quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: mr. president, i'd like to come to the floor today to talk about a new cnn poll that came out yesterday that talked about the president's health care law. it says support for the president's health care law --. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: the senator from wyoming requests the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i come to talk about a new cnn poll that came out yesterday that said support for the president's health care law appears to be waning.

appears to be waning. the cnn polling director, keating holland talked about this. he says support has dropped in virtually all demographic categories but it has fallen the farthest among two core democratic groups, women and americans who make less than $50,000 a year. he goes on to quote him, says "those are also the two groups he says that are most likely to pay attention to health insurance issues and possibly the ones most likely to be affected by any changes. that may be particularly true for lower income americans who are most likely to have part-time jobs, be on medicaid or not currently have health insurance and thus be the first to have to navigate the new system." so there's the story from cnn polling yesterday, support for the president's health care law appears to be waning. mr. president, i spent a lot of time as have you over the last

month traveling around our home states, listening to what's on people's mind and i do it every weekend, i meet with lots of people, we've had lot of county fairs, rodeos, town hall gatherings and one thing that came up just about everywhere i went was the concern so many folks still have about the president's health care law. people, some are confused, many are upset and many more are angry. angry that the law is doing serious damage to middle-class jobs and to people's paychecks. and even the insurance coverage that many already had and liked are things that they're going to lose. republicans have warned from the beginning that the president's law created too much red tape, too many new taxes, fees and expensive mandates. and as a result, people were going to end up paying a lot more for health insurance. well, for months now americans have been seeing exactly that. one of the latest numbers that

really stuck out was from delta airlines. they say it's going -- they're going to be paying about $100 million more to cover their employees next year, all of the mandates in the health care law, the president has said so many of these are free, they're not free. somebody's got to pay for them. just covering workers' children up until age 26 and it's about 8,000 young people covered by delta airlines added to their policy, that's going to cost them an extra $14 million next year. so remember the president said health care costs were supposed to go down, not up. he also said for 85% to 90% of americans who already have health insurance, the only impact he said of the law was that their insurance is better than it's ever been before. that doesn't seem to be the case, mr. president. all you need to do is pull out today's "new york times," business section, first page, b-1, above the fold, "unions'

misgiftion on health law burst into view. labor delegates level criticism at congress and the president." it seems that the president's promises to people who believed him that they could keep what they have if they like it, they're saying, mr. president, something has to change here. you haven't leveled with us. what we're seeing now coming out of this administration is not what you promised. and it's not just "the new york times." today's "investors business daily above the fold, obamacare hitting union members and they're upset. unionized part-timers losing health insurance, full-timers losing hours. that's not what the president promised. what this means is people are not just losing their health care, their insurance, it's affecting their jobs and it's affecting their paychecks. now, another step that some employers have had to take is to drop coverage for spouses who can get their insurance

elsewhere. the president said that wasn't going to happen. said if if you like the insurance you have, you'll able to keep it. once again the president has failed to see how much harm his health care law would do to middle-class americans. those hardworking people are now paying the price. recent home memo to employees the shipping company u.p.s. said it plans to seclude 15,000 spouses from its insurance plan. they cited the health care law as the top reason for the switch. mr. president, it's not just businesses. the university of virginia recently anowndz plans to drop spousal coverage for some of its employees too. the president is berating colleges about the cost of tuition but yet his own mandates are making it more expensive for colleges to provide insurance for members of their faculty. so, of course, they pass those costs on to the students. the school said that the president's health care law would add $7.3 million to the cost of its mental health health plan in 2014.

just like u.p.s. if a worker's husband or wife can get insurance from their own employer, the university of virginia won't be covering them anymore, even if it's insurance that they have and they liked, the president said they could keep it. the school directly laid some of the blame on the health care law. it's not something the president admitted might happen and it's not something he's eager to talk about now. he's also not eager to talk about his promise to cut the price people pay for insurance. president obama promised by tend of his first term he would lower people's premiums by $2,500 per family per year. now, mr. president, he didn't just say this once. he said it over and over again at least 19 times. he didn't misspeak. it was a practiced line an intention lallal line, an intentional part of his stump speech. he didn't say that premiums would go down if congress passes a perfect law that takes effect

the first day he's in office. he didn't tell the audience it would be $2,500 less than the projected rate of growth that someone estimated that we would have otherwise. he chose to ignore all of that to leave out every caveat that he could have included. he said $2,500 less by the end of his first term, period. every person, every audience, knew what the president was promising. well, now we know that president obama broke that promise like so many others and he and his supporters should stop trying to explain it away and just admit that they failed. according to the kaiser family foundation, the average family premium has soared by almost $3,000 since president obama took office. now, that's not a prediction about what will happen over the next four years. it is a simple, indisputable fact about how much more people are already paying. so you've got people who are losing their insurance plans

that the president's health care law taxes too heavily, other people losing the insurance they have now because employers are dropping coverage for spouses, you've got some people who will keep their insurance but they're going to have a lot mess money in their paycheck because costs are going up thanks to the health care law, and you'll have a lot of people that the president's health care law is really hitting in the wallet. it's because we're continuing to see towns and counties and school districts having to cut back the hours of their workers. they need to keep more employees at a part-time status in order to reduce the burdens and expenses of the health care law. over the past month, even more place investigate had to take these steps. middletown township in new jersey said they would cut the hours of 25 people, a county in texas said it would do the same, a county in florida figured it would cost them more than a million dollars to cover all of their part-time workers under the health care law. so they're already reducing the hours for some of these people

and they're planning to make additional cuts. now the obama administration is brushing off these reports, they're saying it's only anecdotal evidence. anecdotal? these aren't and eblgget dotes. -- anecdotes. these are people's jobs. 258 employers have cut hours, cut jobs or taken other steps to avoid obamacare costs. 258 employers across the country. many of them school districts, counties, communities, some private businesses, and more are coming forward every day. they're limiting the hours they can pay bus drivers, librarians, coaches, substitute teachers and middle-class workers. the obama administration says everything is fine because some of these workers will get a subsidy to help buy their expensive insurance. well, the people that i talk to aren't looking for subsidies, mr. president. they're looking for a job. they're looking for more hours.

they're looking for abilities to take home a paycheck comparable to the paycheck that they made may have had last year but is going down because their hours have been cut. they want the miengs to stop -- obama administration to stop making it tough to find full-time work. they want to go back to the insurance they had before the president's health care law went into effect. instead they're getting more signs that the health care law is a train wreck that's going to hurt the middle class even more. we all knew that the health care system in this country had problems and needed to be fixed. costs were rising year after year. too many people were having trouble getting the care they needed. democrats could have sat down with republicans to write a law to help those people. instead, president obama and democrats in congress who are in charge of the house and the senate passed their plan, a one-sided plan, a plan that today is failing the american people. they did it without republican

support, and they did it without seriously considering our ideas. washington democrats promised the kind of reform, but reform they promised is not what they delivered. it's not what's in this 2,800-page health care law with over 100,000 pages of regulations, hard for anyone to understand or comply with. republicans have voted to repeal this failed law and to start over with reforms that solve the biggest problems that families face today. we're going to keep trying to get that done, mr. president. if democrats are serious about helping middle-class americans, they will join us. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coats: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: since its inception, obamacare has remained consistent in one regard. an alarming pattern of delays, glitches and overturned provisions, not to mention failure to meet certain promises

that were made when this bill was passed. first, congress repealed the law's 1099 mandate after realizing this provision would drastically increase expenses on every business, charity and local government entity. then congress repealed the law's long-term care program in 2012 after the administration admitted this wouldn't work. next came a slew of waivers rather than admit obamacare would drive up costs, the administration created a program that has granted more than 1,700 waivers. 1,700 waivers covering more than 4.1 million people. a lot of those -- a lot of other americans are saying hey, how about our waiver? why did these 1.7 -- or 1,700 waivers covering 4.1

people go to them, not to us? even meeting its own dead lines for implementation seems to be too difficult for the white house. according to the congressional research service, as of may 31, 2013, the administration had yet to meet half, only 41 of 82, of the deadlines legally required by the congress under this legislation. but in june, 2013, president obama claimed, and i quote -- "i think it's important for us to recognize and acknowledge this is working the way it's supposed to." really? 1,700 waivers for people who couldn't comply with this, reappeals enacted by congress and it's working the way it's supposed to. that's what they intended when they passed the bill? it's not what they promised. just a month later, the

president's team announced the delay of another key obamacare component, the employer mandate. a one-year delay until 2015. while maintaining implementation of the individual mandate. so individuals, yes, employers, no. we know you're not able to comply the down side of complying with this under this timetable doesn't work. so we force individuals to comply with the law, and the mandate to buy health insurance or pay a tax, but we take that burden away from employers. is that fair? is that fair that you give it to part of the country, give it to employers, but how about the other half, the employees? how about the other half, the individuals who don't fall into those plans? and then yesterday, the nonpartisan congressional research service released a report that repealed 19 instances in which portions of obamacare have been changed,

rescinded, repealed or delayed. 19 separate times when it's either been changed, repealed, rescinded or delayed. the report specifically found that the president has signed 14 laws, several of these with multiple provisions, that each amend, rescind or repeal part of obamacare. the administration also has delayed at least five significant provisions of the law. so what does all this tell us? it tells us that even the president and his administration recognize that the health care law that they wrote and they passed, not one single vote of support from the opposing party, they recognize that this is not going as promised or planned. recognizing the impact of his health care law is having on job creators, the president decided to give some relief to businesses, as i have said before, but don't all americans deserve the same break?

don't we all deserve some relief? while it's a necessary step, even the delay of the employer mandate came too late for many hoosiers whose companies have been forced to drop employees or cut back their hours to less than 30 hours per week, the threshold at cho -- which obamacare kicks in for companies. in recent weeks, newspapers have been filled with stories of schools and stores that have reduced hours to fulfill the obamacare requirements, and all this coming at a time of continued chronic high unemployment. people working two and three part-time jobs just to keep their heads above water, just to keep barely the bills paid. at a time when our economy is growing at half the rate that it should. we're not putting people back to work and people actually dropping out of the job search category, we add this burden on

them. let's take a moment and consider the contrast between these reports and the promises made by those who author, those who have supported and voted for, and this administration which continues to say it's working just as planned. when president obama signed his health care reform package into law back in march, 2010, he said that the reforms would -- quote -- "lower costs for families and for businesses and help lift a decades-long drag on our economy." wow. a law that was supposed to help workers, employers, families and our economy is instead doing the exact opposite. these sentiments that i have heard, the same sentiments over and over, and i continue to hear from hoosiers as i travel across the state, this law is not helping. it is hurting.

we need to repeal this law and replace it step by step with reforms that lower costs, increase access to care and empower patients, not bureaucrats in washington. mr. president, i have voted more than two dozen times to repeal, defund and strip provisions from obamacare. it's a principle i share with all my colleagues on the republican side, and i will continue to support these efforts. right now, however, i believe the best way to stave off this coming train wreck, as described by a democrat senator who was instrumental in writing the bill, is the -- the best way to stave off this train wreck is to delay implementation of the obamacare mandates for one year. the president has already determined that he's going to play the employer mandate, so let's add to that the delay of the individual mandate, which

essentially delays implementation of this law for a year, so that we have the opportunity to do what we need to do legislatively, and that is repeal this law and replace it with sensible legislation and rational and cost-effective legislation that actually addresses the problem that we're dealing with, but also gives the american people a chance to basically tell the white house this ain't working. we need to make a difference here, and this can be an issue that the american people can debate throughout 2014 while it's delayed and then put their concerns, express their concerns at the battle box in november of 2014. as a consequence of this, i have introduced legislation supported now by over 30 senators which would delay the individual mandate until january, 2015.

i'm pleased that the minority leader, senator mcconnell, has agreed to take up this bill, to lead the effort, to join me in not only having this body examine this bill, debate it and vote on it but to join the house which has already passed. my indiana colleague in the house, congressman young, introduced this legislation in the house of representatives and it passed with bipartisan support. even the president's own members in his own party have recognized this train wreck that's coming and have chosen in significant numbers to support the republican effort of my colleague from indiana, congressman young. so i'm carrying this ball here in the united states senate. i'm pleased that the minority leader, as i have said, senator mcconnell is willing to take this up, and we already have the support of more than 30

senators, and i expect that that will grow and hopefully it will be a bipartisan support. the bill is identical to legislation that the republicans passed in the house. i mentioned a fellow hoosier, congressman todd young, who has authored that bill, and i join him with this. if democrats, republicans and a majority of americans agree this law is not working, then let's do something now before obamacare's full impact on our economy when this bill takes effect. i urge the majority leader to allow a vote on this amendment that will be offered and give all americans the same protection this administration has provided to businesses to give that to individual americans. after all, it's just simply a matter of fairness. the administration having decided to waive for a year the implementation of the employer mandate needs to waive for a year the implementation of the individual mandate in fairness to the american people. mr. president, with that, i

yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to do everything we can to ensure that obamacare is delayed. like the gentleman from indiana who just spoke, we know that this law is not ready for prime time. the president has delayed certain parts of it, a number of parts of it. the individual mandate has been delayed. if we are going to -- to delay the individual mandate, it would make -- i'm sorry, the employer mandate, it makes sense to delay the individual mandate as well. i have introduced s. 1490. this would delay by one year all

provisions of the affordable care act that are supposed to take effect on january 1, 2014, or later. in addition, it would suspend all taxes, including the tax on medical devices associated with the law for one year. i'm also a cosponsor of the legislation introduced by senator coats who just spoke and the minority leader has offered this legislation as an amendment to the energy efficiencies on the floor now. it would also delay the individual and employer mandates for one year. like my colleagues, i have opposed obamacare from the beginning. i voted against this legislation time and time again. i think the count is 37 times in the house to repeal it. obviously, i did not support it in the first place. but even the law's strong advocates agree that there are major issues with implementation under the current timeline, and that a positive -- an immediate next step for all americans i

think would be to delay this harmful law. january 1 of 2014 marks a rollout of some of the most fundamental parts of the law. c.b.o. estimates that nearly seven million people will join the individual exchanges that are scheduled to open for the enrollment period in less than three weeks, and all of our constituents will start feeling the pain if the law isn't ready from the outset. as i mentioned, even the president mentioned that the health care law is not ready by issuing a combination of waivers and delays for certain parts of the law. he did it for the employer mandate a while ago. if we do it for the employer mandate as i said, it makes sense to do it for the individual mandate as well because of the delay on the employer mandate starting in 2014 many individuals will be using the honor system to verify their income and about they have access to affordable employer-provided health coverage without an appropriate verification system in place,

individuals will have an incentive to report a lower income to receive more subsidies than they qualify for. this will ultimately raise the cost for everyone else. on the individual exchanges just two eaks ago, h.h.s. delayed the signing of final agreements for insurance plans sold on the exchanges starting october 1. this comes on top of a report issued by g.a.o. this past june cautioning that the health care law could miss the october 1 open enrollment date because of missed deadlines and delays in several areas. the administration has also delayed the cap on out-of-pocket expenses that was intended to go into effect in 2014. if this weren't enough there are privacy and fraud concerns. there is great an prehedges over the federal navigators to help individuals weed their way through the enrollment guidelines. these navigators receive no-fault -- i'm sorry, they

receive no antifraud training and the administration recently announced the training for these individuals will be woob reduced from 30 to 20 hours. further these individuals will have access to consumers' private data without having background checks. i could continue to list the pitfalls that this law has already faced but the county is clear, the law is simply not ready for prime time. implementing this law before it's ready will only force taxpayers into a system riddled with potential fraud, certain gridlock and increase costs for all. as lawmakers we have a responsibility to our constituents that if a law is not ready, we need to delay it for everyone. that's why i urge my colleagues to support the northerly's -- minority leader's amendments coming up today and any other legislative vehicle to grant taxpayers a year delay for the affordable care act. and ensure the least harmful

path forward. simply put, i believe a total delay of obamacare is the fairest way and the most realistic plan to prevent the law from wreaking havoc on all americans. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i strongly support the previous two speakers and their efforts to delay a law that is clearly not ready for prime time and in that spirit i again put forward my proposal to make sure there is no washington exemption from obamacare. this, i believe more than anything else, will ensure that washington doesn't impose something unduly burdensome, not ready for prime time on america if it's living under the

same rules. mr. president, unfortunately, that's not the case right now. this special o.p.m. rule which was made up out of thin air, in my opinion, and unveiled in draft form a little over a month ago, creates a huge washington exemption, a special deal, particularly for members of congress and our staff. we need to say no washington exemption. and my amendment on the bill that's on the floor now and my separate bill of the same substance, the no exemption for washington from obamacare act, will do just that. it will say all members of congress, all congressional staff, and the president, the vice president and all of their political appointees, have to go to the exchanges for their health care, the fallback option for every american. and they have to do that under the same rules, under the same parameters as every other

american does, no special deal, no special exemption, no special subsidy. so i urge my colleagues to support this measure as an amendment on the bill on the floor now or as a freestanding bill. with regard to the posture of the bill on the floor now, i have no desire to hold up any other amendments. i'm eager to move forward with those amendments and with mine. i simply need assurance that my amendment will get a fair vote, particularly before october 1, this is very time sensitive because that's when the pom rule -- p.o.p.m. rule will otherwise come to that effect. i'm eager so we can move forward with this proposal and this vote and others in a constructive way and i look forward to that happening. and i would add this doesn't have to happen on this bill.

this can happen regarding my stand alone bill or in other ways as long as it is assured before october 1. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest 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 oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president -- the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1392 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 1394, s. 139 a bill to promote energy savings in residential and commercial buildings and for other purposes.

mr. wyden: when the senate began debate on the bipartisan energy efficiency bill yesterday i thought it was important to start by putting the discussion in the context of what i know senators heard all summer long. all summer long, mr. president, senators heard from folks at home who said look, when the senate goes back in in september, what you folks have to do is knock off some of this bickering, this pettiness, what seems like a kind of glorified, you know, food fight, and get serious about real issues, get serious about those kinds of concerns that are most important to us here at home. energy, creating good-paying jobs, the infrastructure, all of those bread-and-butter questions that go right to the heart of how middle-class people in america improve their

standard of living. and i was struck yesterday -- and i especially appreciate the tone that the senator from new hampshire and the senator from ohio brought to this discussion -- i was especially struck by how the senate reflected in those first few hours of the debate that this body really got the message from the summer that this body heard the american people say knock off this pettiness and this bickering and get serious about real issues and that means doing it in a bipartisan way. so yesterday, mr. president, in the first couple of hours of this discussion, we had five amendments -- five amendments that are bipartisan, and all of them stemmed in effect from senators on both sides of the aisle who are responding to this kind of welling up of the

benefits of energy savings and how those energy savings help to create good-paying jobs and a cleaner environment. so you had literally for the first couple of hours senator after senator coming in these bipartisan kind of pairs to discuss real issues. i'm just going to spend a few minutes talking about how that unfolded. the first one that came up was the inhofe-carper amendment. those two might not agree on every possible cause, mr. president, but certainly they said look, we ought to include thermal energy in the definition of renewable energy as part of the federal energy purchases that take place. that probably is too logical for some, and certainly if you want to spend your time on polarizing fights you might not be that

interested in the inhofe-carper amendment, but i said i was going to back that because two senators did a lot of good, constructive work, they came to us early on and had a good idea. and then we heard from senator collins and senator udall, another practical idea, to reduce red tape, to reduce bureaucracy and red tape so that we could maximize energy efficiency programs in our q9 then we heard about a useful amendment from senators bennet and ayotte in terms of recognizing the efficiencies achievements of commercial building tenants. this constitutes about 41%. this space constitutes about 41% of all the energy that's used in our country, and so two united states senators said here is an opportunity to again promote the

efficiencies and the visibility of the programs that work. then we had a useful amendment offered by senators klobuchar and hoeven to assist nongovernmental organizations. these are the churches and the senior citizens groups and the programs for kids. these are the nonprofits, mr. president, and what that bipartisan coalition wanted to do was to assist nongovernmental organizations in making these energy energy-efficient improvements. then we had the fifth part of these discussions, the landrieu-wicker-pryor amendment to improve the way in which various governmental agencies select the green building of program certification systems for federal energy -- federal agency use.

again, something designed to reduce some of the bureaucratic red tape that's associated with how these programs are implemented. so there you are, mr. president. the first five amendments are bipartisan. they are in response to this kind of welling up as i would characterize it to the opportunity that this bill presents, and i'd like to make a part of the record, mr. president, a letter that we got from a number of organizations just today. the national association of manufacturers, the american council for an energy-efficient economy, the business roundtable, the alliance to save energy, and the natural resources defense council, all of whom wrote to majority leader reid and minority leader mcconnell to express their support for this legislation,

and i would ask unanimous consent to put that into the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, thank you. and the reason that they wrote this kind of letter is that the american council on energy-efficient economy has estimated that just ten of the efficiencies amendments, most of which were introduced and heard by our energy subcommittee on june 25, would increase the number of jobs created by 2030 by 10,000. 10,000 jobs, and we have just 10 10 -- ten of those amendments that would make that kind of difference, and the amendments would increase energy savings by over 10% and increase the annual savings in 2030 by $1.5 billion. now, mr. president, i don't

think you find this kind of coalition, the business roundtable, the national association of manufacturers, the leading environmental groups, that is not exactly a coalition that comes together for every important energy issue, every important environmental question all the time, but they're there on this one, and they're there to a great extent because they understand that modernizing energy policy and having an all of the above energy policy means you have got to pass legislation like the shaheen-portman bill and the useful amendments that are associated with it. senators come to the floor here in the senate constantly to talk about how they are for an all of the above energy policy. it's almost obligatory that you mention it three or four times just to show you're serious about energy policy. you can't be serious about energy policy, mr. president,

unless you support a robust bipartisan effort like the shaheen-portman bill. this is too important to the overall agenda for energy and productivity and job creation and a cleaner environment. so i look forward to hearing more from colleagues on their efficiency amendments. i very much hope that we can keep the amendments that go forward relevant to the question of energy policy. and it just seems to me that when you have a bipartisan foundation, as we have with this bill, and it started bipartisan with the senator from new hampshire and the senator from ohio and it got significantly more bipartisan yesterday, mr. president. it would be one thing if senators came to the floor yesterday and said we're here to talk about energy legislation. i really don't care about this

topic. what i want to do is talk about these other issues which are important to me politically. that would be one thing. senators didn't do that. they came to the floor and they said they want to talk about energy, they want to talk about getting something done in a bipartisan way, they liked the bipartisan bill, and they wanted to make it even stronger, and it seems to me that if we just now spend an appreciable am of our time undermining that bipartisan foundation and preventing us from working together on a subject that senators say they care about, that they recognize part of an all of the above energy policy is particularly unfortunate. this bill is an opportunity for the senate to put some points on the board for the people who sent us here, to pass legislation that's going to benefit the country and have a positive impact on folks at home. senator murkowski and i and

senator shaheen and portman talked yesterday about the extraordinary breadth of the coalition that supports this bill, business and energy efficiencies voabts and environmental organizations. more than 200 businesses and groups from across the political spectrum support this bill, have already asked that their letter letter -- i have already asked that their letter be introduced into the record, but i just want to read one passage for -- from the letter that i think reflects the case for enacting this bill. those organizations, again the business roundtable and national association of manufacturers, natural resources defense council, they agreed, and i will quote here, this bill reflects a bipartisan consensus agreement on a set of energy policies that will benefit the economy, advance energy security and improve the quality of the environment. all agree that expanding energy

efficiency is the legislation, and this would increase opportunities for businesses, consumers, and the federal government. so why the senate would want to say no to something like that because senators want to advance other unrelated issues important to them really doesn't add up to me. i know in the senate there is a desire to debate a whole host of issues, but, mr. president, the reality is senators who have talked about energy policy for years and years -- and there are a host of them, for whom energy is particularly important -- now say they want to have their issues that are unrelated to energy advanced today even though that has the potential to undermine this bill. i don't know how that adds up. if you give a lot of speeches at home about sensible energy policy and then you take steps

to undermine a bipartisan effort which got more bipartisan yesterday. so i'm very hopeful that this legislation which got out of the energy committee on a 19-3 vote and got better yesterday starting with senators inhofe and carper and going through all the senators who had bipartisan proposals, i just hope that this will not be undermined by unrelated matters. if we stay focused on efficiency, i believe we will have an even stronger vote than we had in the committee which was a 19-3 vote because senators will have made clear that they understand this debate is about energy productivity, it's about job creation, it's about a cleaner environment, and they especially understand that this

bill reflects what senators heard all this summer. all this summer, the message was go back to washington, deal with important issues, particularly those related to the economy, do it in a bipartisan way. that's what i believe an overwhelming majority of senators want to do, and if we keep this bill related to energy efficiencies, that will be the result and related to the country. i yield the floor. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i appreciate the floor manager on this bill and i appreciate his remarks, but since they were all directed at my activity, i did want to just briefly respond. i have nothing against his efforts. i have nothing against this bill and the provisions of it. i applaud that work, and i want to support that work, and i, too, listened really hard this

summer, all through august. i did town hall meetings in every parish in louisiana every congress. this august alone, i did 18, and did i hear a lot. quite frankly, i didn't hear about this bill or any provision of this bill, but i'm not denigrating it. i support the vast majority of the provisions of this bill. what i did hear over and over and over is washington shouldn't be treated differently and better than us. what's good for america needs to be good for washington, and if that rule is applied across the board, you all will start getting a lot of things right in congress and in washington, and i heard that articulated hundreds of times at 18 town hall meetings in a lot of different ways. mr. president, that's what my amendment is all about. and the reason i'm demanding a vote now is simply because this illegal o.p.m. rule is set to

happen and go into effect on october 1, so it is time sensitive. i didn't ask for that. i didn't invite that. i'd like that rule to go away, but that's a fact, and that's why this is a pressing time-sensitive matter. now, the distinguished gentleman also talked about bipartisanship. well, this proposal, no washington exemption from obamacare proposal, is thoroughly bipartisan in america. it has enormous bipartisan support in america. the only place it's not popular, quite frankly, on a bipartisan basis is in washington, d.c. and again, what i heard over and over and over again in 18 town hall meetings in washington is the quicker you all apply all laws to yourself as much as they apply to america, the quicker you'll start figuring this stuff out and doing the right thing in washington, and i agree with

that. and so, mr. president, i am simply asking for a timely vote on my proposal which has to be before october 1 for reasons i have explained which are beyond my control, and i have no desire to hold up these other amendments or this bill. so, mr. president, in that spirit, i would ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the following amendments be made pending -- bennet number 1847, enzi number 1863, udall number 1845, sessions number 1879, inhofe number 1851, klobuchar number 1856, and vitter number 1866, and that on tuesday, september 17, at a time to be determined jointly by the majority and minority leaders, that my amendment number 1866

and a side-by-side amendment on the same subject by the majority leader be made pending and receive 60 minutes of debate evenly divided and controlled by the majority bill manager and myself, and that no points of order be in order in relation to these two amendments, and that upon expiration of the time for debate, without any interconvenienting motions or debate, the senate then proceed to vote on these two amendments subject to a 60-vote threshold for passage, and subsequent to each amendment vote, a motion to reconsider each vote be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: mr. president, reclaiming my time, i'm sorry for that. i think that establishes a perfectly reasonable path forward in which we could present and vote on these energy votes the distinguished floor

manager is talking about. it would mean a 60-minute debate on this important timely topic that i'm bringing up next week, so i think that's a reasonable path forward. but, mr. president, i have an alternative which would take it out of the context of this bill, if that would be preferable. and so, mr. president, i would now ask unanimous consent to withdraw the vitter amendment number 1866 and that on wednesday, september 25, 2013, at 3:00 p.m., the senate discharge the relevant committees from consideration of my bill, the no exemption for washington from obamacare act, and proceed to -- immediately to consideration of that bill, and that without any intervening motions or debate, the senate proceed to 60 minutes of debate on that bill evenly divided and controlled by the majority leader and myself, and that the bill not be subject to any amendments or motions to commit, and that after debate has

expired, the bill be engrossed for a third reading, read a third time, and the senate immediately vote on final passage, and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: mr. president, reclaiming the floor, that's unfortunate because that would be a path forward that takes this issue and this vote completely out of the context of this bill, which i have no problem with. i have no problem with that. i have no desire to obstruct or delay this bill, and i've laid out a path that makes that crystal clear. and i'm open to any reasonable variation of these ideas. either an amendment vote next week on this bill or a timely vote on my -- on the amendment, or a timely vote on my identical bill before october

1. and i'm completely open to any of that and hope the majority side and the majority leader will take that under consideration and agreed to a version of that. that would immediately solve this impasse which is created by the majority leader, not by me. this is an important issue. this is timely. this illegal o.p.m. rule which creates a special exemption, a special deal for washington, is happening october 1. i heard a lot from my constituents this august, and i heard a lot about that. and i heard a lot about how washington should live under the same rules as america. and i heard that on a thoroughly bipartisan basis. and i look forward to furthering that important goal. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: just by way of responding to the distinguished senator from louisiana, i think i'm about as bipartisan as anybody, you know, here. it's the one thing that i have tried to make essentially the focus of my time in public service, is trying to find a way to get folks together, whether it's on tax reform or health care or education, you know, with marco rubio. that's what i want to be all about. and particularly on the energy committee, senator murkowski has consistently met our side halfway, trying to find, you know, common ground, trying to get folks to work together. the two of us laugh omnibus about it, we don't agree on every single issue under the sun, but there's an awful lot we can agree on.

it's why no other committee here in the senate has passed as many bills to the floor in a bipartisan way as the energy and natural, you know, resources committee. so when it comes to working on important, you know, issues in a bipartisan way, the senator says that's what he wants to do, he's got me at "hello" on that. but i just would ask me to not hold this bipartisan legislation, which was a first-rate bill when senator shaheen and senator portman brought it here, it got better yesterday during the first couple of hours, senator murkowski and i heard five amendments from senators, that's already a block of ten senators, each was bipartisan, starting with senator inhofe and senator carper, it got better yesterday. so i would just ask the senator from louisiana, who i know cares a lot about energy policy, in his state i imagine

they talk about energy quite a bit, to not hold this bipartisan energy bill hostage for something else. let's get this passed. it's the first significant energy bill on the floor of the united states senate since 2007. the hydropower was a very good bill. largely accomplished through the leadership of senator murkowski. and a handful of other, republican and democratic, you know, senators. this is a chance to put points on the board for an issue that dominates so much of our country and i know certainly the part of the country that the senator from louisiana represents. so i want him to understand that i think he knows that since my days when i was codirector of the gray panthers, health care has already been my first love. so i am willing to work with the senator from louisiana on these health care issues. but i would just implore in the

strongest possible way that we not hold up this bipartisan energy bill, a bill that was bipartisan before it arrived and it got better after it did, that we not hold this bipartisan energy bill hostage for something else. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i respect, again, the distinguished majority floor leader and i appreciate his comments and he has been very bipartisan in his work in the senate. but i'm a little confused because it's as if he didn't hear my unanimous consent request. i think those are clearly two possible paths forward that don't have to hold anything up. all i'm asking for is a vote on a very important issue before this illegal rule goes into effect october 1. so, again, i would reurge both unanimous consent requests and

ask the distinguished floor leader why isn't that a path forward, and why don't the american people -- forget about me -- why don't the american people deserve this vote, because they sure as heck support this on a thoroughly bipartisan basis. so, again, i would be open to either path forward, either a vote on my amendment on this bill or let's withdraw that and have a separate vote before october 1 that is a path forward, there's no hostage taking here, there's no holding anything up, what i am reacting to is this illegal o.p.m. rule and this october 1 deadline which i certainly didn't ask for. i think that is completely contrary to the law. but now that it's been issued, i think we need to respond and have a public vote. so i would urge that, either path forward, and let's take that in a bipartisan way.

let's listen to our constituents, republicans, democrats, and independents and if we listen to them, we'll not only have this vote, we'll pass this amendment, we'll pass this bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i also wanted to respond to my colleague from louisiana, because i appreciate his interest in addressing some of the concerns on health care that have come up. i would certainly like the opportunity to correct a lot of the misinformation that's out there in the public. but, again, i think there are other opportunities to do that. we should not be doing that on an energy bill that has such bipartisan support. you know, he's talking about wanting to get a vote on his legislation. senator portman and i have been waiting for three years to get a

vote on this legislation and for something that has such overwhelming support i would hope that my friend from louisiana is going to be willing to be flexible and think about how he can address the concerns he has and yet let the debate on this bill go forward. we have, as senator wyden said, 16 bipartisan amendments that have already been vetted by both sides on the committee, that are ready to go, that i think we could probably get a voice vote on all of those because we've got so much support on both sides for those. this is legislation that we've had a number of other amendments filed that we should really debate around energy because we haven't debated energy on the floor of the senate since 2007.

we have more than 260 groups and businesses that have endorsed this legislation. everybody from eastern mountain sports which is a great new hampshire business, to large companies like general electric and raytheon, small businesses like in new hampshire we have a company called warner power which makes the first transformation in transformers in a hundred years are supporting it. and we have organizations, one of the other businesses that i thought was interesting was eileen fisher which makes women's clothes. they support the legislation. as everybody knows, anybody who is doing manufacturing in this country is using a lot of energy and they're looking for any way possible to reduce their energy use because they want to be competitive. so we've got a number of manufacturing companies on this list who are interested in how

they can reduce their energy use. then we've got a whole number of organizations, everything from the christian coalition to the union for reform judaism, we have environmental groups like the league of conservation voters and the sierra club. we've got trade associations like the american chemistry council. when is the last bill we've seen that has both the sierra club and the american chemistry council supporting the same legislation? we have a whole list of industry groups who understand that energy efficiency is something they can support because it's something that's going to allow them to add jobs in their businesses. we have the league of women voters, the national restaurant association, the oil heat council of new hampshire, a small group that's concerned about making sure that people in new hampshire can heat their

homes at a reasonable cost. the north carolina chamber of commerce, the southern alliance for clean energy. this is legislation that has support all over the country. the u.s. conference of mayors as well as the u.s. chamber of commerce. they're supporting it because they understand first how important energy is to the future of this country if we're going to stay competitive, we've got to be able to meet the energy demands that businesses have, that people who are trying to heat their homes and pay their electric bills have, that we have as a country, as a united states government where we're the biggest user of energy in the country and part of our legislation deals with government's use of energy and tries to reduce that. but they understand it's in their interest to try and reduce their energy use, and we're having a debate about how

focused we're going to be on fossil fuels, whether we're going to put more support for alternative sources of energy, but energy efficiency benefits everybody, regardless of whether you support fossil fuels or new sources of energy. and that's why this legislation makes so much sense. we've heard just in the last couple of weeks from the american council for an energy-efficient economy that if we can pass this legislation by 2025 it will support the creation of 136,000 jobs. how many pieces of legislation have we seen on the floor of the senate that for the cost we're talking about in this bill, new authorization, that we can support the creation of 136,000 jobs? last year when they looked at the bill, they said it would also be the equivalent of taking

five million cars off the road, of saving consumers $4 billion. this is a win-win-win, and at a time when we know that our future energy opportunities are limited to some extent by what's happening in the middle east, what's happening with foreign oil, this is something that makes sense. and for us to be held up because there are people in the chamber who want to debate health care or want to debate a the e.p.a. is doing or want to debate any other myriad of issues, i understand, i'm willing to have those debates. i'm willing to take those votes. but right now we should be limiting our debate to energy because that's the legislation on the floor before us. so i would urge that we try and address the concerns that people have, but we do it in a way that allows us to move forward

on this energy bill. i think it's in the best interest of the country and as senator wyden said so eloquently, people in this country want us to work together. they want us to work together to address the issues we're facing in america. senator portman and i have tried to do that. we've spent three years trying to do that. we want to move forward. we want to work together to address this issue. i certainly want to have the debate with my colleague from louisiana about health care. but i don't want to have it right now because we can't move forward on this legislation as long as that's -- his amendment is holding this up. so i hope we can work out some way to do that in a way we can both find agreeable and allows us a path forward to address energy, because clearly we have got to come up with a comprehensive energy strategy for the country.

i think energy efficiency is the first step and that's what this legislation would do. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: let me just briefly say i appreciate not only the words but the work of my colleague from new hampshire, and i would specifically suggest and reurge, call attention again to my second suggestion, which was in the form of a u.c., which was to withdraw my amendment from this bill as long as a fair vote were assured before october 1. now the reason this is so time sensitive, and the only reason i'm camped out here on the floor in this way is because this illegal o.p.m. rule happens october 1. this is happening right now. it was announced just a little over a month ago. we weren't here in the intervening time.

we were in the august recess. this is happening. so i don't want to debate particularly next year. we need a vote next week because of that timetable which is not of my making. but i appreciate the sentiment of the senator from new hampshire. i look forward to working this out in that way. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, will my colleague yield for a question? senator vitter, i appreciate that the consent agreements are usually worked out by the leadership of both the majority and the minority. i know you understand that too. would you be willing to withdraw your objection to moving forward on amendments on the bill if you and i went together in good faith to the majority leader and the minority leader to see if we could get some agreement on when we could address your issue? mr. vitter: i would not agree to that because that discussion in good faith has been going on for a long time.

it's not yielding anything. so i hope it does. but simply put, i can't take the pressure off that discussion to yield something because that discussion has been going on for a long time. and so, i'm happy to continue that discussion, but moving forward with the bill, quite frankly, lets all the pressure out and assures defeat, assures lack of progress. mrs. shaheen: would you not agree there are other bills that are going to be coming to the senate in the next couple of weeks? so if we can't come to an agreement that there is going to be another opportunity before the deadline, when you could also have this debate that you're looking for? mr. vitter: again, answering the question through the chair, i would just observe that the time between now and october 1 is pretty darned short. and what may be coming to the floor is pretty limited. it may be a c.r.. the amendment opportunities on that are very uncertain.

i know there are nominations that are moving forward with obviously no amendment opportunities. so, number one, i don't know what other bills there may be to even try to get an amendment on. but, number two, even if i knew of those targets, i wouldn't be assured of a vote. i would just be put off some more. so, again, i'm open to any solution that guarantees a vote not for me but for the american people, on this important issue before october 1. again, that time line was not of my making. it was due to the issuance of what i think is a clearly illegal rule to benefit washington, contrary to the statutory language of senator -- statutory language of obamacare. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i have been watching with

admiration the work done by my colleague from new hampshire and ohio, senators shaheen and portman. i would suggest in all respect colleagues who may have extraneous amendments that this measure is so important and so vital to the future of our country not only in the ends and policies it achieves, but also the trust that it will inspire if we're able to come together and work on a bipartisan basis and get this job done, it can set a template for changing the mind-set within this building and across the country as to how congress can function. and so we have an opportunity here. let's seize it. let's avoid the kind of quagmire

and gridlock and paralysis that has been so damaging to trust and confidence in our public institution. senators shaheen and portman deserve a tremendous amount of credit for getting this bill to where it is right now. they never gave up, and i am proud that they have come this far. let us enable this congress to go the rest of the way. this legislation is more than the sum of its parts. it is about saving money, clearly 13.7 billion per year. it's about saving energy and creating jobs, 164,000 jobs by 2030. and it is a great return on investment. it's also about creating trust and confidence in our ability to

protect our national security from excess use of energy that makes us more dependent on nations that have no particular affection for us, indeed wish us more harm than good. this legislation authorizes $10 million in grants for institutions of higher learning, trade schools and community colleges, to provide workforce training and skill creation to engineers and builders who need to develop and install the latest, most cutting-edge technologies. it provides limited but very helpful rebates of up to $20 million over the next two years for manufacturers who upgrade their electric motors and transformers. it directs the department of energy to focus its ongoing research and development offices on alternative energy sources for our heating and power. these measures, along with energy efficiency required in our federal buildings and

facilities, are meaningful and real. they are perhaps not the biggest steps, but they are important steps in the right direction toward saving energy, saving money and ultimately saving our planet, because we know that climate change, more properly known as climate disruption and planet destruction, are facing us if we fail to act, as this measure would have us do. i have an amendment to the bill that would provide for a very straightforward, noncontroversial steps in this same direction. it's numbered 1878, and it will require the united states department of energy to study the nonmonetary -- i stress

nonmonetary benefits to our communities of energy-saving products and kphrao*eu with energy -- and comply with energy codes for buildings. for example, buildings account for almost 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions according to world business council for sustainable development. we all see the difference that energy efficiency makes in our pocketbooks and wallets. this amendment will help quantify these same improvements insofar as a cleaner environment. and energy saving contributes in nonmonetary ways to our quality of life, making us more efficient in the workplace because the workplace's quality of life is improved and conditions make people more productive. there are other amendments, such as the fine work done by my colleague, senator bennet of colorado, to get a better

understanding of the financial, that is the monetary savings, that commercial energy-efficient buildings generate for both owners and tenants. my amendment looks to the nonmonetary benefits seeking to quantify them and build a case for energy efficiency there and throughout our society insofar as we work better, enjoy life more from savings that this bill may achieve in money and energy. as chair of the senate judiciary subcommittee on oversight, federal and agency actions, i've seen how federal agencies are able, through the rule making process, to take into account the nonmonetary factors during their cost-benefit analysis. and so too should consumers and manufacturers have a better understanding of nonmonetary factors that are addressed

through energy efficiency, such as improved building codes that benefit occupants and the general population as well as greater office productivity. there are three areas of manufacturing in connecticut that are thriving because of energy efficiency. united technologies makes buildings systems, elevators and heating and air conditioning units and systems that are focused on the most innovative and sustainable technologies. we all use their energy efficiency. for example, otis elevators every day to come to the floor and bring constituents to the capitol visitors center by that means. in le grand in west hartford, if

you visit you can see firsthand the jobs this administration employees. grand employs about 500 people making electrical and digital insides of buildings across commercial and industrial markets. they have a demonstration home. you can walk through it. you can see how energy-efficient products work and how they save energy, money and also improve quality of life. this past may, le grand was recognized by the united states department of energy for its continuing efforts in making energy efficiency a top priority through that company's involvement in better buildings, better plants challenge. connecticut is also leading the world in making energy-efficient fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems, a third area of great importance in energy saving, from our neighborhood schools to

military bases that use stationary fuel cells to many other areas where inspepb sieve energy storage -- inexpensive energy storage and power as well as increased reliability result from grid independence. these lessons are tangible, real, dramatic. they are lessons in energy efficiency. in fact, after storm sandy, we know something about the need for reliable backup power in connecticut. fuel cells are our future, and we should be recognizing that energy efficiency is our future as well. it's an investment that helps everyone in all communities. i've long supported making energy efficiency more supportable, affordable, reliable by improving the existing and new technologies.

and since arriving in the senate, i have fought for continued adequate funding for weatherization assistance programs. a comprehensive energy strategy is what the nation needs. this measure is a step in that direction. we cannot live successfully and we cannot thrive as a nation in the 21st century without an energy policy and without moving forward on measures like this one that enable us to be more energy efficient. this legislation is an important approach and a part of a comprehensive policy that our nation needs to address climate disruption, national security threats, fiscal austerity, and all of the challenges of quality of life that are so imminent and

direct to our nation. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i really appreciate my colleague from connecticut's work. i will add his amendment number 1878 to my proposed u.c.. i absolutely support it being fully debated and having a vote. i have absolutely no problem with that. alternatively, i have no problem withdrawing my amendment from this bill and getting a vote subsequent to this bill before october 1. and certainly down that path as well the blumenthal amendment number 878 should get a vote. so i fully support that. and finally, mr. president, i absolutely agree with the need to build the confidence of the american people.

but let me just suggest, i don't think the way to build the confidence of the american people is by passing some energy efficiency act, which i expect to support but they've never heard of, and then sweeping under the rug and thereby protecting this special deal and special washington exemption from obamacare. i think step one of rebuilding the confidence of the american people is to say and to live the motto that everything that we pass and apply to america has to apply in the same way to us. and that's exactly what this illegal o.p.m. rule goes against and disrupts. there is a statutory provision in obamacare that specifically says all members of congress and all congressional staff have to go to the exchange. this o.p.m. rule completely,

effectively reverses that, takes all the sting out of that, is contrary to the law and, therefore, illegal. and i think letting that stand, ignore that or sweeping thawrndr sweeping thawrnd the rug is no -- or sweeping that under the rug is no way to improve the confidence of the american people. i want to discuss that and debate on this bill and all these amendments, certainly including blumenthal amendment 1878 which i will certainly add to my proposed u.c. thank you, mr. president. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i want to thank my colleague and friend from louisiana for his support for my amendment and say that i respect and appreciate the passion and zeal that he has brought to this debate on behalf of his beliefs. we can disagree on the policies and the merits of those beliefs, but i would just add my voice

respectfully to other colleagues' who have suggested there may be other ways to raise this issue and indeed have a vote. and like my colleague from new hampshire, who has just articulated it so well, i would in no way shirk from votes on the issues that my colleague, the senator from louisiana, has raised. i am ready to debate and confront those issues and deal with the merits. i would simply suggest that there may be better ways to raise this issue than, in effect, to block consideration of a bill that is so important to the american people, so widely supported among so many different groups, and has amassed and mobilized such a strong bipartisan coalition.

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i'll respond through the chair that i appreciate those remarks and the genuine sentiment behind those remarks, and i welcome and will accept any reasonable path forward that assures that vote before october 1, which is the deadline established by o.p.m.'s illegal rule. i will agree to any path forward that assures that vote before october 1, absolutely. and i look forward to that. finally, i'm not blocking anything. i'm proposing votes. i'm proposing making amendments pending, and alternatively i'm proposing withdrawing my amendment from this bill as long as we can vote before october 1. thank you, mr. president.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: in addition to thanking my colleague from louisiana for his comments just now, i also have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the snavment they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that -- that anna henderson, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call present. mr. franken: i'm sorry. i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. madam president, i would ask that -- ask for unanimous consent that anna henderson, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. franken: thank you so much. madam president, i rise today to talk about energy efficiency and my amendment to senators jeanne shaheen and rob portman's energy savings and industrial competitiveness act. i'm very pleased that we are acting on this legislation today and i'm very appreciative of the work of the energy and natural resources committee, chairman ron wyden, and ranking member lisa murkowski, what they have done to get us to this point. this is a very important piece of legislation. in the united states, our energy consumption is about one-fifth of the world's total energy consumption and yet we -- when you consider that we have less than 1/20th of the world's population that says that we have a -- a role to play here

and especially when a tremendous amount of that energy is simply lost through inefficient buildings, appliances, industrial processes and automobiles. those losses have been estimated to cost u.s. businesses and households $130 billion a year. by making investments in energy efficiency, we can help consumers lower energy costs and we can reduce pollution, boost the manufacturing sector and create jobs. that's -- that's win-win, win-win. that's what this legislation is all about and i am proud that the first hearing i held as chairman of the energy subcommittee on the energy and natural resources committee was on amendments to senator shaheen's and smar and senator s bill. we considered a number of amendments that would bolster the bill's efforts to make our

economy more energy efficient. now we have the opportunity to consider some of those amendments that we addressed in my subcommittee on the floor of the senate. i would like to call up and briefly talk about an amendment that i've filed to this bill. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending apamendment and call up amendmet number 1855. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? mr. vitter: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, reserving the right to object. i would like to propose an alternative unanimous consent that would certainly allow that amendment to be made pending and that would be, madam president, that i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the following amendments be made pending: franken number 1855, blumenthal number 1878, bennet number 1847,

enzi number 1863, udall number 1845, sessions number 1879, inhofe number 1851, klobuchar number 1856, and vitter number 1866 and that on tuesday, september 17, at a time to be determined jointly by the majority and minority leaders, that my amendment, vitter number 1866, and a side-by-side amendment on the same subject by the majority leader be made pending and receive 60 minutes of debate evenly divided and controlled by the majority bill manager and myself, that no points of order be in order to relation to these two amendments, that upon expiration of the time for debate, without any intervening motions or debate, the senate then proceed to votes on these two amendments, subject to a 60-vote threshold for passage, and that subsequent to each amendment vote, a motion to reconsider

each vote be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request from the senator from louisiana? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator from minnesota's request? mr. vitter: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from minnesota has the floor. mr. franken: madam president, i'm disappointed that my colleague is objecting to us moving forward with this energy bill for reasons that i believe are entirely unrelated to this bipartisan piece of legislation and for an amendment that is not germane. and i hope we can work this out. but in the meantime, i'd like to explain what my amendment does

on energy efficiency, which is what this bill -- this bipartisan bill is about. my amendment is simply designed to help information on the energy use of buildings to -- to get it and to get it out. that way, building owners and private-sector companies can identify energy savings. unless we really know how well buildings are performing, we can't be sure what types of energy efficiency technologies will be the most effective, and that's exactly what my amendment addresses. main thing my amendment does is to require that buildings -- that building spaces that are leased by the federal government measure and report their energy use. the federal government is the nation's largest consumer of energy. taxpayers are paying for all of that energy.

we owe it to them, to our taxpayers, to make sure their buildings save as much energy as possible. now, the energy savings and independence act of 2007 created energy efficiency requirements for federal buildings and for federally leased spaces. however, over half of those leased spaces are exempt from these energy efficiency requirements. my amendment makes the federal government's energy usage accountable to taxpayers by requiring disclosure of energy use in all federally leased spaces where such disclosures would be practical and appropriate. this amendment will also have a small grant program so that utilities and their partners who want to measure and disclose energy use in their buildings are able to do so. the grant program is voluntary

and is fully offset. madam president, my amendment would be a significant step in making our commercial buildings more energy efficient. i had a call with a member of the real estate roundtable. it's called benchmarking is what this is called. and on that call, he was saying, well, not only will this save the federal government money, save taxpayers money, but it will through the whole commercial building sector create energy -- more energy efficiency and save dollars. and, again, make the federal government more accountable to taxpayers. by accessing information on the energy use of buildings, private-sector investors and energy service contract companies can identify and deploy more effective energy efficiency retrofit improvements. retrofits are the -- are the

win-win-win-win-win-win thing that we can do, and it's low-hanging fruit. when you do a retrofit, you're putting -- putting people to do doing the retrofit, you're improving the value of the property, you are using products that are made by manufacturers in the united states so you're creating jobs there, you're also reducing the amount of energy use, so saving money. retrofits pay for themselves. it lowers or carbon footprint. it -- and, again, it saves money. so win-win-win-win hoof wi-win s do that. madam president, i again want to commend senators shaheen and portman on their legislation. i look forward to the passage of this commonsense amendment, and i would yield the floor.

mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i strongly support the franken amendment. and this concept known as benchmarking -- and that's what the senator's amendment's all about -- is something of a term of art in the energy field, but i think it's important for people to know that benchmarking is essentially about informati information. it's about making markets work better. benchmarking is a process that allows building owners to assess and disclose the energy use of their buildings so they can compare it to similar buildings. the information provides an incentive for owners to improve building efficiency and obviously better information on energy use is itself an incentive to improve efficiency. and all this amendment does is

it expands benchmarking, in effect, approaches the issue of building efficiency and says, one of the most practical, common steps -- commonsense steps that we can take is to expand access to good information. so i'm very appreciative that the senator from minnesota has offered amendment. it's very much consistent with what's known as the energy star program which also encourages building owners to share this kind of information. so i hope senators will support it. i'm sure that not every senator has heard the words "benchmarking" before because that is something of a term of art in the energy policy field. but to put it in some resembling english, this is ba about sharig

information, it's about making markets work better. there are no mandates or requirements here in terms of the private sector. i'm very hopeful that again, as part of the effort to keep this bill focused on energy efficiency, we can get the franken amendment before the entire senate. i support it, support it strongly. and, madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: i want to thank my colleague from minnesota for coming to the floor and talking about his amendment even though he can't officially offer it because i think it's an important amendment. mr. portman: i think it improves the legislation. i appreciate the time that he took the time to figure out how to offset it because some of the original drafts of the amendment had some authorization without offsets so this is a deficit-neutral amendment, as i understand it, and looked at the offsets and they look like they are offsets that are consistent with the underlying bill to make sure that we're not adding any

burden to the deficit here. but it does make sense. this benchmarking is important. it enables people to see what others are doing, comparing performance to similar buildin buildings. it's invaluable when evaluating the need for upgrades and particularly in the federal sector, where we don't have necessarily that same motive to be able to -- profit motive to be able to -- to be incentivized to look 59 those -- to look at those comparable energy efficiency performances. so i -- i like this amendment because it has a sensible approach on benchmarking, it has no mandates on the private sector, it does expand benchmarking from federally owned facilities to federally leased facility, which is important, since we have a number of those around the country, and it also does something i think positive in terms of requiring d.o.e. to study the whole methodology behind benchmarking, which will help not only the federal sector but the private sector. it reque methodologies be studied so

cities and states can implement better practices and best practices. so, madam president, i think this amendment is an example of the four other amendments that i see here we've already had good discussion on in the last day, which deal with aspects of energy efficiency that improve the legislation. again, i thank my colleague from minnesota for bringing it forward, as others have. senator inhofe, senator carper, senator hoeven, senator bennet, senator ayotte, senators collins and others over the last 24 hours. and i look forward to getting the amendment actually called up so that we can move forward on this. and i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find unanimous consent agreement so we can move forward. it seems to me we're pretty close to that, having followed the proceedings this morning it

seems like every time we get closer there is another concern that gets raised. i think we need to figure out how to resolve the health care issue in a way that does permit this chamber to have its voice heard but then get back to this underlying legislation and to these amendments. this is something we've worked on now for two and a half years. it's something that i think is the result of the kind of bipartisan effort we ought to be doing around here. how can you find common ground to actually move the country forward on things that help create jobs, help our economy, and make us more competitive as a country, but also have an environmental and energy benefits. so with that, i yield back and again thank the members who are willing to come down on the floor and talk about some of the amendments even though we cannot officially offer them at this point. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i also want to thank my colleague from minnesota for his work and for this amendment.

and i want to underscore that i'm not blocking his amendment. in fact, i presented a u.c. that makes his amendment pending, assures debate and would assure a vote. and i'm completely open to that with regard to that senator's amendment and all of the other amendments we're talking about. alternatively, if it's preferable, earlier i know the senator from minnesota wasn't on the floor, and so i don't expect him to know this, but i wanted to underscore earlier i presented an alternative u.c. to withdraw my amendment from this bill and be assured of a vote outside of this bill on the senate floor before october 1. and of course that october 1 deadline is real and is important. not created by me. created by this illegal proposed o.p.m. rule. and so that's an alternative path forward that would take my amendment and my proposal

completely outside of this bill. and i also offer that u.c.. and i would reurge it. and i too hope that we're making progress toward that sort of fair resolution. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i would like to speak to an amendment that's been filed by my colleague from north dakota, senator hoeven. and i expect he'll be here momentarily to speak specifically to his amendment. it has to do with the keystone pipeline. this is an appropriate, i think, opportunity to talk about the energy needs that our country has, the way in which those are being addressed. and we believe that there is a great opportunity for our country to benefit in so many ways from the building of the keystone pipeline. now obviously the senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, his state is benefiting enormously from the oil and gas

find that they have in their state, lots of abundant energy resources. and as typically is the case you've got to have a way to get those to the ultimate marketplace. the most efficient way, of course, to do that is through pipelines. and the keystone pipeline which has been proposed now for several years is a way in which we could move about 830,000 barrels of oil every single day, and that's according to the department of energy. not only would this pipeline transport canadian crude to u.s. markets, but would also benefit oil production from the balance can formation -- from the balkan formation in the upper great plains. 830,000 barrels represents about half, half the amount that the united states imports from the middle east each and every day. according to the department of energy, much of the u.s. and canadian oil shipped through this pipeline will be refined at the time gulf coast refineries and would likely offset heavy

crude imports from venezuela. keystone x.l. pipeline is a $5.3 billion investment. according to the obama state department, the pipeline would support 42,000 jobs across the country, and that's over a one- two-year construction period, approximately 3,900 would be directly employed. these jobs would translate into nearly $2 billion in wages and earnings. keystone x.l. would generate much-needed tax revenue in several states includes an estimated $5 billion in additional property taxes throughout the operational life of the pipeline. the keystone x.l. pipeline has been under review for now 1,819 days. september 19 will mark the five-year anniversary of the initial application for the pipeline's presidential permit. four environmental reviews have already concluded that the pipeline would not have a

significant impact on the environment. four environmental reviews, madam president, to date, have come to that conclusion. as president obama continues to delay canada's oil supply is growing by the day and is expected to double by the year 2025. canadian oil producers are quickly building pipelines to canada's east and west coast to ship their oil to foreign markets. meanwhile reports indicate that we may not get a decision out of this now, out of the administration until the year 2014. by delaying approval of the pipeline, president obama is providing china and other nations with an opportunity to outcompete the united states and gain access to canada's growing oil supply. senator hoeven's resolution declares that the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline is in our national interest, and that, madam president, is what the state department will have to conclude at the end of this current environmental impact statement process which is

supposed to be wrapped up here in the coming weeks. at that point secretary kerry, the secretary of state, has 90 days to determine if the pipeline is in our national interest. i would state again, madam president, this pipeline is going to create jobs. it's going to boost investment. it's going to reduce our dependence on venezualan oil. it will strengthen our relationship with our largest trading partner. keystone x.l. pipeline is clearly in our national interest, and i would hope that the united states senate would go on record to that effect, madam president. if you think about the impacts this can have on our economy, on jobs, the impact it can have on reducing that dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy, this makes all the sense in the world. i would reiterate what i said earlier. this has been studied this, has been scrutinized. this has been reviewed for five years. 1,819 days have passed, elapsed

since this permit was applied for in the very beginning. five years have lapsed. four environmental reviews. there is now currently yet another environmental impact study underway which is supposed to be concluded soon, at the conclusion of which there will be a 90-day period in which the secretary of state has to make a determination about whether or not the keystone pipeline is in our national interest. what this amendment offered by my colleague from north dakota, senator hoeven, would do is simply put the senate on the record as saying that the keystone pipeline is in fact in our national interest. i believe that's a statement that the united states senate ought to make. we ought to weigh in on this subject. and it's clear from all the economic impacts, clear from the environmental impacts, clear from the need that we have to get away from the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy that this is a win-win for americans. win-win for american consumers. win-win for american workers who need those jobs. win-win for the american

economy, in not having to get so much our oil and energy supply from outside the united states. so, madam president, i would urge my colleagues -- and i hope we get this chance as we continue debate on this bill -- to discuss this amendment, but also to ultimately vote on it and to declare once and for all in the united states senate that this is in fact in the united states interest. i see my colleague from north dakota who is the author of this amendment is here and i credit him for bringing this amendment to the floor and giving us an opportunity to discuss what i think is a very important issue not only though his state, to my state and many others that would be impacted directly by this, but to the entire economy and our country. so i would yield to the senator from north dakota, who is the author of the amendment. mr. hoeven: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: madam president, i want to thank the esteemed senator from south dakota for being here and for his comments on this very important issue, and also for being a cosponsor

of this amendment both now and previous amendments i've submitted in support of the keystone x.l. pipeline project. i believe some of the other sponsors of this amendment will be joining us, and i will ask that they are able to say a few words as well as they appear. but again, i want to thank the senator from south dakota for his leadership on this issue. the pipeline will actually go through part of south dakota. i should mention it wasn't too long ago i was back home in north dakota, and down in the southwest corner of our state, and hundreds of miles of pipeline are stacked up just waiting to be used, to be put in the ground. and a lot of that pipeline will go through the state of south dakota, through the western part of your state. of course, this is all about building vital, vital infrastructure for our nation. what it's really about is

getting our nation to energy independence, working with canada to have north american energy independence so that we no longer depend on oil from the middle east. and that's something that all americans very, very much want. and so as the senator from south dakota said, this is a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution of the senate and then of course it would go to the house. it would be be putting both the senate and the house on record together stating both specifically and clearly that the keystone x.l. pipeline project is in the national interest. it is in the national interest. why is that important? because, quite simply, that's the decision that our president needs to make. he's been reviewing this project for five years. trans-canada submitted an application to build this

pipeline in september of 2008. now it's september of 2013. so for five years this has been under review and under study. so what's the decision for the president of the united states? the decision for the president of the united states is that he needs to determine is this pipeline in the national interest or not. why is that important? because it crosses an international boundary. the pipeline states in h hardisty in alberta, canada, travels down the canadian border across our country to a variety of refineries across the country. it would provide 830,000 barrels a day of oil. that's not just canadian oil. that is also oil from the great state of north dakota and montana. more than 100,000 barrels a day of the lightest, sweetest crude oil produced anywhere in the country, really in the world. and it takes it to our

refineries so that our consumers can use that refined fuel from canada and from the united states rather than what? rather than oil from the middle east. how fitting is it that we're here today, what we're talking about, the middle east and syria. and we're today now talking about an energy-efficiency bill -- and i'll submit to you it is a lot more efficient to move oil in a pipeline than it is by trains and trucks. so it's certainly appropriate that this amendment be part of an energy efficiency bill. but americans don't want to get their oil from the middle east anymore. that's a tpro*e brainer. they don't want to get oil from the middle east. they want it produced here and they want to work with our closest friend and neighbor, canada. and that's what this project is all about. so we figure if congress can go on the record together -- the senate and the house together -- just go on the record stating

clearly, simply and straightforwardly, after more than five years of study, exhaustive environmental impact statements, we are stating this pipeline is in the national interest. it's in the national interest because we want the jobs. it's in the national interest because we want the energy. it's in the national interest because it will create tremendous economic activity, tax revenue, without raising taxes for our country, for the states. it's in the national interest because of our national security. we don't want to have to go to venezuela or the middle east for our oil. we can produce it here and we can work with dan to produce that -- with canada to produce at that oil. by clearly stating in a concurrent resolution that this is in the national interest, we believe that we can get the president to say, after five years of study, after

environmental impact statement after environmental impact statement that shows no significant environmental impact, it'll make -- they don't make a decision. they don't make a decision. mr. thune: will the senator from north dakota yield for a question? mr. hoeven: and the decision is to approve the projects. and i will be pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague. mr. thune: i would ask the distinguished senator -- and he has been a leader on all these issues as we debate energy policy in the united states senate. but my understanding is that according to the state department, president obama's state department, the pipeline would support 42,000 jobs across the quun, there have been some discussions and debate. the president not too long ago made some comment before an editorial board that this is going to create only a couple thousand jobs and that that was a very minimalist thing.

and it strikes me that when you have an unemployment rate that continues to offer in the 7.2% range, you have the lowest participatiolaborparticipation e had in the past 35 years, and the real unemployment rate -- those who are not only unemployed but who would like to be, wooing full-time or those who have quit looking, is actually much higher, about 22 million americans who fall into that category, that you would be very interested in anything that would create shovel-ready jobs. we have hearded from this administration, particularly with debating the stimulus that we need shovel-ready jobs, that we can get jobs for people to work immediately. well, this is exactly what fits that description, fits it perfectly, and i would ask the senator from north dakota if it is his understanding also that it would be thousands of jobs that would be created as a

result of building the pipeline, and wouldn't that be something that we would add to the argument -- there are many arguments, but this certainly one when we're talking about a sluggish economy where growth continues to hover in that 1% to 2% range. when you're producing energy in this country and lowering the cost of energy because we're actually having more of it produced here as opposed to importing from somewhere else around the world that it gives us a exeativ a competitive adva? could the senator from north dakota speak to that issue of jobs and what his understanding is of the jobs that could be create fundamental we did in fact move forward with the pipeline? mr. hoeven: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota -- sorry, north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. absolutely -- look, this is a project, a $7.9 billion construction project, that even

by the state department's estimates -- now, so the administration's state department has been working with a variety of agencies and has developed a number of environmental impact statements. and right in their own analysis, they indicate more than 40,000 jobs. so you're talking a project that costs billions to build, will create more than 40,000 jobs, by their own admission, just on the construction process alone, it will generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue at the local, state, and federal level. so it has a huge economic impact at a time when we need to get people working and when we need to get our economy growing. and also at this time i'd like to acknowledge that this is very much a bipartisan approach. it really is. look, we've got to be bipartisan

to get anything done. so when we show a concrete resolution from the senate and the house, both houses of congress together, and republicans and democrats coming together saying this is in the national interest, that's a powerful staple. -- that's a powerful statement. and one i certainly hope the president will acknowledge and make the same decision, that this project truly is in the national interest. on that note, i'd like to turn to senator mary landrieu, my esteemed colleague from louisiana, who is also a prime sponsor of this resolution. and also i see that senator begich from the great state of arks senatoalaska, senator heite as well. i would like to acknowledge them and acknowledge their cosponsorship of this legislation. if i could just read the sponsors that we have on board already and there will be more, and then i would like to turn to

the esteemed senator from louisiana, who was so instrumental in of the craking n crafting this resolution. if i could mention all of our sponsors in addition to the senator from louisiana, senator landrieu, and senator thune from south dakota, also senator mcconnell from kentucky, senator john barrasso from wyoming, senator begich, as i mentioned from alaska, senator cornyn from texas, senator blunt from missouri, senator risch from indiana, senator mark pryor from arkansas, and there will be others. i mention these senators both to thank them but to make the point this is very much a bipartisan effort, because we're serious about getting something done here. this is not about making a staivment thimake -- thisis not. if i could now, i'd like to turn

now to senator landrieu, the coauthor of this resolution, and thank her for all of her work on it. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i am so proud to join a fairly large group of colleagues, both republicans and democrats, to talk about the importance of energy for our country, domestic energy, and all facets of it and particularly the keystone pipe lierntion which will transport oil primarily, but potentially gas as well -- but oil right now from an important part of the country to the refineries that can refine it so that our people can use it here and, as appropriate, export it as appropriately around the world. canada is a very strong ally of ours. we have reduced our imports of oil because of a fallout of demand and increased production domestically, but we can do more. before i get into just my brief

remarks, i see senator shaheen and senator portman on the floor, and i want to really commend he them for bringing an energy -- commend them for bringing an energy bill to the floor, a conversation energy bill to the floor that will not only make america more secure but it has the potential to create literally millions of jobs in our country, the kinds of jobs that we want that rely on cutting-edge science and technology and manufacturing here at home. it's hard to get a bill out of any committee with bipartisan support, and the chairman, senator wyden, has done a fabulous job, in my view, you know, navigating between lots of very tough currents to get this bill to the floor. and it's disheartening that some people would come to the floor this morning to talk about health care or to talk about nonrelated issues to energy when

this government needs to be focused on creating jobs, supporting the middle class, and growing the middle class. so i'm proud to be here talking about what most americans want us to talk about, which is creating jobs at home, ending this recession, expanding our economy, and investing in good, ol' american know-how about how to get things done. so i'm so happy to spend my time talking about something very positive, and that's the ke keystone pipeline. i am proud to be the key sponsor on the democratic side with senator hoeven and to be joined with senator begich from alaska and other senators on the senator, my friend, senator height caisson. i woul-- senator heitkamp. i would urge our resolution, which we believe will have more than 60 votes, will urge the president and push us to a place where we can approve the keystone pipeline as an

important infrastructure component to our efforts to greatly expand domestic production. there's horizontal drilling that's going on. there's fracking that can be done very safely and with a minimum environmental blueprint. there are some opportunities, as the chairman knows, to export gas. we are a big gas producer and consumer, so i understand the balance that's necessary. we most certainly don't want to export 100% of our production, but we do need to export enough to understand is a significant pall to -- to send a signal to the marketplace that if you risk your moi money to find it vula market pour it. that is just the fundamentals of any kind of market, whether it is the cotton market the oil market or the gas market. they all operate the same. so we're excited about what's happening in america. from our view in louisiana, this is one of the most exciting times we've had, mr. chairman, in decades because there's so

much interest in more domestic production, so many more jobs are being created. in senator heitkamp's state, i think they've run out of workers. i'm not even sure we can build their roads fast enough to help us get, you know, this production under way. it is revitalizing the manufacturing base of america. all of my industries are excited. and i will finally going to say this because there are others to talk. just between lafayette, louisiana, mr. presiden madam pd lake charles, two medium-sized cities in south louisiana, just the southern part of our state, there's currently $60 billion of investments being made today because of this extraordinary new domestic production. the keystone is part of this. i know that there are some environmental cefnls i think they're unfounded. irthink they have been disputed by any number of groups. what i am here to say is this is

about american jobs. this is about building our infrastructure in america for more domestic production. let's get over this hump and let's get together, as we can, focused on the things that matter to the american people and not undermine this bill. i'm going to end with this: not undermine this bill, which is an important component. but to do what we can to get this keystone pipeline moving in a cooperative spirit, which is not often found on the floor these days. and so i want to just ask the senator from alaska, you know, what he's hearing in alaska? he and i, if it's okay with the chair, to ask the senator from alaska what he heard in alaska because i heard nothing but green light for keystone when i was home in hughes lewis -- throug----when i was home in lo. mr. begich: we find ourselves always on the floor here on oil

and gas issues. our group has grown. we now have senator heitkamp from north dakota. we're very appreciative that he is should a here on these you shalls. you know, it is interesting, keystone -- i assume my colleagues on the other side -- this is one of those where, as democrats, republicans, we're focused on what is right for america, creating jobs and opportunity, not just having the partisan fights but focused on what's important. when you think about energy overall, here's what i hear a lot back home: first, get us off of energy from countries that don'tic us. first priority. we do a lot of business with countries who do not like us. because we don't have our own production or we don't have capacity to tap into production. second, of course, from alaska we are a huge producer of oil. i know my friends from north dakota will tell me they've outranked us today. i will remind them that when the o.c.s., the outer continental shelf, we'll have a few -- i don't know -- 26-plus billion

barrels of oil. we hope next year they get back into the o.c.s. we feel very confident about that. alaska, like louisiana, north dakota and others is abundant with this recorks which will get us off -- with this resource, which will get us off of foreign oil. this is when i hear over and over and over begin. what a better deal than to work with our canadian partners where we import enormous amounts of oil from. why not work with -- why not work with a country that is unbelievably always there for us? a pipeline -- we know a little bit about pipelines in alaska. we built a pretty large one going through some tough terrain. terrain. it has been operating successfully with for decades. that is under the old rules of construction. so today with the new engineering technology, the unbelievable potential to bring that resource to our refineries

-- because the choice isn't, they're not going do it. this is a false argument that you hear out there. people say, we just stop this pipeline, they won't produce. no, canada is a sovereign country. they have a resource. they intend to utilize it. this resource, they will ship to us to refine or china p. i don't know about you, but there is a clear difference in environmental standards between china and the u.s. and, oh, by the way, those jobs aren't our jobs in china. these jobs that will be produced by a project -- it only has so many jobs, first off, they have a labor agreement. unbelievable when you think about it. laborists, steamsters, pipe fitters who will be trained and employed and for north dakota, montana, a resource of oil being developed there. this creates access. access for their product, u.s.

oil, to be moved through the pipeline and then refined down south and in incredibly strict environmental standards. and, yes, some mighting exported. some might stay in the u.s. but at the end of the day, it is about creating american jobs. and from alaska's perspective, people say, why are you for this if you want to do your own projects in alaska? bhaws it ibecause it is good for all of us. i want to see the national petroleum reserve, we'll see the first production -- i was up there two weeks ago and saw cd-5, a platform being developed over the next two years, and over the next two years will produce 15,000 barrels a day. they have plans for two or three more. this is an incenl component but keystone is the safest way to move that. and oh, by the way, we already have oil coming through the tar sands through the chicago region, about a half a billion

barrels already. now, unless i missed something, didn't hear a lot of complaints on that. so this will up the capacity to 1.1, the southern section's being built. it is about american jobs, american resource. it's the right decision. i'm just what perplexed by the administration's delay after delay after delay and arguments why somehow something else can't happen. in reality, this project is a good project, a good jobs project. it has a lot of opportunity not only for us here in the u.s., in the sense of the lower 48, where i am today, sitting here in the chamber, but for alaskans too because the oil industry moves around. we have people working in the north dakota region from alaska. we have people down in louisiana. and vice versa. it's a unified system of employment. it's good jobs, good jobs, good jobs. did i mention that? and it's u.s. and canadian partners who have been partners for years. and why we would not purchase

this oil or work through this and build this pipeline to make sure this oil from a great partner is refined in the u.s. rather than focusing on oil in countries that do not like us makes no sense to me. so my friend from hugh lieu, thank you for asking. i hear it all the time. and we're joined -- probably you are, as i am, very excited to have another person on the floor here with us talking about oil and gas issues. sometimes we feel a little lonely here. but on this bill, this amendme amendment, there's a lot of us. so i know my friend from north dakota has a lot to say. i heard it during her campaign. and so i think she's probably going to emphasize it. so i'll just turn, if it's okay, to the senator from louisiana, i'll ask my friend from north dakota if she has some additional comments or what she's also hearing. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i would just ask at this time to be able to propound a unanimous consent request with respect to keystone.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: okay. madam president, there's been a bit of confusion with respect to the handling of the keystone because i was under the impression that we would be completed at this time the discussion of keystone, so i would ask unanimous consent that at this time we would allow senator heitkamp to speak with respect to her position on -- on keystone, then senator portman would go next. both of them have indicated that they would be brief. and i would then ask for purposes of this part of the discussion that senator boxer and senator whitehouse be recognized for their views with respect to keystone. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: thank you, madam president. ms. heitkamp: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i thank the great senator from oregon for clarification and for this opportunity to just very briefly

speak on the significance of the keystone pipeline. we've been waiting five years. we fought a world war and defeated the nazis in less time than what we've been waiting to have a determination on the ski tone pipeline. and i know that there's a lot of discussion here and a lot of concern and obviously this has gotten to be a national issue of some magnitude, but when you look overwhelmingly the building of the keystone pipeline is supported by the american peop people. why is that? because it's good for our national security and i think you heard how good it is for employment and job opportunities. but i want to just spend a moment and recognize that in this time that we are in right now, given the events of last week and early this week, the american public is looking for a way to allow us to express our national security interests without worrying about where our oil comes from.

now, i have fortunate enough during the august recess to go up to the oil sands in alberta and spend so the time with the premier, spend some time with the environmental community, spend some time with their labor community and talk about the development there, talk about the enormous tients. yoopportunities. you know, you take a look at alberta and north dakota, two of the fastest growing economies in this world because of this development. and if we walk away from this dliferry systedelivery system, , very much need this pipeline in order to participate in this great north american energy independent opportunity that we have. i would just i think as a final note talk about the relationship that we have with canada and responsibility that we have to our our largest trading partner, the responsibility we have to one of our longest and best allies. in north dakota, we celebrate that border with the -- with a

peace garden which is on both sides of the border, recognizing this is unheard of in the history of the world. these -- this is not some rogue country that doesn't have environmental stamps. they are adopting standards. they are doing everything that they can to deal with what there is their responsibility for global climate change and they shake their hands wondering why it is that we are waiting five years down here to provide them with an opportunity to work with us to create a north america that's energy independent. and so i -- i can't say enough how frustrating this issue has been but i think how important it is that we have again a sense of the senate because we represent the people. we represent the majority opinion in this country who sa says, build the pipeline. and so with that, i yield my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i appreciate the comments of my colleague from north dakota and my other colleague from north dakota, who's been leading on this effort really over the past couple of years to try to get us to a point where we can have, as

senator heitkamp just said, the views of the american people expressed here on the floor. so although this is on the energy efficiency bill and this is more of a production issue, i do think it's consistent with the legislation, as we have talked about from the start. we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy. it has to include, in my view, efficiency as one of those key elements but also producing more. and we've talked about the importance of producing more oil and gas in this country to make us less energy dependent on other countries where we are currently unfortunately dependent on volatile and dangerous parts of the world for energy, which affects the price at the pump and the spike in gasoline prices that we've seen. it also affects our economy. so i think this goes hand in hand and i -- as the senator from north dakota knows, i'm a cosponsor of his legislation that he's proposed before. i'd also supported the amendment on the budget resolution. i also would make a little argument here on efficiency, because one of the things that has been frustrating to me in this keystone debate is that the

discussion seems to be that somehow there would be more emissions and less efficiency if we were to allow the pipeline. i think just the opposite is true. this so -- this is oil which would come, as you know, from the oil sands in canada, but it also comes from the back can in north dakota -- the bakken in north dakota and other places. and right now most of that is being trucked or trained. and that is certainly not an efficient way to move -- move oil and gas. and, in fact, it's a more dangerous way to do it. and it's difficult for me to see how somehow there are efficiency gains by continuing the current policy rather than allowing this pipeline to be built which will create tens of thousands of jobs, which is why the afl-cio building trades council supports it. but also it -- it has efficiency improvements. second, if we don't build the pipeline and cannot access the oil from canada, which helps us to become north american energy independent from an area of the world that is not volatile and dangerous, then that oil will be sold.

as the senator from alaska said, it's a sovereign country. they're going to figure out where a market is and that market apparently is -- is china. and our environmental standards in this country are, of course, at a higher level than they are in china. so in terms of the emissions issues and the environmental issues, obviously there would be an advantage to send it to our high-tech refineries on the gulf coast. but, second, how would that oil get there? not by pipeline but by rail and truck and ultimately by tanker, and certainly that is not a more efficient way to deliver that product, regardless of whether there was -- there were environmental standards at the end of that process, which, of course, there would not be at the level there would be in the united states of america. so i do think this is an important amendment. i do think it ties in to this overall strategy of having an all-of-the-above energy strategy. i do think that the way the senator from north dakota has phrased this amendment, it gives us the opportunity to have our views be expressed but also the house to have their views be expressed and hopefully would result in the president of the united states making an important decision that's in the

interest of economic growth and in the interest of good energy policy, and, as i said earlier, in the interest ultimately of efficient and i fury missions not more emissions. so with that and with the understanding that we have a time agreement here, i appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about it. i appreciate that the senator frommed in is also on the energy committee with me, also supported the energy efficiency bill, which is the underlying bill. i also offered an amendment yesterday that we talked about that is a very important i think improvement in terms of the energy efficiency issue he offered with the senator from minnesota, senator klobuchar. and he has another amendment, as i understand, that deals directly with efficiency. so we appreciate working with him on that and again hopeful that we can resolve these unrelated issues, move forward with this energy efficiency legislation and have votes on some of these energy issues. with that, i yield to my colleague from north dakota. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. i just want to express some thanks as we close out our colloquy, and i want to begin

with the senator from oregon, who is the chairman of the energy committee as well as our ranking member, the senator from alaska, senator wyden from oregon, senator murkowski from alaska, i want to thank them for working to get energy legislation to the floor and for the way they're working to be inclusive and bipartisan in this effort. i also want to thank senator shaheen and senator portman, senator port map from the great state of ohio, senator shaheen from the great state of new hampshire, for their bipartisanship in this energy efficiency bill. which truly creates efficiencies and is a natural piece of legislation for us to add this amendment to, as senator portman just described. again, recognizing the time constraints, i just want to finish by thanking the senator

from louisiana, senator landri landrieu, for her coauthorship of this legislation and for all of the senators who have joined with us in this bipartisan interest on the keystone x.l. pipeline which we truly believe is in the national interest. and with that, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i rise to talk about why approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline is not in the national interest and why it places our nation's families at risk. there is a reason why it's taking a long time to get this approved. it's because it's very controversial and there are some irrefutable facts that i think need to be laid on the table about this pipeline. i also want to say how discouraged it is to me to see a senator come here and offer an unrelated amendment that has to be seen in my mind as an attack

on working people who happen to work for their country and try and derail this bill. it is wrong. and let's be clear. if a senator doesn't want to have health care here, take yourself out of it. if you don't think your staff deserves to have a health care benefit as an employer, you know what? tell them they don't have to take it. tell them to opt out. tell them it would please you if they didn't have that benefit. but to see a good bill like this sheparded by a -- shepherded by a great chair, ron wyden, and two terrific senators here on this particular piece of legislation, senators shaheen and portman, to see this bill get derailed because someone wants to attack working people is unfortunate. absolutely unfortunate. now, let me just say, you know, one of my colleagues said, "oh, this is -- all the people in

america want the x.l. pipeline." i don't know, neighbor her state that's true. it's not true in my state and it's not true in many states. as a matter of fact, that's why there have been 1.2 million comments to the state department from various public agencies and private parties, from native american tribes and others. and i think when the president said on june 25 our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution, that he was speaking the truth. now, you'd have to be asleep for 10, 15 years to not believe that carbon pollution is dangerous to the planet. and i know senator whitehouse will follow with his comments on this. but when you listen to the debate, i didn't hear one person say carbon pollution is a

problem. now, the keystone x.l. would ship one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet through america's heartland and through critical water supplies. it will significantly increase carbon pollution, and the oil will be exported to other countries. so to stand here and say, not even address the issue of pollution and not even admit that most of this oil will be exported, i just think -- don't think it's a fair argument. now, to put it into context, if the full range of products produced from tar sands crude oil, such as petroleum coke, is taken into account, e.p.a. estimates that tar sands would create 30% more carbon pollution than domestic oil. 30% more. wouldwe'd see carbon pollution f

over 18 million more metric tons according to the state department. i'll close with this. again you'd have to be asleep if you didn't notice superstorm sandy and what it cost us not only in lives and in damage, but in dollars. you'd have to be asleep if you haven't noticed that yosemite national park is close to burning -- thank the lord god we have firefighters who are protecting it. the fire is still burning. you'd have to be asleep if you didn't notice what is happening to our oceans, to our economy. and we had just the other day a meeting of folks out there from farmers to recreational industry people who were saying their world is changing because of climate change. but yet, you don't hear our

colleagues talking about that. and they say, there's no problem. well, how about fact that a nebraska study found that keystone x.l. is likely to have 91 major spills over its 50-year lifetime. and tar sands oil is very difficult to capture if the pipelines rupture. i'm going to ask unanimous consent to place the rest of my statement into the record, if i might. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and say that for all the talk about jobs, when you look at the permanent jobs, we're looking at 50 jobs. and what are the chances that there's going to be spills? what are the chances that we're going to hurt this planet? and what are the chances that if we were smart and we did what this underlying bill is doing, which is make sure we have incentives for alternatives that are clean that are made in america, that work for us, there

will be many more jobs. that's the kind of alternative i want to see. now they may pass their amendment if we ever get to it, if they can stop this attack on our working people that is evident in an amendment that's been offered. but i've got to tell you, i kno there's a better way, and i'd like to see us make sure that we consider when we say x.l. is great, all of the reasons why there's so much controversy surrounding it. thank you very much, and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'm very pleased to come to the floor today after my chairman on the environment and public works committee, senator boxer, and offer an alternative point of view to that expressed by my distinguished colleagues who are supporting the keystone x.l. pipeline. in my view, that pipeline takes us in the wrong direction, from

an energy point of view. and it supports the wrong kind of energy. and if you look at the growth of green and renewable energy, there is actually more jobs in clean, green and renewable energy than there is in the oil industry. i had that question reviewed by politifact, and i got a true on it. so, the energy jobs of the future are going to be in clean, green, renewable, sustainable energy. and this takes us in exactly the wrong direction. moreover, they are temporary jobs. i think the state department put the number of final jobs produced by the keystone pipeline between 35 and 50. 35 and 50. not thousands. not tens of thousands. 35 and 50. so what you might as well do is actually go out there and build

a pyramid and put tens of thousands of people to work stacking up a pyramid. and you'd actually do better because that pyramid wouldn't pollute. that is the kind of jobs that we're talking about. we would be far better off investing in clean, green, renewable, sustainable energy technologies and developing those markets which are going to be the competitive markets in the future rather than chasing the tail of fossil fuel technology. i believe i didn't hear everybody speak the whole time. i had to come over to the floor from my office. i had to take a call and missed that point. i believe i heard seven senators speak for 45 minutes, and i believe the worlds "climate change" and the words "carbon pollution" were never mentioned. we're going to pipe out the tar sands from canada.

we're going to add 18.7 million metric tons of additional carbon pollution. that's just from refining the tar sands. we're going to add another 3.5 million metric tons from the electricity required to heat and pump the stuff through the pipeline. the refining cost is the equivalent of five million cars out on the road that wouldn't otherwise be there. the electricity cost is another 600,000 cars out on the road that wouldn't otherwise be there. mr. president, we just hit 400 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for as long as the human species has existed on this planet, we've been in a window of 157 to 300 parts per million. it's been a long and successful run for homosapiens in that comfortable window of environmental protection. we're out of it.

we're out of it for the first time in probably millions of years, at a minimum, 800,000 years. more likely three million or more. and not out a little bit. not 301, not 315. 400 and climbing. this adds to that problem. it is irresponsible to discuss energy and refuse to discuss climate change, refuse to discuss carbon pollution. but for our friends on the other side and from our friends from the coal and oil-producing states, carbon pollution and carbon change are the lord voltimores of the discussion. it is he who must not be named. they are going to ignore it, pretend it is not there at all. that is wildly irresponsible in the environment we are in right now as we see the effects of climate change occurring on our coasts, in our oceans, in acidifications, to our fisheries, to our farms, to our

forests. you really don't have to go very far in this country to find something that is being affected by the changes in our climate from our carbon pollution. and all of that for 50 long-term jobs. really? i don't think that this is the good deal that our colleagues suggest. i'll close by saying two things. first, on energy independence, this pipeline connects to port arthur, texas, a foreign trade free-tax zone. that's where it's going to go. and then it's going to be shipped overseas to other countries. this isn't going to protect american energy independence. this is going to protect energy corporation profits. that's what's behind all of this. and the closing thing that i would add is that we have a supplemental environmental impact statement coming from the state department.

you can believe the people who for some reason can't seem to get the phrase climate change or carbon pollution to come out of their mouths. or you can believe me. you can believe whomever you want, but from a point of view being fair to the process, we should probably wait until the state department has concluded the supplemental environmental impact statement that they are now working on before we make too many rash decisions about polluting tar sands oil, investing in that dirty addition to our energy mix, and continuing to suck funding and support away from the energy sources of the future, which are the clean ones and the sustainable ones and the ones that aren't going to keep shoving the carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere up over and beyond where it is right now. 400. where it hasn't been in millions of years. where it hasn't been in the history of the human species.

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. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i would note that i'd like to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to stipulate that we be in a period of debate only until 2:00.

i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you. mr. president, i'm going to be very brief. i think that senator boxer and senator whitehouse have made a number of very important points with respect to this climate debate, and particularly that scientific finding that we're now at 400 parts per million, that ought to be a wakeup call to everyone with respect to the challenge of climate and carbon. to just spend a couple of minutes, i was in north dakota last week at the request of our colleague, our friend, senator hoeven. and certainly there is a lot of common ground that can be found on this natural gas issue. and of course natural gas is 50% cleaner than the other fossil fuels. it's been a real catalyst for the american manufacturing

sector, with a lot of companies that felt they had for economic reasons to do business overseas, to come back to do business here in the united states. and of course it has a direct connection to the expansion of green power, solar, wind and others because it can be a key factor in making those energy sources a part of an embedded power system. so there are a lot of opportunities for common ground. for example, when i was with senator hoeven last week, we talked about the way i would characterize it, a wide berth for the states with respect to regulating natural gas. because the geology differs from various states. when you look at these kinds of approaches, there is an opportunity for common ground and clearly this is a good set of challenges to have. we've got the natural gas.

the world wants it. the pricing advantage is ours. this is a good set of challenges to have. i do think it's important to recognize that the debate about the pipeline has changed very significantly since it was originally proposed. and i'm particularly struck by the fact that you now have the c.e.o. of the largest producer in the bakken essentially saying that the pipeline isn't needed. and you have the c.e.o. of the largest oil company in canada saying that keystone isn't needed. let me just be very specific and use their words, mr. president. last month harold hamm, c.e.o. of the largest oil producer in the bakken shale continental said the keystone pipeline was not critical. for anybody who is interested in the politics, mr. hamm isn't

some flaming liberal. he was mitt romney's chief energy advisor. just a few days ago you had the c.e.o. of sun core by some estimates canada's largest oil company, saying the lack of a pipeline, in his words, has certainly not constrained his company's growth and his best estimate would be it has not significantly constrained the rest of the market either. so you have here recently, mr. president, the c.e.o.. largest producer in the bakken saying the pipeline is not needed. you have the c.e.o. of the largest oil company in canada saying essentially the same thing. that basically leaves only the refiners. it turns out they have been pretty much saying the same thing. "the wall street journal" had a headline "u.s. refiners don't care if keystone gets built." valero, one of the largest refiners in the country, said keystone was, in their word, "not critical to their business."

this is a refiner that signed up early-to-geearl early to get oim keystone and spent billions to process it and they now say it's not critical. so we're going to have further discussion about this. i want it understood that i think senator boxer and senator whitehouse have made some important points here. i'm particularly struck by how, as you get into this issue, there are significant questions about how this fundamentally benefits the american people. my hope is -- and i've talked about this with senators on both sides of the aisle -- that we can work out the various procedural questions with respect to how keystone comes up here on the floor of the senate. and in fact i'm going to go spend about 45 minutes trying to be part of an effort to see if we can get some common ground so that we can get the issues that

senators, you know, want addressed done, done properly, done once, and then we can go to the energy efficiency legislation and have a vote up or down on the merits of that bill. senator portman is here. he and senator shaheen have done an exspent lent job. -- an excellent job and they have done an excellent job of keeping this bipartisan in the interest of energy security and in the interest of creating more jobs and a cleaner environment. they've done that before the bill arrived on the floor, and bill has gotten better since it has gotten to the floor with the bipartisan amendments that colleagues have offered. so i appreciate that we are now in a period of debate-only until 2:00 and with that, i yield the floor.

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

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. may i dispense with the quorum call and ask to engage in a colloquy with th the senator frm mississippi for five minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. senator wicker and i come to the floor to talk about a very important matter, and we appreciate the opportunity to talk about our amendment, which will update the current eisa statute to reflect the he have -- evolution of green-rating buildings and create a more strategic approach for the federal government so we have the highest-performing, most efficient and most cost-effective building. i'd like to ask senator wicker to go into a little bit more

detail and then i'll come back to some more information about our amendment that's pending. mr. wicker: mr. president, i'd -- ms. landrieu: or that's been filed. not pending, that's been filed. go ahead. wick wok mr. wicker: i thank my colleague from louisiana and agree that this is a very important amendment because it addresses a number of issues that are important to american industries. and particularly -- in particular the amendment specifies that the department of energy and the general services administration must allow the use of multiple green building rating systems for both commercial and residential buildings. we should avoid the situation where the federal government endorses one green building standard over others. d.o.e. and g.s.a. ought to support competition and allow the free market to produce the best energy-efficient buildings at the lowest cost. they also ought to support the

use of domestically produced materials such as sustainable wood and green technologies. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i agree with the senator from mississippi. he and i have worked very, very closely together on the amendment that we are talking about today and hopefully we will get a vote on sometime in the near future. but i'm also concerned that many rating systems arbitrarily discriminate against domestically produced products based on as arbitrary hazard without consideration for risk of exposure and supporting scientific data. our amendment -- and we've worked very carefully on this -- will address this issue by requiring an ongoing review of private-sector green building certification systems and allowing for the exclusion of portions of green-building certification systems that are found to be discriminatory. this will not preclude efforts to exclude or reduce exposure to

known environmental risks such as radon, formaldehyde, organic compounds. however, it will ensure that the risk of exposure is not ignored this. process will support competition among green building certification systems and encourage existing systems to revise portions of their systems that are determined to be discriminatory to domestic products. and let me just add, since many of these products that are in question come from mississippi and lures lewis, as well as other state -- and louisiana, as well as other states, that's what's piqued our interest in this. mr. wicker: the senator from louisiana is correct. there is more than wane to get where we need to do when it comes to green buildings. this amendment is a step forward to ensure g.s.a. and d.o.e. green building policies are fair and effective. i also want to point out that

this amendment requires the consideration of environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of a building material or product by incorporating a life cycle assessment. this will ensure that the federal government is utilizings green building systems that are the most efficient. so i thank the senator from louisiana, and i whole heart yoy endorse our amendment and call on our colleagues to vote for it. ms. landrieu: let me finally say that we believe that our amendment strengthens, not weakens -- but strengthens the energy saving and industrial competitiveness act, as introduced by senator shaheen and portman, by encouraging improvements to green building rating systems and policies. i look forward to seeing this bipartisan legislation move food and it is in that spirit that our colloquy and our amendment is being offered. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quoarp quoruquorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, i would ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. and i rise today -- i'm going to get into the discussion about amendments that i'm offering to the shaheen-portman bill. but i've been watching what's been happening on the floor. i don't understand this because i've got some amendments that i'm working on that are bipartisan. i know that there have been major endorsements of this bill from the business round table to the chamber to many others. and what we're seeing here is a very targeted attack from the other side to prevent all of

these bipartisan amendments from coming forward. so all the debate this week has been good on this bill, but we aren't getting our amendments up. we're not having the ability to debate them. and that is just very, very unfortunate. i'm one of the ones here that's going to be talking about amendments that i think i've been reaching out and i think can be very bipartisan but we're being blocked. and that's just very, very unfortunate. i rise today to discuss several amendments to the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act. first i want to thank senators shaheen and portman for working on this important legislation, for working on it so long and being so diligent about it. energy efficiency is critical for our future, and this bill takes us in the right direction. there are few areas where i think we need to take additional steps. my first amendment connects energy and water efficiency.

many people do not realize that water efficiency is energy efficiency. three to four percent of national electricity consumption is for water and wastewater services each year, about five to six billion kilowatts and $4 billion a year in costs. that is a lot of energy, and it's a lot of money. to talk to the water management professionals in your state, if you do that, they will tell you that these costs add up quickly. the energy use nexus is one that cannot be ignored. the energy committee has been engaged in a water energy nexus for some time both under senator bingaman and continuing under senator wyden's leadership. and i know the president and presiding officer is on senator wyden's committee. he's very interested in this. and you, senator wyden, i think

have done a very good job in terms of trying to pull all this together. water and wastewater utilities are typically the largest consumers of energy in towns and cities, often accounting for 30% to 40% of total energy consumed. as ratepayers, we all pay those bills. and inefficient systems don't just cost money. they waste huge amounts of water, as much as $6 billion per year is lost. let me repeat that. being -- six billion gallons a year wasted. that is enough water to serve ten of the largest cities in this country or the entire state of california. to continue this practice while the southwest and other regions are facing extreme drought is ridiculous, and in some of our communities it's down right

dangerous. we can do better, and we have to. efficiency of u.s. water and wastewater pumping facilities is about 55%. but for a new, well-designed pumping facility, it's 80%. consider this. if water and wastewater utilities could reduce energy use by just 10%, it would save about $400 million annually. my amendment calls for a $15 million to support smart water system pilot projects. supporting innovation and the kind of investments today that will pay off tomorrow. our amendment is fully offset. this is not about adding costs. it's about reducing the cost to ratepayers. so i believe this amendment is worthy of bipartisan support. we have support from almost every major water utility association and from the

technology industry. it should be included on any amendment list, especially any bipartisan amendment list. and then as i'm talking about the blocking that's going on from the other side of the aisle to prevent good bipartisan amendments from coming forward. putting innovation to work in three to five cities is the first step. the program will be jointly managed by the department of energy and the e.p.a. to create incentives for public-private partnerships. lowering the cost of innovation, applying best practices to the public and private sectors and to eventually benefit communities across the entire country. i also plan to introduce a second more ambitious amendment to improve the water efficiency of our homes, to save water and to lower costs for american families. the average family of four in our country uses 400 gallons of water every day. my amendment will provide funds

to states, local government, and utilities to implement incentives and rebates for customers, to purchase water-efficient products and landscaping. in addition, the amendment will authorize the e.p.a. water sense program. similar to the energy star program, to enable water sense to improve and expand its labeling system. for water-efficient appliances, plumbing fixtures and landscaping in new homes. my amendment establishes a grant program called blue bank, providing water and sewer utilities with grant for important investments in climate change adaptation including advance water supply management, modification of infrastructure, improved planning and water efficiency and reuse. finally i will offer an amendment for a renewable electricity standard to get to 25% renewable electricity by

2025. the first legislation i introduced as a u.s. senator was to create a national r.e. s.. the time is right to put this back on the table. a national r.e.s. will create thousands of jobs that cannot be outsourced and will help revitalize rural america. it has worked in over half the states in the country by guaranteeing a market for wind and sun and other clean energy sources. renewable energy is a key partner of energy efficiency in a modern energy system. there are often installed side by side, increasing the payback in energy savings and reducing emissions and fighting climate change. our nation needs a do-it-all, do-it-right energy policy to address global climate change, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. those are the big threats.

but also a big opportunity. we can create a clean energy economy that leads the world in producing the jobs of the future. again i want to thank my colleagues senator shaheen and senator portman for their work, and i look forward to continued bipartisan efforts as we address the energy needs of our country. and i would just say to senator shaheen and to senator wyden, i find it very, very unfortunate that we're in a position now where so many members have come to the floor to offer bipartisan amendments, and you have been stopped in your tracks from moving this bill forward and voting on those amendments and dealing with them, however -- you know, let the senate work its will. but once again i know you're traitrying to work through thatt i wish the other side of the aisle would let us proceed on the bipartisan amendments and move forward. thank you, and i see senator wyden is here on the floor.

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i just want to thank senator udall for steering the senate towards a very sensible, important area. last year, it is my understanding, we had the worst drought in our country's history since the dust bowl, so we are looking at some serious, serious drought issues in the days ahead. and what you are suggesting is that we start very modestly. you've got some voluntary efforts. these are not mandatory, not run from washington, one-size-fits-all will he via on this that would inflict -- lev leviathons that would inflict pain. they are about saving water, which is about saving energy.

in the west, this is especially important. but i twhai we sa i think what t year with these extraordinary drought conditions, this is something that isn't going to go away. so senator murkowski and i already begun to look at these issues, and i'll just say for myself that i hav i'm looking fd to work wog on these issues and i'm hopeful that we can get your amendment up and work out some way to advance this idea. because water is, frankly, an issue that's gotten short shrift. it's gotten short shrift in the west, but i think you are getting us clearly working in the right direction. mrs. shaheen: before the senator from new mexico leaves, i just wanted to also commend him for his work. i haven't seen the amendment

that you would like to offer. and, like you, i am so disappointed that you're so able to offer that right now, that it's being held up on an unrelated issue. but, as you point out, there is a clear nexus between water and energy use. i remember visiting the waste wastewater treatment plant in north conway, new hampshire and being told that 4% of our waste in the country is with wastewater treatment. i've seen that at the the portsmouth naval ship ward where they do such great work on submarines. as he have that he cut back their energy use, they've also been able to cut back their use of water in a way that has provided for tens of thousands of gallons in vaisk savings in r as well as tremendous savings in energy use. so this is a connection that we all ought to be making as we

look at our energy use in the future. and i really appreciate your working on this amendment, your interest in offering it, and i certainly hope that we're going to get to the point here where we can actually debate the amendments that people are bringing to the floor because we've got so much bipartisan support for not only the bill but for s so many amendments. i appreciate my colleague from ohio, senator portman, his partnership in wor working on ts legislation. this is a win-win-win, and we really need to move this forward. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: and let me thank senator shaheen and senator wyden -- and i see senator portman is on the floor, too. the and i just wan and i just wo senator portman, the partnership that you two have developed has been incredibly impressive. i know how are hard you've

worked on this bill and really our intent is we want to tray to improve it we want to try to bring forward bipartisan amendments. i hope we can all work together to make sure that whatever roadblocks and objections are out there, we can deal with this bill in a where bipartisan amendments can be voted on, we can move the bill along and let the senate work its will. because this is the kind of bill that i believe can pass in the house of representatives, because you two have worked so hard over the last couple of years on this. so i yield the floor. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i understand where we are. i would make the following comments to my colleagues who have not been here as long as i have. regular order before you got here is you could offer any amendment on any bill that you want the. since we've had the leadership that we have weav we've changed. now we consider it abnormal that

somebody wants to address a critical issue in our country on the onona bill and we find that distasteful. 92% of the people in this country think everybody involved in the fehb that's working for the federal government ought to be in the exchanges. and to not allow a vote on an amendment is cowardly, because it says i don't want to vote on that issue. so there's a very big difference from what we've heard said and what reality has been until 2006, the end of 2006. and the starting of the congress in 2007. and i think it's important. i have several amendments to this bill, several that i think will make it much more compliant with what the constitution says, and i won't offer them today until it logjam of lack of minority rights is relieved. but i do have some comments.

and part of the assumption -- the intention of this bill is good. i appreciate what senator shaheen and senator portman have done. but i have some real differences of opinion about the effectiveness and the command and control centered in washington that comes about through this bill. and if you actually read this little book called "the u.s. constitution," we're going down the same path again that says washington knows best, because in this bill, the secretary is going to determine final plans, final efficiency standards, not the standards groups that are out there, because the secretary will have to do it. so my hope is that we can get back to offering amendments on this, all amendments that need to be offered, whether it's germane to the bill or not, as the senate functioned for over 200 years.

there should not be an issue that we can't debate and have an amendment on in the senate at any time. that's the history of the senate. that's what makes it a great body. that's what allows our republic, our constitutional republic to function. so i would say, i'm disappointed that the majority leader does not want to have a vote on something that 92% of the people in this country agree with and that he's not allowing senator vitter to have his amendment to address an issue that people are really burned up over. creating something better for us than what the average american can get. it is a tin ear. we do not pay attention to the american public at our own -- own -- risk. soso i won't spend anymore time.

i will several amendments and will try to offer them next week. i yield the floor. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: first, i want to thank my colleague from oklahoma. he does have some amendments, and we're looking forward to them. we've talked about this bill and some of his amendments arntiondi think you're going to find it's a good debate and some amendments are going to be helpful to the legislation. we've tried to focus on exactly what my friend from oklahoma talked about, which is to make sure we are not putting new mandates in the private sector. there are none in this lels. none p. -- there are none in this legislation. none. wre do have some mandates on the federal government and have asked the federal government to practice what it preaches. being the biggest user of energy not just in the country but the world, we believe the federal government can do a lot better. requiring the government to use

some efficiency standards and some of the best practices savings all of us as taxpayers money. it is the right thing to do for trntion it is also the right --s the right thing to do as taxpayers. it is also the right thing to do our our viement. w-- to do for our environment. there are lots of amendments that will be offered that will try add some mandates. as a group we don't believe that's the way toasmght als to . also in terms of the development of efficiency standards, it is not the secretary who will establish them. the secretary provides the technical assistance. but the authority is preserved in the private standard-making bodies. i think that's appropriate. we have gone out of our way to make this a voluntary bill, not a mandated bill. we have gone out of our way to ensure that this is responsive to what we're hearing out there among the business community, they're looking for better

research, technology, looking for some deployable technologies to be able to improve their efficiency, to make them more competitive with their global competitors, because around the world other companies are competing with our companies in ohio or in the other states represented in this great body, and what we find is, we're not going to want to compete on labor rates with developing countries. we don't want to lower our standards here. where we can compete are in things like the energy i input into our energy practice. we're spending more than we have to because we're not as efficient as so some other economies. that's part of the reason why the chamber of commerce, the ohio manufacturers, are supporting this legislation strongly over 200 businesses are supporting it. because they believe this will help them to be able to compete and win in the global marketplace. by the way, the chamber of commerce agreed today that they were going to key vote this

legislation. they are strongly in support of it. i think that will help to make the point that this is not about washington knows best. this is about ensuring that people have the information, the transparency, the technology, the research to be able to have a true all-of-the-above energy strategy. yes, i'm for producing more energy. we need to produce more in this country. but also we need to use the energy we have more efficiently. that combination is a recipe fr success. it will help create jobs, it will help ensure that we have a cleaner environment, and it will help make us less dependent on foreign oil and other forms of n.r.c.energy, which is in our nl security trrks as we'v interest. as we've seen over the last weeks. i look forward to my colleague offering his amendments when he's able to offer them. i would strongly urge my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look carefully at actual legislation because there is some information out there that may or may not be accurate in terms of the subsidies or mandates this this legislation. there are no and makes in the private sector, period, and we have deliberately dlafte draften that manner. i yield the floor back. mr. wyden: madam president, very briefly, leader reid has indicated to me that we continue to look for a way to move forward on the energy efficiency issue, and there may be votes still today, and the leader will have more certainly as he has a chance to explore these issues in the afternoon. thank you.

madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, if we're in a quorum call, i would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, you know there's still discussion ongoing, including with the majority leader, about moving forward with this bill and with the important no washington exemption issue, and i just want to encourage that discussion towards a positive resolution and state again that i'm open to multiple ways all of that can be accomplished. and let me specifically address one issue. there's some concern that somehow i'm going to demand multiple votes on this between now and october 1. what i'm looking for is one vote

straight up on this issue between now and october 1. it can be on this bill. it can be on the c.r. but i'm looking for that one vote. now, if we do have, for instance, an amendment vote on this bill and the issue is added, perhaps, to the c.r. from the house and comes over, then i'm sure it would have to deal with it again. but that would not be of my making or of my demanding. what i'm looking for here in the senate is simply to lock down and be assured of one fair up-or-down vote on this crucial issue between now and october 1. and, of course, if this issue persists, i'm sure all talk about it and bring it up again including after october 1, but that's my goal. there are plenty of different ways to get there, all of which would be consistent with moving forward on energy amendments and

moving toward on thi forward on. so i think there are a lot of reasonable ways to solve this and i'm hope to any and all of them. thank you, madam president. madam president, i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum and ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that i may call up my amendment. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. vitter: reserving the right to object, madam president, i would propose an alternative unanimous consent, and i would

ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the following amendments be made pending -- the sanders amendment, bennet amendment number 1847, udall amendment number 1845, klobuchar amendment number 1856, the franken amendment number 1855, the blumenthal amendment number 1878, and the vitter amendment number 1866, and on tuesday, september 17, at a time to be determined jointly by the majority and minority leaders, that my amendment number 1866 and a side-by-side amendment on the same subject by the majority leader be made pending and receive 60 minutes of debate evenly divided and controlled by the majority bill manager and myself, that no points of order be -- no points of order be in order in relation to these two amendments, and that upon expiration of the time for debate without any intervening motions or debate, the senate

then proceed to votes on these two amendments subject to a 60-vote threshold for passage and that subsequent to each vote, a motion to reconsider each vote be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modified request. is there objection to the original request? mr. vitter: madam president, again reserving my right to object, i want to outline another alternative, which i think is a very reasonable path forward on this amendment and on the bill, and that would be, madam president, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the vitter amendment number 1866, and then on wednesday, september 25, 2013, at 3:00 p.m., the senate discharge the relevant committees from consideration of my bill, the no exemption for washington from obamacare act, and proceed immediately to the consideration of that bill, and that without any intervening

motions or debate, the senate proceed with 60 minutes of debate on that bill evenly divided and controlled by the majority leader and myself, that the bill not be subject to any amendments or motions to commit, and then after debate has expired, the will -- bill be engrossed for a third reading, read a third time, and the senate immediately vote on final passage subject to a 60-vote threshold and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. vitter: well, then, madam president, i do object sadly that we can't choose such a path forward. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: it is clear that there are differences of opinion in this body, in this country on how we proceed on energy matters, but i think and at

least i hope that there is pretty unanimous agreement that energy efficiency makes a whole lot of sense. that at a time when the lawrence livermore national laboratory tells us that about half of the total energy produced in the united states is wasted due to inefficiency, i would hope that regardless of one's political perspective, we can all move forward together to create a more energy-efficient society which will, a, lower the cost of fuel for millions of americans, b, cut back on greenhouse gas emissions and help us deal with the planetary crisis of global warming, and c, as we make our nation more entering efficient, we can create tens and tens of thousands of jobs. if there is a win-win-win

situation out there, i think this is it, and i would hope that we could move forward in this area. madam president, that is why, because of the win-win-win aspect of this bill i think we should be supporting the shaheen-portman bill, which has earned the support from a wide array of senators and organizations from across the political spectrum, and i would think that senator shaheen would agree this is a fairly modest bill. it's not transforming the world, but this is a small step forward in doing something that certainly needs to be done and that there should be very little disagreement about. madam president, as part of this effort, chairman wyden and i are proposing what i think is a significant amendment which complements the overall thrust

of the bill. our amendment is called the residential energy savings act, which in fact is a strong complement to the shaheen-portman bill. our legislation focuses on residential energy efficiency, residential. and we do that because we understand that in vermont, in louisiana, in oregon, all over this country there are tens of millions of people who understand that they are wasting energy, that when it gets cold, the heat is going through their roofs, through their windows, through their walls. they are wasting money every single day, but they don't have the modest investment that they need to make their homes more energy efficient, and that's the problem senator wyden and i are trying to address. we're focusing attention on homeowners all over this country. the residential energy savings act will save money for

homeowners and tenants and cut energy use by lowering the cost of entering efficiency upgrades. it will also create jobs for installers and for the companies that manufacture windows, insulation and other entering efficiency materials. how does this amendment work? it's pretty simple. this bill makes loans available to states through the state entering program of the u.s. department of entering to -- department of energy to create or expand existing financing programs. this provides homeowners and tenants with access to low-cost, consumer-friendly capital for energy efficiency projects. homeowners use the products to invest in energy efficiency, and here is part of this exciting concept. they pay back the loans through

their energy savings, and the u.s. treasury gets the money back. in other words, we lend somebody $15,000 to make their energy -- their home more energy efficient. they save a thousand dollars a year. they pay back the loan by those savings in their fuel bill. so at the end of the day for 15 years in that example, they're not paying any more for fuel, but on the 16th year, they are going to see significant savings in their bill and throughout the process we see significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in addition we have created jobs in a number of areas, the installers and those people who manufacture energy-efficient products. key features of this amendment supported by -- introduced by senator wyden and myself are that it is technology neutral. people will make their own choices about how they want to go forward. this amendment provides states

with a high level of flexibility to support existing state and local programs or to design new financing programs that best fit their own circumstances and need. this amendment supports effective existing state and national -- state and local programs and supports innovations designed to improve energy efficiency financing. there are no mandates. participation is entirely voluntary. the department of energy must consider regional diversity in issuing loans. this amendment encourages public-private partnerships and other strategies for leveraging public dollars. this bill incorporates annual reporting requirements to ensure accountability and provides valuable data to consumers, state and local governments, lenders, utilities and the real estate industry about financing efficiency upgrades. the residential energy savings

amendment is complementary to energy efficiency proposals by other senators. supporters of this amendment include the alliance to save energy, the american council for an energy-efficient economy, the american institute of architects, efficiency first, the national association of state energy efficiency. residential energy efficiency, helping homeowners save energy and money while creating jobs at the same time, is an approach that is enjoyed by people all over the country. let me just reiterate what the bottom line is. this is a very, very simple concept. the federal government lends money to the states to be repaid back in full. so this is not an expense for the federal government. there will be an administrative cost. but we think at the end of the day, there will be a billion dollars of effort in making residential homes more energy efficient. and i know that in vermont, people -- you don't have to be a

genius to know or an economist to know that it is pretty stupid to be heating your home in the wintertime and seeing that heat go out of the window or the roof or the walls, and in vermont and i'm sure all over this country, we have a lot of older homes. they are wasting a lot of energy. people are spending much more money than they should. i will never forget doing an event with two sisters from berry, vermont, who are in their 80's. the state put forth a weatherization program. they reduced the costs of their fuel bill by something like 50%. their home was much more comfortable. that's what we should be doing all over this country. but working families and middle-class families in many ways can't come up with that $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 that they need in order to make that happen. so this bill gives money to the states, states give it to the homeowners, the homeowners repay it based on the reductions in fuel bills, the federal government gets their money back, we create jobs, we cut

greenhouse gas emissions, we save consumers huge sums of money. if this is not a win-win-win situation, i am not sure what is. i want to thank senator wyden for his hard work on this amendment, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to see that it gets passed. madam president, thanks very much. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i'm going to be very brief and i thank senator cornyn for his courtesy, just to respond. i'm pleased to be able to be supportive of this amendment and i just want colleagues to get one number with respect to this proposal. our assessment is for every one dollar made available under this particular amendment, it would leverage ten dollars' worth of loans for homeowners to weatherize across the country. so when people talk about getting bang for the buck, that is the relevant, you know, number. make one dollar available

through the states -- this is not run by the federal government -- through the states, under this program, results in ten dollars' worth of loans being made for weatherization across the country. i think that's getting bang for the buck. i thank senator cornyn for his courtesy. i hope colleagues when we get a chance to vote on this amendment will vote for this amendment. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, our friends on the other side of the aisle keep promising once the president's health care law is implemented it will deliver fabulous results. well, unfortunately, they have a massive credibility problem. indeed, despite all the promises made to the american people during the debate and passage of the affordable care act in 2009 and 2010, every week brings more evidence that the president's health care law is, number one, already

discouraging full-time job creation, number two, destroying many existing full-time jobs, number three, hampering medical innovation, and four, encouraging further executive branch overreach. and, of course, the worst is yet to come because amazingly, once this law was passed in 2010, it wasn't implemented before the 2010 midterm elections, nor has it been implemented fully before the -- between then and the 2012 presidential election, and so really the american people have yet to feel the full force of the implementation of obamacare. yet what we see already is discouraging, to say the least. once obamacare is fully implemented, it will drive up individual insurance premiums. we've already seen some indication of that around the

country, and the rates that have been announced for the individual exchanges that have been created. that's because of a phenomenon like guaranteed issue and age band, things which basically have engineered the insurance industry so that it no longer is insurance, but prepaid health care. secondly, it will cause millions of americans to lose their current coverage. remember, the president said if you like what you have, you can keep it. that's proving not to be true. and three, it will weaken medicare and medicaid. you recall during the fourth of july recess the administration announced that it would not be confirming taxpayer eligibility for the obamacare premium subsidies until 2015 even though the subsidies will begin flowing, taxpayer subsidies will begin flowing a year earlier in 2014.

in other words, for a year under the administration's current plan, people will be able to get taxpayer dollars without any independent verification that what they are representing in terms of their eligibility for their tax dollars without any independent verification. no safeguards for overpayments or fraud. earlier today, the house of representatives passed legislation that would delay the obamacare premium subsidies until the administration establishes a system for verifying eligibility to make sure those tax dollars are not stolen or obtained under false pretenses. it's one of those measures that should be a no-brainer. after all, whatever you think about health care reform, everyone should want to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and yet our colleagues on the other side of the capitol, house democrats, were almost

unanimously opposed to the no subsidies without verification act and the majority leader in this body refuses to allow a vote in the united states senate on similar legislation. again, what you would think outside of washington and the beltway as a no-brainer, but we have an alternate universe here apparently. apparently our democratic friends are okay with that, but i certainly am not, neither are the 26 million people that i have the privilege of representing in texas. at a time when the federal government is almost $17 trillion in debt, shouldn't we be doing everything humanly possible to try to crack down on wasteful spending and fraud? i would think so. but here's another question: wasn't obamacare itself sold on the basis that it would reduce health care fraud? wasn't it supposed to improve oversight? that's what we were told in 2009

and 2010 but apparently those promises have now been forgotten. if the president and his allies are wondering why they have such an enormous credibility gap on obamacare, the answer is actually quite simple. so many of the promises that were made in selling obamacare have simply not been kept. it has -- it is simply not performing as advertised. just think about what we've learned just the last few months lien. in july the national bureau of economic research published a study showing that obamacare may cause substantial declines in aggregate employment. in other words, unemployment will go up and the number of people getting work will go down. that same month "the wall street journal" reported that between 2009 and 2012, the number of doctors opting out of medicare

nearly tripled. now, in my state if you're covered by medicare, you might find a doctor who will take a new medicare patient, you might not. only about two-thirds of texas physicians will take a new medicare patient because the reimbursements have been slashed to the point where many doctors simply can't economically take a new medicare patient. this is like the old shell game where people are told they have coverage but they can't find a doctor that's willing to see them based on that coverage. and the problem for medicaid is even worse. in mid august the university of virginia announced that obamacare is projected to add $7.3 million to the cost of the university health plan in 2014 alone. that's just at the university of virginia. about a week later, national journal reported that for the vast majority of americans, premium prices will be higher in

the individual exchange than what they're paying currently for employer-sponsored benefits. i have two daughters that are in their early 30's. they are the ones under obamacare who are going to have to bear the financial burden for subsidizing the health care costs for holder americans, and it's unfair. and this is the very same cohort of the population that's finding it harder to find jobs and finding that the burdens of our broken entitlement programs are going to be visited on them, not to mention their share. evident he federal debt which boils down to about $53,000 each. so if i were a 30-year-old or a 30-something, i would be pretty irritated at my elders for not being responsible and pushing that debt and those responsibilities on me. if i were them. last week investors daily

reported that more than 250 employers had cut work hours, jobs, were taken other steps to alloyed obamacare costs. we heard a lot about this including from some of the largest labor unions in the country saying that many employers in order to avoid the employer mandate and other mandates associated with obamacare were simply taking full-time jobs and turning them into part-time work. and obviously people with the resulting cut in their income. just a few days ago, a local media outlet in michigan reported that obamacare will cost the medical device company striker fully 20% of its total research and development investments. now, this has to do with the medical device tax which is part of the way that obamacare was paid for, which punishes medical device companies that create jobs here in the united states and that create new and innovative medical commitment

qiment that improves outcomes and make our lives better. yet they are being targeted under obamacare for this medical device tax, which is chasing jobs overseas and stifling innovative medical research. in addition "the huffington post" has reported that the trader joe's grocery chain will be dropping health insurance coverage for all employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week. and as i said, we've seen some of our organized labor, unions representing particularly the one representing internal revenue service employees announce that it does not want its members to receive health insurance through obamacare exchange. even though the internal revenue service under obamacare will be implementing the exchanges for everyone else and the individual mandate. in other words, the very people responsible for administering obamacare want no part of

joining the exchanges. and that should speak volumes to all of us. the truth is it wasn't supposed to be this way. whether you're one of the most ardent advocates for the affordable care act or you were a skeptic like me who didn't believe it could work, i think the facts are undeniable. the affordable care act was supposed to help the middle class, not cut their work house and threaten their benefits. it was supposed to help young people, not drive up their insurance premiums. it was supposed to help medical innovation, not lead to factory closures and cancellations. and it was supposed to help make medicaid stronger, not overload a broken system. it was sold on the basis it would strengthen medicare, not trigger an exodus of doctors from seeing medicare patients. my point is whether you were the

most ardent ached cat owe or you were a skeptic, obamacare is not living up to its hopes and the promises made by its biggest fans. and we should work together to try to find a way to deal with that in a responsible way. one final point, madam president. the president of the united states has apparently decided that obamacare says whatever he wants it to say. for example, he's unilaterally delayed both the employer mandate and the eligibilities verification i spoke about just a moment ago just because it has proven to be politically inconvenient. now, many of my constituents are outraged at this and wonder how a law that applies to everyone in america can be -- can be enforced on a piecemeal or cherry picked basis. my only explanation to them is that the president of the united states controls the executive branch of government, including

the department of justice. congress has no authority to enforce these laws, only to pass the laws, expecting that the executive branch will administer the law and enforce the laws as written. but that hasn't happened. meanwhile, the internal revenue service has announced it will violate the text of the law and issue health subsidies through federal exchanges even though the law clearly states that those exchanges -- that shows subsidies excuse me, that shows subsidies can only be issued through the state exchanges. here again another example, in this case of the i.r.s. rewriting the law where it proves to be convenient to achieve a particular outcome. this should be and is an outrage. indeed, on issues ranging from the tax subsidies to the employer mandate, obamacare has effectively become government by waiver. there's no way to sugarcoat it. the law is damaging our

economy, damaging our health care system, and weakening our constitutional checks and balances. and our legacy of being a nation of laws, not of men. that's why the best course of action i believe is to delay obamacare, dismantle obamacare and replace obamacare. i've cosponsored legislation numerous times that would delay both the employer and individual mandate, for example. it was introduced last night, the latest version, as an amendment to the current energy efficiency bill. my ultimate goal is to replace obamacare with patient-centered reforms that do several important things, hopefully that we could all agree on are important principles of whatever our health care system is. first of all, it would replace -- replacement would make sure a health care system is in place where price and quality information is fully transparent and readily

available. and that's so people can compare and shop and people can use the market system to make sure that people who provide those goods and services do so at as low a price and as high a quality as they can get. a replacement system would include a tax code that treats individuals, individually purchased health insurance the same way as employer provided health insurance. a replacement system would make sure that every american is protected against catastrophic expenses. now, this is one of the phony ways i've heard people trying to say, well, if you replace obamacare, you'll eliminate the system against dealing with people with preexisting conditions and that's just false. it's just not true. you don't need this behemoth legislation that costs $2.7 trillion, whatever the final figure is, in order to deal with people with

preexisting conditions. what we could do is simply help fund the state-based exchanges that provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions at a far cheaper price and still accomplish the same goal. so anyone who tells you you have to have obamacare to deal with preexisting conditions is just trying to sell you a bill of goods. we ought to have a system in place in replacing obamacare that gives all americans an opportunity to save money in action-free health savings accounts so they can use that money to pay for their health bills and if they don't need it for that money they can save it like an i.r.a. or some other savings account, tax-free, by the way. we ought to have a replacement system where the states will have much greater flexibility in improving medicaid. you know, we'd be happy in texas for the federal government just to write us a check for its share of medicaid and let us

administer it in a much more cost-effective and a much higher-quality sort of way. and we need a system to replace obamacare that protects medicare for future generations and a system that preserves the right for the most important decisions about medical care to be left to patients and their physicians. now, i remain confident that someday, someday we can make this kind of health care system a reality. but first, we need to delay, if we can; if we can't replace it now. certainly as obamacare starts crumbling on itself, we need to protect the american people from this catastrophic and epic failure and provide an alternative that has the sort of qualities that i've just described a moment ago, which will make sure that people have access to quality health care at an affordable price, in a way

that doesn't let washington interfere with doctor-patient relationships or decisions that we ought to reserve to ourselves and our families when it comes to our health care. madam president, i would yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, often it's a little hard to divine what is actually going on, on the floor of the united states senate. i just want to make sure that folks understand that the pending business before the united states senate is a bipartisan bill offered by the senator from new hampshire and the senator from ohio on energy efficiency. that is the pending business before the united states senate. and one of the measures of this bill is the extraordinary support. we've got business groups like the chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers and the

roundtable -- business roundtable joining with the national -- natural resources defense council. that is not exactly a coalition that comes up every single day but you have it because of the good work that senator shaheen and senator portman have done. so they had all that in place as we came to the united states senate. and since that time -- and, mind you, madam president, this has been a day and a half now that we have been on this bill -- senator after senator has come to the floor of the senate in a bipartisan fashion, starting with senators inhofe and senator carper, the list just goes on and on. i've repeated it several times. have come to the floor to say this is a good energy efficiency bill and we've got some ideas on how we can make it even better. and so they have offered their bipartisan amendments and they

have not been able to get a vote on those bipartisan amendments to a bipartisan bill. and i think it would be fair to say that if they could get votes on those bipartisan amendments, they would pass overwhelmingly. we've got a bunch of others certainly in the wings as well. now, who is the loser, madam president, because we haven't been able to get those amendments up and we haven't been able to move ahead on this bill? the people who are the losers are the consumers. i'd say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they're the job creators because this is clearly legislation, if you look at the american council for an energy efficient economy, a business-oriented group, legislation that will create thousands of jobs, and

taxpayers. those are the losers. those are the losers because a bipartisan bill which would be improved by the bipartisan amendments that colleagues want to offer cannot go forward because it is stuck in this procedural morass. so what you have is consumers losing out on billions of dollars of savings and losing those thousands of jobs that i've mentioned and our country missing out on the dramatic energy savings. madam president, that seems foolish even by the sometimes stilted standards of the beltway, you know, here, to pass up that kind of opportunity. and the reason the breadth of this bill -- breadth of support of this bill is so extensive is because this bill isn't a run from washington federal leviathan.

this doesn't involve any mandates. the focus is on the states and on the private sector. senator sanders just talked about an idea, for example, in terms of weatherization that i find very appealing. it's voluntary, like virtually this entire, you know, bill is. so i was very pleased when the leader, leader reid, indicated that he was continuing to look for a way to move forward. i and others have been talking to various senators and the leadership about how to do that. i just hope that will be possible and we will see tangible progress made here shortly. i think it is so important to respond to what people said all summer to senators. and i suspect they said the same thing in massachusetts that they said in new hampshire and oregon and across the country and that is people at home are tired of

this food fight in washington, they're tired of the bickering and the pettiness. they'd like to see us show up, work together in a bipartisan way on issues that are fundamental to their well-being and, in particular, grow an economy with more opportunities for high-skill, high-wage jobs in the middle class. and that's certainly what you do when you promote the top technologies associated with energy efficiency. so the public said, you senators ought to go back to washington and do exactly what senator shaheen and senator portman have been talking about, an effort which has been supplemented by a similar kind of bipartisan proposals from various senators. so that's where we are, madam president. a day pay and half into the bill, -- a day and a half into the bill, senator after senator coming to the bill wanting to have offer

relevant, bipartisan amendments to the bill that will be good for the productivity of the country, good for the environment, good for job creation. and i'm going to stay at my post here and just hope that we can find a path to go forward. there are discussions i know taking place and i'm very grateful because senator shaheen and senator portman, who may have decided that he was going to try and grab a sandwich for a minute, have -- have been here at their post trying to advance the bipartisan focus of this legislation. and with that, madam president, i,i see my colleague from new hampshire on her feet and i will yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i just wanted to thank chairman wyden for making that clarification, that, in fact, we're here on the floor not to talk about health care or other unrelated issues but we're

here to talk about energy. and as you pointed out, yesterday, as senator murkowski pointed out, senator por portmas i've pointed out, this is the first energy bill to come to the floor since 2007 on an issue that's so critical to the future of our country. it's nice to finally be having a debate. it's nice to finally be able to listen to people on both sides of the aisle talking about why energy is so important and talking about their amendments and the difference that those amendments will make for people across this country. and i didn't have a chance, because we got interrupted by health care after you and senator sanders talked about your amendment on residential energy efficiency, but i wanted to applaud you both for that effort. senator sanders talked a little bit about the challenges faced by people in his home state of vermont. of course, my neighboring state of new hampshire, the presiding

officer's state of massachusetts, the state of oregon, these are all states that are cold-weather states. we have cold winters. and in new hampshire, we have an inordinate number of people who heat with home heating oil. number two, home heating oil, which is very expensive, and we have an awful lot of old buildings because new hampshire's one of the first states of the original 13 colonies. we've got a lot of buildings in the state that are old, that really need to be upgraded, to be more energy efficient so people can afford their heating bills. and this legislation that -- this amendment that you-all would like to introduce -- if we could ever get on the bill and get to some of these bipartisan amendments -- would really help address the challenges that people in the northeast, in the upper west, in the upper midwest all face with the high costs of heating their homes in the wintertime. you know, i would also point out

that it's not just important to us in the north to have more energy efficient homes, even though in the northeast we have more older homes. in the south, it's equally important because air conditioning is very expensive as well. and so people who can have their homes be more efficient when they're trying to cool them in the summer also benefit. so this is really an amendment that is a win-win. and as you pointed out, senator wyden, as has been pointed out for the last day and a half, this legislation is legislation that is a win-win for everybody. it's a win on job creation. it's a win on helping to prevent pollution into our environment. it's a win on reducing the threat from dependence on foreign oil so connection to national security is there. and it's a win in terms of saving consumers the cost of

energy. and in new hampshire, we have the sixth highest energy costs in the country so we really need to be able to save on energy costs because it's good for our businesses, it's good for our residents to not have to pay those high costs. and i really hope we can find some way to move forward on this bill, to move forward on these bipartisan amendments, because this is a place where we can come to some agreement, we can work together, we can get this done and the people of this country are expecting us to do that. so, again, thank you for your leadership, senator wyden, and senator murkowski, who must be with senator portman getting a sandwich right now. but hopefully we're going to stay here, we're going to keep having people hopefully come to the floor, talk about their amendments, about what we can do once we can get on this billly o

really make a difference. and the bottom line here is that this legislation, in addition to all the other good things it would do, with the amendments that are being offered, with the underlying bill, this will help create jobs and it will do it in a way that doesn't cost a lot f money in terms of subsidizing those jobs. it's the private sector working in conjunction with public policy in a way that will really encourage that job creation. so i continue to be hopeful we can come to some agreement and move this legislation in a way that i know the people of this country are expecting. so thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, we're going to stay and continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to find a path forward on -- on the

bill. i just wanted to announce that senator reid, as a courtesy to all senators, because we know that their schedules are busy, to announce that there will be in ordered votes today so that senators can have that information. and for all of us who are working on a path to move forward this bipartisan energy efficiency bill will continue those efforts through the afternoon. madam president, i yield the floor. and, madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: .

quorum call:

mr. coons: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i know you're familiar with the phrase -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, i am confident you are familiar with

the phrase justice too long delayed is justice denied. dr. martin luther king jr. wrote that from his jail cell in birmingham. justice too long delayed is justice denied. madam president, i rise today to talk about justice and the budgetary choices congress is making that impact the american people's ability to access the justice promised them by our constitution. our federal courts translate laws into justice and effective courts require fair judges, well-trained lawyers and efficient clerks, as you well know. the fewer judges and clerks you have, the reduced resources, in time-saving technology, the fewer cases that can be handled at a time and the longer cases will take to process. justice too long delayed is justice denied. of course, staffing the -- staffing our courts costs money, but when you compare it to the

rest of the federal government, this whole branch is a relative bargain. for every $100 spent by our federal government, just 19 cents go to the entire federal court system. we actually spend more every month on the ongoing conduct of operations in afghanistan than we do in the entire year of the whole federal court system. it is, relatively speaking, a bargain. with caseloads growing and budgets shrinking, though, the federal courts have been cutting back where they could for years now, methodically looking for ways to cut costs, reduce overhead, lower their personnel and generally be more efficient. they are both metaphorically and literally looking under every cushion for coins, whatever they can do to keep up. then came the sequester. of course when it was first conceived, the sequester was designed to be so reckless, so dangerous that it would drive congress back to the negotiating table, house and senate republicans and democrats, to

confront our nation's annual deficits and craft a bipartisan bargain, but sadly it failed. congress as a whole failed, and the across-the-board spending cuts engineered in this sequester went into effect. it's been almost seven months since they came into effect, and in that time, i have heard from hundreds of delawareans, as i'm sure all the members in this chamber have heard from their constituents. i have heard from delawareans directly impacted by the sequester. dumbfounded civilian employees of dover air force base, more than a thousand hardworking delawareans, many of them veterans who can't believe that they individual hi are paying the price because congress, house and senate republicans and democrats can't craft a responsible deal. kevin from magnolia asked me why are my family and i being punished with a 20% pay cut this quarter? brian from houston, these are both towns in delaware, said he was tired of being the one to suffer the consequences because in his view congress can't get the budgetary job done. my heart goes out to kevin and

brian and every delawarean who has called my office, written to me, talked to me about the sequester. i agree with them. it needs to be replaced responsibly and urgently, and as a member of the budget committee, i have worked with my colleagues to craft a budget that would replace sequester in a way that's in keeping with our core values and the priority of investing in america's future. not many people, though, are talking about how this sequester is impacting our courts. we hear how sequester is affecting defense. we hear how it's affecting research, we hear how it's affecting infrastructure, but our courts have often gone without consideration. there is no natural constituency bluntly that feels slighted. the number of furloughed employees is relatively small and there is no real lobby in washington for the health of our courts. but the sequester's impact on federal courts affects all of us, every single american. the sequester is slowing the pace, increasing the costs and eroding the quality of the delivery of justice in this country. at the end of our last session, i chaired a hearing of the

senate judiciary subcommittee on bankruptcy and the courts which i chaired and looked at how sequester is impacting the public defender series in our nation's courts. these courts have been forced broadly to go past the fat and well into muscle and soon into bone. the judiciary has looked at a variety of measures to address this new budgetary reality, and very few come without significant pain, to the businesses, the individuals, the communities that rely on our courts. one proposal, to simply not schedule civil jury trials in september would effectively impose a 30-day uncertainty tax on every civil litigant. a judge in nebraska has threatened to dismiss so-called low-priority immigration status crimes because of a lack of capacity. in new york, deep furlough cuts to the public defender's office caused a delay of a criminal trial for osama bin laden's son-in-law. in my home state of delaware, sequester has meant lengthy furloughs at clerk's office and postponed investment in i.t. and postponed upgrades. simply put, the financial state

of our federal courts erodes our fundamental constitutional rights. individuals depend on the courts to be there when they need them, to seek relief from discrimination, to resolve commercial disputes, to enable parties to stop fighting and get to work growing the economy or to guarantee fairness and efficiency in criminal proceedings. the reality is our federal courts were already stretched thin before this sequester. chief justice roberts leads the judicial conference of the united states. the judicial conference was created by us, by congress, to administer the federal court system and work with congress to ensure appropriations keep up with the needs of our courts. the judicial conference is and always has been nonpartisan. earlier this year, the judicial conference sent chairman leahy and me a letter recommending that in order for the courts to fulfill their missions, we must add federal judges to the bench. in the last two decades since the last comprehensive judgeship bill, 23 years, to be precise, article 3 district courts have seen their caseloads grow nearly 40%, yet the number of judges

has grown by four. today, judges in the eastern district of california long recognized as one of the most overburdened in the nation face over a thousand weighted case filings per judge. in the district of delaware, case filings are over 1,500 per judge. the judicial conference generally believes additional judgeships are needed when there are more than 500 per judge. so even before the sequester, courts -- our courts weren't keeping up with their caseloads. heeding the recommendations we received last month, chairman leahy and i introduced the federal judgeship act of 2013 which will create 91 new federal judgeships, two federal circuits and 32 judicial circuits across 21 states. this bill would provide needed relief to our overburdened courts, ensuring they are better prepared to administer justice quickly and efficiently. again, this proposal, this bill is in direct response to the analytical work of the nonpartisan judicial conference. madam president, this change is long overdue.

congress has not comprehensively addressed judicial staffing levels since 1990, 23 years ago, and the court waited filings for judgeship have risen from 386 back then to 520 today. those national figures actually mask even more dramatic circumstances faced by the most burdened districts, in texas, delaware and california. yesterday, i chaired a hearing of the senate judiciary subcommittee on bankruptcy in the courts to consider this act. during this hearing, district court judge sue robertson of delaware testified on the need for more judges. she explained that despite all the additional technologies we have and an excellent staff, there is nothing more i can do, she said at this point with respect to getting my cases timely resolved. at that hearing, i appreciated and was encouraged by my colleague, the senator from alabama's statement that in fact the district of delaware deserves another judge, due to its incredible caseload. i would argue, though, and the evidence suggests that the need is not confined to my state but to districts all across the

country. we need to take on the whole problem, madam president, not just a small piece of it. nobody wants to be in a courtroom, but when you need to be in court, it's because something significant has happened in your life and you don't want to judge rushing to move on to the next thing because of a crushing caseload. you don't want clerks so awash in paperwork that yours gets lost. in conclusion, we need to help our judges deliver justice by replacing the sequester with a responsible, balanced approach that restores funding taken from our courts and allows us to add the judgeships we need to keep pace with demand. dr. king was right. justice too long delayed is indeed justice denied. by delaying the delivery of justice, the sequester is denying justice to too many americans. we don't need more delays. we need more judges, and we need to act together to get it done now. thank you, and with that, i will yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my

amendment, 1860, to the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act of 2013. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, reserving the right to object, i certainly support a vote on that amendment and many other amendments, all amendments, my amendment, and therefore i propose an alternative unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and the following amendments be made pending, gillibrand, 1860, franken number 1855, inhofe number 1851, bennet number 1847, udall number 1845, klobuchar number 1856, sessions number 1879, enzi number 1863, and vitter number 1866 and that on tuesday, september 17, at a time to be determined jointly by the

majority and minority leaders, that my amendment number 1866 and a side-by-side amendment on the same subject by the majority leader be made pending, and receive 60 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority bill manager and myself, that no points of order be in order in relation to these two amendments, that upon expiration of the time for debate without any intervening motions or debate the senate then proceed to votes on these two amendments subject to a 60-vote threshold for passage, and that subsequent to each amendment vote a motion to reconsider, each vote, be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection to the amended request? mr. wyden: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there an objection to the original request? mr. vitter: madam president, reserving the right to object let me offer another alternative because, again, i want this amendment to be voted on, i want all the amendments i voted

on to be voted on. i want my amendment to be voted on. so in that spirit, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to withdraw my vitter amendment number 1866 and that on wednesday, september 25, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. the senate discharge the relevant committees from consideration of my related bill, the no exemption for washington from obamacare act, proceed immediately to consideration of my bill and that without any intervening motions or debate the senate proceed with 067 minutes of debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and myself and that the bill not be subject to any amendments or motions to commit and then after debate has expired, the bill be engrossed for a third read, read a third time and the senate immediately vote on final passage subject to a 60-vote threshold and that the motion to

reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mr. wyden: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there an objection to the original request? mr. vitter: madam chairman in that case i must object and i regret we can't choose these paths forward which would ensure the votes on the amendments we're discussing. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand, madam president, ms. gillibrand: i have an amendment that will help anyone in america that who has had to rebuild after a natural disaster and i hope we can break in impasse and it can soon be considered. my amendment would remove burdens and streamline the process that recipients of disaster aid face when upgrading to more energy-efficient technology. in the wake of superstorm sandy we saw all too well that old technology can fail all too

easily. yet because of administrative burdens, recipients of much-needed emergency funds will replace appliances and infrastructure fast with the same anti-he anti-kuwaited counterparts that were damaged. in many cases this means replacing a 10-year-old hot water heater with another 10-year-old unit or replacing a 20-year-old electric transformer with similarly antiquated systems without any regard for modern safety and efficiency standards. at a minimum we should provide the option of allowing homeowners, businesses and utilities the ability to use emergency disaster funding to upgrade to more feasht appliances, machinery or electrical frats pras fast. not only will the use of energy efficiency technology save money, it reduces pollution, creates jobs and ensure our infrastructure is more resilient to the increase in stream weather events we have seen facing this country.

my amendment allows emergency funding recipients to voluntarily upgrade damaged equipment and structures with energy-efficient technology. it's a budget-neutral alternative to current law. it does not direct feem to spend at higher levels. remember, every dollar spent in upgrading to more technology provides upwards of $5 in savings. we should be streamlining the process and removing the roadblocks individuals and businesses face when choosing to replace viets destroyed in natural disaster with more energy efficiency technology. thank you i do hope that we can consider this amendment soon. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: just to respond to the distinguished senator from new york, i want her to know that i am very hopeful that we'll get your amendment form formally in front of the new york and i want the senator from new york and colleagues to know

that i think senator gillibrand has brought a first-rate idea to this already bipartisan bill. and here's what senator gillibrand is talking about because i know energy is sometimes a little bit of a complicated area. what senator gillibrand is essentially saying is that she wants to give folks who have been clobbered by a disaster more choice in how they rebuild after a disaster. in effect, what the senator from new york is saying is let's give those folks who have been hard hit by disasters a chance to trade up for those energy-efficient products that will save them money. this is the kind of idea, colleagues, that sometimes seems too logical for washington, d.c. but it sure makes a lot of sense to me.

i commend the senator from new york for offering this particular idea. as she's indicated, no mandates, this is not the federal leviathan sweeping in and forcing people to do x, y, and z after a disaster. this is about choice, it's being done without any extra money provided by the government. i think it's just a first-rate idea and, frankly, this is what senator shaheen and senator portman and i thought would be part of this debate. it's been so long since anybody really got serious about this issue on the floor, we were convinced that people would start bringing good ideas to the floor. the fact that they've been welling up all this time when we haven't had are energy efficiency on the floor p. we've been here a day and a half, i wish we were voting on this amendment, i think it's an

excellent idea and i hope colleagues will support it and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, let me just echo, i hope senator gillibrand gets a vote. i hope all these amendments i mentioned gets a vote and of course i hope my proposal gets a vote. the distinguished majority leader several days ago announced that the floor was open for amendments, no limitations except one which we all agreed to, to put the syria debate on hold as the president asked and everyone agreed to that, and the majority leader said this would be an open amendment process, the floor was open for any and all amendments. well, great. let's have it. let's have votes on all of these amendments, certainly including senators gillibrand, franken, blumenthal, inhofe, bennet,

udall, klobuchar, sessions, enzi, and my amendment. and, again, mr. president, the vote i'm asking for -- well, quite frankly demanding, doesn't have to be in the context of this bill. as i've made clear with my second u.c. request, i will put it aside and withdraw it from this bill but it is time sensitive. it does have to occur in a fair up-or-down way before october 1 because the illegal o.p.m. rule that's a bailout and exemption for washington takes effect then. it is very time sensitive. now, i didn't create that rule, certainly, and i didn't create that timeline and therefore i didn't create that urgency but it is there because of that, in my opinion, illegal o.p.m. action. so i will also happily accept that vote outside the context of

this bill, and i have suggested multiple paths forward where we can vote, so let's vote, but everybody needs to get reasonable votes, not just those who are approved by the majority leader. so i look forward to that resolution. i put multiple paths forward and look forward to that being resolved in the near future. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i'd like to speak to a couple of amendments that i have filed to the bill under consideration by the senate today and i want to talk about amendment number 1876. just to give you the background, the context on this, most of us know when we were debating the health care bill a few years ago the labor unions were enthusiastic supporters of obamacare. and it perhaps should come as no

surprise that they're having some buyer's remorse. i think they're realizing they were sold a bill of goods and like a lot of people around this country i talked to they would like to have a do-over. in fact, if you look at what's happened since the ladies and gentlemen has become law and what's happened to premiums, they continue going up, in fact, there was a kaiser study just this last month that had premiums, family premiums preems going up $3,000 on average since president obama took office, and, of course, that was after the promise that health care premiums were going to go down by $2,500. you've seen employers either cut jobs or slash hours, in fact, 250 employers have cut jobs and there's hardly a day that goes by where there isn't a headline in a major newspaper about some employer that is having to reduce their work force or not hiring people they otherwise would hire simply because of the additional costs, the

requirements, the mandates, all the uncertainty created by obamacare. and, of course, what that means is people people who are getting hired are getting hired for pardon me jobs. if you look at the number of jobs created this year, about 77% are part-time jobs. what's happening? a lot of employers, those who are under 50 employees, if they go over 50 obviously they're covered by the mandate that says they have to provide government-approved health care so they're keeping the number under 50 employees and then the other requirement is that one -- to qualify as a full-time employee you have to work 30 hours a week. so employers are also reducing the hours of their employees. so we've got more now 29-hour a week jobs in this country than we've ever had before and the number since the beginning of the year with regard to jobs created, part-time jobs, really do bear that out. more and more employers are finding their way to reduce hours of employees and hire people for jobs that are

part-time jobs. what does that mean? that means the take take-home pf middle-class americans is going down and in order to make ends meet they're having to get that second job. so it's creating all kinds of distortions in the labor force and it's no surprise i would think that the labor unions would like to have this issue revisited. and i want to share with you something that a couple of statements that have been made, the international brotherhood of teamsters, u.f.c.w. and unit here, to nancy pelosi and majority leader harry reid sense in swrul on behalf of the minneapolis of working mix we represent and the families they support we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the health care law that will destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hardworking americans. the united yiewn union of roofers, waterproofers and allied workers is -- this was from a letter in april, i am

calling for repeal or reform of the affordable care act to protect our employers, our industry, and our most important asset, our members and their families. and if you look at the letter sent july 11 by the three unions i mentioned earlier, it goes on to say it will create nightmare scenarios, shatter benefits and actually it will destroy the backbone of the middle class which is the 40-hour workweek. so very strong language by some of those who are the most enthusiastic and strongest supporters of obamacare when it was being discussed and debated here in the senate. last night at their annual convention the afl-cio passed a resolution calling for major changes to obamacare. mr. president, the unions are trying to get a special deal. and they want to work with the administration in a way that completely ignores the text of obamacare. the law says that anyone that has an offer from their employer of a government-approved health

care coverage is not eligible, not eligible to go into the exchanges and receive refundable health care premium tax credits. the law also states that union provided insurance known as taft-hartley multiemployer health plans is, is government-approved health care coverage. subsequently, union employees enrolled in these taft-hartley plans are not eligible for the exchanges and the refundable tax credits available in the exchange. obviously the unions are not happy about that. on august 27, in 2013, the trade public education inside health policy reported "the office of management and budget showed on its web site that on august 24 it received a department of labor proposed rule on health insurance premium assistance, trust supporting the purchase of certain individual health insurance policies. the rule which o.m.b. said is patient protection in affordable care act related appears to deal

with the exclusion from a definition of an employee welfare benefit plan but this week the description disappeared" -- end quote. the unions are clearly seeking a way around the law and want a special fix that would apply to them and them only. if they have their own way, mr. president, what will happen is that union members will receive government subsidies for their insurance plans from three different sources, three different ways, a benefit position that no other organization or individual is in. first they get the tax deduction that an employer receives for contributing to a union health plan. second, they will get the nontaxable income that the employee receives when his or her employer purchases a union health plan. and, three, and finally, a new premium assistance tax credit for union members who purchase a union health plan. now, recent analysis from the american action forum sos that in the administration gives labor unions what they want, it

would cost taxpayers $187 billion over the next ten years. the new health care law, mr. president, is clear, that taxpayer-funded premium assistance credits are intended for low- to middle-income americans without access to affordable insurance through an employer or who purchase health insurance on the exchanges. the fact is that taft-hartley union health plans are not exchange-based plans; they are employer-sponsored health plans. providing union members with a premium assistance tax credit on top of the favorable tax treatment already afforded to them for their employer-sponsored coverage amounts to double dipping for union workers and is grossly unfair to every nonunion worker in america who would receive no such special bivment. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please proceed. mr. thune: the law states that

union employees should not receive both taft-hartley coverage and premium tax credits but the administration has made it abundantly clear that they're willing to ignore that law in other areas. that's why i have a introduced as bill and as an amendment to the pending legislation the union bailout prevention act that would seek to close off any possible loophole that the administration might use to give unions a special fix. mr. president, i don't blame at all the unions or other americans around this country for not liking what they got. i think a lot of people had higher hopes than those who supported this and enhas to yaws stickily supported the -- and enthusiastically supported the health care law realize that this wasn't what they were promised. a lot would like to see a do-over. they wnts to see changes, a reform. some want to see a repeal. that would be my preference in all this. but it is not fair to carve out groups of people at the conclusion or detriment of other

americans who would be unfairly impacted by that carve-out. that is essential what i they are requesting here. they are trying to get special treatment that will allow them not to claim one, two, but three special tax treatments as a result of the new affordable care act when in fact under taft-hartley plans they already receive favorable tax treatment and they are in government-approved plans. that is a government-approved plan; therefore not eligible for the exchanges, as are many other americans who don't have access to an employer-provided health care plan. if this carve-out were something the administration would approve, it would create a special treements, a special flyings would cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars and be completely unfair to countless americans who would love to see -- love to see the provisions of this law either repealed or delayed for them as well. the better solution, i would, a is let's delay this for everybody. i'd like to see it repealed.

i think we could have done a much better job. we didn't need 20,000 pages of regulations to deal with some of the problems and challenges that we have in our health care system today. but that's what we have. we have a government takeover our health care system. we have 20,000 pages of regulations which, by the way, is significantly taller than i am. it is about seven feet tall when you stack those regulations. somebody has to interpret all that. somebody has to make sense out of t as people start to make sense out of it, they're not liking what they're finding. that shouldn't come as a surprise because when you get a massive expansion of the government, which is essential qulalywhat this was, a takeoverf one-sixth of the american comirks you're going to have a lost associated, unintended consequences, and i think it would make a lost sense -- and there is so many better ways of going about this. if we were to real estate peel this and start over -- if we were to repeal this and start over. but at a minimum, if one group is going to get special trem treatment, then all americans

ought to get special treatment. the best way to do that is to delay this for everybody across this country, not to create special carve-outs, special treatment that would apply to just a number -- a small number of americans when there are literally millions of americans who are impacted by this new law. mr. president, i would also like to address briefly, if i might -- and this is another amendment that i filed to this bill, and it's amendment number 1887, and it has to do with the department of energy loan program that has already cost taxpayers millions in bad inchvestments. it is the advanced technologies vehicle manufacturing program. it was expwend intended to provs for manufacturing facilities that produce fuel-efficient vehicles. making only five loans, the program was mothballed in 2011. remarkably, the secretary is considering reviving the program is seeking new applications for the atvm program.

mr. president, i have introduced this amendment because the obama administration has not proven -- has not proven itself to be a very good venture capitalist. if you look at the record of the five recipients of atvm loans, one is bankrupt, another has suspended their payments on $192 million loan, the government accountability office has also questioned whether the department of energy has the expertise to properly assess loan applications. the g.a.o. has also concluded that the department of energy lacks the engineering expertise needed for effective technical oversight. mr. president, not only is this program poorly managed, it is no longer needed. credit markets in the auto industry have recovered from the recession and industry participants have shown little interest in the atvm program in recent years. stricter fuel economy standards promote vehicle technologies that are subsidized by the loan pravmenprogram. the atvm program has $16.6

billion in outstanding lending authority and according to g.a.o. there is a a credit subsidy risk of over $4 billion. now, i have offered this amendment to prohibit any new loans from being made under the atvm program and to protect taxpayers from this outstanding exposure. given the energy department's poor track record and the fact that these subsidies are no longer necessary, i would urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stop the administration infrastructure fg additional risky loans and losing even more taxpayer dlamples i hope that we will get a chance to vote on these amendments. i know that the manager of the bill, the senator from oregon, is working with us to try and come up with a path forward in terms of processing amendments. but this is certainly one that in my view would save the governmentaged the taxpayers some money -- and the taxpayers some money and if you look at the record, i this i that most americans would agree this is not the way they want to see their money used. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to are a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. officer without objection. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. portman: i know you have some thoughts on the efficiency bill. we will hear that laimplet i appreciate senator thune and others who have come to the floor to not offer their amendments officially because we have an to issue resolve on the health care front, but to talk about amendments to the legislation and ways to improve it. i know senator gillibrand was out earlier, a commonsense

approach to ensure that you can use more energy-efficient appliances. so there are some commonsense ways for us to move the efficiency agenda forward and we've had a good debate today on that top iefnlg i think we've actually gotten a number of amendments that have been proposed. i can count seven of them that are bipartisan that have been discussed here on the floor. they are going to help us as we proceed on this bill. i am hopeful that we will have votes on monday and tuesday on this and that we can move forward with resolving the outstanding issues on the health care front to be able to move to the bill. i hope that my colleague from louisiana does get a vote on his health care bill. i think it is important. but let's also be sure that we actually move forward with this underlying legislation. this is an, unfortunately, rare example of where republicans and democrats have come together here in the u.s. senate to put forward legislation that's been

worked out carefully, thoughtfully and carefully over time, that addresses one of the concerns we have as a country, which is that our energy that's used in our manufacturing facilities and by us as individuals and families and certainly by our federal government makes our economy less competitive, increases our cost, and there are ways to both make our economy stronger, certainly improve the environment and also make us less dependent on foreign energy by moving forward with energy efficiency, as one leg of really a combination of things that we need to do in an all-of-the-above energy strategy. some of that should be producing more energy. i think this is a great opportunity for america, particularly in states like ohio that i represent, where we have a tremendous opportunity to produce more natural gas, so-called wet gas, and also oil and that will help to lower energy costs and stable energy

costs going forward and i think could lead to a rebinch some of the great industries -- rebirth of some of the great industries in states like mine of ohio but also around our country as we face high unemployment and low economic growth. but we need to use less and use what we have more efficiently. this is a conservative approach because we want to be sure that the energy we have is used most effectivively and efficiently. we've seen a lot of gridlock on capitol hill. we have democrats and republicans who have worked together with the senator from new hampshire. we spent two and a half years working on this. we have over 200 businesses supporting us. we have over 260 organizations working with us. the chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers, the sierra club, the natural resources defense council and other groups on the other hand. it is an interesting combination of folks who believe that energy

efficiency is low-hanging fruit, a way for us to use less energy, therefore have a more produc pre economy, have a better environment and make us less dependent on foreign oil. this is an opportunity for us to do something else, in my view, which is to not just pass good energy legislation for the first time really in several years here on the floor but also to provide a model of how we can maybe work on some issues that are even bigger than energy efficiency, like dealing with the debt and deficit and broader economic growth issues like tax reform. i am hopeful that we can move forward with this debate. i think appreciate today people being patient as they came to the floor and waiting for their turn to be able to speak about their amendments. i also appreciate those who are trying to work out some sort of unanimous consent agreement with my colleague from louisiana so we can move forward on the actual votes. i know we're going to hear from the -- our colleague who is currently in the chair tonight and others this evening about

energy efficiency. but i would just like to end by saying that there is a way for us to make progress on these issues. we've shown it by this legislation. let's get through these procedural hurdles and be sure that we can in this instance break the gridlock, get something done that helps my state of ohio, helps the american people, helps us move forward in terms of better economic growth, a cleaner environment and also a better national security situation where we're not dependent on these foreign sources of oil, sometimes from very dangerous and volatile parts of the world, as we've seen in the last several weeks, that's problematic. there's a better way forward. this energy efficiency bill is one of the steps we can take moving forward. with that, mr. president, i appreciate again your work on this issue and look forward to hearing your comments later and i yield back. i see my colleague from ohio is on the floor. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i appreciate my colleague's

words and his work with senator shaheen on a very important energy bill, and i know that the presiding officer, who if i could add, whose mother is in the gallery, will get to hear him in a few minutes. i guess i'm not allowed to add that. i apologize for that, mr. president. i apologize, mr. president. i've been here long enough. i should know that. i rise, mr. president, today to speak today how our nation's efforts to combat tobacco products, the number-one preventable cause of death, how our nation's debts are being threatened. next week the obama administration will continue negotiations on the transpacific partnership, called the t.p.p. the t.p.p. is a proposed trade agreement that currently includes the united states and about a dozen other countries. it would created a free trade zone among the member countries. sounds good. maybe it creates jobs although trade agreements in the past have always been overpromised.

they're real opportunities for workers and businesses in this trade deal, if dorn right. if done right. but like any agreements of this size, there are lots of challenges and issues that will require close examination by congress and the american people. this sort of one-size-fits-all type deal with a broad set of countries, rich countries like the u.s. and australia, to poor developing countries like malaysia, to communist countries like vietnam, is a challenging undertaking to integrate these economies in a way that works for us. congress will have time to examine the details of the t.t.p. -- of the t.p.p. as it moves along, but today, mr. president, i want to talk about one specific part of this agreement that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. in fact, the -- the text of the t.p.p. has not really been widely available except to -- more to interest groups than it has the american public. but i want to talk about the u.s. proposal on tobacco products and how tobacco companies could challenge antitobacco efforts in the

united states and abroad under this transpacific partnership. we know big tobacco will stop at anything nog to replace the thousands -- nothing to replace the thousands of customers they lose each year to lung disease. i remember, mr. president, many years ago -- and i'll talk more about this later -- but we did a number of tobacco hearings when i was in the house of representatives and -- and one of the things that was clear is that we talked about in those days, i believe the number, 350,000 -- 400,000 americans died from tobacco use every year. and the tobacco executives, when they came and talked to us, it was really clear of one thing. they understood 350,000 of their customers were dying every year so they had to find 350,000 new customers every year. and where did they go? they didn't go to people of the age of the presiding officer or me or members of the senate. they went to people the age of the pages sitting on the steps next to the chair of the presiding officer. they went after the 14-year-olds

and 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds because that's how they were going to replenish their customer base. any business has a business plan to attract new customers, but when your business actually kills people, as tobacco does -- 350,000 to 400,000 a year -- it's i something like the estimates now are slightly in excess of that -- that business has got to figure out creative, in this case immoral ways of getting young people to start smoking cigarettes. the 440,000 americans that die from tobacco-related illnesses, making it the leading cause of preventable death in this country, it now includes 50,000 deaths -- something we weren't so sure of 20 years ago -- 50,000 deaths attributable to secondhand smoke. in ohio each year, 18,000 people die from smoking, 2,100 adults die from exposure to secondhand smoke. smoking kills more ohioans than alcohol, aids, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined. 20% of deaths in ohio are

attributable to smoking. each year, 17,000 ohioans start smoking. by the time they leave high school, many are addicted. 90% of adult smokers started before their 18th birthday. of course they did. not very many people start smoking when they're 25 or 30 or 40. tragically, 293,000 ohio children urn the ag under the a8 today will ultimately die prematurely because of their smoking addiction. with the rise in electronic cigarette use among american teens, it's not a stretch that deaths of young people who use tobacco products may, in fact, increase. just last week, the centers for disease control and prevention reported that the percentage of middle- and high school americans that use these cigarettes doubled from 2011-2012 from 4% to 10%. i have no doubt that we'll find these devices to have their own negative health effects and that they'll serve as gateway devices to conventional tobacco

products. you've got to figure that's the hope of the tobacco companies. we know that tobacco-related deaths represent the number-one preventable cause of death in the world. thankfully we're making progress. we passed, president obama signed into law the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act four years ago which empowers the f.d.a. to regulate the manufacturing and the sale of tobacco products. the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act will finally take action to curb tobacco use and increase regulation of these deadly products. this law, though, don't forget, was decades in the making. two decades ago -- i mentioned this hearing -- i sat in my first year in congress on the -- first or second year -- on the house energy and commerce committee. chairman henry waxman from california, a democrat, first brought the leaders of the seven big tobacco companies to testify about whether tobacco was addictive, whether its marketing targeted children. these seven tobacco executives raised their right hand, famous

picture front page of most newspapers in the country, pledged to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth to this committee. then they lied. under oath they said nicotine is not addictive. they knew nicotine was addictive. their own tests showed nicotine was addictive but they lied to the american people. their testimony strained the imagination. by enacting stronger regulations on the tobacco industry, we helped decrease the rate of cardiovascular disease and lung disease. for example, smoking rates in the u.s. are down from 20% of the population -- 25% of the population in 1990 to 19% today, from 25% to 19%. that is a huge public health victory. not good enough but a huge public health victory. other countries with strong antitobacco laws -- england, canada, australia -- are seeing similar successes. currently of the world's 1.3 billion smokers, 80% live in

low- or middle-income countries. it's proven that antitobacco laws actually help curb this epidemic. america has a moral imperative to stand for global public health. besides the 1 million people in the world predicted to die thi this -- excuse me, 1 billion people in the world predicted by the world health organization to die this century from smoking, there are secondary costs, including agriculture for food being diverted for tobacco fields and money spent by often malnourished people on tobacco rather than on staples they need. it's no accident that tobacco's predatory marketing strategy involve appealing to citizens who can least afford to waste tight family funds on a preventable addiction to tobacco. in ohio, health care costs directly caused by smoking are more than $4 billion, $1.3 billion of that paid by medicaid, by taxpayers. our overburdened medicaid program simply can't continue to bear brunt of these costs.

we're all affected by tobacco use. consider this. in ohio, the cost to taxpayers of government-related tobacco expenses add to a virtual tobacco tax on each ohioan of about $600 per household. how does that work? people that smoke, they -- they end up spending more time in the hospital, they end up with more diseases and illnesses are expensive to treat. that comes out to about $600 per household paying for those, whether you smoke or not, paying for that cost. we can't afford those costs in human life and to society if tobacco companies have the ability to challenge public health efforts under trade laws. we've made headway against this plague in america. big tobacco has turned to trade deals. big tobacco, amazingly enough, you wouldn't have predicted this 30 years ago, big tobacco typically has lost fights in the congress. big tobacco used to be like the n.r.a., they used to be like the wall street in that they rarely

lost any big fight in the united states congress. but they have in the last 20 years because increasing numbers of americans have understood how big tobacco plays, how hard -- how -- the way they lobby, the underhanded way they market, how they've marketed to children. we've stopped a lot of that. so what does big tobacco do? now they've turned to trade deals as the most fertile avenues for defeating international public health efforts. understand this. tobacco industry has deliberately made its -- made trade laws its new potent and legal weapon. last year, the united states trade representative -- and here's the key part of this -- proposed a safe harbor provision that would have significantly limited efforts by big tobacco to challenge antitobacco efforts under trade rules created by the transpacific partnership. they created this safe harbor provision. however, the right thing to do, the administration was standing up to big tobacco, against the wishes and lobbying efforts of

big tobacco. however, last month the administration changed course, arguing that the united states can best balance the priorities of public health advocates and business by not excluding any one product, including tobacco, from rules of the trade agreement. so rather than giving tobacco the safe harbor, they said, we're not going to do it for anybody, the safe harbor to protect public health. in my view, this desire to strike a balance on a public health issue like tobacco is questionable, particularly when there's clear evidence that tobacco causes cancer and heart disease and lung disease. and as we've said, tobacco use is the world's leading preventable cause of death. my concerns are shared by league public health advocates. the american cancer society, cancer action network, the american academy of pediatrics, the campaign for tobacco-free kids, a longtime antitobacco voices like the new york mayor michael bloomberg. some will say the current u.s. tobacco proposal recognizes the unique nature of tobacco

products, but neither current nor the original u.s. proposal would prevent the most serious threat posed to global public health -- the tobacco industry's ever-growing use of something called investor state disputes, or country-to-country disputes, cases arising over tobacco product measures. in other words, since nafta -- and i was talking to the presiding officer, the senator from delaware, about this a minute ago -- since the north american free trade agreements, companies have been empowered to be able to go to a trade court and challenge a public health law. so if there's a strong environmental law, as there was in canada about additives in gasoline, a company that made those additives in richmond, virginia, sued the canadian government saying that their public health law banning this substance in gasoline, their public health law kept -- hurt their business and was, thereof, an unfair trade practice.

that's what -- that's an example of what investor state lawsuits allows, provisions in these trade agreements. we're afraid the tobacco companies would do the same thing. for example, australia's tobacco plain packaging act of 2011 is already under challenge under both the >> central yang-hong kong bilateral investment treaty in a separate world trade organization dispute settlement proceeding. these cases are pending despite the fact that australian courts, locally controlled laws -- determined laws, locally controlled courts, all in australia, that australian courts already held in favor of the plain packaging law. so what we're allowing is when a company has a strong public health law, if we in the united states write a strong public health law on tobacco or on clean air, on safe drinking water, the courts of the united states said this is constitutional, it should stay in effect. what this trade agreement would do is allow companies in other countries to -- in other

countries to sue the united states government to undermine and weaken our public health laws. the -- similar cases launched against uruguay over its proposed graphic warnings proposal on cigarette packages and advertisements have happened so uruguay has passed strong warning signs, warning labels on packages of cigarettes but they have been challenged by tobacco companies in other countries. why should a tobacco company be able to tell the people of uruguay that their law shouldn't stand in a trade court? i mean, what -- what -- what is sovereignty all about? the bottom line is tobacco industry will use every weapon in its arsenal. they did it in the house of representatives. they did it in the senate. they did it at h.h.s. they did it at the f.d.a. they've done it wherever they can. they'll use every weapon in its arsenal. fortunately unsuccessfully recently, much more successfully two decades ago. they'll use every weapon in their arsenal to protect their packaging and advertising, which is seen by millions around the

world each day. it's used to attract new customers, replacing those that inevitably they lose. unfortunately, these investor state challenges are being used by companies around the world more frequently. the u.n. conference on trade and development notes that the 62 cases initiated in 2012 are the highest number of cases ever filed in one year. allowing private enforcement of investment rights outside of domestic legal systems, can undermine and pose serious throats public health, the environment, and consumer efforts taken by our trading partners as well as our own agencies. americans are willing to support international public trade -- international trade agreements when there's a clear public go good, but public confidence in international institutions and agreements is quickly diminished when we so clearly elevate corporate interests ahead of public health, ahead of the environment, ahead of protection for workers, ahead of public safety. in the cas -- in the case of tobacco, of

all things, such an upside down approach will lead to greater public health terrific, disease and premature death. americans don't expect trade negotiations to result in a situation that makes tobacco regulation in the u.s. and around the world more vulnerable to challenges. i hope the obama administration will put forward a new proposal to give favorable consideration to proposals of other trade partners that reflect not only the american but the global consensus on tobacco priorities as they relate to protecting public health and the common good. let me close, mr. president, with repeating something that i think is particularly important. i remember my first understanding of this in the mid-1990's when we were told 350,000 to 400,000 people died from tobacco use every year. and then we examined and listened to the tobacco companies talk to and originally deny and then acknowledge their efforts to sell to children. to 12-year olds, 14-year olds,

to 16-year olds, with very sophisticated high-powered marketing techniques. mailings, television and radio initially, but mailings and other ways. handing out cigarettes. billboards near playgrounds and high schools. when you fundamentally understand the way tobacco marketing works is they lose 400,000 customers a year and the tobacco companies have to find 400,000 new customers a year, they'll do anything to find those tobacco, those new customers. they'll aim at children, aim at 16- and 17-year olds. they'll aim at the poorest people in the world. if you're an indian public health official or chinese public health official or public health official in bangladesh you've got lots of problems hr cholera, typhoid, malaria, about aids, about tuberculosis. you probably don't have the efforts to fight back against big tobacco. we in this country put a premium on public health efforts against

big tobacco. in those countries, their efforts have to be against these terrible infectious diseases of tuberculosis and malaria and aids and cholera and typhoid and all those things that they can't fight back on tobacco. that's why it's up to us in our efforts in these trade agreements to really stand for something, to stand for public health, to stand for fairness, to stand up against big tobacco and to do the right thing. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: