September 11, 2013/United States/U.S. Senate Congressional Record (raw)

Call to order
Page: S6337

Pledge of Allegiance
Page: S6337

Appointment of Acting President Pro Tempore
Page: S6337

The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the.

Page: S6337

Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

Observing the Twelfth Anniversary of the Attacks on September 11, 2001
Page: S6337

Under the previous order, there will now be a moment of silence to pay tribute to the Americans whose lives were taken on September 11, 2001.

Page: S6337

The majority leader is recognized.

Page: S6337

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business until 2:30 p.m. this afternoon for debate only, with all other aspects of the previous order being in effect.

Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, the Republican leader and I have spoken, and we are working on a way forward based on the President’s speech and what has happened over the last few days. He and I will confer shortly again, but right now we will be in a period of morning business. Senators may talk about whatever they want. It is my understanding that the time is equally divided between the two sides; is that right?

The Senator is correct.

Page: S6337

Following leader remarks, the time until 2:30 p.m. will be divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for 10 minutes each. There will be a remembrance ceremony on the east side of the Capitol. Members will gather in the rotunda at 10:45 a.m.

Remembering September 11, 2001
Page: S6337

Mr. President, I can remember events 12 years ago so clearly. I was not far from here at the time. I was in S-219, which is a meeting room. That is where Leader Daschle held his leadership meetings every Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. I was the first one in the room. Senator John Breaux from Louisiana came in and said: Flip on the TV. There is something going on in New York.

We turned on the TV, and it looked as though something happened in New York. We just thought an airplane had malfunctioned or something had gone wrong to cause the plane to hit that tower.

So the meeting started and the TVs were off. We were doing our business of the day when suddenly a group of police officers came in and grabbed Senator Daschle and took him outside. He came back very quickly and said: There is an airplane headed for the Capitol. We have to get out of here.

There was a lot of confusion, to say the least, as staff and Senators were ordered out of the buildings—plural. As we left S-219, we looked out the window toward the Pentagon, and smoke was billowing out of it. We could see it so very plainly. At that time we didn’t know what was happening; we just knew we had been ordered to get out of the building.

Of course, we all have memories of what took place that day. I was the assistant leader, as was Senator Nickles from Oklahoma. Senator Lott was the Republican leader, and Senator Daschle was the Democratic leader. We were taken in helicopters from the west front of the Capitol to a secure location. When I was taken to the west front of the Capitol, the scene was eerie to say the least. There were lots of people in black uniforms trying to create order out of confusion. Without going into a lot of detail, we went to a location, and the Vice President was there. He met with us and kept us informed as to what was going on with the President. We spent the day there and then came back to the west front of the Capitol, where all Members of Congress gathered. Barbara Mikulski, for lack of anyone having a better suggestion, said: We should sing “God Bless America.” She got the song started, and that was extremely memorable.

We are going to have a ceremony in a few minutes out front, and I will talk a little bit there. The four leaders have been asked to talk out there.

We did have a moment of silence regarding the more than 3,000 people who were killed in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon. In addition to those 3,000 people who were taken from us permanently, thousands of other people were injured, some of them permanently injured. Some of them have missing legs, some are blind, and some suffer from paralysis. So we raise our voices today in celebration of America’s spirit and perseverance. May we never forget 9/11.

It is also worth mentioning that on this day we also honor what took place a year ago in Libya, where one of our stellar Ambassadors was murdered along with three of his brave colleagues. They were all killed in Libya. Our country remains committed to seeking justice for them and every American victim of terrorism, and that is what the debate of Syria is all about—terrorism.

Before I began the caucus yesterday, when the President came, my introduction to the President was a film that was created by Senator Feinstein and others. It is about 12 or 13 minutes long, and it shows what went on in graphic detail with the brutal chemical weapons attack in Syria where these children were left to die. Remember, these poisons get the little kids first.

Senator Durbin has a Palestinian on his staff. We all know Reema. She does the whip count for Senator Durbin and for me. I had her listen to the film. I watched it and she listened so she could give me some idea of what people were saying there. They were yelling. It was so sad. Mostly they were praying. It was very, very sad to see people holding little babies and saying: Breathe, breathe. They couldn’t breathe. We could see the perspiration on some of them. They dumped water on them—anything to give them some relief. The video showed rows of dead people. Hundreds of them were little children. Some of them were dressed in their play clothes, little fancy, colorful T-shirts.

Even as we pay tribute to America’s tradition of freedom for every citizen across the globe, an evil dictator denies its citizens not only their right to liberty but also their right to live. The Asad family is pretty good at killing people. The New York Times had an article over the last 24 hours about his dad, because of the failed assassination attempt, killing 30,000 people he thought needed to be killed—30,000. That country, Syria, denies its citizens the right to liberty, but even more significant the right to live.

Yesterday I showed the video at the caucus. No one wanted to see it. I didn’t want to see it again. It was all I could do to glance up. I had already seen it. Those visions will always be in my mind. I showed my Senators a video of this: little boys and girls and grown men with their eyes crusted, frothing from the mouth. It was such unspeakable scenery. They were convulsing, writhing, spasms from the poison gas he used to murder his victims. It was hard to watch, but it confirmed all of our conviction that the United States must not let the Syrian regime go unpunished for using something that is outlawed. Those weapons are not to be used in a war, let alone used on a bunch of innocent people.

Yesterday the President spoke to two caucuses. He spoke last night and made a compelling case for military action against the Asad regime. As the President said, we have to send an explicit message not only to Syria but the rest of the world. Remember—who has more chemical weapons than Syria? Only one country—North Korea. Think about that.

If they get away with this, what is North Korea going to do? Then are we going to have a marketplace for purchasing chemical weapons? The use of chemical weapons by anyone, any time, anywhere, including the battlefield, should not be tolerated.

Preventing these weapons from being used is not only in our own national interests, but it is in the interests of the world. Diplomacy should always be the first choice. That is who we are as a country. So we have been asked to temporarily suspend consideration of the Syria resolution to allow for these conversations to take place around the world.

Tomorrow our Secretary of State is meeting with the Russian Secretary of State, Mr. Lavrov, to explore in fact if this is a legitimate proposal. Talking and action are two separate things. So what the Republican leader and I have spoken about—and we will talk more about it today—is to see what we can do to give the President the time and space our country needs to pursue these international negotiations. We will report back at a later time. America must remain vigilant and ready to use force if necessary, and Congress should not take the threat of military action off the table.

I want to spend a little time talking to Senator Menendez, the chair of the committee. I want to talk to other Senators who are trying to work something out on their own, and I will do that.

Leaders in Damascus and Moscow should understand that Congress will be watching these negotiations very closely. If there is any indication this is not serious—that it is a ploy to delay, to obstruct, to divert—then I think we have to again give the President the authority to hold the Asad regime accountable. So it is our determination not to let Asad’s atrocities go unanswered. How we answer is a question we will continue to pursue. But it is very clear that we wouldn’t be where we are today—even my friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky, today said the reason we are having the possibility of a deal is because of the President threatening force.

It is interesting. Asad has even denied, until just recent hours, ever even having had chemical weapons. So it is in Syria’s power to avoid these strikes, but that will require swift and decisive action on the part of the Asad regime to relinquish these weapons. We need a diplomatic solution to succeed, but saying we want one doesn’t mean it will happen. So he must quickly prove the offer to turn over Syria’s chemical weapons is real and not an attempt to delay.

All eyes are on the Russian President, President Putin. We all know he was formerly head of the KGB. We all know about the KGB. He is the President of that very big country. We are also grateful that even though relations aren’t perfect with Russia, they are OK—so much better than they have been prior to the breakup of that massive country, the Soviet Union.

We hope Russia is a productive partner in these negotiations. Any agreement must also assure it is possible to secure these chemical weapons in spite of the ongoing civil war, to keep those stockpiles out of the hands of terrorists.

In short, I am happy we have some conversations going to see if this can be resolved diplomatically. I certainly hope so.

I apologize to my counterpart, the Republican leader, for taking so much time.

I yield the floor.

Page: S6338

The Republican leader is recognized.

Remembering 9/11
Page: S6338

Mr. President, 12 years ago more than 100 Members of Congress from both parties stood together on the Capitol steps to show our sympathy, solidarity, and resolve. Those of us who were there will never forget it. Later this morning Members will gather on the same steps to remember once again those who died and to recommit ourselves to our national ideals—together. Our Nation always pulls together in difficult moments;Ð 9/11 showed us that. It is important we remember it.

I look forward to joining congressional leaders and others out on the same steps shortly, on this day that has rightly become a very solemn one throughout our country.

We remember today all those who were killed as well as the families they left behind. We remember them with renewed sorrow. We remember all who lost their lives or who have been injured in the line of duty defending our freedoms since 9/11.

Today, we remember the resolve we shared on a clear September morning 12 years ago.

In the days and months that followed the attacks of 9/11, we did not cower. We took the fight to the terrorists, while here at home we opened our doors, our wallets, and our hearts to those around us. We persevered. We maintained what was and is best about our country. And, together, we will continue to do so as long as this struggle continues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Page: S6339

Under the previous order, the Senate will now be in a period of morning business for debate only until 2:30 p.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

The assistant majority leader is recognized.

Remembering 9/11
Page: S6339

Mr. President, in a few moments we will recess to gather on the steps of the Capitol. It is an annual event that commemorates 9/11. The leaders have spoken to their memories of that day, and I associate myself with their remarks and the sadness we all feel as we reflect on the lives lost, some 3,000 Americans—to this blatant act of terrorism.

We can all recall that moment. I can recall looking down the Mall toward the Washington Monument and watching the black smoke billowing across the Mall from the Pentagon because of the deadly crash there that took the lives of passengers on that plane and innocent people working in defense of America. That was a moment that will never be forgotten.

Over the weekend there was an indication of a new memorial in New York City that will commemorate 9/11 as well, and soon it will be open as a lasting tribute to not only those who fell and the families we grieve with, but also to the paramedics and first responders who did such a remarkable and courageous job that day.

Syria
It is in keeping with that theme that we reflect today on what the majority leader told us. We had a visit yesterday from the President of the United States who spoke directly to the Senate Democratic caucus and Republican caucus luncheons answering questions from Senators. The President came to speak to us about the situation in Syria, about the use of chemical weapons, the deadly impact it has had on innocent people, and the obvious breach of norms of civilized conduct which the world has agreed to for almost 100 years.

The President made it clear that we have a chance now, an opportunity for a diplomatic solution because of the suggestion of the Russians that the Syrians come forward, surrender their chemical weapons, submit to inspections, and have real enforcement. Nations around the world are working with the United States to craft a resolution for the United Nations to consider. I am hopeful and I pray they will be successful. If that occurs, the President will have achieved his goal without the use of military force, which is something he made clear to us yesterday that he hopes to pursue—achieving his goal without the use of military force. Over and over again yesterday he told us: I am not a President who looks forward to the use of military force. I don’t want to do it unless I have to. I believe that, because I know the man. I have known him for many years and I know what is in his heart.

However, we have to acknowledge the obvious. Had the President not raised the prospect of military force, this conversation on an international level would never have occurred. It was the President’s leadership, even without majority support among the American people, that precipitated this action by President Putin, and I hope it will lead to a diplomatic solution. It is where it should be—in the United Nations. It was only the threat of veto by Russia and China and the Security Council which kept President Obama from turning to the United Nations first. But we have a chance, and I pray it is successful.

We will now move forward with other items on the Senate agenda very quickly, as we should, and still the possibility that if this diplomatic effort fails, we will have to return to this critically important debate about the future of Syria.

It is important to recall, though, even after the chemical weapons are gone—and I pray that happens with diplomatic efforts soon—there will still be a civil war in that country that has claimed 100,000 lives over the last several years. The sooner that comes to an end, the better. The humanitarian crisis on the ground in Syria is terrible, but the impact on surrounding nations is awful as well.

Last year I visited a refugee camp in Turkey where Syrians, fearing for their lives, moved by the thousands into Turkey. I reflected on the generosity and compassion of the people of Turkey, accepting 10,000 people in one of these refugee camps, providing for them shelter and food and medical care and education for their children. It was an amazing humanitarian gesture on their part.

Then we go to the nation of Jordan. Jordan is overrun with refugees from the Middle East, and it has created serious economic challenges for that country and threats to political stability. The sooner this war ends in Syria, the sooner normalcy comes to the Middle East, the better for Jordan and the better for the entire region. So we pray that occurs soon.

This has been a rough few weeks as we have considered chemical weapons in Syria. As Senator Reid said yesterday, the objects and visions we saw on this film and video—the victims of these chemical weapons—remind us of how horrible this is. When those who turn to weapons of mass destruction are not held accountable, there are more innocent victims.

I hope we can solve this issue on a diplomatic basis. We will stand down now in terms of any congressional effort until that effort in the United Nations has a chance to reach fruition, and I pray it will.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Georgia.

Remembering 9/11
Page: S6339

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business to remember 9/11, 2001, a day every American citizen and every citizen in the world remembers. They remember where they were. They remember what they thought. And they remember the tragedy we all watched on television that day.

It is appropriate that on every 9/11 of every year we pause for a moment and pray for the victims of that tragedy and their families, that we remember what happened on that day, and that we commit ourselves to see to it that it never happens again.

It is important that it not just be a memory. It needs to be a seminal moment in our lives that allows us to never forget the tragedy of what I believe is the first battle in the greatest war between good and evil. Terrorism is the ultimate enemy of freedom, liberty, and democracy, and it is something we must stand up to and never cower to.

Sometimes people ask me: What can I do? What can I do on 9/11, 2013, to remember those who died, to remember those who saved lives, and to remember what happened? I say there are three important things for us to always do.

No. 1 is to give thanks for the EMTs, the firemen, the law enforcement officers who risked their lives and, in many cases, died to save people who were victims of the Twin Towers tragedy. That is No. 1.

No. 2 is to remember we are a soldier in the army to fight terrorism. Every American should remember to be vigilant, to watch where they go. If they see something unusual, if they see something out of character, report it. We can be the second security force for our country.

Third, and most importantly, pray for our country. Pray that we have the strength to continue to confront terrorism. It is important for us to remember that terrorists win when we fear them. When we change what we do in our lives because we fear terrorism, they have won that great battle. We must stand up to, be vigilant for those signs that indicate a terrorist attack may happen, and let them know that no matter where, no matter when, or no matter what, the people of the United States of America stand ready to confront it and see to it that never does our country cower in fear because of terrorism. So on this tragic day, when almost 3,000 citizens of the world lost their lives in New York City, Shanksville, PA, and Washington, DC, it is appropriate that we pause and remember those victims, their families, and all of those who worked to save lives on 9/11, 2001. We must also remember those three things: Pray for America and those who were victims, remember to be vigilant and part of the army that keeps our eyes open and reports things that are seen, and always remember that when we cower to terrorism in fear, the terrorists have won. America must always be what America is: the strongest democracy on the face of this Earth.

May God bless our country and may God bless the souls who died on September 11, 2001.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Syria
Page: S6340

Madam President, I rise to speak to the grave issue of the Syria resolution currently pending before the body.

It is September 11. I know many Members have expressed thoughts, and we are all thinking about that day and what it means to our country. In a few minutes I will leave and go to the Pentagon to be with Pentagon staffers and family members as they commemorate the anniversary of this horrible tragedy in American life. The shadow of that tragedy and its rippling effects even today, 12 years later, definitely are a matter on my mind and heart as I think about this issue with respect to Syria.

Also on my mind and heart as I think about this grave issue is its connection to Virginia. I believe Virginia is the most militarily connected State in our country. Our map is a map of American military history: the battle at Yorktown, the surrender at Appomattox Court House, the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. Our map is a map of American military history. We are more connected to the military in the sense that one in nine of our citizens is a veteran. We have Active Duty at the Pentagon, training to be officers at Quantico, the largest concentration of naval power in the world at Hampton Roads. We have DOD contractors. We have DOD civilians such as Army nurses. We have ROTC cadets, Guard and Reserve members, and military families, all of whom care very deeply about the issue we are grappling with as a nation.

I am sure in the Presiding Officer’s State, as in mine and across the country, there is a war weariness on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, and that affects the way we look at this question of whether the United States should potentially engage in military action.

I cast a vote last week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to authorize limited military action, and I have spent the days since that vote talking to Virginians and hearing from them and hearing from some who aren’t happy with the vote I cast.

I spent 1 day talking to ROTC cadets at Virginia State University, folks who are training to be officers who might fight in future conflicts for this country. Then I spent Friday in Hampton Roads with veterans and military families talking about the choices before us.

I heard a teenager last night say something that truly struck me. This is a teenager who doesn’t have any direct connection to the military herself, no family members in service. But at an event I was attending, she stood and said: I don’t know war, but all my generation and I know is war. Think about that: I don’t know war, but all my generation and I know is war. During her entire life that she has been kind of a thinking person, aware of the outside world, we have been at war. That makes us tremendously war-weary, and I understand that. So trying to separate out all those feelings and do what is right is hard.

Similar to many Virginians, I have family in the military who are going to be directly affected by what we do or what we don’t do. I think about those family members and all Virginians and all Americans who have loved ones in service as I contemplate this difficult issue.

I wish to say three things. First, I wish to praise the President for bringing this matter to Congress, which I believe is courageous and historic. Secondly, I wish to talk about why I believe authorizing limited military action makes sense. Third, I wish to talk about the need to exhaust all diplomatic opportunities and openings, including the ones that were reported beginning Monday of this week by Russia and Syria.

First, on the President coming to Congress. This was what was intended by the Framers of the Constitution; that prior to the initiation of significant military action—and this would be significant by all accounts—that Congress should have to weigh in. The Framers wanted that to be so. They had read history. They knew executives might be a little too prone to initiating military action, and they wanted to make sure the people’s elected representatives had a vote about whether an action should be initiated. Once initiated, there is only one Commander in Chief. But at the initiation, Congress needs to be involved. That was the intent from the very beginning of this Nation from 1787. There was an understanding that in an emergency, a President might need to act immediately, but even in that case there would need to be a reckoning, a coming back to Congress and seeking approval of Presidential action.

In my view, the President, by bringing this matter to Congress, has acted in accord with law, acted in accord with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, and actually has done so in a way that has cleared up some sloppiness about the way this institution and the President has actually done this over time.

Only five times in the history of the Nation has Congress declared war. Over 120 times Presidents have initiated military action without congressional approval—at least prior congressional approval. Presidents have overreached their power, and Congress has often made a decision to avoid being accountable for this most grave decision that we make as a nation.

I praise the President for bringing it to Congress, the people’s body, because I think it is in accord with law. But I praise him for a second reason. It is not just about the constitutional allocation of responsibility. Responsibilities were allocated in the Constitution, in my view, for a very important moral reason. The moral reason is this: We cannot ask our men and women in service to put their lives on the line if there is not a consensus of the legislative and executive branches that the mission is worthwhile.

That is why it is important for Congress to weigh in on a decision to initiate military hostility because, absent that, we face the situation that

would be a very real possibility in this instance that a President would make a decision that an action or a war was worth fighting but a Congress would not support it. That would put the men and women who have to face the risk and potentially risk their lives in a very difficult situation. If we are going to ask people to risk their lives in any kind of a military action, we shouldn’t be asking them to do it if the legislative and political branches haven’t reached some consensus that it should be done.

That is the first point I wish to make. I wish to thank the President for cleaning up this sloppiness in the historical allocation of responsibilities between a President and Congress, for taking a historic step—as he said he would as a candidate—of bringing a question such as this to Congress.

We may be unable to act in certain cases because we are divided. But if we act and we act united, we are much stronger both militarily and in the moral example that we pose to the world. It is the right thing to do for the troops who bear the burden of battle.

Second, I wish to talk about the actual authorization. We grappled with this. The news came out about the chemical weapons attack on August 21, and 18 of us members of the Foreign Relations Committee returned last week. The Presiding Officer came and attended some of our classified meetings. We grappled with the question about whether in this circumstance a limited military authorization was appropriate, and I voted yes. I voted yes for a very simple reason. I believe there has to be a consequence for using chemical weapons against civilians.

It is pretty simple. There are a lot of nuances, a lot of subtleties, and a lot of questions about whether the plans might accomplish the particular objective we hope. Those are all legitimate questions. But at the end of the day, I feel so very strongly that if chemical weapons have been used—and in this case they were and used on a massive scale and used against civilians—there must be a consequence for that. There must be a sharp consequence for it. If there isn’t, the whole world will be worse off.

I believe that if the United States acts in this way to uphold an important international norm—perhaps the most important international norm that weapons of mass destruction can’t be used against civilians—if we act to uphold the norm, we will have partners. How many partners? We will see. Maybe not as many as we would wish, but we will have partners. But I am also convinced that if the United States does not act to uphold this principle, I don’t think anyone will act. If we act, we will have partners; if we don’t, I don’t think anyone will act. That is the burden of leadership that is on this country’s shoulders.

We know about the history of the chemical weapons ban, and we are so used to it that it seems normal. But just to kind of step back from it, if we think about it, it is not that normal at all.

The chemical weapons ban came out of World War I. World War I was a mechanized slaughter with over 10 million deaths, a slaughter unlike anything that had ever been seen in global history. There were all kinds of weapons used in World War I that had never been used before, including dropping bombs out of airplanes. Dropping bombs out of airplanes, new kinds of artillery, new kinds of munitions, new kinds of machine guns, chemical weapons, all kinds of mechanized and industrialized weapons were used in World War I. The American troops who served in 1917 and 1918 were gassed. They would be sleeping in a trench, trying to get a couple hours of sleep, and they would wake up coughing their lungs out or blinded—or they wouldn’t wake up because some of the gases were invisible and silent. With no knowledge, you could suddenly lose your life or be disabled for life because of chemical weapons.

The number of casualties in World War I because of chemical weapons was small as a percentage of the total casualties. But it is interesting what happened. After World War I, the nations of the world that had been at each other’s throats, that had battled each other, gathered a few years later. It is interesting to think what they banned and didn’t ban. They didn’t ban aerial bombardment. They didn’t ban machine guns. They didn’t ban rockets. They didn’t ban shells. They didn’t ban artillery. But they did decide to ban chemical weapons. They were able to all agree, as combatants, that chemical weapons were unacceptable and should neither be manufactured nor used.

It can seem maybe a little bit illogical or even absurd: Why is it worse to be killed by a chemical weapon than a machine gun or by an artillery shell? I don’t know what the logic is to it. All I can assume is that the experience of that day and moment had inspired some common spark of humanity in all of these cultures and combating nations, and they all agreed the use of chemical weapons should be banned heretofore on the Earth.

Nations agreed with that ban. The Soviet Union was on board. The United States was on board. So many nations were on board. Syria ultimately signed that accord in 1968. Even in the midst of horrific wars where humans have done horrific things to each other, since 1925 and the passage of the ban, the ban has stuck. The international community has kept that ember of humanity alive that says these weapons should not be used, and only two dictators until now have used these weapons—Adolph Hitler using these weapons against millions of Jews and others and Saddam Hussein using the weapons against Kurds, his own people, and then against Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war.

When we think about it, it is pretty amazing. With all the barbarity that has happened since 1925, this has generally stuck, with the exception of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein, until now. The beneficiaries of this policy have been civilians, but they have also been American service men and women. The service men and women who fought in World War I were gassed from this country, but the Americans who fought in World War II, in Europe and North Africa and the Pacific, who fought in Korea, who fought in Vietnam, who fought in Afghanistan, who fought in Iraq, who fought in other minor military involvements have never had to worry about facing chemical weapons. No matter how bad the opponent was, American troops haven’t had to worry about it, and the troops of other nations haven’t had to worry about it either. This is a very important principle, and it is a positive thing for humanity that we reached this accord and we have honored it.

So what happens now if there isn’t a consequence for Bashar al-Assad’s escalating use of chemical weapons, to include chemical weapons against civilians.

What happens if we let go of the norm and we say: Look, that may have been OK for the 20th century, but we are tougher and more cynical now. There are not any more limits now, so we don’t have to abide by any norms now. What I believe the lesson is—and I think the lessons of history will demonstrate that this will apply—is that an atrocity unpunished will engender future atrocities. We will see more atrocities in Syria against civilians and others. We will see more atrocities abroad. We will see atrocities, and we will have to face the likely consequence that our serv�ice�mem�bers, who have not had to face chemical weapons since 1925, will now have to prepare to face them on the battlefield.

If countries can use chemical weapons and there is no serious consequence, guess what else they can do. They can manufacture chemical weapons. Guess what else. They can sell chemical weapons and proliferate chemical weapons. It is not just a matter that the use of chemical weapons would be encouraged, but the manufacture and sale of chemical weapons by individuals or companies or countries that want to make money will proliferate.

This has a devastating potential effect on allies of the United States and the neighbors around Syria such as Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. It would have a devastating impact on other allies, such as South Korea, that border nations that use chemical weapons. It could encourage other nations that have nonchemical weapons of mass destruction, for example, nuclear weapons, to think that the world will not stand up, there is no consequence for their use so they can violate treaties, violate norms, and no one is willing to stand and oppose it.

That was the reason I voted last week in the Foreign Relations Committee for this limited authorization of military force. I was fully aware the debate on the floor might amend or change it, and I was open to that possibility. But I thought it was important to stand as a representative of Virginia and a representative of this country to say: The use of chemical weapons may suddenly be OK in the 21st century for Bashar al-Asad, it may suddenly be OK to Vladimir Putin and others, but it is not OK to the United States of America, and we are willing to stand and oppose them.

The limited military authorization that is on this floor, as the Presiding Officer knows, talks about action to punish, deter, and degrade the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons. The goal is to take the chemical weapons stockpile of that nation out of the battlefield equation. The civil war will continue. We don’t have the power, as the United States, to dictate the outcome of that war. But chemical weapons should not be part of that war, and they should not be part of any war.

The authorization was limited. There will be no ground troops. It was limited in scope and duration, but make no mistake, the authorization was a clear statement of American resolve that there has to be a consequence for use of these weapons in violation of international norms that have been in place since 1925.

Finally, I want to talk about diplomacy and the urgent need that I know we all feel in this body, and as Americans, to pursue diplomatic alternatives—including some current alternatives on the table—that would be far preferable to military action. It is very important that we be creative. It is very important that we have direct talks with the perpetrators and enablers of these crimes, but also important to look to intermediaries and independent nations for diplomatic alternatives.

We have been trying to do so until recently and have been blocked in the United Nations. But the authorization for military force actually had that as its first caveat. The authorization said: Mr. President, if this passes, we authorize you to use military force, but before you do, you have to come back to Congress and stipulate that all diplomatic angles, options, and possibilities have been exhausted.

So on the committee, and with the wording of this authorization, we were very focused on the need to continue a diplomatic effort, and that is why it was so gratifying on Monday, on my way back to DC after a long week, to hear that Russia had come to the table with a proposal inspired by a discussion with administration figures. It is a proposal that the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile—one of the largest in the world—would be placed under international control.

Then a few hours later—and this was no coincidence—Syria, essentially Russia’s client state, spoke up and said: We will very much entertain placing our chemical weapons under international control. Syria has even suggested, beyond that, they would finally sign on to the 1990s-era Chemical Weapons Convention. They are one of six nations in the world that refused to sign it. Syria would not even acknowledge they had chemical weapons until 2012—even though the world knew it.

Over the last 48 hours, we have seen diplomatic options emerge that are very serious and meaningful. In fact—and it is too early to tell—if we can have these discussions and find an accord where Syria will sign on to the convention and put these weapons under international control, we will not only have avoided a bad thing, such as military action, which none of us want unless it is necessary, but we will have accomplished a good thing for Syrians and humanity by taking this massive chemical weapons stockpile off the battlefield and submitting it to international control and eventually destruction.

The offer that is on the table, and the action that has happened since Monday is very serious, very significant, and very encouraging, and it could be a game changer in this discussion. I said it is serious, but what we still need to determine is if it is sincere. It is serious and significant, but obviously what the administration needs to do in tandem with the U.N. is to determine whether it is sincere.

I will conclude by saying I think it is very important for Americans, for citizens, and for the Members of Congress to understand—we should make no mistake about this—that the diplomatic offer that is on the table was not on the table until America demonstrated it was prepared to stand for the proposition that chemical weapons cannot be used.

I have no doubt that had we not taken the action in Congress last week in the Foreign Relations Committee to show America is resolved to do something, if no one else in the world is resolved to do something, at least we would be resolved to do something, had we not taken that action, Russia would not have suddenly changed its position—they have been blocking action after action in the Security Council—and come forward with this serious recommendation. Had we not taken that action, and had they not been frightened of what America might do, Syria—which was willing to use with impunity these weapons against civilians—would not have come forward either.

So American resolve is important. American resolve is important to show the world that we value this norm and we will enforce it, even to the point of limited military action. But even more important, American resolve is important because it encourages other nations—even the perpetrators and enablers of the use of these weapons—to come forward and shoulder the responsibilities they have, or so we pray, in the days ahead.

What I ask of my colleagues and my countrymen is that because it has been our resolve that has produced a possibility for a huge diplomatic breakthrough and win, I ask we continue to be resolved, continue to show strength, continue to hold out the option that there will be a consequence for this international crime, that America will play a leading role in making sure there is a consequence, and as long as we stand strong with this resolve, we will maximize the chance that we will be able to obtain the diplomatic result we want.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

The minority whip.

Syria
Madam President, my dad was a pilot in the Army Air Corps in World War II. He served in the Eighth Air Force, the 303rd Bomb Group stationed in Molesworth, England. On his 26th bombing mission over Nazi Germany, he was shot down and captured as a prisoner of war where he served for the remainder of the war. So I learned at a very young age that when we start talking about matters of war and peace, we must take these very seriously.

I appreciate the fact that President Obama came to Capitol Hill yesterday and spoke to both the Democratic conference and the Republican conference. I further appreciate very much the fact that President Obama spoke to the American people last night. I actually wish he had done it a little earlier since the chemical weapons attacks occurred on the 21st of August. It was roughly 3 weeks after that that he finally spoke to the American people. I think it would have been better for him and better for the country if he had done it sooner and demonstrated a greater urgency, but I am glad he did it.

When a President asks the American people to support our U.S. military and the use of military force, he has a solemn obligation to communicate to the American people how it will protect America’s vital interests. He has an obligation to tell the American people why going to war is absolutely essential to U.S. national security. He has an obligation to lay out clear and realistic objectives; and finally, he has an obligation to explain how military intervention fits within America’s broader foreign policy strategy.

I have used the word war advisedly because sometimes I think we get caught up in political correctness around here—talking about workplace violence at Fort Hood and overseas contingency operations.

As a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps who served 40 years told me last week when I asked for his advice on what the President was asking us to do, he said: Anytime you kill people in the name of the U.S. Government, it is an act of war.

So like others in this Chamber over the last few weeks, I have attended meetings with the President where I had the honor of being in his presence and listening to him in person on two occasions. I listened to other administration officials. Like all of us, I sat through hours of classified briefings with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, and the State Department.

I have listened intently as Senator Kerry described in what I thought at first was an inadvertent statement made as a result of fatigue. I can only imagine what he must have been going through. He has been shuttled back and forth around the world to try to resolve this issue. But he described this strike as unbelievably small. I was further surprised when I heard the White House press secretary say: No, it wasn’t a gaffe; he didn’t misspeak. I mean, we all misspeak from time to time, so I expected him to say: Well, he should have used other words or might have used other words. Then Senator Kerry himself—now Secretary Kerry—said: No, I didn’t misspeak.

I was encouraged to hear the President address the Nation because I believe before we take our case overseas to American allies, we should first make the case here at home to the American people.

In making their case for a brief, limited attack against Syria, administration officials have repeatedly said U.S. military intervention would not seek to topple the Asad regime even though regime change has been the policy of the U.S. Government since at least August 2011. They said their military campaign would not seek to change the momentum in Syria’s civil war, even though, as I mentioned a moment ago, our government’s official policy is one of regime change, that Asad must go.

My view is a U.S. attack that allowed Asad to remain in power with one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons would not promote U.S. national security interests. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine how that kind of intervention could actually backfire and end up being a propaganda disaster.

Many of us are concerned about upholding America’s credibility, particularly when it comes to matters such as this, and I share their concern. But it would help if before we launch a halfhearted, ineffectual attack which gives our enemies a major propaganda victory that we come up with a more coherent plan and strategy for accomplishing our public policy goals.

Murphy’s law says what can go wrong will go wrong. Well, there is a Murphy’s law of war too—perhaps many of them but one of them is no plan to go to war survives the first contact intact. In other words, we can plan to shoot the first bullet, but we can’t control what happens after that.

In all likelihood, such an attack would hurt our credibility and reduce U.S. public support for future interventions. This is what I mean: If we were to undertake a limited military attack against Asad in order to punish him for using chemical weapons—which is a horrific act on his part, a barbaric act on his part—but it left Asad in power, what is he going to tell the rest of the world? He is going to say: The world’s greatest military force took a shot at me and I am still here. I am still in power. I won and America lost. That is how I can see this backfiring in a very serious way, undermining America’s credibility—credibility we must keep intact, particularly as we look at larger, looming threats such as the Iranian aspiration for nuclear weapons.

I wish to be clear, though: I would be willing to support a military operation in Syria but only if our intervention met certain criteria. No. 1: If it directly addressed the nightmare scenario of Asad’s use of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. It is not just his use of chemical weapons on his own people; it is the potential that those chemical weapons could get into the hands of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and harm either Americans or American interests around the world.

No. 2: I could support a resolution if it involved the use of decisive and overwhelming force, without self-imposed limitations, and without leaking to our enemies what our tactics are and what it is we would not do, and ruining one of the greatest tools in war, which is the element of surprise. Why in the world would we tell Asad what we are going to do—and Secretary Kerry said it would be a small attack—and why would we tell Asad what we won’t do, thereby eliminating both the ambiguity of our position and the potential threat of even more serious and overwhelming military force?

No. 3: I would be willing to support an authorization if it were an integral part of a larger coherent Syria policy that clearly defined the political end state. I still remember General Petraeus, the head of Central Command covering Iraq and Afghanistan, talking about our policy in those countries. He said, The most important question, perhaps, when we go to war is how does this end. We need a clearly defined political end state that we are trying to achieve by what the President requested and we need an outline of a realistic path to get there.

No. 4: I believe it is important that we have a sizable international coalition of nations, each of which is contributing to the war effort.

This is an amazing reversal for the President since the time he was a Senator and a Presidential candidate. To say we are not going to the United Nations—and I understand why; because of China and Russia, their veto of any resolution out of the Security Council, we are not going to go to NATO. Indeed, the President seemed content, or at least resigned, to going it alone. And if it is true this redline is the international community’s redline, then the international community needs to contribute to the effort to hold Asad accountable.

The problem is President Obama’s requested authorization for the use of military force under these circumstances fails to meet each of those criteria. He has failed to make the case that a short, limited military campaign would promote our vital interests and our national security. He has failed to lay out clear and realistic objectives that could be obtained through the use of military force. And he has failed to offer a compelling description of how his proposed intervention would advance America’s broader foreign policy strategy; indeed, how it would advance his own policy of regime change. Therefore, if we were asked to vote on an authorization under these circumstances, I would vote no.

I am under no illusion—none of us are—about the utter depravity of Bashar al-Asad. Over the last 2 1/2 years his regime has committed unspeakable acts of rape, torture, and murder. The chemical weapons attacks, by the way, as described by Secretary Kerry’s own testimony in the House of Representatives, included 11 earlier uses of chemical weapons, but they were smaller. Can we imagine the difficulty of trying to impose a redline when that redline is crossed 11 times before the President finally decides to try to enforce it? But there is no question that the use of chemical weapons shows an appalling disregard for human life and a cruel desire to terrorize the Syrian population. I, as others, have consistently demanded that Russia stop arming Asad and stop defending him and blocking U.N. Security Council resolutions, and aiding and abetting his barbaric atrocities against his own people. I want to see a free democratic Syria as much as anyone else. But that does not mean I will vote to support a reckless, ill-advised military intervention that could jeopardize our most important national security interests.

There have been a lot of people who have opined on the President’s request, some better informed than others. One opinion I found particularly convincing was that of retired Army MG Robert Scales who has written that the path to war chosen by the Obama administration “violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.”

As I said, we know the latest chemical weapons attack occurred on August 21. Yet President Obama didn’t address the Nation until 3 weeks later. The Syrians, of course, have now had weeks to prepare for any pending military intervention and no doubt have moved the chemical weapons to other locations and their military equipment to civilian population centers in order to protect them from any attack.

With no element of surprise, it makes the potential for success of any military intervention much less and reveals there is no real coherent policy in this regard.

Consider what happened last Monday. Secretary of State Kerry made what he calls an off-the-cuff remark about the possibility of canceling a missile strike if Asad turned over all of his chemical weapons. In the same statement he said he wasn’t sure that would work or that he would ever be serious about it, but he did say it. Russia, of course, immediately responded by offering to broker a transfer of Syria’s WMD to international monitors.

After spending weeks trying to make the case for war, President Obama has asked that the vote in this Chamber be canceled and is apparently treating the Russian-Syrian proposal as a serious diplomatic breakthrough. I would caution all of us—the American people and all of our colleagues—to be skeptical, for good reason, at this lifeline Vladimir Putin has now thrown the administration. I would remind the President and our colleagues that Russia itself is not in full compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it even in compliance with nuclear arms control obligations that are subject to an international treaty. The litany of Russian offenses is long, but I would remind President Obama that since he launched the so-called Russian reset, Moscow has vetoed U.N. resolutions on Syria, sent advanced weaponry to the Asad regime, stolen elections, stoked anti-Americanism, made threats over our possible deployment of missile defense systems; it has expelled USAID from Russia, pulled out of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; it has banned U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children, and offered asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. In short, we have very little reason to believe Moscow is a reliable diplomatic partner. The Russians are part of the problem in Syria, not part of the solution. Let me say that clearly. The Russians are part of the problem in Syria; they are not credibly part of the solution.

Moreover, I am curious to learn how international monitors would adequately confirm the disposal of chemical weapons by a terrorist-sponsoring dictatorship among a ferocious civil war. While this strike the President talked about might have been limited in his imagination, if you are Bashar al-Asad, this is total war, because he realizes the only way he will leave power is in a pine box. He knows that. This is total war. I asked the President yesterday: What happens if, in order to punish Asad, we intervene militarily and it doesn’t work? In his fight for his survival and the survival of his regime, he uses them again in an act of desperation? The President said, We will hit him again. Well, clearly, what had become a limited strike could quickly spiral out of control into a full-blown engagement in Syria. I think the President’s own words suggest that.

But, of course, the Asad regime is the same one that refuses to acknowledge the full extent of its chemical arsenal—and this is something we will be hearing more about. It has bioweapons capability. Bioweapons capability is actually a much greater threat to American interests than chemical weapons, which are more difficult to transport and much harder to handle. And this is the same dictatorship that was secretly working on a nuclear weapons program before the Israelis took care of it in 2007.

We have been told that however unfortunate President Obama’s “redline” comment might have been, upholding his threat is about maintaining American credibility. And I admit, American credibility in matters of war and peace and national security are very, very important. But America’s credibility on the world stage is about more than just Presidential rhetoric. It is about defining clear objectives and establishing a coherent strategy for achieving them. In the case of Syria, President Obama has not offered a clear strategy or clearly laid out his objectives.

Given all that, I am not surprised that the American people do not support the President’s call for the use of limited military force in Syria. Those are the calls I got in my office. As I went back to Texas, I kept hearing people—who I would think under almost any other circumstances would say: If America’s national security interests are at stake, then we are behind the President, we are behind military intervention, but they simply saw an incoherent policy and objectives that were not clearly laid out to obtain the result the President himself said is our policy.

Well, the most recent experience we have had as a country with limited war has been Libya, and I have heard the President tout that as perhaps an example about how we can get in and get out. The 2011 military operation that deposed Muammar Qadhafi was supposed to be a showcase example of a limited operation in which America led from behind and still obtained its objectives without putting U.S. boots on the ground. Unfortunately, the administration had no real plan for what happened after Qadhafi fell.

We all know it was 1 year ago today in Benghazi when terrorists linked to Al Qaeda massacred four brave Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Today Libya is spiraling into chaos and rapidly becoming a failed state. Earlier this month a leading British newspaper reported that “Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters.” All sorts of bad actors, including terrorist groups, are flooding into the security vacuum, and “Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law.”

Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about America’s Armed Forces and America’s role in the world.

We all know and are extraordinarily proud of our men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military. No military in history has been more powerful. No military has ever been more courageous. No military has been more selfless and fought and bled and died to protect innocent people in far-flung places across the planet. No military has ever done more to promote peace and prosperity around the world. I have every confidence that if called upon to act our men and women in uniform will do just that. They will perform their duties with the utmost skill, bravery, and professionalism. But we should never send them to war tying one hand behind their back and ask them to wage limited war against a dictator for whom, as I said earlier, this is total war. This is win or die. Military force is like a hammer, and you cannot thread the needle President Obama wants to thread with a hammer.

I would like to conclude by saying that this debate—which is important and serious and one the American people expect us to have—is not about isolationism versus internationalism. Believe me, I am no isolationist, and I fully support the global security role America has played since World War II, since my dad was a POW. A world without American military dominance would be, as Ronald Reagan noted, a much more dangerous place. I believe peace comes with American strength. However, it will be harder to maintain our global military dominance if we waste precious resources, our credibility, and political capital on hasty, misguided, unbelievably small interventions.

Once again, I would be willing to support an authorization for a military strike against Syria if it met certain basic criteria I have laid out. But I cannot support an operation that is so poorly conceived, so foolishly telegraphed, and virtually guaranteed to fail.

I yield the floor.

Good afternoon, Madam President.

The Senator from California.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 25 minutes.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Syria
Thank you very much, Madam President.

I rise to speak on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and the decision that is before the Senate on how to respond to such inhumanity. I also come to the floor with the hope that the use of military force will not prove necessary and that the proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons program under United Nations control will, in fact, be successful.

Last night, in my view, the President delivered a strong, straightforward speech that directly outlined the current situation in Syria. He asked that a vote by the Congress to authorize military force against the Asad regime be delayed so that a strategy could be developed with Russia and the United Nations Security Council that would eliminate Syria’s deadly chemical weapons program. I believe this is the appropriate path forward, and I appreciate very much the majority leader’s holding off on bringing this resolution for a vote so that negotiations can continue. Here in the Senate, there are discussions going on about how to amend the resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee to provide time for diplomacy.

I would also like to take a minute to give Russia credit for bringing forward this plan for a negotiated solution to the conflict. I disagree with the Senator from Texas. As the Russian Ambassador described to me on Monday of this week, he said Russia is sincere, wants to see a United Nations resolution, and supports the Geneva II process which would accompany a negotiated settlement to Syria’s civil war. Based on my conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, I believe Russia’s goal is now, in fact, to eliminate these weapons, and I would point out that is also our goal.

So I very much hope that the path to settlement—although complicated, no doubt, but if well-intentioned by all participants, it can be accomplished, and I deeply believe that. If the United Nations Security Council can agree on a resolution to put this proposal into practice, it would put the world’s imprimatur on an important plan to safeguard and then to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons program.

Russia’s responsibility to get this done is enormous, and they must move with all deliberate speed. I think Russia and Syria must understand that the only way to forestall a U.S. strike on Syria is for there to be a good-faith agreement and process underway to put all of Syria’s chemical weapons—including munitions, delivery systems, and chemicals themselves—under international control for eventual demolition.

Syria’s chemical weapons program is maintained and stored across Syria in more than three dozen sites. There are indications that Syria currently has chemical weapons loaded and ready for immediate use in bombs, artillery, and rockets and already loaded on planes and helicopters. All of it needs to be inventoried, collected, and then destroyed as soon as possible if the effort is to succeed. This will be a large and complicated process, and the agreement may take some time to put in place. But if it can be done, we should take the time to get it done right. At the same time, we cannot allow there to be so much delay and hesitation, as has characterized some arms control efforts in the past.

It is clear to me that the United States is moving quickly already. Tomorrow Secretary Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet in Geneva to discuss the specifics of how to move forward.

I cannot stress enough the importance of this process. Not only is it a possible solution to the specter of future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and a way to ensure that extremist elements of the opposition do not gain control of these weapons, but it also sets an important precedent for the United Nations to act to resolve conflict before there is large military confrontation.

But it should be clear by now that the Asad regime has repeatedly used chemical weapons. So I would like to speak as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and lay out some of the unclassified intelligence that shows the regime was indeed behind this largest use of chemical weapons in more than two decades. The unclassified assessment is based on classified intelligence we have seen on the Intelligence Committee and it has been available to all Senators. So here is the case.

The intelligence community assesses today, with “high confidence,” that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons—specifically sarin—in the Damascus suburbs in the early morning of August 21. This assessment is supported by all 16 of our intelligence agencies as well as other countries, including the United Kingdom and France.

The Obama administration has publicly laid out its case at an unclassified level, and I have carefully reviewed the classified information that supports those findings.

First, there is intelligence indicating that the Asad regime—specifically its military and the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center, which manages its chemical weapons program—has used chemical weapons roughly a dozen times over the past year.

On June 13, 2 months before this latest attack, the administration stated that it had completed a review of all available intelligence and had concluded that the intelligence community had “high confidence” that the Asad regime used chemical weapons, “including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times.” This followed similar assessments by France, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Turkey earlier this year. In some of these cases the regime may have been testing its delivery vehicles or various amounts of chemical agents. Some were small-scale tactical uses against the opposition. Perhaps Asad was just trying to find out how the world would react to his use of chemical weapons.

It has been more than a year since top intelligence officials learned of Syrian preparations to use sarin in large quantities. Since then, at numerous other briefings and hearings, the Intelligence Committee has followed this issue closely. On September 11, 2012—exactly a year ago—while protests against our Embassy in Cairo were underway and the attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi was imminent, I was again briefed on the administration’s plans should Asad conduct such an attack.

So the attack on August 21 in Damascus was not a first-time use, rather it was a major escalation in the regime’s willingness to employ weapons long held as anathema by almost the entire world population.

Let me lay out the intelligence case that the Asad regime used chemical weapons on August 21. Much of this is described in a four-page August 30 unclassified document entitled “U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.”

I ask unanimous consent that the document be printed in the Record.

We know that 3 days before the attack of August 21, Syrian officials involved in the preparation and use of chemical weapons and associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center were “preparing chemical munitions” in the Damascus suburb of Adra. That is according to the intelligence community.

The intelligence specifically relates to an area in Adra that the regime has used for mixing chemical weapons, including sarin. The Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating and present there from August 18 to the early morning of August 21, and finished their work shortly before the attack began.

Some of the intelligence collected on the preparations for the attack is highly sensitive. So the details of the Syrian actions cannot be described publicly without jeopardizing our ability to collect this kind of intelligence in the future. But in numerous classified briefings over the past 2 weeks, Members of Congress have been provided with additional detail on the names of the officials involved and the stream of human signals and geospatial intelligence that indicates that regime was preparing to use chemical weapons. So we actually have names.

It is from the specificity of this intelligence reporting that the intelligence community has drawn its high level of confidence that the regime was behind the use of chemical weapons. The strike began in the early morning hours on Wednesday, August 21. It is beyond doubt that large amounts of artillery and rockets were launched from regime-controlled territory in Damascus and rained down on the opposition-controlled areas of the Damascus suburbs. There is satellite imagery actually showing this, as well as thousands of firsthand accounts that began showing up on social media sites at around 2:30 a.m.

The barrage continued for 5 days, though the use of chemical weapons appears to have been deliberately suspended by the regime after the first few hours. Since the attack, physical samples from the area have been analyzed. The intelligence community assesses with high confidence that “laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals revealed exposure to Sarin.”

More than 100 videos were posted online showing the effects of the chemical weapons on hundreds of men, women and, most troubling, sleeping children who were dead or showing the signs of exposure to the nerve agent. At my request, the intelligence community compiled a representative sample of 13 videos which have been corroborated and verified. According to the intelligence community, “At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at general times and locations described in the footage.”

These videos clearly show the suffering and death caused by these weapons. The intelligence committee has posted these videos on our Web site, www.intelligence.senate.gov. I would urge all Americans to look at this. They are absolutely horrendous and should shock the conscience of all humanity.

The videos show the physical manifestations of a nerve agent attack: foaming mouth, pinpointed and constricted pupils, convulsions, gasping for breath, all happening as the nervous system begins to shut down.

One video shows a lifeless toddler receiving emergency respiratory assistance. Another shows a young boy struggling to breathe, gasping while his eyes are swollen shut and covered in mucous. A third heinous video shows rows and rows of bodies lined up in an improvised morgue. Another shows a man foaming at the mouth and convulsing, both indications of sarin exposure. It goes on and on.

Last night, the President urged all Americans to watch these videos to see how hideous the use of these chemicals actually is. Seeing these images firsthand makes clear why chemical weapons have been banned and why Asad must be prevented from using them again.

What truly affected me was a video I saw of a little Syrian girl with long dark hair who was wearing pajamas. The little girl looked just like my daughter at that age—same hair, same pajamas, same innocence, except the little Syrian girl was lifeless. She had died from exposure to sarin, a chemical the world has essentially outlawed. For me, watching the videos shows the abhorrence of chemical weapons. It shows why we must do something. Fired into densely populated areas such as cities, they have an indiscriminate effect, killing everyone in their path and causing suffering and eventual death to others nearby.

We have evidence that the chemical attack was premeditated and planned as part of the regime’s heinous tactics against the rebels. Specifically, there is intelligence that Syrian regime personnel were prepared with gas masks for its people in the area, so it could clear these areas in the Damascus suburbs that were attacked in order to wrest control from the opposition. Additional intelligence collected following the attacks includes communications from regime officials that confirms their knowledge that chemical weapons were used.

Let me repeat that. Additional intelligence following the attack includes communications from regime officials that confirms their knowledge that chemical weapons were used. The official unclassified intelligence assessment distributed by the administration states: “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.” On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to “cease operations.” This is specific evidence.

To sum up the intelligence case, I have no doubt the regime ordered the use of chemical weapons on August 21. I also have no doubt the use of these weapons by the military and under the guidance of Syria’s chemical weapons team, Branch 450, operates under the command and control of the regime, under the ultimate leadership and responsibility of President Asad.

Let me move now from the intelligence case of Syria’s use of sarin on August 21 to the question before the Senate of how to respond. As I said in the beginning, it would be my strong hope that the United States and Russia can come to an agreement with other U.N. Security Council members on a way to resolve this situation peacefully.

Not only is a peaceful solution preferred to the use of force, but if Syria’s chemical weapons program, including all of its precursors, chemicals, equipment, delivery systems, and loaded bombs, can be put in the custody of the United Nations for its eventual destruction, that would provide a much stronger protection against future use.

It also sets an important precedent for the future for the world to settle other disputes of this nature. I have urged the Obama administration to take all possible steps to make this proposal work. I appreciate the President’s decision to ask us to delay any use-of-force resolution so diplomacy can be given a chance. However, the Senate may still face a resolution to authorize the use of force in the event that all diplomatic options fail. Many of my colleagues have noted that the threat of force has helped push forward the diplomatic option.

The Asad regime has clearly used chemical weapons to gas its own people. I believe it will most likely do so again, unless it is confronted with a major condemnation by the world. That now is beginning to happen.

The regime has escalated its attacks from small scale ones that killed 6 or 8 to 10 people with sarin to an attack that killed more than 1,000. We know the regime has munitions that could kill tens of thousands of Syrians in Aleppo or Homs. If the world does not respond now, we bear the responsibility if a larger tragedy happens later.

Of course, it is not only Syria who is looking at preparing and using weapons long banned by the international community. Iran is watching intently what the world will do in Syria and will apply the lessons it learns to its current development of nuclear weapons.

North Korea, which has refrained from using both the nuclear weapons it has and the chemical weapons stockpile that actually dwarfs that of Syria, may well use the Asad example to fire on South Korea. Remember, we have 28,000-plus troops right over the border of the DMZ, within a half hour.

More generally, countries around the world will see the United States as a paper tiger if it promises to take action but fails to do so. Former Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, whom I have great respect for, who worked in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said exactly that when he came out in support on the resolution for use of force against Syria.

Gates said this:

I strongly urge the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to approve the President’s request for authorization to use force. Whatever one’s views on the current United States policy towards Syria, failure by Congress to approve the request would, in my view, have profoundly negative and dangerous consequences for the United States, not just in the Middle East, but around the world both now and in the future.

I strongly believe the major powers in the world have a responsibility to take action when a country not only slaughters 100,000 of its own citizens, makes millions homeless within Syria, and makes millions into refugees in Turkey and Jordan, but especially when it is willing to use weapons against them that have been banned as an affront to all humanity because they are outlawed by a treaty joined by 189 nations representing 98 percent of the world’s population.

If the United Nations does not act in such cases, I believe it becomes irrelevant. If nothing is done to stop this use of chemical weapons, they will be used in future conflicts. I am confident of that.

American servicemen in World War I were gassed with their allied partners. In our briefings over the past week, the military has made clear to us that if we allow the prohibition on chemical weapons use to erode, our men and women in uniform may again suffer from these weapons on the battlefield.

Chemical weapons are not like conventional weapons. Consider for a moment how sarin, for example, can kill so indiscriminately. The closer you are to the release, such as from a mortar or an artillery shell, the more certain you are to death. It spreads over a wide geographic area. It can shift from one neighborhood to another if the wind shifts.

During World War I, chemical weapons, primarily chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas were used by both sides of the war. They caused an estimated 100,000 fatalities and 1.3 million injuries, 1,462 American soldiers were killed, and 72,807 were injured by chemical weapons, which represented one-third of all U.S. casualties during World War I.

Since World War I, not a single U.S. soldier has died in battle from exposure to chemical weapons. However, according to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, “since World War I, chemical weapons have caused more than 1 million casualties globally.”

During World War II, Nazi Germany used carbon monoxide and pesticides such as Zyklon B in gas chambers during the Holocaust, killing an estimated 3 million people.

An additional document will be printed in the Record that details the history and uses of chemical weapons around the world since World War I.

These past uses of chemical weapons make clear that they should never be used again and that the entire world must stand up and take action if they are.

In Syria, the intentional use of chemical weapons on civilians, on men, women, and children gassed to death during the middle of the night while they were sleeping, is a travesty that reflects hatred and increasing desperation of the Asad regime. I also believe there are other chemical weapons that have been mixed and loaded into delivery vehicles with the potential to kill thousands more.

Think about that. If Asad can slaughter 100,000 of his own people without a second thought, what is he going to do next if we do nothing to hold him accountable? What is he going to do next if the United Nations does nothing? What is he going to do next if this effort to reach consensus on the Security Council doesn’t work? He will use them again. I believe they are ready to go.

Why would the Asad regime load bombs with chemical weapons and not use them?

If the United States does nothing in the face of this atrocity, it sends such a signal of weakness to the rest of the world that we are, yes, a paper tiger. That is going to be the conclusion in Iran and in North Korea.

The answer is we cannot turn our backs. The use of chemical weapons is prohibited by international law and it must now be condemned by the world with action.

Albert Einstein said in a well-known quote: “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

For more than 90 years, our country has played the leading role in the world in prohibiting the atrocities of World War I and then World War II. We are the Nation that others look upon to stop repressive dictators and massive violations of human rights. We must act in Syria. We cannot withdraw into our own borders, do nothing, and let the slaughter continue.

I hope military force will not be needed, that we will allow the time for the United Nations and the parties on the Security Council to put an agreement together, and that the threat of force will be sufficient to change President Asad’s behavior.

If these diplomatic efforts at the U.N. fail, I know we are going to be back here on the floor to consider the authorization for use of military force, but I sincerely hope it won’t be necessary.

When the Ambassador from Russia described Russia’s intentions to me on Monday, he told me it was sincere. Now the ball is in Russia’s court. Russia and the United States will need to come together, bring the other parties together, and make it possible for the United Nations to act so the United States won’t have to.

I yield the floor.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting. Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence—but what follows is an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s analysis of what took place.

SYRIAN GOVERNMENT USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON AUGUST 21

A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.

A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.

BACKGROUND

The Syrian regime maintains a stockpile of numerous chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and VX and has thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver chemical warfare agents.

Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision maker for the chemical weapons program and members of the program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty. The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC)—which is subordinate to the Syrian Ministry of Defense—manages Syria’s chemical weapons program.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21.

We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition.

The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21.

PREPARATION

We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel—including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC—were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

THE ATTACK

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred—including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack. Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events—characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.

We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.

We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.

To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Syrian government’s responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21. As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners.

Chemical Weapons Usage Since World War I

1,462 American soldiers were killed and 72,807 injured by chemical weapons in World War I, one-third of all U.S. casualties during the war. No Americans have died in battle from chemical weapons since World War I.

According to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, “Since World War I, chemical weapons have caused more than one million casualties globally.”

1914-1918—During World War I, chemical weapons (primarily chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas) were used by both sides and caused an estimated 100,000 fatalities and 1.3 million injuries.

During the war, Germany used 68,000 tons of gas, the French used 36,000 tons, and the British used 25,000.

April 1915—Germany used chlorine gas at the Battle of Ypres. This is the first significant use of chemical weapons in World War I.

September 1915—The British used chlorine gas against the Germans at the Battle of Loos.

February 1918—Germans used phosgene and chloropicrin artillery shells against American troops. This is the first major use of chemical weapons against U.S. forces.

June 1918—The United States employed a wide variety of chemical weapons against Axis forces using British and French artillery shells.

1918-1921—The Bolshevik army used chemical weapons to suppress at least three uprisings following the Bolshevik revolution.

1919—The British Air Force used Adamsite gas, a vomiting agent, against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War.

1921-1927—Spanish forces used mustard gas against Berber rebels during the Third Rif War in Morocco.

1936—Italy used mustard gas during its invasion of Ethiopia. No precise estimate of chemical weapon-specific casualties, but contemporary Soviet estimates stated 15,000 Ethiopian casualties from chemical weapons.

1937-1945—Japan used chemical weapons (sulfur mustard, chlorine, chloropicrin, phosgene, and lewisite) during its invasion of China. The Japanese were the only country to use chemical weapons during World War II and did not use them against Western forces. Estimated 10,000 Chinese fatalities and 80,000 casualties as a result of chemical weapons.

1939-1945—Nazi Germany used carbon monoxide and pesticides, such as Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid), in gas chambers during the Holocaust. Estimated 3 million killed.

1941—Mobile vans were used following the German invasion of the Soviet Union to murder an unknown number of Jews, Roma, and mental patients using exhaust from the vans to gas victims. Vans were also used at the Chelmno concentration camp in Poland.

1942—Nazi Germany began using diesel gas chambers at the Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka camps in Poland.

Zyklon B was used to kill up to 6,000 Jews per day at Auschwitz. Zyklon B was also used at Stutthoff, Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrueck concentration camps.

1963-1967—Egypt used phosgene and mustard gas against Yemeni royalist forces during the North Yemen Civil War between royalists and republicans. Egypt denied their use, but the Red Cross affirmed their use after forensic investigation.

1975-1982—Las and Vietnamese forces used chemical weapons against Hmong rebels. At least 6,504 killed.

1978-1982—Vietnamese forces used chemical weapons against Kampuchean troops and Khmer villages. At least 1,014 fatalities.

1979-1992—The United States alleged that the Soviet Union used mustard gas and other chemical weapons against mujahidin rebels in Afghanistan. At least 3,000 fatalities.

1980-1988—During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq employed mustard gas and Tabun nerve agent. Iran retaliated with mustard, phosgene, and hydrogen cyanide gas. Estimated 1 million chemical weapons casualties.

1987—Libya allegedly used Iranian-supplied mustard gas against Chadian forces. However, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons did not find the allegations sufficiently persuasive to send investigators.

1988—Iraq used hydrogen cyanide and mustard gas against the Kurdish village of Halabja. Estimated 5,000 casualties.

1994—Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese terrorist group, released sarin gas in Matsumoto, Japan. 8 fatalities and 200 injuries.

1995—Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system. 12 fatalities and 5,000 estimated casualities.

Sources: Monterey Institute of International Studies, The Nonproliferation Review, declassified CIA report, Encyclopedia Britannica, The Washington Post, Reuters, New York Times, NPR.

The Senator from Maine.

Benghazi
Page: S6348

Madam President, 12 years ago Al Qaeda terrorists attacked our homeland, killing nearly 3,000 people. I will never forget the heroes of that day, many of whom laid down their lives for others.

Their courage is epitomized by the words spoken by a fire department captain at the World Trade Center. He radioed in to say, “We’re still heading up.” Indeed, these firefighters were still heading up while others were fleeing the flames and the acrid smoke. Where that kind of courage and determination comes from is hard to contemplate, but we are so grateful our first responders have that kind of dedication and courage.

Nor will I ever forget the many people who continue to live with the scars, whether they are civilians who lost a loved one that day, firefighters, police officers, or other first responders who rushed to the scene, or our brave military serv�ice�mem�bers who answered the call to defend our country in the years that followed. We must never lose sight of their sacrifice.

This week we have been considering the weighty issue of whether to grant the administration the authority to use military force against Syria. This day, the anniversary of those horrific attacks on our country 12 years ago, should not pass without our calling attention to another important matter of unfinished business critical to our national security and to our Nation’s conscience.

A year ago today terrorists with links to Al Qaeda attacked our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Despite a steadily escalating stream of threat reporting, and an obvious inability of Libyan security forces to protect our diplomatic personnel and our facilities, the State Department had denied urgent requests for increased security measures. Officials kept the woefully vulnerable Benghazi compound open, setting the stage for attackers to essentially walk right into the compound and set it ablaze.

Tragically we lost four brave, dedicated diplomats and security personnel that terrible day and night: Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Chris Stevens. We laud their courage and we honor their memory, but we must also remedy the security failures and punish those responsible for their deaths.

Today I draw attention to the lessons that must be learned from the attacks in Benghazi and to the work that still must be done to bring the attackers to justice. First we must ensure that such wholesale failure to read the signs of escalating danger and to respond to urgent security needs never happens again.

Last year, as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, former Senator Joe Lieberman and I conducted an investigation into the terrorist attacks at Benghazi. In our bipartisan report entitled “Flashing Red,” we found the State Department downplayed the terrorist threat in Benghazi despite numerous previous attacks on western targets, that they ignored repeated requests for additional security, and that they insufficiently fortified a shamefully ill-protected American compound. The Benghazi facility should either have been closed until security was strengthened or the threat abated.

We identified changes that must be made, including greater attention to security at high-risk posts around the world and better management to ensure that the recommendations of previous security reviews are fully implemented. It was discouraging to read previous accountability review board reports after the attacks in Africa, for example, back in the late 1990s and see similar patterns of requests for security being denied in Washington.

Second, Secretary of State John Kerry should hold personnel accountable for the problems identified in our committee report and by the Accountability Review Board. After our committee and the ARB identified systemic failures and leadership deficiencies that contributed to the grossly inadequate security in Benghazi, it is totally unacceptable for the State Department to hold no one responsible for the broader mismanagement that occurred prior to the attack.

Finally, a year after the attack, the terrorists who invaded the Benghazi compound still have not been brought to justice despite repeated promises and pledges by President Obama to do so.

After a long-delayed investigation, including a period of weeks when the FBI agents were not allowed to even access the Benghazi facility, Federal authorities have recently filed criminal charges against several suspects.

But serious questions remain about the pace, the extent, and the effectiveness of these investigations and charges.

A major problem is the willingness—or lack thereof—of the Libyan Government to fully cooperate. I am told that the whereabouts of one of the prime suspects is known and that he is walking about fully, openly, and freely. Yet he has not been picked up. He has not been arrested. He has not been taken into captivity. Why not?

The administration must follow through on its commitment by taking the steps necessary to bring the attackers to justice, as the President promised. And the State Department, in the meantime, must implement all of the actions needed to prevent a Benghazi-like attack from taking place again. Surely, on the anniversary of the attacks on our Nation 12 years ago and the attacks 1 year ago in Benghazi, we owe it to Chris Stevens and his colleagues and to the American people.

Madam President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

The Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering 9/11
Page: S6349

Madam President, today, September 11, 2013, is a day in which we remember lives cut too short in the attacks on our Nation 12 years ago. We also remember acts of bravery, selflessness, and all that took place that morning and in the days and months and the years that followed. I wish to take a moment to thank all the others who have sought to protect us from harm in the intervening years.

Fiscal 2014 Spending
Page: S6349

I also rise today to speak about the need for continued attention to our Nation’s fiscal health and to encourage my colleagues to seize the opportunity to take the necessary steps to rein in our out-of-control spending. As so often happens this time of year, talk has turned to the need for a continuing resolution for at least part of the next year, and I urge my colleagues to join me in pushing for a CR that respects the commitments we have already made.

As we all know, the President and the Congress approved the Budget Control Act in 2011, putting in place annual spending caps and establishing a deficit reduction commission to find additional savings and solutions to ensure the solvency of our entitlement programs. With the failure of that commission, a sequester that forced $1.2 trillion in automatic spending reductions was put in place. In the absence of an agreement to replace them, the caps and sequester guarantee at least $2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Seventy-four Members of the Senate believed these enforcement measures were needed to put us on the right fiscal track. The President signed the Budget Control Act into law, saying that, “It’s an important first step to ensuring that, as a Nation, we live within our means.” Yet there are continuing conversations about passing a short-term continuing resolution that would fund the government at a level above that established by the Budget Control Act for next year.

I should have to remind no one that under the Budget Control Act, passing a continuing resolution at anything higher than the $967 billion limit would trigger another statutory, across-the-board sequester cut in January that would bring spending down to the $967 billion level for the next fiscal year of 2014.

I can see why there are those who would like to take such action. Passing a CR at a higher-than-BCA-appropriate level would create yet another fiscal cliff, with hopes, I am sure, of causing enough pressure to finally do away with the sequester. That is what some would like. However, such a scenario does little to add pressure to address the sequester, provides the pretense that the BCA levels don’t mean anything if even for a short while, and it further complicates agencies implementing what are sure to be the required cuts.

Make no mistake, I understand the sequester process is a blunt instrument and not a preferred method of fiscal restraint. However, it was put in place because Congress failed to do what is needed to rein in reckless spending.

I also understand the difficult position it puts agencies in, particularly the Department of Defense. I am open to allowing reasonable flexibility and to replacing the sequester, albeit with changes to mandatory spending and entitlements, and not hikes in taxes. But that deal, much like the supercommittee’s success, has been elusive, and to seek to pass a CR that doesn’t reflect the reality of the post-BCA world raises itself a set of problems. However, such a scenario does little to add pressure to address the sequester, as I mentioned. It simply would make it more difficult for agencies to address their needs and to bring down their own spending.

Certainly, passing any budget bill for next year at levels in excess of those that are outlined in the Budget Control Act breaks any promise to “live within our means.”

In addition, passing a short-term CR that will allow agencies to spend money as if the sequester isn’t imminent early next year only complicates their situation. This would force agencies to squeeze all the necessary spending reductions in just over 9 months instead of an entire year. We can imagine the burdens that puts on agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, with unique procurement requirements.

A less charitable view of why anyone would seek to ignore, even for a short time, the realities of the BCA would be that they might think deficits have fallen and attention to our fiscal state is no longer needed. In fact, the President recently told an audience that, “We don’t have an urgent deficit crisis. The only crisis we have is one that is manufactured in Washington.”

I beg to differ. Our fiscal problems aren’t solved. In fact, we are still on track to add $753 billion to our national debt in 2013. There is no doubt this is an improvement from past years. Yet the trillion-dollar deficits of the past 4 years are hardly appropriate benchmarks for today. Even at $753 billion, this year’s deficit is larger than any of those under any previous administration.

Meanwhile, our entitlement programs are still on track to be insolvent, with Social Security Disability set to go broke by 2016, Medicare by 2026, and Social Security by 2033. This is simply not the time to backpedal, by any means, on the agreement we made in 2011.

Congress and the President agree that the Budget Control Act is the first step needed toward budget deficit reduction. We must complete the first stride to set our Nation on the right course and prove to the public we can address the even larger looming challenges we face, such as the solvency of our entitlement programs.

There is no doubt this is going to be a difficult job in the days to come, and we must address it. I urge my colleagues to keep their promise and push for appropriations bills that responsibly respect the spending limits outlined in the Budget Control Act. To that aim, I invite my colleagues to join me in sending a letter to the majority leader asking him to bring to the Senate floor a fiscal year 2014 spending bill that abides by the $967 billion discretionary limit that is required by law.

Let us continue the progress that has been made so far and keep our promise to fight for a more sound fiscal future.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S6350

Madam President, I have spoken with the White House, I have spoken with the Republican leader, and we have agreed on a way forward based on the President’s speech last night.

As the President told the Nation last night, the President has asked Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force in Syria and pursue instead a diplomatic path to see if that works.

Tomorrow sometime, in Geneva, Secretary Kerry is meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. So it is right that the Senate turn from the Syria resolution while the Secretary of State pursues these important diplomatic discussions.

As I said this morning, Congress will be watching these negotiations very closely. If there is any indication that they are not serious, or that they are being used as a ploy for delay, then the Congress stands ready to return to the Syria resolution to give the President the authority to hold the Asad regime accountable for the pain, suffering, and death it caused with those chemical weapons.

In the meantime, the Republican leader and I have agreed the Senate will return to the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. Senator Shaheen, Senator Portman, and the chairman of the committee, Senator Wyden, have talked to me many times over a period of more than a year to move this legislation forward. So I think it is appropriate that, rather than us sit here and tread water, doing nothing, we should move forward on this legislation.

As the agreement will indicate, so as not to interfere with the diplomatic discussions going on, we have agreed that the Senate will consider no amendments on the energy efficiency bill relative to Syria or the use of force. I have talked to a number of the Republican Senators and that is certainly fine with them.

We look forward to considering amendments on issues domestic in nature and passing this important piece of legislation.

Page: S6350

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to S. 1392 be agreed to, that no amendments or motions be in order relative to Syria or the use of military force during the consideration of the legislation, and that the time until 6 p.m. tonight be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

I think it would certainly be appropriate that we have at this time statements from the chairman and the ranking member, that is, Senators Wyden and Murkowski, and Senators Shaheen and Portman, the sponsors of this legislation. Then I would hope at that time—how long does the chairman need for his statement?

Twenty minutes.

Twenty minutes. We will give Senator Murkowski the same amount of time.

Ten minutes for me.

And 15 minutes for Senator Shaheen and 15 minutes for Senator Portman. When that time is expired, we will see if we can have some amendments. So that would be the case. Those four Senators will be recognized for the next 70 minutes. As I have indicated, it is for debate only.

Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S6350

Morning business is closed.

Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013
Page: S6350

Under the previous order, the motion to proceed to S. 1392 is agreed to and the clerk will report the bill by title.

The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1392) to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes.

The Senator from Oregon.

S. 1392
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank the leader for making sure we could have this opportunity to deal with one of the crucial issues of our time. Leader Reid has a long history in energy efficiency, in renewable energy. I thank him for his leadership and particularly the opportunity to be on the floor this afternoon.

Mr. President and colleagues, today the Senate has the chance to put more points on the board for the creation of good-paying jobs, a more productive economy, and greater energy security.

Before the August recess, the Congress put some initial points up by passing hydropower legislation. This legislation was called, by the New York Times: The first significant energy legislation to become law since 2009. Those hydropower bills might have been called small by some, but experts say they can generate a large amount of power.

Hydropower is 60 percent of the renewable, clean power in America. And hydropower has the potential to add 60,000 more megawatts of capacity by 2025, according to the National Hydropower Association. That is enough energy to power more than 46 million homes. Hydro helps to make our economy less dependent on fossil fuels, and it does it in a way Democrats and Republicans can come together on.

Today, as we look at another critical part of modernizing energy policy, I want to start by saying it has almost become obligatory for Members of Congress to say they are for an “all of the above” energy policy. It is almost as though a U.S. Senator has to say that on energy they are for “all of the above” three or four times every 15, 20 minutes or else it is not a real discussion about energy policy.

But here is what is important and I think critical as we start the debate—where I see my friend from New Hampshire and my friend from Ohio—the reality is, you cannot have an “all of the above” energy policy in this country without energy efficiency. It is that simple. If you are serious about an “all of the above” energy policy—and we have essentially several Democrats and several Republicans on the floor now to demonstrate the seriousness of this issue—you cannot have an “all of the above” energy policy without energy efficiency.

So this legislation is on the floor today thanks to the tireless bipartisan efforts of Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman.

I am also very pleased the ranking minority member of the committee is here, Senator Murkowski of Alaska. She consistently meets me halfway in terms of trying to deal with these kinds of issues. As we begin this debate—which I would also mention to colleagues is essentially the first stand-alone energy bill to be debated on the floor of the Senate since 2007—it would not be possible without the cooperation and the good counsel of the ranking minority member, Senator Murkowski. I want her to know how much I appreciate our partnership. We just got through our weekly session this morning as we look at various kinds of businesses. We hope to be able to bring to the Senate helium legislation, which we know a lot of Senators care about, very quickly as well. But there is a reason we are back to energy policy in the Senate, and that is, to a great extent, because of the cooperation Senator Murkowski has shown.

This bill—and one of the reasons it is bipartisan—gives us a chance to cut waste in our energy system and create jobs. This bill would take the biggest step in years toward tapping the potential for energy policy.

The legislation saves about 2.9 billion megawatt hours of electricity by 2030, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. I say to my colleagues, I thought I would start by translating that into something that becomes a little easier to put your arms around.

To generate those kinds of savings in electricity—2.9 billion megawatt hours—the United States would have to build 10 new nuclear powerplants at a cost of billions of dollars each and run them for more than 20 years.

The heart of this bill is updating voluntary building codes to make homes and businesses more efficient, and it is about installing new wires and pipes and machines and insulation. Here is what I want colleagues to know as we start this discussion: There is money to be made in those pipes and that installation. Businesses know that. That is why more than 250 companies and associations have endorsed this bill, including the Chamber of Commerce.

When you look at those who have endorsed this piece of legislation, it is not a who’s who of sort of bleeding-heart environmental folks. I was particularly struck by the headline in a Forbes article last month. They say: “The Shaheen-Portman Energy Savings Act: It’s The Economy, Stupid.” They sure got that right.

If the Congress passes this bill, it is going to immediately become a significant job creator, generating an estimated 136,000 new jobs by 2025.

It will also make a significant difference in our country’s energy productivity, and that means savings for families, building fewer powerplants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If we continue business as usual—people say: Oh, gee, we are not really going to pursue this now—the U.S. Energy Information Administration—that is really our statistical arm of the Energy Department—predicts that our country would use 30 percent more electricity by 2040.

But there is an alternative, and that is harnessing the potential of efficiency technologies that actually reduce electricity from today’s demand and reduce the use of energy even as our economy and population grows.

The amount of new energy productivity we gain would be like doubling the number of houses in America and then powering all of them without ever adding a new powerplant to the grid.

Choosing the more efficient path we are going to advocate for on the floor of the Senate would mean adding 1.3 million jobs by the middle of the century. Families could shave off one-third of their electricity bills, an average savings of about $600 per year, according to experts in the field, a big increase in productivity.

So already we have talked about job creation, we have talked about productivity, two areas where I do not see some kind of artificial line between Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate. I see areas we all feel strongly about.

On the other hand, meeting our country’s projected electricity demand with today’s energy mix and 40 percent coal requires building at least 100 new coal-fired powerplants over 25 years.

We are also going to make the case during this debate that the Federal Government ought to be a leader in this. It is one thing to talk about how everybody in America ought to do something, and then say, oh, the Federal Government might get around to it someday. So we are saying, this is a chance for the Federal Government to save taxpayers money and to play a strong role, a strong leadership role, particularly by improving efficiency at the Federal data centers.

As more and more businesses move to the cloud, reducing energy use there is extremely important. Again, the experts estimate these steps on data center efficiency would save about 35 million megawatt hours of electricity by 2030. We would save the same amount of energy by powering down 60 of the NSA’s newest data centers for a year, but I am going to save that one for another day.

There is obviously room for Federal agencies to do more. The government owns nearly 500,000 buildings. The Federal Government is the largest landlord in America. Agencies are directed to buy and use highly efficient equipment under two different executive orders. But according to staff at the Energy Department, less than half of commercial building equipment that agencies buy actually even complies with the government’s own rules. So I am going to be offering an amendment to the bill that at least will provide some incentive to ensure that agencies actually follow the rules of the government.

This bill, as I have indicated, is bipartisan. We have been able to pass 62 bills out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, each one with bipartisan support. This is what Senators have said they care about, this is what the other body has said they care about.

Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the third ranking House Republican, said earlier this year, “All American energy independence means taking a hard look at energy production, distribution, reliability and efficiency.” In the House there is a bipartisan companion to this. In other words, we have the good fortune of having Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman working in a bipartisan way.

In the other body—and Senator Murkowski and I have met with the House Members interested in this issue—you have Congressman Peter Welch and Congressman Cory Gardner actually creating a bipartisan caucus to promote new financing tools that aid energy efficiency projects. Congressman Welch and Congressman McKinley have introduced companion legislation to the one we debate today.

If anything, one of our challenges is there is a pent-up demand to debate energy issues in this Congress. If we voted for all of the amendments I hear people say they want to do, we would probably be here until New Year’s Eve being fed intravenously trying to figure out how to process all of them. We may not have time to address each and every amendment, but I know of at least a dozen bipartisan amendments that colleagues plan to offer that will produce even more energy savings for businesses and consumers, produce more jobs for the U.S. economy.

Nobody is going to be able to say this is part of a dumb Federal mandate or some kind of “run from Washington, one size fits all” approach. These are approaches that look to productivity, the private sector for leadership and fresh ideas. For example, Senator Bennet and Senator Ayotte have a better building amendment. It strikes me as a very sensible one.

Senator Inhofe and Senator Carper have an amendment on thermal efficiency. Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hoeven have an amendment to help our nonprofits save energy. How can you make a logical case that we should not try to work that out? Our nonprofits are being stretched to the limit. I saw that when I was in Alaska with Senator Murkowski. We talked to some of the nonprofits. We see it in Oregon as well.

We have a bipartisan amendment from Senators Hoeven and Klobuchar to try to help these nonprofits save energy. These are just a few of the good amendments, in my view, that build on the outstanding work done by Senators Shaheen and Portman lo these several years. These amendments and the bill are going to help homes and businesses use less energy, save money, create jobs, without mandates, without spending new Federal money.

It got out of our committee by a 19-to-3 vote. I believe the reason it did is because people said this is a commonsense approach to cutting energy waste and showing folks across the land that there are things you can agree on in the Senate and come together.

I am pleased to be here with Senator Murkowski. We have talked about this a long time, to get the Senate back in the business of a modern energy policy that creates jobs, that promotes energy security and productivity. We started that with the hydropower legislation that was signed into law right after we broke for the August recess. This is the next logical step.

I will say to colleagues, I do not see how a Senator can say they are for an “all of the above” energy policy in America without supporting energy efficiency. This is the time. This is the bill.

I look forward to working with our colleagues. I hope they bring us their various and sundry amendments.

I yield the floor. I know Senator Murkowski has important comments to make.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

S. 1392
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Energy Committee, for his comments on not only this very important legislation but his leadership on energy issues as we have worked together on the Energy Committee, a committee that I know the Presiding Officer enjoyed his time on, recognizing that there is so much we can be doing as a Nation on a bipartisan basis to make a difference within our communities, across our regions, not only for the economy and jobs but to make a difference globally in terms of how we handle our energy and our energy resources.

We talk a lot about the “all of the above” strategy, and perhaps that has different interpretations depending upon what part of the country you are from. But one of the slogans that was going around a few years back was: Produce more. Use less. Well, now we are talking about the “use less” side of that ledger, equally important. I come from a producing State. But let me tell you when you come from a State where our energy costs are some of the highest in the Nation, if not the highest in the Nation, we are also pretty good and wise about how we use less.

I am very pleased that we are at this point today where we are finally taking up the energy efficiency bill. The chairman has mentioned it has been a long time since we have seen energy legislation debated here on the floor. I do find it troubling that we have gone so long without meaningful and sustained debate about energy policy.

Each year our committee sends dozens of bills to the floor with our signature stamp of bipartisan approval which I think is key. Yet for years we have kind of seen the bills come to the floor and that has been the end of the road for those particular efforts. While a small number of our public lands bills are able to pass through by unanimous consent, those that are related to energy, those that often need a little more work to pass this Chamber, are virtually never brought up for further consideration.

I do understand we have all kinds of pressing matters in front of us—obviously the debate over the Syria resolution clearly one of them, the continuing resolution that we will have in front of us as we work to fund the government, critically important. If we do reach agreement on how we should proceed to either of those measures, I will certainly be the first to agree they need to be brought forward for debate. But when we have finished those, I am hopeful we will return, if we have not yet concluded, to energy legislation because it has been too long neglected in this Chamber.

I came to the position as ranking member of the Energy Committee back in 2009. I was very optimistic about what we would accomplish in this area. All of those of us on the committee had worked to deliver three major energy bills during the proceeding years I had been on the committee. We had the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we had the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, we had the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. All of them were partially or entirely written by our committee. They all received strong support in the Chamber, and they all eventually became law.

Fast forward to where we are today. Our floor debate in 2007 remains the last time, the last time the Senate truly engaged on energy policy. In the interim, about the best we have seen are some amendments here and there along the process or perhaps dueling side-by-sides that seem are inevitably voted down.

But the lack of action on energy legislation is not because we have abandoned a bipartisan approach in committee. It is not because we have perhaps run out of good ideas. It is certainly not because we are somehow unable or unwilling to report legislation to the full Senate. We reported a comprehensive bill back in 2009 that sat on the calendar untouched for 17 months. We unanimously reported a bill to help prevent another offshore spill in 2010. That too was ignored.

The reality is we have one of the most bipartisan and active committees in the Senate. But, unfortunately, we are almost regularly in a situation where we are not provided the floor time needed to complete our work.

I am not complaining here, I am just pointing out some facts. But the chairman noted there has been this pent-up demand, this frustration, about not only where we are in the process but the opportunities that are lost. When you think about the changing dynamic in this country since 2009, I think about what has changed in the energy sector during that course. The fact that we have not addressed real, fulsome energy legislation is quite telling.

But I am hopeful the Senate is now finally on the verge of reversing its unfortunate approach to energy policy. As the chairman has noted, we have already ordered more than 50 bills—50 bills—to be reported to the Senate this year alone. Today, as we begin debate on the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act—I do not even know why we are calling it that; we just call it Shaheen-Portman around here. The work the authors of this legislation have done I certainly applaud.

But we are here at this point because of the very concerted efforts of the authors of this bill, Senators Portman and Shaheen, their great bipartisan work, months and months of negotiation, months of waiting. So to be here today, to stand in support of this bill, is wonderful.

I have spent some time on this floor talking about an energy blueprint I had crafted back at the beginning of the year, Energy 20/20. I said this is 115 pages of energy policy, but it can be summed up in one bumper sticker. It says: Energy is good. The fact we are here on the floor talking about energy efficiency is absolutely key.

When I mentioned that 20/20 blueprint, in it I make the point, I make the push that we need to strive to make our energy more abundant, more affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. While we often focus on the more obvious efforts to advance energy policy, in my case more production on Federal lands, passage of approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the restoration of some real balance in new regulation, and I think a much greater focus on innovation, it is also critically important that we look to the efficiency side. It must be a larger part of our energy debate. It deserves to be a larger part of our Nation’s energy policy.

The reasons why are no mystery. Efficiency is good for the economy and for our environment. It enables us to waste less and to use our resources more wisely—great conservative principles.

At the same time it can help create jobs and deliver lasting financial benefits. Study after study—and the chairman has pointed out some of those—has shown we could save billions of dollars every year through reasonable efficiency improvements, whether in small appliances, large buildings, or someplace in between. These potential savings cannot be overlooked at a time when we see so many of our families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet, when our debt is escalating and the price of energy remains well above where most of us want it to be.

As policymakers, I can’t think of efficiency as an energy issue alone. It is also a bottom-line issue that affects every one of us and every one of our constituents back home.

While we can all agree on the importance of efficiency, we can also agree there is a legitimate debate over the Federal Government’s role in this area. In my judgment, that role should be limited and the costs associated with it should be minimal.

The Federal Government must itself be efficient as it pursues efficiency. I think these are areas we can work to enhance. We cannot simply lavish subsidies, pass bill after bill, or impose mandate after mandate, and suggest that is somehow a pursuit of a greater good.

Instead, I think the Federal Government should strive to fulfill three pretty distinct roles. It can act as a facilitator of information that consumers and businesses need to make sound decisions. It can serve as a breaker of barriers that discourage or prevent rational efficiency improvements from being made. As the largest consumer of energy in our country, it can lead by example by taking steps to reduce its own energy usage.

Those are the criteria by which we can evaluate whether the Federal Government is on the right track on energy efficiency and also the criteria by which we can judge whether this particular bill, the Shaheen-Portman bill, would improve our current policies.

Let me move to the bill for a moment and explain why I support it. First, the scope. The scope is both limited and appropriate. It does not contain new mandates for the private sector, not for buildings, not for appliances, not for anything. The provision on building codes is a good example of what the bill does and does not do.

I would not be supporting a provision if it required the mandatory adoption of those codes, but in this bill it is voluntary, with the Federal Government stepping in to help facilitate new models that others can choose to follow.

The second point here is the cost. We are all focusing on costs nowadays. The costs of this bill are fully offset. It contains no direct spending. The only provision that received a score from the Congressional Budget Office has been dropped. A grants program that passed our committee has now been dropped as well. Some of these things we look at and say we would rather they had been in there, but we are trying to deal with the cost side.

I appreciate both Senators Shaheen and Portman for working with us on that. The authorizations that remain in the bill have been fully offset by cutting a provision from the 2007 Energy bill. Any Federal dollars that are ultimately spent on this legislation will have to be secured through a future appropriations process within the context of our larger debate about the overall Federal budget.

The third point here is I support this bill because of the process that was followed to bring it to this point. Again, I wish to give the chairman credit, and clearly Senators Shaheen and Portman. It was bipartisan from the beginning. The Senator from New Hampshire got together with the Senator from Ohio to lead its development.

I can remember the conversation years ago when he said: I am working on this. It was long before there was any draft. It was working through in the kind of good old-fashioned, roll up your sleeves, let’s work on doing good things in energy policy when it comes to efficiency. I give him full credit.

The committee held a hearing on this bill. We had testimony from the Department of Energy and other experts. We moved through to a markup. This could be considered regular order. We improved the bill in the markup. We reported it favorably by a vote of 19 to 3. Possible amendments have been worked on by members and staff alike over these past several months. I think there are many good amendments we all assume will easily win passage.

At the same time the bill’s sponsors have continued to work to refine and improve the legislation leading to the product we have before us today. On scope and substance, on cost and on process, this bill has been a good example. This has been an example of regular order, working as usual, showing how the Senate can work, showing the Senate at its best. The only trouble we have encountered is securing the floor time necessary to try to secure its passage.

It is my hope with the efforts of the sponsors of this bill, with the efforts of the chairman of the Energy Committee continuing to push to build good things—rather than trying to blow up things—we will have an opportunity to see this measure enacted into law.

As I mentioned, we don’t have an opportunity here on the floor of the Senate to debate energy often or as often as I would wish. By the looks of what we have pending in front of us, we recognize there may be interruptions. It is my hope we can move quickly and take up many of these bipartisan amendments Chairman Wyden has mentioned.

Let us make the most of the opportunity we have before us now. Let us weigh the Federal Government’s proper role in efficiency. Let us make sure this bill reflects all of that. Let us start working through the amendments that have been filed and move forward with a process that will yield good policy for this country.

Again, I thank the sponsors for their yeoman’s work in getting us to this point, and I look forward to the discussion and the debate we will have in the days ahead. I know Senator Shaheen, with all the work she has put into this, is anxious to finally discuss her bill in the Chamber.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

S. 1392
Mrs. SHAHEEN. As my colleague Senator Murkowski said, I am thrilled to be here on the floor of the Senate today after 3 years of work with Senator Portman and so many other people to be talking about the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.

I wish to begin by thanking Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for all of the support and great work the Energy Committee has done to help get this bill to the floor.

As they pointed out, and as I know the Presiding Officer knows, the Energy Committee in the Senate has been very bipartisan. I had the opportunity to spend my first 4 years here on the Energy Committee and I can attest to that. I know what great work they have done. The fact they have moved so many bills through the committee already speaks to the consensus they have been able to build on the committee around energy policy. Thank you both very much for all of that great work.

Thank you to my partner in this effort, Senator Portman of Ohio. He is not on floor right now, but I sort of claim him in New Hampshire because he went to Dartmouth, so we figure he has some New Hampshire roots. We have worked in a partnership on this legislation. It has been a very bipartisan effort.

It reflects what I believe is an affordable approach to the use of energy efficiency technologies. It will help create private sector jobs. It will save businesses and consumers money. It will reduce pollution, and it will make our country more energy independent.

I know we are all very aware of the crisis in Syria and how that looms over this discussion. It couldn’t be more timely over how we can make this country more energy independent.

This bill, which Senator Portman and I have been working on for 3 years, has been the result of years of meetings and negotiations, of broad stakeholder outreach. It has been an effort to craft the most effective piece of energy legislation, efficiency legislation, with the greatest chance of passing both Chambers of Congress and of being signed into law.

The legislation will have a swift and measurable benefit to our economy and our environment. In fact, as Senator Wyden pointed out, we had a recent study by experts at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which found this legislation, if it is passed, has the potential to create 136,000 domestic jobs by 2025. They did a study in the last Congress, when we first introduced the bill, which showed in addition to that job creation, it would also save consumers $4 billion by 2020 and be the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off the road. It is a huge benefit to our environment and to job creation, which is probably at the top of our agenda right now, and also for savings to consumers.

Simply put, as my colleagues have said, we need a comprehensive national energy policy. We have been overly dependent on foreign oil. We have been reliant on an outdated energy infrastructure. This is a situation that hurts business and that also gives our overseas competitors an advantage.

We have to think about an “all of the above” strategy, as everybody has commented, that utilizes a wide range of energy sources: natural gas, oil, nuclear, and renewables such as wind, biomass, and solar. This will give us a stronger and more stable economy. We can’t just focus on the supply side, we also need to think about how we consume the energy once we have it, the demand side.

Efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to address our energy needs. Energy savings techniques and technologies, lower costs—they free up capital that allows business to expand and our economy to grow. I have been to so many businesses throughout New Hampshire in the last 3 years that, because of their ability to save on their energy costs, have been able to stay competitive and have been able to add jobs. This has a real benefit to our economy and to businesses.

Efficiency, as I said, is the fastest way to address our energy needs. I think a lot of times people think about energy saving and energy efficiency as turning down the thermostat, turning off the lights, putting on a sweater, but energy efficiency today is about a whole lot more than that. We can start by improving our efficiency by installing ready and proven technologies. These are off the shelf. They are already available, such as modern heating and cooling systems, smart meters, computer-controlled thermostats, and low-energy lighting. These are all available today for the benefit of people who wish to save on their energy consumption and their energy bills.

There are substantial opportunities that exist across all sectors of our economy to conserve energy and to create good-paying private sector jobs. As we have already said, I think efficiency has a great shot at passing both the House and Senate and becoming law. Energy efficiency has emerged as an excellent example of bipartisan and affordable opportunity to immediately grow our economy and improve our energy security.

In addition to being affordable, efficiency is widely supported because its benefits aren’t confined to a certain fuel source or a particular region of the country. So much of the energy debate over the last few years has been about who benefits, whether it is fossil fuels, alternatives, whether it is the Northeast, the South, the West. Everybody benefits from energy efficiency. It is one of the policy areas where we can come to a real agreement.

It is no wonder that this legislation, Shaheen-Portman, enjoys such large and diverse support. It has received more than 250 endorsements from a wide range of businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and trade associations, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to the National Resources Defense Council. These are the types of nontraditional alliances that have helped us get this bill to the floor.

Senator Portman and I worked with diverse groups to craft this year’s bill, and we maintained a transparent and open process in which we tried to make sure all stakeholders had a meaningful opportunity to comment on existing and proposed provisions and to suggest their substantive additions. So using that process of coalition building, we were able to find common ground on a number of important provisions, including commercial and residential building efficiency codes, workforce training, and language that aims to create a more robust public-private partnership between DOE’s Advanced Manufacturing Office and industrial energy consumers.

To talk a little about what is actually in the legislation, this bill provides incentives and support but, as we have all said, no mandates for residential and commercial buildings in order to cut energy use. That is very important because buildings consume about 40 percent of the energy used in the United States.

The bill strengthens voluntary national model building codes to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient, and it works with State and private industry to make the code-writing process more transparent.

The legislation trains the next generation of workers in energy efficient commercial building design and operation through university-based building training and research assessment centers.

Shaheen-Portman assists our industrial manufacturing sector, which consumes more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy. The bill would direct the Department of Energy to work closely with private sector industrial partners to encourage research, development, and commercialization of innovative energy efficient technology and processes for industrial application. This is something we heard very clearly from businesses throughout the country. They really need and they want a more collaborative effort with the Department of Energy. They want to feel as though the Department of Energy is working with them. So hopefully these provisions will help make that happen.

It also helps businesses reduce energy costs and become more competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy efficient electric motors and transformers.

It also establishes a DOE voluntary program called SupplySTAR, which is modeled on something that has been a great success, the ENERGY STAR Program, to help make companies more aware of their supply chains and how to make them more efficient as well.

The legislation requires the Federal Government, which is the single largest user of energy in the country, to adopt more efficient building standards and smart metering technology. The bill would require the Federal Government to adopt energy-saving technologies and operations for computers. Our data centers are huge users of energy. It would allow Federal agencies to use existing funds to update plans for new Federal buildings using the most current building efficiency standards.

Finally, as has been said, this legislation is fully offset, so there is no new spending in this bill. We reallocate authorization from existing programs.

To conclude—and I know we are going to have a lot of amendments to this bill—we have a number of bipartisan amendments that are going to make this bill better, that will make it more substantive, and I look forward to those amendments and to the debate we are going to have. I think this is a bipartisan, affordable, and I believe widely supported first step as we begin addressing our Nation’s very real energy needs, particularly not just on the supply side but on the demand side.

As I have said, a lot of people have worked very hard to get this bill to the floor, and while I am not going to walk through who all of those people are, I again thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for all of their support, and I thank Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell for their support in reaching an agreement to get the bill to the floor.

I also thank three staff members whose hard work has really made this possible—first, someone who was in my office earlier but who has now moved on, Trent Bauserman, who worked very hard to get us started on the legislation; Robert Diznoff, who has now taken over in my office to work on the bill; and Steve Kittredge from the office of Senator Portman. Without the three of them and without all of the other staffers both in my office and in the office of Senator Portman and all of the people on the committee who have worked so hard, we would not be here to have this debate today.

So I thank all of them, and I look forward to hearing the amendments and the robust discussion on the floor and to continuing to work with my colleague Senator Portman as we try to move this bill through the process.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

S. 1392
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we are finally here on the floor, and I would like to thank my colleague Senator Shaheen for her comments and for working with me over the last few years to get to this point where we can be talking about something that brings us together, I hope, as a Senate, which is this effort to ensure that we have an energy plan for America that can help bring back jobs, help fix our trade deficit, and help spark an American manufacturing renaissance, and that is the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.

This is about energy efficiency. It is about using what we have more efficiently, and I think that makes a lot of sense for us to move forward. As Senator Shaheen said, it is a first step, but it is an important step.

I thank the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—Senator Wyden, who spoke earlier, and Senator Murkowski, who is with us on the floor and who spoke earlier—for all the support they have given us over the last few years to get this through the committee process and the markup process and to add some important elements to the legislation, and we will see more as the amendment process proceeds. I also thank Leader Reid for helping us bring this bipartisan legislation to the floor today, and I thank Senator McConnell, who has been very supportive of us moving this process forward.

As has been said on the floor this afternoon, this is really the first substantive energy legislation we have seen on the floor in a while—maybe 6 years—and it requires help from both sides of the aisle to get to this point. It is bipartisan.

It is also supported, by the way, on both sides of the Capitol. We have people in the House, including some House Members I spoke to earlier today, who are very interested in what we are doing over here on this legislation because they have companion legislation—not identical but similar legislation—in the House they are working on on a bipartisan basis.

So this is one that I think has a good shot of getting through the Senate. I think it also has a good shot of getting through the House and going to the President for signature and helping to move America forward with a more sensible energy policy.

We are going to see a lot of amendments on the floor, and I think a number of these amendments will be bipartisan and will help improve the bill. In fact, I am looking at a list here of about a dozen bipartisan amendments. These are amendments—some of which we talked about in committee, some of which have come since the process—that involve some very thoughtful work done by our colleagues, and I am looking forward to having a debate on some of those. Actually, I have a list of 41 energy efficiency-related relevant amendments here. So this is an opportunity for us to have a broader debate on energy but also to improve the energy efficiency legislation before us.

Those of us on this side of the aisle talk about the need for an “all of the above” energy policy, and I certainly believe in it. I think we need to do everything we can to make ourselves more energy independent so that we are not dependent on dangerous and volatile parts of the world, including the Mideast. We have certainly seen that here in the last couple of weeks where what is happening in Syria and what is happening in Egypt affects what goes on here in this country in terms of our energy costs and certainly our economy. So this need for energy efficiency should lead us to want to be sure we are including this legislation in the mix.

We need a policy that harnesses more of our domestic resources. I believe in that. I believe we should be producing more energy in the ground here in America. I am for producing more, but I am also for making sure we don’t miss the other part of the equation, which is using less. So I believe producing more and using less is a good policy.

This is part of the using-less part that maybe we don’t talk about as much on this side of the aisle, but it is also very important. It is important in part because it creates jobs. It is a bill that is supported, by the way, by over 260 businesses, business association advocacy groups, from the National Association of Manufacturers and the chamber of commerce to the Sierra Club and the Alliance to Save Energy. The Christian Coalition is supporting it.

I have here a list of these 260 trade associations and business organizations because there are too many names to go through on the floor, but it is a very impressive list.

I think the legislation got through the Senate Energy Committee with a vote of 19 to 3 partly because of this support because members realize this will help them and their constituents.

Simply put, I think this legislation that the senior Senator from New Hampshire and I have worked on and proposed makes good environmental sense, I think it makes good energy sense, and I think it makes good economic sense too.

I spent time visiting with businesses throughout my State of Ohio on this bill and on this whole issue of energy, and they all say the same thing, which is pretty obvious, and that is that energy is an important component of their business, it is part of the cost of doing business, and energy efficiency makes them more able to compete in the global economy.

We do live in a global economy, and every day businesses in my State go up against businesses not just in other States but in other countries. We are not going to be able to compete on everything. We don’t want to compete on wages with developing countries, for instance. We want to have good wages and good benefits in this country. We can compete on the quality of the goods we produce. We want to keep that quality high. But we have to be sure we are giving these businesses the ability to compete by helping to keep their energy costs low—again producing more and using less.

What this legislation does—and it is very significant—is it helps the private sector develop the energy efficiency techniques, technologies of the future. We make it easier for employers to use tools that will reduce their costs, enabling them to put those savings toward expanding jobs, plants, equipment, and hiring new workers. The proposals contained in our bill are commonsense reforms we have needed for a long time.

The bill contains no mandates. Let me repeat that. There are no mandates in this legislation on the private sector, period. In fact, many of our proposals come as a direct result of conversations we have had with folks in the private sector about how the Federal Government can help them to become more energy efficient and to save money, which they can then reinvest in their businesses and communities.

Here is a brief overview of some of the major parts of the legislation, some of which have already been described ably by my colleague from New Hampshire, but I just want to review them quickly.

First, it does specifically help manufacturing. It reforms what is called the Advanced Manufacturing Office at the Department of Energy by providing clear guidelines on its responsibilities, one of which ought to be to help manufacturers develop energy-saving technologies for their businesses. This is a shift. We think it is important. We think they have gotten away from that a little bit—the Department of Energy—and we need to be sure they get back to it.

It facilitates the already existing efforts of companies around the country that are trying to implement cost-saving energy efficiency policies by streamlining the way government agencies in this arena work with them.

It also increases partnerships with national labs. The national laboratories have a lot of great research, and we want to be sure it is commercialized and shared with the private sector.

Also, it increases partnerships with energy and service technology providers and the national labs together to leverage private sector expertise toward energy efficiency goals.

The legislation strengthens the model building codes so that builders in States that choose to adopt them will have the most up-to-date energy efficient codes developed anywhere—best practices.

The legislation establishes university-based building training and assessment centers. Industrial assessments centers are located around the country.

There is one in Dayton, OH. I had the opportunity to visit with one of the researchers there recently, who was out working with midsized smaller companies, helping make them more energy efficient. They are strongly in support of this legislation because they want to expand the good work they are doing to help more businesses be more energy efficient, be more competitive, and add more jobs.

Under this legislation, these centers also will be helping to train the next generation of workers in energy efficient building design and operation. Not only will these programs save energy, but they will also help provide our students and unemployed workers who need these skills with the skills they will need to compete in this growing energy field.

To repeat, this bill is not about forcing companies to become more energy efficient or imposing mandates. It is about incentives, and it is about giving these companies the help they are asking for. And we can do it at no additional expense to the taxpayer. Why? Because the cost of this legislation is fully offset. In other words, we change other programs at the Department of Energy to pay for the cost of this legislation.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it has no impact. It is deficit neutral. But in fact it will save taxpayers money, because all of us as taxpayers will save money because of another provision of the legislation, and that is because we go after the largest energy user in the world to try to make them more efficient. That is the United States Government. We want to be sure the United States Government starts to practice what it preaches, because as it talks to the rest of us about the need for more energy efficiency, we find that at the Federal Government there are lots of opportunities to make them less wasteful and more efficient.

It directs the Department of Energy to issue recommendations that employ energy efficiency on everything from computer hardware to operation and maintenance processes.

Senator Wyden had some good examples earlier of some of the waste in the Federal Government that this bill will go after. This is smart because it is the right thing to do in order to save energy, but also it helps taxpayers because it is going to reduce the cost at the Federal Government.

It also takes an interesting commonsense step of allowing the General Services Administration to actually update the building designs they have to meet energy-efficient standards that have been developed since these designs were finalized, some of them many years ago, and they can’t update them. We certainly want to be sure the new Federal buildings that are being constructed are using the most up-to-date efficiency standards. This legislation permits that to happen. The government has been looking for places to tighten its belt. This is one. Energy efficiency is a great place to start.

All this adds up to a piece of legislation that Americans across the spectrum can support. It is fully offset, it contains no mandates, it requires the Federal Government to be more efficient.

According to a recent study of our legislation, in 12 years, by 2025, Shaheen-Portman is estimated to aid in the creation of 136,000 new jobs. The report says it is going to save consumers $13.7 billion a year in reduced energy costs by 2030. A vote on this legislation is a critical step for achieving this goal of a true “all of the above” energy strategy. It produces more energy at home, yes, but also uses less energy—and uses it more efficiently.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come down to the floor, offer their amendments, let’s have a good debate and discussion, and let’s support this underlying bill. Let’s be sure it leaves the Senate with a strong vote and, with it, rigorous debate to ensure it can pass the House of Representatives where, as I said earlier, there is a lot of interest, and that it can go to the President for his signature to take this important step toward making this country more competitive, more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign oil, and creating more jobs in the process while improving the environment. It is a win-win-win.

I thank my colleague from New Hampshire and the chair and ranking member of the Energy Committee. We look forward to entertaining some amendments and look forward to being here on the floor talking about a way to move our country forward in a way that provides a model on moving the Senate forward on other bipartisan measures.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

S. 1392
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1858
(Purpose: To provide for a study and report on standby usage power standards implemented by States and other industrialized nations)

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1858.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The amendment is printed in today’s Record under “Text of Amendments.”)

Mr. President, in my view, this is a very practical amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Oregon Senator Merkley. It involves a study on standby power.

The amendment would, in effect, fund the study at the Department of Energy to look at standby power standards in States and other parts of the world to determine what is the most feasible and practical way to approach it. There is no authorization here.

I think it is pretty obvious to Members of the Senate, there are a large number of electronic products, from televisions, cell phone chargers, to microwaves, that cannot be completely turned off without being unplugged, and we ought to find ways to reduce wasted standby power.

It is my intention to support this amendment. I think it is a practical idea. I yield any time to Senator Merkley to explain his thoughtful amendment.

The Senator from Oregon.

AMENDMENT NO. 1858
Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague from Oregon. I appreciate very much his calling up this amendment and for his leadership on energy, and specifically energy efficiency.

I would also like to compliment my colleagues from Ohio and New Hampshire, who have worked so hard on this very valuable piece of the energy puzzle: How do we more efficiently utilize energy that we generate?

Specifically, this amendment is related to standby power, the power that is wasted keeping devices ready to use at a moment’s notice. I prefer the term “vampire” power or “vampire” electronics. This is the power our electronics suck out of our power system when they are doing absolutely nothing. So this challenge of loss to vampire electronics is certainly something we ought to take on.

Many electronic devices, from televisions to desktop computers, cell phone chargers, microwaves, use energy when they are turned off but are still plugged in. Often, you will see that little light that tells you it is still plugged in. This wasted energy accounts for roughly 5 percent of residential electricity use. So about 1 kilowatt in every 20 or $1 in every $20 is utilized to keep those little lights blinking.

The United States has yet to establish standards for efficiency in products related to standby power. Some States have done so, and other industrialized nations have taken action. This amendment would simply tell the Department to look at the standards established elsewhere in the world, or in individual States, compare them and analyze them, so we can consider whether a lot more could be done in the United States to make us more efficient. That efficiency is like producing free, available power by ending the waste. In fact, the EPA estimates 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity are wasted by vampire electronics each year. That adds up to $10 billion in extra energy costs.

Depending on the age of components, running a cable box or large-screen TV, a DVD player, a gaming console, surround sound setup, could be like running a significant refrigerator, a significant power draw, and DOE believes it is feasible to reduce this waste from standby power by about 75 percent.

The value of that 75-percent reduction would be equivalent to erecting 25,000 3-megawatt wind turbines for free. That is a lot of wind power being utilized. So let’s do it.

Under this amendment, the Department of Energy is instructed to conduct a study of standards of standby power appliances and electronic devices that have been implemented by other States or other industrialized nations, and to evaluate which of the standards studied would be feasible and appropriate in the United States. It is a simple idea and an important study that can contribute substantially to the use of power effectively here in our economy.

I thank my colleagues for bringing this amendment forward.

The Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, we are not going to vote on this amendment at this time. But when we do, I hope colleagues will support it. I think it is a very fine amendment.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER}} The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 1858
Mr. President, I think there is a little confusion on the floor. I have an amendment. I have talked to virtually everyone. In fact, I can’t find one person opposed to it. It is very simple.

What I would ask is that I be able to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of considering my amendment No. 1851. Let me make that and see if there is objection to that.

Is there objection?

I object.

Objection is heard.

Mr. President, let me go ahead and tell the floor what it is all about. I know I am going to be wanting to come back to the floor and get this in the queue.

It is very rare in this body that we come up with something everyone is for, something that wasn’t a part of the original legislation, for a very good reason. We are talking about geothermal.

Right now we all recall in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there is a provision that requires the Federal Government have a percentage of its energy be from renewable sources. The problem is this: Geothermal doesn’t create any new energy. It lets you use the energy that is there, recover it, heat our homes, cool our homes, put it back, and then reuse it again.

As I say, it is something everyone is for. It is 100 percent renewable. The only oversight originally was that it did not actually create energy. The amendment would change this to allow geothermal heat pumps to be among the renewable energies that could be used by the Federal Government to meet its obligation under the 2005 Energy law.

This amendment doesn’t cost anything, it doesn’t mandate anything. It simply provides another acceptable way for the Federal Government to meet its obligations in a cost-effective way. It is noncontroversial and something everyone wants.

It would be my hope after that explanation the Senator from Louisiana would be willing to let me bring it up for the purpose of considering it, putting it in the queue, and then going back to where we were, acknowledging objections that he might have to other amendments.

The Senator from Louisiana.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to sustain my objection. But I am very hopeful this can be worked out in short order, as soon as a vote on my amendment is locked down. In fact, I will go this far. It doesn’t even have to be on this bill. It does have to be in the near future, because the issue with regard to which I am very concerned happens on October 1. So this is an extremely time-sensitive issue.

I have had good discussions with the majority, and it seems as though we are going to be able to lock down that agreement hopefully very soon. But until then, I am going to have to object.

Mr. President, I intend to support the Inhofe-Carper amendment. In my view, this is really a commonsense clarification of existing law. I want colleagues to have a sense that this is the kind of bipartisan work that Senator Murkowski talked about earlier, that we have been trying to do to try to come to the Senate with ideas that really pass the smell test. I mean they are common sense, they are practical.

In that context, this amendment modifies the existing definition of renewable energy to provide that thermal energy that is generated from—from renewable energy sources ought to be considered renewable energy for Federal energy purchase requirements. For example, if a Federal agency has access to thermal energy from groundwater to heat or cool its facilities, under the Inhofe-Carper amendment that thermal energy would be considered renewable energy produced just as if the buildings had solar or wind power to produce electricity.

I hope colleagues, in this spirit, will bring us these kinds of suggestions and ideas. Senator Inhofe brought this to us early on. I know we are going to have some more discussion because of its connection to other matters, but I hope we will get a vote. It is common sense. It is practical. I intend to support it. I want the record to reflect that.

The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, as author, with Senator Shaheen, of the underlying bill, I have a list of a dozen or so bipartisan amendments that I would love to see us have a debate on, including the Inhofe amendment. The Inhofe-Carper amendment is a great example, as the chairman just said, of one that actually improves the bill. As I said, there are some amendments we may not find bipartisan, but this is one, and it is common sense. I appreciate him working with the committee and working with us, and I just wish we could get it up for a vote and get it filed today.

I hope we can work out our differences on other amendments that are not relevant to the legislation so we can go ahead with some of this debate. My sense is that we have a good chance of doing that. Let’s figure out how to come together with a practical solution to be able to provide a vote but also to allow us to proceed with this debate.

Senator Inhofe came over here to offer his amendment. He wasn’t able to. I hope we can, for the next good bipartisan amendment, have that opportunity.

I yield.

The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, let me offer this truly friendly suggestion. I think we can proceed with this debate. Senator Portman said proceed with the debate. We can proceed with this debate right now. We can bring amendments to the floor, we can talk about them, we can have a full debate on any amendment folks want to bring to the floor. I encourage that. I think that will move the process along because we can basically do all of the substantive debate on these amendments. The only thing I am talking about is a technicality, which is making the amendment pending. That is a technicality that does not have to stop or delay or prohibit any debate.

My suggestion is to move full forward with that debate as we work out this agreement. I am fully prepared in the same way to discuss and debate my amendment. I am ready to do that whenever it is appropriate.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

I don’t recall this happening before. Regarding the very amendment that is an obstacle, keeping me from the vote, I ask unanimous consent right now to become a cosponsor of that amendment, the Vitter amendment I am talking about.

I know what he is trying to do. I know he is going to make an effort to get this done maybe in other legislation if it does not happen here. I will be joining him in his cause. I see this as a separate matter here, as I say. We want to move this along. Everyone agrees to. I will stand by and see if anyone changes their mind.

Thank you, I say to the chairman and ranking member. Thank you for the very kind comments on my amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I was next going to ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1845. I understand the Senate is in an a bit of an impasse, but, if I might, I would like to talk about my amendment without calling it up with the hope that later my friend and colleague Senator Wyden will be able to call up my amendment and put it on the list of pending amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.

SA. 1845
I am going to talk a little bit about this important effort which has been authored in partnership with my good friend from the wonderful State of Maine, Senator Collins. I wish to take a minute before I do that and say how important it is that we are finally debating, for the first time in years, an energy bill in the Senate. The fact that we are here today beginning this important debate is a huge testament to my colleague from the great State of New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, and my good friend from the days I served in the House and now fellow Senator from the great State of Ohio, Senator Portman, and the leadership of Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski.

I think Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen are saying this in every way possible: For our country to truly realize energy independence, energy security, we need to efficiently use the energy we have. That is exactly what Senators Portman and Shaheen envision with their legislation. We support energy security, and we save Americans money.

With that background, let me turn to our amendment. Improving the energy efficiency of our schools is a no-brainer, and that is why I am proud to partner with Senator Collins to make sure our efforts have the biggest bang for the buck. This is a bipartisan amendment. It will help streamline efforts to improve the energy efficiency of our Nation’s schools while, most importantly, strengthening our children’s education.

Our schools are often confused by where to go and whom to work with to pursue energy efficiency efforts and education, and this is in part because of how many agencies, departments, State governments, and the like are involved. By providing a coordinating structure for schools to better navigate existing Federal programs and the financing options available to them, we are going to pare back duplicative efforts and make it easier for schools across my State of Colorado and across the United States to save thousands of taxpayer dollars each year that then can be reinvested in strengthening our education system.

The amendment also has the dual benefit of making Federal programs work better for our schools while still leaving decisions to the States, school boards, and local officials to determine what is best for their schools.

This is a commonsense amendment. I truly hope we get a chance to debate it and to have an up-or-down vote on it.

Before I yield the floor, I would also like to point out—I know my colleague Senator Wyden is well aware of this, as are Senator Shaheen, Senator Portman, and Senator Murkowski—that when we have schools that operate on an energy efficient basis, studies show our young people, our children learn more effectively because if you are in an environment that is comfortable, where the light is appropriate, where you can see, where you can take in what is being taught, you are, of course, going to have a better educational experience.

A better educated America means a stronger America, means a more productive America, a more competitive America. This has benefits across the board in every way imaginable—the broader effort that Senators Shaheen and Portman brought forth but also that Senators Wyden and Murkowski are handling here on the floor of the Senate.

I wish to draw attention to this important amendment. I thank my colleague Senator Collins. I know she will be here later to talk about her perspectives and the other good work she is going to do when it comes to this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Oregon.

SA. 1845
Mr. President, before he leaves the floor of the Senate, I wish to commend my colleague from Colorado, Senator Udall. This is a practical, commonsense amendment. There is no new expenditure of Federal funds. I am very pleased my colleague brought it to the floor. It is reflective of the approach we see in the Energy Committee in a host of areas where the Senator from Colorado consistently tries to find common ground and act in a bipartisan way.

One of the reasons I wanted to speak for just a minute is now we are seeing these bipartisan amendments are starting to sort of pile up. That is because colleagues are listening to what folks at home are saying. They are saying to Senator Udall and Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman and myself—Senator Murkowski, they are saying when you all are back there in the fall: Try to find some ways to get things done. Get people to work together.

I think we all understand how important energy is—and energy security. It is about jobs. It is about a cleaner environment. It about productivity. When I look at the specifics of this amendment Senator Udall and Senator Collins are pursuing, sometimes I think it is maybe too logical for the beltway. People say it makes too much sense. When schools do retrofits under the Collins-Udall amendment to become more energy efficient and use cleaner power, the kids come out winners, the environment comes out a winner, and the taxpayers come out winners. That is the whole reason the Federal Government provides assistance to schools for these types of projects in the first place.

It is an opportunity for the Federal Government to save money and ensure that we maximize educational opportunities for the kids. The reality is that Federal school efficiency programs are now strewn, really, all over the Federal Government.

They are scattered among more than six different agencies. The States have all these different programs and incentives. What Senator Collins and Senator Udall seek to do is to have a straightforward mechanism for improved Federal coordination. In the real world that means we are going to have more energy projects built, and it means more schools are going to save energy and money.

I would also note—because my friend Senator Murkowski is here—that the Udall-Collins amendment pretty much tracks something we have been interested in. The committee has been looking at S. 1048, which was heard by the Energy Subcommittee on June 25.

Again, no authorization. The minimal costs are covered by existing DOE funds. I wish to commend the Senator from Colorado for his good work and particularly the bipartisan focus he has put on this and everything else that has to do with his Senate business. I hope we will be able to vote on it.

As this debate starts, I want colleagues to see that we are going to start stacking up good, commonsense, bipartisan amendments, and that is why there is so much value in energy efficiency.

Before Senator Udall came to the floor, I said we all get worked up around here by saying we are for “all of the above” energy policy. It is almost obligatory for a Senator to say they are for “all of the above” three times every 10 or 15 minutes. A Senator can’t be for an “all of the above” energy policy unless they are for energy efficiency, and Senator Udall is bringing some of that sensible thinking to the schools.

I am looking forward to getting up this amendment so we can vote on it, and I commend Senator Udall for his good work.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Alaska.

XXXXX
Mr. President, I, too, wish to thank the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Maine for their leadership in this area. When we talk about being efficient, we think: OK. Let’s coordinate, collaborate, and cooperate so we do better with what it is we are utilizing.

I will give an example of how something such as this can make a difference in my State. I have noted before that our energy costs in Alaska are some of the highest in the Nation. Far too often our schools are in remote areas where basically they are not part of anybody’s grid. They are in communities that are diesel powered. It is a tough way to heat a community. Think about how expensive it then becomes for the schools. The school has to absorb these energy costs.

Where do these dollars come from? Effectively, they come out of the education budget, and the State does step in. The State provides substantial assistance, but anywhere, anytime or anyplace we can work together to, again, be more collaborative in our approach as to how we deal with our efficiency opportunities will ultimately help our schools.

This is going to help the schools whether they are in Maine or Alaska or Colorado. Why these places are all colder I am not sure, but maybe it forces us to be a little more efficient. Maybe it forces us to figure out ways to work together better. I want to make sure we are able to get the education dollars into the classroom and not basically fueling the boilers to keep the kids warm.

I applaud my colleagues in this effort. The goal to increase coordination and cooperation at Federal, State, and local agencies to be operating more efficiently and utilizing existing relationships is a positive.

Again, I commend my colleagues for their efforts in bringing us forward on this particular aspect of energy efficiency. I look forward to the opportunity where we will be able to show a good bipartisan vote on this amendment and on others.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

The Senator from Maine.

XXXXX
Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate the bill’s sponsors, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for crafting the underlying bipartisan, commonsense energy efficiency bill.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of their legislation, and I am pleased to see that the bill is being considered and look forward to the debate on energy efficiency.

I would hope that as we consider amendments to this bill, we could consider amendments that relate to the issue of energy so we can make real progress and that we don’t end up—as happened before the recess when I was managing a bill on the transportation and housing appropriations for the minority side—distracted on two issues that had nothing to do with the underlying bill, important though it was.

I am very pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado Mr. Udall in sponsoring an amendment to help streamline the available Federal Energy Efficiency Financing Program to help improve the health and lower energy costs of our Nation’s schools.

There are a number of Federal initiatives already available to schools to help them become more efficient. However, in many cases schools are not taking full advantage of these programs. I think this is particularly a problem in rural States such as Alaska or Maine, where the schools don’t have the luxury of having grant writers who can spend all day searching for Federal funding that might allow them to upgrade their energy efficiency or reduce emissions from their energy systems.

Large urban schools may have the ability to hire those full-time grant writers, but I know in my State of Maine it is very difficult for schools to even become aware of these programs. One of the purposes of the amendment that Senator Udall and I are offering is to help schools, regardless of their size, take advantage of existing programs.

I wish to stress that we are not creating a whole lot of new programs. All we are doing is providing a streamlined coordinating structure for schools to help them better navigate available Federal programs and financing options. I also wish to emphasize—particularly to my Republican colleagues—that our amendment still leaves all the decisions to the States, local school boards, and local officials about how best to meet the energy needs of their schools.

So what does our amendment do? Specifically, the amendment would establish the Department of Energy as the lead agency in coordinating a cross-developmental effort to help initiate, develop, and finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and retrofitting projects for our schools. It would also require a review of existing Federal programs and financing mechanisms, the formation of a streamlined process of communication and outreach to the States, local education agencies, and schools of these existing programs to make them more aware of their existence, and the development of a mechanism for Governors, State energy programs, and local educational and energy officials to form a peer-to-peer network to support the initiation of these projects.

Finally, the amendment would require the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to help schools navigate the financing and development of these projects. Assisting our Nation’s schools in navigating and tapping into existing Federal programs that will help them lower their energy usage and save the taxpayers’ money at a time of very tight and constrained educational budgets simply makes good common sense.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Udall-Collins amendment numbered 1845. I thank not only the sponsors of the bill but the leaders of the energy committee, Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski, for their help and assistance to us.

I hope we can start the debate on this bill on a positive note by adopting a bipartisan amendment that is going to help our schools save money, reduce energy costs, and also lower emissions. That is the way to start the debate on this bill.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 1866
Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Collins and Udall for coming to the floor with their positive amendment, laying it out, and debating it. I encourage everyone with an interest in this bill—Democrats and Republicans—to do the same. Come to the floor, lay out amendments, and have that debate so we can move forward in a productive way as the first vote agreement is being worked on and finalized, and that is what I am going to proceed to do with regard to my amendment.

My amendment is not related to this bill, but I have to bring it up now because it is very time sensitive. It is about something that is very wrong, in my opinion, that is happening October 1.

Many of us in this Chamber, and certainly myself, regularly talk against the exemptions under ObamaCare that are created for the rich and powerful and politically connected. Many in this body, including myself, regularly talk about the abuses of this administration going beyond their legitimate authority and what is in the law. They are making up stuff through Executive orders, rulemaking, and Executive fiat. As I said, I am certainly in that group.

I believe an action was taken recently that is a horrible, dangerous, and offensive example of both of those things, and my amendment would correct that situation. I will back up and explain what I am talking about.

Right after all of Congress left for the August recess—a little over 1 month ago—the Office of Personnel Management, part of the Obama administration, issued a draft rule. This draft rule was basically designed to take any of the sting of ObamaCare away for Washington insiders—specifically Members of Congress and congressional staff.

During the ObamaCare debate, we debated an amendment on the Senate floor, and it, to my pleasant surprise, was actually adopted. The amendment said that every Member of Congress and all congressional staff have to go to the exchange. They have to leave their very generous Federal employee health benefit coverage and go to the exchange. They have to go to the fallback position in terms of health care coverage that millions of Americans are dealing with and have to go to them right now or over the next several months. They have to live under those same rules and under those same circumstances of those tens of millions of Americans.

I supported that. I think it is important that the ruling elite, if you will, need to live under the same laws they created across the board. Specifically, under ObamaCare, I think it is very important that everybody in Congress and in Washington—and I think this should be expanded to the administration—live under the same system in terms of the exchange that many of those folks created.

That was the statute that was supposed to govern. After ObamaCare passed, to quote Nancy Pelosi, folks started looking and reading the bill to figure out what was in it. Lots of folks in Washington got very concerned once they read that revision and figured out what was in it. They understood it would create real dislocation and sting, not for America—although it does do that, but they were not concerned enough about that—but for Washington.

For months, many people lobbied the administration to try to get around this and make up some regulation that would take the sting out of that provision. After intense lobbying, sure enough, the Obama administration issued this rule—again, as I mentioned a minute ago—right after we left town and safely away at the start of the August recess.

The rule did a few things, all of which I think are beyond the law, contrary to law, and outrageous. First of all, it says the statute, which says all official staff of Members of Congress need to go to the exchanges—the first thing the rule says is we don’t know what official staff means, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to decide if any member of their staff is official staff. So each Member of Congress can decide whether anybody on their staff has to go to the exchange at all. I think that is ludicrous on its face and completely contrary to the statute.

But then the second big thing the rule did is made, out of thin air, the rule that the present subsidy we get from the taxpayer for our present health care coverage is going to somehow miraculously turn into a subsidy on the exchange, which doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist for us under the law; it doesn’t exist for any American. So they made up out of thin air this rule that the taxpayer-funded subsidy would follow all of these folks—Members of Congress and the staff who are required to go there—to the exchange. Again, that is not in the law. That is contrary to the letter and spirit of this provision. There is a separate provision of ObamaCare that specifically says with regard to all individuals going to the exchange that when they do this, when they go to a plan on the exchange, they lose their employer-provided subsidy. So that is specific about the situation of folks going to the exchange and directly contrary to this law.

As I suggested at the beginning, I think this is a special exemption for Washington, a special bailout for Washington, to ensure Washington doesn’t have to live by the same rules, in this case with regard to ObamaCare and the exchanges, that all of America does, and it is beyond the statute and it is beyond the President’s constitutional authority. He can’t make things up out of thin air. For that reason, I have joined with many colleagues to draft a bill which would make an amendment to this bill to propose that would fix that, and it is no Washington exemption from ObamaCare.

Specifically, the bill would do three things: First of all, it does away with this OPM rule and it clarifies that Members don’t get to pick and choose who is official staff. Congressional staff is congressional staff.

Then it says, all Members of Congress, all congressional staff—and we expand it to the President and Vice President and all political appointees of the Obama administration—all of those folks have to go to the exchanges, the clear language of present law with regard to Members of Congress and their staff.

Finally, we fix the other part of this illegal rule. We say this subsidy Members of Congress and staff currently enjoy under their present health care coverage can’t follow them to the exchange. That is not the case for any other American. That is not in the law. In fact, in ObamaCare, there is a broader provision completely contrary to that, so we say that cannot happen.

That is what our bill and our amendment is.

I think it is a fundamental, a threshold, and a very important rule of democracy that the governors have to live by the same laws they pass and impose on the governed. I think that should be the case across the board and certainly that should be the case under ObamaCare.

Tens of millions of Americans are experiencing having to go to the exchanges. Many of them didn’t want to go there. Many of them had good coverage with their employer that they are losing because of the economics of this new situation, and they are being forced to the exchange. The clear language and intent of that provision in ObamaCare was for Members of Congress and staff to have to experience the same thing, and that is the clear language and that is the clear intent. So we should live by that, not get around it. And, in my opinion, we should expand it to the President, who has volunteered to go to the exchange, to the Vice President, and to all of their political appointees. That is what our amendment does. That is what our bill does.

I wish to thank all of the Members, Senate and House, who were working hard on this proposal, including Senators Enzi, Heller, Johnson, and many others. I know I am missing several. There are several House Members, led by Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida, who are working on identical House language. They are hard at work, particularly in the context of the CR.

The bottom line is this: There should be no special Washington exemption from ObamaCare. All laws we pass should apply to us every bit as much as other Americans, and certainly we, as is the clear language and is the clear intent, should live under that fallback plan of the exchanges just as every other American does. No other American gets this special subsidy the OPM rule gives to us.

Folks in this class under my amendment and bill would be able to qualify for a subsidy, if it is the same subsidy that is available to other Americans, according to income category. So if a person qualifies by income, fine. But this is way beyond that. This is a special deal, a special exemption for Congress, and we need to say there should be no Washington exemption. This bill, this amendment does that clearly and categorically.

I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this.

Let me end by talking about a vote. I am bringing up this amendment on this bill. The reason is this issue is very time sensitive. This rule, which was made up out of thin air, in my opinion, goes into effect and all of this is set to happen October 1. So this debate has to happen, a change to this rule has to happen before October 1. That is why I am bringing it up now and demanding a vote. But, actually, that vote doesn’t have to be on this bill. I will accept any fair, reasonable, substantive vote before October 1. But we need to lock that down. I think we are well on our way to locking that down, and I look forward to that.

In the meantime, let me again urge my colleagues who have amendments to this bill on the subject of energy or on any other subject to come down and present those on the floor, talk about them and debate them, as I have, as Senators Udall and Collins have. Let’s move forward with the process as we nail down this first vote agreement.

As we get to a vote on this amendment, I urge my colleagues to follow the first and, in many ways, most basic rule of democracy: that the rules we impose on the governed we should live by. That is absolutely essential. That should be the case across the board, certainly including ObamaCare, and in the case of ObamaCare, there is specific language which says that. That is what it says. That is what it is supposed to be about. This illegal OPM rule completely invalidates and gets around that rule, so we need to act to fix that now, well before October 1.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

The Senator from Colorado.

SA. 1847
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1847.

Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, as I made clear previously but I will restate, I objected to and I continue to object to laying aside any amendment and making another amendment pending. We made that clear between the floor staff of the minority and majority side. That was crystal clear, so I object.

We are on the amendment from the Senator from Colorado.

The Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the calling up of the amendment be vitiated out of respect for my colleague from Louisiana.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I wish to very briefly thank the Senator. That is a very generous and gentlemanly thing to do. This was the understanding between the floor staff. I know apparently it wasn’t properly communicated to the Chair, but that was the clear understanding, and I appreciate that gesture.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, through the Chair, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana that my understanding was he would object. He was on the floor when I offered it and I thought he was going to object. So knowing of his objection, I withdraw the amendment.

Having said all of that, I think it is a shame that we can’t get going with this bipartisan bill. I wish to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their incredibly great bipartisan work on this energy bill. I wish to thank Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire and Senator Portman from Ohio for the bipartisan work that has been going on for months, if not years, on this bill.

I am pleased to come to the floor—I wish to introduce my amendment but not today because of the objection, but to at least talk about a bipartisan amendment we would like to get on this bill. I wish to thank my colleague Senator Ayotte for joining me in this important effort.

Our amendment is based on stand-alone legislation we have written called the Better Buildings Act, which encourages energy efficiency in commercial buildings. Over the last several years we worked with building owners across Colorado and the country to craft the legislation. The economic and environmental benefits of improving energy efficiency in buildings are clear.

A well-publicized retrofit of the Empire State Building in New York reduced energy usage by 38 percent—almost 40 percent—and it saved an estimated $4.4 million annually for the building owner. The retrofit also created over 250 construction jobs right here in the United States that can’t be sent overseas.

It is this example, and these ideas, that helped form the basis for the Better Buildings Act and this amendment.

In crafting the measure, we started to think about efficiency in buildings not only from the top down where a building owner makes the improvements, but also from the bottom up where a tenant would see advantages from designing and configuring their rented office space in an energy-efficient manner. With all of that in mind, the amendment we have introduced accomplishes two principal goals. First, it allows for a first-of-its-kind study by the Department of Energy to chronicle private sector best practices as tenants build out their lease spaces in commercial buildings. This study would then inform a voluntary Department of Energy program to recognize tenants, to acknowledge tenants that design and construct high-performance lease spaces in the future.

The second provision, called Tenant Star, would expand on the popular ENERGY STAR Program and make it available to tenants, not just landlords. Under our amendment, tenants will be recognized for the efficient performance of their leased office space. This will provide value to their customers, their investors, and ultimately to the building owner.

The ENERGY STAR label has proven a very powerful tool to achieve whole building efficiency. Our language takes the next logical step and confers this recognition on tenants as well.

This bipartisan amendment is broadly supported—from the Alliance to Save Energy to the Real Estate Roundtable, to the Sierra Club. It also received a favorable hearing in the Senate Energy Committee in June, and I thank the chairman for that. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed it has no score.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan and commonsense amendment. I hope we can get to the business of legislating around this incredibly important bipartisan bill.

With that, I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado on a fine amendment. I hope we are going to get a chance to vote on it. I think he mentioned that commercial buildings consume almost half of the energy used in the United States.

What I think is important for the Senate to see is the bipartisan amendments are now piling up. We started off with a very good amendment, the Inhofe-Carper amendment in terms of thermal power, Senator Udall and Senator Collins talking about retrofitting schools, getting more for the kids and for a better environment without spending new Federal money, and now we have the Bennet-Ayotte proposal to deal with commercial buildings consuming almost half of the energy consumed in the United States.

You have bipartisan amendments, I say to my colleagues, in effect, stacking up on the floor of the Senate. I think the reason that is the case is because Senators are coming back from the August break. They were home having community meetings and talking to folks, and people said—whether you are from Ohio, like the Presiding Officer, or Oregon or New Hampshire, different parts of the country—you go back there and find a way to deal with some real challenges, and do it in a bipartisan way. So that is what the underlying bill does. That is what the three amendments we seek to be able to vote on do.

In the case of this particular amendment, the voluntary ENERGY STAR Program has created an incentive for commercial building owners to increase the efficiency of their buildings by recognizing the most efficient. So today there are over 20,000 commercial buildings in the country certified as highly efficient ENERGY STAR buildings.

The challenge, however, is that about half of the energy used in commercial buildings is under the control of the tenants, not the owners. This amendment would promote efficiency in commercial buildings by establishing a Tenant Star program to recognize the energy efficiency achievements of building tenants, as ENERGY STAR does for the owners.

We looked at this in the committee, particularly in the Energy Subcommittee on June 25. To me, again, trying to build on successful approaches is simply what the country wants us to be doing here in the Senate. It is the focus of the underlying bill. It is the focus of the amendments that are pending—each one of them supported in a bipartisan way.

This amendment, as far as I can tell, has a real cross section of businesses interested, for obvious reasons. It constitutes almost half the buildings in the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support we received be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the, as follows:

Mr. President, I am going to stay here to see if other colleagues would like to bring over their amendments. As I indicated in opening comments a couple hours ago, I think there are at least a dozen good amendments here—amendments that are going to be good for American productivity, they are going to create good-paying, high-skill jobs, and they are going to be winners for the environment. That is a trifecta of valuable concerns being addressed with one piece of legislation, being done in a bipartisan way.

I know the popular wisdom is you cannot thread the needle on legislation and that even on something such as energy efficiency, these folks are going to try to see if they can get their bipartisan amendments passed, but at the end of the day, the forces who want to block legislation, because they care about a particular issue, are too strong. I hope Senators are going to see we are going to make sure people have a chance to have their issues heard. But we also want them to see that to lose the ability to have a key part of an “all of the above” energy policy—I have said you cannot have an “all of the above” energy policy if you are not for energy efficiency. To not advance this particular cause—and we passed the hydropower bill. It is a good bill. People said it was the first major energy bill since 2009. This is the next logical step. We ought to take it.

I see the Senator from Ohio here, who has done so much good work, and I will yield at this time. I know he has a great interest in this topic. I hope, when we get a chance to vote on the Bennet-Ayotte amendment, Senators will support it.

I yield back.

The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

SA. 1845
Mr. President, I stand to strongly support this amendment. I think it is exactly as the chairman has suggested. It is bipartisan. It helps to solve a problem we have right now, and I applaud Senator Bennet who spoke earlier, and also Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, who has joined with him to take a lead on this. They have worked with us. They have, again, by this amendment, I believe, offered a good opportunity to improve the underlying legislation. I think it is consistent with the underlying legislation.

By the way, it is an amendment that makes sense because there is right now a disconnect between those who own commercial buildings and those who are tenants in those buildings. We have heard this around the country as we have talked about efficiency. It kind of gets the landlords and the tenants in sync with lowering energy costs. It is market driven. It is nonregulatory. It takes a “best practices” approach to address this issue.

Owners and managers of large commercial buildings report that their tenants consume over 50 percent of the total energy in the structure, but again there is this disconnect because owners lease the space, but they do not pay the bills; therefore, there is often no motivation to cut energy costs by making the space more efficient. The owners do not have that incentive. The tenants do. They pay the bills. But they often have very limited choices in the design or the operation of the energy-consuming aspects of the structure they lease.

This is an attempt to address that issue, and I think it is a smart realistic approach. It encourages tenants to make structural investments when they enter into new leases or renew existing leases. The act asks the Department of Energy to study and learn from private sector “best practices” to achieve high-performance, cost-effective measures with viable payback periods on efficiency.

It also builds on the success of the voluntary ENERGY STAR Program that a lot of folks are familiar with and kind of moves ENERGY STAR into the tenant space, creating a tenant-oriented certification called Tenant Star for leased spaces, again, with the goal of transforming the way building owners and their tenants think about energy.

By the way, this legislation is supported by the Real Estate Roundtable, a group that has looked at this underlying legislation, this amendment, and thinks this helps them to accomplish some of their goals in energy efficiency. It is also supported by the Restaurant Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and others.

So this better buildings amendment Senator Ayotte and Senator Bennet have offered I think is strong. I wish they could have actually taken the amendment today off the calendar and actually been able to technically offer it. But we did have a good debate on it, and I am hoping soon we will be able to resolve these other issues and be able to move forward with an actual vote on this because this is a classical example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats, finding common ground on how to have a true “all of the above” energy strategy, not just produce more energy, which I strongly support, but also use the energy we have more efficiently.

Since buildings are about 40 percent of energy usage, this is very smart legislation, building on the other amendments we heard about today—on using geothermal, being sure it is part of renewable energy; ensuring that our schools have the best information to be able to become more energy efficient; and other amendments. Again, I count about a dozen of them here that are bipartisan amendments that we hope to have on the floor as part of this underlying bill to help create more jobs, have a cleaner environment, make us less dependent on foreign oil, and move forward on this important leg of our national energy strategy.

With that, I yield back my time.

The senior Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

SA. 1856
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment No. 1856.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. President, I object on behalf of my colleague who has an arrangement with the majority staff on this on the basis of his interest in objecting until he gets a unanimous consent agreement that I think is being worked on.

Objection is heard.

Mr. President, I would still like to talk about this amendment. And I want to thank both Senator Wyden for working with us on this amendment and also Senator Murkowski for working with us on this amendment. I appreciate their support.

This is an amendment Senator Hoeven and I have submitted together. I will describe it to you because I think it is such a good amendment. We want to make sure we get moving on this very important bill that I support, as well as these amendments.

The Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act would provide assistance to nonprofit organizations to help make the buildings they own and operate more energy efficient.

Nonprofit organizations are the heart of our country and serve millions of Americans every day. Nonprofits include hospitals, schools, houses of worship—particularly supportive of this amendment—and youth centers. They face the choice of making facility improvements or serving more people, which is also difficult for them.

That choice is clear for so many organizations. Nonprofits often operate in older, less efficient buildings, and because of their nonprofit status, they cannot participate in energy efficiency programs despite the financial benefits of energy efficiency retrofits and other improvements.

This amendment is about allowing the Department of Energy to make grants of up to $200,000 for energy efficiency projects over the next 5 years. The amendment requires a 50-percent cost share and includes provisions to ensure that the projects achieve significant amounts of energy savings and are done in a cost-effective manner.

This amendment, the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, is fully offset. I appreciate the work of the committee and the committee staff on this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act amendment.

Before I yield the floor, I again want to thank Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for their tireless efforts to move this important legislation forward. I believe energy efficiency is an area we can all agree is good for the economy, it is good for consumers, and it is an issue where we can find common ground, as you can see by the amendment I have done with Senator Hoeven.

Senator Hoeven from North Dakota knows a little bit about producing energy with their oil production, natural gas production, the biofuel production they share with Minnesota. We are some of the top biofuel producers in the country. But in our States we also believe in conserving energy and in energy efficiency. We believe this bill is a good bill and also that this amendment is a very good addition to the bill, as it allows nonprofits, such as places of worship, to also share in the energy efficiency program, and they are very interested in moving ahead with this amendment.

So I thank you. I thank the authors, and I thank the chair and the ranking member of the committee.

I yield the floor.

The senior Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

SA. 1856
Thank you, Mr. President.

I want to commend Senator Klobuchar on her efforts. This is another one of the great bipartisan amendments that has been worked on to add to this energy efficiency legislation. It shows how great the opportunity is for this legislation to provide for savings for people, to get people engaged in the idea of how much energy they are using and what the costs of that energy are, and also what the environmental benefits and the benefits to consumers and the benefits to our national security are in encouraging energy efficiency. So I want to commend her and thank her for all of her efforts, and we will continue to have this discussion on the floor as we wait for some kind of an agreement from Senator Vitter.

Thank you.

The Senator from Oregon.

SA. 1845
Mr. President, I am very hopeful that when we get a chance to vote on this amendment the Senate accepts it. I want to put it in the context of where we are, because we are seeing this pattern of Senators—and I was in North Dakota for Senator Hoeven a few days ago. We were listening to constituents, I am sure very similar to the kinds of concerns reflected by folks in Minnesota. They all were saying: Go back there in September and focus on real problems and come up with real solutions. We have seen all of this bickering. We have seen all of this quarreling. What we want to see is on the concerns that most affect us: our pocketbook, our environment, in this case national security.

Senator Shaheen made an excellent point several hours ago when she pointed out that with the backdrop of Syria and national security issues, if there ever was a time while we wait for the next step in this debate to look at another issue, energy and energy efficiency would be a logical one, because we all understand how inextricably linked national security and energy security are.

So, now, after we have had the thoughtful Inhofe-Carper amendment on thermal power, we had the Udall-Collins amendment in terms of school retrofits, we had the Bennet-Ayotte amendment which deals with commercial buildings, which comprise almost half of the energy used in America, we now have a very good bipartisan amendment brought to the floor of the Senate by the senior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Hoeven.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of museums in this country, houses of worship, youth organizations. All of these programs are looking at ways in which they can save energy. The reality is lots of the tools are not available to them because they are tax exempt. So what we have here is a pilot project. Let me kind of underline. Everybody talks about big programs and their “one size fits all,” they are “run from Washington” and it is kind of one dastardly plot after another from the Federal Government.

The Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Minnesota come and say they want to have a pilot project, a pilot project to award grants of up to $200,000, with a match by the Federal Government, to make efficiency improvements to these buildings and these houses of worship, museums, all of these institutions that every Member of the Senate cares a great deal about.

I was especially appreciative, because Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hoeven were supportive of some of the ideas Senator Murkowski and I had to revise this. This is a good amendment. This is already the fourth in the queue of thoughtful, commonsense, low-cost proposals that have come to the floor of the Senate.

I hope my colleagues will shortly give us the opportunity to get to this bill. This is the Senate. Senators like to address a variety of issues. But the reality is, while we had a very good hydropower bill passed right before the August recess, 60,000 megawatts of hydropower, responsible for 60 percent of the clean energy in the country, this bill is the first major piece of energy legislation on the floor of the Senate since 2007. That is light years ago in terms of the dramatic changes we have made in so many reforms in other areas.

For example, I saw in North Dakota over this weekend dramatic changes in terms of natural gas policies. We have a host of issues to talk about there. We are ready to go on energy efficiency. So I am very appreciative to the Senator from Minnesota who has been working with the Senator from North Dakota.

I would like to see somebody explain to houses of worship and museums and youth organizations why it does not make sense to start a pilot project so they can squeeze more value out of the scarce dollars they have for running their incredibly valuable programs. I do not think any Member of the Senate, Democrat or Republican, can make the case that that makes any sense. I appreciate the Senator from Minnesota coming over. I am prepared to stay here until all hours so Senators who are willing to do what we heard all summer the American people want us to do, which is to address real issues, do it in a bipartisan way. I hope other Senators will come over and approach this the way the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from North Dakota have done.

I thank my colleague.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Ohio.

SA. 1845
Mr. President, I think the chairman outlined it well. This is a thoughtful amendment to the underlying bill. Senator Shaheen and I are delighted to accept it and support it, but also to say this sort of fits a part of the overall energy efficiency effort we did not cover in the legislation, which is these nongovernmental organizations that own buildings, where they do not have the ability to get the kind of market-based support that is in our legislation.

This is faith-based organizations, but it is also Boys and Girls Clubs, and it is all kinds of different groups that are interested in doing efficiency retrofits. They need a little help. This gives them a match.

Significantly, what maybe we have not focused on earlier is the fact it is paid for. So we are not talking about any impact on the deficit. It is deficit neutral because they went out of their way to try to find good ways to reduce spending at the Department of Energy to have the offsets.

Having a local match is important because that gets the local buy-in. I think that is important, that it be a full match. But it also does give them access to some of this expertise we talked about earlier to be able to have more energy efficiency and also ultimately to save energy in this country but also save money for those nonprofit organizations. So I commend my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hoeven. Senator Hoeven wants to come over and speak on this legislation. He is tied up right now but hopes to come over later. Certainly when it is actually offered and brought up on the floor he will have a chance to talk about it as well.

I commend him and commend his colleague from Minnesota for again offering another bipartisan amendment on top of the geothermal amendment, the schools amendment, the amendment to encourage tenants to be more energy efficient, and now we have this amendment on nonprofits that own buildings that want to do the efficiency retrofits. I appreciate them working with us to find offsets and being sure it does not add to the deficit and that it is a responsible approach on the fiscal side as well.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Alaska.

SA. 1845
Mr. President, I cannot help but join the bouquet tossing that is going on here today, about not only the amendment Senator Hoeven and Senator Klobuchar have introduced as it relates to our nonprofits, but again the other measures that have been brought up for discussion here this afternoon—geothermal, school efficiency. It really does drive us to the point of this energy efficiency legislation, how it is not just in one section or sector, it is economywide. It is all aspects of our lives.

If we focus on how we live from day to day, the things that are important to us, we can incorporate greater efficiency into all aspects of it and we are better off, whether it is through our schools, our businesses, our government buildings, or through those nonprofits I think we all recognize give so much enrichment to our general lives. But when you think about some of the struggles our nonprofits are currently facing right now, as they are seeing declining budgets, Federal, local, State levels, they are looking to squeeze as much as they can out of every dollar. So when you have proposals such as we have here with pilot programs to award these grants of up to $200,000 to help make these efficiency improvements to their buildings, this is significant stuff, if you will. This translates into real dollars, allowing them to do what it is they are providing so much better, whether it is Boys and Girls Clubs at a clubhouse, the ability to perhaps have other facilities, whether it is your church facilities, your faith-based organization, the outreach and all they are able to do and those they are able to serve. It is all made better when you do not have to spend as much for your energy costs to meet your energy demands. So it does seem somewhat common sense. It does seem rational and reasonable.

Good heavens, what are we doing here on the floor of the Senate promoting something that is rational and reasonable and common sense? We need to do more of this. This is a good amendment and joins several other good amendments we are seeing as we look to the numerous amendments we talked to colleagues about and that we are anticipating will be up here in the next several hours.

I do hope folks realize that what has been put together by the sponsors of this bill, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from New Hampshire, is worthy of our consideration, not only on these amendments, but, again, the fuller spectrum of how we are more wise in our energy consumption, how we are better stewards of that which we have when it comes to energy and our energy resources. So I will throw the bouquet to those who have got us to this point.

I see the Senator from Wyoming has joined us.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Wyoming.

SA. XXXXX
Mr. President, I filed an amendment to S. 1392 that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from a massive regulatory overreach. It has been cosponsored by Senators BARRASSO and FLAKE.

My amendment is simple and straightforward. It promotes the right of a State to deal with its own problems. It returns the regulation of regional haze to where it properly belongs, in the hands of State officials who are more familiar with the problem and the best ways to address it.

I hope my colleagues will support my effort.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s move to partially disapprove the State of Wyoming regional haze plan will create an economic and bureaucratic nightmare that will have a devastating impact on western economies. The proposal by EPA ignores more than a decade’s worth of work on this subject by officials in my home State and seems to be more designed to regulate coal out of existence than to regulate haze. The haze we most need to regulate, in fact, seems to be the one that is clouding the vision of the EPA, as it promotes a plan that imposes onerous regulations on powerplants, that will, in turn, pass those increased costs in the form of higher energy prices on to consumers.

That tells me the EPA’s purpose is to ensure no opportunity to impose its chosen agenda on the Nation is wasted. It does not seem to matter to them that their proposed rule flies directly in the face of the States’ traditional and legal role in addressing air quality issues.

When Congress passed the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act to regulate regional haze, it very clearly gave the States the lead authority. Now the EPA has tossed them in the back seat and grabbed the steering wheel to head this effort in its own previously determined direction.

That is not the kind of teamwork and cooperation Congress intended. The goal of regulating regional haze is to improve visibility in our national parks and wilderness areas. The stated legislative purpose for the authority is purely for aesthetic value and not to regulate public health. Most importantly, the EPA should not be using regulations to pick winners and losers in our national energy market. This is a State issue. Congress recognized that States should know how to determine what the best regulatory approach would be to find and implement a solution to the problem.

The courts reaffirmed this position by ruling in favor of the State’s primacy on regional haze several times. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in this case. The EPA ignored all of the clear precedents and instead handed a top-down approach that ignored the will and expertise of the State of Wyoming.

This inexplicable position flies in the face of the strong and commonsense approach of the State of Wyoming to addressing regional haze in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. The EPA’s approach would be much more costly, and it would have a tremendous impact on the economy and quality of life not only in Wyoming but in the neighboring States as well. Clearly, we can’t allow this to happen.

Preliminary estimates by the State of Wyoming show that the best available retrofit technologies and long-term strategies under the proposed rule would cost well over $1 billion—plus millions more every year in additional operational costs that gets passed on to the consumer.

I mentioned that Cheyenne needed some additional powerplants. They went out and found the best natural gas technology available and then found it wouldn’t meet the new requirements. This is the best worldwide technology, and it won’t meet the new requirements they wish to put on it. Again, those costs would be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher energy prices. Every family knows that when the price of energy goes up, it is their economic security, as well as their hopes and dreams for the future, that is threatened and all too often destroyed.

The EPA’s determination to take such an approach would be understandable if it would create better results than the State plan. It doesn’t. It admits that. One billion dollars in costs and then millions more each year, and it isn’t going to give any better results than what the State plan is? What sense does that make? This is another reason why it makes no sense for the EPA to overstep its authority under the Clean Air Act to force Wyoming to comply with an all-too-costly plan that in the end will provide the people of Wyoming with no real benefits. Again, it is $1 billion up front, millions a year, and no real benefits.

The plan doesn’t even take into account other sources of haze in the State, such as wildfires. We have those every year. They are a problem on Wyoming’s plains and mountains. They are a major cause of haze in my home State. It makes no sense for the EPA to draft a plan that fails to take into consideration one of the biggest natural causes of the very problem they are supposed to be solving.

This is one that can be solved. The State of Wyoming has spent over a decade producing a plan that is reasonable, productive, cost-effective, and focused on the problem. The EPA has taken an unnecessary and unreasonable approach that violates the legislatively granted job of State regulators to address this issue. We cannot afford to increase the cost of energy to families, schools, and vital public services by implementing an EPA plan that won’t adequately address the issue of regional haze. Again, there will be no noticeable effect—$1 billion up front, millions each year, and no noticeable effect. What sense does that make?

I know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter and support my amendment that will stop the EPA in its tracks and end its interference with Wyoming’s efforts to address this very issue. It only makes sense to me that Wyoming’s plan, which results from a more than 10-year effort, be given a chance to work. It is not only fair, it is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Shaheen-Portman bill
Mr. President, I am here on what we are calling the Shaheen-Portman bill, the energy efficiency bill, and I note that the lead sponsor of the bill, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, as well as the ranking member of the energy committee, Senator Murkowski, are both here. I have been cleared by them to take a minute on the floor right now and talk about an amendment I would like to have offered and voted on and added to this bill. We call it the pay for success amendment. It is amendment No. 1852.

What this amendment would do is something that is quite simple and bombproof for taxpayers. Ultimately, it would save money and save energy; that is, for the properties managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, if they do not have the capital to go back into that property and do retrofits and install efficiency measures that will bring down their cost of electricity, this amendment would allow them to contract with the private sector to bring in private capital to achieve those energy savings.

There are significant restrictions in here that will protect taxpayers. Any money that goes back to these investors comes out of energy savings and only out of energy savings. If something goes wrong and the energy savings don’t materialize, the investors lose. The taxpayers and the government are held harmless.

Thanks to an amendment by Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, as we were drafting the amendment, we have even specifically exempted the administrative costs of HUD in administering the legislation. Those have to be paid before the investors take their profits. But once the investors are paid back, there is now a more efficient building and savings for taxpayers over the long haul.

In addition, the result is a reduction of our energy footprint, increases our energy independence, and reduces the contribution of ill effects, such as pollution and climate change, by HUD buildings.

Now is not the time to call it up—we are at too early a stage in the proceedings—but I did want to take a moment to urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We discussed it at length with Senator Collins of Maine when we were trying to add it to the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill, and I believe we have worked through issues presented by her office and issues presented by Senator Coburn. If anybody else has any concerns, we look forward to hearing from them, but I think this is a bombproof piece of legislation, from the taxpayers’ point of view. It opens up a niche for private capital to come in and earn a return on their investment by capitalizing on the opportunity we have for energy savings in these buildings.

With that, I yield the floor and look forward to a future opportunity to discuss the amendment further and, with any luck, call it up for a positive vote. I thank Senator Shaheen and yield the floor.

The Senator from New Hampshire.

Shaheen-Portman bill
Before the Senator from Rhode Island leaves, I wanted to commend him for this effort. I think it is a great proposal. I haven’t had a chance to look at all the details, so I look forward to that, but using performance contracting to provide for savings on energy costs is a very effective way to address the upfront costs for these kinds of retrofits.

As the Senator points out, the person who is doing the contracting—the private company—is assuming the burden of those costs. Yet the benefits are going to taxpayers. Ultimately, the contractor that does the retrofits is also going to benefit over the long term, and those savings will keep coming back year after year. So once the initial cost is paid off, taxpayers will continue to get those savings year after year.

As Governor, we started retrofitting State buildings exactly this way, and it saved the taxpayers of New Hampshire hundreds of thousands of dollars a year—it is still saving them that—and also thousands of pounds of pollution because, as we know, 40 percent of our energy is used by buildings. So if we save on that energy use in buildings, then that saves not only on those costs, but it also saves on the pollution that comes from heating and cooling those buildings.

So I commend the Senator for his effort and I look forward to having a chance to debate it on the floor and to having a chance to review the proposal in greater detail.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for those comments. I wish to commend her for her leadership on this bill. This is a wonderful bill to have gotten to, and she and Senator Portman have put in an enormous amount of effort in getting us here. So that is immensely commendable.

I would add something I omitted in my remarks earlier because the Senator from New Hampshire brought this up in a private discussion we had on the floor a moment ago; that is, how does CBO—the Congressional Budget Office—feel about this amendment. We have an e-mail from the Congressional Budget Office saying this will not add to the deficit. It is deficit neutral. In point of fact, it actually is viewed as negative—it shrinks the deficit in the long haul, but all we needed from them was the assurance it was deficit neutral and they would treat it as deficit neutral.

As the Senator from New Hampshire very properly pointed out, the benefit of this isn’t just on the energy side or on the pollution side. Somebody goes in and installs the new energy efficiency equipment, installs the new windows, insulates the roof, and does whatever it is that will achieve these savings and that is work and those are jobs and that is helpful to our economy.

I will again yield the floor.

Voluntary Certification &
Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the Sessions-Pryor Amendment No. 1879 to S. 1392, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. I would like to recognize the excellent work of my friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, who is an original co-sponsor of this amendment, and I would ask him for permission to engage in a brief colloquy concerning our amendment.

I would welcome an exchange for the Record.

I thank my colleague for his willingness to discuss this amendment. I would ask my colleague, what is the purpose of our amendment?

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his question. In an effort to encourage energy efficiency compliance, reduce regulatory burdens, and save taxpayer dollars, the Sessions-Pryor amendment would require the Department of Energy to recognize voluntary certification programs for air conditioning, furnace, boiler, heat pump, and water heater products. Federal law requires these heating, cooling, and water heater products to comply with a complex set of Federal energy conservation and efficiency standards. Similar specifications apply to participants in the Energy Star program. The Energy Department currently spends millions of taxpayer dollars annually to conduct ver�i�fi�ca�tion testing of these covered products. At the same time, U.S. manufacturers of these covered products spend millions of dollars themselves to participate in comprehensive voluntary certification programs that use independent, third-party laboratories to ensure compliance with applicable standards. Our amendment would require the Energy Department, when conducting routine testing to verify product ratings, to rely on data submitted through voluntary, independent certification programs that meet the robust list of criteria set forth in the amendment. To qualify, the voluntary certification program must be (among other things) nationally-recognized, maintain a publicly available list of certified models, and conduct ver�i�fi�ca�tion testing on at least 20 percent of the product families using an “independent third-party test laboratory.” The amendment would require the Energy Department to reduce regulatory burdens for manufacturers participating in a voluntary certification program, as well as require testing of products that are not covered by a voluntary program.

So, I greatly appreciate the leadership of my colleague Senator Sessions on this amendment. I would ask him: what are some of the policy reasons for supporting our amendment?

I thank the Senator from Arkansas. Our amendment is sound policy for at least three reasons. First, the amendment saves taxpayer dollars by reducing redundant testing of products when already covered by a comprehensive, voluntary third-party testing program. At a time of record debt and deficits, this government needs to consider every option for making government lean and fiscally responsible. We have been informed by the Congressional Budget Office that our amendment does not impact the deficit.

Second, the amendment reduces regulatory burdens on American manufacturers. We need to do all we can to help make U.S. manufacturing more competitive on the world stage. Our amendment promotes domestic manufacturing and competiveness.

Third, our amendment increases DOE’s enforcement capabilities to ensure that a greater number of products are verified every year. This will help achieve the kinds of energy efficiency improvements the law was intended to achieve. So I think this amendment should garner the support of this body.

I recently received a letter from Rheem Manufacturing Company, which has a large manufacturing facility in Montgomery, AL that employs over 1,000 people and manufactures heating and cooling products in Fort Smith, AR. The Rheem letter expresses support for our amendment and explains that it “will enhance our ability to sustain American manufacturing jobs and competitiveness while conserving taxpayer resources and allowing federal agencies to focus enforcement on entities that do not voluntarily participate in rigorous industry-led efficiency certification programs.”

I would, in turn, ask Senator Pryor: who else is supportive of this amendment?

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his remarks. I would answer his question by noting that a broad coalition of industry, energy efficiency, and environmental stakeholders are supportive of our amendment. As you referenced, employers in the State of Arkansas, your State of Alabama, and around the country are supportive. We are also pleased to have the support of the leadership of the Senate Energy Committee, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski. I am pleased that we have been able to work together on this amendment.

I would ask Senator Pryor one additional question. One of the purposes of this amendment is to reduce the testing burden on manufacturers for a number of Federal government programs. For instance, manufacturers who utilize accredited, independent third parties for testing and certification should not be compelled to undertake duplicative testing to demonstrate compliance with other Federal programs so long as the test methods used for evaluating product performance are the same. Additionally, this amendment does not intend to limit competition between private sector testing and certification programs, provided that accreditation and other legitimate government requirements for recognizing such efforts are clearly defined. Would you agree?

Mr. PRYOR. Yes, I would agree with that characterization.

I thank Senator Pryor for his work on this issue.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Honoring the Life of Jesse Owens
Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Jesse Owens, an Olympic recordbreaker and pioneer on the track and off the track, who was born 100 years ago tomorrow.

Born in Alabama as the youngest of 10 children, James Cleveland Owens moved with his family to Cleveland, OH, at the age of 9. Leaving the South during the great migration of those several decades between 1910 and 1970, Jesse’s family came north seeking economic opportunity and greater personal freedom. His father left his work as a sharecropper in the South—something difficult to do because so often the landowner held those sharecroppers by holding real or imagined debt over their heads—and found a job in the steel industry in Cleveland, OH.

James Cleveland Owens enrolled in Bolton Elementary School on the east side of Cleveland. Because of his strong southern accent, when the teacher asked his name and he said J.C., the teacher misheard it and started calling him Jesse—a name that stuck.

While in junior high, he met Charles Riley, who taught physical education and coached the track team. Charles Riley nurtured Jesse’s obvious talent, helping him to grow stronger athletically and to set long-term goals that served him well as he went on to Cleveland East Technical School.

In 1927, my hometown of Mansfield, OH started hosting the storied Mansfield Relays—maybe the biggest in the country—a sporting event that drew athletes from six States and Canada. I remember in the 1960s my family hosting many of the athletes who came to our town to compete.

Obviously prior to my parents doing that, among these many promising athletes none shone brighter than the sprinter from an hour up north. At the Mansfield Relays, Jesse Owens sharpened his focus and won the 1932 and 1933 relays for East Tech, setting records that lasted into my childhood in the 1960s and 1970s.

He later went on to attend the Ohio State University, where he was known as the Buckeye Bullet, winning a record eight individual NCAA championships. The story goes that at the Big 10 track meet 1 year in Ann Arbor, MI, while competing in a 45-minute period, Jesse Owens set 3 world records.

We are used to seeing college athletes who are revered today. But in his day, Owens could not live on campus due to a lack of housing for Black students, and he could not stay at the same hotels when his track team traveled or eat at the same restaurants as the White players on the team who traveled with him. But he achieved global fame and heroism status because of what he did in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.

While a hateful regime in Germany hoped to use the Olympics to promote the Aryan race and promulgate a wrongheaded, dangerous, and inherently racist belief in the superiority of that race, Jesse Owens turned this theory on its head. He won four gold medals in Berlin, and he set world records in three events while tying for a world record in a fourth event. He showed that talent and sportsmanship transcend race, and he embarrassed an evil dictator who hoped to manipulate the Olympic Games to further his political agenda.

Interestingly, Adolph Hitler refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens when he won one of those events. The International Olympic Committee told the German Government that Hitler must either shake hands with all the winners or none of the winners. The story goes that Hitler refused to come back and observe the Olympics—again, a testament to the heroism, courage, and discipline of James Cleveland “Jesse” Owens.

Despite these achievements—and the Rose Garden and Oval Office greetings that today’s Olympians are accustomed to—Jesse Owens never received congratulations or recognition by President Roosevelt or President Truman. It was only during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, beginning to be a different time in race relations in this country, that a President of the United States actually recognized Jesse Owens’ achievements.

He was, by most measures, the best athlete in the world, but he returned to the United States of America a Black man in the 1930s to face economic challenges and racial discrimination that are far too familiar to far too many Americans. But he continued to travel and inspire athletes and fans across the globe. I had the honor of meeting Jesse Owens when he was the speaker at my brother Bob’s high school graduation in 1965, when I was 12 years old.

Jesse Owens worked alongside the State Department to promote good will in Asia, and worked in 1950 to promote democracy abroad as part of a Cold War effort.

Think about that. A Black man who is the best athlete in the world, was a hero to large numbers of Americans—Black and White—in 1936, standing up in many ways against the Fascist machine of Adolph Hitler, not being recognized by a President of the United States who was winning a war against Hitler ultimately. Yet he went out 5 years later after that war to promote democracy abroad as part of a Cold War effort, still proud of his country, still knowing our country had work to do.

In 1973 he was appointed to the board of directors of the U.S. Olympic Committee, where he worked to ensure the best training and conditions for U.S. athletes. He lent his skill and his talents to various charitable groups, notably the Boys Club of America.

In 1976 Jesse Owens finally received the Presidential recognition he deserved. He was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ford.

Jesse Owens was a pioneer. Despite facing adversity, he had the strength of mind and the discipline, common to almost all great athletes, to become the most elite of athletes. Despite being treated differently and shamefully from other athletes of his stature, he went on to shatter records. Despite the darkest of days globally, he did his part, standing up to fascism, dispelling racism, and promoting unity.

Tomorrow we celebrate the 100th birthday of a hero to all Americans, James Cleveland “Jesse” Owens.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S6367

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 25 minutes.

Without objection, it is so ordered.}}

Syria
Page: S6367

Mr. President, the decision on whether to authorize the President of the United States to use the military might of our great Nation against another country is the most significant vote a Senator can cast. The Constitution vests this responsibility in Congress—a duty that rests heavily on the shoulders of each and every Member.

We are now engaged in a serious debate about what the appropriate response should be to the horrific use of chemical weapons by the regime of Syrian President Asad who killed his own people using chemical weapons on August 21. This was not the first use of chemical weapons by President Asad. He launched several smaller scale attacks, murdering his citizens, and, notably, many, if not all, of those attacks occurred after the President drew his redline a year ago. But it was not until the large-scale August 21 attack of this year, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,400 people, that President Obama decided a military strike against Syria was warranted. The fact is Asad violated the international convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and crossed President Obama’s redline many times during the past year.

Deciding whether to grant the President this authority is a very difficult decision. I have participated in numerous discussions with the President, the Vice President, and experts in and out of government. I have attended many classified briefings as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and I have carefully weighed the assessments of the intelligence community and military and State Department officials. My constituents have also provided me with valuable insights that have helped to guide my decision. After much deliberation and thought, I have decided I cannot support the resolution that was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.

One of the criteria for the use of military force is surely whether the adversary poses an imminent threat to the American people. More than once President Obama has stated Syria’s chemical weapons and delivery systems do not pose a direct imminent threat to the United States. Neither the United States nor any of our allies have been attacked with chemical weapons. Instead, President Obama justifies the attack he is proposing as a response to the violation of international norms, despite the fact that we currently lack international partners to enforce the Convention on Chemical Weapons through military means.

Although the term “limited air strikes” sounds less threatening, the fact is even limited air strikes constitute an act of war. If bombs were dropped from the air or cruise missiles were launched into an American city, we would certainly consider that to be an act of war, and that is why this decision is fraught with consequences.

American military strikes against the Asad regime, in my judgment, risk entangling the United States in the middle of a protracted, dangerous, and ugly civil war. GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned us that the use of U.S. military force “cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious, and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.”

The introduction of American Armed Forces into this violent conflict could escalate to the point where we are perceived to be, or actually are, involved in a Syrian civil war or a proxy war with Hezbollah or Iran.

In this complex conflict, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to sort out the good guys from the bad. There is no doubt that Asad is a brutal, ruthless dictator who murders his own citizens and who is supported by thousands of Hezbollah terrorist fighters. The opposition, however, is not pure. It has now been infiltrated by not one but two affiliates of Al Qaeda as well as by criminal gangs. Caught in the middle are millions of Syrians who simply want to lead peaceful lives. The tragic result has been more than 100,000 people killed, 4 million displaced internally, and 2 million refugees.

We do not know how Asad or his allies would respond to a U.S. military attack, but an asymmetric attack by Hezbollah aimed at one of our bases or at other American interests abroad certainly is one potential response.

My concern is that reprisals, followed by subsequent retaliations, followed by still more reprisals could lead to an escalation of violence which never was intended by the President but which may well be the result of the first strike.

I have raised this issue directly with administration officials since the “one and done” strike, as retired GEN Michael Hayden puts it, may well not work. I have asked the administration what they would do if Asad waits until the 91st day, when the authorization for the use of military force expires, and then conducts an attack using chemical weapons that kills a much smaller number of people. What will we do then? In each case where I have raised this question, I have been told that we would likely launch another military strike.

In addition to my concern about being dragged into the Syrian civil war, I question whether the proposed military response would be more effective in achieving the goal of eliminating Asad’s stockpile of chemical weapons than a diplomatic approach would be.

Let’s be clear. The strikes proposed by the President would not eliminate Asad’s chemical weapons, nor his means of delivering them. In the President’s own words, the purpose of these strikes is “to degrade Asad’s capabilities to deliver chemical weapons.” Indeed, you will not find any military or intelligence official who believes that the strike contemplated by the administration would eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile or all of the delivery systems. General Dempsey wrote to Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin that even if an explicit military mission to secure Syria’s chemical weapons were undertaken, it would result in the control of “some, but not all” chemical weapons in Syria, and that is not what is being discussed because that would undoubtedly involve boots on the ground.

According to the President, the purpose of his more narrow objective is to deliver a calculated message to convince Asad not to use his remaining chemical weapons and delivery systems ever again. But would such a strike be effective in preventing Asad from using these weapons again on a small scale after he has absorbed the strike just to deliver his own message that he retains the capability to do so? Asad would retain a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons, and he knows that we did not respond to smaller chemical weapons attacks that he undertook before the August 21, 2013, event.

So on the one hand, the President is seeking to conduct a precision military strike that is sufficient to deter Asad from using any chemical weapons again. On the other hand, he wants to narrow the scope of a military strike so that Asad does not perceive this act of war as a threat to his regime. Yet the President has previously stated that U.S. policy is the removal of Asad.

While administration officials have gone out of their way to state that the military strikes are only to deter and degrade Asad’s chemical weapons use and are not intended to pick sides in the civil war, the text of the resolution before us is at odds with the administration’s representations. The text states that it is the policy of the United States to “change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.” Well, no one could ever consider the Asad dictatorship to be a democratic government in Syria.

Furthermore, on September 3 Secretary of State John Kerry testified that “it is not insignificant that to deprive [Asad] of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use those chemical weapons actually deprives him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war, and that has an impact.”

That is a very mixed message from this administration about the purpose of these strikes.

All of us want to see a peaceful Syria, no longer led by Asad, nor controlled by the radical Islamic extremists who are part of his opposition. But is military action that could well get us involved in Syria’s civil war the right answer?

When I think about the proper response to Asad’s abhorrent use of chemical weapons, I am mindful of the suffering and death that has occurred as well as the international conventions banning chemical weapons. Since this is an international norm, however, where are our international partners—the United Nations, NATO, the Arab League?

I have grave reservations about undertaking an act of war to enforce an international convention without the international support we have previously had when undertaking similar action in the past, such as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and even Iraq. While NATO’s Secretary General has expressed support for consequences, NATO’s North Atlantic Council, which is the body that approves military action for NATO, has not approved this military action. The Arab League has condemned with words the use of chemical weapons, but there is yet to be any Arab League statement that explicitly endorses military action or promises to be engaged in that action. Even our ally who has been most supportive, France, has asked for a delay to allow the U.N. inspectors to deliver their report next week.

Let me add that I believe that report early next week will verify that it was the Asad regime that used sarin gas. That is my expectation.

A military strike may well enforce the international norm with respect to chemical weapons, but at the same time it would weaken the international norm of limiting military action to instances of self-defense or those cases where we have the support of the international community or at least our allies in NATO or the Arab League.

In addressing this difficult and tragic crisis in Syria, the administration initially presented us with only two choices: Take military action or make no response at all. I reject and have rejected from the start the notion that the United States has only two choices—undertaking an act of war or doing nothing in response to President Asad’s attack on his citizens. There are a variety of nonmilitary responses to consider that may well be more effective. The most promising of these options, proposed by the Russians—one of Asad’s strongest allies—would place Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile in the custody of the international community before they would ultimately be destroyed.

I am not naive about “trusting” the Russians. My point is that this option may well be in Russia’s own interests, would be more effective in securing the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria, and would involve the international community. This diplomatic alternative would put Syria’s chemical weapons under verified international control and would once and for all prevent Asad or anyone else in Syria from using those weapons. A risk of attacking Asad’s facilities is that the chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist elements in the country. That risk would be eliminated if the weapons were removed completely from Syria.

One of the arguments advanced by proponents of the authorization for the use of military force resolution is that America’s credibility is on the line. This is a legitimate concern. To be sure, it was unfortunate that the President drew a line in the sand without first having a well-vetted plan, consulting with Congress, and obtaining the necessary support for doing so. I would maintain, however, that the credibility of our great Nation is beyond that of just one statement by the President, even in his important capacity as Commander in Chief. The credibility of the United States is backed by a military that is the most advanced and capable in the world. The strength of our military sends the clear, unmistakable message that the United States is capable of exerting overwhelming force whenever we decide it is the right thing to do and it is necessary to do so. It would be a mistake for our adversaries to interpret a single vote regarding a military response to Syria’s chemical weapons program as having ramifications for our willingness to use force when our country or our allies face direct imminent threats, especially with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.

At the very least we have an obligation to pursue all nonmilitary options that may well be more effective in preventing the future use of Asad’s chemical weapons than the military option the President has proposed to undertake.

For these reasons, should the authorization for the use of military force approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee come to the Senate floor, I shall cast my vote in opposition.

My hope, however, is that the negotiations underway with the Russians will pave the way for the removal of chemical stockpiles from Syria and for their verified ultimate destruction. That is the best outcome for this crisis. That would lead to a safer world.

The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I understand that Members can speak for up to 10 minutes.

The Senator is correct.

WRDA
Page: S6369

Mr. President, I would like to speak about an issue completely separated from the international concerns we all share because closer to home there was an action taken today by the House of Representatives that has me extremely concerned as the senior Senator from Louisiana and a leader in our delegation and is an issue I have worked on literally since the first day I came to the Senate now almost 17 years ago.

Today, the House of Representatives, unfortunately, in presenting their WRDA bill, which was a bill that was negotiated at great length with great skill by Senator Barbara Boxer, the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, and the ranking member, Senator Vitter, who did an outstanding job for the country and for Louisiana, negotiated quite skillfully a bill that was very balanced.

It contained no earmarks, as have been eliminated by the majority of the Congress. It did give a green light for projects that had received a positive Chief’s report, which is the signal to go forward with the project for flood protection or navigation or dredging under the jurisdictions of the Corps of Engineers.

Unfortunately, for unexplained public reasons today, which we will find out as soon as we can and report, the House of Representatives, the leadership, decided to drop probably the most important project in the bill for Louisiana, and that project is Morganza to the Gulf. The saddest part about all of this, the House removing this project, this project has already been authorized three times in the last 15 years by the Senate and twice by the House of Representatives.

The people who would be benefited by this project, about 200,000 people who live in south Louisiana, Lafourche Parish and Terrebonne Parish, the same area that was battered by Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and the oilspill, the same people who have suffered through flood after flood after flood, the same people who have taxed themselves, gotten $200 million of their own money to build phase 1, have now been told no by the House of Representatives.

For what reasons I cannot understand. They have gone through all of the processes required. They have waited in line, a line that should never have been there because they were given a yes. But as the Presiding Officer knows, under the Corps of Engineers’ rules, they can say yes to your project initially and then it takes so long to get to your project because we have a very inefficient system. If the estimates then come in at 20 percent over the original estimate, the law kicks you out and you have to start all over. So they started all over. That is the tragedy of this action. We were furious they had to start all over, but that was the law. So they did. They got a positive Chief’s report in June.

The House of Representatives just arbitrarily decides, even with a positive Chief’s report, they are taking Morganza to the Gulf out of the bill. I am calling on the Louisiana delegation to stand, particularly members who are in the study committee. I think we have a leader of that committee, Congressman Steve Scalise, who was my partner in the RESTORE Act and has been a very able leader in our delegation, to absolutely put their foot down on this WRDA bill moving any further in the House of Representatives until we can get justice for this project.

Our people are doing everything we can to elevate our homes, to fight for fair flood insurance, to tax ourselves to build levees. We have traveled all over the world to find the best engineers in the Netherlands because we do not seem to have enough engineers in Washington who understand that you can live safely below sea level. Sometimes you have to because that is where the ports are. We do not have the luxury of living on tops of mountains. We are running the Mississippi River. We are not running a ski lodge in Vail. So our people have to live there. They are not living in mansions. They are not living in condos. They are living in fishing villages and fishing camps and in very middle-class neighborhoods, trying to make a living for themselves, their families, their communities and keep this country operating.

We are running the biggest oil and gas operations out of Houma, LA, the town the House of Representatives has just literally made defenseless. They have no levees. New Orleans now, after Katrina, and Jefferson Parish, and Saint Bernard Parish have $14 billion of taxpayer money invested. That is a lot of money. I know some people in the country get very aggravated about that. Why did they get $14 billion?

The country should have given us $1 billion 10 years ago and we could have saved them 14. But the Congress decided not to do that. We asked. We begged. We pleaded. No. No. No. No. So one day the levees broke. Then the bill came due. It was a big bill, $14 billion. Wait until the next bill comes through. In that whole timeframe, that whole timeframe where our people are begging, drowning, houses going underwater, begging for help, the government keeps telling us no, no, we sent $161 billion to this Treasury from off our shore, from offshore oil and gas—$161 billion.

We come up here and try to get $1 billion for this levee, $2 billion for that. We are told: We cannot afford it. I tell you, I do not have the power to do this. I do not. But if I did, and if I were the Governor, I—and I do not think he has the power—but if I could, I would shut down every rig in the Gulf of Mexico until this Congress gives the people of Louisiana the money we need to keep ourselves safe from drowning, from flooding.

I would turn the lights off in Washington and in New York and in Maine. We are tired of it. The people in our State cannot survive without levees. The country cannot survive without our people living where we do, to run the maritime, to run the oil and gas industry. Houma, LA, does not deserve this. Terrebonne Parish does not deserve it. Lafourche Parish does not deserve it. Our delegation is not going to stand for it.

So my message to the Speaker of the House and my delegation in the House and the House is that bill will never see the light of day unless Morganza is put back. I do not know who is going to do it or how they are going to do it.

Please do not tell me there is not enough money. We send alone, Louisiana—forget Texas, forget Alabama, forget Mississippi—Louisiana alone every year sends about $5 billion to the Federal Treasury just from oil and gas severance taxes, not counting sales tax, income tax, property taxes, other taxes—property taxes would not come here, but income taxes would come here, corporate income taxes would come here. That is not even counting that.

I am tired of begging for nickels and dimes. So the House of Representatives better put Morganza to the Gulf back into that bill. No. 2, I have not read the whole bill. I was just informed about it. So I may have to take this back off the record. But I was told also what they did is say: We are not going to approve projects that had a Chief’s report after our committee meeting in June. Then they put some language in that says something like: No project can go forward until they have a committee meeting of the House of Representatives.

So they are basically engaging in earmarks again. In other words, having voted to take earmarks out—I was not for that. I did not go along with that, but they did, the leadership of the House, take earmarks out. They are now trying to put earmarks back in. So the only way you get back in is if you go through their committee and get your project approved, which is earmarking in a different way.

So on two fronts I think the House is wrong. I think they were wrong to take Morganza out, wrong to put this new system in.

The third and final thing I am going to say about this, which is the saddest thing, because Morganza has to go back in, there are some other projects they might have taken out that I am simply not aware of. But I know that the bill that left this Senate was very fair. It was without earmarks. It was based on the science and the process of the Corps of Engineers. But to all of my friends in the Senate, even when I get Morganza back in there, and our delegation does, the problem for all of us is that there is still going to be $60 billion of authorized projects for all of our States. The total budget of the Corps of Engineers next year that Senator Feinstein chairs—and I serve on the appropriations committee for the Corps of Engineers—will have only $1.6 billion for new construction.

The total Corps budget is only about $5 billion. So think about it. Is this not the silliest thing? We have $40 billion of already authorized WRDA projects. The WRDA bill now has $20 billion minus Morganza to the Gulf, which they just took out for no good reason, after 20 years of our people suffering. So they are going to add that 20 plus Morganza which will get back in there. Then we are going to have $60 billion, and all we have is a few billion to fund it.

It is a system that is so broken and so unfair. Every State feels this. It is not just Louisiana. What people hear is my strong voice, I hope, for the people of Louisiana. We feel it the most. We feel it most frequently just because of our geography. But every community in the country is suffering from this. We do not have enough infrastructure, water infrastructure. Our ports are not where they need to be. Our rivers are not dredged to the depths they need to be. We do not have enough to maintain our maritime industry in this country.

This is undermining our economic strength and our international competitiveness, besides being terribly unfair to people who happen to live along the coast, which is 60 percent of our population. So I am just sending a little warning signal to the House of Representatives: There is no way, no way, that this WRDA bill is going to go anywhere without the Morganza to the Gulf in it. It is not happening. This is one of those sort of do or die kind of issues for the Louisiana delegation.

We have waited 20 years for this project. It is justified from every angle, shape, form. It has been studied to death. The local people have put up $200 million of their own money. I am not going home to tell them they are not going to get the project. So I would strongly suggest our House delegation, particularly our leader Steve Scalise, the Congressman from Jefferson Parish, who is the chairman of the Republican study group, go have a long talk with the chairman of the committee and figure out how to get this project back in the bill.

Energy Efficiency
Page: S6370

I wish to move to another subject. I wish to offer at this time two amendments to the underlying bill that we are trying to debate, which is a very important bill on energy efficiency. I know we cannot debate any amendments, but I think I can offer two amendments.

I wish to tell my colleagues, the first I am offering with Senator Wicker and Senator Pryor. It would ensure that the Green Building Rating System, which is adopted by GSA currently, and new ones under this bill that are put forth by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman—I support the bill—do not put at a disadvantage the materials that meet the new standard of energy efficiency in the underlying bill.

There was some question about the way the bill was initially worded when it came out of the Energy Committee that it would disqualify some domestic materials that meet the energy efficient standards from being included. This would have a very devastating effect on our lumber and forestry industry, as well as others. I will send that amendment to the desk when I am able and hope that we will get through this skirmish over health care and get to some very important amendments that will help us create jobs in America, Louisiana, and help our industries.

Secondly, I wish to speak about an amendment Senator Wicker and I will offer that would ensure that small companies are excused from the requirements to submit their products for expensive third-party testing to achieve ENERGY STAR certification.

This is really a small business issue. I think this is acceptable to all parties. I am not sure there is any opposition, actually, to either one of these amendments, which is good. We have worked very hard with the parties who might have a different view to see if we can find some common ground, and I think we have.

I have spoken about these amendments which I will submit for the Record when possible, and I hope we can get to the bill of Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman. They have worked very hard, and they have built a great coalition.

Again, this is a bill that could create many jobs and opportunities for our people. While there are a lot of Members talking about how so-and-so should focus on jobs and he or she should do this or that, we have a bill whose essence is to create very good jobs in America and to save us energy costs and to reduce costs to taxpayers and consumers.

I believe this bill was voted unanimously out of the energy committee and, if not, it had overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats. Ron Wyden, the chairman our committee, who was a very able and centrist leader on these matters, has worked very hard. I am very familiar with the benefits of this bill. I am sorry it has become caught up in the politics of health care, but it is important that we get to this Energy bill.

It is most important that the House of Representatives fix a terrible thing for Louisiana which happened just a few hours ago when they stripped, now for the 20th year in a row, a project that has been certified, stamped, sealed, and approved by the Corps of Engineers. For whatever reason they did this, I do not know. I hope they will fix it.

I yield the floor.

Remarks of Judge Christina Reiss
Page: S6371

Mr. President, on August 16, I had the honor of attending a naturalization ceremony at the Ethan Allen Homestead Museum in Burlington, VT, conducted by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, Christina Reiss. This naturalization ceremony was especially timely as the Senate had in June voted strongly in favor of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I am proud of the Senate’s work on that legislation, and especially proud of the thorough process we had in the Judiciary Committee to give that legislation a fair and public hearing.

I have attended many naturalization ceremonies over the years and never fail to come away inspired by the process and by the participants. Judge Reiss’ most recent naturalization ceremony was a reminder of how meaningful American citizenship is, and of what an accomplishment it is for those who earn it. Judge Reiss invited me to address the new Americans, but I was particularly moved by her remarks to the 10 new Americans who were naturalized as citizens of the United States that day.

Judge Reiss delivered a positive, uplifting, and powerful message to these men and women about what it means to be an American. Her message to them was one of hope. It was also a challenge to be the transformative force that so many immigrants have been for America throughout our history. Judge Reiss encouraged their civic participation and commitment to our constitutional values. She called upon them to be full participants in our democracy, to exercise their rights and their responsibilities by voting, and to embrace the rule of law. And Judge Reiss’ remarks were a warm Vermont welcome to the 10 new citizens who chose to make Vermont their home.

As I listened to Judge Reiss deliver her remarks, I reflected on my own family’s history of immigration and the experience of my wife Marcelle’s mother and father who became citizens and made Vermont their home. I hope the message they heard when they swore the oath to become citizens was as inspirational as the one Judge Reiss delivered this summer in Vermont. And I hope the 10 new American citizens we welcomed together on August 16 will take her words to heart as they begin this new chapter in their lives.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Judge Reiss’ remarks of August 16, 2013, be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the, as follows:

Remembering 9/11
Page: S6372

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in commemorating the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Twelve years ago America was dealt a blow, but in the years since, we have continued to rebuke the message of hate that was brought to our doorstep. What is more is that we affirm our core American values that were magnified in the days following those attacks.

We are still “ one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” We are still a diverse nation of many races, religions, and ideas united under the same flag. Maybe most important, we are still at our best when we come together.

Every year we are reminded that though we are a strong and determined nation, we are still healing from the wounds we suffered that day 12 years ago. No amount of time can rationalize the senseless violence or bring back a loved one. It is important to note that we have brought many of the terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, to justice, and we have made great strides in ensuring that those who wish to do us harm like they did on 9/11 will be unable to do so.

Our men and women in uniform, the intelligence community, Foreign Service officers, and the people entrusted with safeguarding our borders, bridges, air and seaports and key infrastructure, have made great sacrifices to ensure our continued safety in a Ðpost-9/11 world and we owe so much to these men and women, and the families who support them.

Today, we join together to show the world that our Nation is united and firmly resolved to defend our freedom and safeguard our liberty against any enemy.

We also take time to remember those Americans who perished on 9/11 and to remember them and their families with a special prayer. We reflect on the heroism of the firefighters, police officers, medical workers, city officials, and ordinary citizens who gave their own lives trying to save others. Who could ever forget the images of firefighters and other first responders going up the stairs of the World Trade Center as everyone else was heading to safety? Each of us has been affected by 9/11. It is a day seared into the national memory.

We cannot forget 9/11 because the virtues that carried us though the days, weeks, and years have been with us since the beginning: 9/11 did not teach firefighters and police to sacrifice, nor did it teach unity among neighbors. It did not teach empathy toward strangers or compassion toward friends.

Rather, these quintessential American virtues were with us all along; 9/11 just put them under a spotlight for all to see. On 9/11 we showed the world a brand of resilience, compassion, and strength that could only be “made in America”.

And so, 12 years after the most heinous attacks in our Nation’s history, we stand tall. We stand tall, not weighed down by the gravity of 9/11 but made stronger by it. We remain united in our diversity like no other nation on Earth, “ one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Remembering 9/11
Page: S6372

Mr. President, I vividly recall, as do most Americans, exactly where I was 12 years ago this morning. My son, Al, who had only recently celebrated his third birthday, was beginning his very first day at preschool. It was a big day for my wife Jenny and me, filled with that mixture of excitement and trepidation that is familiar to all young parents.

Shortly after waving goodbye to Al, we heard the shocking news—an airplane had hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

As a native New Jerseyan, raised in the shadow of the Twin Towers, I could picture the scene in my mind’s eye.

My first assumption was that a small plane—perhaps one of the sightseeing planes that provided visitors with a bird’s-eye view of the wonders of Lower Manhattan and the harbor—had somehow flown off course into the building.

Less than 20 minutes later, however, when the second plane hit, I knew, as we all did, that this was no accident. America was under attack. And as the morning unfolded and the horror increased—the Pentagon was hit, the towers fell, United flight 93 was brought to the ground near Shanksville, PA—my thoughts turned to faith and family.

I thought of my son—young and innocent, starting his very first day in school—and I realized the world that existed when we dropped him off that morning had changed.

I thought of so many friends and neighbors who might very well have been on the plane that flew out of Newark that morning or in those proud buildings that had been reduced to rubble. I hoped and prayed that they were safe.

I thought of the people who had surely lost their lives in the attacks—in numbers more than any of us could bear, as Mayor Giuliani so eloquently put it—and prayed for them and their families.

And as the day drew to its awful conclusion, I knew that for so many, the terrible anguish of this day was just beginning, and the reminders of that were everywhere: the children whose parents would never arrive to pick their children up from school, the empty place at the dinner table, the gaping hole in the hearts of those who loved those who perished.

Twelve years later, the passage of time has, for many, helped to bring some measure of healing. But the scars remain, and they will never completely fade away.

So today we remember, as we do every year and as we should every day, all those who lost their lives, both in the terrorist attacks themselves and also on foreign fields of battle in the defense of our freedom and our way of life.

We remember today, as we do every year and as we should every day, all those who were injured in the attacks and on the battlefield.

We remember today, as we do every year and as we should every day, all those who responded to the attacks with bravery and determination and many of whom still struggle with the aftermath of their courageous actions.

And we remember today, as we do every year and should every day, all those who lost friends, colleagues, and family members in the attacks and in the years since. Their suffering is our suffering and we must never forget that.

Today is also a day for renewal, for renewing the sense of purpose that united our nation in the aftermath of the attacks, for renewing the spirit of cooperation that made it possible for our country to move forward, both through individual acts of courage, kindness, and compassion and through acts of governance that helped us meet the challenges we faced, and for renewing our determination to keep America safe while also safeguarding our liberties.

Twelve years ago today, when Jenny and I dropped off our son for his very first day of school—he is, by the way, now a high school freshman—we could never have imagined how much the world would change before he had even settled in to his new preschool routine.

But although so much has changed, one thing remains constant: America, is, as she always had been, a beacon of hope to the world. No act of terror—no matter how brutal—will ever diminish the bright, shining light of the American spirit.

Remembering Nicolae Gheorghe
Page: S6372

Mr. President, on August 8, Nicolae Gheorghe, one of the leading figures of the Romani civil rights movement, passed away. He was devoted to improving the situation of Roma, ultimately playing a pivotal role on the international stage and especially within the OSCE. Gheorghe lived an extraordinary life and will be long remembered for his singular contribution to the advancement of human rights.

Nicolae Gheorghe was born in 1946 in Romania during the aftermath of the fascist regime led by Marshall Ion Atonescu. His mother had narrowly escaped the mass deportations of 25,000 Roma planned and implemented by the Antonescu regime.

Members of the Helsinki Commission first met Nicolae Gheorghe when Senator Dennis DeConcini and Representative Steny Hoyer, then-Chairman and Cochairman, led a delegation to Romania in April 1990. At that time, Gheorghe was emerging as one of the clearest and most compelling voices sounding the alarm about the deplorable situation of Roma. Although the fall of communism in Central Europe ushered in an era of democratization, it also gave free rein to old bigotry against Roma. In fact, only a few months after that visit, police efforts to remove demonstrators from Bucharest degenerated into brutal attacks on the offices of opposition papers, opposition leaders’ homes, and members of the Romani minority.

At almost the same time, the OSCE participating States were meeting in Copenhagen negotiating what would become one of the most ambitious agreements of the Helsinki process: the seminal 1990 Copenhagen Document. I was part of a delegation Representative Hoyer led to that historic meeting where we raised our concerns about religious and ethnic minorities directly with the delegation from Romania.

It was also in Copenhagen where Nicolae Gheorghe pressed—successfully—for the adoption of the first reference in any international human rights agreement to the specific problems faced by Roma. The U.S. delegation to that meeting, headed by the late Ambassador Max Kamplemen, helped secure the inclusion of that text in the final document.

But in the context of post-Communist economic and political transition, Roma became targets of ethnically motivated attacks. In Romania, dozens of pogroms against Roma were carried out between 1990 and 1997, prompting Gheorghe and others to found Romani CRISS in 1993. The name is a Romanian acronym for Center for Social Intervention and Studies but also a play on the Romani word “kris,” which is a kind of council of elders. In the 1990s, he worked with the New Jersey-based Project on Ethnic Relations and served on the board of the European Roma Rights Center.

He also brought his concerns to the United States. In 1994, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights, chaired by Representative Tom Lantos, convened the first hearing before Congress on the situation of Roma. Gheorghe, joined by Romani activists Ian Hancock, Andrzej Mirga, and Klara Orgovanova, testified, along with Livia Plaks of the Project on Ethnic Relations.

Gheorghe argued that anti-Roma attitudes and behaviors could serve as a barometer to gauge the success of countries building democratic institutions, the rule of law, and “the consolidation of civil movements and associations and societies and states deeply distorted by the decades of pro-fascist, authoritarian and communist totalitarian regimes.”

He presciently surveyed the scope and implications of anti-Roma manifestations including in Bosnia, Germany, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Romania. “[T]he most important assistance which can be brought to or sent to our region is the rule of law, the breeding of democratic institutions, and careful implementation of individual human rights.” Gheorghe testified at Helsinki Commission briefings and hearings in 2002 and 2006.

Nicolae Gheorghe also became a fixture at OSCE human rights meetings—first in his capacity as an NGO, then as the first senior adviser on Romani issues for the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. In whatever capacity he worked, he was a relentless advocate for the human rights of Romani people.

His appointment coincided with the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo, the NATO air campaign against Milosevic’s Serbia, and the subsequent deployment of a large OSCE mission to Kosovo. As a consequence of developments in the Balkans, he became immediately engaged on issues relating to the displacement of Kosovo Roma to Macedonia and elsewhere. Throughout his tenure with the OSCE, which lasted through 2006, his work was driven by the need for crisis management stemming from acts of violence and other extreme manifestations of prejudice against Roma—not only in the Balkans but elsewhere in the OSCE region as well.

In his 2006 testimony before the Helsinki Commission, he observed that international organizations had largely focused on the situation of Roma in Central Europe, neglecting Western countries such as Greece, France, Spain, and Italy. “I don’t think that Europe for the time being realizes the depth of the racism and racist attitudes in its structures, [in] Europe as a whole.” The mass fingerprinting of Roma in Italy in 2008 and the expulsions of Roma from France in 2010 would illustrate that Gheorghe had spoken with typical insight.

I wish that I could say Nicolae Gheorghe’s work to advance the human rights of Roma was complete. Clearly, it is not. Each day, it must be carried on by the many people he encouraged and a new generation of activists. Toward that end, our load is lighter because of the burdens he carried, our goals are nearer because of the distance he traveled, and we are inspired by his legacy.

Remembering Randy Udall
[Page: S6373]

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to again thank my colleagues for their kind words on the passing of Randy Udall. Their condolences, and those of so many people who knew and loved Randy, have been a great source of comfort to our family. I would also like to share with them Randy’s obituary, published in the Aspen Times, as we remember Randy and celebrate his life.

I ask unanimous consent that the obituary be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

James “Randy” Udall, a native son of the American West, died June 20, 2013, on the eve of the Summer Solstice, doing what he loved most, hiking in the remote Wind River Mountains. He was 61 years old. The cause of his death: natural.

Randy was both a visionary and a pragmatist. Known for the size of his heart and the breadth of his wild mind, Randy Udall was all about energy: physical and mental. His expertise on domestic and international energy sustainability was singular, both as a free-lance writer and as an advocate. In 1984, he co-founded the nonprofit Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) in Carbondale, Colorado, where he served for 13 years as director. CORE’s partnerships with electric utilities and local governments led to Colorado’s first solar energy incentive program, the world’s first Renewable Energy Mitigation Program and some of the most progressive green power purchasing programs in America.

In 2005, Randy co-founded the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA to track the shifting balance between world oil supply and depletion. He was a brilliant communicator, owned by no one, plain-spoken, humble, and nuanced. He was a celebrated speaker engaging audiences world-wide on the complexities of energy development. He was the rare thought leader who put his thoughts into action. Randy’s home in Carbondale was retrofitted with solar panels that he often shared would keep 300,000 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere over 20 years. The energy bill on his 2,000-square-foot home was a mere $300 per year.

Randy Udall told hard truths: “We have been living like gods,” he often said. “Our task now is to learn how to live like humans. Our descent will not be easy.”

Randy Udall was born on October 29, 1951, in Tucson, Ariz., to former Arizona Congressman Morris K. Udall and Patricia Emery Udall. His education was informed by Prescott College and the University of Denver, but he graduated from neither. He subscribed to what John Wesley Powell called “a home-grown education” driven by place and fueled by curiosity. His path of inquiry was grounded in auto mechanics, carpentry, a commitment to writing, environmental studies, and advocacy. He also worked for Outward Bound as a wilderness instructor. Instinct, intuition, and experience became the bedrock of his uncommon wisdom.

Randy belonged to a respected political family. Alongside the distinguished political career of his father, he was the nephew of Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, from whom he drew great inspiration. His eldest brother Mark Udall and his cousin Tom Udall currently represent Colorado and New Mexico in the U.S. Senate. With his usual wit and candor, he often apologized for politicians in the West, but he never abandoned his family’s commitment to public service and embrace of the open space of democracy.

In the 1980s, Randy reported on the Sanctuary Movement for the Tucson Citizen, riding the underground railroad and listening to the plight of the refugees it carried from Central America to the United States. He was the first reporter to break the story of the Tucson Sanctuary Movement nationally and garner support and justice for them. Through his writing, Randy continually sought to give voice to others and to the land. “I love forms beyond my own, and regret the borders between us,” wrote Loren Eiseley, one of Randy’s favorite authors.

In 1987, Randy co-authored “Too Funny To Be President” with his father, Mo Udall, and Bob Neuman. And in 1993, he collaborated with his uncle Stewart Udall and renowned photographer David Muench on the book, “National Parks of America.”

He was a man who loved words and big ideas. As much as he loved to climb mountains, he loved the landscape of public discourse. Randy will be remembered as an extraordinary listener and a lively raconteur. He gave dignity to his conversations, be it with a roughneck on an oil patch or testing and charming an environmentalist over beer. He was at home with those who cared. His alliances were creative and brave. He possessed an open mind, and at times, a fierce one, calling for an ethics of a place. Randy did not hesitate to go toe-to-toe with oil executives, calling for accountability, when discussing the realities of peak oil.

But most of all, Randy Udall loved all things wild: skiing across Baffin Island in the 1976; casting a line of light on a meandering river; hiking the Colorado Rockies with his children. In an email to his daughter Tarn, when rafting with her brother down the Tatshenshini River in Alaska, he said simply, lovingly, “Stay warm, stay fed, and feed the morale meter, too.” He was a man of paradoxes: a loner and a communitarian; joyful and brooding; present one minute and gone, the next. And his vast frame of reference was apparent by the diversity on his bookshelves with Mary Oliver’s “Collected Poems” next to “A Field Guide to Geology”; Ivan Doig’s nonfiction shelved next to “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power” by Daniel Yergin. When Wallace Stegner admonished Westerners “to create a society to match the scenery,” this was the joyous life work of Randy Udall.

Randy is survived by his beloved wife, Leslie Emerson and their three children, Ren, Tarn, and Torrey Udall; his five siblings: Mark Udall (wife, Maggie Fox), Judith Udall (husband, Ben Harding), Anne Udall (partner, Tillie Clark), Brad Udall (wife, Jane Backer), and Kate Udall; and his nephews, Jed Udall and Clay Harding, and niece, Tess Udall. He also leaves behind his cousin, Tom Udall, alongside Denis Udall, Scott Udall, Lynn Udall, Lori Udall, and Jay Udall. He is preceded in death by his father, Morris K. Udall, his mother, Patricia Emery Udall, his uncle Stewart Udall, and his nephew Luke Harding.

In lieu of flowers, donations can be made to: The Randy Udall Memorial Fund, Alpine Bank, 350 Highway 133, Carbondale, Colorado, 81623. Donations will support youth in action.

Recognizing Warren Easton High School
Page: S6374

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Warren Easton High School in New Orleans, LA. The students, faculty, staff, school leaders, alumni and community members are celebrating 100 years of excellence in education and service to the New Orleans community.

Warren Easton High School is the oldest public high school in Louisiana. Named after a local superintendent of schools in New Orleans, Warren Easton represents what excellence in education should look like. The school has transitioned from when it opened as an all-boys high school in Uptown New Orleans, then a new location on Canal Street in 1913, to a co-educational setting in 1952 and racial integration in 1967. However, perhaps Warren Easton High School’s most profound transformation came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

After the storm that devastated so many lives, infrastructures, and a way of life in New Orleans, Warren Easton was forced to close its doors for 1 year. Fortunately, thanks to the strong and spirited history of this school, Warren Easton was opened as a charter school by a group of alumni. Even in the face of challenge, the leaders and alumni created an institution that would not only honor the history of Warren Easton and its previous success, but will continue to create new opportunities for the students of New Orleans.

Since its opening in 2007, Warren Easton High School has seen tremendous growth. During the last school year, 925 students attended school there. For the past 2 years, the school has celebrated a graduation rate of 100 percent. Student performance has also dramatically increased since the reopening of Warren Easton High School with a school performance score of 64.7 in 2007 and 133.9 in 2012. Further, the 2012 graduating class received over $6.2 million in scholarships from more than 20 colleges and universities.

Warren Easton is a leading example of excellence in education. Its leaders, alumni, and students continue to be an inspiration to their community. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Warren Easton High School in New Orleans, LA, and its long-time alumni community as they celebrate 100 years of success.

Page: S6374

Newington, New Hampshire
[Begin Insert]

Mr. President, today I wish to join with the people of Newington, NH, as they celebrate the town’s 300th anniversary.

Located in Rockingham County, Newington is surrounded on three sides by water—the Piscataqua River to the northeast, Little Bay to the northwest and Great Bay to the west. Due to its close proximity to water, agriculture became the way of life in the early years of this town.

The town was originally part of Dover and was known as Bloody Point, so named because of the battle between men from Dover and Portsmouth who were vying for more land. In 1640 Thomas Trickery established the Bloody Point Ferry, which crossed the Piscataqua to Hilton’s Point and was the only connection between Dover and Portsmouth. Because of the difficulty in getting to the church in Dover, early settlers established a meetinghouse at Bloody Point in 1712. In 1713 local residents held a meeting to hire a minister, and on May 12, 1714, Governor Dudley granted the request and renamed the parish from Bloody Point to Newington. This meetinghouse is still owned by the town and is considered the oldest meetinghouse in New Hampshire. In addition to this historic landmark, residents set land aside to create a town forest in 1710. This forest is the oldest surviving town forest in the United States and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The number of farms grew during the late 1800s thanks in part to the construction of the railroad bridge to Dover point in 1873. The railroad provided the ability to transport perishable commodities, such as apples and dairy, to new markets. Today the population has grown to include over 750 residents, whose patriotism and commitment is reflected in part by their record of service in defense of our Nation.

Over the past several decades, Newington has seen a dramatic change from an agricultural community to an industrial and commercial hub. In the 1950s, the Federal Government acquired land to build Pease Air Force Base, over half of which is located in the town of Newington. Although this base closed, the area has been redeveloped into what is now the Pease International Tradeport. Even with these recent changes, the town of Newington has maintained its quaint and historic character.

Whether it is the popular Newington Mall, the historic town forest or the Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the citizens of Newington have contributed much to the life and heritage of New Hampshire during the town’s first 300 years. On this day, we honor the 300th anniversary of Newington, salute its citizens, and recognize their accomplishments, their love of country, and their spirit of independence.�

[End Insert]

Page: S6374

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Pate, one of his secretaries.

== Page: S6374

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.

(The messages received today are printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

Page: S6374

At 12:33 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, without amendment:

An act to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to the Powell Recreation District in the State of Wyoming.

An act to provide for certain improvements to the Denali National Park and Preserve in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.

An act to amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Mississippi 2 parcels of surplus land within the boundary of the Natchez Trace Parkway, and for other purposes.

An act to modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

An act to reform the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers, and for other purposes.

An act to amend title 40, United States Code, to transfer certain functions from the Government Accountability Office to the Department of Labor relating to the processing of claims for the payment of workers who were not paid appropriate wages under certain provisions of such title.

Page: S6375

The following bill was read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

An act to amend title 40, United States Code, to transfer certain functions from the Government Accountability Office to the Department of Labor relating to the processing of claims for the payment of workers who were not paid appropriate wages under certain provisions of such title; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Page: S6375

The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and placed on the calendar:

An act to reform the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers, and for other purposes.

Page: S6375

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Propylene Glycol; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance” (FRL No. 9394-5) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 6, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Topramezone; Pesticide Tolerances” (FRL No. 9388-9) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 6, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Emamectin; Pesticide Tolerance” (FRL No. 9395-6) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Tetrachlorvinphos; Pesticide Tolerances” (FRL No. 9394-9) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 29, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Management Analyst, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Weighing, Feed, and Swine Contractors” (RIN0580-AA99) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 26, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Management Analyst, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Inspection and Weighing of Grain in Combined and Single Lots” (RIN0580-AB15) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 26, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators” (RIN3052-AC78) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 29, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2697. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Review Group, Farm Service Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Sugar Program; Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers” (RIN0560-AH86) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 1, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2698}} A communication from the Secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Enhanced Risk Management Standards for Systemically Important Derivatives Clearing Organizations” (RIN3038-AC98) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 21, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2699}} A communication from the Secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Harmonization of Compliance Obligations for Registered Investment Companies Required to Register as Commodity Pool Operators” (RIN3038-AD75) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 21, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2700}} A communication from the Secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Clearing Exemption for Certain Swaps Entered into by Cooperatives” (RIN3038-AD47) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 21, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2701}} A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Cranberries Grown in States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Changing Reporting Requirements” (Docket No. AMS-FV-12-002; FV12-929-1 FIR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2702}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Grapes Grown in Designated Area of Southeastern California; Increased Assessment Rate” (Docket No. AMS-FV-13-0005; FV13-925-1 FR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2703}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Increase in Fees for Voluntary Federal Dairy Grading and Inspection Services” (Docket No. AMS-DA-10-0002) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2704}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Kiwifruit Grown in California and Imported Kiwifruit; Relaxation of Minimum Grade Requirement” (Docket No. AMS-FV-13-0032; FV13-920-1 IR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2705}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: Adjusting Supplemental Assessment on Imports (2013 Amendment)” (Docket No. AMS-CN-12-0065) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2706}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Olives Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate” (Docket No. AMS-FV-12-0076; FV13-932-1 FIR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2707}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Mango Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Nominations of Foreign Producers and Election of Officers” (Docket No. AMS-FV-12-0041) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2708}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in Florida; Revising Reporting Requirements and New Information Collection” (Docket No. AMS-FV-12-0052; FV12-905-2 FR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2709}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 2013-2014 Marketing Year” (Docket No. AMS-FV-12-0064; FV13-985-1 FR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2710}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; Modification of the General Cull and Handling Regulation for Area No. 2” (Docket No. AMS-FV-13-0001; FV13-48-1 IR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2711}} A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “User Fees for 2013 Crop Cotton Classification Services to Growers” (Docket No. AMS-CN-12-0074) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 5, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2712}} A communication from the Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, (4) four reports relative to vacancies in the Department of Agriculture received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 8, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2713}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Imazapic; Pesticide Tolerance” (FRL No. 9394-8) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2714}} A communication from the Chief of the Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Trafficking Controls and Fraud Investigations” (RIN0584-AE26) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 3, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2715}} A communication from the Chief of the Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Privacy Protections of Information from Applicant Households” (RIN0584-AD91) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2716}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Ethyl-2E,4Z-Decadienoate (Pear Ester); Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance” (FRL No. 9396-8) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2717}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances” (FRL No. 9395-5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2718}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Halosulfuron-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances” (FRL No. 9393-8) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

{{S-EC|113|2719}} A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Service Limits and Loading Combinations for Class 1 Plate-and-Shell-Type Supports” (Regulatory Guide 1.130, Revision 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2720}} A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications” (Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2721}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Grotto Sculpin (Cottus specus)” (RIN1018-AZ41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2722. A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Grotto Sculpin (Cottus specus)” (RIN1018-AY16) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2723}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Austin Blind Salamander and Threatened Species Status for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander” (RIN1018-AY22) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2724}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Diamond Darter (Crystallaria cincotta)” (RIN1018-AZ40) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2725}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Austin Blind and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders” (RIN1018-AZ24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2726}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus)” (RIN1018-AY24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2727}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow” (RIN1018-AZ49) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2728}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for Impact Analyses of Critical Habitat” (RIN1018-AY26) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2729}} A communication from the Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Threatened Status for Neches River Rose-mallow” (RIN1018-AX74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2730}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Interim Final Determination to Stay and Defer Sanctions; California; San Joaquin Valley” (FRL No. 9900-36-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2731}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits” (FRL No. 9813-9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2732}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Maintenance Plan Update for Lake County, Indiana for Sulfur Dioxide” (FRL No. 9900-5-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2733}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New Jersey; Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan” (FRL No. 9900-33-Region 2) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2734}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter” (FRL No. 9900-32-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2735}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard and the 2006 24-Hour Standard for Fine Particulate Matter” (FRL No. 9900-49-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2736}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District” (FRL No. 9842-4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2737}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Florida; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan” (FRL No. 9900-31-Region 4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2738}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; St. Louis Area Transportation Conformity Requirements” (FRL No. 9900-41-Region 7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2739}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer, Santa Barbara and Ventura County Air Pollution Control Districts” (FRL No. 9835-4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2740}} A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds—Exclusion of trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene [Solstice 1233zd(E)]” (FRL No. 9844-3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

{{S-EC|113|2741}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Modification of Treasury Regulations Pursuant to Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (RIN1545-BK27) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2742}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “2013 Marginal Production Rates” (Notice 2013-53) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2743}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Debt That is a Position in Personal Property That is Part of a Straddle” (RIN1545-BK89) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2744}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Limitations on Duplication of Net Built-in Losses” (RIN1545-BE58) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2745}} A communication from the Director, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Extension of Expiration Dates for Two Body System Listings” (RIN0960-AH60) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 4, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2746}} A communication from the Chief of the Border Security Regulations Branch, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Extension of Port Limits of Indianapolis, IN” (CBP Dec. 13-13) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 4, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2747}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Disclosures of Return Information Reflected on Returns to Officers and Employees of the Department of Commerce for Certain Statistical Purposes and Related Activities” (RIN1545-BL66) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 29, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2748}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Use of Differential Income Stream as an Application of the Income Method and as a Consideration in Assessing the Best Method” (RIN1545-BK71) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 29, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2749}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage” (RIN1545-BL36) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 29, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

{{S-EC|113|2750}} A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Examination of Returns and Claims for Refund, Credit, or Abatement; Determination of Tax Liability” (Rev. Proc. 2013-33) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 29, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

Page: S6377

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By (for herself,, and ):

{{CP US Bill-|113|S. |1494. A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to improve child safety and reduce the incidence of preventable infant deaths in child care settings; to the {{S-Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions}}.

By {{C113cr-sp|Mr. CASEY}}:

{{CP US Bill-|113|S. |1495. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an order with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for other purposes; to the {{S-Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation}}.

By {{C113cr-sp|Mr. KIRK}}:

{{CP US Bill-|113|S. |1496. A bill to enhance taxpayer accountability at public transportation agencies; to the {{S-Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs}}.

Page: S6377

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By (for himself and ):

A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Save for Retirement week, including raising public awareness of the various tax-preferred retirement vehicles and increasing personal financial literacy; considered and agreed to.

[Page: S6377]

At the request of, the name of the Senator from South Carolina was added as a cosponsor of S. 15, a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Hawaii was added as a cosponsor of S. 84, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 296, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from California was added as a cosponsor of S. 357, a bill to encourage, enhance, and integrate Blue Alert plans throughout the United States in order to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN), the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Maryland  were added as cosponsors of S. 381, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the “Doolittle Tokyo Raiders”, for outstanding heroism, valor, skill, and service to the United States in conducting the bombings of Tokyo.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 403, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to address and take action to prevent bullying and harassment of students.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Alaska ( and the Senator from Maine were added as cosponsors of S. 411, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the railroad track maintenance credit.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 460, a bill to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Utah was added as a cosponsor of S. 462, a bill to enhance the strategic partnership between the United States and Israel.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Nevada was added as a cosponsor of S. 535, a bill to require a study and report by the Small Business Administration regarding the costs to small business concerns of Federal regulations.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY) and the Senator from Oregon were added as cosponsors of S. 557, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to medication therapy management under part D of the Medicare program.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Minnesota was added as a cosponsor of S. 577, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the distribution of additional residency positions, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Florida was added as a cosponsor of S. 629, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to recognize the service in the reserve components of the Armed Forces of certain persons by honoring them with status as veterans under law, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 631, a bill to allow Americans to earn paid sick time so that they can address their own health needs and the health needs of their families.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from South Carolina was added as a cosponsor of S. 727, a bill to improve the examination of depository institutions, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 815, a bill to prohibit the employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Kentucky was added as a cosponsor of S. 888, a bill to provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Maine was added as a cosponsor of S. 931, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to raise awareness of, and to educate breast cancer patients anticipating surgery, especially patients who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups, regarding the availability and coverage of breast reconstruction, prostheses, and other options.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 1069, a bill to prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 1088, a bill to end discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Rhode Island was added as a cosponsor of S. 1123, a bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to curb waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Florida  were added as cosponsors of S. 1158, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins commemorating the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the National Park Service, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from West Virginia  were added as cosponsors of S. 1174, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 65th Infantry Regiment, known as the Borinqueneers.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Ohio was added as a cosponsor of S. 1188, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the definition of full-time employee for purposes of the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Kansas was added as a cosponsor of S. 1208, a bill to require meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide certain substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Nebraska was added as a cosponsor of S. 1271, a bill to direct the President to establish guidelines for the United States foreign assistance programs, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Vermont was added as a cosponsor of S. 1282, a bill to reduce risks to the financial system by limiting banks’ ability to engage in certain risky activities and limiting conflicts of interest, to reinstate certain Glass-Steagall Act protections that were repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from New Mexico was added as a cosponsor of S. 1302, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for cooperative and small employer charity pension plans.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Nebraska was added as a cosponsor of S. 1320, a bill to establish a tiered hiring preference for members of the reserve components of the armed forces.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts was added as a cosponsor of S. 1332, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure more timely access to home health services for Medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare program.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Virginia was added as a cosponsor of S. 1369, a bill to provide additional flexibility to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to establish capital standards that are properly tailored to the unique characteristics of the business of insurance, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) and the Senator from Maine were added as cosponsors of S. 1405, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an extension of certain ambulance add-on payments under the Medicare program.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Montana was added as a cosponsor of S. 1445, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation of optometrists in the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from New York and the Senator from Maine  were added as cosponsors of S. 1456, a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Shimon Peres.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Louisiana was added as a cosponsor of S. 1457, a bill to exempt the aging process of distilled spirits from the production period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Vermont was added as a cosponsor of S. 1476, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the denial of deduction for certain excessive employee remuneration, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania was added as a cosponsor of S. 1490, a bill to delay the application of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from New Hampshire was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 203, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding efforts by the United States to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution.

Page: S6379

S. 1494
By (for herself,, and ):

A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to improve child safety and reduce the incidence of preventable infant deaths in child care settings; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Collins, to introduce the Child Care Infant Mortality Act. This is bipartisan legislation that would allow states participating in the Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, to use part of this funding for child safety training.

Currently, states participating in Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, are required to set aside at least 4 percent of funds to improve the quality of the programs offered in their states. Our bill would simply ensure that strategies to enhance child safety, including disseminating information related to prevention strategies for sudden unexpected infant death, are included in as an allowable use of funds.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, half of the approximately 4,500 SUID cases in the United States are entirely preventable with effective training and implementation of correct sleep practices. It is estimated that child care settings account for 20 percent of all SUID fatalities in the United States. Life-saving sleep strategies, first aid and CPR are successful in preventing infant death and are easily implementable; yet training is not currently an allowable use of funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act.

Nationally, over 4,500 infants die suddenly with no immediate obvious cause every year. These deaths are not highly publicized by the media because of the severe pain it causes families. A large percentage of child care providers are unaware of the risks of sleep associated infant deaths until they come face-to-face with a death of a child under their care. The more aware providers are of safe sleep practices, the more likely they are to follow suggested guidelines. In particular, posting safe-sleep practices and offering required training can further cut the number of infants we lose every year to sudden unexpected infant death. Beyond safe sleep practices, child care provider training in CPR and first aid will allow providers to identify and address potentially harmful situations for infants.

The Child Care Infant Mortality Prevention Act of 2013 expands the list of allowable uses for CCDBG funding to permit states to use this funding on activities to improve child care quality. Our bill would also require the Secretary to update and make widely available-training, instructional materials, and other information on safe sleep practices and other sudden unexpected infant death prevention strategies.

I am proud that Senator Susan Collins has joined me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

It is essential that this issue is addressed by building upon the existing structure and capacity of the networks of Child Care providers participating in the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It is critical that we work to ensure that child safety is a primary goal of the block grant, and that appropriate and adequate training on safe sleep practices, first aid, and CPR are included in the training regimen promoted by this Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the.

S. 1496
By :

A bill to enhance taxpayer accountability at public transportation agencies; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Mr. President, I rise to address a crisis of confidence at Chicagoland’s suburban commuter railroad—Metra. Metra plays a vital role for our area—reducing congestion and carrying thousands of suburban residents to and from Chicago each day. But recent developments highlight a troubled transit system and a misuse of public dollars.

Earlier this summer it was reported that Metra CEO Alex Clifford received a severance package worth nearly $750,000 following allegations of political influence at the agency. Clifford received $442,237 alone just to buyout the remaining term of his contract, on top of $307,390 for an additional 12 months if he is unable to find new employment.

This is a gross misuse of public dollars. With this action, Metra’s former CEO makes more than President Obama, who currently makes $400,000 a year. I asked the Congressional Research Service how this golden parachute ranks compared to the annual salary of the top ten largest transit agencies in the country, and the results were surprising. Each of the top 10 largest transit systems pays their chief executive no more than $350,000, meaning Metra, the 24th largest transit agency in the country, had the highest earning CEO.

Fortunately federal taxpayer dollars did not contribute to Clifford’s golden parachute. But Metra is expected to receive more than $135 million in federal capital dollars. If our local government bodies can’t be trusted to be good stewards of the public, then the Congress should step in to put in place reasonable taxpayer protections.

Today I have introduced the Public Transportation Accountability Act which for the first time will put limits on executive compensation at public transit agencies that receive federal funds. No executive or employee of a transit agency would be able to receive annual compensation that is greater than that of the President of the United States. This is a common sense bill that sadly is necessary to safeguard taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

Page: S6380

=== Senate Resolution 222—Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Save for Retirement Week, Including Raising Public Awareness of the Various Tax-Preferred Retirement Vehicles and Increasing Personal Financial Literacy ===

(for himself and ) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Page: S6381

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself,, and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for herself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for ) proposed an amendment to the bill, supra.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill ; which was ordered to lie on the table.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself,, and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself,, , and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself,, , , , and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

(for himself, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. COATS, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. CORNYN|ps}},, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. ALEXANDER|ps}}, , {{C113cr-sp|Mr. BURR|ps}}, , {{C113cr-sp|Mr. JOHANNS|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Ms. AYOTTE|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. BLUNT|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. MORAN|ps}}, and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1872}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1873}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1874}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1875}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1876}} {{C113cr-sp|Mr. THUNE|ps}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1877}} {{C113cr-sp|Mr. BENNET|ps}} (for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1878}} {{C113cr-sp|Mr. BLUMENTHAL|ps}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1879}} {{C113cr-sp|Mr. SESSIONS|ps}} (for himself and {{C113cr-sp|Mr. PRYOR|ps}}) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1880}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1881}} {{C113cr-sp|Mr. PRYOR|ps}} (for himself, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. ALEXANDER|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. BEGICH|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. BOOZMAN|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. COONS|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. HEINRICH|ps}}, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. TESTER|ps}}, and {{C113cr-sp|Mr. UDALL (NM)|ps}}) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1882}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1883}} {{C113cr-sp|Mr. INHOFE|ps}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1884}} {{C113cr-sp|Mr. INHOFE|ps}} submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1885}} {{C113cr-sp|Ms. LANDRIEU|ps}} (for herself and {{C113cr-sp|Mr. WICKER|ps}}) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

{{CP US Bill-|113|SA |1886}} {{C113cr-sp|Ms. LANDRIEU|ps}} (for herself, {{C113cr-sp|Mr. WICKER, and {{C113cr-sp|Mr. PRYOR|ps}}) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.

Page: S6381

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the beginning of title IV, insert the following:

SEC. 4__. BUDGET-NEUTRAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR ENERGY AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS AT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

(a) Establishment.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (referred to in this section as the “Secretary”) shall establish a demonstration program under which, during the period beginning on October 1, 2013, and ending on September 30, 2016, the Secretary may enter into budget-neutral, performance-based agreements that result in a reduction in energy or water costs with such entities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate under which the entities shall carry out projects for energy or water conservation improvements at not more than 20,000 residential units in multifamily buildings participating in—

(1) the project-based rental assistance program under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), other than assistance provided under section 8(o) of that Act;

(2) the supportive housing for the elderly program under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q); or

(3) the supportive housing for persons with disabilities program under section 811(d)(2) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013(d)(2)).

(b) Requirements.—

(1) PAYMENTS CONTINGENT ON SAVINGS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide to an entity a payment under an agreement under this section only during applicable years for which an energy or water cost savings is achieved with respect to the applicable multifamily portfolio of properties, as determined by the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph (B).

(B) PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each agreement under this section shall include a pay-for-success provision—

(I) that will serve as a payment threshold for the term of the agreement; and

(II) pursuant to which the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall share a percentage of the savings at a level determined by the Secretary that is sufficient to cover the administrative costs of carrying out this section.

(ii) LIMITATIONS.—A payment made by the Secretary under an agreement under this section shall—

(I) be contingent on documented utility savings; and

(II) not exceed the utility savings achieved by the date of the payment, and not previously paid, as a result of the improvements made under the agreement.

(C) THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION.—Savings payments made by the Secretary under this section shall be based on a measurement and verification protocol that includes at least—

(i) establishment of a weather-normalized and occupancy-normalized utility consumption baseline established preretrofit;

(ii) annual third party confirmation of actual utility consumption and cost for owner-paid utilities;

(iii) annual third party validation of the tenant utility allowances in effect during the applicable year and vacancy rates for each unit type; and

(iv) annual third party determination of savings to the Secretary.

(2) TERM.—The term of an agreement under this section shall be not longer than 12 years.

(3) ENTITY ELIGIBILITY.—The Secretary shall—

(A) establish a competitive process for entering into agreements under this section; and

(B) enter into such agreements only with entities that demonstrate significant experience relating to—

(i) financing and operating properties receiving assistance under a program described in subsection (a);

(ii) oversight of energy and water conservation programs, including oversight of contractors; and

(iii) raising capital for energy and water conservation improvements from charitable organizations or private investors.

(4) GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY.—Each agreement entered into under this section shall provide for the inclusion of properties with the greatest feasible regional and State variance.

(c) Plan and Reports.—

(1) PLAN.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a detailed plan for the implementation of this section.

(2) REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall—

(A) conduct an evaluation of the program under this section; and

(B) submit to Congress a report describing each evaluation conducted under subparagraph (A).

(d) Funding.—For each fiscal year during which an agreement under this section is in effect, the Secretary may use to carry out this section any funds appropriated to the Secretary for the renewal of contracts under a program described in subsection (a).

(for himself,, and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 56, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. 5__X. PROHIBITION ON ENERGY TAX.

(a) Findings; Purposes.—

(1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(A) on June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum directing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue regulations relating to power sector carbon pollution standards for existing coal fired power plants;

(B) the issuance of that memorandum circumvents Congress and the will of the people of the United States;

(C) any action to control emissions of greenhouse gases from existing coal fired power plants in the United States by mandating a national energy tax would devastate major sectors of the economy, cost thousands of jobs, and increase energy costs for low-income households, small businesses, and seniors on fixed income;

(D) joblessness increases the likelihood of hospital visits, illnesses, and premature deaths;

(E) according to testimony on June 15, 2011, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate by Dr. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University, “The unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological studies performed since the early 1980s. In addition to influences on mental disorder, suicide and alcohol abuse and alcoholism, unemployment is also an important risk factor in cardiovascular disease and overall decreases in life expectancy.”;

(F) according to the National Center for Health Statistics, “children in poor families were four times as likely to be in fair or poor health as children that were not poor”;

(G) any major decision that would cost the economy of the United States millions of dollars and lead to serious negative health effects for the people of the United States should be debated and explicitly authorized by Congress, not approved by a Presidential memorandum or regulations; and

(H) any policy adopted by Congress should make United States energy as clean as practicable, as quickly as practicable, without increasing the cost of energy for struggling families, seniors, low-income households, and small businesses.

(2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are—

(A) to ensure that—

(i) a national energy tax is not imposed on the economy of the United States; and

(ii) struggling families, seniors, low-income households, and small businesses do not experience skyrocketing electricity bills and joblessness;

(B) to protect the people of the United States, particularly families, seniors, and children, from the serious negative health effects of joblessness;

(C) to allow sufficient time for Congress to develop and authorize an appropriate mechanism to address the energy needs of the United States and the potential challenges posed by severe weather; and

(D) to restore the legislative process and congressional authority over the energy policy of the United States.

(b) Presidential Memorandum.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the head of a Federal agency shall not promulgate any regulation relating to power sector carbon pollution standards or any substantially similar regulation on or after June 25, 2013, unless that regulation is explicitly authorized by an Act of Congress.

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 47, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

SEC. 4__XX. SOCIAL COST OF CARBON.

(a) In General.—Subject to subsection (b) and section 324B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, until the date the Secretary conducts an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and promulgates a proposed and final rule on the social cost of carbon, the Secretary and the heads of other Federal agencies shall not consider in any proceeding, regulation, decision, or action to implement this Act or an amendment made by this Act the social cost of carbon, as described in—

(1) the document entitled “Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866”, dated May 2013;

(2) the document entitled “Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866”, dated February 2010; or

(3) any other similar document.

(b) Effect on Regulations.—Subsection (a) shall not affect any final rule that has been published in the Federal Register before the date of enactment of this Act.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. CONDITIONING PROVISION OF PREMIUM AND COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT UPON CERTIFICATION THAT A PROGRAM TO VERIFY HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS FOR THOSE SUBSIDIES IS OPERATIONAL.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no premium tax credits shall be permitted under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and no reductions in cost-sharing shall be permitted under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071) prior to the date on which the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services certifies to Congress that there is in place a program that successfully and consistently verifies, consistent with section 1411 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18081), the household income and coverage requirements of individuals applying for such credits and cost-sharing reduction reductions.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 47, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

SEC. 4__X. GUIDELINES TO ENCOURAGE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO HELP REDUCE ENERGY USE AND COSTS.

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue to the head of each Federal agency guidelines to reduce energy costs at that Federal agency by requiring employees of the Federal agency to—

(1) turn off the lights in the work areas of the employees at the end of the work day; and

(2) turn off or unplugging other devices that consume energy during periods in which the employees are not in the office.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 48, after line 16, add the following:

SEC. 4__X. CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall certify that the amount of energy cost savings over a 10-year period as a result of each project or activity funded under this Act or an amendment made by this Act would equal or exceed the cost of the project or activity.

(b) Actual Energy Use.—On completion of a project or activity provided funds under this Act or an amendment made by this Act, the Secretary shall certify that, over a 10-year period, as a result of the project or activity—

(1) there was a reduction in actual energy use; and

(2) the energy cost savings exceeded the costs of the project or activity.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the beginning of title IV, insert the following:

SEC. 4__. EVALUATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE GREEN BUILDING PROGRAMS.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—The term “administrative expenses” has the meaning given the term by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under section 504(b)(2) of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (31 U.S.C. 1105 note; Public Law 111-85), except that the term shall include, for purposes of that section and this section, with respect to an agency—

(A) costs incurred by the agency and costs incurred by grantees, subgrantees, and other recipients of funds from a grant program or other program administered by the agency; and

(B) expenses related to personnel salaries and benefits, property management, travel, program management, promotion, reviews and audits, case management, and communication about, promotion of, and outreach for programs and program activities administered by the agency.

(2) APPLICABLE PROGRAMS.—The term “applicable programs” means the programs listed in Table 9 (pages 348-350) of the report of the Government Accountability Office entitled “2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue”.

(3) APPROPRIATE SECRETARIES.—The term “appropriate Secretaries” means—

(A) the Secretary;

(B) the Secretary of Agriculture;

(C) the Secretary of Defense;

(D) the Secretary of Education;

(E) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(F) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(G) the Secretary of Transportation;

(H) the Secretary of the Treasury;

(I) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(J) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and

(K) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

(4) SERVICES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), the term “services” has the meaning given the term by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(B) REQUIREMENTS.—The term “services” shall be limited to activities, assistance, and aid that provide a direct benefit to a recipient, such as—

(i) the provision of medical care;

(ii) assistance for housing or tuition; or

(iii) financial support (including grants and loans).

(b) Report.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than October 1, 2014, the appropriate Secretaries shall submit to Congress and post on the public Internet websites of the agencies of the appropriate Secretaries a report on the outcomes of the applicable programs.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In reporting on the outcomes of each applicable program, the appropriate Secretaries shall—

(A) determine the total administrative expenses of the applicable program;

(B) determine the expenditures for services for the applicable program;

(C) estimate the number of clients served by the applicable program and beneficiaries who received assistance under the applicable program (if applicable);

(D) estimate—

(i) the number of full-time employees who administer the applicable program; and

(ii) the number of full-time equivalents (whose salary is paid in part or full by the Federal Government through a grant or contract, a subaward of a grant or contract, a cooperative agreement, or another form of financial award or assistance) who assist in administering the applicable program;

(E) describe the type of assistance the applicable program provides, such as grants, technical assistance, loans, tax credits, or tax deductions;

(F) describe the type of recipient who benefits from the assistance provided, such as individual property owners or renters, local governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations, or State governments; and

(G) identify and report on whether written program goals are available for the applicable program.

(c) Program Recommendations.—Not later than January 1, 2015, the appropriate Secretaries shall jointly submit to Congress a report that includes—

(1) an analysis of whether any of the applicable programs should be eliminated or consolidated, including any legislative changes that would be necessary to eliminate or consolidate the applicable programs; and

(2) ways to improve the applicable programs by establishing program goals or increasing collaboration so as to reduce the overlap and duplication identified in—

(A) the 2011 report of the Government Accountability Office entitled “Federal Initiatives for the NonFederal Sector Could Benefit from More Interagency Collaboration”; and

(B) the report of the Government Accountability Office entitled “2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue”.

(d) Program Eliminations.—Not later than January 1, 2015, the appropriate Secretaries shall—

(1) identify—

(A) which applicable programs are specifically required by law; and

(B) which applicable programs are carried out under the discretionary authority of the appropriate Secretaries;

(2) eliminate those applicable programs that are not required by law; and

(3) transfer any remaining applicable projects and nonduplicative functions into another green building program within the same agency.

(for himself,, , , , , , , , , , , and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE __—HEALTH PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Fairness for American Families Act SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

This Subtitle may be cited as the “Fairness for American Families Act”.

SEC. __02. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.

(a) In General.—Section 5000A(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking “2013” and inserting “2014”.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Section 5000A(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(A) by striking “2014” in clause (i) and inserting “2015”, and

(B) by striking “2015” in clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting “2016”.

(2) Section 5000A(c)(3)(B) of such Code is amended—

(A) by striking “2014” and inserting “2015”, and

(B) by striking “2015” (prior to amendment by subparagraph (A)) and inserting “2016”.

(3) Section 5000A(c)(3)(D) of such Code is amended—

(A) by striking “2016” and inserting “2017”, and

(B) by striking “2015” and inserting “2016”.

(4) Section 5000A(e)(1)(D) of such Code is amended—

(A) by striking “2014” and inserting “2015”, and

(B) by striking “2013” and inserting “2014”.

(c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Subtitle B—Authority for Mandate Delay Act SEC. __11. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the “Authority for Mandate Delay Act”.

SEC. __12. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.

(a) In General.—Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking “December 31, 2013” and inserting “December 31, 2014”.

(b) Reporting Requirements.—

(1) REPORTING BY EMPLOYERS.—Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking “December 31, 2013” and inserting “December 31, 2014”.

(2) REPORTING BY INSURANCE PROVIDERS.—Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking “2013” and inserting “2014”.

(c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. 4__X. ELIMINATION OF TAX CREDIT FOR MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED THROUGH AN ENERGY AND CARBON-INTENSIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESS.

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other law, the tax credit provided under section 30D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not be allowed for any motor vehicle if the total amount of carbon dioxide generated through the manufacturing process for such vehicle is greater than 25,000 pounds.

(b) Revenue.—Any increase in revenue as a result of limitation described in subsection (a) shall be made available to offset the cost of any energy efficiency upgrades made to hospitals, schools, nursing homes, and daycare facilities.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 33, strike line 13 and all that follows through page 36, line 21.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 48, after line 16, add the following:

SEC. 4__. STUDY AND REPORT ON TAXPAYER-ASSISTED COMPANIES THAT HAVE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall—

(1) conduct a study to determine the total number of companies that—

(A) received funds from a grant, loan, or loan guarantee of the Department of Energy or any other Federal agency or program under—

(i) section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16513); or

(ii) section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16516); and

(B) filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 or 11 of title 11, United States Code, within 5 years after the date of receipt of the Federal loan, grant, or loan guarantee; and

(2) submit to Congress a report that includes the results of the study described in paragraph (1).

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 48, after line 16, add the following:

SEC. 4__. CONSOLIDATION OF ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.

(a) Consolidation of Energy Star Program.—

(1) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to the Energy Star program established under section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a) is terminated.

(2) TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.—There are transferred to the Secretary of Energy all functions that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was authorized to exercise with respect to the Energy Star program on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

(3) REDUCTION IN FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

(A) of the amounts made available for the Energy Star program that remain unobligated as of the date of enactment of this Act, 20 percent shall be rescinded; and

(B) of the amounts rescinded under subparagraph (A), 10 percent shall be transferred to the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Energy.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—Section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking “and the Environmental Protection Agency”;

(2) by striking subsection (b);

(3) in subsection (c)—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “Administrator and the”; and

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking “Agency or”; and

(4) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. LIMITATION ON SUBSIDIES FOR INDIVIDUALS IN TAFT-HARTLEY PLANS.

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no premium tax credits shall be permitted under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and no reductions in cost-sharing shall be permitted under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071) with respect to an individual for health insurance coverage provided pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement involving one or more employers.

(b) Qualified Plans.—Section 1301(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18021(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(5) TAFT-HARTLEY PLANS.—The term ‘qualified health plan’ shall not include health insurance coverage provided pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement involving one or more employers.”.

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 303 and insert the following:

SEC. 303. FEDERAL DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION INITIATIVE.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term “Administrator” means the Administrator for the Office of E-Government and Information Technology within the Office of Management and Budget.

(2) FDCCI.—The term “FDCCI” means the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative described in the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum on the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative, dated February 26, 2010, or any successor thereto.

(b) Federal Data Center Consolidation Inventories and Plans.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—

(A) ANNUAL REPORTING.—Each year, beginning in the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act and for each of the 4 fiscal years thereafter, the head of each agency that is described in subparagraph (D), assisted by the Chief Information Officer of the agency, shall submit to the Administrator—

(i) a comprehensive asset inventory of the data centers owned, operated, or maintained by or on behalf of the agency, including average server utilization, even if the center is administered by a third party; and

(ii) a multi-year plan to achieve the optimization and consolidation of agency data center assets, that includes—

(I) performance metrics—

(aa) that are consistent with performance metrics established by the Administrator under subparagraphs (C) and (G) of paragraph (2); and

(bb) by which the quantitative and qualitative progress of the agency toward data center consolidation goals can be measured;

(II) a timeline for agency activities completed under the FDCCI, with an emphasis on benchmarks the agency can achieve by specific dates;

(III) an aggregation of year-by-year investment and cost savings calculations for the 5-fiscal-year period past the date of submission to the Administrator, broken down by each year, including a description of any initial costs for data center consolidation and life cycle cost savings, with an emphasis on—

(aa) meeting the Government-wide performance metrics described in subparagraphs (C) and (G) of paragraph (2); and

(bb) demonstrating agency-specific savings each fiscal year achieved through the FDCCI; and

(IV) any additional information required by the Administrator.

(B) USE OF EXISTING REPORTING STRUCTURES.—The Administrator may require agencies described in subparagraph (D) to submit any information required to be submitted under this subsection through reporting structures in use as of the date of enactment of this Act.

(C) CERTIFICATION.—Each year, beginning in the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act and for each of the 4 fiscal years thereafter, acting through the chief information officer of the agency, shall submit a statement to the Administrator certifying that the agency has complied with the requirements of this Act.

(D) AGENCIES DESCRIBED.—The agencies (including all associated components of the agency) described in this paragraph are the—

(i) Department of Agriculture;

(ii) Department of Commerce;

(iii) Department of Defense;

(iv) Department of Education;

(v) Department of Energy;

(vi) Department of Health and Human Services;

(vii) Department of Homeland Security;

(viii) Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(ix) Department of the Interior;

(x) Department of Justice;

(xi) Department of Labor;

(xii) Department of State;

(xiii) Department of Transportation;

(xiv) Department of Treasury;

(xv) Department of Veterans Affairs;

(xvi) Environmental Protection Agency;

(xvii) General Services Administration;

(xviii) National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

(xix) National Science Foundation;

(xx) Nuclear Regulatory Commission;

(xxi) Office of Personnel Management;

(xxii) Small Business Administration;

(xxiii) Social Security Administration; and

(xxiv) United States Agency for International Development.

(E) AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS.—Each agency described in subparagraph (D), under the direction of the Chief Information Officer of the agency shall—

(i) implement the consolidation plan required under subparagraph (A)(ii); and

(ii) provide updates to the Administrator, on a quarterly basis, of —

(I) the completion of activities by the agency under the FDCCI;

(II) any progress of the agency towards meeting the Government-wide data center performance metrics described in subparagraphs (C) and (G) of paragraph (2); and

(III) the actual cost savings realized through the implementation of the FDCCI.

(F) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the reporting of information by any agency described in subparagraph (F) to the Administrator, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or to Congress.

(2) ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Administrator shall—

(A) establish the deadline, on an annual basis, for agencies to submit information under this section;

(B) establish a list of requirements that the agencies must meet to be considered in compliance with paragraph (1);

(C) ensure that each certification submitted under paragraph (1)(C) and information relating to agency progress towards meeting the Government-wide total cost of ownership optimization and consolidation metrics is made available in a timely manner to the general public;

(D) review the plans submitted under paragraph (1) to determine whether each plan is comprehensive and complete;

(E) monitor the implementation of the data center plan of each agency described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii);

(F) update, on an annual basis, the cumulative cost savings realized through the implementation of the agency plans; and

(G) establish Government-wide data center total cost of ownership optimization and consolidation metrics.

(3) COST SAVING GOAL AND UPDATES FOR CONGRESS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop and publish a goal for the total amount of planned cost savings by the Federal Government through the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, which shall include a breakdown on a year-by-year basis of the projected savings.

(B) ANNUAL UPDATE.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which the goal described in subparagraph (A) is determined and each year thereafter until the end of 2018, the Administrator shall aggregate the savings achieved to date, by each relevant agency, through the FDCCI as compared to the projected savings developed under subparagraph (A) (based on data collected from each affected agency under paragraph (1)).

(ii) UPDATE FOR CONGRESS.—The report required under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted to Congress and shall include an update on the progress made by each agency described in subsection paragraph (1)(E) on—

(I) whether each agency has in fact submitted a comprehensive asset inventory, including an assessment broken down by agency, which shall include the specific numbers, utilization, and efficiency level of data centers; and

(II) whether each agency has submitted a comprehensive consolidation plan with the key elements described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii).

(iii) REQUEST FOR REPORTS.—Upon request from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate or the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the head of an agency described in paragraph (1)(E) or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to the requesting committee any report or information submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for the purpose of preparing a report required under clause (i) or an updated progress report required under clause (ii).

(4) GAO REVIEW.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—During the 5-fiscal-year period following the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall review the quality and completeness of each agency’s asset inventor and plans required under paragraph (1)(A).

(B) REPORT.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall, on an annual basis during the 5-fiscal-year period following the date of enactment of this Act, publish a report on each review conducted under subparagraph (A) of an agency during the fiscal year for which the report is published.

(c) Ensuring Cybersecurity Standards for Data Center Consolidation and Cloud Computing.—An agency required to implement a data center consolidation plan under this Act and migrate to cloud computing shall do so in a manner that is consistent with Federal guidelines on cloud computing security, including—

(1) applicable provisions found within the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP); and

(2) guidance published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

(d) Classified Information.—The Director of National Intelligence may waive the requirements of this Act for any element (or component of an element) of the intelligence community.

(e) Sunset.—This section is repealed effective on October 1, 2018.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 48, after line 16, add the following:

SEC. 4__X. STUDY ON BENEFITS OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE.

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of—

(1) the quantified energy savings and quantified nonenergy benefits of achieving full compliance with national model building energy codes (including any additional energy savings) if all new commercial building construction—

(A) meets national model building energy codes;

(B) exceeds national model codes by 30 percent; and

(C) exceeds national model codes by 50 percent; and

(2) the quantified energy saving and quantified nonenergy benefits realized from conducting comprehensive or deep retrofits in existing commercial buildings, including the effect that expanding the retrofit program would have with respect to—

(A) the United States as a whole; and

(B) 2 States selected for study.

(b) Requirements.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out studies under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(A) include in nonenergy benefits improved health of building occupants and the general population, and greater office productivity that may be achieved from the adoption of national model building energy codes; and

(B) for each of the scenarios described in subsection (a)(1), calculate the societal return on investment from full implementation of national model building energy codes, with and without nonenergy benefits.

(2) DEADLINE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the studies required under subsection (a).

(for himself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 47, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

SEC. 4__. VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR AIR CONDITIONING, FURNACE, BOILER, HEAT PUMP, AND WATER HEATER PRODUCTS.

Section 326(b) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6296(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(6) VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR AIR CONDITIONING, FURNACE, BOILER, HEAT PUMP, AND WATER HEATER PRODUCTS.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of receiving reports from manufacturers certifying compliance with energy conservation standards and Energy Star specifications established under sections 324A, 325, and 342 for covered products described in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (9), and (11) of section 322(a) and covered equipment described in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (F), (I), (J), and (K) of section 340(1), and for the purpose of routine testing to verify the product ratings of the covered products and equipment, the Secretary and Administrator shall rely on voluntary certification programs that—

“(i) are nationally recognized;

“(ii) maintain a publicly available list of all certified models;

“(iii)(I) unless the Secretary allows the verification testing of fewer product families, annually test at least 20 percent of product families to verify the product ratings of the product families; and

“(II) provide to the Secretary a list of product families whose product ratings are to be verified to allow the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, to identify any additional models as priorities for verification testing;

“(iv) require the changing of product ratings or removal of products from the program to reflect verified test ratings for products that are determined to have ratings that do not meet the levels the manufacturer has certified to the Secretary;

“(v) require the qualification of new participants in the program through testing and production of test reports;

“(vi) allow for challenge testing of products covered within the scope of the program;

“(vii) require program participants to certify all products within the scope of the program;

“(viii) are conducted by a certification body that is accredited under International Organization for Standardization/ International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Standard 17065;

“(ix) provide to the Secretary—

“(I) an annual report of all test results;

“(II) prompt notification when program testing results in rerating of product performance or delisting of a product; and

“(III) test reports on the request of the Secretary;

“(x) use verification testing that—

“(I) is conducted by an independent third-party test laboratory that is accredited under International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Standard 17025 with a scope covering the tested products;

“(II) follows the test procedures established under this title; and

“(III) notes in each test report any instructions specified by the manufacturer or the representative of the manufacturer for the purpose of conducting the verification testing; and

“(xi) satisfy such other requirements as the Secretary has determined—

“(I) are essential to ensure standards compliance; or

“(II) have consensus support achieved through a negotiated rulemaking process.

“(B) ADMINISTRATION.—

“(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall not require—

“(I) manufacturers to participate in a voluntary certification program described in subparagraph (A); or

“(II) participating manufacturers to provide information that can be obtained through a voluntary certification program described in subparagraph (A).

“(ii) REDUCTION OF REQUIREMENTS.—Any rules promulgated by the Secretary that require testing of products for verification of product ratings shall reduce requirements and burdens for manufacturers participating in a voluntary certification program described in subparagraph (A) for the products relative to other manufacturers.

“(iii) PERIODIC TESTING BY PROGRAM NONPARTICIPANTS.—In addition to certification requirements, the Secretary shall require a manufacturer that does not participate in a voluntary certification program described in subparagraph (A)—

“(I) to verify the accuracy of the product ratings of the manufacturer through periodic testing using verification testing described in subparagraph (A)(x); and

“(II) to provide to the Secretary test results and, on request, test reports verifying the certified performance for each product family of the manufacturer.

“(iv) RESTRICTIONS ON TEST LABORATORIES.—

“(I) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subclause (II), with respect to covered products and equipment, a voluntary certification program described in subparagraph (A) shall not be a test laboratory that conducts the testing on products covered within the scope of the program.

“(II) LIMITATION.—Subclause (I) shall not apply to Energy Star specifications established under section 324A.

“(v) EFFECT ON OTHER AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this paragraph limits the authority of the Secretary to test products or to enforce compliance with any law (including regulations).”.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE V—ENERGY FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY SEC. 501. REFERENCE TO 1986 CODE.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Subtitle A—Repeal of Energy Tax Subsidies SEC. 511. REPEAL OF CREDIT FOR ALCOHOL FUEL, BIODIESEL, AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURES.

(a) In General.—Section 6426 is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Paragraph (1) of section 4101(a) is amended by striking “or alcohol (as defined in section 6426(b)(4)(A)”.

(2) Paragraph (2) of section 4104(a) is amended by striking “6426, or 6427(e)”.

(3) Section 6427 is amended by striking subsection (e).

(4) Subparagraph (E) of section 7704(d)(1) is amended—

(A) by inserting “(as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013)” after “of section 6426”, and

(B) by inserting “(as so in effect)” after “section 6426(b)(4)(A)”.

(5) Paragraph (1) of section 9503(b) is amended by striking the second sentence.

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 is amended by striking the item relating to section 6426.

(d) Effective.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to fuel sold and used after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) LIQUEFIED HYDROGEN.—In the case of any alternative fuel or alternative fuel mixture (as defined in subsection (d)(2) or (e)(3) of section 6426 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect before its repeal by this Act) involving liquefied hydrogen, the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to fuel sold and used after September 30, 2014.

SEC. 512. EARLY TERMINATION OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED FUEL CELL MOTOR VEHICLES.

(a) In General.—Section 30B is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 24(b)(3) is amended by striking “, 30B”.

(2) Paragraph (2) of section 25B(g) is amended by striking “, 30B,”.

(3) Subsection (b) of section 38 is amended by striking paragraph (25).

(4) Subsection (a) of section 1016 is amended by striking paragraph (35) and by redesignating paragraphs (36) and (37) as paragraphs (35) and (36), respectively.

(5) Subsection (m) of section 6501 is amended by striking “, 30B(h)(9)”.

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 30B.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2014.

SEC. 513. EARLY TERMINATION OF NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES.

(a) In General.—Section 30D is repealed.

(b) Effective Date.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to vehicles placed in service after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 514. REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY CREDIT.

(a) In General.—Section 30C is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Subsection (b) of section 38 is amended by striking paragraph (26).

(2) Paragraph (3) of section 55(c) is amended by striking “, 30C(d)(2),”.

(3) Subsection (a) of section 1016, as amended by section 102 of this Act, is amended by striking paragraph (35) and by redesignating paragraph (36) as paragraph (35).

(4) Subsection (m) of section 6501 is amended by striking “, 30C(e)(5)”.

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 30C.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 515. REPEAL OF CREDIT FOR ALCOHOL USED AS FUEL.

(a) In General.—Section 40 is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Subsection (b) of section 38 is amended by striking paragraph (3).

(2) Subsection (c) of section 196 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (14) as paragraphs (3) through (13), respectively.

(3) Paragraph (1) of section 4101(a) is amended by striking “, and every person producing cellulosic biofuel (as defined in section 40(b)(6)(E))”.

(4) Paragraph (1) of section 4104(a) is amended by striking “, 40”.

(c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to fuel sold or used after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 516. REPEAL OF CREDIT FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL USED AS FUEL.

(a) In General.—Section 40A is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendment.—

(1) Subsection (b) of section 38 is amended by striking paragraph (17).

(2) Section 87 is repealed.

(3) Subsection (c) of section 196, as amended by section 105 of this Act, is amended by striking paragraph (11) and by redesignating paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as paragraphs (10), (11), and (12), respectively.

(4) Paragraph (1) of section 4101(a) is amended by striking “, every person producing or importing biodiesel (as defined in section 40A(d)(1)”.

(5) Paragraph (1) of section 4104(a) is amended by striking “, and 40A”.

(6) Subparagraph (E) of section 7704(d)(1) is amended by inserting “(as so in effect)” after “section 40A(d)(1)”.

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 40A.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to fuel produced, and sold or used, after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 517. REPEAL OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY CREDIT.

(a) In General.—Section 43 is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Subsection (b) of section 38 is amended by striking paragraph (6).

(2) Paragraph (4) of section 45Q(d) is amended by inserting “(as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013)” after “section 43(c)(2)”.

(3) Subsection (c) of section 196, as amended by sections 105 and 106 of this Act, is amended by striking paragraph (5) and by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (12) as paragraphs (5) through (11), respectively.

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 43.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to costs paid or incurred after December 31, 2014.

SEC. 518. TERMINATION OF CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES.

(a) Wind.—Subsection (d) of section 45 is amended by striking “January 1, 2014” in paragraph (1) and inserting “the date of the enactment of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013”.

(b) Indian Coal.—Subparagraph (A) of section 45(e)(10) is amended by striking “8-year period” each place it appears and inserting “7-year period”.

(c) Effective Date.—

(1) WIND.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) INDIAN COAL.—The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to coal produced after December 31, 2012.

(3) OTHER QUALIFIED ENERGY RESOURCES.—For termination of other qualified energy resources for property placed in service after December 31, 2013, see section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 519. REPEAL OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING OIL AND GAS FROM MARGINAL WELLS.

(a) In General.—Section 45I is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendment.—Subsection (b) of section 38 is amended by striking paragraph (19).

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 45I.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to production in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.

SEC. 520. TERMINATION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION FROM ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES.

(a) In General.—Subparagraph (B) of section 45J(d)(1) is amended by striking “January 1, 2021” and inserting “January 1, 2015”.

(b) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2014.

SEC. 521. REPEAL OF CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION.

(a) In General.—Section 45Q is repealed.

(b) Effective Date.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to carbon dioxide captured after December 31, 2014.

SEC. 522. TERMINATION OF ENERGY CREDIT.

(a) In General.—Section 48 is amended—

(1) by striking “January 1, 2017” each place it appears and inserting “January 1, 2015”, and

(2) by striking “December 31, 2016” each place it appears and inserting “December 31, 2014”.

(b) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2014.

SEC. 523. REPEAL OF QUALIFYING ADVANCED COAL PROJECT.

(a) In General.—Section 48A is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendment.—Section 46 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively.

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 48A.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2014.

SEC. 524. REPEAL OF QUALIFYING GASIFICATION PROJECT CREDIT.

(a) In General.—Section 48B is repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendment.—Section 46, as amended by this Act, is amended by striking paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 48B.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2014.

Subtitle B—Reduction of Corporate Income Tax Rate SEC. 531. CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE REDUCED.

(a) In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe a rate of tax in lieu of the rates under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 11(b), section 1201(a), and paragraphs (1), (2), and (6) of section 1445(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to such a flat rate as the Secretary estimates would result in—

(1) a decrease in revenue to the Treasury for taxable years beginning during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, equal to

(2) the increase in revenue for such taxable years by reason of the amendments made by title I of this Act.

(b) Effective Date.—The rate prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(for himself,, , , , , , and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 47, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

SEC. 4__. QUADRENNIAL ENERGY REVIEW.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—

(1) the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommends that the United States develop a Government wide Federal energy policy and update the policy regularly with strategic Quadrennial Energy Reviews similar to the reviews conducted by the Department of Defense;

(2) as the lead agency in support of energy science and technology innovation, the Department of Energy has conducted a Quadrennial Technology Review of the energy technology policies and programs of the Department;

(3) the Quadrennial Technology Review of the Department of Energy serves as the basis for coordination with other agencies and on other programs for which the Department has a key role;

(4) a Quadrennial Energy Review would—

(A) establish integrated, Government wide national energy objectives in the context of economic, environmental, and security priorities;

(B) coordinate actions across Federal agencies;

(C) identify the resources needed for the invention, adoption, and diffusion of energy technologies; and

(D) provide a strong analytical base for Federal energy policy decisions;

(5) a Quadrennial Energy Review should be established taking into account estimated Federal budgetary resources;

(6) the development of an energy policy resulting from a Quadrennial Energy Review would—

(A) enhance the energy security of the United States;

(B) create jobs; and

(C) mitigate environmental harm; and

(7) while a Quadrennial Energy Review will be a product of the executive branch, the review will have substantial input from—

(A) Congress;

(B) the energy industry;

(C) academia;

(D) nongovernmental organizations; and

(E) the public.

(b) Quadrennial Energy Review.—Section 801 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7321) is amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 801. QUADRENNIAL ENERGY REVIEW.

“(a) Definitions.—In this section:

“(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘Director’ means the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President.

“(2) FEDERAL LABORATORY.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘Federal Laboratory’ has the meaning given the term ‘laboratory’ in section 12(d) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)).

“(B) INCLUSION.—The term ‘Federal Laboratory’ includes a federally funded research and development center sponsored by a Federal agency.

“(3) INTERAGENCY ENERGY COORDINATION COUNCIL.—The term ‘interagency energy coordination council’ means a council established under subsection (b)(1).

“(4) QUADRENNIAL ENERGY REVIEW.—The term ‘Quadrennial Energy Review’ means a comprehensive multiyear review, coordinated across Federal agencies, that—

“(A) focuses on energy programs and technologies;

“(B) establishes energy objectives across the Federal Government; and

“(C) covers each of the areas described in subsection (d)(2).

“(b) Interagency Energy Coordination Council.—

“(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013, and every 4 years thereafter, the President shall establish an interagency energy coordination council to coordinate the Quadrennial Energy Review.

“(2) CO-CHAIRPERSONS.—The appropriate senior Federal Government official designated by the President and the Director shall be co-chairpersons of the interagency energy coordination council.

“(3) MEMBERSHIP.—The interagency energy coordination council shall be comprised of representatives at level I or II of the Executive Schedule of—

“(A) the Department of Energy;

“(B) the Department of Commerce;

“(C) the Department of Defense;

“(D) the Department of State;

“(E) the Department of the Interior;

“(F) the Department of Agriculture;

“(G) the Department of the Treasury;

“(H) the Department of Transportation;

“(I) the Office of Management and Budget;

“(J) the National Science Foundation;

“(K) the Environmental Protection Agency; and

“(L) such other Federal organizations, departments, and agencies that the President considers to be appropriate.

“(c) Conduct of Review.—Each Quadrennial Energy Review shall be conducted to provide an integrated view of important national energy objectives and Federal energy policy, including the maximum practicable alignment of research programs, incentives, regulations, and partnerships.

“(d) Submission of Quadrennial Energy Review to Congress.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than August 1, 2015, and every 4 years thereafter, the President shall publish and submit to Congress a report on the Quadrennial Energy Review.

“(2) INCLUSIONS.—The report described in paragraph (1) should include, as appropriate—

“(A) an integrated view of short-, intermediate-, and long-term objectives for Federal energy policy in the context of economic, environmental, and security priorities;

“(B) anticipated Federal actions (including programmatic, regulatory, and fiscal actions) and resource requirements—

“(i) to achieve the objectives described in subparagraph (A); and

“(ii) to be coordinated across multiple agencies;

“(C) an analysis of the prospective roles of parties (including academia, industry, consumers, the public, and Federal agencies) in achieving the objectives described in subparagraph (A), including—

“(i) an analysis, by energy use sector, including—

“(I) commercial and residential buildings;

“(II) the industrial sector;

“(III) transportation; and

“(IV) electric power;

“(ii) requirements for invention, adoption, development, and diffusion of energy technologies that are mapped onto each of the energy use sectors; and

“(iii) other research that inform strategies to incentivize desired actions;

“(D) an assessment of policy options to increase domestic energy supplies and energy efficiency;

“(E) an evaluation of energy storage, transmission, and distribution requirements, including requirements for renewable energy;

“(F) an integrated plan for the involvement of the Federal Laboratories in energy programs;

“(G) portfolio assessments that describe the optimal deployment of resources, including prioritizing financial resources for energy programs;

“(H) a mapping of the linkages among basic research and applied programs, demonstration programs, and other innovation mechanisms across the Federal agencies;

“(I) an identification of, and projections for, demonstration projects, including timeframes, milestones, sources of funding, and management;

“(J) an identification of public and private funding needs for various energy technologies, systems, and infrastructure, including consideration of public-private partnerships, loans, and loan guarantees;

“(K) an assessment of global competitors and an identification of programs that can be enhanced with international cooperation;

“(L) an identification of policy gaps that need to be filled to accelerate the adoption and diffusion of energy technologies, including consideration of—

“(i) Federal tax policies; and

“(ii) the role of Federal agencies as early adopters and purchasers of new energy technologies;

“(M) a priority list for implementation of objectives and actions taking into account estimated Federal budgetary resources;

“(N) an analysis of—

“(i) points of maximum leverage for policy intervention to achieve outcomes; and

“(ii) areas of energy policy that can be most effective in meeting national goals for the energy sector; and

“(O) recommendations for executive branch organization changes to facilitate the development and implementation of Federal energy policies.

“(e) Interim Reports.—The President may prepare and publish interim reports as part of the Quadrennial Energy Review.

“(f) Executive Secretariat.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall provide the Quadrennial Energy Review with an Executive Secretariat who shall make available the necessary analytical, financial, and administrative support for the conduct of each Quadrennial Energy Review required under this section.

“(2) COOPERATION.—The heads of applicable Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary and provide such assistance, information, and resources as the Secretary may require to assist in carrying out this section.”.

(c) Administration.—Nothing in this section or an amendment made by this section supersedes, modifies, amends, or repeals any provision of Federal law not expressly superseded, modified, amended, or repealed by this section.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 47, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

SEC. 4__XXX. SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE RULE.

(a) Definitions.—In this subsection:

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) FARM.—The term “farm” has the meaning given the term in section 112.2 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations )).

(3) SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE RULE.—The term “Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule” means the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule, including amendments to that rule, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under part 112 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act).

(b) Restrictions on Enforcement.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall not enforce with respect to any farm the Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule for any violation of that rule that occurs during the period beginning on the date of enactment of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6) and ending on September 30, 2013.

(2) RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2014.—Beginning on October 1, 2013, the Administrator shall not enforce with respect to any farm the Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule in any State until the date on which the Administrator has offered to brief each agriculture group and crop growing association in that State on that rule.

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 47, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

SEC. 4__X. LEAD-BASED PAINT ACTIVITIES TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION.

Section 402(c) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

“(2) STUDY OF CERTIFICATION.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year prior to proposing any renovation and remodeling regulation after the date of enactment of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013, the Administrator shall conduct, submit to Congress, and make available for public comment (after peer review) the results of, a study of the extent to which persons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling activities in target housing, Federal and public buildings constructed before 1978, or commercial buildings—

“(i) are exposed to lead in the conduct of such activities; and

“(ii) disturb lead and create a lead-based paint hazard on a regular or occasional basis in the conduct of such activities.

“(B) SCOPE AND COVERAGE.—The study conducted under subparagraph (A) shall consider the risks described in clauses (i) and (ii) of that subparagraph with respect to each separate building type described in that subparagraph, as the regulation to be proposed would apply to each building type.”.

“(C) CONSULTATION.—The Administrator shall consult with Federal, other Governmental, non-profit and private sector owners and managers of residential and commercial buildings as it conducts the study under subparagraph (A).”

submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 48, after line 16, add the following:

SEC. 4__. STATE OPTION OF NON-PARTICIPATION IN RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD.

Section 211(o)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(vi) ELECTION OF NON-PARTICIPATION BY STATE GOVERNMENT.—

“(I) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable volume of renewable fuel as determined under this subparagraph shall be adjusted in accordance with this clause.

“(II) REQUIREMENTS.—On passage by a State legislature and signature by the Governor of the State of a law that elects to not participate in the applicable volume of renewable fuel in accordance with this clause, the Administrator shall allow a State to not participate in the applicable volume of renewable fuel determined under clause (i).

“(III) REDUCTION.—On the election of a State under subclause (II), the Administrator shall reduce the applicable volume of renewable fuel determined under clause (i) by the percentage that reflects the national gasoline consumption of the non-participating State that is attributable to that State.

“(IV) CREDITS TO HOLD FUEL SALES HARMLESS.—On the election of a State under subclause (II), the Administrator shall provide for the generation of credits for all gasoline (regardless of whether the gasoline is blended) provided through a fuel terminal in the State to be calculated as though the gasoline were blended with the maximum allowable ethanol content of gasoline allowed in that State to apply toward the applicable volume of renewable fuel determined under clause (i).”.

(for herself and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 36, after line 21, add the following:

SEC. 21X. THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION UNDER ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.

Section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(e) Third-party Certification.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall revise the certification requirements for the labeling of consumer, home, and office electronic products for program partners that have complied with all requirements of the Energy Star program for a period of at least 18 months.

“(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In the case of a program partner described in paragraph (1), the new requirements under paragraph (1)—

“(A) shall not require third-party certification for a product to be listed; but

“(B) may require that test data and other product information be submitted to facilitate product listing and performance verification for a sample of products.

“(3) THIRD PARTIES.—Nothing in this subsection prevents the Administrator from using third parties in the course of the administration of the Energy Star program.

“(4) TERMINATION.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), an exemption from third-party certification provided to a program partner under paragraph (1) shall terminate if the program partner is found to have violated program requirements with respect to at least 2 separate models during a 2-year period.

“(B) RESUMPTION.—A termination for a program partner under subparagraph (A) shall cease if the program partner complies with all Energy Star program requirements for a period of at least 3 years.”.

(for herself,, and ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill , to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of title III, add following:

SEC. 304. FEDERAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

Section 305(a)(3)(D) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834(a)(3)(D)) is amended—

(1) in clause (i), by striking subclause (III) and inserting the following:

“(III) SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PRINCIPLES.—

“(aa) IN GENERAL.—Sustainable design principles shall be applied to the siting, design, and construction of buildings covered by this clause.

“(bb) SELECTION OF CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS.—The Secretary, after reviewing the findings of the Federal Director under section 436(h) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17092(h)), in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense relating to those facilities under the custody and control of the Department of Defense, shall determine those certification systems for green commercial and residential buildings that the Secretary determines to be the most likely to encourage a comprehensive and environmentally sound approach to certification of green buildings.

“(cc) BASIS FOR SELECTION.—The determination of the certification systems shall be based on ongoing review of the findings of the Federal Director under section 436(h) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17092(h)) and the criteria described in clause (iii).

“(dd) ADMINISTRATION.—In determining certification systems under this subclause, the Secretary shall—

“(AA) make a separate determination for all or part of each system;

“(BB) confirm that the criteria used to support the selection of building products, materials, brands, and technologies are fair and neutral (meaning that such criteria are based on an objective assessment of relevant technical data), do not prohibit, disfavor, or discriminate against selection based on technically inadequate information to inform human or environmental risk, and are expressed to prefer performance measures whenever performance measures may reasonably be used in lieu of prescriptive measures; and

“(CC) use environmental and health criteria that are based on risk assessment methodology that is generally accepted by the applicable scientific disciplines.”;

(2) in clause (iii), by striking “identifying the green building certification system and level” and inserting “determining the green building certification systems”;

(3) by redesignating clauses (vi) and (vii) as clauses (vii) and (viii), respectively;

(4) by striking clauses (iv) and (v) and inserting the following:

“(iv) REVIEW.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services and the Secretary of Defense, shall conduct an ongoing review to evaluate and compare private sector green building certification systems, taking into account—

“(I) the criteria described in clause (iii); and

“(II) the identification made by the Federal Director under section 436(h) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17092(h)).

“(v) EXCLUSIONS.—

“(I) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subclause (II), if a certification system fails to meet the review requirements of clause (i)(III), the Secretary shall—

“(aa) identify the portions of the system, whether prerequisites, credits, points, or otherwise, that meet the review criteria of clause (i)(III);

“(bb) determine the portions of the system that are suitable for use; and

“(cc) exclude all other portions of the system from identification and use.

“(II) ENTIRE SYSTEMS.—The Secretary shall exclude an entire system from use if an exclusion under subclause (I)—

“(aa) impedes the integrated use of the system;

“(bb) creates disparate review criteria or unequal point access for competing materials; or

“(cc) increases agency costs of the use.

“(vi) INTERNAL CERTIFICATION PROCESSES.—The Secretary may by rule allow Federal agencies to develop internal certification processes, using certified professionals, in lieu of certification by certification entities identified under clause (i)(III).”; and

(5) by adding at the end the following:

“(ix) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

“(I) DETERMINATIONS MADE AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2015.—The amendments made by section 405 of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013 shall apply to any determination made by a Federal agency after December 31, 2015.

“(II) DETERMINATIONS MADE ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2015.—This subparagraph (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013) shall apply to any use of a certification system for green commercial and residential buildings by a Federal agency on or before December 31, 2015.”.

SEC. 305. HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

Section 436(h) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17092(h)) is amended—

(1) in the subsection heading, by striking “System” and inserting “Systems”;

(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Based on an ongoing review, the Federal Director shall identify and shall provide to the Secretary pursuant to section 305(a)(3)(D) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834(a)(3)(D)), a list of those certification systems that the Director identifies as the most likely to encourage a comprehensive and environmentally sound approach to certification of green buildings.”; and

(3) in paragraph (2)—

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking “system” and inserting “systems”;

(B) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:

“(A) an ongoing review provided to the Secretary pursuant to section 305(a)(3)(D) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834(a)(3)(D)), which shall—

“(i) be carried out by the Federal Director to compare and evaluate standards; and

“(ii) allow any developer or administrator of a rating system or certification system to be included in the review;”;

(C) in subparagraph (E)(v), by striking “and” after the semicolon at the end;

(D) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(E) by adding at the end the following:

“(G) a finding that, for all credits addressing grown, harvested, or mined materials, the system does not discriminate against the use of domestic products that have obtained certifications of responsible sourcing; and

“(H) a finding that the system incorporates life-cycle assessment as a credit pathway.”.

Page: S6394

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, September 17, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider a committee funding resolution for the period October 1, 2013, through February 28, 2015. In addition,

I would like to announce that immediately following the business meeting the Committee will hold a hearing to consider the nominations of Mr. Ronald J. Binz to be a Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Ms. Elizabeth M. Robinson to be Under Secretary of Energy, and Mr. Michael L. Connor to be Deputy Secretary of Interior.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC, 20510-6150, or by email to Abigail <Campbell@energy.senateÐ.gov.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Page: S6395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled “The Department of Homeland Security at 10 Years: Examining Challenges and Achievements and Addressing Emerging Threats.”

{{The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 11, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled “Judiciary Nominations.”

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S6395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sergio Aguirre, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during morning business today, September 11, 2013.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Donnie Turner, have privileges of the floor for the balance of the day.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Reed, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the consideration of.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amitai Bin-Nun, a fellow in the office of Senator Coons, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

National Save for Retirement Week
Page: S6395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to.

The clerk will report the resolution by title.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

{{C113crb-s|Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

{{The PRESIDING OFFICER}} Without objection, it is so ordered.

{{action|The resolution (S. Res. 222) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today’s Record under “Submitted Resolutions.”)}}

Energy Efficiency
Page: S6395

Mr. President, I commend the managers of the energy efficiency bill, Senator Wyden, chairman of the full committee, Senator Murkowski, the ranking member, and the sponsors of this legislation, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for their work in bringing this bill to the floor and managing it today.

We have had a number of Senators who have tried to offer amendments. I was told by Senator Shaheen that she had a dozen or so bipartisan amendments that were waiting to be offered. There has been an attempt to offer amendments dealing with the bill but there is a little hurdle here with something that is totally nongermane that has been offered.

One of the amendments Senator Udall of Colorado would like to offer is a bipartisan amendment to promote energy retrofitting of schools. Senator Bennet of Colorado seeks to offer a bipartisan amendment to facilitate best practices in commercial real estate energy efficiency. Senator Klobuchar would like to offer her amendment to promote energy retrofitting of nonprofit buildings. But once again, Mr. President, once again my Republican colleagues can’t help themselves. They have objected to the consideration of any of these amendments or any other amendments until the Senate considers an amendment—and not only considers an amendment but is guaranteed a vote on it.

Pretty interesting situation. The Senator’s amendment is, of course, and everyone knows it, only for looks. It is a “gotcha” amendment. The Senator’s amendment is the sort of amendment that is to help get some headlines in newspapers or some kind of news story. We recognize it is for show. But be that as it may, we will work with managers to craft a way forward on this bill, perhaps, or we may have to take the bill down. But we will make that decision at a subsequent time.

It is unfortunate, but that is the political world we live in now with the tea-party-driven House of Representatives. And by the way—of course everyone knows by now—they couldn’t pass their continuing resolution today, so that is off the table. They were going to do that not today but tomorrow, and they pulled that down. Then we have our folks over here trying to just outmatch what they do over there so we wind up getting nothing done. Such a shame.

Orders for Thursday, September 12, 2013
Page: S6395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 12, 2013; and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1392, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Adjournment until 9:30 a.m. Tomorrow
Page: S6395

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Page: S6395

= Resources =