the same people who suffered through flood after flood after flood, the same people who have tampled themselves gotten $200 million of their own money to build phase one have now been told no by the house of representatives for what reasons i cannot understand. they have gone through all the processes required, they have waited in line, a line that should never really have been there because they were given a yes but as you know one of the corps of engineers rules, they can say yes to your project like

ten -- like initially and then it takes so long to get to your project because we have a very inefficient system, you've probably had this happen in your state, if the estimates then come in at 20% over the original estimates, the largest -- it kicks you out and you have ch you have to start all over again. they started all over again. that's the tragedy of this action. we were furious that they had to start all over again. but that was the law. so they did. and they got a positive chief's report in june. and now the house of representatives just ash tarell tarell -- ash tarellly decides even with, they're taking morganza to the gulf out of the bill. i am calling on the louisiana delegation to stand up, particularly members that are in the public policy, the study committee, i think we have a leader of that committee,

congressman steve scalise who is my partner in the restore act and has been a very able leader in our declaration, to -- delegation, to absolutely put their foot down on this wrda bill moving any further in the house of representatives until we we can get justice for this project. our we'll people are doing everything we can to elevate our homes, fight for fair flood insurance, tax ourselves to build levees. we've traveled to found engineers in the netherlands because we don't have enough engineers in washington who understand you can live safely below sea level and sometimes you have to because that's where the ports are. we don't have the luxury of living on tops of mountains, we're running the mississippi river, we're not running a ski lodge in veil. they're not living in mansions, they're not living in condos, they are living in fishing villages and fishing camps and

in very middle-class neighborhoods trying to make a living for themselves, their families, their communities and keep this country operating. we're running the biggest oil and gas operations out of humble, louisiana, the town the house of representatives has just literally made defenseless. they have no levees. new orleans now after katrina and jefferson parish and st. bernard parish have $14 billion of taxpayer money invested. that's a lot of money. and i know some people in the country get very aggravated about that. why did they get $14 billion? the country should have given us a billion ten years ago and we could have saved them 14. but the congress decided not to do that. we asked, we begged, we pleaded, no, no, no, no. so one day the levees broke and then the bill came could you and it was a big bill, $14 billion. wait till the next bill comes through. now, in that whole time frame,

that whole time frame where our people are begging, drowning, houses going underwater, begging for help, the government keeps telling us no, no, no, no, we send $161 billion to this treasury from off of our shore, $161 billion, and we come up here and try to get a billion dollars for this levee, we're told we can't afford it. i tell you i don't have the power to do this. i do not. but if i did and if i were the governor, and i don't think he has the power but if i could, but he doesn't and i don't -- by shut down every rig in the gulf of mexico until this united states congress gives the people of louisiana the money we need to keep ourselves safe from drowning, from flooding, and i'd turn the lights off in

washington, and in new york and in maine. we are tired of it. the people in our state cannot survive without levees and the country cannot survive without our people living where we do to fish, to run the maritime, to run the oil and gas industry, and homer, louisiana, does not deserve this. terrabon parish doesn't deserve it and our delegation is not going to stand for it. my message to the speaker of the house and my delegation in the house and that house is that bill will never see the light of day unless morganza is put back. i don't know how they're going to do it. please don't tell me there's not enough money. we send alone, louisiana, forget texas, forget alabama, forget mississippi, louisiana alone every year sends about $5 billion to the federal treasury just from oil and gas severance

taxes. not counting sales tax, income tax, property taxes, other taxes, property taxes wouldn't come here but income taxes would come here, corporate income taxes would come here. that's not even counting that. and i am tired of begging for nickels and dimes. so the house of representatives better put morganza to the gulf back in that project and number two i haven't read the whole bill, i was just informed about it so i may have to take this back off the record but i was told that -- and also what they did was say, well, we're not going to approve projects that had a chief's report after our committee meeting in june and then they put some language in that says something like and no project can receive -- can go forward until they have a committee meeting of the house of representatives, so they're basically engaging in earmarks

again. in other words, having voted to take earmarks out -- i wasn't for that, i didn't go along with it but they did, the leadership of the house, take earmarks out, they're trying to put earmarks back in so the only way you get back in is if you go through their committee and get their project approved which is earmarking in a different way. so on two fronts, i think the house is wrong, i think they were wrong to take morganza out, and the third thing and the final thing i'm going to say about this which is the saddest thing because mor ganza has to go back in and there may be other projects i'm not aware buff the bill that left the senate was fair, without earmarks, based on the science and the process of the corps of engineers. but to all of my friends in the senate, even when i get morganza back in there and our delegation does, the problem for all of us is that there's

still going to be $60 billion of authorized projects for all of our states, and the total budget of the corps of engineers next year, that senator feinstein chairs and i serve on the appropriations committee for the corps of engineers -- will have only $1.6 billion for new construction. and the total corps budget is only about $5 billion. so think about it. isn't this the silliest thing? we have $40 billion of already authorized wrda projects. the wrda bill now has $20 billion mine uz ma -- minus morganza to the gulf which they took out after 20 years of our people suffering. they have that 20, plus morganza and then we'll have $60 billion and all we have is a few billion dollars to fund it.

it is a system that is so broken and so unfair. and every state feels this. it's not just louisiana. what people hear is my strong voice, i hope for the people of louisiana, we feel it the most, we feel it most frequently, just because of our geography. but every community in the country is suffering from this. we do not have enough infrastructure, water infrastructure. our ports are not where they need to be, our rivers are not dredged to the depths they need to be, we don't have enough to maintain our maritime industry in this country and this is undermining our economic strength and our international competitiveness besides being terribly unfair to people that happen to live along the coast which is 60% of our population. so i'm just sending a little warning signal to the house of representatives, there is no way, no way that this wrda bill is going to go anywhere without

the marganza to the gulf in it. it's not happening. this is one of these sort of do-or-die issues for the louisiana delegation. we have waited for 20 years for this project. it is justified from every angle, shape, form, it's been studied to death, the local people have put up $200 million of their own money, and i am not going home to tell them that they're not going to get the project. so i would strongly suggest that our house delegation particularly our leader steve schees, -- steve scalise, who was chairman of the republican study grope group have a long talk with the chairman of the committee and have a talk about how to get the project back in the bill. i want to move to another subject. i want to introduce at this time two amendments to the underlying bill that we're trying to debate, which is a very important bill on energy efficiency. i know we can't debate any

amendments but i think i can file two amendments -- i can file two amendments. i want to just tell you, mr. president, and my colleagues the first, i'm offering with senator wicker and senator pryor would ensure the green building rating systems which are adopted by g.s.a. currently and new ones under this bill that is put forth by senator shaheen and senator portman, which i support the bill, do not put at a disadvantage the materials that meet the new standards of energy efficiency in the underlying bill. there was some question about how the bill was initially worded when it came out of the committee of energy that it would disqualify some dough mess stick materials. and that would have a very devastating effect on our lumber

and forestry industry, as well as others. so that amendment, i'm going to send to the desk and hope that we'll get through this skirmish over health care and get to some important -- very important amendments on about -- you know, that will help us create jobs in america and in louisiana and help our industries. secondly, i want to offer an amendment for senator wicker and myself that would ensure that small companies are excused from the requirements to submit their products for expensive third-party testing to achieve energy star certification. this is really a small business issue, and i think this is acceptable to all parties -- i'm not sure that there's any opposition to -- actually, to either one of these amendments, which is good. we've worked very hard with the parties that might have a different view to see if we could find some common ground, and i think we have.

so for these amendments, i'm going to submit both of them for the record and hope we can get to senator shaheen and senator portman's bill. they've worked very hard. they've built a great coalition. and, again be, you know, this is a bill that could create lots and lots of jobs and opportunity for our people. and while there are a lot of members talking about how so-and-so should focus on jobs and he or she should do this or that, we have a bill whose essence is to create really good jobs in america and to save us energy cost, to reduce cost to taxpayers and consumers. this bill was voted, i believe, unanimously out of the energy committee. and if not, it had an overwhelming support from republicans and democrats. ron wyden, the chairman of our committee, who is a very able and centrist leader on these matters, has worked very hard. so i'm very familiar with the benefits of this bill.

i'm sorry it's got caught up in the politics of health care, which is unfortunate. but it is important that we get to this energy bill and it's most important that the house of representatives fix a terrible thing for louisiana which happened just a few hours ago when they stripped now for the 20th year in a row a project that has been certified, stamped, sealed, and approved by the corps of engineers for comafe-- for whatever reason i do not know. i hope they will fix it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

hoe ma 4 quorum call: quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 222. sproeup the clerk will report. the clerk: -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report. is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, and that there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that emmet bin nunn a fellow in the office of senator coons be granted floor privileges during consideration of s. 1392. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i commend the managers of the energy efficiency bill.

senator wyden, chairman of the full committee; senator murkowski, the ranking member; and the sponsors of this legislation: senators shaheen and port m.a.p.. for their -- portman. for their work in bringing this bill to the floor and managing it today. we've had a number of senators who have tried to offer amendments. i was told by senator shaheen that she had a dozen or so bipartisan amendments that were ready to be offered. there's been an attempt to offer amendments dealing with the bill, but there's a little hurdle there; something that's totally nongermane has been offered. one of the amendments that senator udall of colorado would like to offer is a bipartisan amendment to promote energy retro fitting of schools. senator bennet of colorado seeks

to offer a bipartisan amendment to facilitate best practices in commercial real estate energy efficiency. senator klobuchar would like to offer her amendment for energy retrofitting of nonprofit buildings. once again, mr. president, once again my republican colleagues can't help themselves. they have objected to the consideration of any of these amendments or any other amendments until the senate considers an amendment, not only considers the amendment but is guaranteed a vote on it. pretty interesting situation. his amendment, of course, everyone knows it's only for, look, i gotcha. the senator's amendment is the sort of amendment that is to

help get some headlines in the newspaper, some kind of a news story, recognizing that it's for show. but be that as it may, we'll work on matters to craft a way forward on this bill perhaps. or we may have to take the bill down. so we'll make that decision at a subsequent time. it's unfortunate, but that's the world, political world we live in now, with tea party-driven house of representatives. and by the way, of course, everyone knows by now that they couldn't pass their continuing resolution today. so that's off the table. they were going to do that not today but tomorrow, and they pulled that down. and we have our folks over here who try to outmatch what they do over there. so we wind up getting nothing done, mr. president. such a shame. i ask consent that when the

senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., thursday, september 12, 2013. and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business for an hour, that the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1392, energy savings and industrial competitiveness act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is nothing further to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> pain and suffering caused by chemical weapons. in the meantime, republican leaders and i have agreed that this is very important.

the chairman of the committee has talked me several times over a period of more than a year and we are moving this legislation forward. and as we indicate, we do not always agree with the discussions going on. and at times we must use the use of force. so we look forward to these amendments in passing this important piece of legislation. i will ask for consent that there be no amendments promotions noted or the use of

military force. and we certainly think it is appropriate that we have this time and statements. and we would hope -- i would hope, mr. president, madam president, that the time has expired when you allow for amendments.

>> without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed under the previous order. it is agree to and the clerk will report the bill. >> in his 26 mission over nazi germany and captured as a prisoner of war, where he would serve for the remainder as well. so i learned at a very young age

i appreciate the fact that president obama came to capitol hill yesterday and spoke to both the democratic and the republican conference and i further appreciate very much the fact that president obama spoke to the american people last night and i actually wish that he had done it a little earlier since the chemical weapons attacks occurred on the 21st of august and it was roughly three weeks after that but he finally spoke to the american people and i think it would've been much better for him and the country if he had done it sooner and demonstrated a greater urgency. but i'm glad he did it he has an

obligation to tell the american people why going to war is absolutely essential to u.s. national security. he has an obligation to lay out clear and realistic objectives. and he has an obligation to explain how military intervention fits within america's broader foreign policy strategies. i've used the word war advisedly because sometimes i think we did caught up in political correctness around here, talking about workplace violence at fort hood and overseeing contingency operations is a veteran of the united states marine corps who

served 40 years told me this just last week when i counseled and asked for his advice on what the president was asking us to do and he said that any time you kill people in the name of united states government, it is an act of war. so like others in this chamber over the last few weeks, i have attended meetings with the president and i have had the honor of being in his presence and listening to him twice and other administration officials and i have sat through hours of classified briefings and the department of defense and the state department. i've listened as senator kerry described in what i thought as a

result of fatigue and i can only imagine what he had been going through, trying to resolve this issue. he described the strike is unbelievably small. i was frther surprised wheni heard the press secretaries say no, it wasn't a gap, he did not misspeak great miss the great we all misspeak from time to time. and we should have used other words. senator kerry and now senator kerry who is the secretary said i did not misspeak. i was encouraged to ear te president adessed the nation. because before you take your case overseas, you should first make the case to the american people.

and administration officials have repeatedly said that all u.s. military of intervention would not seek to topple the saudi regime. even though it has been the policy of the u.s. government since at least august of 2011. they have said that military campaigns would not seek to change the momentum of the civil war. even though as i mentioned a moment ago, our government's official policy is one of regime change that assad must go. my view is that it allows him to remain in power with one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons -- it would not promote u.s. national security interests. indeed, it is not hard to

imagine how that kind of intervention could actually backfire and end up being a propaganda disaster. many of us are concerned about upholding america's credibility, particularly when it comes to matters like this and i share their concerns. but it would really help if before we launched an ineffectual attack that gives our enemies a major propaganda victory, that we have a more coherent plan and strategy for accomplishing our goals. you know, murphy's law, what can go wrong will go wrong and there is a murphy's law award, perhaps many of them, one of them is that no plan to go to war

survives the first contact in tact. in other words, you can plan to shoot the first bullet, but you cannot control what happens after that. in all likelihood, such an attack would hurt our credibility and reduce u.s. pu support for fe interventions. this is what i mean. if we were to take this military attack against assad in order to punish them for using chemical weapons, which is a horrific act on his part, a barbaric act on his part, it left him in power in what is he going to tell the rest of the world? he is going to say that the world's greatest military force took a shot at me and i am still here. i am still in power.

i want an america lost. and that is how i can see this backfiring and we must keep intact particularly as we look at larger looming threats like the arabian aspiration for nuclear weapons. i would like to be clear that i would be willing to support a military operation but only if our intervention met certain criteria. if you could address this nightmare scenario scenario falling into the hands of terrorists, it is not just his use of chemical weapons on his own people, but the potential that those chemical weapons could get in the hands of al qaeda and other terrorist organizations in harm americans

or american interests around the world. the second criteria, i can support a resolution if it involved the use of decisive and overwhelming force without self-imposed limitations. and without leaking to our enemies what our tactics are and what it is we would not do. and one of the greatest tools is the element of surprise. i mean, why in the world would we tell the sheer lack what we are going to do secretary kerry said it would be a small attack. but why would we tell them what we will do? eliminating both the ambiguity

of our position and the potential threat of even more serious and overwhelming military force. i would be willing to support and authorization it was an interval part of a larger and coherent syria policy. i still remember general petraeus had a simple command, covering iraq and afghanistan, talking about policies and he said perhaps the most important question when you go to war is how does this and? so we need to clearly define what we are trying to achieve with what the president requested. and we need an outline of a realistic path to get there.

i also believe that it is important we have a sizable coalition of nations, each of which is contributing to the war effort. this is an amazing reversal for the president since the time that he was a senator and a presidential candidate. to say that we are not going to the united nations. and i understand why. because of china and russia and their veto and we are not going to go to nato and resign going at it alone. and if it is true that this red line is the international community's red line, then the international community needs to contribute to the effort to hold assad accountable. the problem is that president obama has requested authorization for the use of

military force under these circumstances and it fails to each of these criteria. he has failed to make the case that a short and limited campaign would promote vital interests and our national security. he has failed to lay out a clear and realistic objective that could be obtained through the use of military force, and he has failed to offer a compelling description of how his proposed intervention would advance america's broader foreign policy strategy. indeed, how it would advance his own policy, a regime change. therefore, if we were asked to vote on an authorization under these circumstances, i would vote no. and i am under no illusion and none of us are about the depravity of bashar al-assad.

his regime has committed unspeakable acts of rape and torture and murder in the chemical weapons attacks, by the way, by secretary kerry's own testimony. there were 11 earlier uses of chemical weapons but they were smaller. but can you imagine the difficulty of imposing a red line when the red line was crossed 11 times before and the president finally decides to try to enforce it. but there is no question in the use of chemical weapons showing a disregard for human life and the cruel desire to terrorize the syrian population. like others, i have consistently demanded that russia stop arming bashar al-assad and stop defending him and blocking the

u.n. security council resolution eating and abetting the barbaric atrocities against his own people. i would like to see a free democratic syria as much as everyone else. but that does not mean that i will vote to support a reckless military intervention that could jeopardize our most important national security interests. there have been a lot of people that have opined on the president's request, some better informed than others. when i thought that was particularly convincing was major general robert scales. he wrote that as the path to war chosen by the obama administration violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving a

mass and having a defined and attainable objective. we know that the latest chemical weapons attack occurred on august 21, president obama did not address the nation for three weeks until three weeks later. the syrians have had weeks to prepare for any impending military intervention and no doubt include the chemical weapons in the civilian population centers to protect them from any attack. they have undoubtably moved their other military equipment to other locations as well. it makes the potential for success of any military intervention much less and reveals that there is no real coherent policy in this regard. consider what happened last monday, secretary of state john

kerry made what he calls an off-the-cuff remark about the possibility of canceling the missile strike if assad turn over all of his chemical weapons. in the same statement he said that he wasn't really sure that that would work or if he could be serious about it. but he did say it. russia, of course, immediately responded by offering the broker of international monitors. after spending weeks trying to make the case for war, president obama has asked that the vote in this chamber be canceled and is apparently treating this as a serious diplomatic breakthrough. i would caution all of us, the american people, and all of our colleagues to be skeptical for

good reason that this lifeline that vladimir putin has now shown the administration. i would remind our colleagues that russia is not in full compliance with the chemical weapons convention. neither is it compliance with nuclear arms obligations that are subject to an international treaty. the litany of russian offenses as long. but i would remind president obama that since he launched the so-called russian reset, they have sent advanced weaponry to the saudi regime and stolen elections and stoked anti-americanism. and made threats over missile defense systems and it has

expelled from russia and hold out the cooperative drug program and has banned u.s. citizens from adopting russian children and offered asylum to an us a weaker edwards noted. in short, we have very little reason to believe that and the russians are not part of the problem in syria. they are part of the problem, but not part of the solution. let me see that clearly. the russians are part of the problem i'm curious to learn how to dispose of chemical weapons

and made a ferocious civil war. it might have been limited in his imagination. but if you are bashar al-assad, this is total war because he realizes the only way he will leave power is in a pine box. he knows that and this is total war. i asked ask the president yesterday, i said, what happens if we intervene militarily and it doesn't work? well, this fight for his survival and he uses them again. in an act of desperation. and what clearly has become and the president's own words

suggest that. but of course the assad regime refuses to acknowledge its full arsenal. it has bioweapons capabilities. actually a much greater threat than chemical weapons which were more difficult to transport and harder to handle than this was the dictatorship that was working on a nuclear weapons program before the israelis took care of it in 2007. we have been told that however unfortunate president obama's red line comment might have been, upholding this thread is about maintaining american

credibility. american credibility in matters of war and peace are very important. but america's credibility on the world stage is about more than just presidential letter it. it is also about defining clear objectives and establishing a coherent strategy for achieving them. in the case of syria, president obama has not offered a clear strategy or clearly laid out his objectives. given all of that, i am not surprised that the american people do not support the president's call for the use of limited military force in syria. those are the calls i got in my office as i went back to texas. i kept hearing people who i would think under any other

circumstances would say that if the american national security interests are at stake, that we are behind the president and military intervention but they simply saw an incoherent policy and objectives that were not clearly laid out to obtain the result that the president himself said is our policy. the most recent experience that we had as a country with limited war has been libya. i have heard the president told that as an example of how we can get in and get out. the 2011 military operations were supposed to be a showcase example of limited operation which america led from behind and still obtain its objectives without putting u.s. boots on the ground.

unfortunately the administration had no real plan for what happened after qadhafi fell. we all know that it was one year ago today in benghazi when terrorists linked to al qaeda massacred or brave americans, including u.s. ambassador chris stevens. today, libya is spiraling into chaos. they are rapidly becoming a failed state. earlier this month the leading british newspaper reported that libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control over much of the country to militia fighters. all sorts of bad actors including terrorist groups are flooding into the security and many act outside the law.

before i conclude, i would just like to say a few words about america's armed forces and america's role in the world. we all know and are extraordinarily proud of our men and women who wear the uniform of the united states military. no military in history has been more powerful and no military has ever been more courageous or more selfless and fought and bled and died to protect innocent people in far-flung places across the planet. no military has ever done more to promote peace and prosperity around the world. i have every confidence that if called upon, we will do just that.

we have performed their duties with the bravery and professionalism. but we should never send them to war with one hand behind her back. .. and won the american people expect us to have, this is not about isolationism verses

internationalism. believe me, i am no isolationist and i fully support the global security role that america has played since world war ii, since my dad was a p.o.w.. a world without american military dominance would be a much more as ronald reagan noted, a much more dangerous place. i believe peace comes with american strength. however, it will be harder to maintain our global military dominance if we waste precious resources. our credibility and political capitol on hasty misguided unbelievably small interventions once again madam president i would be willing to support an authorization for a military

strike against syria if it meant certain basic criteria that i have laid out. but i cannot support an operation that is so poorly conceived, so foolishly telegraphed and virtually guaranteed to fail. madam president i yield the floor. >> tom ridge was the first secretary of homeland security. he testified on capitol hill today about the homeland security threats facing the u.s.. one topic he addressed is cybersecurity. >> right after 9/11 we learned after katrina and we keep learning after all these incidents that the information and coordination sharing could have been better and some people referred to a digital cyberpearl

harbor. at least in that instance historians say we didn't have notice of the emerging threat. i think this is a cyberpearl harbor because we have noticed and it's not an emerging threats, it's a constant and ever-changing dynamic threat so i'm more inclined to say it ended up being a cyberkatrina where we had notice that we weren't as prepared as we should have been until sad allen got there and cut through the gordian knot and began to address the situation he confronted on the ground.

in london this morning prime minister david cameron answered questions in parliament about syria the 12th anniversary of the september 11 attacks in this country's economy. this is a half an hour. >> questions to the prime minister. and net wreck. >> question number one mr. speaker. >> prime minister. >> thank you mr. speaker. today marks the 12th anniversary of the tragic terrorist attack on new york's twin towers. i'm sure the whole house wishes to join me in sending our condolences -- condolences including the families of the 67 british citizens who lost their lives. these terrorists divide us but they don't understand their actions only make us more determined and more united in our resolve to defeat them. mr. speaker this morning i had meetings and in addition to -- i shall have further such meetings later today. >> i'm sure the whole house

would wish to associate ourselves with the prime minister's comments on this anniversary. we are haunted by images from syria. millions of people needing aid and children dying. i think the prime minister for his leadership at the g20 as far as humanitarian access is concerned. will he not prepare concrete plan on what steps will he take to gain international support prior to the united nations general assembly later this month? >> i think the honorable ladies absolutely right to raise this issue. syria becomes a refugee every 15 seconds and insights. there are 6.8 million people in in need of humanitarian assistance and the u.n. appeal is only 44% subscribe. there's a serious shortage of money. we do have a plan to encourage other countries to come forward but also to back up in her campaign to make sure there's

proper access and that means including priorities into the country and of course humanitarian courses so they can get through. >> at miliband. >> mr. speaker i join the prime minister and remembering the terrible events of september 11, 2001 especially all the british citizens who died on that day. the mindless cruelty of that attack must never be forgotten. and today our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who died. today's -- is welcome. does he recognize the concern unemployment is so rising among young people and is close to 1 million and a number people who who have been working part-time are working part-time but can't find a full-time job is at record levels.

can i thank him for the welcome to the fall in unemployment. let me say very clearly of course is welcome and unemployment falls but we still got a long way to go hit is the chancellor said we are turning a corner but we need to build this recovery rate we are going to go on backing bills in the -- business is indian with their debts. there must be no complacency as we do everything we can to make sure this recovery delivers for hard-working people. but let me share with him the unemployment figures for the houses benefit as well. it is good that employment is up another 80,000 this quarter and unemployment down 24,000 and the claimant count down 32,000 just this month. the number of new net private-sector jobs which we speak about his being 1.3 million is now 1.4 million

which is very welcome. he's absolute right to raise youth employment. we need to be do more to get young people that wear. it in terms of use claimant count it is down so there's some good news but we need to build on our work on apprenticeships build on our work with work experiencexperienc e and make sure the youth contract delivers, make sure children are learning the key -- at school. >> mr. speaker you mentioned the chancellor speech. the chancellor went out to save the economy total complacency and hubris. at a time when even today unemployment is rising in half of the country. in the east of england the northeast the northwest yorkshire the west midlands and scotland. it was the chancellor who choked off the recovery. mr. speaker, and mr. speaker

people's living standards continue to fall. can the prime minister confirm that wages are now are around 1500 pounds lower than when he came to power? >> let me just remind him what the chancellor said which i think it's perfectly legitimate which is to point out the party opposite told us that there would be no growth without plan b. they told us unemployment would go up. they told us that growth in the private-sector private sector jobs would never make up for them private-sector jobs. they have been wrong on every single one of those issues. now of course we need to do more to help with living standards but the only way you can help with living standards sustainably is to deliver growth in the economy and we are to keep interest rates and mortgage rates low and they are and to cut people's taxes by raising the personal allowance. all things this government has done and things this government would never do. >> once again we heard from the

prime minister as we did from the chancellor total complacency. we are in the midst of the slowest recovery in 100 years mr. speaker. now let's talk about his record. can he tell us out of the 39 months that he has been prime minister how many months have prices been rising faster than wages? >> we said we face a challenge to help people with living standards but because this government has taken 2 million people out of tax and cut income tax for 25 million working people and have more disposable income went up last year. that is what is happening but as i said at the beginning we have to build on this. we have got to keep going with dealing with the deficit helping business to employ people. when he talked about policy let me just remind him what the former chancellor said. the former chancellor said this.

i'm waiting to hear what we have got to say on the economy. that is -- i have to say mr. speaker we are all waiting for single construct that suggestion from the party opposite. >> mr. speaker the whole house and the country will -- the prime minister unable to answer the question. let me give him the answer. the answer is that for 38 out of 39 months that he has been prime minister living standards for working people have gone down and not up. can he confirm that the only month that wages rose faster than prices was many handed out the millionaires tax cut and since bonuses went up? >> calm down. when bonuses went up 82%. >> his speeches are so poor as we saw yesterday it's difficult

to know when he has finished. i have to say the truth is. >> calm down. >> he went to do -- and he completely humbled it. that is the truth. the fact is in this economy business confidence is up consumer confidence is up exports are up and yes of course the point and make about bonuses is when he was sitting in the treasury they were four times higher. under this government the top-rated tax will be higher than any gear when he or the shadow chancellor advised the last disastrous government. that is the truth of it. this government is making good the massetti meeting government. >> he cannot answer the question on living standards because he knows the truth is people are worse off under this government. here is the reality.

they want to give maximum support to millionaires who are getting bonuses so they give them a tax cut but it's a different story for those who go to food banks. we know what this government thinks about those who go to the food bank. it's the -- as the children's secretary said the people who go to food banks only have themselves. he is groaning. it just shows you how out of touch he is. we would all like to hear does the prime minister agree with his children's secretary? >> food bank use went up 10 times under labor so we don't have to take any lectures from them. while we we are on the issue of complacency let me tell you real complacency is going back to tax and spend them borrowing through the roof. real complacency is promising no more boom and bust. real complacency is thinking you can win an election when you obviously have no economic

policy and no foreign policy leadership either. he promised us a blank sheet of paper three years and and i think -- delivered. >> mr. speaker if the prime minister defended the children's secretary's comments let me tell in the children's secretary is an absolute disgrace. mr. speaker let's see any of them try to live on 150 pounds a week then we would see what happens. we have 1 million young people out of work unemployment up in half the country millions of people worse off while millionaires get a tax cut. for the few of the many he is a sure nation prime minister. >> it is this education secretary that is delivering the results we need in our education system. preschools academy rigor in our schools and he should be praising him. i will tell him what it disgraces and that is going down to falmouth and caving into the

trade unions. we were promised this great big tough fight. he told us it was going to be raging but he gave us -- [inaudible] >> thank you mr. speaker. my right honorable friend is working hard to attract investment into northern region with considerable success. these efforts could be undermined by further delays to the application to determine the application by the able u.k.. could i urge the prime minister to respond to requests from the leader from the council to intervene to ensure an early determination of the occupation well before the december deadline? >> i have spoken to my honorable friend.

we all want to see it become a real magnet for investment particularly green energy investments. i'm very happy to look at the issue he is raised with me and race with me before. i'm very happy to let security at the issue of the planning commission with of course a responsible counsel. >> ellen did then. >> thank you mr. speaker. i think the parents of a 1 million young unemployed people will think the prime minister is totally out of touch. this year the number of young people with jobs has dropped by 77,000 and the government's youth contract has reached fewer than one tenth of the young people they were supposed to help. doesn't the prime minister understand that not everybody lands their first job with help from a royal bembry? >> i would say to the honorable lady she should welcome the fact that the number of young people who are claiming out of work benefits has fallen by 10,900

this month. that is what is happening. 100,000 young people accessing work experience, many of them getting off work. it is 20 times more cost-effective than the future jobs fund that she has supported. that is what is happening. as i said there is absolute of complacency. more needs to be done to get young people back to work. >> thank you mr. speaker. last week despite having enough evidence to prosecute cbs chose not to proceed to prosecute doctors in britain offering to abort a baby because it was a female. does the prime minister agree with me that this is very uncomfortable and in fact it puts her abortion policy on the the -- with china and india. the female fetus is more vulnerable than she was last week traded. >> i think i right honorable friend is absolutely right to racism must be clear that

abortions on the basis of a child sex are wrong and illegal in the country and i think the daily telegraph is to be commended for the campaign and work they have done to highlight this important case. in our country we do have independent prosecutorial authorities and it's very important they look at the evidence and they make the decision on the basis of a conviction in the public address in making any case and taking it to court. that is how things have to work in our country but i share her concern about what we have read and what has happened and it's absolutely right professional action should be considered as well. >> on sunday i -- walk on wheels veterans on an 875-mile tour of wales. walk on wales is a charity campaign to raise unmarried -- awareness. while there have been great programs can the prime minister should assure the house that he

is redoubling his its efforts to ensure the nhs has access to army records so it gets the best possible service and treatment to our brave comrades and will he join me in congratulating thick success of walk on wales? >> i certainly gradual -- congratulate walk on wales for his work and his efforts in his own constituency. it is important that we put money into veterans charities using the libor funds to support many causes including mental health causes but is he says it's important the national health service respond properly to these demands and particular point about army records about that specific issue. >> thank you mr. speaker. after years of decline manufacturing is leading this country after the financial mess led by the previous community.

can i complement my right honorable friend not to implement plan b suggested by the party opposite to support outstanding manufacturing business particularly in my constituency and across the northwest. >> i certainly join the honorable gentleman. he's absolutely right to say the news on manufacturing is good. all 13 of the manufacturing sectors have increased since the first time this has happened since 1992. the party opposite doesn't like hearing this good news and new jobs in this week. backing exports and manufacturing and let's make sure we make it a sustainable recovery that works for hard-working people. >> while so many people struggle

struggle -- a million pounds this year. >> city bonuses are actually 86% lower than they were when she was supporting the last movement let me just point out to the honorable lady because i followed these things closely. she tweeted this morning that she had a question for the prime minister and asked for suggestions in the first suggestion came back because i follow these very closely as you no mr. speaker. the first suggestion i came back was this. how happy are you that the leader of the labour party will still be in place come the next election? why reject that advised and it take advice from the shadow chancellor? >> unemployment has -- for six

months running its neighbor learned under this government three times as many jobs has been created in the air has been lost to the public sector. as the prime minister believe this is a complete fantasy as suggested by the shadow chancellor? >> i think the honorable lady makes a very important point because what we have seen is the growth of private sector jobs far outstripping by three times as she said more than three times in some cases outstripping the decline in public sector jobs. this was one of the predictions made by the party opposite. it's a fantasy to suggest that could happen. they said there would be no growth without plan b. they have been wrong on every major economic judgment. >> i am grateful mr. speaker. i would also ask my constituents and will also ask the prime minister today many people are concerned about wages and prices when prices outstrip wages is it not the case under this prime

minister people are poorer when then -- then when he came to government? >> the point is this. it's really important to cut people's taxes and that is what we have done by delivering a tax cut to 25 million working people giving people a 700-pound tax cut did we have only been able to do that because we have taken top decisions on spending tough decisions on welfare tough decisions on the deficit tough decisions that he has wrongly rejected. >> when the party opposite left 770 million people in my constituency out of work. today there are just 595 and we now have -1/2 billion pounds to create thousands of jobs. will the prime minister meet with me to discuss how government help with the infrastructure and prudence that will and discourage that we

inherited from the less government? >> my right honorable friend makes an important point. of course as to what to do to get young people and to work but overall 1.4 million people employed in the private sector record levels in our history of women employment, employing the number of people almost up by 1 million this session unemployment lower than last session long-term unemployment down a year ago. we still have folks do but we are heading in the right direction. we have to keep on tracking keep working to help people and business. >> can the prime minister tell us why people with mental illnesses have been kept and police cells? >> we are making efforts to try to bring it to an end. we are working between the nhs and the police. this has been a long-standing problem of governments of all colors for very long time. we are having those discussions

should try to make it progress. >> mr. henry smith. >> in may of 2010 youth unemployment was at 7.4%. now it stands at three-point 8%. on the 27th of september by went to a jobs fair. does the prime minister think that such an event is something that all right honorable members can do to help us -- further still? >> i congratulate businesses in crowley and the right honorable gentleman for encouraging this private sector recovery where we are seeing more people into work and we are also seeing the number of young -- there is absolutely no complacency and there is more work needs to be done to make sure this recovery delivers for people who work hard and do the right thing.

>> is the prime minister about the thousands of people visiting food banks. there's a shocking complacency. his advice to the leader of the opposition suggested you haven't learned anything since. will he answer the question does he think they have nine people visiting food ranks now simply need to manage their finances better or will he admit that they can't afford to feed their families because of this government? >> the point i would make is we should work with and thank the food bank movement for the excellent work they do. we should recognize the use of food banks went up 10 times under labor could one of the reasons it's increased under this government is because we took the book that her party put in place that was preventing job centers from referring people to food tanks. they didn't do it because it was bad for the -- this government is interested in doing the right thing rather than something that looks good. >> mr. speaker may ask the prime

minister's national standards for sales and marketing practices in this country are strong enough to protect against false advertising? apparently yesterday a man advertised himself as made of steel only to collapse entirely within seconds. >> my right honorable friend makes a good point. i admire everything that happens in dorset that i think they need to look at their trading standard. i have to say he folded faster than the deck chair. >> the chancellor claims -- lengthy ozone crisis for the problem in the king columbia. will the prime minister finally take responsibility for the living standards crisis facing this country? >> as i have said many times, good times are tough because we

are recovering from the calamitous situation the party opposite. if he wants to make comparisons with the eurozone countries he will see we have a much lower unemployment rate than many of them. there are no other european countries that could boast a record of 1.4 million new private-sector jobs. the best way to help people's livings dandridge the best way to help people out of poverty is to help them in to work. i would have thought the labour party would understand that. >> on monday the tuc voted for coordinated strike action this autumn. what effect does the prime minister think this would have on our economy and the lives of working people? >> i think the document produced by the united union which still sponsors and basically control so many of the members opposite is frankly a very frightening document because it is trade unions leaders not ordinary

trade unions that are doing this. they want to damage our country and want to damage our economy and are playing politics with their future. >> thank you mr. speaker. tyrell matthews burton was a bright 19-year-old with everything to live for whose only crime was he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. yet two months after his brutal murdery contact the greek authorities have had with his families to send home the clothing of us wearing that night in the post. will the prime minister meet with me and his mother to see how we can get justice for terrell? >> i'm very happy to move -- hold that meeting and it's important to do everything we can to help families put into this position. to be fair to her consulates around the world they try to go to the extra mile and they work very hard and the foreign office encouraged them and everything they do. there are cases where we struggle to get answers from

other countries about their justice systems. i'm very happy to hold the meeting that she speaks about. >> mr. speaker john raitt infant school one of the largest infant schools and braintree sadly or down a few days ago. with the prime minister join me in thanking the six county counsel for the speed for what they found accommodations for the children and giving the encouraging news for school will be reopened as soon as possible. >> i certainly join them in praising. it's a tragic event and comes on top of the fact that everybody knows we need to provide more primary school -- so i commend him for his action. >> mr. lindsey roy. >> thank you mr. speaker. prime ministers since the governor took office the u.k. has suffered the second biggest fall in wages in any of the g20 countries. does he think this is evidence

of the dash of the economy? >> as i have said several times in this question time if you want to see living standards for cover properly and they do there's only one sustainable way to me that happen a growing economy keeping on top of inflation making sure more -- mortgage rates are kept low and cutting people's taxes by raising the personal allowance. that is how you help households with disposable income. let me make this point. if we listen to labour and have more spending more barring more dead the first thing that will go up will be interest rates and mortgage rates. for all the talk of the increase in mortgage rates would wipe out all of the hard work we have done. the shadow chancellor says you wait. we are waiting for one single sensible suggestions from a party whose front men have gotten a comprehensively wrong in the past few years. >> mr. speaker is chair of the

the -- bangladesh i am pleased to lead education. we thank them for their rapid response and will he join me in encouraging all businesses that trade garments in the u.k. to make sure that people are not exploited in the market? >> first of all can i congratulate the young lady for the work she does to further relations between britain and the bangladesh and i thank her for her efforts for working extremely hard with that country. that appalling industrial accident and to encourage companies to his check their supply chains and where it is coming from. it's a really important point that she makes and i wish her well with with the work she is doing and bangladesh. >> thank you mr. speaker. does the prime minister think that amd has anything to do with the fact that he has over -- since the general election.

[inaudible] >> the point is that since the election we protected health spending and they are putting an extra 12 .7 billion pounds in two r. and h. as and they number of staff including doctors and hospitals has gone up while the number of managers has gone down. under labour things are heading in an entirely different direction. >> successive governments have condemned ethnic cleansing. will the prime minister today condemn israel for its ethnic cleansing of 40,000 -- >> this government has a very clear policy on the issue of israel and on the issue of settlements. we respect and welcome israel's right to exist and we defend that but on settlements we think the israeli approach is wrong and we condemn the settlement at dignity. we have been consistent in saying that both privately and publicly.

>> mr. george galloway. >> does the prime minister know that if it were not for this house of commons reflecting the mood of the british public britain and the united states would already be in the midst of what has turned out would have been a holy unnecessary war? isn't this a vindication of parliament and a vindication of mr. churchill's words that -- [inaudible] >> what it is an indication of his determination to stand up to chemical weapons usage. we would not be in a situation are pursuing new avenues for getting syrian chemical weapons out of syria and destroyed unless a strong stance had been taken. that is the right answer not calling up the dictators and telling them how wonderful they are. >> order.

>> yes the world is changing. now we can control every event that america remains the one indispensable nation and world affairs and as long as i'm president i intend to keep it that way. >> when the present and their ear clip was talking about where the indispensable nation what he doesn't want us to talk about and doesn't want americans to contemplate. what he does want americans to contemplate is we don't know how to win wars.

the stated legislative purpose