quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: i'd ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i'm here today to talk about an issue that impacts tens of millions of people across the country and hangs over our entire economy, and that's student debt. right now borrowers have accumulated over $1.2 trillion

in student debt. think about that for a minute. that's more than people owe on their credit cards. talk about a drag for the individual, for their family, but for the entire economy. students in my home state of michigan are among the most heavily indebted in the country when they graduate. and, frankly, we want them to get degrees, not debt when they graduate. nearly two-thirds of students in michigan who graduated in 2012 had student loan debt with each student averaging nearly $29,000. so they walked outside the door, congratulations, take off the cap and gown and get a $29,000 bill. this growing mountain of debt represents a threat to our economy, and the dreams of

millions of americans. today too many people are saddles with decades of debt just because they want a fair shot to go to college and to get ahead in life. instead of saving for a house, buying a car or just buying gas or groceries, millions of people are simply paying student loan payments month after month, year after year, decade after decade. i hear from many of my constituents about how they're being crushed by the burden of student debt. i've seen it in my own extended family. they write about having $50,000, $100,000. if you're going to medical school, if you're in specialty areas as a grad student, $200,000 or more in debt. now some of the reforms we've already put in place help some

borrowers by limiting the payments on their federal loans relative to their incomes. that's a good thing. but this is not enough. and it doesn't do anything to help people he who have private loans oftentimes on top of the loans to the federal government. some of these private loans carry interest rates like credit cards and are literally driving people into bankruptcy. i have constituents who use words like "crippling" or "catastrophic." they talk about anxiety attacks. one person wrote that because of the high interest rates on his private loans, he -- quote -- "it is getting to the point where he cannot eat." cannot eat because of his student loan payments. another constituent, thomas,

wrote to me that each of his three children -- each -- has a combination of federal and private loans totaling $75,000 to $110,000 each. what thomas wrote to me, mr. president, really sums up the student debt crisis we're facing, that families across the country are facing. quote -- "loans are designed to give students a chance to go to college and to obtain high-income jobs. somehow the interest they pay has become just another wound for college grads that have a tough time finding jobs. it will leave grads with a high risk of default, not being able to pay for their dreams and not being able to fund their retirement accounts for many

years." that's crazy. that's just not right. and that's not how things should work in our country. that's certainly not what we think of when we think of striving for the american dream. whether it's the federal government or the big banks, we should not be making a profit off the backs of students. and that's exactly what's happening. and that's why i'm so proud to be fighting alongside senator warren and my other colleagues to address this very urgent and growing problem. senator warren and i fought last year to stop students from getting stuck with a raw deal, and now we're back at it again this year and we're going to keep right on fighting until we can solve this problem. hor -- ace mann once call

education the great equalizer in our country. everyone who wants to work hard and go to college in order to simply have a fair shot in life should not be denied that opportunity. it shouldn't be the great equalizeer on debt. it's got to be the great equalizer on opportunity. these folks are willing to play by the rules, they're working hard, paying back their loans on time. we've got to make sure that the system isn't rigged against them. the legislation we've introduced will not only help millions of americans, it will also boost our economy by allowing borrowers to spend their money on a home, a car, just the needs of their families instead of interest payments. nobody should have to put off getting married or starting a family just because of student loans.

and we're not just talking about young people here. this bill helps students of all ages, students in their 20, 30's, beyond, young professionals, parents who have stepped up to help their children. in fact, the student loan debt has gotten so out of hand that senior citizens in the country owe tens of billions of dollars on student loans. our bill will help millions of responsible borrowers of all ages in every state across the country. the bank on students emergency loan refinancing act is a reasonable, commonsense and fiscally responsible way to address the student loan crisis. this is simply about giving those who want to go to college a fair shot to get ahead, making sure that those who already borw to get an education are not being unfairly weighed down by just just so the government or

the big banks can turn a profit. i want to thank senator warren for her leadership on this vital issue. this is about allowing all of those who currently have student loan debt to be able to refinance, to be able to refinance at a rate that was voted on, 3.86%, voted on by colleagues on both sides of the aisle a year ago. it's not a number that's picked out of a hat. but to allow people to exchange an 11%, a 12% on a private loan, or a 6%, 7%, 8% interest rate on a public loan for something that is affordable, that will allow them to take those extra precious dollars and invest in their future and the country's future. that's what this is about.

it's very simple. and it's paid for by what has been commonly called the buffett rule, which basically just says those who have benefited by the blessings of this country and are those who are the wealthiest among us would contribute a little bit more to make sure that everybody, everybody has a fair shot at getting ahead. we can't afford for america to be a big shot economy. we've got to make sure that everyone has a fair shot to make it. nobody's asking for a handout. they're asking to work hard. they're asking to know that the system is not rigged against them. they're asking to know that they're going to be able to go to college, get out of college, pay back their student loans at a reasonable, fair rate, buy a house, get married, have a

career, have children, go on and have the american dream. mr. president, that's what this is about. this needs to get passed as quickly as possible so people know they're going to have the opportunity to get ahead in america. thank you, mr. president, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding that the senate is in a quorum call, is that true? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: mr. president, more than a year ago -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. reid: you did tell me that, didn't you? i ask consent it be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: more than a year ago, senators shaheen and portman worked on an energy efficiency bill, a good bill. that was more than a year ago. that bill was, as i have indicated, good but during the past many months, through the energy committee, the work of ron wyden and others, that bill was improved greatly. ron wyden was chairman of that committee at the time. they have done so many good things for that legislation. we had six cosponsors, we had three democrats and three republicans. 200,000 jobs this would create

and help our nation's energy proficiency significantly. so i move to proceed to the bill in august -- i moved to proceed to the bill in august, that's last august. we have been through this a number of times, but i will repeat it very quickly, mr. president. we were held up from doing that for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the junior senator from louisiana wanted to take away the health care for staff. that threw a few roadblocks in the way. without going into detail, we never got that done. but shaheen and portman, as i have indicated, did not give up. they worked hard to incorporate ten separate bipartisan amendments into this bill. so the bill was good last september. it is terrific now. and as a result of that, we improved the number of people that are willing to support this legislation.

we went from three and three to seven and seven. 14 cosponsors of this legislation. on the republican side, portman, ayotte, collins, hoeven, isakson, murkowski and wicker. on the democratic side, it was shaheen, bennet, coons, franken, landrieu, manchin and warner. a good mix of senators on both sides. so it will be very, very hard to find a more bipartisan bill. and i washed with them, i didn't give up. we continued trying to move forward. we did that as we did with child care last -- recently. it was in march, actually. i have looked for other bipartisan bills that we could come forward on. we did it with the child care bill. we should do it on this bill. that was my anticipation, and we were able to do it, i thought. so this shaheen-portman bill is a very fine bill. i reached out to republican senators. to be honest with you, they

reached out to me, mr. president. they wanted to work to get this passed. we said originally the arrangement was let's just pass this bill as it is. right before the august recess, i was told how about a sense of the senate resolution on keystone. i said i don't want to do that. we already have an agreement. anyway, we relented and said okay. so i come back after the easter recess. well, that agreement that we have, let's change it. we no longer want a sense of the senate resolution. we want a freestanding -- a vote on a freestanding piece of legislation. i said we have an agreement. and so anyway, i relented and we had that proposal. so we had that all worked out. and then we're told there needs to be five more amendments. so, mr. president, as i have said before this has been very hard to do.

the shell game, i have described it in other ways, but it's been very, very difficult to pin down the republicans for any -- anything more than a day or two because they keep changing their minds. so here we are. so my offer is this -- if shaheen-portman passes with the seven republican cosponsors, we'll have a freestanding vote forthwith on keystone. whatever time is fair. i put three hours in my proposal i will make in just a minute, but it doesn't matter. whatever time they want, freestanding vote on keystone which they have been wanting to have for a long time. if you get my picture, mr. president, that's what i think should happen. it's a good bill. it's so much better than it was a year ago. it's a great bill now, not a good bill. so, mr. president, i ask

unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me after consulting with senator mcconnell, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 368, that there be no amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill other than the budget points of order and applicable motions to waive. that there be up to three hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, that the bill be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold. if the bill is passed, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 371, s. 2280, at a time to be determined by me after consultation with the republican leader. but no later than thursday, may 22, 2014. and i just in a droll comment, if they want it earlier, they can have it, mr. president, but that's the date that i have suggested. that there be no amendments, points of order, motions in order to the bill with the budget points of order and the

applicable motion to waive, that there be up to three hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, reserving the right to object. it's been the -- my position since late last week that it would be appropriate for the minority not having had but eight roll call votes since july to have five amendments of our choosing on this bill. and therefore i'm going to ask a counterconsent at this time. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 368, s. 2262. i further ask consent that the only amendments in order be five amendments to be offered by myself or my designee related to energy policy, with the first

amendment being my amendment number 2982 on saving coal jobs and with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. i further ask that following the disposition of these amendments, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object, mr. president. i incorporate my reference, the statement i made this morning on this bill, ask it appear in the record at this time, and reluctantly object. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the request of the republican leader s there objection to the original request? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: earlier this morning, i noted that the majority leader had refused for

seven years to allow a serious debate on energy in this chamber. i said that he tried to stifle the voice of the american people again this current week as well. at a time when so many middle-class americans are suffering from high energy costs, lost jobs, and stagnant wages in the obama economy, at a time when the global crisis -- at a time when global crises clarify the need for america to establish a greater energy presence overseas that would grow more jobs here at home, at a time when eastern kentuckians are suffering from a depression -- that's a depression with a "d" -- made so much worse by this administration's elitist war on coal, well, republicans are going to keep fighting, even if senate democrats would rather shut down debate. republicans are going to keep fighting for the middle class.

that's why we had hoped to offer forward-leaning amendments that aim not just to increase energy security but to also improve national security and economic security for our middle class. one amendment i had hoped to be able to offer would approve construction of the keystone pipeline, which everyone knows will create thousands of jobs right away. one amendment would expedite the export of american energy to our global allies, which would create more of the jobs we need right here in the u.s. one amendment would have prevented the administration from moving forward with its plans to impose a national carbon tax through the back door, even though congress already jeengte rejected the ida several years ago and even though we know it would devastate an already cuffing middle class. there's another amendment, too, one that i had planned to offer along were the junior senator from louisiana and the senior senator from north dakota.

it would halt the administration from moving forward with new regulations on coal-fired power plants until the technology required to comply with the regulations is commercially viable. which it currently is not. the obama administration's extreme regulations would ham pe--would hamper existing coal plants, too, taking the ax tots- taking the ax to coal jobs in an awful economy. this is unfair to the people of my state. we know it would hit kentuckians who are already suffering, constituents who just want to put food on the table and feed their families. congress needs to do something to help them. that's why i would have offered that amendment today. i would remind my deletion the amendments we had hoped to offer -- the amendment we had hoped to offer is almost ey identical toe

amendment that already passed the house of representatives on a bipartisan basis. so there's no excuse into the to pass it here, and we hope the senator from west virginia and his democratic colleagues will stand with us to do just that. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm going to be very, very brief. my friend talks about the lef left-leaning senators. three of the senators, democratic senators, that sponsored this legislation could be called anything but leaning left the: landrieu, manchin, and warner. that brings a smile to anyone's face. it is a fiction that we haven't had votes to debate energy policy. we've had trouble having bills because of the obstruction of the republicans, but swreeted on

the -- but we voted on the keystone matter before, where we had over 100 votes -- that was last year. 100 votes. so we debated this keystone thing last year, had a vote on it and we're willing to have another vote on it. mr. president, it is my unding that we're now having -- my understanding that we're now going to enter into debate on whatever people want to talk about for the next hour. so i ask unanimous consent -- where's my staff here? we're going to have a series of votes, w we understand, at 3:45. so, mr. president, i ask consent

that all remaining time postcloture on the motion to proceed be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. 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. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 3 36ification s. 2262, a bill to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry and for other purposes. mr. reid: on behalf of senators shaheen an portman, i call substitute amendment 3012. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid for mrs. shaheen proposes an amendment numbered 3012 to s. 2262. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas

and nays on that amendment o am. officethe presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are order. mr. reid: i have a first-degree amendment i ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3023 to amendment number 3012. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an nement numbered 3024 to amendment numbered 3023. mr. reid: i have a first-degree amendment which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3025 to s. 2262. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a

second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3026 to amendment number 3025. mr. reid: i have a motion to commit to s. 262 with instructions -- s. 2262 with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid moves to commit the bill s. 2262 to the committee on energy and natural resources, with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment number 3027. mr. reid: i scw for the yeas and nays on that motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3028 to the instructions of the motion to commit u. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an

amendment numbered 302 the to amendment number 3028. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk i ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 2262, a bill to promote energy savings in drengs buildings and industry and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 366. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of calendar number 366, s. 2260, a bill to promote the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time until 3:45 be equally divided

and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 3:45 it be in order for the republican leader or his designee to offer up to two motions to table either the motion mo commit s. 2262 or an amendment pending with respect to the bill. if more than one motion to table is made, there be two minutes equally divided between the two votes. before you rule -- p, mr. i am agreeing to this. but i don't want this to set any precedent of any kind because i personally believe these are out of order. but i'm -- for purposes of moving through this afternoon, i ask this consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, on the floor is senator shaheen from new hampshire. i have not ever had a senator that's better prepared than her on any issue we bring up, more concerned about her state, and has worked harder on an issue that she has worked on the issue that's now before this body. it is a shame that it appears my

republican counterpart has peeled off a couple of cosponsors of this legislation, republicans. we aren't going to vote to finish this bill. what a shaivmen shame. it happens every time we get to an issue. it's the obstruction we faced for -- we're going on six years. it is too bad. but i commend senator shaheen for her diligence and i hope prior to the final curtain call on monday, we can work to try to quowm ucome up with some way fo. mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i would also like to thank the majority leader for his very kind words on ver my efforts alg with senator portman's on this

legislation. and i certainly share the hope that we can come to some agreement on amendments that will allow us to move forward on the bill. mr. president, can you tell me what the status is of the procedure right now? the presiding officer: we are in divided time until 3:45. mrs. shaheen: okay. so i will have about ten minutes for remarks; is that correct? the presiding officer: the majority has 24 minutes. mrs. shaheen: okay. thank you. i came to the floor this afternoon to again talk about the importance of this bipartisan energy savings and industrial competitiveness act, also known as shaheen-portman. this is legislation that makes sense for all kinds of rngs p. -- for all kinds of reasons. but i want to is tha start withe fact that energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to address this country's energy

needs. the cheapest energy is the energy we don't ever have to create the. and so if we can reduce our energy consumption, we can save money. not only will this legislation create jobs, reduce pollution, and make our country more energy-secure, but it will also save taxpayers billions of dollars a year through energy efficiency. and i just want to point to a study by the american council for an energy-efficient economy that shows in greater detail what this poster points out; that this bill is going to create jobs, it's going to reduce pollution, it's going to save taxpayers billions of dollars. the legislation has been endorsed by over 260 businesses,

organizations, environmental groups, labor unions. it has a broad coalition of support. and the legislation that is before us includes not just this bill that senator portman and i originally introduced, but it includes ten bipartisan amendments which provide even more jobs, even more savings, and even more reduction in pollution. so, according to the study by experts at the american council for an energy-efficient economy, they said that by 2030 our legislation has the potential to create 192,000 jobs here in america. that's 192,000 domestic jobs; to save consumers and businesses $16 billion a year, and to reduce carbon pollution by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road.

and we have a poster that lays this out very directly. so people can see the difference that this legislation would make. by 2030, 192,000 new jobs, save consumers $16.2 billion a year, and it would decrease carbon pollution by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. so those are the benefits just by embracing energy efficiency. and the legislation does this without any mandates, without increasing the deficit. in fact, all of the authorizations in this bill are offset, and we even see a $12 million deficit reduction according to the congressional budget office. so we're going to be able to do all of this without a major government program, without increased government spending, without any mandates.

and the reason we're going to be able to do that is because there are opportunities that exist across all sectors of our economy to conserve energy and to create good-paying, private-sector jobs. now, shaheen-portman addresses a number of opportunities to do this by reducing barriers to efficiency and the major energy-consuming sectors of the national economy. so first is in the building sector. buildings in this country consume almost 40% of all of our energy use. it also addresses the industrial sector. that consumes more energy than any other sector in our domestic economy. and then it addresses the federal government. the federal government is the biggest user of energy in the country. about 93% of that energy is used by the military. but what this legislation does is put in place commonsense policies that deploy more

efficient technologies and techniques. as i said, it's been endorsed by hundreds and hundreds of business coalitions, by environmental and efficiency groups, by labor unions. and we've seen a number of letters of support just in the last couple of weeks for this legislation. i introduced those into the record yesterday. and one of the reasons that we get this number of jobs, this amount of savings and benefits from pollution is because since we first introduced the bill last year, we have added ten bipartisan amendments that make this bill even better. senator portman and i have worked closely and continually with senators from both sides of the aisle as well as those stakeholders, industry advocates who want to improve the bill. and we've incorporated their

bipartisan substantive amendments into the text. those amendments expand sections of the bill that address energy efficiency barriers in buildings, that address the manufacturing sector, the federal government, and also puts in place regulatory relief provisions to maintain the underlying principle of advancing efficiency in the private sector. the bill now enjoys even more support from groups like the edison electric institute, the business round table, the american gas association, the national rural electric cooperative association, the u.s. chamber of commerce, national association of manufacturers, painters and allied trades, national resources defense council. it's unusual to have this kind of energy legislation that enjoys such a broad coalition of support from across many

sectors. now, as we heard just now on the floor, there's a difference of opinion about how to move forward on both sides of the aisle. i'm really hopeful that we can come to an agreement here, that we can agree that there are amendments that both sides would like to see added to the bill, so that even though we've got ten more amendments in this legislation than when we first introduced it, there should still be an opportunity, i hope, for some additional amendments to be added. that's what we're working on. i know everybody is acting in good faith to try and get that done. and so i hope that we can maintain the bipartisan spirit of this bill, as senator portman and the senate leadership and i work to agree to see how we can move this legislation forward.

thanks very much, mr. president. i know there are others who would like to speak, and i hope to have an opportunity throughout the afternoon to add some more reasons why i think we should support this legislation. and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time during the remaining -- that the remaining time during the quorum call be divided equally between both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. senator is -- senator shaheen:i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. begich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. begich: i ask that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: for the purposes of presentation on the floor on the shaheen-portman bill. mr. president, thank you very much. i come to speak on the support for the shaheen-portman bill, otherwise known as the energy

savings and industrial competitiveness act, otherwise known as i like to put it, it saves money, saves energy. keep it simple. it comes at an important time. it is no surprise as someone from alaska, i care about oil and gas issues. i care about energy issues, energy efficiency. and this is a bill that is important to talk about, but also hopefully pass, and pass it and move it to the house, and hopefully they'll take it up. conservation makes sense. it saves money. it makes people more comfortable in their homes and workplaces. it also is good for the economy and the environment, particularly important to alaska. when you think about alaska's per capita energy costs, which are the highest in the nation, we have long and cold winters and limited infrastructure in rural parts of the state, so we spend more than anywhere else. we have the most to gain from energy efficiency improvements. and the payoff is faster than any other place. in alaska, energy costs affect every aspect of life.

energy costs are driving people away from the traditional homes in rural alaska. it's getting too expensive to heat even the smallest of the homes. the cost of fuel to run your boat or snow machine for subsistence hunting and fishing is sky-high. fairbanks, alaska, is another example. filling up your fuel tank to heat your home could easily cost you $1,900 and that will only last maybe half of a winter. electric heat is, isn't much better. right now in fairbanks, it's costing 19 cents a kilowatt. not a good alternative to heat your home. when you bundle together, it puts a lot of pressure on the pocketbook. that's why i fought to get -- that's why i fought to get a permit to restart the healy coal plant and make sure the existing coal plants in fairbanks are

exempt. we need to stabilize prices. otherwise communities like fairbanks become unaffordable to live in. for schools in alaska, 75% of the energy costs goes into space heating, money that they spend on heating and electricity is money they cannot spend in the classroom, making sure we have the best education for our young people. as an example, the government of the state of alaska alone spends $642 million a year on energy. that's one-tenth of the state's operating budget. our state provides energy to the rest of the nation, yet our residents can't afford to live where they want to live, where in many cases their families have lived for generations. energy efficiency can have an immediate and profound effect on the lives of people in these communities. the shaheen-portman bill is deficit-neutral. it is estimated to save consumers $60 billion between

2014 and 2030, and create nearly 160,000 jobs by 2030. let me say having those jobs add to the economy after coming off this last month with almost 280,000 jobs in the private sector, this is a good sign to add more jobs to our economy. i filed an amendment to provide $5,000 tax credit toward the purchase of the efficient home heating and cooling appliances for families living in very high-energy states. examples: converting home for expensive heating fuel to cleaner, more efficient natural gas. or burning or clean burning wood stoves. even replacing old appliances with more, newer and more efficient ones can cut back on electric use and lower energy bills. for example, an energy star certified refrigerator must use at least 20% less energy than the current standard and 40% less energy than the standard from 2001.

like many of my colleagues, the biggest disappointment has taken so long to deal with a very modest bill. and let's be honest. while all good policy, this is a very modest piece of legislation. congress has passed major energy legislation since 2007. the energy landscape has radically changed since then. costing renewables has come down dramatically. solar, wind, hydro, green energy, geothermal, biomass have all grown across this country. however, rational energy policy for our nation needs to include both renewable and nonrenewable energy. not to pit them against each other. directional drilling, hydraulic fracturing have changed traditional energy production landscape, too. production is way up. u.s. traditionally the third largest producer of crude after saudi arabia and russia, the final numbers aren't in yet for

2013, but it looks like we're about to be number one or very close to it. yet, we're still relying on too much foreign oil from u.s. foreign oil, the u.s. consuming about 19 billion barrels of oil per day. all told, about 13 million barrels per day of our demand is supplied by u.s. products, crude, natural gas liquids and ethanol. it still leaves us another five to six million barrels per day from other countries, many of whom don't like us very much. and that's where alaska comes in. we can play a significant role. providing u.s. production and creating some good jobs that are potentially huge. the transalaska pipeline delivers about 550,000 barrels a day, just over 10% of the domestic oil production. that's down from a peak of two million barrels a day 25 years ago. but there is a lot more oil and gas to go after. producers, producers of oil and

gas produce incredibly high-paying jobs. $117,000 average sector wages in alaska, and we can produce more. as we look at the 2012 and the potential as if started in the arctic and development of exploration in the chukchi and beaufort, after 2012 after seven years of stagnant growth. we're making strides and return back for more exploration in 2015. alaska can ensure our energy security and economic prosperity through the development of our domestic resources, reducing our reliance on foreign oil. i think our picture here shows it very clearly. the volume of capacity in alaska and where we fit in the world. this is just of what we know about. and if you look and we add into there cook inlet, let me give you kind of the sense of a potential chukchi oil,

15.4 billion barrels of oil. 77 trillion cubic feet. beaufort oil, this both in the arctic, 8.2 billion barrels of oil. gas, 28 trillion cubic. npr-a oil, one billion barrels of oil. i will tell you about the issue of the npr-a which is the national petroleum reserve. this area has only slight exploration over the years. now we're into development. the first well is now being moved forward. i was very pleased in one of my first acts working here, working with the administration, getting them to see the light of day, solving a problem with the first issue of the cd-5. now we have production, that first well. one well, one development, 17,000 barrels a day. the second one which is called gmt-2 or gmt-1. right next door thereby another 30,000 or 40,000 barrels a day of oil. and of course anwr, which we estimate around 10-plus billion barrels of oil. again, alaska is a storehouse of

energy. not only oil and gas but many others, but this point i want to make is oil and gas, a study that was done in alaska can produce around 54,000 jobs, over 50 years of production in the arctic. if you look at it from local and state and government revenues over the 50 years, well over $100 billion, plus another $150 billion in payroll. another issue which is important to alaska but also to this country is that liquefied natural gas export. a project can produce many jobs and create huge economic opportunity throughout this country. it's projected a project that we want to move gas off the north slope write down and distributed around the world, we estimate that project will be about $65 billion for development. an 800-mile pipeline, liquid if i occasion plant and marine terminal. the largest, most expensive energy project in north america.

up to 15,000 design and production jobs. up to a thousand jobs during an operation. at full, the l.n.g. export capacity of 2.5 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas sales to overseas buyers control more than $12 billion a year. the steel pipe alone to construct that pipeline of 800 miles 42 inches in diameter almost an inch thick is such a big order that it would take one plant a single pipe metal two years to produce that. this would add to the important role of oil and gas industry is already playing in our national economy. 9% of all the jobs in 2011 came from the oil and gas sector. 37,000 direct jobs created nationwide. as i said earlier, they are good-paying jobs. but let me say two or three more points and i will close, mr. president. that is as i talk about oil and gas for alaska and it's an important part of our economy,

an important part for this whole energy system that we have here in this country, we have huge amounts of it, we're happy that the arctic is moving forward again a project that was stalled for many, many years, now moving the right direction. npr-a same thing that was stalled out for many years now moving again in the right direction. but alaska is also unique in many ways as this bill talks about energy conservation and what we can do to preserve the capacity of our energy use. alaska by 2025 will be 50% renewable energy internal consumption. but we also are very embracing everywhere we can on consequence vague. i can just tell you from my own experience not only from my own home to commercial buildings that i operate, we made those more energy efficient, using new boiler systems that are 98% more efficient. the net result is we're saving the tenants lots of money every year. new energy-efficient windows and

other elements have made those buildings, again, more energy efficient, allowing them energy saving and money to put back in the complexes. mr. president, even though this isn't a comprehensive bill, it's a piece of legislation that allows us to get down the road to do some energy conservation in this country. mr. president, i know you live on the east coast and i live in alaska. we may be far apart by thousands of miles, but the end result is we still have the same issues. consumers want more efficient facilities, more efficient buildings, lower the cost, save them money and give them more energy that they can do new development, new economic development. that's what this bill does in many ways. but along with it, by creating conservation and creating more energy-efficient legislation like this, we are creating jobs just by that act. i think it's important that we look at this bill from a broad perspective and do what we can to make ourselves more dependent on our own energy sources, may

they be oil and gas, may they be energy-efficient renewable energy or energy-efficient projects, but more dependent on our own resources or less dependent on foreign oil, the better off we're going to be from a national security perspective and better off we're going to be from an economic perspective. i will just leave you with one statistic. because of all the work of becoming more dependent on our own energy sources, becoming more energy efficient, just this last year, on an annual basis, we are sending $100 billion less overseas to foreign countries for petro, oil, because we're doing it more here and becoming more efficient. mr. president, i appreciate the moment to come down to the floor to talk about, of course. i would never leave a moment, no matter what the subject matter is if you're talking about energy, i'm going to talk about alaska oil and gas but also how it partners with energy efficiency issues, conservation, renewable energy. there is none that pits each other. it's all about the projects

together and working together. mr. president, i thank you for the moment to be on the floor, and i take this time to yield the floor or note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

problems facing ms. murkorski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. the senator is remined we're currently in a quorum call. ms. murkowski: i ask the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: as we are here

today to discuss the energy efficiency bill and what may or may not be status on any given amendments, i wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak about the issue of liquefied natural gas exports. senator barrasso has proposed a bill that would provide for fast track status for d.o.e. licensing to l.n.g. projects to export to members of w.t.o. countries. as we -- as we focus on our opportunities that we have, mr. president, when it comes to our -- our natural gas, our l.n.g. and the opportunities for -- for federal support for energy projects overseas, i think it's important to recognize we have got a little inconsistency going on with this administration slow walking of infrastructure and hydrocarbon development here in this country. give you a couple of examples here.

the export-import bank has supported a slew of l.n.g.-related transactions over the past couple decades. these are structured and project financed transactions. these are loan guarantees, even some direct loans. and with the assistance of the ex-im bank and my own committee starvetion the congressional research service has compiled a report on this subject, which i now would like to offer for the record. and i emphasize that this is a list for l.n.g.-related projects only. i.t. not exhaust i have of the t exhaustive of the other kinds of projects that the government finances overseas. so what we have here are again projects that are l.n.g.-related transactions that have been moved through the export-import bank. over $350 million in loan guarantees for equipment and

services to go to trinidad and to bay goa in the 1996. in 1997 we saw over $375 million go to qatar and oman for the cryogenic heat exchanges. in 2000 there was a loan guarantee of over $70 million that went to malaysia. in 2002, there was $135 million loan guarantee for equipment and services to nigeria. then between 2005 and 2006 we had over $800 million in loan guarantees forl liquefaction and security-related services to qatar. in 2008, $400 million in direct loan for equipment and services to peru. then in 2010, $3 billion in

direct loan and loan guarantees for equipment and services to papua, new guinea. in 2012, nearly $3 billion for engining services to australia, a large project that included a shipping terminal and transmission lines. and just last year another $1.8 billion in direct loans to australia for facilities construction. over a dozen projects, eight countries, and $10 billion in financing. i think it's important to recognize that the export-import bank is one of the few agencies in the federal government that actually turns a profit here. and my objective in listing these projects is not to oppose the financing. that's not what we're talking about here. but, rather, to point out the inconsistency we have in some policies. simply put, we are financialing

l.n.g. export projects overseas because they are a good idea. we like that approach. but we're politicizing the process for their review here at home. if l.n.g. projects can create wealth and can support jobs in australia and in qatar, they can and will do the same here in the united states of america. but this administration is stalling on area infrastructure and development initiatives, not just l.n.g. export facilities. we've got the keystone x.l. pipeline. that's a great example. offshore development -- yet another example. another federal agency: the overseas private investmen invet corporation -- has supported oil and gas projects in other countries. and i'm also introducing for the record this afternoon another c.r.s. report that's commissioned by my committee staff. so this is opic, not opec.

but opic has provided insurance and financing to companies operating in indonesia, in guatemala, in egypt, in botswa botswana. the bigger list includes back in 2002, $25 million for a liquefied petroleum gas storage facility in guatemala. in 2005 we had $2.5 million for a natural gas pipeline in benine. $2.5 million for gas pipeline in togo. $45 million in insurance for another pipeline in ghana. $325 million for an offshore natural gas pipeline in israel. and again, mr. president, i'm not saying that financing this is a wrong idea or a bad idea. i'm asking the simple question here, if this is good enough for helping other countries, why are we not doing it here at home? and there's a third federal agency that i just want to

briefly mention that has supported energy-related projects overseas. this is the trade development agency. it funds feasibility studies, pilot projects, technical assistance, reverse trade missions and various training activities. and i am submitting for the record a third c.r.s. report that showcases some of these activities. and specifically, on l.n.g. the trade development agency funded feasibility studies for l.n.g., import, and power generation in thailand back in 2004. c.n.g. and l.n.g. distribution in i understand niece shah in 2005. import terminals in lithuania and romania in 2008. floating l.n.g. storage and gasification in ghana in 2011. and reverse trade missions to turkey in 2005 and south africa in 2008 on l.n.g.-related issues. so the trade development agency

has also funded energy-related technical snns t assistance to a skill, more rough quo, azerbaijan, and nigeria. they've funded reverse trade in additions with kazakhstan, turkmenistan georgia and hungary. we've got -- we are helping other countries to develop their resources, their energy resources, while helping american companies find opportunities to generate jobs here in the united states. i think that that's a worth while policy as well, a worthwhile policy abroad, a worthwhile policy at home. i know that my colleagues from south dakota wanted to say a few words this afternoon. i will yield the floor, but i thank you, mr. president, for your attention. the presiding officer: without objection, the materials referenced by the senator will be added to the record. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: in a moment i intend to propose a unanimous

consent request that it be in order for me to offer my amendment number 3002 to s. 2262, but i would like to just speak for a moment, if i might, about that. mr. president, i think it's unfortunate that we're here in the united states senate with senate democrats continuing to block republican amendments that would approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, stop the administration's war on affordable energy, and expand liquid natural gas exports to our allies overseas. my amendment, number 3002, is on the list of commonsense amendments that should be voted on as part of the shaheen-portman energy efficiency bivment lik bill. the apse anticipated ground-level ozone regulations would do serious damage to our economy and working americans. this regulation is expected to be the most expensive in e.p.a.'s history. in 2010, the e.p.a. proposed lowering the permitted ground level ozone levels from 57 parts

per billion to 60 parts to 75 parts per billion. the industry experts suggest that lowering the ozone ground level to 60 parts per billion would cost businesses more than a trillion dollars a year between 2020 and 2030. $1 trillion a year. job losses as a result of this would total a staggering 7.3 million by the year 2020, devastating entire industries, especially united states manufacturing industries. evening by e.p.a.'s own estimates, this is the e.p.a.'s own estimate -- this regulation could cost up to $90 billion per year, far outpacing the cost of any e.p.a. regulations that we've ever seen before. my own state of south dakota would lose tens of thousands of jobs in mining and in construction and manufacturing. the cost of this regulation is so great that when the e.p.a. first proposed lower levels in

2010, the white house delayed the regulation until after the president's reelection. my amendment 3002 would stop the administration's upcoming proposal on ground-level ozone which is anticipated to be proposed and put out by december of this year. and it is a very straightforward amendment, mr. president. it would require the e.p.a. to consider the costs and feasibility of new ozone regulations. it might surprise many americans to know that the e.p.a. isn't even allowed to consider cost when setting these new regulations. my amendment would fix that. additionally, my amendment would force the e.p.a. to focus on the worst areas for smog before dramatically expanding this regulation to the rest of the country. there are 221 counties across 27 states in this country that don't meet the current standard of 75parts per billion. mr. president, these are the areas of the country. they are heavily populated, more

urban areas of the quun. it makes sense to me that we ought to focus on these arks urban arks before expanding ozone regulations to areas like western south dakota, whereas we clearly don't have a smog problem. under my amendment, 85% of these counties would have to achieve full compliance with the existing standard before the e.p.a. could move forward with a lower level that dramatically expands the reach of ozone regulations. ness what iregulations this is t looks like today. these are the counties that are not in compliance. my amendment would require 85% of those to be in compliance before you could expand the map to where it would look like this. this is what the proposal would do. look at how much of the united states is covered by that expanded mavment th map. the provision in the clean air act was enacted to address smog in downtown l.a., not background

ozone levels in western south dakota. we should continue to focus on the worst areas for ground-level ozone before dramatically expanding those regulations to rural areas of the country. mr. president, i hope the scwhrort stop blocking -- majority will stop blocking these amendments offered by republican members. senator reid has dropped all but nine amendments. that's one republican amendment a month. by contrarveghts the house democrats, the minority in the house, have gotten votes on 125 amendments over the same period. 12 time the number of amendments allowed the republicans here in the united states senate. a number of my colleagues have been down here -- you heard from ththe senator from alaska, senar murkowski. senator brar so has an amendment very relevant to this country, both our energy and national

security interests. i am going to ask a chance for republicans to participate in this debate by allowing votes on my amendment and many others that are pertinent to the economy of this country, to creating jobs, to providing energy independence, providing energy security for this curntion and to making sure that we don't get crazy regulations that subject areas of western south dakota to smog regulations that were designed for downtown l.a. that's a fairly straightforward, simple, commonsense suggestion, and it's what my amendment would accomplish. so, mr. president, let's see if we have a democrat senator down here on the floor that would, i expect, object to this request. but i would to ask unanimous consent -- i would ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment, number

3002, to senate bill 2262. the presiding officer: is there objection? the objection is heard. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. i regret that. i know it is unfortunate. i know there are many of my colleagues on this side that have amendments that they would like to get debates u so, mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: how much time do we have remaining? the presiding officer: one and a half minutes. beneficiary beer thank you. dorks mr. barrasso: thank you. this week members of both parties have offered amendments to the bill. the minority leader says he is even willing to limit the number of amendments to five. the majority continues to say "no." i'm not sure what the majority leader is fraid of in terms of allowing people to voavment

people come to the senate. they're expected to speak up, tell people their positions on various issues. one of the amendments that i am offering today expedited liquefied natural gas exports. the magazine "the economist" published an article "the petro state of america. "the energy boom is good for america and the world." they saivment "it would be nice if barack obama helped a bit." the article explains the process for obtaining permits to export liquefied natural gas from the united states is insanely slow," thethey say. over three and a half years the administration has approved only seven ally cations to export l.n.g. the administration is sitting on 24 pending applications. 14 have been pending for more than year. some have been pefnedding for more than two years. these delays are unacceptable. the excuses have run out. we have introduced legislation. l.n.g. supporters are a critical

component of stopping russian aggression against our allies and strategic partners. nine of our nato allies import 40% of their gaze from russia. these are our aliessments yet they are being held and heavily dependent on russia for their energy. l.n.g. exports would help our nato allies, would -- as well as as our strategic partners an allow them to free themselves from russian energy. that's why our nato allies are calling on us for congress and the dwriews expedite these l.n.g. exports. these are give ow our allies an alternative supplier of natural gas and enable them to resist riewshes aggression. it's going to be an added benefit for our country in terms of creating thousands of good-paying jobs in the united states. as the economists explained, l.n.g. exports to generate tanker loads of gas for america,

will create jobs and gas mills in wyoming, still mills in our nation's ports. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask for 30 seconds for a unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i understand there are a number of amendments that have -- number of senators that have filed amendments related to the energy policy. i ask unanimous consent for me to offer amendment number 3013. the presiding officer: is there objection? objection is heard. mr. thune: parliamentary, inquiry, mr. president? is it correct no senator is permitted to offer amendments to this bill while the majority leader's motions and amendments are pending? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. there is no place for another amendment on the senate's amendment tree. mr. thune: in order to move amendment number 3013 i move to table the reid amendment 3023

and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? mr. durbin: parliamentary, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: is a unanimous consent request necessary for the action just taken by the senator from south dakota? the presiding officer: the unanimous consent was previously granted for two motions to table. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: