quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president,

i request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. we are on the measure again, the shaheen-portman energy efficiency, also known as energy savings and industrial competitiveness act. an efficiency bill, mr. president. this shouldn't be this difficult for us. when we talk about the benefits of an all-of-the-above energy policy, the benefits that can come to us as a nation when we are more resilient with our energy sources, when we're able to access our domestic energy sources, whether they be our fossil fuels, whether they be our renewables, whether they be nuclear, we all talk about it in good, strong terms because, quite honestly, energy makes us a stronger nation. abg stows our energy resource --

access to our energy resources. i've defined a good, strong energy policy as one that allows energy to be more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse and secure. an energy policy is also about the energy that we don't consume. it's about the energy that we save because we are more efficient. it seems that we've gotten to a point, at least with some aspects of this discussion, that somehow or other the efficiency side of the energy discussion is a partisan debate that republicans don't support energy efficiency. i can't think of a more conservative principle, mr. president, than conserving energy. this is something that we should be embracing, and it is something, in terms of legislation that is sound, that is good to move forward, something that i support.

this bipartisan efficiency bill has been refined. it's been strengthened. it's been improved over the past three years. there have been plenty of eyes upon this. there has been plenty of debate about it. we've got a total of 13 senators that are now on board with it. an equal number of republicans and democrats. so i'm pleased that we have this back on the floor again. the last time this came before us was in september. i spoke then about the importance, the relevance to today, the many good reasons that the senate should support it. i'm not going to necessarily repeat all of those this afternoon, but i do want to just highlight quickly a couple of the main points. and the first really is going directly to the policy side of it. energy efficiency should be a broader part of our nation's energy policy.

it is good for our economy. it's good for our environment. it enables us to waste less, to use our resources more wisely. who can object to this? who could possibly say that this is not a good thing that we should encourage? and there is more. think about what it does to help create jobs and deliver financial benefits. study after study shows that we can save billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency improvements, whether we're talking about small appliances or large buildings, there are opportunities for gains in efficiencies throughout the system. the second reason for support of the bill is that it is, it envisions a more limited role for the federal government. when i think about efficiency, i think that the federal government should seek to fulfill three key roles. it can act as a facilitator of

information that consumers and businesses need. it can serve as a breaker of barriers to discourage or prevent rational efficiency improvements. and -- and -- as the largest consumer of energy in our country it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce its own energy usage. and this legislation helps us make progress in all these areas. but it's appropriately tailored as well. it has a number of voluntary provisions. it does not contain any new mandates for the private sector, and i think that is worthy of repeating. there are no new mandates in this bill. when the legislation was first introduced some time ago, there was some concern about impact on building codes. but the provision related to the model building codes is voluntary. it is not mandatory. no one has to benefit from it if they don't want to. the third reason to support the bill is the cost.

or really the lack of cost. we all know that we're operating in a time of high deficits, record debt. the good news is that this efficiency bill actually subtracts to our spending rather than adding to it. c.b.o. has indicated that it will yield a modest savings of about $12 million over the ten-year window. again, this is, this is good from a policy perspective. it's good from a fiscal perspective. and then the last point, mr. president, is one that i want to make in support of process. we have followed regular order as well as regular order can be defined around here. but we've done that with the beginning -- from the beginning with this legislation. those of us that serve on the energy and natural resources committee reported it on an overwhelming bipartisan basis back in 2011 and then again in

2013. so it has gone through a fulsome committee process. improvements were suggested and have been thoughtfully considered and incorporated. many, many of the ideas are now incorporated in the text that we have in front of us. and then finally, just a few words about the amendments that are being filed to this bill. when we last had this bill before the senate, we were unable to reach agreement on amendments. we got bogged down. the bill was pulled from the floor. the senate moved on to other matters. well, we're back again now, and i really don't want to see a repeat of that experience. and, quite honestly, we don't need to. it's certainly true that a lot of amendments have been filed to the bill. we had more than 100 last september. but that's not -- it should not

be evidence somehow or other this bill is flawed. but what it, what it recognizes, mr. president, is that there's this pent-up demand for a discussion on the issue of energy. there is a pent-up demand to bring forward ideas and concepts and innovation and policy when it comes to the energy debate. it's been more than six years now that we've had anything more than a brief debate. and when you think about what has happened in the energy sector in the past six years, mr. president, you're sitting in the chair coming from a state that has seen an amazing, an amazing boom when it comes to natural gas production in your state. you've seen technologies come in

that are able to accessory kwras you didn't even know -- areas you didn't even know you had the resource there. think about the changes that we have seen in the energy sector in six years. six years ago we were talking about building l.n.g. import terminals, terminals so we could bring l.n.g. in from other countries. now we are pressing the case for greater l.n.g. exports. we're trying to build out more facilities so that we can move this abundant resource from our shores to help our friends and allies around the world. six years ago if i had stood on this floor and suggested to you that we were going to have a debate about comport of our crude oil from this -- about export of our crude oil from this country, you would have laughed me off the floor. nobody was talking about it.

but look what is happening coming out of the balkan up in north dakota, what's coming out of texas and in new mexico and t of california, colorado, out of states in the midwest. we are producing, mr. president, like we have not produced in ages. we're doing so because we've got the benefit of good, strong technologies that are allowing us to access a resource safely and making sure that we're being good stewards of the land while we're doing it and creating jobs and opportunities. so when you think about what's happened in the six years and the fact that we haven't had a real debate and a conversation about energy, so it's no wonder that people want to present amendments. but we are, we're in a situation now where there is real debate

about whether or not we're going to have any amendments at all. mr. president, we've been sitting here in the senate since last june, almost a year, and it's been eight amendments that have been allowed of the republicans choosing to be heard, to be entertained, to be taken up on the floor of the united states senate. we are not asking for an unreasonable request. given, again, everything that's going on in the world, thaefrg's happening -- everything that's happening in the energy sector, it is understood as to why we would want an opportunity to present amendments. but we are not asking for the moon here. out of all the amendments filed to the bill, we are seeking votes on four of them. if we were to take just 15 minutes per vote with a little extra time for statements in support or opposition, we could work those out in an afternoon. there is no reason that we need

to stretch this out. our other option is to spend the next several days arguing about whether or not we're going to vote at all. we are sent here to do good work, and this is -- this is a venue where the work is demanding attention, so let's get to it. let's -- let's advance these measures. let's get to the debate about whether it's l.n.g. export opportunities, whether it's -- it is the advantage from many different perspectives about the keystone x.l. pipeline, about what more we can be doing as a nation to be a world leader with our energy resources. accessing our resources for the good of americans, for the creation of jobs to strengthen our economy, to help our trade deficit, to help our friends and our allies. we can be positioned to do so

much more, but we have to be able to get beyond the discussion and debate about whether we're just going to talk about whether we're going to talk about it or whether we're going to get to it. so, mr. president, i'm hopeful that throughout the afternoon, throughout tomorrow, throughout the balance of the week, we will have an opportunity to -- to discuss and to vote on amendments that are -- are energy-related amendments, that will help move this country in a more positive direction when it comes to our energy policy and attach that to a fundamental anchor of a good, strong energy policy, which is energy efficiency and that's what the shaheen-portman bill allows us to do. now, mr. president, i want to just pivot for a moment and move off the issue of energy and

efficiency and i want to speak just for a few more minutes here this afternoon about national police week. this is a week to honor our fallen law enforcement officers. it occurs next week. next week here in washington, d.c., we will see police vehicles from all over the nation. we will see officers in uniform, perhaps some with young kids in tow flooding the metro system. the survivors of law enforcement tragedies will gather in alexandria, virginia, for the annual meeting of concerns of police survivors. and then on tuesday night, tens of thousands will gather at the national law enforcement officers' memorial, and they will read by candlelight the names inscribed on the memorial

walls this year. on thursday, the national peace officers memorial service will convene on the west front of the capitol. these are all very moving tributes to -- to our fallen, those who have served in the line of duty and who honor us all. for the past 11 years, i have made it a habit of honoring the fall enduring national police week, and this is regardless of whether or not we have seen any alaska law enforcement who have suffered a line of duty death during that preceding year. at times, i have made note of a sad coincidence, a sad coincidence that law enforcement tragedies in the twos and threes often seem to occur in close proximity to the annual police week observance. about this time eight years ago, the national capital region was grieving the loss of michael garbiano and vicki armele, the

first fairfax county police officers to die from the line of gunfire in the line of duty. in april, 2009, pittsburgh lost three of its finest. and this year as we anticipate the arrival of national police week, alaska carries that tragic burden. last week, my home state lost two members of the alaska state troopers in a single incident. mr. president, i note that the majority leader is on the floor. did you wish -- thank you. thank you. last week we lost two members of the alaska state troopers in a single incident. on may 1, alaska state trooper sergeant scott johnson and trooper gabe rich flew from fairbanks to the village of tananau. tananau is a community of about 280 people. it sits at the confluence of the

yukon and tananau rivers. it is a strong community. it's a resilient community. but it is a community that is truly suffering right now. like most of alaska native villages, the only full-time law enforcement presence in tananau is a single unarmed village public safety officer. law enforcement backup, when they are needed, called in, they will fly to tanana. tanana is not accessible by roads. basically the only way in and out is to fly in and out, coming in from fairbanks. so it's about an hour flight away. the village public safety officer asked for trooper assistance to -- to respond to an individual who had been waiving a -- waving a gun in the village. with no backup other than the

unarmed village public safety officer, sergeant johnson and trooper rich attempted to serve a warrant on the offender. both officers were shot and killed. the son, the 20-year-old son of the individual who was the subject of the warrant is now charged with the shooting. this is a horrible tragedy for tanana, a tragedy for alaska and a tragedy for the entire law enforcement community. tanana is a -- as i mentioned, it is a small village, it's an isolated village, it's been a very resilient village. it's a very proud and kind-hearted community. the word for tanana means wedding of the rivers. it's played a very central role in abaskan culture for many

years. but like many of alaskan native villages, it suffers from drug and alcohol problems. last october, there was a group of young people from the village of tanana and they traveled to the alaska federation of natives convention. this is the largest gathering of alaska natives in the state. and they did a very brave and heroic thing, mr. president. they assembled on stage in front of 4,000 or 5,000 people to tell alaskans that they had had enough of the pain and the violence and they were determined to make their community a healthier place. it was an amazing moment. it was inspiring. there was not a sound to be heard in the huge center there in fairbanks as these young people spoke. so inspiring were the words of these young kids that i wrote

attorney general holder and i asked that his department with prevention resources and others like it that were trying to turn things around, trying to face the ugly side of what happens in a small community when you have domestic violence, child sexual assault brought on by drugs and alcohol. tanana is absolutely devastated by what happened last week. in the words of cynthia erickson who is the youth leader of the young people that i mentioned, last week's incident amounts to two steps back in tanana's effort to heal itself, but the healing process must begin and now is the time for it to begin. we remember fallen law enforcement officers for the way that they lived their lives. it's been sad and it was vivian cross who is the widow of a

fallen u.s. capitol police officer who said it's not how these officers died that made them heroes, it's how they lived. and in that spirit, i would like to share with the senate a little bit, very briefly, about the lives of these two alaskan heroes. sergeant johnson. he was born in fairbanks. he grew up in the small community of toque which is 150-plus miles out of fairbanks on the road system. he went to school in that community. he was a wrestler. he joined the alaska state troopers in 1993 after serving as a north slope burrow police officer. sergeant johnson spent his entire 20-year trooper career in fairbanks where he rose through the ranks to supervise the areawide narcotics team and ultimately the interior rural unit. sergeant johnson was also an accomplished canine handler and leader of the regional swat team. we called it the special emergency reaction team, sert.

his final assignment was leader of the interior rural unit, a team of four that responds to incidents in 23 native villages. sergeant johnson assumed that role just this year in 2014. his territory covered hundreds of miles end to end, and again these are hundreds of miles without road access. sergeant johnson was 45 years old. he is survived by his wife, daughters ages 16, 14 and 12. also survived by his parents and siblings. and then trooper gabe rich was born in pennsylvania. he moved to fairbanks shortly after he was born and graduated from lathrop high school in 2006. he was 26 years old at the time of his death. trooper rich spent four years working as a patrolman with the north pole police department before deciding to become an alaska state troopers in 2007. he is survived by his fiancee, their 1-year-old son and his

parents. he was in the process of adopting his fiancee's 8-year-old boy. sergeant johnson and trooper rich were known to those who watched the popular geographic series "alaska state troopers." undoubtedly those who have watched the two in action are also grieving the loss, along with the people of tanana and all of alaska. i think i speak for all in this body when i say that we are shocked, we are saddened by the events in tanana last week, and on behalf of a grateful senate, a grateful nation, i take this opportunity to extend my condolences to all who held sergeant johnson and trooper rich deep in their hearts. with that, mr. president, i thank you for your attention and i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we are going to have, as indicated, a briefing on ukraine at 5:30 this evening. i alert all senators we will do

our utmost to start at 5:30, and we must end at 6:30. we need everybody there on time, because if i'm there on time we're going to start it on time and i will do my utmost to be there on time. people can be called for question upon the order in which they show up at the meeting. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. today, the senate recess until 6:30 p.m. tonight for the purpose of an all-senators briefing. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i have had a number of titles, as all we senators have over the years, but the title that has meant the most to me has always been dad, father. it's so important that my five children recognize me as their dad. my oldest child is a daughter,

lana, but i also have 12 granddaughters. as a father and a grandfather, i can't imagine the horror of having one of these girls abducted, kidnapped, stolen. even though nigeria is thousands of miles away from where we sit today, my nightmare, our nightmare -- we're always worrying about our girls. -- is a reality in nigeria. on the night of april 14, more than 250 girls -- i don't know the exact number -- were stolen from a school by a terrorist group called boko haram. these kidnappers, a cowardly group of men, of thugs and

terrorists, announced their intention to sell the girls in the marketplace. it was only yesterday the leader of this organization was on television saying we've got them, we're going to sell them. how would that make a mother, dad, family member feel? it's sickening to think that these girls are at the mercy of these slavers. these are terrible reports. some say -- some of the reports we get are some of the girls have already been sold in chad and cameroon. i join with my colleagues with renouncing these acts. we must realize these crimes are one of the many acts of terror of this awful group boko haram. they have done

it before against civilians and children. today the united states offered assistance in rescuing these girls. great britain has done the same. other countries have. nigeria, in my opinion, has been reticent to receive help. it's not my opinion, that's what all the public reports say. so we want help t rescue these girls. we've got some assets the nigerians don't have, as do the brits and others who want to help. i'm concerned that the nigerian government's response to this crime and dealing with boko haram is very, very tepid. nigeria has missed opportunities to cooperate with international partners to fight terrorism. this instance and other instances. but instead of carrying out its own operations, which have been very clumsy and they've been a -- there's been a disregard for human rights, let us help. let the -- let the world community help.

the nigerian government has been disastrously slow in responding to this incident. not only this one but other ones. i urge the nigerian government to use all its resources and accept international assistance to bring the abductors to justice. the world is watching. return these daughters to their families. today we adopted a resolution, 433, which condemned this abduction and add our voices to those calling for their release. i especially thank senator mary landrieu of louisiana and all other cosponsors for their hard work on this legislation. the senate, the united states senate, along with the rest of the world, will continue to do all we can to help our nigerian friends. we continue to hope, pray for safe return of these girls to their moms and dads. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the time in recess count postcloture on the legislation that's now

being counted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: i ask the quorum call be set aside. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i am -- i very rarely am motivated to come to the floor simultaneously with current events thinking that it's

important to reflect and learn as much as possible about a subject before you begin to orate about it on the senate floor. although i've got to tell you, i'm making an exception because of the extraordinarily heinous acts that have occurred in the country of nigeria. i think it takes everyone's breath away in the united states of america that a terrorist organization, boko haram would attack a secondary school in northeastern nigeria and kidnap 200 girls. most of these girls are not that much younger than my daughters. these were young women that wanted nothing more than to get an education. we are now told that these terrorists have proudly proclaimed that they will enslaved these young women, that

they will sell them as slaves. they are proudly taking credit for this despicable and inhumane act. i want to thank senator mikulski and senator collins for organizing a letter to the president to urge him to include boko haram in the united states -- the united nations al qaeda sanctions list. i want to thank the other senators who have introduced the resolution that we have passed this afternoon condemning this attack. but i -- i've got to tell you that we've got to do more. it concerns me, honestly, that this is occurring in a country where the leader of this country not too long ago signed into law a measure that anyone entering into a homosexual relationship

can be imprisoned for up to 14 years. and in this same country, we have a terrorist organization capturing young women and enslaving them for dollars, to be child brides, proudly proclaiming that it is a sin for these young women to want to get an education. and that this action was necessary to purge them of their sins and marry them off. i -- i understand that it takes all kinds of people to make up this great world and i understand there's all kinds of beliefs, but i've got to tell you, it is very hard for me to get my arms around the notion that there could be any faith that would believe kidnapping

young women by the hundreds and selling them as indentured slaves to men could ever be part of any kind of faith that is one that we should recognize. these are not people of faith. these are heinous criminals. and i believe our country should look at them as archenemies of who we are as a nation and what we stand for as a government. the name of the organization means western education is a sin. respect for young women is not a sin. wanting an education is not a sin. the opportunity to better yourself is not a sin. these incredible crimes that have been committed should not go unanswered and i think it is incumbent on our nation, with

the great resources we have, to make sure that we send the appropriate message to the world that this is al qaeda, this is our enemy. not just to our values and our way of life but, importantly, an enemy to innocent young women. and i wanted to come down on the floor to -- to make this statement because i cannot imagine how the parents of these young girls must be feeling. how helpless the feeling must be. i can only hope and pray that the government of nigeria realizes this is a moment of truth for them. will they stand up to this kind of extremism that is not faith? they do a disservice to their professed faith by these actions. can this country stand up to them and can we help them stand

up to them? and, most importantly, can we do anything to save these young women. and when i go to bed tonight, i will in my faith thank god for my family and my children and i also ask for prayers for these young women in hopes that they can be rescued, that they can be reunited with their desire to get educated and that their families will not have to spend days wondering if they will ever see their child again or if, in fact, their child will even survive. i yield the floor and ask for -- and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. president wyden: mr. president, i rise today to urge -- mr. wyden: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to support the industrial competitiveness act of twish. and the reason that i do so, mr. president, is that i have long felt that you really can't be for an all-of-the-above energy policy if you aren't promoting state-of-the-art approaches in terms of energy efficiency. and i think we both know that it really isn't even a speech here in the united states senate on energy policy unless the senator says they are for all of the above, at least three times, probably every 15, 20 minutes. and so i think that what senator shaheen and senator portman are doing is making it clear that right at the heart of an

all-of-the-above energy policy is their approach and their effort to really pull as many colleagues into innovative approaches in terms of promoting energy efficiency as possible. now, senator shaheen and senator portman have been pursuing tirelessly this legislation for three years now, and i just wanted to walk back a little bit because i had a chance as the former chair of the energy committee, to watch what they've been doing and to make sure that colleagues really understand how constructive their efforts have been, both substantively and in terms of promoting collaboration here in the senate in hopes that these commonsense energy proposals, commonsense proposals for creating good jobs and a cleaner

and healthier environment, will prevail on a bipartisan basis here in the senate. and i had, mr. president, essentially with our colleague from alaska, senator murkowski, i really had a front-row seat over the last couple of years to watch senators shaheen and portman in action and support their efforts. and i think we should all be very appreciative of the job that our new chair, senator landrieu, is doing, again in concert with senator murkowski, because the two of them continue the committee's tradition, number one, of working in a bipartisan way, but number two, trying to again promote collaboration here within the senate to promote an energy approach that i think is not

only common sense, but it is absolutely essential, mr. president, in order to be able to go on to the other energy policy issues that surely are likely to be more contentious than energy efficiency. now, to walk back a bit through what has happened, mr. president, i think our colleagues know that an earlier version of this legislation passed our energy and natural resources committee last year by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. and then it was considered on the floor this past september, but it was blocked by demands for a vote on a health care amendment that had nothing to do with the premise of the underlying bill. so that amendment, however a senator feels about it, i happen to oppose it, but

however a senator feels bit, that amendment had nothing to do, nothing to do with energy efficiency and productivity. when the bill stalled on the senate floor last fall, things looked pretty grim to the cause of energy efficiency, and essentially, people were questioning the senate's ability to consider an act on a range of energy issues that confront our country. now, to their credit, i think a lot of people would have thrown in the towel at that point. they would have just said we put in all of this work, all of this effort to win such a strong bipartisan vote in the senate, and then we are ready to go to the floor, we face unrelated issues, and i could see why the sponsors would just give up. but senator shaheen and senator portman are just not the

thrown-in-the-towel type of senators and in effect, they doubled down and went back to work on some of the most challenging issues. so at that point after the fortunate setback of last september, they in effect doubled down and worked to bring an even broader range of members and stakeholders together here in the senate to form a consensus, make this bill even better, improve the array of commonsense approaches taken to promote energy efficiency, and increase the chance of the best possible energy efficiency bill becoming law. and i'd like to highlight at this point just how challenging this work was and how pleased i was that the senate was able to

get together. at that point, mr. president, one of the most challenging issues dealt with the question of the then existing requirements that new federal buildings be designed to phase out their use of fossil fuel -- fossil fuel generated energy by 2030. and this is important for a variety of reasons. of course, the federal government is a major property owner in our country, one, and number two, i think we all look to the federal government at a minimum to try to set some example in terms of trying to deal with these issues. in other words, it's fine for washington, d.c. to say, oh, everybody else ought to go off and do x, y, and z. if they come back and say the federal government is not willing to set an example, it's pretty hard to have any

credibility in terms of that particular field of public policy. and the reality was that while well meaning, that existing requirement that new federal government buildings be designed to phase out their use of fossil fuel generated energy by 2030 was not working particularly well by anyone's calculus. you had folks in the natural gas industry raising questions about whether they would be able to partnership, and they made the point, one that i think certainly has validity, that natural gas is 50% cleaner than the other fossil fuels, and they were saying, well, how are we going to be able to play a role in heating in federal buildings, which, of course, as i've indicated, is very significant, both because the federal government owns so much property and because of the

example that the federal government sets. so reaching an agreement on how to balance repeal of this provision in existing law -- well meaning but not working very well -- with the addition of provisions to enhance efficiency in federal buildings, involved innumerable meetings, mr. president, meetings that i took part -- i participated in personally, and others were involved in that went on literally for months with all of the stakeholders, the electric and gas utility industries, the environmental advocacy organizations, the energy efficiency groups, all of them in discussions that took place over conference calls, in person, meeting after meeting

after meeting. and i would submit, mr. president, had those groups not been able to come together and i believe they deserve great credit because they did, i think it may have been right at that point very difficult to advance this bill because you would have generated really for the first time significant opposition around a core issue. you would have had, whether it be environmental groups or electric and gas groups, you would have had significant friction over an important public policy issue, which is how to promote renewable energy to the greatest extent possible in new fofg buildings -- federal government buildings. but these organizations -- and i will just say, mr. president, and to colleagues that may be

following this -- a number of times in these discussions, i just thought things were going to blow up. i just thought one or more of these groups would just walk and say we'll just take our chances on the floor, we believe we're going to win, and if it just takes the bill down, so be it. but they stayed at the table, they worked out an agreement, and as a result of their agreement -- environmental organizations, those in the advocacy of energy efficiency, and a variety of industry groups -- the effort produced a significantly better bill, and a bill that now includes some very important and powerful additions. for example, as a result of the financial savings derived from

rewriting this particular provision, the provision that new federal government buildings be designed to phase out the use of fossil fuel generated energy, has -- as a result of rewriting this provision, very substantial financial savings were generated so as to be able to include some very sensible and potentially far-reaching changes in the energy efficiency field. for example, as a result of that agreement, mr. president, it was possible to take some of the financial savings generated in that redo of the requirements for real estate newable fuels in federal energy buildings -- for renewable fuels in federal energy buildings and include in the legislation that is now before the senate the save act,

a bipartisan proposal championed by our colleague senator isakson and senator bennet. this provision would, mr. president, for the first time facilitate the accounting of energy efficiency in residential mortgages. a report by the american council for an energy-efficient economy and the institute for market transformation estimates that this proposal alone would create 83,000 new jobs in home construction, renovation, and manufacturing by 2020. and, mr. president, these are jobs, jobs that are for american workers that cannot be outsourced. also the agreement on federal building efficiency would extend the 3%-per-year federal building

efficiency target through 2017 and expand the coverage of this efficiency target from new buildings to include major renovations as well. so what you have, mr. president, is you had a good bill that got out of committee. you had a good bill last september that i would have liked to see pass this body at that time, and then after it was not possible to move forward, you had the senators, the chief sponsors, senator shaheen and senator portman, work continually to try to advance this legislation and broaden out its appeal. and when they, in my view, mr. president, bumped up against a really serious problem, which was to fix this policy with respect to the requirements for

renewable energy in federal buildings, they worked with a variety of groups and organizations and were able to make the bill better. and at this point, mr. president, i want to thank a number of senators who were behind that effort to redo the requirements for new federal buildings. in particular, our colleagues on this side of the aisle, senator manchin and senator whitehouse. on the other side of the aisle, senator hoeven. all of them were very involved in the kind of nuts and bolts of redoing this legislation. and, suffice it to say, i think the three of them would be the first to say that they don't agree on every possible energy policy kind of matter. and yet the three of them came together, worked with this coalition of groups that i have

described, and made a significant improvement in the bill -- in the already good bill after september, and, as a result of their work, we generated financial savings that made it possible to include the isakson-bennet legislation on residential mortgages, which i would submit, mr. president, is a very, very significant and positive development in the energy efficiency field. this is not a small matter to really take bold steps to improve energy efficiency in residential mortgages, the way our colleagues, senator isakson and senator bennet, have done in a bipartisan fashion. so, the reason that this -- so the reason that this efficiency legislation is back is because it's sensible, because it has bipartisan appeal. it's about cutting waste and creating jobs. and passing this legislation

would be the biggest step in years towards tapping the enormous potential of energy efficiency, which of course is the most accessible and cheapest energy source america has. here are the most relevant figures with respect to the benefits of this bill: the bill saves about 2.8 billion megawatts of electric according to the american council for an energy-efficient economy. so to kind of translate this into something people can put their arms around, if you're going to generate 2.8 billion megawatt hours -- and that's what the projection is for this bill that it would do, to generate 2.8 billion megawatt hours -- our country would have to build tent build 10 new nuclr

plants and run them for more than 20 years. an additional provision of the bill updates and promotes voluntary model building codes with respect to energy and residential and commercial buildings, making them more efficient through the installation of new equipment and insulation and other efficiency technologies, and all those wires in a building, mr. president ... there's money to be saved and energy to be saved. that's the kind of work that this legislation does. now, i would submit that possibly what i have described is not the most flashy story that we might be contemplating here in washington. it might not be at the top of every single account of the nightly news, but i'll tell you, businesses understand how valuable it is, and businesses

understand that there is money to be made here. that's why more than 200 companies and association -- 250 companies and associations have endorsed the bill, including the chamber of comerks wilchamber oi think would be the first to state that they don't see themselves as a bleeding heart environmental organization. in wrapping up -- i see my colleague here and i want to make sure he has time for his remarks -- i was struck by a headline in forbes.com not long ago. they said with respect to the legislation in their headline, "the shaheen-portman energy savings act. it's the economy, stupid." and "forbes" this prominent business publication, of course got that right. if the congress can pass this bill, it immediately becomes one of the largest job-creating

efforts the senate would enact this year. creating an estimated 192,000 new jobs by 2030. it can also make a tremendous difference in our country's economic competitiveness. it can bring savings to business businesses and families, reduce demands on our electric grid and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. mr. president, i would only say, having watched the development of this legislation, as the former chair of the energy committee and now chairing the finance committee, i think every member of the united states senate understands how important it is to secure a cleaner, more efficient, job-creating energy future. this legislation provides that opportunity. it was a good bill when the united states senate considered

it last september. it is an even better bill tonight, to a great extent made better because colleagues like joe manchin and sheldon whitehouse and senator hoeven worked together on a very contentious, you know, matter, this matter involving renewable energy in federal buildings. it is just the latest demonstration of good will and come that i that is com dominatd this debate, at least as it relates to the substance of discussing energy efficiency legislation, and i want to thank our chair, senator landrieu, for the first-rate job she has done in handling this and the matters before the energy committee. and, of course, my good friend and colleague, senator murkowski, for the same sort of efforts she made with me to work with the chair, senator landrieu. i think those efforts are going to pay off. let's make sure they pay off

immediately, and that is with the united states senate this week moving forward and passing the bipartisan shaheen-portman legislation. with that, i yield the floor. mr. president, excuse my colleague from georgia. i would just note, mr. president, that senator landrieu has asked unanimous consent that megan brewster, a fellow in her office, be grantinged floor privileges for the -- granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you. and i yield the floor. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i rise to talk about a dear friend of mine who on last friday received from the american bar association at the joint spring meeting in las vegas, the american bar association's sssociation's solm

general practice division lifetime achievement award. larry is a lifetime resident of peery, wefnts back to practice in 1965. i am so proud that larry has been recognized by his peers of which i am one as a practicing flor georgia before i came into government, and larry epitomizes what lawyers look to when you think of someone who is a good lawyer. the award that he received recognizes solo and small firm attorneys who are widely accepted by their peers as having significant lifetime distinction, exceptional achievement, and distinction in an exemplary way. winners are viewed impi other solo and small firm practitioners as epitomizing the ideals of the legal profession

in a solo and small firm practitioners sm. larry began his law career in 1965 when he came back to practice law. he became a judge of the peery municipal court at the age of 23. in 1972, larry ran for the general assembly of georgia and won the seat that was formerly held by soon-to-be senator sam nunn. he served in the general assembly until 2005. in 1986, he was elected majority leader of the georgia house of representatives and served in that capacity for 16 years. he was the founding member of walker-hulbert and gray and more and served as chair of the state legislative leaders foundation. larry also represented georgia's eighth congressional district on

the georgia department of transportation from 2007 to 2009, and in august of 2009 he was appointed by then-governor sonny purdue to the university system of the georgia board of regents where he continues to serve today. larry writes a weekly column for the huston, georgia, home journal and is the author of a book titled "life on the net line," a composition of larry's widely read columns on family, everything southern, reading, politics, and, of course, just folks. larry is a frequent speaker at various community and state events, including continuing legal education seminars. larry has been my dear friend for over 30 years. he's not just a great lawyer, he is a great guy. he and i have had the opportunity to knock down a

quail bird or two in the woods. we've had discussions late into the night over politics and life in general. larry is just one of those individuals who makes life fun and who are just a pleasure to be around. that's why i'm so excited that the american bar association has seen fit to recognize larry's talents, his hard work, his dedication, his integrity to the law profession. he's been successful not because he moved back to his hometown where he was well-known. he's been successful because he's looked at as someone who possesses all the finest characteristics that a lawyer can hope to have. so i'm indeed privileged to call him a dear friend. i am a indeed privileged to have an opportunity to say to larry and to his wife janice, congratulations. this kind of award shows that

people all across this great country recognize you, larry, for the great work you have done in our profession, for all of these years since you hung out your shingle in june of 1965. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess subject senate stands in recess subject

the beautiful sunrise, beautiful day. people love you. but everything gets closed in. all i can think about, i've got to go. and so, i think we ourselves get caught up in this traps.

on the other hand, we take a purse the land we can't see what's really out there. we can't do that the world is really fair. there's angels and mentors and people who care for you. the senate returns in about an hour life era c-span2. in the meantime and the national association of attorneys general forum on waste local police can work with community leaders to reduce crime.

>> well, thank you overcoming this morning. as i was telling a panelist, going first to the antigen elisa guys are paying attention right now. i wouldn't want to go at 3:30 tomorrow night. the other panelists are going to make the same mistakes. let me introduce our panel. versus george killing. george is the codeveloper the broken windows theory as professor bruckner's university at harvard university. a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. george is a professor at the school of criminal justice at rutgers university. he is currently researching organizational change in police and development of comprehensive community crime prevention programs. killing us back to his social probation officer administered residential care programs for aggressive and distribute. in 1972 he began work at the police foundation and conducted several large-scale experiments in policing.

most notably the kansas city prevention control experiment on newark for patrol experiment. the latter was the source of the contributions to the most familiar publication. broken windows with james q. wilson. during the late 1980s time develop the water maintenance policies of the new york city subway that ultimately led to racial radical -- radical crime reductions. later he consulted that the police department fixing broken windows distract water which he developed his wife catherine m. coles. curlee said in organizational change in policing the and the development of comprehensive community crime prevention programs. churches to children or four grandchildren. george is a graduate of saint olaf college, university wisconsin milwaukee in and the university of wisconsin madison. these gentlemen, george kalin.

[applause] professor tom taylor is a professor at yale law school. he is a maclin fleming professor of law and professor of psychology. his research explores the dynamics of authority and groups, organizations and societies. in particular he examines the justice and injustice of group procedures in shaping legitimacy, compliance and cooperation. he's the author of social psychology of procedural justice, social justice in a diverse society, cooperation and groups, trust in the law, way people obey the law and why people cooperate. he received his phd in social psychology from ucla in 1978. since then he started northwestern university, university of california at berkeley and nyu. ladies and gentlemen, professor

tom tyler. [applause] chief robert tracy, a career law-enforcement professional was appointed chief of the office of crime control strategies chicago police department in 2011. under the direction and guidance that chicago police superintendent terry mccarthy, chief tracy broke new ground within the chicago police department. they bring an internationally acclaimed concept process to chicago she tracy currently oversees concept process and develops and implements strategies and initiatives to reduce overall crime. since 2011, chicago has experienced a 36% reduction in overall crime. she tracy began his career in 1994 with the new york city police department and throughout his 24 years of professional service, she tracy served as challenging and procedures roles. after after many novice or the new york city police department company was marshall, regional fugitive task force, chief tracy

that he specialized in joint task force comprised of n.y.p.d. more than 50 federal state and local agencies and the apprehension wanted fugitive felons. he also served as liaison between n.y.p.d. and out-of-state and international law enforcement agencies to court date, capture and extradite wanted offenders get his commanding officer of the violent dolby squad, he read a unique unit that was established to apprehend a continuing list at the top 150 that silence. during his tenure as commanding officer of the firings investigation unit, chief tracy led a team of investigators -- investigations for illegal firearm usage in trafficking, working with the organized crime investigations bureau and the atf joint firearms task force. chief tracy retired from the n.y.p.d. as a captain in commanding officer of the newly created fire suppression division and in a position she tracy forced relationships and coordinate activities at the joint firearms task orders for

the enhancement in and of firings unit and. from 2062 by 2010 from the chief tracy worked in the private sector and at some point in his life because he wanted to make money. first served as vice president of global crisis spots manager for the office of business continuing with the city corporation where he coordinated the global crisis management efforts a company. before taking his position with the chicago police department, chief tracy was the head of operations for a major security company in the new york metropolitan area. she tracy was a masters in public administration and bachelor of arts in history. he was in chicago with his wife are in the and their five children. ladies and gentlemen, chief bob tracy. [applause] here's what we're going to do. we are going to buddies for a panelist panelists speak for about 10 minutes and then open up the floor for questions. knowing that you love an opportunity to ask questions at

the panelists are speaking rather than interrupt them come you can jack in your thoughts and open up for discussion afterwards. what i'd like to do now is start with george kelley. back in 1993, new york city had over 2200 murders. at that time, professor kelley met chief bratton at that time and then became police commissioner new york city. together they came up with implementing a lot of george is very thin combating crime. new york city police department has followed those procedures over the last 20 years. we went from 2200 murders last year in new york city had 340 murders. remarkable reduction in violent crime in new york and many, many people in new york city credit this man. ladies and gentlemen, let me present to you george killing. [applause] >> referring to broken windows, at first, at first it was five

years ago. and it was 10 years ago. then it was a quarter century ago. and now it is 30 years. i'm still around and still talking about it. and it still remains somewhat of a controversial idea. i don't think the broken windows idea controversial if you understand the ideas. if you do not they can be controversial and i want to talk about that a little bit. broken window says he recognizes a metaphor. the power of metaphors is they communicate complicated simple way that captured attention and they are easy to communicate. the weakness of metaphors as they simplify a complicated ideas, et et cetera, et cetera,t cetera. during the past several months since i have become to begin out of retirement so to speak, working in new york city i have

come to understand that i once again and getting a lot of credit. jim is getting credit as well, although he's no longer with us. getting credit for the high rate of imprisonment. both nationally and in new york state. turns out a lot with java broken windows for her incarceration in united states. depending on your view the latter interpretation is the correct interpretation. when one understand broken windows and broken windows as part is, that is the key in my mind. i thought i would begin by saying how to become to the idea of broken windows? i've heard stories about that as well. jim and i were having dinner someplace in this case mashing up the car. it's a different story than that. as was mentioned, i did a study of the petroleum new york, new

jersey. i spent a lot of time finding out what they were doing. and when we rode up the final result, it turns out that in areas where he had for patrol officers, fear of crime dropped a great deal. i didn't drop -- if you want to know about that come ask me a question putting that aside your fear of crime dropped a lot. if he took for patrol away, fear of crime increased a lot. try to make sense of that was difficult because first of all, you had less than probably 30 hours a foot to troll a week. so it wasn't as complete coverage during that time. you know, police officers have reports to write. there are other things that take them away from work. in that regard, it was a small

part of the weakness covered by for patrol. a scholar who some of you might recognize by name by the name of james -- i'm sorry, a god hittner kept saint george, what did they do? what did the officers do? became to my attention is that whenever my notes as aggressive panhandlers getting in your face and saying, embarrassing husband in front of children and family. graffiti. those are the kinds of issues police officers were dealing with. i wrote that up, talked about police officers developing standards with the neighbor has working the citizens including street people by the way. that's often missed. jim morrell said that the

article in the last chapter of the sub patrol study and asked me if i wanted to write an article with them. just his name alone would capture a certain amount of attention because in some circles he was notorious. having published the kansas city study which i'll talk about another time when we speak. it is used to controversy and i said let's go forward and so he wrote the article. basically the metaphor goes like this. and i'm certain most of you know it. just as a broken window that's intended as a a sign that nobody cares and leads to more damage, so disorderly conditions and behavior that's intended this as i nobody cares and leads to fear of crime, more serious crime in urban decay. now, basically we were putting forward three arguments. first, this we argue doesn't any justification. order is an end in itself.

that is if you live in a complicated society of strangers, if you want commerce to drive, if you institutions, you have to have minimal levels of order. how the order is established can be negotiated. there are a variety of ways, but order we don't feel any justification. the second issue has received considerable attention and that is if you have order maintenance activities, if you restore order, fear of crime declines. there has been little controversy about that. there's a lot of supporting evidence and we largely have been challenged on that. where jim and i have been challenged as on the relationship between broken windows enforcement and the reduction in crime and not have been challenged and i won't bother naming the people who have challenged it. but it has been a bone of

contention. for me, i don't think it is any longer controversial. there's been enough research a convention in detail, mentioned that some of the question-and-answer period. the rocard windows as i have advocated in june has supported me has to be understood as a highly discretionary policing committee in which the focus is not on our rest. the focus is on education at the focus is on morning. the focus is on alerting people. the focus is getting compliance without having to arrest. i consider a good broken windows program that you might have an initial increase in the number and then you get into decline over time. you're talking about jail time, short-term, not the imprisonment suggested by many critics of

broken windows. the first real test was in the new york city subway. as many of you now, i knew bill bradley since the early 1980s. i had been asked by the new york city transportation authority of homelessness in the subway. there is no leadership in those problems. i persuaded by western mennonite persuaded the chairperson to recruit and order restored in the subway. the strongest test is the power of broken when does in the subway. can you imagine me as an academic? we published an article in the atlantic. what a nice place to get published.

and then we could new york city subway. that doesn't happen very often in real life. on top of that, the person who introduces broken windows happens to become commissioner in new york city as well as those ideas get tested in new york city. here is where we have to be careful. i think broken windows was part of a repertoire of activities carried on in the new york city police department under bratton's administration. i know nothing about what happened after brought left. i've not visited the new york city police department and i'm not going to comment on what transpired since. but i do know that broken windows was part of what was implemented in new york city. that's anti-crime strategies that develop in eric city were far faster because new york city itself is a much more

complicated social of hiram and it was the subway. the subway was relatively simple. either way, i don't know whether many of you remember the subway. i've recently gotten into culture shock getting back into the subway since not having been there since the early 1990s when it was purgatory on earth. if you are doing a film showing a damsel in distress, you put her in the new york city subway being chased by shadowy figures and you had your purgatory. you've got to the new york city subway, which i've been doing recently and writing around. at 11:30 at night, female student standing, reaching a low near the edge of the platform. those of you from new york remember the safety zones? remember when they had signs of safety zone quite some citizen should gather this particular area said the safety in numbers

work was to sit near -- don't go into the last car cracks the other day joanne jaffe is here, e.g. from the new york city police department. the average six or seven reported crimes that they. just a completely different environment. much cleaner, much brighter, if satoru. for me it was wonderful site. that was part of my initial opening comments about order as an end in itself. if you have a pipers subway, you have to have order for people to use it. during the early 1990s, was at 3 million declining. the ridership is at 5 million increasing. so let me just wrap up with the last. i am really sorry jim is interior. jim, as many of you know, was an

extraordinarily serious interior. the last thing we wrote together was that the quarter-century point. the broken windows idea does two things. one indisputably good and the other probably affect this. encourages the police take up a quarter seriously, something the overwhelming majority of people raises the possibility that more order will mean less crime. the first goal requires no evidence. the second does the go far most studies suggest more public order along with other factors is associated with less predatory street crime. with all this in mind we played it remains a strategy worth pursuing and i would just close by saying this is one of these areas where police are in need of help to develop guidelines. they should develop themselves, helping officers to use their discretion wisely when dealing

with issues of public disorder. for the most part, this is reminding people of their responsibilities. last comment. when bratton took over the subway, 250,000 people a day what pay their fares. 250,000 people a day were going on the deterrence has come under the terms has come then indicate. i was part of the overall chaos. the first thing that we did was to give to people opportunities to back off. that is they made it very public. we are going to be cracking down, we are going to get you if you do. so more people about what you are going to do. what we discovered was a good portion of those who continue as lengthy criminal records. not all are criminals, but a lot of criminals for a fare beaters and that is the bad guys are busy -- constantly busy and

broken windows because contact with people my model of rope in windows since high activity, lauer asked him a lot of warning, et cetera. >> you're finished, george. >> please know what you'd like to ask. professor tom tyler, i was always interested in the names of the books he's written a trusted ally, white people obey the law and why people evaluate. >> first let me say for my entire professional life, george kelling has been the intellectual leader of research and writing about policing.

so it is both an honor to be here to talk about broken when is and a little bit intimidating. so i will try to talk about a couple of things that i think him from trying to look at broken windows from a contemporary policing is. the first thing i would say is something all of you already know. that is every area of law enforcement faces its own challenges. what made broken windows so importune and so influential as the theory is that it very affect only address the questions of a particular era in the 70s and 80s. at that time, the really central issue in the public was fear of crime. their symbol police movie to think about not only a sense that there's crime everywhere, disorder, instability.

it is out of control, that it was spiraling out and there's nothing they could do about it. the police didn't know what to do. they had no strategy. broken windows provided a roadmap. it did a couple things they think are important and professor telling us touched on it. first it is that the police should be focused on the concern driving the public spheres. at the time the first book seems to be trivial. they wanted to be out catching murderers and they have to be convinced to focus on the concerns that were actually driving the public to be afraid and make cities and undermine communities. and yet there is a communicated to the public that the police actually are concerned about the public, seeing officers on foot patrol, seeing the actions of

the police communicated reassurance in the belief the police actually were concerned and second they had a plan. they had a strategy to. something that would be effective. these are important ideas that became forward. they became dramatic impact is the same now. so let's fast forward to today. today we are in a different era and i think the question we all have to ask is is broken windows still the model we should be using linux lets consider the situation. one thing we've heard he heard several people mention is that crime is down. it is down substantially and in most cities in all cities of the country going down steadily. it doesn't seem to be a fluke.

it is the lively discussion about who gets the credit, whether it's the police are not. i don't think that is really the question for us this morning. it is true. but i want to point to another thing that is equally true. that is even though crime is down, the public isn't in love with the police. that is, we have had a consistent ongoing issue about popular legitimacy of the legal system, the police, the courts, the staff questioned frasca said the public controversy about attack that is not ubiquitous to american policing that is major cities. especially young people, minority group members, distress and the police. 2004 national academy of sciences report on policing. was extremely laudatory

associate the of the great success of law enforcement against crime, but pointed out legitimacy remained as a major issue that has not been effectively addressed. that is still true today. if we look at why 12 national survey of the american public, we see that about 60% of the public expresses trust and confidence in their local police and court has on other routes, 40% though. restricted library is a 30% racial gap with african-americans. 30% less likely to say they trust the police and court their community. those people had personal contact trust them last. these are not flukes. if we look at public opinion polling data over the last 30 years was broken windows, we see that trust and confidence in the police is basically a flatline

between 50% and 60%. the racial gap i mentioned has think this do for decades if not going away. and we have seen a series of racially driven. you can name a racial incident of choice running from the gates incident in cambridge, the trade on martin incident in florida, but there are many. the point is that it's a little early to declare the jury in terms of the relationship between the police, law and american communities. what is particularly important to us is to recognize that declines in fear of crime and the crime rate have not let people to have higher levels of trust in the police and the courts. done that

..