and it runs up the cost for everybody, as does a phenomenon like age banning, where young people my daughter's age in their early 30's are going to have to bear the cost of health care for older americans because you can't charge older americans anymore than three times more what you charge young, healthy people like my daughter. costs of health care, their consumption of health care we know won't be anywhere near that ratio. well, as projected, the president's health care law will cause individual insurance premiums to skyrocket all across america, including texas. policies like obamacare and dodd-frank, as i keep hearing from my community bankers have increased the cost of doing business and generated enormous uncertainty about the future. i was talking to a businessman in houston just two days ago.

he said the thing that's holding america back, our economy back is uncertainty. people just don't know what their tax is going to be like, what the regulatory environment is going to be like. they don't know about our failure to deal with our national debt now about $17 trillion, as the fed begins to wind down its purchases of our own debt, interest rates start to go back up. what is that going to mean? it is going to mean we have to pay china and other creditors more money for the money they've loaned to us because of that $17 trillion debt, and it will simply crowd out our ability to fund other priorities like national security, among others. well, the story of our sluggish recovery is ultimately the story of wasted human capital. again, another tragedy. it's a story of mothers and fathers who can't find full-time jobs and who are having trouble supporting their families. it's a story of college

graduates who are unemployed, living at home and drowning in student loan debt. as economists have written, the severe recession was bad enough. the slow recovery is doing just as much damage to living standards since it is sustained over a longer time frame. so i would say to our president, if you really care about reducing income and -- income inequality, if you care about saving the american dream, let's try something new. the definition of insanity, one pundit said, was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. so let's try something new. because we know the status quo does not work. so instead of piling more burdens on job creators and making it harder for americans to find full-time employment

let's embrace policies that make it easier to create jobs and get full-time work. let's reform our tax code so it's progrowth, make it simpler, make it fairer, make it more logical, more conducive to that strong economic growth that's going to create jobs. and let's go back to the drawing board on health care and embrace a sensible, patient-centered reforms that will reduce costs and increase accessibility. we're never going to change our economic trajectory until we change our economic policies. again, doing the same thing over and over again isn't going to change the outcome. we need to try something new. the policies of the past four and a half years have given us an economy that's failing to deliver the kind of job creation and income gains that americans want and they need. as the president's own treasury secretary said just this week, too many americans cannot find work. growth is not fast enough. and the very definition of what it means to be middle class is

being undercut by trends in our economy that must be addressed. i couldn't agree with him more. so isn't it time to try something different? mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i'd like to follow up on some of the comments by senator cornyn about these massive burdens on american families, how it's impacting their lives, their quality of life. and these are burdens forced upon them by this administration. so today i rise to talk about an amendment that i filed to the energy efficiency bill that we're debating today on the floor. this amendment would stop president obama's attempt to impose a massive increase to the national energy bill. it will affect all americans, because in a sense essentially what we have is a huge energy tax caused by government

regulations. my amendment blocks the issuance of new carbon pollution standards for new and existing coal-fire power plants. those standards are due out from the environmental protection agency this very week. and they can do great harm to the american economy and to american families. we need to make america's energy as clean as we can as fast as we can. everyone knows that. it's important, though, that we do it without hurting our economy and without costing thousands of middle-class jobs. the american people, through their elected representatives in congress, have rejected -- have rejected president obama's reckless energy policies in the past. so this past june president obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the e.p.a. to issue carbon pollution standard regulations. my amendment would require the approval of congress for any regulations causing increases of our national energy bill, just

like the one the e.p.a. would create with these regulations. if these regulations are allowed to take effect, they will increase energy costs for the people who can bear the burden the least: seniors, low-income families, small businesses. high energy costs will destroy thousands of jobs in places like my home state of wyoming, but also in missouri and ohio, west virginia, montana, many other states. we've already seen coal-fired power plants shut down and reduce capacity, putting many people out of work. that's been the president's plan all along, and these new regulations would just be the latest step. remember president obama said that under his plan, he said -- quote -- "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." skyrocket, that's his word. not mine. he said that energy producers could still build coal-fire power plants but that the costs would be so high, he said it would bankrupt them. the president should be looking

for ways to help businesses grow, to help create jobs, not pushing his regulations to find backdoor ways to bankrupt them. my amendment accomplishes a number of goals beginning with protecting american jobs. that's been our focus in this difficult economy. the nation's recession ended more than four years ago. we've not had the recovery we should have had because the president's policies have failed. the president promised he had a plan to create so-called green jobs. people have seen that those green jobs never materialized, and now the president is going after the red, white, and blue jobs that continue to power our country. the obama administration and its allies in the fringe environmental movement say that we need to get rid of these jobs to make way for new ones. they say that coal miners and power plant workers should fade into history along with the men and women who built stagecoachs and telegraphs and record players. their idea is that if we simply

let coal die, those folks can start making something new. well, that tkaoeufpbd thinking is a luxury that a lot of americans -- that kind of thinking is a luxury a lot of americans don't want and can't afford. when washington excessive red tape crashes a small community, those jobs aren't the only ones that go. the town loses its revenue base that hurts its public schools, police, fire departments, senior busing services for those who can't drive. everything that that town does to serve its people, all of that suffers because of decisions made by this administration in washington, d.c.. before long, people start to move away looking for a better chance somewhere else. small businesses don't have enough customers, so they shut down. the town withers away. when washington uses the heavy hand of excessive regulation, there's a whole host of ways it hurts american communities. one of those ways is its impact on public health. studies consistently show that

unemployment increases the likelihood of illness, hospital visits and premature death. families where a parent is out of work are more likely to fall into poverty. children in poor families are four times as likely as other children to be in fair or poor health. the bureaucrats at the e.p.a. can shake their magic 8 ball to predict health impacts of carbon pollution on virtual people who haven't been ball yet, yet we're years into the future. their predictions are wrong, and i expect that they are, they'll simply shake their magic 8 ball again. meanwhile, the health effects caused by their excessive regulations are very, very real for real families, real children, real seniors. so my amendment addresses this public health issue. it does it by preventing this massive unemployment that would result from new red tape and higher energy costs. finally, my amendment is clear that congress should act on an

affordable energy plan, and nothing in my amendment says that congress shouldn't work with state and local governments to protect communities from severe weather events where lives are at stake. my amendment is clear that these kinds of decisions should be for congress to make, not for the president to make on his own. that's true whether the president is a democrat or a republican. so i hope to get a vote on my amendment to ensure that the obama administration does not impose an increase in our national energy bill on the american people. mr. president, along the same lines, i want to speak briefly about another opportunity we have to ensure a stronger energy future for our country. this week will mark an anniversary that i hope will spur the american people to demand some action from the obama administration. fivers ago -- five full years ago -- trans-canada first applied for permission to build the keystone pipeline. five years. president obama still can't make up his mind to improve the

permit. he dithers, he delays, he makes excuses. it is time to act. it is time finally to approve the skype -- keystone x.l. pipeline so america can get the benefits of this project. according to the state department analysis, the pipeline's construction could support 42,000 jobs across the country. the president should be grabbing any opportunity he can to help the private sector create jobs. instead he said that the jobs that the keystone x.l. pipe pipeline would create are -- quote -- "a blip relative to the needs." is this how the president sees the livelihoods of 42,000 american families? this is the fourth major pipeline project between canada and the united states since 2006. all the others were approved and the process took between 15 months and 28 months for each of them. the permit process for keystone x.l. is now 60 months and still

counting. why is it taking so long? in october 2010, secretary of state hillary clinton said her department was inclined to approve the project. in july 2007, the administration -- 2011 the administration said it was publicly committed to reaching a decision before the end of the year. that is in 2011. the deadline came and it went. this past june the president suddenly raised the bar. he said the net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate would be critical to his decision. well, we know today what those effects would be. studies show that the keystone x.l. pipeline would not be a substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions and that's because even if the pipeline doesn't get built the energy is still going to be developed. china has absolutely offered to buy the energy from canada. this pipeline has the support of more than 70% of the american people. it has the support of major labor unions and of every state along its route.

a bipartisan majority in the house and 62 senators support it. still, president obama can't make up his mind. he delays his decision on this vital infrastructure project and at the same time he's trying to impose what amounts to a national energy tax. he refuses to allow a project that would create thousands of jobs and at the same time orders regulators that would destroy thousands of jobs. he stalls a pipeline that would help middle-class families while he promotes a policy that would take more money out of the pockets of hardworking americans. we need to approve america's energy picture without destroying jobs or bankrupting our country. now, president obama can help do that. he can do it today by doing two things. first, he should drop his plan to impose a new increase on national energy costs and let it be debated by congress. second, he should immediately approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the president is serious about

helping middle-class families, he will prove it. if he's not ready to join democrats and republicans in congress in making reasonable energy policies that help american families, then the senate should act. struggling middle-class families are asking for our help, and it is time to give them the help that they need. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak on the affordable care act. in hawaii, we have a saying, lucky you live hawaii. that can mean a lot of different things to different people, but when talking about access to affordable, effective health care, this phrase has particular

meaning. in the early 1970's, the rate of uninsured in our state was about 30%, meaning that roughly one in three in our population would live in fear that a sickness or injury could cause financial ruin for themselves or their families. the people of hawaii knew this was unacceptable, and in 1974, a state government passed an innovative piece of legislation. the prepaid health care act. wea

ways to go. even with prepaid, there are more than 100,000 people in our state still uninsured. when the affordable care act passed three years ago, i knew it meant that those who are uninsured or underinsured in hawaii would find some relief. we've already we've already seen major successes since this landmark legislation that is pass. yet people are still afraid of obamacare. that's because a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money to make the american public believe that somehow this legislation is bad for them, will harm them. that's why when asked about health care reform as a whole, many americans say they are concerned, they have anxiety. but when you talk to people back in hawaii and across the nation and even those who think they don't like health care reform, they like what it does. for example, parents like that they can keep their children on

their health insurance until the age of 26, which affects 6,000 young adults in the state of hawaii. people will no longer have to live in fear of lifetime limits on health benefits, which will help 460,000 residents of hawaii, including 115,000 children. more than half a million people in my state will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, and as a state that has committed to the medicaid expansion, hawaii will also now be able to provide care to close to 68,000 more residents starting in 2014. people like these policies. people like what health care reform is already doing for them. and while my colleagues across the aisle are looking to repeal this historic legislation, i'm looking forward to how we can build on its success. let me be clear, the fact that health care reform is working

and is exactly why the detractors of the a.c.a. are trying so hard to stop it from being fully implemented. they know that the american people are embracing obamacare because of all the good it will do for our families. in particular, i'm looking forward to the opening of our marketplace, the hawaii health connector, on october 1. many people i've spoken to want know what the marketplace may mean for them. simply, the hawaii health connector is going to provide a consumer-friendly way for residents of my i would t statew and compare a wide variety of plans. they will be able to pick the coverage that best suits them and their families. my office has been in constant contact with the cerk connectord their staff has been working tirelessly to set up the phone interface and provide assistance and navigation in the form of

kakua, a word that means pitching in to help their neighbors with no regard for personal gain. that's reflective of the values we have, that everyone deserves to be healthy and have access to affordable and quality care. now, that doesn't mean we don't still have a lot of work to do. i'm hoping that a number of bills that i've introduced, including the rural preventive health care training act and the strengthening health disparities data collection act, will be considered and voted on by the full senate in order to solve some of our worst issues in providing care to rural and underserved populations in hawaii and across the nation. but i believe a.c.a. is working the wait it should be. it is increasing the number of insured americans, promoting preventive care that will help to reduce the human and financial costs of avoidable illness and lowering the cost of caring for everyone. many of my colleagues here in the u.s. congress choose not to

see any of this. the only option for them is total repeal, with zero tolerance for open discussion or compromise on this landmark legislation. but that kind of thinking is what causes the gridlock that americans are so tired of. i understand that there will be parts of this law, which is a sweeping piece of legislation, that will need to be amended over time to resolve any kinks. these kinds of revisions have been done with every other landmark domestic social policy that has been passed in this country, including medicare and social security. i'm willing, as are my colleagues on the democratic side, to come to the table and work with republicans to make necessary improvements over time, but i refuse to engage in the process of political and parliamentary gymnastics designed to score small, short-term wins at the expense

of the american people and the economy. it's got to be pointed out that anyone who wants to grind the entire government to a halt over the implementation of this several-years-old law will cause harm to the economy, cause harm to their communities because federal funding provides essential services and programs to constituents in every state, every county, every district. if improvements or changes need to be made, they can be done through the regular order, with hearings, serious discussions, and bipartisan support. ultimately, what we are seeing in hawaii an and across the natn is that president obama's historic health care package is making inroads and improved our health care system. an effort to stop that cannot be toltolerated by members of congress. i continue to support its full implementation and look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the senate to

build aupon its success. -- to build upon its success. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. markey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the roll call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: madam president, i ask to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you. mr. president -- madam president, today i am here to give my first speech on the floor of the united states senate. i do so with deep respect and reverence for the history of this chamber and for the giants of the senate who have served before us. from massachusetts, our recent roster of senators reads like a history textbook. president john f. kennedy, who inspired a nation. president kennedy's desk is right here, and it is so appropriate that my

extraordinary partner from massachusetts, senator warren, occupies it today. the legendary ted kennedy, who had the vision to make health care a right and not a privilege. ed brooke, the first african-american popularly elected to the senate. paul tsongas, a model of independence. for 28 years john kerry was a champion for the people of massachusetts. now he is our chief diplomat to the world, his skill already shown in his ability to bring russia and syria to the negotiating table. america is the greatest country on earth. my father drove a truck for the hood company. he graduated from the vocational program at lawrence high school. my mother was going to be senior class president in high school, but her mother died when she was

a junior. she had to abandon her college dreams to stay home to take care of her younger sisters. that was before the new deal, before social security, before franklin delano roosevelt. in those days the only social safety net for families was the one the girls -- one of the girls had to stay home. i was the first in my family to go to college. i drove an ice cream truck to work my way through boston college as a commuter. i did the same for law school. and i took out federal student loans like so many millions of american students have to do today. and thanks, thanks to the people of our state, this son of a milkman is now serving the

commonwealth of massachusetts in the united states senate. i am a son of malden, but i do not go now to occupy a seat in the senate. i go there to stand for those families, to speak for those families to seek change that lifts up those families and their future. and to everyone, i say to you that will be how i conduct myself here in the united states senate. and so, i come here today to discuss my perspective formed by the commonwealth of massachusetts, guided by its people, practiced in the house of representatives for more than 36 years and open to new knowledge, new ideas and innovative ways to move our country forward. from its inception, massachusetts has thrived because it is a wellspring for the advancement of humanities, ideas and ideals. nearly 400 years ago the

pilgrims braved an uncertain passage to plymouth as religious innovators. but the pilgrims would likely not have survived the new world's harsh environment without learning new ways from the native wappanowag indians, the people of the dawn as their tribal name translates. so our bearings were set early. in a sense, we of massachusetts are all people of the dawn looking over the horizon towards a new frontier, striving to forge a better tomorrow. it is no surprise that when america moved from farms to factor reus, it began in -- to factories, it began in massachusetts. massachusetts has survived and it has thrived because of our tradition of innovation and imagination. we invent the materials that power our economy. we initiate the moral

discussions that advance a nation. we are never satisfied with what we have accomplished. instead always pushing for progress, embracing the promise of the rising sun. and we know from experience that when we invest in the future, we create jobs here and now in our country. during the last few decades, the pursuit of the possible that is hard wired into our massachusetts d.n.a. has helped us weather tough economies and rough international competition better than many other states. we have become a high-tech, clean tech, biotech hub for america and for the world at places like m.i.t. and at companies like bolt, boranic, newman in boston. the vision was set in motion. earlier in my career congress passed three telecommunications bills on a bipartisan basis that

i helped author that removed barriers for innovation and unlocked opportunity for entrepreneurs, creating jobs in massachusetts and across the nation by unleashing more than $1 trillion of private-sector investment in this emerging technology area. now the future of telecom is mobile. massachusetts has several hundred mobile companies. we have the strongest robotic centers in the nation. we have the burgeoning digital games industry centered in our state. we are waiting for the next generation of technology jobs because we spent decades building our digital foundation. massachusetts was once the nation's leading power producer. when melville wrote mow by dick by the light -- wrote moby dick by the light of the whale oil

lamp now we have the forefront of a revolution. our electricity is cleaner, we're using it smarter and it is getting cheaper. massachusetts is now the number-one state in the country when it comes to energy efficiency, and just yesterday boston was named america's most energy-efficient city. our shores will host of the first offshore wind energy farm in the nation. the same winds that brought the pilgrims to plymouth rock will now power a new generation of jobs in massachusetts. massachusetts is seventh in the nation in solar-installed person in the whole country, even in a state more known for the perfect storm than for perfect sunny days. in massachusetts alone, clean energy now employs 80,000 people across 5,000 businesses in our state. if we continue our commitments to clean energy, we will put

steelworkers and ironworkers and welders and electricians to work building a new backbone for a new energy economy here in the united states and across the world. massachusetts is the hub for biotech in the entire planet. we support 35,000 jobs statewide. shelt our first wealth but in massachusetts it is also one of the best job creators. we are an idea factory, pumping out new concepts, creating new companies that produce new jobs and discover cures for deadly diseases. in massachusetts, we recognize that education is a ladder of opportunity that allows every child to maximize their god-given abilities. the first public school in america was established in massachusetts. today massachusetts students are number-one in the nation in math, in reading, and tied for

number one with new york in science. for students in massachusetts and around the country, we should never let the big dreams of attending college be thwarted by the small print of overly burdensome loans. and as children learn in an online environment, we need to make sure that they can grow, develop, and make mistakes that won't derail a promising future. that's why i will soon introduce my do-not-track kids legislation on a bipartisan basis to protect the privacy of children online. the value of our economy grows because it is imbued with our american values. what unites us is the unshakable belief that no matter where you come from, no matter what your circumstances, you can achieve the american dream. we believe everyone should get a fair shot. no one should be left behind.

it is time to get back to the values that made massachusetts and this country great. it is time to make real progress creating an economy that works for everyone. it is time to protect a woman's right to choose. it is time to deliver to the lgbt community all of the protections and rights under the constitution. it is time that we put real gun control measures on the books. the horrific mass shootings at the navy yard is the latest deadly reminder that we need to do more to stem the tide of gun violence in this country. newtown, aurora -- these tragedies are not inevitable. they are preventable. this senseless carnage must end, and we need a ban on assault weapons. we need a ban on high-capacity magazines. we need universal background checks combined with comprehensive care for our mental lil. we need to put an end to the partisan gridlock that prevents

even the most basic of gun control measures from becoming law. in the next few weeks, we will see our seventh fight over our debt and deficit in the last couple of years. we need to break down this rampant ideology and -- that threatens to turn a government that works for the people into a government that simply shuts down. we must also end the mindless across-the-board cuts from sequestration. cutting programs like head start will leave a generation of kids lacking behind. slashing investments in science means the breakthroughs that create jobs and cure deadly diseases could go undiscovered. cutting defense spending mindlessly could undermine our security. we need a new transportation bill that puts union workers back out there, working, rebuilding our roads and our bridges. while many economists have labeled the recent downturn a

recession, for our working families and low-wage earners, it has become an economic depression. economic inequality tears at the fabric that makes our country great. it turns epluribus unum into everyone for themselves. we must raise the minimum wage for the people who are struggling to make it into the middle class. we need to create an end of the era of climate denial. climate change is irrefutable. it is raising sea levels. it is giving storms more powmplet the planet is running a fever. there are no emergency rooms for planets. we must put in place the preventable care of unleashing a renewable energy revolution in wind, in solar, in biomass. in geothermal, in energy efficiency that avoids the worst, most catastrophic impact

of climate change on this planet. we are seeing it on an ongoing basis, not just here in our country but all across the planet. our moral duty to future generation calls for us to address climate change. but it also is an economic opportunity to create new jobs here in our country. i will soon introduce legislation that will call for america by 2025 to reach a 25% target for clean energy and energy-efficiency improvements. this bill will create jobs, as it cuts pollution. and i will continue to work to pass climate legislation, as i did in the house of representatives. i will also introduce legislation to fix our aging natural gas system in massachusetts and across the country, making it cleaner and more efficient. we can use affordable natural gas and clean energy built and delivered through the work of union hands to power new

american manufacturing centers. that is a job-creation triple play. generate new energy, build new infrastructure, and manufacture new american products, and we must not massively export our natural gas abroad or, i fear, we will continue to export our young men and women to dangerous places all over the world and lose opportunities to lower electricity rates here and to increase the manufacturing jobs here in the united states. 50 years ago president kennedy announced the ambitious goal of sending an american safely to the moon. he told us that we would need a giant rocket made of new metal alloys, some of which had not yet been invented. it would have to be fitted together with precision better than the finest watch. and it would have to be returned to earth safely, at speeds never

before approximated by humanity, and it would all have to be done in fewer than eight years. president kennedy urged us to be bold. i say to this chamber, it is time for us to be bold. in this era of innovation, there are jobs that are not yet imagined in fields that haven't been created with industries that don't yet exist. we should be bold. america watched with pride as neal armstrong stepped on the moon and an american flag was planted as a symbol of our success. in this capitol building, there is a flag brought back from the moon. it testifies to the returns that we receive when we invest in american ingenuity, when we seek the dawn of discovery, when we invest in our people and in our industries, when we follow the universal american value of justice and tolerance and

liberty and equality. we can use our talents and our tools to help all people everywhere build a more peaceful, prosperous future. i look forward to working with every senator in the months and years ahead to make the 21st century more educated, more healthy, more prosperous, and more fair than the 20th century was. thathat is our challenge. that is our opportunity. but we must do it together. thank you. i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i extend my appreciation to senator markey. i had the good fortune of serving in the house of representatives with him, and when he decided to run for the senate, i was excited, and i'm so happy that he's here with us. the speech that he just gave indicates the work that we should be doing. i've always admired him. i appreciate very much what he's

done for the state of nevada. in many different areas he's been on the forefront of protecting nevada from the ravages of something that could be an environmental disaster: nuclear waste. he has been someone who has led the country in so many different ways, about recognizing the dangers of climate change, telecommunications. no one in the last 30 years has done more for modernizing our telecommunications system than ed markey. so i appreciate very much his good work. but, madam president, as i sat and listened to this remarkably important speech, i think of the massachusetts delegation, two new senators, but what wonderful senators they are. senator elizabeth warren, senator ed markey. the potential that they have is

so astounding. but, madam president, you know what's on the news today? this will be the most -- the worst -- the least -- i shouldn't say "the worst." the least productive senate in the history of the country. people like the senators from massachusetts are being prevented from doing good things. there's no better example of that than the senator who is on the floor listening to senator markey, the senior senator from new hampshire. a bill to make our energy problems around america, our electricity problems more efficient -- energy efficiency, a bill that we should do, we should have done a long time ago. we can't do it because we have the anarchists running the house of representatives -- and they're doing a pretty good job over here, too.

i say about 40% of the republicans over here are anarchists, tea-party driven. this energy bill -- five nongermane amendments, most of them dealing with health care. the republicans are obsessed with a law that is the law of the land: obamacare. it's been the law for almost four years. the united states supreme court has said it is constitutional. but that doesn't take away their obsession to try to undercut this legislation, which is going into effect in a big way on october 1. it's a shame that we're not able to legislate like we did. everything is a squabble and a fight. i came here more than three decades ago, having already had a legislative career in the state of nevada.

and we've been able to work together to do so many good things -- until recently. we're now waiting to see what the house of representatives is going to do, how absurd it is going to be what they're going to send us. we know it's going to be something really strange and weird because the speaker has to do everything that he can to try to mold a piece of legislation that will meet the needs of the tea party, the anarchists -- and i say that without any equivocation. they do not want government to work on any level, not the local level, not the state level, and certainly not here. any day that's a bad day for government is a cheering day for them. so i am so impressed with the senator's speech, but i am

distressed about what's going on here in the united states senate about trying to get things done. bipartisanship is a thing of the past. now all we do is gotcha legislation. i was given the assurance by many republicans, let's do energy. energy efficiency, let's do it. we'll work together on a bipartisan basis, and the first thing out of the box is something that will derail this legislation. so i am thankful that we have a new senator who is as talented and as good as he is, but i wish his talents could be more put to work here in the senate.

ms. warren: madam president, i'm proud to come to the floor today to welcome my colleague, ed markey, on giving his first speech on the floor of the united states senate. long before i came a united states senator, ed markey was in the house of representatives, became the dean of the massachusetts delegation, and has been out there working for the families of massachusetts, for the families of this country. he has been a leader on issues ranging from energy and the environment to technology and telecommunications, and he knows how to get things done. and that's very inspiring. so i just wanted to come by today to listen to his first speech, to congratulate him on his first speech, and to say how much i'm looking forward to working with my partner ed markey in the united states senate. we're going to do our best to get something done. congratulations, ed. thank you.

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 154, s. 1392, a bill to promote energy savings? residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: madam president, i also want to welcome the new senator from massachusetts to this body. i listened to his speech and will have some discussions over

some of those items that are sometimes uncertain. but i also listened to the leader's speech following that, and i'm a little bit disappointed in that speech. he mentioned that we were the least productive senate in history. i think there's a reason for that. and the reason is that we're doing deal making now instead of legislating. i came here 16 years ago and have watched for a number of years as we have legislated. and legislating means getting votes on amendments, and getting votes on amendments happens much quicker than trying to make some kind of a deal to limit amendments. yes, some of the amendments in all of those years have not been relevant to the bill that we were talking about. usually once they have been covered, they're kind of done with, and they don't come up on every bill. but this same tactic has been

used to stifle amendments even on relevant ones to bills. and both sides are at fault. it's not just one side. both sides are stopping amendments from being voted on. we need to vote on amendments. of course the first one up is one that i've been working on. the reason it's being brought up on this bill is this is the first bill after a recess we could put anything on. during the recess there was a huge change in the health reform bill. that huge change was that the president decided that he would exempt congress from being under the bill, from having to do the same thing that the rest of america will do. if you work in a business in america, private business, and your business does not provide the insurance and you have to go

on the exchange, of course the united states senate and the federal government provides insurance. but we all agreed that we would go on the exchange because the american people had to go on the exchange. and when we go on the exchange, we should have to abide by the same rules as anybody else who goes on the exchange. so private business, if they say we're not going to buy insurance, their people have to go on the exchange. and if they go on the exchange, they cannot get a contribution from their employer for their insurance. there's a subsidy for people that earn under, i think it's $42,000 a year as an individual or $92,000 as a family. and they can get a federal subsidy. they cannot get a subsidy from their employer. the president decided through the office of personnel management that senators would be able to move that contribution over to the

exchanges. that's different than everybody else. we should have to live under the same laws we pass. that was the contention that we made when we put that amendment in the bill, and that amendment went in the bill in the health, education, and pension committee. it went in the bill in the finance committee. it was agreed to on the floor of the united states senate. we said we ought to be under the same rules as everybody else when it comes to the health exchanges, and we ought to try those health skhaepbgdz so we can see -- health exchanges so we can see what america's going through. we did that. we maybe did it to ourselves. but that's the way the government really ought to work, is with those who pass the law living under the law. and all we're asking for is a vote to see if the senate agrees that we ought to live under the law the way that the other people will have to live under the law. now, as far as delaying the bill, it only takes probably 30 minutes for a 15-minute vote

here. it should only take 15 minutes for a 15-minute vote, but it takes 30 minutes at least, sometimes a couple of hours for a 15-minute vote if it is a close one and they want to negotiate on some of the people voting on it. but we all have to vote on that, put our names on the line about how we feel about having the american people under a situation where their employer cannot contribute to their health insurance if they go on the exchange. and make that same law apply to us. i traveled wyoming during the recess. we traveled 6,000 miles by car. and i did a lot of listening sessions. and i never heard anybody say, no, i think that congress ought to be able to continue doing what they have been doing before. i think congress ought to come under the same law. there is a little addition to this bill that we didn't put in the original bill. maybe that's what's holding it up.

that little addition to the bill is saying that the president and the vice president and the president's appointees should come under the same rules as congress in this instance of going into the exchange. so i would hope that the president, since the bill is kind of named after him, would want to be under the bill just like everybody else. if we're not going to allow contributions for businesses to go to regular people that go under the exchange, then the same rule ought to apply to us. and that's pretty much what the amendment says. it clarifies the law and makes sure that the office of personnel management can't just exempt us without authority. and it's more than a clarification. it's a complete reversal of what we passed in this body. and when we passed it, i think

on the floor it was unanimous. and that means that it was pretty bipartisan. and that means that we all agreed that maybe we ought to live under the same laws as the rest of the people in america. so let's just have a vote on it. and like i say, 30 minutes is about all it would take for a 15-minute vote, and we could move on to other issues. and that's the way we used to do things around here. it wasn't unusual for a bill to have 150 amendments. not voting on 150 amendments because there is some duplication of amendments turned in. there's also some people who realize as the debate goes along that their amendment would not go, and they don't want it to be voted on and lose when they might be able to win with it later. and of course i'm in favor of doing relevant amendments on bills, and you'll find usually the amendment i'm sign on to is relevant to the bill. the reason this is an exception is because it came up during the recess, and the effect begins on

october 1. and i don't know what other bills are going to come up before october 1. at the pace that we're going, this one won't even make it by october 1. just voting on bills instead of trying to negotiate it down to a ten-vote package. on the immigration bill, i think we had nine votes. it took us three weeks. there were 200 amendments, probably 150 that could have been voted on. and in three weeks i think we could have made it through 150 of them. and that would have made it a far better bill. that's what legislating is. all of those would not have passed. maybe very few of them would have passed. maybe only nine of them would have passed. but people would have had a decision and would have been able to represent what their people back home were telling them. and that's what we're supposed to do here. every senator, the reason the senate has the rules that it does is so that they can actually represent their people back home. and one of the ways you do that is through amendments.

so, occasionally there will be surprises and something that isn't relevant might wind up on a bill. usually if it's not relevant, it gets defeated. there's even a way to process a whole lot of amendments in a hurry, and that's with a tabling motion. but we're just not getting to vote. we ought to do some voting around here and move on. this is an important bill, and there are some good amendments that have been turned in that would also like a vote on it. so we just get through -- just go there and then we'll be a productive body and we can cover a lot of bills. i think a lot of bills make it through here in three days but we spend three weeks negotiating on not having amendments. when we have that pent-up objection to our amendments not getting on there, it just gets more pent up, more angry, more

divisive, more partisan as the process goes by. so we ought to revert to the way the senate used to work and just vote on amendments. we won't like all of them. we know that some of them will wind up in ads against us when we run. but that's always been the case, and there's no reason to change it now. so i would hope that we would vote on amendment and get busy on this. it is an important bill. i'd like to see the bill finished. we need to do a lot of things on energy for this country. and particularly if we're going to keep energy prices down where people expect them to be. so again, let's vote. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i certainly appreciate the comments from my friend and fellow senator. he does speak to the obvious.

we've got an opportunity for some amendments on what i think most of us would agree is an important bill, this energy efficiency bill. and how we move forward really is indicative of whether or not this is a body that's going to start working, whether or not this is going to be a body that is defined as dysfunctional or as was suggested earlier in a report that came out early in september, that this senate could prove to be the least productive why our senate history. that's not a -- that's not a title or a banner that this senator wants to wear. i think we want to work around here. i think we want to try to produce. i think we want to legislate. in fact, i know that's what i want to do. and that's why i applaud my

colleagues, senators shaheen and senator portman for all of the effort that they have given themselves, their staffs, working with the chairman of the energy committee, his staff, my staff, working together for a couple years now to produce what i think is a pretty good bill, a bill that's focused on a piece of our natural gas portfolio, if you will. that's kretically important. -- critically important, the aspect of efficiency and how we work to use less. so, what we're -- what we have in front of us today is not legislation, i think, that is controversial in the sense that it's pitting different philosophies against one another. i think we are just bogged down in our own inertia here and can't figure out how we even get to start.

that's a pretty poor reflection on us. i would like to suggest that the way you get to start is how we started this debate out just a few days ago where senator wyden and i came to the floor with the sponsors of the bill, senator shaheen, senator portman and we said, okay, great pweufplt talked about the -- great bill. talked about the advances of this very bipartisan product and effort. then we started talking about amendments, amendments that would actually strengthen this bill. and we had no fewer than a dozen members come to the floor on both sides of the aisle talking about their good ideas, how we're going to build more efficiencies into whether it's our schools or our public buildings, how we can help nonprofits out. these were all good, strong, healthy ideas. and then, you know, we're here

today. and as my friend from wyoming has indicated, we're just stalled out. we're not moving forward. the majority leader suggested this morning -- his words, not mine -- that we perhaps wouldn't finish this legislation. that's quite disturbing to me. that's quite disturbing to me, madam president, because if we can't finish legislation like an energy efficiency bill, something that most of us would recognize is a good approach to our energy issues here in this country, what are we going to be able to do on the really big stuff? we talk about pent-up demand for amendments, well, let me suggest to you that there is a pent-up demand for real energy legislation that for five years now we have not seen an energy measure debated on the floor of

the united states senate. now, that doesn't mean that we haven't passed some good energy bills. in fact, i was pleased to work with the chairman in passing two hydroelectric bills just before the august recess. these are good bills. these are really going to help us as we work to reduce our emissions, provide for jobs, provide for greater electrification across the country. these are good. but we really haven't had that good, comprehensive discussion about the energy issues that have impacted our nation in the past five years. and think about what's happened in five years. five years ago, if you had mentioned the shale revolution, people wouldn't have had a clue what you were talking about.

think about what has happened with natural gas in the past five years. and, madam president, you know full well because in your state, the state with the lowest unemployment in the nation, a state where anybody that has a job has one and, in fact, most people have two or three, when you think about the changing dynamics of an energy world, think about it in the context of a time line. what's happened in five years? boom! think about what's happened to the economy. we read the articles just a couple weeks ago about how not only is natural gas helping those who work in the industry, it's one of these rising tides that lifts all boats. because when people are paying less for their utilities, it allows them to spend more out on the economy. so everyone is benefitin benefi.

our economy, the unemployment picture is improving. we're seeing good, positive things because of our energy future. everybody seems to be bullish about it, except us here in the united states senate. because we can't seem to get an energy bill to the floor. and then when we do, after years of good, hard work by good folks wanting to do the right thing, we get to the floor and we get stalled out. now, again, there is pent-up demand for amendments because what we have known to call "regular order" hasn't been so regular anymore. the chairman of the energy committee, and i as the ranking member, i think have worked

diligently hard on a daily basis that in our committee, we're a committee that's working. we're producing bills. in fact, as i understand, our committee has produced more than half of all the bills that have been reported and are ready for action on the floor. we've rolled up our sleeves. we've said, there's going to be areas that we disagree. but on those areas where we can come together and make some things happen, let's make it happen. and we've been doing that. but, you know what? if you work hard as a committee and you produce good things and then it doesn't go anywhere, wow ... after a while, you feel like, why are we working so hard around here? well, i know why i'm working hard. i'm working hard because the people in my state pay more for their energy than anywhere else in the country. i'm working hard because irpt t- because i want to make sure that we have jobs for alaskans, jobs

for people all over the country. i'm working hard because i think energy policy is fundamental to everything that we do. so we need to have the opportunity to have the full-on debate. and if we've got some amendments that are tough, that's the way it is. nobody asked me to come here and represent the people of alaska because they knew that every vote was going to be easy. that's not how it works. so let's take some of the hard votes, but let's get to the business at hand, which is a good, strong, bipartisan energy -- energy efficiency bill. and then when we're done with that one, i want to work with the chairman to address the unfinished business that we have. i want to work on measures that will help us enhance our energy production, whether it is with our natural gas onshore or

offshore, whether it's what we do more to truly become an energy-independent nation, whether it's how we deal with some pretty hard issues like how we treat our nuclear waste, how we're going to build forward an energy future based on renewables and alternatives, which i am all about, and we all stand up here and we talk about all of the above. but, you know what? people stop believing it when we just talk about it and we don't do anything to enhance our policies because we can't get a bill to the floor. and then when we get a bill to the floor, we hamstring ourselves. i'm not -- i am not ready to give up on this energy efficiency bill. i'm not ready to give up on energy policy or legislating in the energy sector.

just because we're getting bogged down. we've got to demonstrate to the american public that we're governing here. they're asking us to lead in an area that we haven't -- we haven't legislated on in five years. so, madam president, i know that my colleague from oregon, the chairman, agrees with me that we've got some issues within our committee that we're proud of the work that we have done. we've got proposals to -- that focus on how we can make existing programs better or perhaps we need to repeal them. we've worked hard on a bipartisan basis with the authorizers and the appropriators to develop a good, solid proposal for how we deal

with nuclear waste. we can't move forward on energy efficiency -- if we can't move forward on energy efficiency, how are we going to tackle the issues as they relate to this amazing expansion of natural gas and the recognition that we got to have infrastructure that keeps up with everything else that's going on and the demand? we're not giving up on this bill. we're not going to give up on the good, bipartisan work that senator shaheen and senator portman have crafted and that so many others have stepped forward to say, this is good stuff; let's make it happen. so there's a lot of pent-up demand, and for those that have waited a couple weeks for their amendment, good. we need to address those, too.

but let's not sacrifice a good, strong bill that can be made better by good amendments to the bill itself. let's not sacrifice that, something that's been in process for a couple years, because folks are saying, i got to have my piece right now. we can figure out how we craft an agreement that is workable from both sides. so i'm certainly prepared to continue that work, and if the deal that's been offered to this point in time isn't acceptable, okay, let's go back and figure out what it is going to be acceptable. let's not throw in the towel. this is too important. we've got too much pent-up demand for energy solutions for this country. so i'm here to stay focused on the issues at hand.

but what we have in front of us, the bill that we're working on, is a good, strong, bipartisan energy efficiency bill and i want to continue that. and i know that my colleague, the chairman of the committee, wants to continue that. and i think that's our effort here. so with that, madam president, i thank those that have stuck with us throughout this past week. but i'm hoping that we're going to be sticking with this for a while longer around we're going too see this -- and we're going to see this bill across the finish line. with that, madam president, i know that the chairman had wanted to speak as well. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: we both -- and i could see that the president of the senate was riveted on senator murkowski and her remarks, and for a reason. that was truly inspiring. and i'll just say, i think the senate needed to hear your

remarks today, senator murkowski, and i think that was why the senator from north dakota and all of us were listening so carefully. and to just kind of pick up on some of the things that senator murkowski said, this bill that we are considering now is pretty much the platonic ideal for consensus legislation. it pretty much follows the kind of rules senator enzi and senator kennedy used to talk about, that wonderful 80-20 rule that i remember senator enzi talking to me about, where you agree on 80%. you may not agree on 20%. i'll tell you, the shaheen-portman legislation certainly complies with the kennedy-enzi kind of principle where you do that 80% that's common ground, it makes sense, no mandates, uses the private

sector, focuses on efficiency, which creates jobs. franklyfrankly, around the worle of the other countries tried to get ahead by paying low inches with a. we're trying to get ahead with legislation like this that will wring more value out of the american economy, save money for businesses and sciewmplet -- fod consumers. i think senator portman and shah mean wil -- and shaheen will tak more about finding common ground. when they write a textbook on how you ou ought to put togethea bipartisan bill, these two fine senators have complied with it. it is not by osmosis, madam president, that you get the chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, and the business round table meeting halfway with some of the country's leading environmental groups. it comes because, as the senator from new hampshire and the

senator from ohio did, is they were out there sweating the efforts to try to find, you know, common ground. and neither side, of course, gets exactly what they want, but that's how they built this extraordinary coalition. now, point number two that senator murkowski addressed -- and i think it is a very important one and it was highlighted by my visit to the president of the senate's state here in the last few days -- is the whole question with respect to future legislation. i come from a state -- my colleague knows this -- that doesn't produce any fossil fuels. we're a hydrostate. we're renewables. and a lot of people said, oh, ron is going to be chairman of the energy and natural resource committee. nobody is going to talk about anything except hydro and

renewables. the first thing that we held in our committee was on natural gas, and the reason why senator murkowski and i made that decision jointly is because there ought to be bipartisan common ground on capping the potential of natural gas -- for our country, for our consumers, and for the planet. it is 50% cleaner than the other fossil fuels. we've got it. the world, you know, wants it. a lot of companies are talking about coming back, you know, from overseas because they want to take advantage of that pricing advantage. what i've been talking to senators about -- and i do it at every opportunity -- is how do we find a win-win approach that's good for the consumer, good for business, good for the environment? we're going to need, for example, on natural gas a way to

get that gas to markets. that's going to mean more pipelines. so one of the ideas that i want to talk about with senators on our committee and off the committee is, well, wouldn't it make sense to say, if you're going to need more pipelines, let's say the pipelines ar of te future ought to be better pipelines, pipelines that meeted need of industry but -- meet the need of industry but also help us get that add benefit for consumers by not wasting energy and for the planet because i saw folks in north dakota working really hard to try to deal with flaring and these methane emissions. so what i'd dliek is exactly -- so what i'd like to do is what senator murkowski described this morning. she wants to get a bipartisan

energy efficiency bill, which is a logical place to start, as the senator said, on an all-of-the-above strategy. thend wand then we will move ona whole host of other issues taking as ourload star, madam president, this kind -- as our lodestar, madam president, this kind of win-win concept, that can bring people together, find some common ground and let us tackle big issues, which in the energy context means you're doing something that helps create good-paying jobs, helps the consumer, is also good for the planet. now, my sense, you know, is right now we've got a number of issues that colleagues on the other side of the aisle have felt strongly about for quite some time. and i think there's a real chance -- and i've been

advocating for it -- to work out an agreement to deal with the two that have been particularly on the minds of some colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the health care issue and keystone. and certainly i think there is a way to find common ground on those two issues, procedurally, so you could have a vote on two issues that i've heard particularly conservative colleagues say are extraordinarily important to them. and at that point our leadership, if they could get an agreement on those two could negotiate on any other matters where we could agree but what we would ensure is that wouldn't have a situation where, in

effect, a handful of colleagues who want to offer amendments unrelated to energy efficiency wouldn't be blocking dozens of united states senators of both political parties who would like to offer bipartisan energy efficiency amendments. that's what we would face if we don't find a way to work this out. so i'm part of this "we aren't giving up" caucus that senator murkowski described. because i think we come here to find a way to come together and deal with these issues. and i'll just say speaking for myself, you know, madam president, if there is one thing that i want to be able to take away from my time in public service, just one thing, and as president of the senate who apparently senator

murkowski, she was a volunteer in my first campaign, i was a gray panther, had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and all that. she's denying that, i can tell. if there is one thing i want to take away from my time in public service, is what senator murkowski alluded to, is that we did everything on our watch to find common ground and deal with some of these issues. that's why senator isakson and i have a fresh approach that i think is going to appeal on both sides of the aisle on medicare, senator murkowski and i on energy. she said let's not miss this ideal the country to put good government into action and that's by moving ahead with the shaheen-portman legislation, let us get an agreement, i think it ought to be achievable in the next few hours.

i'm going to go back and i've met with leadership on both sides and i'm making the case that i think there is a procedural way out. i think senator murkowski described it and with the goodwill she just demonstrated and what i thought was a really inspiring address and i could tell the president of the senate thought the same thing, i think we can find our way out of this. i see the sponsors of the underlying legislation, senator shaheen and senator portman, on the floor. i want to thank them for the fact that they've consistently said throughout this process they're willing to work with senator murkowski and i for this kind of procedural route forward, and i think it's achievable, particularly if senators reflect on the outstanding remarks just given by the senator from alaska and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i'm really pleased to join chairman wyden and ranking member murkowski on the floor of the senate today and i want to sign up for the "get it done" caucus because i think this is legislation that we can get done. it has support from -- bipartisan support from i believe a majority of the members in this senate and if we can get some agreement to go to move forward on this legislation and on the amendments that we can really show the public, who is very frustrated with what's happening here in washington, that we can actually get something done. and i want to thank senator wyden and senator murkowski for

all of their great work on the energy committee. i had the opportunity to serve my first four years on the energy committee, and it's a great committee. and they have done a terrific job of showing what it's like to be able to get things done, to be able to get people to come together, figure out where they can get agreement and move forward. and it was in that spirit that senator portman and i started working three years ago when we were both members of the energy committee, on energy efficiency legislation working with the alliance to save energy and a number of members of the business community, of all of these groups that have endorsed this legislation to try and put together a bill where we could find some agreement. and there's been a lot of division around energy issues in the last decade or so. that's why it's been, i think, six years actually since 2007

since an energy bill has come to the floor of the senate because there are those of us who believe that the best way forward is to focus on fossil fuels and more oil and gas. there are others who believe alternatives and renewables, hydroand solar and wind are the best way forward. but one of the things that's true in this entire energy debate whether you come from north dakota as the presiding officer does or new hampshire, as i do, is that energy efficiency is something that benefits all of us. and it doesn't matter which form of energy you support or which region of the country you're from, this is a place where we can really get some consensus. and it's agreement that allows us to move forward on job creation, it allows us to move forward on saving on pollution, we've had several senators to the floor in the last couple of days to talk about the challenges of climate change and what's happening with our weather. this is a way to save on those

emissions. it's a way to address cost savings. i've been to businesses all over new hampshire that have been able to stay competitive because they've reduced their energy costs. and in a state like new hampshire where we have the sixth highest energy costs in the country, it's important for us to figure out how we can lower those costs. that's one of the things this bill does. the other thing it does that we haven't talked as much about on the floor is it reduces our dependence on foreign oil and foreign sources of energy. so it's also critical to our national security. as we think about our energy challenges in the future, making sure that we can produce the energy that we use in the united states is very important as we think about what's happening in the middle east, as we think about the challenges that we have to stay competitive in the world, energy, as senator murkowski said so well,

is something that affects everything we do. now, this bill has been criticized by some quarters for not being robust enough, and i appreciate that there are things that are in the legislation that i might not have chosen to put in, there are things that i would like to have seen in it that we didn't get consensus on. but i think that's what we're talking about when we're talking about how do we reach consensus on a bipartisan bill, how do we get something done that can get through not only the senate but the house. and i think we've got a good start in this legislation. the bill would do several things. first, it would strengthen national model building codes to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient and we know that about 40% of our energy use in this country is used in buildings, so making sure that those buildings are

more energy-efficient is critical. it's important for those of us who are in the northeast, in new hampshire we have a lot of old buildings because we're an older part of the country so we have a lot of buildings that have been there for a long time. we need to do what we can to make them more energy-efficient. then the legislation would also train the next generation of workers in energy-efficient commercial building design and operation. it would expand on university-based building, training, and research assessment centers, something that is very important as we think about the future work force. and let me just go back because when i talked about the national model building codes, i want to make sure everybody is clear that these building codes are voluntary, they are not mandatory. as senator portman as said so well, there are no mandates in this legislation. this is an effort to look at incentives, to look at at how

we can encourage the private sector and consumers to be more energy efficient. in the bill also deals with the manufacturing sector which is the biggest user of energy in our economy. it directs the department of energy to work closely with private-sector partners to encourage research, development, and commercialization of innovative energy-efficient technology and processes for industrial applications. so that's a mouthful, but what it really says is -- and this is something we heard from stakeholders from those businesses that work in the energy industry. that is, that they wanted to have a better working relationship with the department of energy. they wanted to be able to feel like there was support there as they're trying to take technologies to commercialization. it also helps manufacturers reduce energy use and become more competitive by incentivizing more use of

electric motors and transformers. about 40% -- about 4% of the energy used in this country is through electric motors and transformers. i've been interested in transformers because we have a company in new hampshire called warner power that has mate maid the first breakthrough in transformer design in a hundred years. if we could get their energy-efficient transformers or something like them into buildings and projects across the country, we could save significant amounts of energy. then as we look at the manufacturing sector, the other thing the legislation does is establish a program called supply star. to help make companies look at their supply chains and figure out how to make their supply chains more efficient. i can remember when i was on the energy committee and we were talking about this whole issue of supply chains and we were

debating whether it was important to encourage companies to look at their supply chains, and people were saying, well, it doesn't really make that much difference in terms of the actual energy use. and i pointed out that we've got a company in new hampshire called stony field farms that makes yogurt. great yogurt. if you haven't had it, you should really tryth. but they've been interested in being more neshtd. they've -- efficient. they've looked at their processes, figured out how to do the best possible job on saving on energy. what they discovered was their biggest problem wasn't how they produced the yogurt, it was the cows that they depended upon for the milk to produce the yogurt. because those cows release so much meth methane that that -- methane that that was really the problem in terms of their supply chain with the amount of energy they were producing. so helping companies take a look at their supply chain and figure

out how to reduce the energy through that supply chain is very important and it's an important piece of this bill. then the third section in teenage details -- the legislation deals with the federal government. i know all of us know this, because we're here and we're working hard on energy. but the federal government is the biggest user of energy in this country. most of that energy is used by the military, about 93% is used by the military. and the military has figured out that it's important for them to figure out how to be more energy-efficient. they've been real leaders i think in government, the navy in particular but all branches of the military have looked at how they can be more efficient in using energy. and our legislation tries to incentivize the rest of the government to catch up with the military.

so we would ask agencies to look at data centers and we have some very good amendments from senators risch and udall and senator coburn to take a look at data centers because they're a big waster of energy in the federal government. it would allow federal agencies to use existing funds to update plans when they're doing new buildings so they make those more energy-efficient and we've got a number of amendments that would also address how we could make the federal government more energy-efficient and be a leader as we look at what's happening in the private sector to save on energy. so this bill is a very good start with how to address energy efficiency and senators murkowski and wyden have said we've got over a dozen agreed to

bipartisan amendments that would make the bill even better. i think it's really important for us to do this. but to answer those people who say this is just a little bill, it's not going to make much difference, i would point to a new study that just came out from the american council for an energy-efficient economy. they looked at this legislation without the amendments, and the amendments are going to make it better, but they said that if we can pass this legislation, that by 2025, the legislation will encourage the creation of 136,000 new jobs, not just in businesses that are going to be more efficient and so they can create more jobs but in businesses that are producing the energy-efficient technologies that are going to allow us to be more energy efficientn

by 2030, the bill would net an annual savings of over $13 billion to siewrms -- to consumers, and it would lower carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants by they give lept --by the equivalent og 22 million cars off the road. that's a pretty good savings in pollution. so, as we've all said, this is a win-win-win. it makes sense for us to move on this legislation. it makes sense for what we can accomplish with the legislation itself. it makes sense in terms of the other energy issues that are pending and what we need to do to make sure we position the united states aand our businesses and our families to be more energy efficient, to be able to compete in the new energy world that we're enteri entering. we need to start now to address energy and i hope that we're going to be able to get by the impediments that currently face

us so we can begin to vote, so we can adopt the great amendments that have been proposed and so we can actually act on this bill. thank you very much, madam president. i'm pleased to see my partner on this legislation here on the floor to talk about why we need to pass this. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i appreciate the senator's comments on the importance of this legislation. and i would just start by saying i think we're pretty close to figuring out a way to move forward if we can get both the majority and the minority party leadership teams to look at the list. we've got about a dozen bipartisan amendments that we're ready to go on. in fact, more than half those amendments have already been discussed at some length on the floor so the time agreement could be relatively narrow i think. and we can move quickly. some of them could be voice voted. and we've got some amendments that are not directly related to energy efficiency but related to energy. i would hope we could take those

up as well. my understanding is there's -- there's been a general agreement to have a vote on the vitter amendment. that's something that i've heard on the floor from leadership. and then we've also got a -- a keystone amendment that i think there's an -- there's an agreement to move forward on that relates to energy more broadly and one where i think this body has a strong interest in expressing itself. soiled hope we could figure -- so i would hope we could figure out how to move forward on this and do it quickly. we're wasting time right now. you know, we've spent the last couple days on the floor again talking about all these amendments. so if the concern's about time, let's get going because we can process these amendments quickly. and i appreciate the fact that the majority leader is working with us on this, he's keeping the door open and so we're going back and forth. and i -- i really do believe that this is a seminal moment in the sense that if we can't even do a bipartisan bill like this on energy efficiency that came out of the committee with a 19-3

vote, what can we do? it's -- it's an important piece of legislation. it's not a major piece of legislation like the continuing resolution or the debt limit or tax reform or entitlement reform, things that this body knows it has to address, but it is a step forward. i think it would provide a model for how we can move forward on other issues. we've spent 2 1/2 years working on this legislation. we have been able to garner the support of over 260 businesses, trade associations who believe this is good legislation for our country. that's one reason we got a 19-133 vote out of committee -- 19-3 vote out of committee. that's a reason we've got a lot of underlying support for this bill. it's about having a smart energy strategy. i believe we should produce more energy in this country in the ground right now. i think that's good for our economy and our country. we should also use it more efficiently. and this is an opportunity to have a true all-of-the-above strategy, in this case, energy efficiency going along with production and other important

elements of an energy strategy that makes sense. so i hope that we'll be able to make progress on this today and move forward and start to have some votes on these good amendments that actually improve the legislation, in my view. the -- the jobs issue here is also one that's paramount. i mean, you think about it. there's a report out that my colleague from new hampshire talked about that says there will be 136,000 additional jobs created by this legislation. by 20306789 i think that's a low -- by 2030. i think that's a low-ball estimate. because there will be other jobs. there are no mandates in this legislation, except on the federal government to get them to practice what they've preached, as we talked about yesterday. but by encouragement and incentives, this will be more jobs created in the energy efficiency field. that's good for our economy. more significantly to me, there will be jobs created because american businesses will be more competitive, they will be able to spend less on energy and more on expanding plant and equipment and people and they'll be hiring

more people as they -- they will be hiring more people as they level the playing field, in essence, on one of the essential costs of doing business, which is your energy costs. and we need that right now. our economy is weak. we have not had the recovery that all of us hoped for. they say it's the weakest economic recovery we've lived through since the great depression. we simply need to have that shot in the arm. this is one way to do it. it's -- it's not the only way to do it but it would certainly help. and then finally, it's going to help our economy in -- in ways that are important. right now we have a trade deficit and it's driven by a couple things. one is chiefnlt the other is energy -- one is china. the other is energy. taking those two out, it would be almost an even balance of payments. now, that trade deficit is driven in part by the fact that we have this demand still for a lot of foreign energy. and by making these relatively small but important steps in energy efficiency, we actually will reduce our dependency on foreign sources of energy. as i said earlier, i think we should produce more energy thisn this country.

that's part of the answer. but part is also using it more efficiently, using it more wisely. which i believe is a conservative value and it also happens to help on the trade deficit and therefore will help our underlying economy. so these are all positive aspects of this legislation that i would think that members on both sides of the aisle acknowledge and if we can't move forward, again, on something that makes so much sense, that does have that kind of support across the aisle, i -- i worry about whether we can deal with these bigger issues that we must for the american people. it also, of course, leads to a cleaner environment. why? because you're having to build fewer power plants and through efficiency you're going to have fewer emissions. this is why you have groups from the chamber of commerce, had is key voting this legislation, by the way, to groups on the environmental side saying, you know, this is -- this is good legislation, it makes sense. strange bedfellows when you have the national association of manufacturers and the chamber of commerce and other business groups with environmental groups like the national resources defense council saying this makes sense, let's move forward

with it. so i'm hopeful we can move forward not just on resolving these differences on what amendments can be offered and voted on but also move forward on this underlying bill, send it to the house, where there's interest in this bill, where there is on both sides of the aisle an interest in taking up efficiency legislation, and then send it to the president for his signature and actually be able to go home and say, "you know what, we did something here to help create jobs, grow the economy, have a cleaner environment and deal with our trade deficit and, again, create a model for how other issues can be resolved." for members who are listening and haven't come to the floor yet to talk about their amendments, i hope they'll do that because we may have a relatively narrow window now because of the fact that we are spending so much time trying to resolve these differences on which amendments can get a vote. i'm hopeful that we'll -- we'll have the opportunity to start voting today yet. if we do, we can move quickly. and we can dispose with these

issues. and by the way, some of the issues are not directly related to energy efficiency. if they don't come up on this bill, they're going to come up on another bill. so better in my estimation for us to go ahead and have some of these debates, have some of these discussions, go ahead and see the votes. and, again, they should be subject to time limitations, we should have a reasonable list. we think we've got a reasonable list now going -- going back and for the forth and i'm hopeful we'll be able to resolve that. in the meantime, if members could come down and talk about their amendments, that would be very helpful for to us ensure that we can get to the underlying bill and move forward on this. i want to thank the chair and the ranking member because they have been working very closely with us not just in the last 2 1/2 years to put together this legislation that has this broad support but more recently they've been helping senator shaheen and myself to ensure that we do have on both sides of the aisle good lines of communication and the ability to move forward with an energy bill. for them, they care about efficiency. i'll let them speak for themselves but they have done that ably earlier today. but they also care about an

energy agenda for our country and they view this as one of the major pieces of energy legislation that can then lead to other bills. and for those who would like to discuss broader energy topics but wouldn't have the ability to do it on this legislation or maybe they don't have their amendments fully formed on that, the commitment from the chairman and ranking member is they're going to have additional energy legislation. i serve on the committee. i can tell you, i have a strong interest in moving forward on some of the fossil fuel legislation, for example. and they've made a commitment to do that. so there will be other opportunities where we'll have broader energy legislation that deals with the production side, deals with the important part of our energy strat give in addition to energy -- strategy in addition to energy efficiency that truly let's us have an all-of-the-above strategy. i thank them for that commitment and for their strong work on this legislation. once we move this, it's much easier then to see us move forward on these other bills. success begets success. and with that, madam president, i'm hopeful that again members

will come to the floor, talk about their amendments. i see one of my colleagues come to the floor now. and that we can move forward with a good discussion on energy issues and move to these amendments as soon as possible and then move to final passage. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: madam president, i would -- i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by the majority and minority leaders. and 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. pryor: madam president, i want to thank my two colleagues from new hampshire and ohio for their leadership, and, of course, my colleagues from alaska and oregon as well for their leadership on this very important piece of legislation. i have four amendments that i would love to be considered, i'd love to be included in the legislation. and i hope that we're able to move these forward. but let me just talk about two of those, madam president.

i don't want to take the senate's time. i understand other senators may be on their way over to the floor to speak. but let me first, madam president, start with the quadrennial energy review. this is something that i've worked with the senator from alaska on and many others in this chamber. in fact, we have -- it's a bipartisan amendment. it's -- it's amendment 1881. and our cosponsors are senators alexander, begich, boozman, coons, heinrich, tester, tom udall and senator wyden. and, again, bipartisan group of senators. basically one of the things we've learned from the department of defense is every four years, they do a quadrennial defense review and that helps them determine what's going on within their agency as an agency, it helps them determine the strengths and weaknesses, the things that need to be addressed. it helps them plan and it also helps us make decisions. we want to make good defense decisions.

and the only way you do that is by knowing what you have on hand and what you need. well, this is the same for energy. we have a lot of very well-intentioned energy programs and ideas that either float around this cap tom building or float around the various departments or that are law right -- capitol building or float around the various departments or that are lawsuit right now, they don't necessarily exist, but these aren't necessarily cooperated, there's no one really making sure that all the dotion connect and we're able to have a small energy policy. so i feel like a quadrennial energy review, every four years, we would go federal government, top to bottom, look at all of our energy needs, look at our capabilities, look at our shortcomings, look at where we need to focus our resources. should we be doing research in yairn and should we be -- area and should we be focusing on manufacturing somewhere else? but this will allow us to have a good, solid review every four years so that we can make good

decisions so the various departments can make good decisions and also it will help industry know kind of what's coming down the pike. it will help bring things together and coordinate in a very positive and constructive way. so in the quadrennial energy review from my standpoint is a very important piece and building block, it's laying the foundation for having a smart energy policy for this country. and that's one thing that we need to recognize, quite honestly, here in the senate is that, again, we have good intentions but we don't always have a cohesive and smart energy policy. so the q.e.r. is something that i would hope that we would be able to get through on this legislation and get this legislation moving through the process. let me just give you one example, madam president, on the quadrennial energy review. we have in our country now a lot more domestic energy than we have had

in years past. it's very exciting. in my state, we produce a lot of natural gas through horizontal drilling and fracking, et cetera. that's common in many states around the country. i know i see some senators here where they have the same thing. sometimes it's oil, sometimes it's gas, sometimes it's both. let's take natural gas for one moment. we have people come into my office, and they will say hey, this is great that we have all this natural gas now. why don't we liquefy it and export it. okay. that's an idea. we ought to talk about that and think about that. or another group will come in and say hey, we have all this natural gas. in don't we actually turn it into diesel fuel. apparently they can do that. the technology is there. let's talk about that. we have other folks that come to us and say why don't we take this natural gas and let's convert our diesel fleet over to natural gas. well, here again, okay, that all sounds good, but i don't think you can do all three of those

things. we don't have any mechanism right now to coordinate that and put all that together and get consistent with our energy policy. mr. wyden: would the senator yield for a question? mr. pryor: absolutely. mr. wyden: it strikes me that the senator's idea is particularly practical right now because you look at the changes we have seen in the last four or five years, particularly in areas like natural gas and we were talking about it with the senators from -- from north dakota. four or five years ago -- and this would be the point of the senator's amendment, to get the policies of the government start being reflective of what goes on in the marketplace. four or five years ago, in our state, we were having pitched battles about whether to develop import facilities for natural gas, and they were pretty spirited discussions. people were getting hauled out by the gendarmes and all that.

now we're having the same kind of battles over whether we ought to build export facilities. is that the senator's desire to make sure that the government and the policies of the government sort of keep up with the times, because it strikes me that the senator from -- excuse me, the senator from arkansas is proposing an amendment that's particularly timely right now. mr. pryor: that's exactly right. i want to thank the senator from oregon for his good question because that's exactly right. we need some mechanism to make sure that we are consistent and coherent and cohesive in our energy policy in the country, and thanks change. that's why you want to do this about every four years. we don't need to do this every year. it's too much work and too much going on. just like the department of defense. things change. what happens is you get a benchmark from four years ago that suddenly you have a good comparison. you have a baseline that you can look back to four years ago and

see if you're making progress, see if your policy is going the right direction. in this case, maybe we have a lot of energy programs that aren't working very well. well, this will help us identify those. maybe we have some that are working great. maybe we ought to spend more money on those. this will help us identify those. i want to thank the senator for his question. i see we have other senators coming to the floor. madam president, let me talk very quickly about one other bill -- one other amendment that i have. it's the voluntary certification program. here again, bipartisan, working with senator sessions on this. it's amendment 1879. this is a very specific amendment for some very specific industries -- heating, cooling, commercial refrigeration and water heating products. so this is not an economywide thing. this is very specific to those industries. but right now, what they do is they self-certify. they self-certify. i think they should be allowed to continue to do that, assuming that their certification meets certain credible and scientific

standards, which i think they do now. if they don't now, they should. but what this will do is this will actually save the government money. there is no reason why the department of energy and others should be reviewing this and making them do extra certification and more testing, et cetera, when it's already being done right now to the standards that everyone should accept. so, madam president, with that, i could talk more about this, but i do see that i have a couple of colleagues here on the floor that would -- it is my understanding would like to speak. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i hope we are moving to votes, to votes on this bill, to votes on our no washington exemption language, so i certainly continue to encourage that and continue to support that. and the reason that's important particularly on this no washington exemption language is because unless we act on october 1, what i think is a

completely illegal rule from the obama administration, that does create a special washington exemption will go into effect. and, madam president, first of all, i think it's very, very unfortunate, it sure is frustrating that i and others have to be here on the floor blocking an illegal rule in the first place, because you see on this point, obamacare is clear. the actual statutory language of obamacare says clearly that all members of congress and their congressional staff go to the exchange. it's crystal clear about that, all of us. and in another section, section 1512, it also says clear that any folks going to the exchange, they lose their employer-based subsidy. that is crystal clear. chuck grassley, our

distinguished colleague, authored this provision, and he couldn't have been more clear about where he was coming from about the intent. he said at the time -- quote -- "the more that congress experiences the laws it passes, the better." close quote. he's exactly right. that's what this is all about. that's what that provision is all about. and legal experts like david ermer, a lawyer who has represented insurers, including in the federal employee program for 30 years, said clearly -- quote -- "i don't think members of congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges under existing law." close quote. that is very, very clear, particularly from the precise language of the obamacare statute. so it's pretty darn frustrating that my colleagues and i who are pushing this no washington

exemption language have to be here doing this to begin with. it's all because of an illegal rule to bail out congress, to create out of thin air a washington exemption that will go into effect unless we act october 1. so that's why we must act. that's why we must vote in a timely way. now, this illegal rule, the first thing it says is we don't know what staff are covered or not, so we're going to leave it up to each individual member of congress to even decide what, if any, of their staff have to go to the exchange. and, madam president, that is a ludicrous interpretation of the clear statutory language. it's ludicrous on its face because that language says all official staff. secondly, and even more outrageous, in my opinion, this

illegal rule says whoever does go to the exchange from congress, from staff gets this very, very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy transferred from the federal employee health benefits plan, which we're leaving, to the exchange. where did that come from? that's not in obamacare. in fact, section 1512 of obamacare says exactly the opposite with regard to all employer-based contributions, so where did that come from? it came out of thin air and it came out of intense lobbying, to have president obama create this special washington exemption. and so i urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and say you know what? the first most basic rule of democracy is that we should be treated the same as america

under the laws we passed, and that should be true across the board, certainly including obamacare. madam president, that's why the heritage foundation recently said -- quote -- "obama's action to benefit the political class is the latest example of this administration doing whatever it wants, regardless of whether it has the authority to do so. the office of personnel management overstepped its authority when it carried out the president's request to exempt congress from the requirements of the health care law. changing laws is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not the executive." and they also said -- quote -- "millions of americans are going to be losing their existing coverage and paying more for health insurance. under the vitter amendment, so would the obama administration's appointees, congress and congressional staff. they baked that cake.

now they can eat it, too." close quote. similarly, "the national review" said recently -- quote -- "most employment lawyers interpreted that -- meaning the obamacare language -- to mean that the taxpayer-funded federal health insurance subsidies dispensed to those on congress' payroll, which now range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year, would have to end. and a little later in the same opinion piece, they wrote under behind the scenes pressure from members of congress in both parties, president obama used the quiet of the august recess to personally order the office of personnel management, which supervises federal employment issues, to interpret the law so as to retain the generous congressional benefits." close quote. "the wall street journal" has also weighed in. i think they are right -- quote -- "the issue is the white

house's recent obamacare bailout for members of congress and their staffs. if republicans want to show that they stand for something, this is it. if they really are willing to do whatever it takes to oppose this law, there should be no more meaningful way to prove it." close quote. as i said, the author of this original provision of obamacare made it perfectly clear where he was coming from, and that's our distinguished colleague chuck grassley -- quote -- "the more that congress experiences the laws it passes, the better." close quote. and the distinguished lawyer regarding this area of law, david ermer, also said it's clear -- quote -- "i don't think members of congress and their staff can get fund for coverage in the exchanges under existing law." close quote. so, madam president, that's why we have to act and have to vote before october 1. finally, in closing, let me just

say i want to be very direct and ask members and the public to beware of another approach to defeating this no washington exemption language, and that approach is pretty clever and it's pretty cynical, and that approach is to say, oh, this is a great idea, but we actually need to expand this to all federal employees, and there are members promoting this approach, particularly on the republican side. madam president, that will have one effect and uneffect only. it will help ensure, no ifs, ands or buts, that my language doesn't pass or that language doesn't pass. in fact, one of the main republican proponents of this language said in a meeting which i attended this will be perfect because all -- under that scenario, under that language, all republicans can vote yes,

all democrats will vote no, and it will be killed and we will keep the subsidy. so that's the game, that's the point, that's what's going on. we need a straight up-or-down vote on this no washington exemption language, which is filed as an amendment to this bill on the floor, which is filed as a separate bill, and i very much look forward to that before october 1. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, there is an epidemic of abuse that is taking place in america today. recent reports estimate that hundreds of thousands of children and youth are at risk of domestic sex trafficking. individuals on the front lines in the fight against domestic sexual trafficking of children report that instances are on the rise. they tell us that former drug dealers have moved on to sex

trafficking. they also tell us that technological advances have made this type of tracking -- excuse me -- trafficking easier as smart phones and other devices provide distance and increased levels of anonymity. in certain web sites that close classified ads, soliciting sexual partners also help facilitate trafficking. the risk of sex trafficking is compounded every year for up to 30,000 young people who are -- quote -- "emancipateed" unquote from foster care. when many of these youth turn 18, pack their few belongings in a trash bag and are driven to the homeless shelter, leaving them vulnerable and exposed to traffickers and other predators. while in foster care, children and youth are also at increased risk for trafficking. in july of this year, the f.b.i.'s innocence lost to

initiative, which combats domestic sex trafficking of minors, launched operation cross-country, a three-day effort to recover child victims of sex trafficking. operation cross-country recovered 105 children and arrested 152 traffickers. the efforts of the innocence lost initiative and the results of operation cross-country are laudable. however, they also revealed a disturbing element of our nation's child welfare and foster care systems. according to some reports, up to 60% of sexually exploited children are recruited out of the child welfare and foster care systems. that's an unbelievable statistic but it's apparently true. because of 9 trauma and past abuse -- because of the trawd and past abuse suffered by children and youth, in these systems, they are particularly vulnerable to traffickers. f.b.i. officials involved in operation cross-country report that -- quote -- "law

enforcement refers to these young victims as children with a void. once the pimp identifies that void and makes every attempt to fill it, a dependency between the child and the perpetrator develops." law enforcement officials also report that -- quote -- "the most vulnerable victims forced into sex trafficking rage in age from 13 to 16. most of the children come from either foster care homes or are considered runaways." in order to combat domestic sex trafficking and improve outcomes for children and youth in foster care, systemic changes need to be made in the current child welfare system. therefore, madam president, today i'm introducing the improving outcomes for youth at risk for sex trafficking act of 2013. the short title of the bill is i owe youth. mr. president, we do owe these

youth. these are our country's most damaged and most vulnerable children, and yet most kids who age out of foster care face negative outcomes, such as homelessness, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and trafficking. we owe them better. this legislation i'm introducing today addresses some of the widespread conditions in the child welfare and foster care systems that make these children and youth particularly vulnerable to being sexually trafficked. i'm sure many americans would be surprised to learn that most child welfare agencies will not serve trafficked children and youth who are not in the custody of a biological or foster family or living in a group home. often, these children who are not legally able to give consent for sex are arrested for prostitution and referred to the juvenile justice system. in many states, the courts and the juvenile justice system are

ill-equipped to deal with the trauma these children and youth have endured. my bill requires that states provide services to youth who have been trafficked or who are at risk of being trafficked. the bill also redirects resources to improve the current court system to better identify and address the needs of trafficked youth. many youth in foster care are routinely denied the opportunity to participate in normal age-appropriate activities and social events, such as playing sports, participating in afterschool activities, and enjoying social life with friends. this lack of contact and engagement in healthy and meaningful activities depriez ds young people of important connections. preventing youth from having normal experiences impairs their healthy development and contributes to isolation and loneliness, which, in turn, makes them vulnerable to domestic sex trafficking. also homelessness, drug abuse,

poor educational outcomes, poverty and of course other negative outcomes. my bill includes a number of provisions to encourage and, enhance and support youth in foster care and to facilitate their participation in a -- in age-appropriate activities and social events. i hope these provisions will promote healthy development, increase opportunities for form meaningful connections, and reduce the risk of vulnerability to domestic sex trafficking and other negative outcomes. madam president, another major risk factor for as a rule noacialt domestic trafficking and other negative outcomes for older youth in care is a continued reliance on congregate care facilities. these facilities are routinely targeted by traffickers and are often warehouses for youth who are rarely, if ever, allowed to engage in healthy, age-appropriate activities and

social events. i understand that many of the children and youth in fos foster care are deeply trauma died and present -- are presented with many acute physical and mental conditions. some of these children and youth need intensive treatment to help them to manage or overcome these conditions. i am pleased to report that there are many good providers who are doing the work who support the legislation i am introducing today. i owe youth refocuses federal priorities of connecting vulnerable youth with caring, permanent families. for those remaining in congregate care facilities, my legislation requires that youth have improved access to normal age-appropriate activities. madam president, youth in foster care report that they feel uninvolved, unaware and disconnected to any planning around their care or their future. they are not informed of their

rights while in foster care. this can lead to a disenfranchisement and a lack of connection to siblings, relatives or other caring adults. in many case, this lack of connection contributes to the void so often preyed upon by traffickers. my bill requires that state child welfare agencies provide ongoing family find -- finding for older youth in foster care. i owe youth, this bill, also requires greater participation in youth in planning for their future and encourages states to find individuals willing to be involved in an ongoing basis with the youth in foster care. individuals who work with vems of domestic tax trafficking tell us that the single-biggest challenge for successful spur convention with these victims is a lack of accessible and affordable housing. for older youth who have beeny manslaughter paitd from foster

care, not having a place to sleep it often a reason why they henter into the sex tray. in order to improve housing options for these at-risk youth, my bill redirects funds the sociasocial services block grann order to provide housing to trafficked and other vulnerable youthment madam president -- youth. madam president, we live in very contentious times. they are fierce partisan divides on many critical issues. domestic sex trafficking of children and youth from foster care is not one of those issues. if there is any issue under the sun that is without controversy, it is this one. last june, the senate finance committee heard from a courageous survivor of domestic sex trafficking. she told us that she had been sold -- quote -- "so several other pimp -- "to severalother e and forced me to have sex with other men. my story is sad but it's common, and girls like me are all around

but people don't see them so they remain victims." this young lady went to -- went on to change her life and hold a regular job and to testify against some of these so-called pimps. what a courageous young woman. it's time for us to pay toangs to these girls -- pay attention to these girls and to all the children and youth in the foster care system. i expect my legislation to have broad bipartisan support in the senate. i am pleased that a number of organizations already support the bill, and i'm particularly gratified that organizations who work directly with young people have come out so strongly in support of my legislation. i have received letters of supported from -- for i owe youth from foster club, the national network for youth, the national center for child housing welfare, covenant house international, rights for girls, the children's village, national

children's aline, and the international center for missing -- alliance, and the international center for missing and exploited children. i'm hoping that the senate can come together to act quickly on my legislation. we owe these youths that much. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i want to commend senators shaheen and portman for their hard work in bringing a bipartisan bill to the floor that would boost

energy efficiency in government, in industries, in commercial and residential buildings. this bill will help increase our economic competitiveness, enhance our national security and combat global climate change. nlrb improvements are -- energy efficiency improvements are a cost-effective way to reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our manufacturers and put people back to work in the building trades. we don't have an energy problem in this country. we have a waste problem. this last october, the department of energy and lawrence livermore national labs calculated we waste 57% of all energy produced, 57%. we are becoming more energy efficient, but we have a long, long way to go, which is why shaheen-portman bill is so important. i would like to talk about two changes that i would like to see in the tax code that would help us achieve our goals of energy

efficiency. i have worked on two bills in this regard and i will be talking about them as we go through the -- this session of congress. i would -- i have noted amendments, but as i think the presiding officer is well aware, to try to put a tax provision on a bill that originates in the senate causes what's known as a blue slip when the bill is taken to the house since all tax bills must originate in the house of representatives. therefore, i will be looking for opportunities to advance these two energy-related bills but will not have the opportunity on the legislation that is before us. energy efficiency is just as important as renewable nuclear or fossil fuels and all of the above strategy to meet the nation's energy demands. in fact, the cheapest, cleanest energy would have the energy we don't need because of efficiency

improvements. our tax code in turn can be an effective tool in promoting energy efficiency. consider that buildings account for more than 40% of our energy consumption in the united states, so by encouraging businesses to make energy efficiency upgrades in their buildings, we can reach substantial energy savings. a recent study by mckenzie and company backs me up. the study concluded that maximizing energy efficiency for homes and commercial buildings to help our country reduce energy consumption by 23% by 2020, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 gigatons annually. this is the equivalent of taking all passenger cars and light trucks off the road for a year. making our buildings more efficient is more cost-effective than developing new energy sources. current building codes are making new construction significantly more efficient, but a boost is needed for older

structures. up to 80% of the buildings standing today will still be here in 2050, so encouraging the retrofitting of existing buildings needs to be a priority. even buildings that are fairly new can benefit from retrofitting. for example, busch stadium, home of the st. louis cardinals was built in 2006 but energy improvements in he 2011 reduced energy consumption by 23%. we can see more successful projects like this proliferate across the nation but our current tax policies have not yet proved to be meaningful incentives for making energy-efficient upgrades to existing buildings. for example the landmark upgrade of the empire state building which is under contract by -- lowered energy consumption by almost 40% could not qualify for a 179 deduction under the law's current struction.

senator feinstein and i are working on legislation that would make commonsense reforms to the existing section 179 tax deductions. section 179 of the internal revenue code provides a tax deduction that allows cost recovery of energy efficient windows, roofs, lighting and heating and cool systems that meet certain energy saving targets. section 179-d allows for an accelerated depreciation that encourages real estate owners to make the significant front-end investments in energy efficient upgrades. the deduction is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. by extending, modifying and simplifying this important provision, we can encourage energy saving, create thousands of retrofitting jobs in the construction industry, and reduce energy bills for all consumers, a win-win-win situation. our legislation will make this critical incentive more accessible and effective for

existing buildings that are currently using inefficient lighting systems, antiquated heating and cooling systems anp. upgrading and improving the 179 deduction will make thousands of businesses more competitive and create good-paying jobs right here in the united states. in addition to commercial buildings, our legislation will provide energy efficiency in private residences. homes consume more than 20% our nation's energy so we need to give american homeowners a helping hand to ceets energy efficiency -- create energy efficiencies of their property. our legislation does this by establishing a section 25-e tax credit for homeowners. homeowners would receive a 30% tax credit of up to $5,000 for making an investment in energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption and costs. simply put, it's an incentive that encourages homeowners to choose the most inexpensive option for saving energy.

at a time of federal budget constraints, we must prioritize tax policies so they promote the most cost-effective methods of bolster our energy security. performance-based energy efficiency improvements can transform americans' homes and lower energy buildings fo billse families that live in there. finally, our legislation targets the sector with the largest potential for increasing energy efficiency in our country, the industrial sector. our bill offers focused, short-term incentives in four areas to help manufacturers make the efficiency investments necessary to innovate and compete. these critical areas include water rereduce and replacing old chillers that harm the atmosphere. madam president, i have a letter dated september 17, 2013, from a large coalition of business, labor and environmental groups supporting the cardin-feinstein 1279 approach to the reform of section 179-d.

the real estate roundtable spearheaded the letter but 50 different organizations have signed on to it. i want to just quote one part that have letter. that section -- this is a quote from the letter that was sent in support of the legislation. the section 179-d deduction is a key incentive to leveraging significant amounts of private-sector investment, capital and buildings. it will help spur construction and manufacturing jobs through retrofits, save businesses billions of dollars in fuel bills as buildings become more efficient, place lower demands on the power grid, help move our country closer to energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions." well, i think that's exactly what we should be doing, these are the types of incentives we should be working for. and if you look at the groups that have signed on to this letter, these are groups understand that how to create jobs and that congress can help in that regard.

madam president, i would ask consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: senator crapo and i will be introducing legislation that will fix a problem that is keeping energy efficient roof materials from being deployed. this is a separate bill that i think can help us again create jobs, save energy, and help our environment. the current tax code acts as an obstacle for retrofitting old roofs with energy efficient ones, because generally speeblging, commercial -- speaking, commercial roofs are depreciated over 39 years. our bill would shorten the depreciation schedule to 20 years for roofs that meet certain energy efficient standards that are put in place over the next two years. by shortening the depreciation schedule, we are lowering the amount of tax that businesses would otherwise have to pay to get the advantage of their -- of their savings in the early years. this change will create more jobs by encouraging the construction of new roofs and putting more cash into the hands of businesses.

it's good tax policy because the average life span of a typical commercial roof is only 17 years so this legislation corrects an inequity in the tax code be allowing the depreciation period closer to the life span of commercial roofs. securing america's energy and economic future requires a renewed focus on energy efficiency. i hope we can pass the legislation that is before us and send it to the house. i hope the house will send us a tax bill that can serve as the basis for using the tax code to promote energy efficiency. energy efficiency gains are a win-win for families, businesses, job seekers, taxpayers on our human health and the environment. we can create jobs, we can help our economy, we can become more competitive, and we can have a cleaner environment if we do the right thing with the legislation before us and are able to improve our tax code to help achieve though goals.

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

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, five years ago, as a result of the greed and the recklessness and the illegal behavior on wall street, this country was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the great depression of the 1930's. and as a result of that, millions of people lost their homes, they lost their jobs, and they lost their life savings. and about five years ago, we were looking at a situation where some 700,000 americans a month were losing their jobs, an unbelievable number. stock market plummeted, panic in

the financial sector. now, the good news is that to a significant degree, we have stabilized that situation. we're not losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month, the stock market is, in fact, doing very well. but what is important to understand is that it is imperative that we not accept the quote, unquote, "new normal" for the economy as it is today. because the reality is that today, while the situation is better than it was five years ago, for the middle class and for the working families of this country, the economy is still in very, very bad shape. and i'm not just talking about a five-year period. i'm talking about a generational situation. madam president, you may have