to gavel in in a moment. they will begin with an hour general speeches and 11:00, to vote on an energy fissions bill. a measure requiring approval of the keystone pipeline project. as usual the chamber will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 eastern for their weekly party lunches and the official photograph of the 113th congress. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we will remember your works and your wonders of old. meditating on your mighty acts that bless us each day. lord, you have ordained that in the leadership of nations, the

care of the many will rest upon the shoulders of the few. give our senators this day the understanding, humility and faith to be ambassadors of reconciliation. lord, help them to have no anxiety about anything as they trust you to empower them to do their best. cleanse the inner fountains of their hearts from all that may defile them, sustaining them always with your mercy and grace. we pray in your great name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 368, which is the shaheen-portman, energy efficiency legislation. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 368, s. 2262 a bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the time until 11:00 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 11:00 this morning there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the energy efficiency bill. the senate will recess as we do

on virtually every tuesday, from 12:30 to 2:15 for our weekly caucus meetings. i would advise all senators that at 2:15 today we'll do our congressional photo that we do every two years. so i hope that everyone will make sure they're here on time so we have everyone in the photo. additionally, mr. president, there will be a members only briefing, a closed briefing tonight at 5:30 regarding ukraine. i would hope everyone would come to that. there's some things going on in ukraine we should all know about. mr. president, being from nevada and having traveled the state as i have, in rural nevada, we have rodeos, and i've been to a few rural rodeos in my life. they are always a lot of fun and a unique form of excitement. it's good for everybody, for

families. one of the things rodeos have around the country are greased pig contests. for all those who don't know what a greased pig contest is, here's what it is. the organizers get a little pig, piglet, and they cover this little animal with tons of grease. it's a greasey little pig, and then they turn the kids loose and they invite these children to chase one of these pigs. pigs are a little slippery to begin w-rbgs but you cover them with grease, they're really slippery. these kids run around the arena trying to grab this pig. they grab it and fall and have a great time. the children run as fast as they can. some of them get fast and don't run so fast, wait until the pig turns around and they do a lot of times. but they try to scoop up this scurrying pig. it's really quite a spectacle and a lot of fun to watch. and there's no pain to the pig. it's kind of a painless ordeal

for the pig. but it's a lot of fun, as i said. it's obvious what happens. every time they grab the pig, they slip. the pig goes on about its business running, and they fall into the dirt, they come out covered with grease and dirt. but eventually, eventually one of these kids will wind up with the pig. sometimes two kids grab the pig. they get to understand what happens and they put the pig in one of their arms, and someone comes and takes the pig. but they have a good time. the vast majority of the kids, they never touch the pig. they go away empty-handed tporb tporb -- for sure. and that's regardless of how hard they try. so, mr. president, the reason i mention this, ofttimes working with my senate republican colleagues reminds me of chasing one of these little pigs in a greased pig contest. regardless of all of our

efforts, any time we get close to making progress, it seems as though we watch it slip out of our hands, and the republicans scamper away. take, for example, the legislation that's currently before the senate. shaheen-portman energy efficiency bill, mr. president, this bill has bipartisan support. we tried to do the bill a year ago. frankly, at that time, the bill was good but not nearly as good as it is now. it is a very, very substantive piece of legislation. from the time last year until today the committee, under the direction of then, of senator wyden, who was chair of the committee, working with all members of that committee put

other things in the bill, and the bill that is now before the senate is much stronger than it was a year ago. this legislation made our country more energy independent and protect our environment. it will support the use of energy efficiency technologies in private homes and commercial buildings at no cost to taxpayers. it is an energy efederalefficiey bill. this legislation will make our country more energy independent and protect our environment. it will save consumers and taxpayers money and lots of t. it will do it by lowering their energy bills saving about $16 billion a year is what they tell us. and it will create up to 200,000 jobs that can't be exported. i have commended a number of times, and i'll do it again, senators shaheen and portman for their persistence in bringing this bill to the floor. this is a fine piece of legislation. but it seems for the second time within a year passage of this

bipartisan legislation is in question because senate republicans keep changing their request. and this time around the minority party seems intent on a repeat performance of last year. remember last year, same thing. we want this, we want this. but the clincher we were told is that last year that they wouldn't vote on the bill unless we brought up a bill sponsored by a senator from louisiana. a name was not -- landrieu would be the junior senator from louisiana, saying i demand a vote before we're going to do this legislation. i'm doing away with the health insurance. senate staff out. can you imagine that? but that was his demand, and it's his demand again. he called to tell me that.

mr. president, in order to allow us to vote on this bill, i was told before the break that the republicans wanted a vote on keystone, a sense of the senate resolution. i thought about it, and i came back to them pw-fs recess and -- came back to them before the recess and said okay, we'll do that. come back after the break. and they came to me seined we changed our mind. what we want now is a straight up-or-down vote on the legislation. that isn't the agreement we had. but anyway, i said okay, we'll do that. well, now we're told that there's up to five amendments they want, and yesterday, last evening i was told there is another one never heard of. this was about geothermal, but the extent of it i don't understand. it's always something else.

we have these new provisions added to the bill to make this legislation even stronger than last year. to add further, mr. president, to the absurdity of what we're doing here is, again, the junior senator from louisiana wants a vote on taking away the health care for our staff. i said to him, why would you do that? he said, well, the lower-paid -- the higher-paid employees, they can probably afford to do it themselves. i'm paraphrasing as i remember the telephone conversation. he said -- no, i'm sorry. here it is. the lower-priced, lower-waged, salaried employees in the senate, they would get subsidies, a lot of them. i said what about those that don't? he said they could buy their own insurance.

mr. president, these men and women who work in the senate work very hard, and they should be treated like other employees around the country. their employers should help them with their insurance. but it appears it is a virtual reenactment of last september. it seems like this is a game of diversion and obstruction to many senate republicans. but it's not a game. every time a group of republicans feigns interest in bipartisanship only to scramble away at the last moment as part of a calculated political scheme, mr. president, we know on the very night president obama's first inauguration, a group of republican political consultants, there is some dispute as to who called a meeting, whether frank hrupbts hrupbts lutz or someone else.

they devised a plan to oppose all legislation and all nominees in order to make president obama and democrats look ineffective, to make our country, i assume, look more ineffective. but their number one goal was to make sure president obama was not reelected. they failed with that, mr. president. but they haven't failed at obstructing, filibustering and stopping the legislative process. instead of working with us to pass meaningful legislation that helps american families, the republican leadership has shown more interest in agreeing to nothing. republicans continue to play hard to get, the american people's frustration grows. this presents a unique opportunity for my republican colleagues a chance to work with us in passing bipartisan legislation that will help the country. i and my 54 democratic colleagues have been flexible throughout this process. we hope to reach agreement to give both sides most of what they want.

but time is running out on this good piece of legislation, running out again. so i invite all my republican colleagues to work with us in good faith. help us pass a bill which creates jobs, saves money and puts our country on track to energy independence. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i have the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me just briefly make a few observations about some of the majority leader's opening comments this morning. as he knows full well, senator vitter dropped his request for an obamacare amendment days ago, before the weekend. and i think it's important for everybody to understand the minority in the senate has had eight votes since july. eight votes since july on amendments that we wish to vote on. we haven't had a fulsome energy debate in the senate since 2007,

seven years ago. what we're asking for here is four or five amendments related to the subject of energy, one of the biggest issues in our country. that is hardly obstructionism. it is laughable to suggest it is obstructionism for the minority to be given four or five amendments on issues related on the underlying bill particularly since we only had eight amendments since last july and we haven't had a fulsome, broad-ranging energy debate since 2007. i would say to my friend, my friend the majority leader, i don't think it is anything at all unreasonable about what we are requesting here. it is about time we had a debate on energy. we're having an energy boom in

this country. it is important to our constituents all across the land, 45 republicans represent millions of americans. we'd like to have a chance to have our voices heard occasionally. eight amendments for the minority since july? this is not the way the senate ought to be run. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: responding to my friend, the reason we haven't had debates here in the senate on legislation is because the republicans won't let us get on bills. now, let's take the bill that we're talking about here today. could we step back just a minute and try to do something that's good for the country? shaheen-portman is a good bill for america. from last year to this year, and my friend can say all he wants about the junior senator from

louisiana. everyone knows what he has done on legislation in the past. now, he called me and told me that we weren't going to move forward on this bill unless he got a vote on what he just talked about, but from the last time we did this bill, here are amendments that are incorporated in this bill. bennet-ayotte, better buildings. franken amendment to require federal buildings to benchmark use data. udall-risch, efficiency and data centers. whitehouse-collins, every one of these bipartisan, on low-income housing retrofits. landrieu-wicker-pryor, amendment on green federal building. hoeven-pryor, amendment on water heaters. hoeven-manchin-isakson-bennet, amendments on energy efficiency and federal buildings and residential buildings. and a sessions-pryor amendment on third-party testing.

last month, shaheen and portman reached a new version of their bill to incorporate all these changes. the bill has 14 cosponsors, seven on each side. it's sponsored by the republican side, portman, ayotte, collins, hoeven, wicker. on the democrat side, shaheen, bennet, franken, manchin, warner. mr. president, it will be hard to find a more partisan consensus piece of legislation, but always, mr. president, always this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. but always it's the shell game. okay, we have got it here. try to figure out where i put that shell. is it here, is it here? where is that dollar? is it here, is it here? i will yield in just a second. mr. president, this is what i talked about earlier. we have been going five years with this. five years, trying to stop anything that obama wants to do. obama would like to see this passed. so would a bipartisan group of

senators. but for five years, we have put up with this. it doesn't matter what it is. if obama wants it, they're against it. so, mr. president, we can have all this sweet talk about how the senate should operate. the senate should operate by allowing legislation to go forward. here is a perfect example. but no, no. i have told them they want to vote on keystone, they can have a vote on keystone. that's not good enough for them. they add four or five other amendments. it's never quite enough. and so we can see what's going to happen. they're going to let us on the bill today and they're going to say because we don't get our amendments, we're not going to vote to get off the bill. it's happened time and time again. we waste hours and hours. so, mr. president, with all this happy talk about how the senate should operate, remember, we changed the rules. why do we do that? because we have scores of judges

that we had to wait for them to give us permission to move to. we changed the rules. we don't in any way apologize to anybody for having changed the rules. now, mr. president, here's where we are. legislation is at a standstill, and we have on the books now 140 nominations that are held up. they have held everybody up. we get a few here and a few there. but the one thing they can't hold up any more are judges. we're moving through the judges. we're getting the judges done. and if they want to continue blocking ambassadors, we have -- i'm sorry, secretary of state, former chairman of the foreign relations committee is going to angola. we don't have an gaffer there. we don't have an ambassador of peru. scores of countries, we don't have an american representative there. these are people, mr. president, mr. president, -- there are some

political appointments. we can talk about those separately. every president has political appointments. but i am not pushing those. what i'm pushing is the fact that we have these career foreign service officers who have waited an entire lifetime, they have worked in these countries in very difficult situations. they have been political officers, economic officers. now they get a chance to be an ambassador. it is like going to the super bowl in the diplomacy world, and they're not going to get that. now, mr. president, i think that the american people understand what's going on. that's why as a result of the polls we've seen people understand the game the republicans have played for five years. and people are going to have to decide this october -- i'm sorry. this novas to whether or not they want another two years of obstruction as we have seen. so, mr. president, this is -- this is good legislative policy, the shaheen-portman bill, it would be good for the country,

but as usual, we have a lot of things good for the country and we've had it and we don't get much done around here. so we can -- we can give us some amendments. this is, mr. president, what they say every time, every time because no matter what we do, it's not good enough. shaheen-portman is a good bill. we have ten new provisions in it. that's not good enough. we have given the vote on keystone. that's not good enough. that's the way it always is. so there is no surprises to me here in what they have done today and what they will do probably on wednesday or thursday. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: my friend the majority leader wandered rather far afield. the subject for today is whether or not it would be inappropriate at 20 minutes after 10:00 on a tuesday for the majority to have four or five amendments of its choosing sometime during the course of the week. now, it's great that some amendments have been accepted by

members on my side. i'm not happy about that. the majority picked the ones they were willing to accept and accepted them. i think that's great. but what about the rest of the members of the minority who are not suggesting that we would drop unusual or amendments on an entirely different subject. four or five amendments during the course of the week with short -- relatively short time agreements related to the subject of energy. it strikes me, mr. president, that's just simply not unacceptable. we have had eight votes on amendments of our choosing since last july, eight. this is not the way to run the senate. i mean, the minority represents a lot of americans, millions and millions of americans. we're entitled to have our ideas debated and voted on in the senate as well, ones that we want to vote on, not ones that the majority leader picks for

us. and so that's the point here. we don't think what we're asking for is in any way unreasonable and certainly consistent with the traditions of the senate, particularly since we have only had eight votes on amendments of our choosing in the last seven or eight months. i mean, goodness gracious, there is a way to finish this bill. it does enjoy broad bipartisan support. the majority leader mentioned the president. i don't know that his name has come up in connection with this. we are simply asking for the opportunity to debate on and vote important energy amendments on an energy bill during the pendency of the week. that's all we're asking for. now, mr. president, let me just go on. i understand later the majority leader is going to do some procedural matters, and so let me just go on and make my opening statement. later today, we expect the president to talk about the

weather at the white house. presumably, he will use the platform to renew his call for a national energy tax, and i'm sure he will get loud cheers from liberal elites, from the kind of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and then lecture everybody else about low-flow toilets. but the vast majority of middle-class kentuckians i represent actually have to worry about things like paying utility bills and putting food on the table and finding a job in this terrible economy. they are less interested in just doing something on energy. they want to do the smart thing. what they want are practical solutions to the problems and stresses they're dealing with every single day. that's, mr. president, what we should be focusing on this week, because this debate shouldn't be about alleviating the guilt complexes of liberal elites. it should be about actually achieving the best outcome for

the environment, for energy security and most importantly for the people we were sent here to represent. and one thing that seems clear is this -- even if we were to enact the kind of national energy regulations the president seems to want so badly, it would be unlikely to meaningfully impact global emissions anyway unless other major industrial nations do the same thing. that means getting countries like china and india on board. the president knows that. the president also knows that much of the pain of imposing such regulations would be borne by our own, our own middle class. that's why this discussion has become so cynical. and it's part of the reason the president's own party couldn't even pass a national energy tax when it had complete control of washington's congress back in 2009 and 2010. the american people weren't willing to go along with considerable domestic pain for negligible global gain back then, it's foolish to think they

would assent to a bad idea now. and remember, even the president's own party in the senate wouldn't bring up the president's proposal for a national energy tax despite their overnight speeches and complaints about everyone else. of course, none of this has stopped the president from trying to get his way anyway. that's why we have seen this administration's attempt to do an end run around the legislative process, to try to impose a similar agenda through executive fiat. well, it needs to be stopped. the president's regulations are hurting people, often people who are already struggling and vulnerable, the very people the president claims he wants to help. our constituents are being hurt because of a cynical political agenda, because of a war on coal and other sources of american energy that the far left flank of the democratic party is simply demanding. and the middle class doesn't even have a meaningful say in this discussion because the president has decided that congress the people elect

doesn't really matter anymore. republicans are trying to change that this week. we have asked the majority leader to allow votes on energy amendments that would let our constituents have a say for once. my constituents in kentucky should be able to weigh in on an e.p.a. rule that would negatively impact existing and future coal plants. kentuckians deserve a real say on ongoing regulatory efforts to tie up mining permits and the red tape that's stifling the creation of good jobs in coal country. our constituents should finally be truly heard on the keystone pipeline they overwhelmingly support, and the american people deserve a real debate on how we can best tap our own extraordinary natural resources to achieve energy independence here at home and how we can help our allies overseas through increased exports of american energy. these are the kinds of things we should be voting on this very week, proposals that can help our economy and boost the middle

class and jobs, while strengthening our national security and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy. but we can't move forward if the democrats who run the senate keep trying to protect the president at the expense of serving their constituents. we know they're getting pressure from the white house to shut down a real debate on energy. one of the president's aides yesterday made it clear that it will be leaning on democratic senators to -- quote -- get the right outcome, end quote. in other words, to do the white house political bidding and to once again assure that struggling middle-class americans get the short end of the stick from the democrats here in washington. look, the american middle class is hurting, absolutely hurting. by a 2-1 margin, americans say the country's economic conditions are poor. only about a quarter say there are enough jobs available where they live, and they have been suffering from years of spiking electricity prices that would only get worse if the

president's agenda were fully realized. these are the people who deserve our attention. they're the ones who are struggling, not the far left, not the activists who yell the loudest and appear to care the least about who their ideas actually hurt, and not the president's political fixers in the white house. these are not the people we should be focusing on. it's time, way past time to start paying attention to the people who have actually sent us here. they deserve a robust debate about how to develop policies that can actually lead to lower utility bills, that can put coal families back to work, that can help create well-paying jobs, that can help increase energy security and that can help prevent energy from being used as a tool of war and oppression by global adversaries. that's why we were sent here, to debate these kinds of things,

and if democrats have good ideas on energy, too, this is the time to share theirs. what's wrong with having amendments from both sides on this bill? we want to hear everybody's serious ideas. the american people have waited seven long years, as i said earlier, for a serious energy debate in the democratic-run senate. seven years. it's about time they got it. and this is the perfect week to do it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: to belittle the president of the united states for wanting to talk about climate change is pretty obviously wrong. you can mischaracterize all you want the fact that barack obama

recognizes that climate is changing worldwide. but it's truly a mischaracterization if anyone thinks this is not something that's serious. so it appears that always when we get into a serious debate about a subject, whether it's energy efficiency or whether it's climate change, the republicans want to change the subject, divert, obstruct. so what is the -- what are the republicans' answer to this climate change, which is real? more oil production. that's one of their solutions. block regulations that protect health and the environment. deny climate change is happening at all. one very senior senator, the senior senator from oklahoma, says that it's a hoax.

mr. president, it's not a hoax. it's real. and i'm very happy that the president is saying something about this. mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 655. the presiding officer: any questions on the motion to proceed? all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: there's a cloture motion -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. excuse me, leader. mr. reid: i do on occasion. the clerk: nomination, indira talwani of massachusetts to be united states district judge. mr. reid: there's a cloture motion at the desk i would ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion.

we, the undersigned senators, in accordance well provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of indira talwani of massachusetts to be united states district judge for the district of massachusetts. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask consent the names of the senators not be necessary. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 656. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, james d. peterson of wisconsin to be united states district judge. mr. reid: mr. president, there's a cloture motion at the desk that i would ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of james d. peterson of wisconsin to be united states district judge for the western district of wisconsin. signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. oh, mr. president, i ask -- i forgot to ask consent and i do now that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection.

mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 657. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, nancy j. rosenstengel of illinois to be united states district judge. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to

bring to a close the debate on the nomination of nancy j. rosenstengel of illinois to be united states district judge for the southern district of illinois. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask consent the names be waived. -- reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. mr. president, we -- i keep skipping over my mandatory quorum. i ask consent that under rule 22 that it be waived. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to proceed

can calendar number 657. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, robin s. rosenbaum of flar flar t floride united states district judge. mr. reid: there's a cloture motion at the desk that i ask be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, it is undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of robin s. rosenbaum of florida to be united states district judg judge -- united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit. mr. reid: i ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask we have -- because of the conversation with senator mcconnell and i, the time ran much longer than it normally does. so i would ask consent that the vote occur at 11:15 rather tha than -- it would be senator durbin is here and senator warren is here. we've got senator cornyn. we'll just divide the time until then evenly. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

under the previous order, the time until 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i recognize -- i note on the floor the presence of senator moran and senator cornyn and senator warren. could i enter into a consent as to the sequence of speaking? and i'd ask that after i have spoken that senator warren be recognized next on the democratic side. and i'd ask which republican senator would like to be included and in what order? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: if the distinguished majority whip, responding to his question through the chair, it would help if we could alternate between the sides, if that's acceptable. mr. durbin: who would be first on your side? mr. cornyn: my understand the senator from kansas, senator moran, would be first, then go to the democratic side, then back to me and back to your side.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. mr. cornyn: thank you. mr. durbin: mr. president, i was going to ask for a specific time for each but i'm going to try to be brief and yield more time to my colleagues because i'm sure they'll be inspiring. i would like to just say that the issue before us that we're trying to move to is called the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act. whenever we talk about energy and the environment, the senate is up for grabs. there is a divide -- a divided opinion here as to what to do with the energy policy of america. there are -- there's sincere and profound differences between the two political parties. we recently had a all-night session talking about the issues of global warming and climate change. and there was a real division between democrats and republicans about this issue. i had a statement early in the session and i came to the floor and i'll renew it today in the hopes that one of my two friends over on the other side of the aisle can respond to this, and

my statement is this -- the only major political party in the world today that denies the existence of global warming and climate change is the republican party of the united states of america. now, i'm waiting for some republican to come forward and refute me. someone said, well, there is a small party in australia that doesn't accept global warming and climate change. well, that may be true but i'm looking for evidence of another major political party other than the republican party of the united states of america which denies the fact that our human activity on earth and the pollution that we are creating is changing the world we're living in. i think there's ample evidence -- and, incidentally, 98% of the scientists who look at it conclude the same -- that we are going through climate change in this world. look around. glaciers melting, the weather changing, more extreme weather events. our planet heating up. some people say, well, that's

just an act of god and it happens every few centuries and that's the way it goes. i don't think so. i think what we're doing on earth has something to do with it. this debate could go on all day and there will be sincere differences of opinion on each side of the aisle as to whether or not what i have said is true. but here's something we should not disagree on, the pending legislation. this bipartisan legislation steps aside from that hot issu issue -- no pun intended -- steps aside from that issue and says, can't we all agree that energy efficiency is really a good thing? well, sure. whether you think there's an environmental impact of using energy or not, it costs less if you have energy efficiency to heat a home, run a business. and so what we're trying to do, thanks to the leadership of senator shaheen of new hampshire, senator portman of ohio, democrat and republican, is have a bipartisan approach to it. what they've done is amazing. they took a bill which, frankly,

was supposed to come up last year and failed because of some problems on the floor, and made it even better and stronger and more bipartisan. a long series of bipartisan amendments added into the bill to make it better in terms of trying to encourage energy efficiency in buildings across america, manufacturing new techniques for energy efficiency that the federal government when it builds a building think about energy efficiency. all of these things bipartisan in nature, and yet we are tied up in knots on the floor of the senate here as to whether we can even consider this bipartisan bill. that's a shame, because, quite honestly, when we have a good bipartisan measure on an issue like energy efficiency, which steps aside from underlying controversial issues, we should move on it. and i worry about it because there are some on the other side who say, well, we just don't have enough amendments. there's more we want to add,

there are more things we want to debate. there's nothing wrong with that but let's not sacrifice this bill this time. do you know what's at stake with this bill? not just the good idea of energy efficiency but 190,000 jobs in america. when you start putting in better windows in buildings, when you start putting in better hvac systems and all the other things that are going to show energy efficiency, it puts americans to work. if the republicans stop us from moving to this bill today, if they stop us from considering this bill this week, it will be at the expense of american jobs. that's wrong. now that we have a bipartisan bill and a strong bill, for goodness sakes, let's put the procedural fights aside. there's a republican senator who stopped this bill last week from coming up because he wants to debate -- are you ready? -- obamacare. 50 times the house of representatives has voted to repeal obamacare. it's going nowhere. and yet they continue to come

back to it and this senator says, we can't take up energy efficiency because he wants to debate one aspect of obamacare again. well, please. save it for another day. let's do something in a bipartisan fashion that can guarantee 190,000 people in america a good-paying job. wouldn't that be something that we could talk about when we go home at the end of the week instead of the fact that the senate once again broke down into a partisan squabble? i urge my colleagues on the other side, save some of these really, really great and not so great ideas for another day. let's pass this bill. this is strong. it's bipartisan. it really tries to get something done in the senate which, sadly, is a rare occurrence. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. there is no group of americans that i hold in higher regard than our nation's veterans. their service and sacrifices allowed us to live in the

strongest, freest, greatest country in the world. america's veterans have fought tyrants and terrorists to keep our country safe and secure. yet even after they return from war, veterans today continue to fight tough, tough battles here at home. many veterans find themselves struggling to find a job. they face difficulties accessing quality health care services especially in rural areas like mine at home in kansas. and all too many veterans must wait long periods of time for the benefit claims to be processed by the v.a. as of april 2014, the claims' backlog stands at 591,061 outstanding claims. 53% of those are longer than 125 days, waiting for an answer from the v.a. it takes approximately 266 days for most new claims to receive an answer. and if the veteran is unhappy with the outcome of that claim, they can file an appeal. and the backlog for appeals is more than 272,000 in backlogs

alone. and some have waited foreign 1,50 -- waited more than 1,500 days, more than four years to get a response on their appeal. these numbers represent real people. they are not just statistics. not just average, everyday americans. they are our veterans who we claim we hold in highest regard and esteem. americans who served our country are waiting to receive the benefits they earned. at a time when troops are transitioning out of the military and the needs are clear for our aging veterans i am especially concerned we are not keeping our promise to those who served our country. i travel across kansas and meet veterans. i hear the stories about their v.a. claims process from systemic issues with back and forth how the claims are handled to absurd waiting times. in washington, i hear from veterans' organizations who come from kansas. the american legion disabled

veterans of america, concerned veterans of america, veterans of foreign wars. and they bring stories of other veterans to me outlining the problems veterans back home are facing. the reality is our veterans are losing hope that the v.a. will care for them. americans recently heard the story about the problems from a whistle-blower in phoenix, arizona, at the v.a. in which there was a secret waiting list of veterans who had waited more than seven months to see a doctor in order to avoid v.a. policies on reporting extended delays. the v.a. figured out how to hide those claims for seven months so they weren't reported. incidents of mismanagement and death caused to the failures of the v.a. are for more numerous than we see in the news. reports pop up from atlanta to memphis, from st. louis to florida, the claims backlog, mismanagement, lack of oversight, unethical environments all contribute to the v.a.'s failure.

it has become clear that the dysfunction in the v.a. extends from the top to the bottom at the highest headquarters and in each visom and down to local levels in some medical facilities. regional benefit offices are part of the problem. the v.a. suffers from a culture that accepts mediocrity, leaving too many veterans without the care they need. our veterans deserve better, and they deserve in fact the best our nation knows how to offer. i highlight today the broken v.a. system and challenge the department of veterans affairs to change. we need accountability and transformation within the v.a. system and its culture top to bottom and across the country. we must break the cycle of dysfunction today and take steps necessary to make certain our veterans no longer are victims of their own government's bureaucracy. examples from across our state, jack cavos sought medical attention at the v.a. hospital emergency room, he was told his chest pains were related to

muscles around his heart. he left, was sent home. a week later he returns and is transported to another emergency room. ultimately jack dies of a heart attack. he never recovers, and we now pay tribute to that veteran who failed to receive the care that he needed in such a timely fashion. one year later the same topeka emergency room closed its doors to veterans seeking emergency treatment. and i'm still waiting on a response from the v.a. to explain the closure of an emergency room at the v.a. hospital in topeka, kansas. an outpatient clinic in liberal has been without a primary care provider in more than three years and while others try to fill in the gap, there is nothing to date the v.a. has done to solve the underlying problem. still no primary care provider. i recently spoke about claims backlog to a kansan veteran involved in the american legion named dave thomas from leavenworth. he has waited, since he filed

his claim in 1970, and only this past year received an answer. he received a 90% disability rating from the v.a. but it took 44 years for him to receive that answer. the veterans with parkinson's disease was told recently that he had to wait until march of last year because he was told the past week that it now can only process claims that are a year old. you have to wait a year before you're in line in order to have your process -- in order for you to receive the process of your claim that you deserved more than a year ago. how can the v.a. establish a wait time benchmark of one year for veterans' claims to get the attention it deserves? it is so disappointing to hear these stories. i know that it is unacceptable. whether you are a veteran who served in 1941, 1951, 1971, 1991 or 2001 or 2011, or you're currently serving, we owe the

nation's veterans our absolute best after their military service is complete. unfortunately, the v.a. system continues on a glide path of dysfunction, and only at best plays defense. the v.a.'s failure is not a matter of resources. that is always the easy answer, more money. but last week president obama himself said -- quote -- "we've resourced the veterans affairs office more in terms of increases than any other department or agency in my government. the v.a. funding levels have increased well more than 60% since 2009, and each year there have been incremental increases of 3%, 4% or 5%. and this year the request from the president's budget is a 4.5%. yet our veterans continue to struggle and are not getting the treatment they earned and deserve, and they're not getting their benefits. republicans and democrats have agreed on fully funding the v.a. to serve year after year, but this increase in spending results in no better service from the department. to date these increases have not

in any way increased the service or support our veterans deserve and need. this is a problem with leadership and a lack of will to change. i've been a member of the veterans' affairs committee for 18 years in the house and senate. i chaired the health care subcommittee in the house. i worked with nine v.a. secretaries. this is an issue that i always thought we were making progress on, and today it's so disappointing to report to my colleagues in the senate that this department is dysfunctional and the services get worse, not better. we need accountability at the v.a. the 44-year-old claim process of dave thomas and the untimely passing of jack cavos should not be forgotten and the department needs to make meaningful cases so these cases and cases like these will never happen and never happen again. while we continue to push legislative action, it's time to hold people accountable in order to force meaningful change. g.a.o. reports, inspector general reports, inspector

whistle-blowers all call for action. a list now that i can find of eight press and i.g. reports from cnn to fox news, from military.com to our i.g. to the washington examiner, all reporting things that we would not believe could ever happen within a v.a. in the united states of america. veterans are waiting for action, and yet, the v.a. continues to operate in the same old bureaucratic fashion, settling for mediocrity and continued disservice to our nation's heroes. it's clear that accountability at v.a. is absent. oversight doesn't mean much and i sincerely and seriously question whether leadership is capable and willing -- whether the leadership at the v.a. is capable and willing to force change. there is a difference in wanting change and leading it to happen. i'm demanding accountability and true transformation in the v.a. system and its culture from top to bottom and all across the country.

secretary shinseki seemingly is unwilling or unable to do so, and change must be made at the top. i ask the the secretary to submit his resignation and i ask president obama to accept that resignation. we must never forget that our nation has a responsibility to its veterans. that means receiving the care and support they earned. god bless our veterans and all those serving at home and abroad and all their families. we need a department of veterans affairs worthy of your sacrifice. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i come to the floor to announce emergency legislation to provide relief to students and young graduates drowning in debt. make no mistake, this is an emergency. student loan debt is exploding, and it threatens the stability of our young people and the future of our economy. outstanding student loan debt

now totals $1.2 trillion, and each year students are taking on more and more and more debt. in 2012, an astonishing 71% of college seniors owed student loans. and from 2004 to 2012 the average student loan balance increased by 70%. millions of young people are struggling to keep up with student loan payments. the economic impact is real. the federal watchdog agencies like the federal reserve, the treasury and the consumer protection bureau are all sounding the alarm. every day this exploding debt stops more and more young people from moving out of their parents' homes, from saving for a down payment, from buying a home, from buying cars, from starting small businesses, from saving for retirement, from making the purchases that keep

this economy moving forward. it doesn't have to be this way. congress set interest rates on student loans at artificially high interest rates that generate extra money for the government. the g.a.o. recently projected that the government will bring in $66 billion just on the student loans from 2007 to 2012. those are the kinds of profits that would make a fortune 500 c.e.o. proud. we should cut those interest rates, and we should cut those government profits. we should give our young people a break and boost our economy. this morning two dozen senators joined together to introduce the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act, which will do just that. the idea is simple.

with interest rates near historic lows, homeowners, businesses and even local governments have refinanced their debts. but many people who took out a student loan before july 1 of last year are locked into a rate of nearly 7%. older loans run 8%, 9% and even higher. we need to bring those rates down, and we need to do it now. bank on students would allow student loan borrowers the opportunity to lower their interest rates on old loans to match the rates that the government offers to new borrowers today. that's 3.86% for undergraduate loans, 5.14% for graduate loans and 6.41% for plus loans. now, i want to be clear. those rates are still higher than what it costs the government to run its student loan program. our work will not be done until we have eliminated all of the

profits from the student loan program. but this legislation is an important step in that direction. 40 million borrowers in this country have student loan debt. 40 million. and many of those individuals could save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year with this bill. they need this help now. last year nearly every republican in congress, in the house and in the senate voted for the exact same loan rates that are in this legislation. republican leaders like speaker of the house john boehner, embraced 3.86% for new undergraduate borrowers as consistent with republican policy proposals. okay, it may not be my preferred rate. but if republicans believe that

3.86% is good enough for new undergraduate borrowers, then it should be good enough for existing undergraduate borrowers who also worked hard to get an education and need to refinance their loans. let's bring down this rate for all our kids because there is no reason on earth to say that some kids can get a better deal when they all worked hard to do exactly what we wanted them to do -- get an education. this legislation won't add a single dime to our deficit. the bank loan students legislation adopts the buffett rule which limits tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, and it requires that every dollar we bring in as a result of that change goes directly to supporting lower interest rates on existing student loans.

it's simple -- invest in billionaires or invest in students. refinancing won't fix everything that's broken with our higher education system. we need to bring down the cost of college and we need more accountability for how schools spend federal dollars. many of my democratic colleagues have introduced or are introducing legislation aimed at lowering the overall cost of college, and i support those efforts, but the need for comprehensive reform must not blind us to the urgency of addressing the massive debt that's already crushing young people. this is a question of economics but it's also a question of values. these young people are saddled with student loan debt not because they went to the mall and ran up charges on a credit card. they worked hard and learned new skills that will benefit the

country and help us build a stronger america. they deserve a fair shot at an affordable education. this is personal for me. i was the first person in my family to graduate from college. i went to a commuter college where the tuition was $50 a semester, and it opened a million doors for me. i got a fair shot because i grew up in an america that made it a priority to invest in young people. i believe in that america, an america that puts students ahead of billionaires, an america that puts education within reach of every kid who works hard, an america that will give every kid a fair shot at building a future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i'm on the floor today to discuss the energy savings and industrial competitiveness act, which is why we call it shaheen-portman. it's a faster way to refer to it. but it's a bill that i co-authored with senator rob portman from ohio, and it represents more than three years of meetings, negotiations, compromise and broad stakeholder outreach in an effort to craft the most effective piece of energy legislation with the greatest chance of passing both chambers of congress and of being signed into law. my partner in this effort, senator portman, was here on the floor last night talking about why this is a bipartisan bill that can pass not only this chamber but the house and be signed into law. it is a bipartisan effort that reflects an affordable approach to boost the use of energy efficiency technologies in our

economy. efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to reduce our energy use. energy-saving techniques and technologies lower costs, they free up capital that allows businesses to expand and our economy to grow. this is in addition to being an energy bill a jobs bill, and we can start improving our efficiency now by installing ready, proven technologies, things like modern heating systems, computer-controlled thermostats, low energy lighting. efficiency is no longer about putting on a sweater and turning down the thermostat. it's about making use of these technologies that are available today. there are substantial opportunities that exist across all sectors of our economy that would allow us to conserve energy, to create good-paying private sector jobs and to reduce pollution. now, our bill reduces the

barriers to efficiency in the major energy-consuming sectors of our economy. it does that through buildings where we use about 40% of our use, through industrial efficiency where we assist the manufacturing sector which consumes more energy than any other sector of the u.s. economy. we help them implement energy-efficient production technologies. and through the federal government, which as i think all of us know is the single largest user of energy in the country. what the legislation does is encourages the federal government to adopt more efficient building standards, smart metering technology to look at our data centers and see how we can reduce the costs there, and again this bill will help create private sector jobs, it will save businesses and consumers money, it will reduce pollution and it will make our country more energy efficient. a recent study by experts at the american council for an energy

efficient economy found that by 2030, shaheen-portman, if it passes, has the potential to create 192,000 domestic jobs, to save consumers and businesses over $16 billion a year, and to reduce carbon pollution by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. and the bill does this without any mandates, without raising the deficit. all authorizations are offset, and it even produces a $12 million deficit reduction, according to the congressional budget office. i have had the opportunity over the last three and a half years as we have been working on this bill to visit businesses across new hampshire who are making use of energy-efficient technologies, and what i have heard from those businesses is that they have adopted these energy efficiencies because it

allows them to save money. it allows them to be competitive. it allows them to add jobs in their sectors. i think that's why this legislation enjoys such strong support from industry, from trade associations and from labor groups as well as efficiency and environmental advocates. as the presiding officer knows, it's not often that we have groups like the national association of manufacturers and the national wildlife federation supporting the same piece of legislation. and i have for the record a number of letters that have been sent by many of these organizations that illustrate the ever-growing support for the bill. the signatures on these letters go on and on, and they are signed by everyone from the edison electric institute, the american gas association, the u.s. chamber of commerce to earth day network and the national association of state

energy offices. at this time, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to introduce these letters into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i think this nontraditional alliance clearly illustrates the sizable and diverse demand for this energy-efficiency jobs bill, and simply put, the time is now for the senate to take up and pass this bipartisan, commonsense proposal to grow our economy and to create good-paying jobs for decades, and we can't let our extraneous debates about amendments or nonamendments, which amendments to include, which amendments not to include to get in the way of getting this legislation done, because this creates jobs, it saves consumers money and it saves on pollution. now, one of the great things about the bill that i hope we're going to take up in a few minutes is that it includes ten

additional bipartisan amendments, and since our bill was taken up and then had to be pulled from the floor back in september, senator portman and i have worked closely with senators from both sides of the aisle to add ten new bipartisan provisions that expand current sections of our bill. the new bill has a section that puts in place commonsense and consensus-reached regulatory relief provisions that maintain the underlying principle of advancing energy efficiency in the private sector, and as a result of these provisions, the legislation has more energy savings, more job creation and more carbon dioxide reductions than the previous version of the bill. so i wanted to just briefly -- i know we don't have a lot of time, but to talk a little bit about some of those bipartisan amendments because i think they point out the improvements in

the legislation. one of those is tenant star which builds on the success of e.p.a.'s long-running voluntary energy star program for commercial buildings and it creates a similar tenant-oriented certification for lease spaces. again, it's voluntary. commercial building tenants who design, construct and operate their lease spaces in ways that maximize energy efficiency would receive the same kind of public recognition through tenant star that energy star has produced for so many buildings and businesses. it also includes a provision for energy-efficient schools. senator susan collins and senator mark udall have an amendment included that would help boost schools' energy efficiency and streamline the federal government's programs to make them run more productively. this would help schools across the country to finance energy

energy-efficiency projects and to make their buildings operate in a more sustainable fashion. the legislation also includes senator bennet and senator isakson's amendment called the save act which will improve the accuracy of mortgage underwriting by including energy efficiency as a factor in determining the value and affordability of the home -- of homes. and it includes a proposal by senators hoeven and pryor to create a regulatory exemption for thermal storage water heaters so that rural cooperatives and others can continue to use certain large water heaters for their successful demand response programs. now, in addition to what's in this legislation, what we have seen in the last several months is that the house has passed energy efficiency legislation, including a number of the provisions that are in the bill we will be taking up today. in fact, the house recently

passed an energy-efficiency package by an overwhelming 375- 36 margin. the provisions passed by the house are in the version that we're introducing of shaheen-portman, and it shows just how much support for energy efficiency that there is throughout the congress. so we have a real opportunity to pass this legislation. this is a bipartisan, affordable, widely supported and most important effective first step to address our nation's very real energy needs, and i want to thank senator portman for his partnership in bringing the bill to the floor. i want to thank the majority and minority leaders as well as the new energy chair, senator landrieu and ranking member murkowski for their support and thank former energy chair and natural resources -- former energy and natural resources chairman ron wyden for his support, and i also want to

thank the legislation's additional cosponsors -- senators ayotte, bennet, collins, presiding officer, senator coons, senators franken, hoeven, isakson, manchin, warner and wicker. i think that list of bipartisan cosponsors just indicates the breadth of support for this legislation that shows the ideological breadth of support for it and i look forward to working with senate leadership, with all of my colleagues here in the senate because we can pass this legislation, we can create these jobs, we can save consumers money and we can redues pollution. thank you very much, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the

quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 368, s. 2262, a bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings in industry and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 2262, a bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings in industry and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote the

yeas are 79, the nays are 20. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from vermont. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, next week we're going to exem rate national police week. it is a time when the nation pays tribute to the sacrifices made by all those who serve in law enforcement, particularly -- i wonder if we might have order, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please remove your conversations from the well of the senate. mr. leahy: thank you, mr. president. i will be talking about those officers who've lost their lives in the line of duty. these law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities. we often speak eloquently on both sides of the aisle here about supporting law enforcement and their families.

these tributes are one. they're well-deserved. but the police officers in our communities deserve more than speeches. they ze deserve action and real support. we owe to it to all who serve to help protect those who protect us. one way to do so is to provide them life-saving bulletproof vests. for more than 15 years, the bulletproof vest partnership grant program has helped to provide bulletproof vests to law enforcement officers around the country. republican senator ben nighthorse campbell from colorado and i worked across the aisle to design a program that helps local law enforcement agencies purchase bulletproof vests. we both had a background in law enforcement, and we drew on that. mr. president, let me show you what's happened. to date, this program has

enabled over 13,000 state and local enforcement agencies to purchase over one million vests. the protective vests are credited with saving the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. i never will forget one who testified before our committee. he had his mother, his father, his wife, his children sitting there behind him in the judiciary committee, and the distinguished presiding officer knows how often we have witnesses speaking and their families there. he said, i love law enforcement. i love law enforcement. the only thing i love more than law enforcement is my family. but there came a day as an officer i thought i'd never see my family again. when he stopped somebody at a routine traffic stop, the man came out of the car and shot him in the chest. he reached down underneath and pulls up the vest.

you can see the two bullets still stuck in the vest. he said, i got a cracked rib out of it, but i saw my mother and father and my wife and my children, and i saw them when i was at the hospital where they were treating me for the cracked vest, and i saw them there. they didn't have to go to the morgue to see me. that story is repeated all the way. no one disputes it saves lives. that's why congress has historically acted quickly and decisively to support the bulletproof vest programs. between 2000 and 2010, the program enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. it was reauthorized three times by unanimous consent. this time around every single democratic senator supports passage of the bill. it's also cosponsored by senators hagan, cardin, landrieu, shaheen, pryor,

franken. there are many other supporters of law enforcement, including the international association of chiefs of police, the national sheriffs association, major county sheriffs associations, and the national association of police organizations. so every single democratic senator supports it. for reasons i still don't understand, the bill is being blocked on the republican side. not a single republican cosponsor has stepped forward. i can't understand this, mr. president. this has never been a partisan issue. it shouldn't be a partisan issue. we're doing this to protect the lives of police officers. police officers don't respond when they're called and say, well, wait a minute ... we have to decide whether we're being called by a republican or a democrat. police officers respond when they're called. senator grassley and i developed a bipartisan reauthorization that included improvements to the program. now, one important change is

that agencies are now given a grant preference for purchasing vests thoovests that are uniqued to women officers. there are far more women as police officers today than they were even when senator nighthorse campbell and i first had this bill. so the bill is stronger than ever, and i think the vast majority of senators want to see this program reauthorized. i don't know why republican senators blocked it, especially when we're now protecting, as we hadn't before, women police officers, too. i don't know how we can turn our back on both men and women as police officers. i would also urge support for the national blue alert act, which has been reported by the judiciary committee with strong bipartisan vote, sponsored by

senators cardin and graham. i am a broad cosponsor. or another bill which reauthorizes the paul coverdell for reiforensic science grant improvement program. it is another important bill to law enforcement we should approve without further delay. it actually defies common sense that any senator would object to these. next week i'll attend, as i almost always do, the national peace officers memorial service. and there will be a wreath laying at the national law enforcement officers memorial, which now contains the names of over 20,000 fallen officers. i remember shortly after i became state state's attorney go the funeral of one of those fallen officers. i've never forgotten that, even though it was decades ago.

the long line of police cars, the blue lights flashing, snow coming down, the blue lights fliected oflightsreflected off s coming down. the names, fortunate lit, it doesn't just stop for the 20,000. the names of 286 fallen officers will be fallen to its walls, serving as another somber reminder of the brave men and women in law enforcement risk their lives each and every day. they work tirelessly to keep our community safe. they zev our bes deserve our bet dozen the same for them. -- to do the same for them. i am going to ask consent that the senate pass 933, the bulletproof vest partnership grant program reauthorization act of 2013. it's always been bipartisan. we should not let ideology put officers' lives at risk now. i commend the fact that every single democratic senator

supports it. we can honor the service of those who keep us safe by protecting their lives with bulletproof vests. frankly, it is time to stand with law enforcement. i can assure you -- and they will assure you -- it matters now. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 162, s. 933, the bulletproof vest partnership grant program reauthorization act, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. coburn: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. the most senior member of our body understands the differences he and i have on a lot of issu issues. most of what he said is true in

his statement about the sacrifices and the effectivene effectiveness. where we have a difference of agreement and a difference of understanding is in the enumerated powers of the constitution of the united states. and the fact is that every individual in this country today owes $50,000 just on the debt, and every family is responsible for $1,100,000 in unfunded liabilities that your children and you will ultimately pay for. this isn't about vests. this is about continuing to do the same thing that got our country in trouble. this is an $120 million offse wo offset. the constitution lists off the enumerated powers. there's n no role for the federl government in terms of funding

local police departments. it is a nice thing to do if we were in surplus. we could ignore the enumerated -- we're not in surplus. we're borrowing tons of money. we're going to borrow $580 billion this year. $580 billion against the future, and the small thing -- this is small. it's only $120 million. i don't object to our police officers having vests. i want them all to have vests. i think want all the women to have -- i want all the women to have vests. it is a role for my home police department in oklahoma. the taxpayers there should protect their police officers, and our founders were very clear. and the reason this conditioning i-- and the reason this country is in trouble is because we continue to practice outside the parameters of a limited government and take away the responsibility and obligations of state and local communities. on that basis, i raise an objection and do not agree.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. leahy: well, mr. president, i -- i a i am soy to hear this. i hear people who supported a useless war in iraq and they'll talk about how much money we spend -- mr. coburn: will the senator yield for a moment? mr. leahy: i, i -- mr. coburn: just for a question. i never voted for any money for that spending p. p. mr. leahy: if the senator will go back on what i said, it did not refer to him. i worry about those, however, who voted for that war and did not vote to stop that war, voted for the very first time that this country has ever gone to war in its history without a tax to pay for it. we voted for it on a credit card, an unnecessary war, a war that hurt the interests of the united states and has cost us -- eventually will cost us $2 trillion. nobody -- nobody talks about

paying for that. but to protect the police officers who are on the street every day protecting us, oh, we can't do that. we can't do that. even though we have before. now, i know there have been -- i could name the six police officers who were killed in oklahoma. i'm not going to. i'm trying not to make this personal. but, madam president, you understand law enforcement. you supported this. everybody on this side of the aisle supports this, to protect our police officers. we will spend $2 trillion on a useless war, but we won't spend a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% -- $.01% to support our men and women, especially when we now have a provision in here to protect women police officers as

well as men who are police officers. what could be more -- what could be more nonpartisan than this? that's why ben nighthorse campbell and i joined together on it. why republicans and democrats joined together. i am in favor of democrats being in favor of it. madam president, i yield the floor, and i think i've expressed my dismay on the other side of the aisle for that standing up to protect these police officers. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: madam president, i come to the floor to speak about the issue that is before us now on the floor, the energy efficiency act, led by senator shaheen and senator portman. before i get into that, i have five unanimous consent requests

for committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. these committees have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. madam president, the issue that the senators from oklahoma and vermont just spoke about is extremely important, and there will be, i'm sure, appropriate time to debate that issue. and i thank senator leahy for his extraordinary leadership for the safety and support of our police officers for the many, many literally dozens of years, decades, that he's served, and he continues to do a magnificent job and i will be supporting him in those efforts. but i came to the floor to speak today about the bill that is now before us with a vote of 79 votes, a very strong bipartisan signal that republicans and democrats would like to debate

an energy efficiency bill that came out of the energy committee on a vote of 19-3. now, i just became the chair of this committee, but i have served on it now for almost 18 years. and just a few weeks ago i became the chair. i've had the privilege to work with republican and democratic chairs of this committee and i'm excited about the opportunity to try to find a path forward with you, madam chair, who's been although not a member of the committee, an absolutely outstanding leader on energy issues since arriving in the senate and really look forward to working with you and members from both sides of the aisle to actually deliver what i think the american people want is a sensible, mainstream energy policy for america that increases domestic energy production