quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that the -- consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officerwithout objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, on roll call vote number 140, i voted aye. it was my intention to vote no. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. and i would just note that these -- the issues revolving around judicial confirmations on which we're routinely voting on cloture off the execution of the

nuclear option and we're having more of these votes that we used to have. i thaip thank the chair and woud yield the floor. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the gentleman is correct. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the kwourb be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today having been visiting with people from my home state from wyoming and who come to washington, many who want to talk about the health care law and the side effects of

the president's health care law the democrats in this body voted unanimously, democrats on the other side of this building voted for overwhelmingly and that a little earlier today one of my colleagues, as a supporter of the law came to the floor to say it's working and everything is great. mr. president, i come to the floor to say it's not and to dispute some of the comments made by my colleague, because what i'm hearing are people whose care have been affected, lives have been affected, their ability to keep their doctor has been affected, the cost of their care and the cost of their insurance has gone up. many have had their insurance canceled and all because of the health care law. all because of the health care law. one of the things that the president promised the american people with the health care law is he said it's going to lower the cost of care. people's premiums will go down $2,500 per family. and he said he wanted to go

after that because health care spending was too high in the country. spending was going up, and yet we've had a colleague saying the health care law is a success. i just noted today, mr. president, that "usa today" on may 5, just a few days ago, the headline is "health spending up most since 1980." health spending is up. the president said it was going to go down because of his law, but it's up the most since 1980. the article says "health care spending rose at the fastest pace since 1980 during the first three months of the year." they say "health care spending climbed at a 9.9% annual rate last quarter, almost 10%, mr. president. that's not what president obama told the american people would happen. i would point out that this is a drastic increase in spending when the health care law was supposed to do just the

opposite. higher spending in hospitals reports the bureau of economic analysis. the largest rise since 1980's third quarter. it's an astonishing thing when a president promises the american people one thing and delivers another. so in this same monday "usa today," there's a "usa today" pew research center poll, and it's interesting when you read about this, it says the poll of 1,500 adults, including 1,162 registered voters, was taken april 23-27. other findings help explain the democrats' woes. it says by more than two to one, by more than two to one, americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. they remain downbeat about the economy. and they aren't persuaded that the affordable care act is going to help them and their families.

even the president's supporters worry he is a political liability for fellow democrats. well, mr. president, i come to the floor today as a doctor who has taken care of patients for 25 years in wyoming, and my concern with the health care is actually care. the president became fixated, as did the democrats on the word "coverage." coverage doesn't actually make sure that people get the care they need from a doctor that they choose at lower cost. that's what people wanted with the health care law. they don't want what was pushed down their throat by the democrats in the house and in the senate who said they knew better than the american people. i mean, i find it fascinating to see that in states now around the country, run by democrats -- maryland, oregon, massachusetts, states that have had the exchanges -- they've given up. they said, no, our state exchanges don't work. can't work. massachusetts has been in play

for a number of years. they had to shut it down, turn it over to the federal government because of the mandates of the health care law, the complexities of the health care law. hundreds of millions of dollars that should have gone to care for people, should have gone to help people. instead it's gone to consultants, computer companies, not helping people. wasted. massachusetts, oregon, maryland, given up; said we can't even live under this health care law's mandates. our computer systems don't work. let's turn it over to washington. the american people are fed up about turning things over to washington. it was interesting to hear my colleague from connecticut talk about some of the concerns and stories that we're sharing with the american people of folks losing their jobs, losing part of their pay, smaller paychecks

as a result of fewer hours at work. and i'd just like to share a situation that's happening now in iowa reported a couple of weeks ago in the ottumwa kur -- courier. iowa has an active governor, talked about how wonderful this health care was during the debate. let's talk about what's happeng in that home state, eddieville. faced with a nearly $138,000 increase in insurance costs, the eddieville blakesburg fremont school board, we're talking about a school board, community school board this week approved reducing the hours of all paraeducators from 37 to 29

hours a week to avoid the requirements of the national health care act. that is a side effect of the obamacare health care law, mr. president, that every democrat in this chamber voted for when that came up for a vote. so they had some meetings. the article goes on. it says "in february superintendent dean cooke recommended cutting 12 special education para-educators and three more working as librarians." my colleague from connecticut said none of this is happening. these are just incidental stories. don't pay any attention. the superintendent recommended cutting 12 education para-educators and three more working as librarians. however this week his recommendation was instead, was a choice o cutting eight para-educators or to reduce the hours of all of them. about 25 to 28 employees. for the 2013-2014 school year. when the board members opted to reduce the hours instead of cutting jobs.

this is a tough situation to put a school board in. reducing hours, cutting jobs. quote -- "it just gets pretty tight when you have to cut paras in the past. when we have cut paras in the past those people play key roles in the school." several teachers provided details of the job the para-educators perform. don't cut these positions. the article goes on quoting one of the members of the board. he said "i feel very frustrated that oeur hands are tied -- that our hands are tied with the health care act, said board member gay murphy." fascinating. same last name as the senator who was down here on the floor saying, oh no, pay no attention to these important stories. gay murphy asked that employees' hours be cut by working less

days instead of working less hours per day but still cut the hours under the president's health care law so it would be easier for employees to get a second job if needed. the president's health care law are cutting people hours and they're trying to find a way to make it easier to get a second job because their paychecks are being cut, their take-home pay is being cut because of this health care law. now, one other board member noted that the quality employees may not stick around for 29-hour-per-week job and special education students have a need for more consistency that comes with full-time employees. mr. president, this is a sad story, and it's happening in communities all across the country. so i think it's not a surprise that republicans continue to come to the floor to say there are huge side effects of the health care law and for some people that may have been helped by the law, many people are

being hurt, and it's happening all across the country. and that's why when i heard my colleague mention on the floor that people are getting used to or there is an acceptance of the health care law, i would just point out poll: obamacare hits new low. this is "the washington post." a new poll shows the public's opposition to obamacare has never been higher. the pew research center poll shows disapproval of the law hitting a new high of 55%. it comes on the heels of several polls last week that showed the law had very little, if any, bump after signs on the health care exchanges exceeded -- signups exceeded the goals. so here we are an all-time low r approval of the health care law, and the reason is because people's lives have been impacted, they have been hurt by this health care law, there are

side effects of the law, people that were promised that they would be able to keep the coverage they had, millions lost that coverage. they were told they could keep their doctor if they wanted to keep their doctor. many, many americans lost their doctor. they were told the cost of their insurance would go down. it has instead gone up. they are paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, and now people's paychecks are shrinking, their take-home pay is less because of a health care law that remains very unpopular, and that, mr. president, is why i felt compelled to come to the floor to point out to the american people and to this body that comments made previously by a colleague were not, at least in my opinion, based on what i have seen, heard and read, consistent with the real impacts of this health care law and the impacts on patients, on providers and on taxpayers. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we're considering the shaheen-portman energy efficiency bill. that's what i believe this legislation is called. and i think we got onto this bill on monday. and here it is late thursday afternoon, and it's amazing that we haven't had a debate or a vote on a single amendment. in three days. now, we're done for the week so we're not going to have any debate on any amendments or any votes tomorrow either. we're going to go the whole week without having been able to

seriously consider the merits or problems with this bill and without being able to offer any ideas to improve or to change the underlying text. it's just unbelievable. but this is what's become routine here in the united states senate. now, i have offered four amendments, introduced four amendments that i'd like to debate, i'd like to have a vote on. i've cosponsored four other amendments that my colleagues have offered. i think altogether republicans have drafted and filed dozens of amendments. i don't know exactly how many. there are dozens. in part because we haven't considered an energy bill in this chamber in seven years. things change in seven years. lots of things change. and after seven years of not having a debate over energy policy in america, something that is so basic to our economy, so important to every single family, every single business,

everybody, it might be a good idea to have a debate and to offer some amendments, to have a discussion and have some votes. but that's not the way the senate functions. can't do it. the majority party, the majority leader just will not allow us to have amendments. this isn't terribly recent. over the last ten months, since july of last summer, the majority leader has permitted republicans to have a grand total of eight amendment votes, eight votes in ten months. the senate is virtually shut down. that's what's happened, mr. president. it just so happens that during that same period of time, the house republicans who are in control of the house, they permitted the minority party to have 136 votes. of course, the irony is that it's the house that is historically -- that has historically always operated

under a kind of a martial law kind of approach where the majority totally dictates all terms. it always has. but during this ten-month period, they have had 136 votes permitted to the minority party. we have had eight. and none on this energy bill, not one. i truly don't understand why the majority party is so afraid of votes, what is so horrifying about casting a vote on an amendment, but apparently, apparently that's the case. i want to talk briefly about two of the amendments that i have offered that i would like to have a vote on. i'm not asking for an outcome, by the way. i accept that i don't have any right to expect any particular outcome, but i don't understand why we can't have the discussion, why we can't have the debate, why we can't have the vote. by the way, it's thursday afternoon. by now, we could have processed dozens of amendments. actually, republicans -- in the

end, all we wanted was a handful. but here's within that i offered. -- one that i offered. it's amendment 3037. it would prohibit the department of energy from issuing new energy efficiency mandates on residential boilers. not very complicated. it's not the end of the world one way or the other, but on the margins, i think this kind of thing matters a little bit to families. i'll tell you why. residential boilers, we all have them. these are our hot water heaters. got them in our basements. we use them to heat water, to heat our house in some cases, to heat our water so we can take a hot shower. this is pretty common. we have all got them. well, the department of energy is in their periodic process of reviewing the mandates that they impose on the energy efficiency standards for the boilers. and the only consideration in this review process is whether they will make the mandates more

stringent than they are today, make them adhere to a tougher standard than the standard that they are forced to adhere to today. well, i think it would be better not to change the standard. that's my opinion. the reason i hold that view is because the problem with a more stringent energy efficiency requirement on these hot water heaters is it makes them more expensive. it doesn't matter much for really wealthy people, but if you're a middle income family or a low-income family, it raises the cost of your home, it raises the cost of replacing a hot water heater, and there's a lot of folks who just can't afford to have an unnecessary additional cost added to it. and by the way, i don't think you need to force consumers to conserve energy. everybody has an incentive to conserve energy because energy's not free, so people are perfectly happy to pay a little more for more energy efficiency for a product if they can recoup

that added cost in the form of a lower energy bill over time. people get that. they will make that decision. they will do it voluntarily. in fact, the only reason you need to mandate standards is if you want to force consumers to pay a bigger premium than what they can recoup. if you only want them to pay for what they can save in the future, they would do it voluntarily. so to me, this is one of those annoying little government mandates that's not necessary, and it reduces consumers' choices, raises their costs, and i don't think it's a good idea, especially during difficult economic times now where median wages have been declining, not rising. i just don't think it's a good idea for the government to impose a new cost like this. and so i have got an amendment that would forbid the department of energy from ratcheting up the costs of an appliance that we have, that we all have in our homes. now, i get the fact that not

everybody agrees with me. that's fine. some people do want to impose this added cost for their own reasons, and that's fine. what i don't understand is why we can't have the debate, why we can't have the discussion and then have a vote, and then i either win or i lose and we're done, but we don't do that. apparently, the majority party is just not willing to allow republican amendments. i have another amendment. now, this one has bipartisan cosponsorship. i have cosponsors with senators coburn and flake. actually, senator coburn introduced it initially. i am a cosponsor. what this would do, this amendment would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate from the renewable fuels standard. now, what's that about? well, existing law mandates that we take corn, convert it into ethanol and then the law requires that that ethanol be

mixed with gasoline and we all have to buy it when we fill up our tanks. mr. president, you may be aware we now burn over 40% of all the corn we grow in america, over 40% of it we end up burning in our cars. by turning it into ethanol and mixing it with our gasoline. well, this was -- there wer good intentions when this mandate was initially created. some people thought it would be good for the environment. it turns out it's not. it's bad for the environment. and that's not just me saying this. the national academy of sciences, the environmental working group, everybody acknowledges it increases carbon emissions. now, we had members on the other side of the aisle thought that the issue of carbon in the atmosphere, co2 releases were so important that they were here around the clock in a dramatic display of political theater to

make the case. now here is an amendment that would emit the co2 emissions because the ethanol requirement increases co2 relative to where we would be if it didn't exist. that's not the only problem with the ethanol mandate. it raises the price of filling up our tanks. this is expensive stuff. having to mix it with ordinary gasoline raises the cost of driving. everybody has to drive. so not only is it bad for the environment but it's more expensive for every single family that operates a vehicle. that's not all it does. because we're diverting 40% of all the corn we grow to our gas tanks, it's not available in our cereals or in the food that we feed to livestock, and so food prices are higher than they need to be, higher than they would otherwise be because of this mandate. that's not all. everybody acknowledges that ethanol has a corrosive effect

on engines, so it's doing damage to our engines, which shortens the life of the engines. again, not that big a deal if you are extremely wealthy and you can just kind of burn through cars, but for the vast majority of the people that i represent, the car is a very expensive cost that they incur, and having a policy that systematically damages that very valuable asset doesn't make a lot of sense to me. there is yet another reason. these ethanol mandates can have very dire consequences on some of our oil refineries, and that can cost us jobs, and it threatens refineries in pennsylvania. as a matter of fact, i got a letter from the philadelphia afl-cio business manager, a fellow named pat gillespie, who wrote to me, asking me to try to do something about this because it's threatening the jobs of the people he represents at the refineries where they work. i'm going to quote briefly from a portion of his letter.

he says -- quote -- "the impact of the dramatic spike in costs of the ring credits -- that's the system by which the e.p.a. enforces the ethanol mandate -- from four cents to $1 per gallon will cause a tremendous depression in our refineries' bottom line in 2013. of course, in the building trades, we need the refineries to maintain and expand jobs. he closed by saying we need your help in this matter." mr. president, i'm trying to help. i'm offering an amendment that would repeal the corn ethanol mandate here. together with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. now, again, i understand -- not everybody agrees with this. there are some people who like the ethanol maintained. mandate. why can't weigh have a vote? why can't we resolve these things on the senate floor? but we don't. we spend the whole week waiting to find out if we might have an

amendment only to find out we get none. so another week goes by, nothing productive being done on the senate floor, and legislation that could be a vehicle for a meaningful, robust debate about energy policy in america -- i have just given two examples. we've got dozens of things we could be debating. we didn't insist on having all of them, but a handful of ideas? it's -- it's shocking to me. it's shocking that we just can't allow the senate to function, that senator reid insists that we can't have an open amendment process. it's disturbing because, of course, historically this was the body that did exactly -- that had the open amendment, had the open debate. this was the, you know -- i'm chuckling because it seems so odd now, but historically, the senate was considered the world's greatest deliberative body because we would deliberate. the senate use d.o.d used to do.

the majority would control the agenda, would decide what's on the floor and that's fair enough. but then once the majority leader would decide what bill is on the the floor, then it would be open for debate, until essentially the body exhausted itself and members were finished offering amendments, and then you'd have a final passage vote. no such thing -- nothing even remotely similar to that is happening today. now, i know a number of my colleagues, including the distinguished senator who is in the chair at the moment, have served in the house. it's unbelievable to me that now for an extended period of time the house is having much more robust debate and far more amendment votes by both the majority and the minority party than we're permitted to even consider in the senate. this is a sorry state of

affairs. seven years since the last debate on energy policy. an energy efficiency bill comes to the floor, and energy efficiency amendments are not permitted to have a discussion or a vote. that's what the senate has come to. so, mr. president, i would just urge my colleagues and urge the majority party in particular, who control this body, and urge the majority leader, allow the senate to function. allow us to actually have a debate. allow us to have some amendments. it's actually not that excriews- excruciating to have a vote. in a matter of a very short time, we could mow down lots of amendments and move on to the next piece of legislation. energy is a really, really important subject for our country and it deserves to have more serious consideration than it's getting. i yield the floor and note the absence muc of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his

request? a senator: i will withhold my request. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i would ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to ron pfabish from my staff during the pendency of s. 2262. officethe presiding officer: wit objection. ms. murkowski: thank you. i appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend from pennsylvania and the discussion of why the we're here today on a late thursday afternoon. we started off the week, i think, with an air of optimism that with the energy efficiency bill before us we could get to that place where we could be debating substantive issues of the day. and as my colleague has noted, we haven't seen a real energy bill on this floor now for seven years.

and when you think about the landscape, the energy landscape in this country and what has happened in seven years' time, you know, seven years ago we were looking to build import terminals to receive l.n.g. now we're debating -- or hoping to debate the export of our l.n.g. i have kind of put a target on my back, if you will, and said, let's talk about what's happening with our oil potential in this country and our opportunity as a nation to export our oil, given that next year we will actually be producing more oil in this country, than the country of russia, than saudi arabia. but that's going to require some debate, discussion, some policy considerations. mr. president, if we can't even get to the point where we can move forward on an energy efficiency bill, how are we ever

going to advance some of these policy initiatives when it comes to our natural gas, when it comes to our oil, when how we might be able to deal with the issues such as nuclear waste that, quite honestly, until we can resolve these are going to be holding back our opportunity to advance in this area rk, how we're going to really build out the potential in this country for our renewables and how we integrate them into an outdated system. there are so many policy issues that we have to talk about. so when people suggest that, well, all we want do is talk about energy, i'm one senator that would love to do a lot of talk about energy. mr. president, i would also like us to be able to legislate on energy initiatives. i would like us to update some of our energy policies because, as times have changed, unfortunately some of our laws

have not. now, my colleague from pennsylvania has mentioned that, you know, there was a time when we would have substantive debate. take it back to the energy bills that were before us when i first came to the senate back in 2003, we took up an energy bill that at that time was on the floor. i know it was multiple weeks. it may have been multiple months. on july 25, 2003, we resumed consideration of the energy bill. we had a unanimous consent agreement at that time that more than 370 -- 370 remaining amendments would be in order. now, 2003 may seem like a long time ago for some, but for me it just seems like yesterday. and i'm thinking about that. it's like, wow, we were able to come to a u.c. on 370

amendments. the energy policy act -- you go back to that you look a -- you o back to that, you look at the energy log. it shows that more than 170 amendments from senators on both sides were considered. i think it peeks to the issues that were at -- i think it speaks to the issues that were at play at that time. we're still basing most of our energy policy, of course, from that -- from those 2005, 2007 energy acts. so i think it is important to recognize that when it comes to something as significant as our energy policy in this country, the debate is worthy. the debate is important. and legislating on these is critically important. mr. president, i know that there are conversations that were yet under way as to whether or not an amendment opportunity will be made available, whether the fort or fiv -- whether the four or fe

amendments that the republicans have order that are being considered by the majority leader and the bill sponsors of shaheen-portman, whether we will be able to reach a fair consideration for processing of those amendments. i would certainly hope that we are able to do just that. the energy efficiency bill, as i noted in my comments the day before yesterday -- the energy efficiency bill is good, sound policy. it is an important leg in the energy stool. when we talk about our energy resources and what we have available domestically, what we're able to be producing here whether it is our fossil fuels, whether it is our renewable fuels, whether it is our alternatives, the recognition is that our most readily available energy source is the one that we

don't waste. if we can be more efficient, if we can do more when it comes to conservation, this benefits all of us. so let's figure out how we can move an energy efficiency bill. this is round number two for us. let us not allow the process to bog down a good bill and a bill that deserves to not only pass this body but to be worked through the body on the other side and to ultimately be signed in to law by the president. so i want to -- i want to start work. i want to be legislating. i also recognize that this has been a difficult time for us all right now. we're not seeing a lot of legislation moving through this senate. but i have been trying to use the time that i have, as the ranking member on the energy committee, trying to use it wisely, trying to focus on those

areas where we can really critically examine the energy policies that we have in place today and how we might refresh, how we might reimagine the energy architecture that we have. last year i released a pretty major report. we called it "energy 2020." and it is a blueprint that kind of lays out my view of a sound, robust energy policy. and i didn't want a report that had taken a lot of time and energy and effort and love and passion to just sit on somebody's desk, so we have been working in this past year to flush out some of the details that we outlined in the blueprint. i've released now four separate white papers stemming from "energy 2020." the first one was on listening n

l.n.g. exports. the second was on export generally but also focusing on the specific issue of the prospect for oil exports. we released a very well-received white paper on electric reliability. and then earlier this week i had an opportunity to release a white paper on the nexus between energy and water. all of these are available on the energy committee's web site. i've given speeches here on the floo i've addressed small groups, large groups, basically anybody that will listen, not only in my state in alaska but around the country. and my colleagues and those who have been listening have heard me say multiple times that what i'm looking for, what i'm hoping for, what i'm trying to build is laws and policies -- are laws and policies that will help us access our energy resources, to be able to have a policy that

says our energy should be abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. and i joke about it and i say, there's no acronym for that but i have arranged it alphabetically so that you can remember it. but when you think about these five components, you say, well, when you incorporate these all together -- clean, diverse, affordable, abundant, secure. i think it has been a worthwhile effort and i hope this broader conversation will forge consensus on what we recognize can be some tough issues. so i've been working hard, even though we're not moving a lot of bills through the floor right now. but i've been working hard to try to advance the conversation on so many of these issues that i think are a priority. i'd like to take just a few

minutes this afternoon here, mr. president, to speak about the most recent white paper that i have released, and this is on the connection or the nexus between energy and water. i mentioned i had an opportunity to present this on tuesday, it was, at the atlantic council here in washington. it is entitled "the energy water nexus." and it's really a very timely subject, very relevant to the current discussion of measures that we can take to support energy efficiency. i think it is apparent, but it certainly bears repeating that there are clear, clear links between energy and water and water and energy.

and these fall into two categories, and it sounds kind simple. but it's water for energy and energy for water. because without water, much of our energy -- electricity included -- just can't be produced, our economy literally comes to a halt. and without energy -- and particularly electricity -- the treatment, the transport, the distribution of water, that doesn't function either; that all seizes up as well. so you've got water and energy inextricably linked. and i think it's important to acknowledge that the continued availability and reliability should not be taken for granted. and and i think sometimes this is today the part that we fail to keep in perspective. we're talking a lot about energy right now, but as we talk about energy, let's talk about how that energy source intersects

with water. in an effort to produce this energy, how much water are we consuming? and in an effort to use that water, how much energy is being consumed to move or treat? so again, the nexus is tight. and, mr. president, wit comes to water for energy -- when it comes to water for energy, an interesting statistic here. about 41% of our freshwater withdrawals here in the united states are attributed to cooling the vast majority of our power plants and this also consumes about 6% of our freshwater. water is also routinely needed to produce the various energy resources, whether it's coal, gas, uranium. according to c.r.s., the congressional research service, the production of biofuels has the highest water intensity

value requiring a thousand times more water than conventional natural gas. so, again, understanding what the intensity is i think is important as we talk about our energy resources. all together, more than 12 billion gallons of freshwater are consumed daily for the combined production of fuels and electricity across the country. turning to energy for water, one study on a national scale found that direct water-related energy consumption amounted to more than 12% of domestic primary energy consumption in 2010. that's equivalent to the annual water consumption of about 40 million americans. now, we're seeing new technology and i think we're seeing that really with the potential to provide a paradigm shift. and from today's vantage point, steady population increase, the resources -- the resource needs

of a modern economy, i think we know could make freshwater a limited resource in many parts of the country. we're certainly seeing this howtout in the west, severe droughts out in california, for that matter across most of the western u.s., really only serve to underscore the risks that are associated. out west, of course, hydropower -- hydroelectric power is a major contributor to electricity generation, in oregon, idaho, montana. if rivers and reservoirs are running low, this generation, this power generation capacity is at risk. the recent and rapid substantial expansion of our domestic energy production is very, very good for our nation, particularly the growth in unconventional oil and gas production. we've seen is it has created jobs, revived local economies, it does wonders for our energy

security. as i mentioned, the u.s. is now producing and exporting more energy than ever before. our net energy imports are at a 20-year low, they're projected to fall below 5% of total consumption by 2025. with many new wells that are located in regions that have already experienced some water shortages, we're seeing producers that are moving in a direction to help assure that there's going to be sufficient water available for both the work that they're doing but also for other regional needs. new technological advancements, new methods to maintain a balanced use of freshwater resources have been continuously emerging and i think that's important to recognize. folks are appreciating, again, that you can't count on an unlimited supply of this water resource.

so how we're utilizing our technology to be smart, to be efficient, is going to put everyone in better stead. even in the case of conventional power generation station, -- stakeses, technological advances can reduce if not eliminate the amount of water required for cooling purposes. but, madam president, the key really here is technology. continued research and development is the heart of innovation and advancements. so the questions that i think are appropriate to ask are what can we do to ensure an adequate supply of water, and how can we responsibly bli minimize the amount of water that is used for energy, and then also energy for water? conservation, of course, can help reduce demand from both water for energy and energy for water activities but i think we have to recognize it can only go so far.

as i just mentioned, innovative water use streadgesd are equally important when trying to optimize unlimited supplies. so i've called on all stakeholders in the private sector as well as the government to supported r&d and demonstration of new technologies that can really work to reduce our energy and water consumption. so, again, talking about the bill that's on the floor, energy efficiency, everything that we can do to reduce our energy consumption as well as reducing our water consumption just is all good. it's all good. the genesis -- sustainability of such efforts are highly reliant on open and continuous information of information exchange between the parties. i have suggested that the federal government not only can but they should facilitate this

exchange of information on a national and an international scale, and it can do that by forming some partnerships, genuine partnerships with the stakeholders including industry, utilities and academia and teaming up to advance a better understanding of the energy-water nexus, adopting better practices through technological innovations and learning from one another about the procedures and implementation strategies. the dialogue should also include the international perspectives on the energy-water nexus and utilizing the experience and the expertise from around the world. we've seen technological advancements and great work going on in areas like us australia, the gulf countries, israel and sing peer. the -- singapore. the development of new technologies can answer the needs of domestic and international energy water markets and this could mean opportunities for job creation, good jobs, in high-tech r&d and

manufacturing. so what i'm advocating with, with this white paper and the proposals out there is really better planning, better collaboration. i'm not looking for a top-down approach, i'm not looking for more binding rules or mandates and i'm certainly not advocating for forceful implementation of any new policies or directives that you must use certain technologies. the adoption of best practices should always be on a voluntary basis. but having said that, i do believe if we can demonstrate savings and demonstrate efficiencies from new technologies and better resource management approaches, the stakeholders are going to figure out, they're going to figure this out, this is a win-win for their own bottom line, makes sense for their customers, it's just good to advance. so long these lines, i've introduced energy water legislation with senator wyden, we introduced it in january. our bill is the nexus of energy and water for sustainability

act, we call at this time news act and it features just some plain old commonsense policy improvements. what a concept. just think. in more ordinary times, perhaps, i would have even introduced the new proposed news act as an amendment to the bill that we have before us. but what we have, s. 2262, is a short bill, a simple bill that directs the office of science and technology policy to establish a committee or subcommittee under the national science and technology council to coordinate, to streamline the energy and water nexus of our federal agencies. we're asking this panel which would be chaired by the secretaries of energy and interior, and bringing in representatives from the agencies, to identify all these relevant energy-water nexus activities across the federal government because we know it's a huge spaghetti mess here. work together and disseminate

the data to enable better practices, explore the relevant public-private collaboration. we also call for o.m.b. to submit a cross-cut budget that details these federal expenditures to energy-water activities and what we're looking to do is just to streamline these efforts, not just to save water, not just to save energy but to save taxpayer dollars. so it's good, it's sensible, i think it's a rationed approach. i'd like to be able to legislate on this and i hope, madam president, that we will gets to that point where we are beyond the energy efficiency bill, the shaheen-portman bill that we've been trying so hard to work to advance, be not only this week but for years now, that we are beyond arguing over whether or not we're going to be able to move on some amendments, but that we will take up with great energy and

enthusiasm -- pun intended -- these initiatives that will help our nation to be more productive, to be more energy secure, to have a stronger national security, to have energy policies that are current, and are just sound. so i am one who tries to get up every morning, optimistic, glass half full, and i want to believe that we will -- we will work out an arrangement so that we can have a fair amendment process that allows republicans to offer a small handful of amendments to be debated and voted on, that will allow us to move an energy efficiency measure that is important to our energy policy and to demonstrate, madam president,

that perhaps we can do a little bit of legislating, a little bit of governing, and advance the cause. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent my remarks are placed at an appropriate place in the record and that i be able to complete my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you, madam president. before i begin, i'd like to take just a moment to address some proposals we've been hearing about in the tax base. many of us, myself very much included, were concerned to see the news the other day that a very large american corporation has announced plans to merge with a somewhat smaller but still large u.k. corporation and then have the combined entity domiciled in the united kingdom. apparently a desire to escape the high u.s. corporate tax that was part of the motivation for the merger. this type of transaction where a

u.s. corporation escapes the u.s. tax net is sometimes referred to as inann inverser. broadly speaking there are two ways to address the problem of inversions. the first is to make it more difficult for a u.s. corporation to invert. today we've read accounts of members of congress to proposed doing just that. the second way, the second way is to make the united states a more desirable location to headquarter one's business. i believe the latter is by far the better way. that would mean lowering the corporate tax rate and having a more competitive tax code. under current law u.s. corporations are taxed on their worldwide income but foreign corporations are subject to tax only on income arising from the u.s. itself. in other words, we subject our own corporations to a worldwide tax system while subjecting foreign corporations to a territorial tax system.

it's strange that the u.s. government treats foreign corporations more favorably than american corporations but that's nonetheless what we do. there is a danger if the relatively unfavorable treatment of american companies is ratcheted up which seems to be the effect of some of these anti-inversion proposals that american companies will become even more attractive targets for takeover by foreign corporations. i don't know when my liberal friends will catch on and realize that some of their approaches are just downright i idiotic. as important as it is to get the corporate tax rate down no matter how low we get the rate we need to replace our antiquated worldwide tax system. instead of imposing inversions restrictions retroactivively and we should first keep our focus on where we can agree. by uniting around the goal to

create an internationally competitive tax code, we can keep american job creators from looking to leave in the first place. successful tax reform can help reverse the trend and cause more businesses to locate in the u.s. bringing more jobs to americans. and nike mistakemake to mistake, ths rising. just look at the firms ranked by revenue and you will see a significant decline in the number over the past decade. that, of course, means a lower tax base for the united states. when are these people going to catch on? as i just said, tax reform can be used to reverse that trend, make the u.s. an attractive place to locate businesses and global headquarters and provide a base for more jobs in america. as the ranking member of the senate's tax-writing committee, that is where my focus is. and i will work with anyone,

republican or democrat, to achieve that goal. it's ridiculous the way some of our people in this government today believe that you can solve this problem by making it even more intrusive on businesses, even more onerous and burdensome by thinking they can force businesses to live in accordance with antiquated rules. madam president, i rise today to defend on a separate matter the separation of government powers enshrined in our constitution and the lawful prerogatives of the united states senate in which i have the privilege and honor of serving now for -- i'm in my 38th year. just last week, i spoke from this podium about the obama administration's blatant disregard of its constitutional obligations, and, in particular, about how the ideological devotion and political expediency have again and again trumped the president's sworn duty to uphold the law.

in the short time since then, the white house has provided yet another egregious example of itsliness to disregard clear legal object -- its willingness to disregard clear legal obligations in clear favor of playing partisan politics. just days ago we heard that the obama administration withheld particularly significant information from disclosure to congress despite a lawfully issued subpoena during a house committee's investigation of the september 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi, libya. one of these documents, an e-mail from a senior white house official, casts serious doubt on a number of the administration's key assertions about the explanations it offered congress and the american people regarding the cause and nature of those attacks. madam president, there are many important questions about benghazi to which the american people deserve answers, questions about how and why brave americans died in this terrorist attack, four brave

americans. questions about the circumstances under which our nation lost its first ambassador in the line of duty in more than a generation. the questions about how the obama administration advanced an admittedly false but politically advantageous narrative about the attack during the homestretch of a heated election campaign. i appreciate the efforts of my colleagues, both in this body and in the house of representatives, in seeking a fair and thorough investigation of this matter. but what compels me to speak out today goes beyond the substance of this particular investigati investigation, as critically important as that is. i am deeply troubled by the obama administration's utter disregard for essential legal and constitutional obligations. this lawlessness has made manifest in many forms. today i want to discuss this

administration's long pattern of obstinance in responding to congressional investigations and how this abuse has become the latest front in a vital struggle against sweeping executive branch overreach that has characterized president obama's term in office. madam president, congress's investigation into the benghazi terrorist attack should have been and could have been a collaborative endeavor aimed at discovering the truth. indeed, president obama publicly proclaimed that he was -- quote -- "happy to cooperate in ways that congress wants." and promised that his administration would share with congressional investigators all information connected to the administration's own internal review. secretary kerry likewise pronounced and promised "an accountable and open state department" that would provide

truthful answers about all circumstances relating to the benghazi attack. unfortunately, the obama administration has been anything but open and accountable. nor have the white house or the state department -- and/or the state department shown much willingness to cooperate in a constructive fashion with congressional investigations into the matter. instead, this administration has repeatedly rejected document requests from several congressional committees broadly asserting its unwillingness to turn over whole swaths of relevant material. when congressional investigators responded with subpoenas, creating clearly defined and legally binding obligations for the administration to comply, obama officials have continued to resist and in some cases have refused to disclose entire categories of critical documents. throughout the investigations, this administration has consistently employed a strategy of minimal compliance.

in many instances, executive officials have heavily redacted the limited range of documents the administration has in fact disclosed or forced congressional investigators through the cumbersome and perhaps unnecessary process of examining documents that they insist must remain in the administration's possession. such methods when reasonably employed have historically allowed the executive and legislative branches to make mutually acceptable compromises, establishing arrangements that allow congress access to the information it needs but enable the administration to protect legitimate interests and confidentiality. but instead, president obama and his subordinates have taken these tactics to the extreme, creating an unsustainable expression -- impression that the administration has something to hide. how could anybody look at what they're doing and not realize that's what they are doing.

at the very least, it is clear that executive officials have deliberately slowwalked this important congressional inquiry. indeed, the administration has managed to drag its feet and frustrate congressional investigators for more than a year and a half since the benghazi attack, limiting and delaying compliance for over a year since the first subpoena issued. the obama administration's most recent abuse, a particularly egregious act, habits long delay in releasing e-mails that were clearly responsive to an earlier congressional subpoena. the administration only provided congress these e-mails in mid-april after disclosing them as part of compliance with an outside group's freedom of information act request, even though the e-mails were undeniably relevant and responsive to a lawful congressional subpoena.

a subpoena issued in the summer of 2013, seven months earlier. this is the second time that the obama administration has simply passed on to congress documents that it has previously released to media and watchdog groups, a weak attempt at complying with a congressional subpoena. that's an administration out of control, an administration not living up to the laws, an administration that is ignoring legitimate inquiries of congress, an administration that just seems to think it can get away with anything. more importantly, this episode demonstrates the carelessness and the -- well, should i say the careless and intentionally evasive approach the administration has taken in responding to congressional subpoenas. a simple foia request turned up

multiple documents that the administration admits are covered by a prior congressional subpoena and, therefore, should have been disclosed months earlier. while the executive branch is obviously obliged to take all lawful information requests seriously, it is outrageous that this administration would treat a routine foia request from a private party with more care and serious attention than a lawfully issued subpoena from a coordinate branch of the federal government. i might add, a coequal branch of the federal government, the congress of the united states. madam president, i wish i could say that the obama administration's conduct in the investigationinvestigations inti attack represented an anomaly, a unique instance in an otherwise respectable record of good-faith efforts to cooperate with congressional investigations and to respect congress's legitimate

authorities. unfortunately, that simply isn't the casemen case. instead, we have experienced a pattern of obstruction, repeated instances of bad faith in responding to lawful information requests and subpoenas, and a fundamental disrespect of the laws and norms underlying the constitution's separation of government powers. we have all witnessed such abuse in this administration's handling of other high-profile investigations, like the botched gunwalking exercise in operation fast and furious. we routinely observe such hostility in more ordinary matters as this administration regularly delays and often refuses to provide answers or produce information to members of congress. as the ranking member of the senate finance committee, i see this all the time, whether it's the refusal of the treasury

department to explain how it deals with its statutory debt limit or the failure of the department of health and human services to respond to even the simplest questions about obamacare implementation. we see this hostility most transparently when the administration openly challenges the legitimacy of congressional investigations and when administration officials display outright contempt for proper lines of congressional inquiry. madam president, none of this is to say that some assertions of executive privilege are not reasonable or even valid. past administrations have often asserted privilege claims before congress and sometime -- sometimes they have done so aggressively. this area of law has relatively few judicial precedents. it is largely defined by past practice in which the distinction between legal requirements and prudential interests is often quite blurry.

as such, we can expect some legitimate disagreement as to whether particular claims of executive privilege are within the bounds of reasonableness. but fundamentally, the text and structure of the constitution enshrines a congressional right and establishes a congressional duty to investigate executive branch activities. that's how through the years we have kept administrations straight. it's a very important part of our job up here on capitol hill. judicial precedence as well as established practice between the legislative and executive branches stretching all the way back to the investigation of the saint claire expedition under president george washington in 1792 also affirm the rightful authority of congress to require presidential administrations to produce information in response

to congressional requests? since the great constitutional clashes of the watergate period, specific and binding precedence have detailed the requirements that administrations must seek to accommodate congressional information requests made in good faith, subject to adjudication by federal courts. the obama administration's actions clearly fall short of these basic obligations. it is -- it is an abysmal record highlighted most recently in the benghazi e-mail controversy, that has demonstrated that executive officials are not acting in good faith to comply with legitimate congressional inquiries. the administration's public efforts to delegitimize congressional investigations endangers not only the relationship between the current white house and this congress

but, more fundamentally undermines the separation of government powers by attacking one of the most important checks on executive overreach. the administration's expansive justifications squarely contradict the supreme court's command in united states investment nixon that -- quote -- "exceptions to the demand for evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed for they are in derogation of the search for truth." even more troubling, madam president, the obama white house has even attempted to undermine our congressional investigatory power at its core. this isn't hyperbole. the current administration actually had the audacity to argue in federal court that a committee of congress was categorically barred from asking

the judiciary to enforce a subpoena that the executive branch had defied, a course of action implicit in the structure of our constitution. demanded by the supreme court's jurisprudence and recognized by courts for decades. thankfully one of preside -- one of president obama's own political appointees roundly rejected this astonishing claim but that should give members of this body very little comfort. by challenging the very authority of congress to investigate executive abuses, by challenging the obligation of a presidential administration to accommodate congressional inquiries in good faith and by challenging the power of federal courts to resolve such disputes, the obama administration -- the obama administration's actions represent a serious threat to our constitutional structure.

indeed, this particular effort to undermine essential institutional checks and balances is part of a broader pattern of executive abuse, one that includes the obama administration's disregard for its obligations to enforce the law, its actions to exceed legitimate statutory authority, its attempts to defy specific requirements of duly enacted law and its efforts to usurp legislative power from congress. i spoke at length last week about many such abuses of executive power by the obama administration. i will continue to do so because i believe keeping the exercise of executive authority within lawful bound is essential to the legitimacy of our government and to the liberties of our citizens. and i recognize that doing so will require continual vigilance by the courts, by the american people and by those of us who serve in congress.

this latest episode with the benghazi e-mails as well as the president's new pen and phone strategy demonstrates quite clearly that the obama administration has not shown any signs of relenting in its executive overreach. and this unprecedented pattern of executive abuse comes from a president who promised unprecedented transparency and who regularly criticized his predecessor's use of executive power, including in the context of executive privilege. the administration's actions demand a redoubling of the congress's investigative efforts. i urge the majority leader to join the house to form a joint select committee on the benghazi terrorist attacks and its aftermath. madam president, i know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, not to mention the obama administration itself, have convinced themselves that this investigation is simply a

partisan exercise. apparently preparing them to ignore the institutional struggle between congress and the executive. i just wonder what would have happened here had robert c. byrd been our majority leader, as he was for so long. he would not have put up for this for one minute. he would have assert this had institution's authority and this institution's responsibility, congress's responsibility, if you will, to get to the bottom of this. i served on the iran-contra committee, special committee that was set up. it's not a bad thing for us to investigate an administration that appears to be out of whack, that appears to be ignoring the basic tenets of the law and appears to be hiding information from the public.

but forget the public right now. how about congress? it's hard to respect an administration that acts like this. we should all be eager to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the benghazi attack. my friends on the other side ought to quit trying to protect the administration when they know that these are serious charges. these are serious things. we have an obligation to get to the bottom of it. let the chips fall where they may. there were four deaths here of heroes. even more important, all members of this esteemed body, whether democrat or republican, should demand that congress's institutional prerogatives are preserved and defended. as members of the legislative branch, we have the fundamental right and the accompanying duty

to exercise a lawful oversight function. when any presidential administration engages in extreme resistance and demonstrates an unwillingness to cooperate with legitimate congressional investigations, we all -- not just people on this side -- have an institutional obligation to defend our rightful constitutional prerogatives. madam president, these executive abuses matter. the obama administration has clearly and consistently overstepped its authorities and ignored its obligations under our constitution and federal law. this overreach threatens the rule of law and it undermines the governmental checks and balances necessary to secure our liberties as americans. president obama promised unprecedented transparency that

would restore trust and confidence in government. but his administration's lawless actions heightened the need for more robust and effective congressional oversight. as even a liberal "washington post" columnist opined earlier this week -- quote -- "the obama white house can blame its own secrecy and obsessive control over information" for the heightened scrutiny of its questionable activities. oversight investigations are a critical tool that congress must use effectively to remote government accountability. the obama administration's escalating strategy of stonewalling even to the point of ignoring legal obligations and long-standing norms now threatens our rightful role in calling the executive branch to account. indeed, madam president, the basic assumption that undermines

and underlies the constitution's plan of government, as james madison explained in federalist 47 and 51, is that -- quote -- "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. but the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. the provision for defense must be -- must enlist as in all other cases be made commensurate to the danger of attack. ambition must be made to

counteract ambition." unquote. madam president, as madison explained, it is incumbent upon each of us to insist on congress's right and duty to investigate the executive branch and to ensure that the tk*eul abides by the -- that the administration abides by the most basic and most fundamental requirements to our constitutional system. we owe the american people, not to mention the families of those who perished, a meaningful investigation of the benghazi attack. not just to find answers to remaining questions, but to affirm that this is still a nation of laws and that the people's elected representatives are still capable of pursuing the truth and holding the executive branch accountable for its actions. madam president, this is a matter of great concern to me, and i'm sure it is to a lot of people who are starting to realize that there is a stonewalling like we've never seen since richard nixon.

i don't know that the president has done this personally. i hope not. but he's got to look into and got to stop this. and if he doesn't, then i think it's up to the majority in this body to whom -- hold the administration to account with the help of the minority and to not have them just ignore and disregard and treat with contempt the rightful oversight that we have in order to do and an obligation to do up here. this is really a very serious set of problems as far as i'm concerned. and i hope that the president will get after his people down there. i think one of the problems is we've got a lot of young people in the white house right now who haven't had the experience. on the other hand, some of these things are so deliberate that

you can't blame it on lack of experience. these folks know, and the people in the justice department know. and to have withheld these e-mails the way they did, knowing that they were crucial to any investigation, is something we should not tolerate here in the united states senate. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 358. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 358, s. 2197, a bill to repeal certain requirements regarding newspaper advertising of senate stationery contracts. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h.

con. res. 83. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 83, authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitors' center for an event to celebrate the birthday of king kamehameha. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding on the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 440. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 440, recognizing the contributions of teachers to the civic, cultural and economic well-being of the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and there be no intervening action or

debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, may 12. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. that at 5:30, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. oh, pardon me, madam president. and finally, that the filing deadline for all secondary amendments be 4:30 p.m. on monday, and that's regarding s. 2262. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i hope that everyone has a good few days off. we are hopeful next week that we'll have a lot to do. we have had a couple of breakthroughs today and maybe next week we can do a little more than we did this week.

on monday, there will be up to three roll call votes at 5:30 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

vice president joe biden spoke resent the motion picture association of america's creativity conference. also cosponsored by abc and microsoft, the theme of the conference was how creativity and innovation play a role in globalization and the economy. the vice president spoke for just over 20 minutes. ! for many years the united states senate is involved. some people have come to the issue fairly recently and we welcome that. intellectual property copyright issues.

the united states has been so committed to this issue going back years we served the judiciary committee and you heard earlier from bob goodlatte as the cochair to the caucus to the house and senate on these issues. he's entirely since then on the zephyrs. when we saw the changes that occurred from our relationship on the code is an there are a lot of people who contributed to that. no one, absolutely no one made as much as a difference in the outcome of that negotiation than the vice president of the united states. today the fact as i mentioned a moment ago some 15 screens being built today in china consume a greater and greater quantities of content. the ability now for coproductions without any quotas and of course the reason from 20 to 34 as well as box office receipts in no small measure as a result of the efforts of the vice preside