Floor Statements

Madam President, on the next nomination, I ask unanimous consent to yield back that time, and this will be the last vote.

Madam President, the remaining votes, if any, will be by voice. On Monday we will have at least three votes starting at 5:30 p.m.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I hope my Republican colleagues will think long and hard the next few days. We have made some progress this year-- it has been limited but some progress--in passing a few bipartisan bills. We started with the Murray-Ryan budget, which was significant, and we were able to get that done. We were able to get the debt ceiling raised without the struggle we have had the last 5 years. We were able to pass an Omnibus spending bill, which is significantly important. We worked together to pass a childcare development block grant bill. And after four or five attempts to end a filibuster, which we were unable to do, but finally we were able to do that, we got five stalwart Republicans to join with us and we passed the unemployment extension benefits.

Today, we have before us the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, creating 200,000 jobs. It is a fine piece of legislation. It started out good, but it got better as the bill's sponsors worked together to incorporate 10 Republican amendments, joined by some Democrats, and it is a better bill now than it has ever been.

My Republican colleagues, for more than a year, have been asking: Please let us vote again on Keystone. I personally oppose Keystone. I think it is really bad to make oil out of the most dirty carbon stuff there is, to ship it clear across the United States, and then to ship it overseas, which is what they would like to do. I oppose that. But if Republicans think it would help get energy efficiency passed, let's vote on it, and that is what I have told everybody.

If they want a vote on Keystone, that was the agreement they made, let us have a vote on Keystone, and then let the bill that was sponsored by 14 Democrats and Republicans--7 of each--to move forward. I want to be very clear with my Republican colleagues. The Keystone vote is on the table if they will simply stand by the agreement they had a week ago with me. All it would do is to allow the Senate to move forward with a bipartisan energy efficiency bill.

The Republicans have stated and stated and stated they want a vote on Keystone. Good, let's take a vote on Keystone. Can't they take yes for an answer? The answer is: No.

We are involved in this shell game. If seven of my Democrats made an agreement with the Republican leader, I think it would be untoward of me to go to those Democratic Senators and say--for base politics--drop the approval of what you believe in.

We have been through this before. There is no better example of that than the Transportation appropriations bill led by Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Collins. They worked so hard on that--lots of work they did on it. Amendments were offered. But do you know what happened? The Republican leader said: We are not going to pass that, and we didn't. That is when Ranking Member Collins said: I have never known--I am paraphrasing, but this isn't far from an exact quote--I have never known a leader to work so hard against one of their own.

All we are asking is for Republicans to drop their filibuster of this bipartisan bill sponsored by 14 Democrats and Republicans. The bill is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, and many others.

Sadly, the Republican leader has said, in effect, if he can't get everything he wants--and right now that is a moving target--the Republicans who worked on this bill are out of luck. This is not the spirit of compromise in which this body is supposed to operate, but unfortunately it is what we hear all too often from my friend the Republican leader--nothing but endless obstruction and gridlock.

I know many Republicans are unhappy with the way things have been going. They talk to me. I am sure part of it is just to get this off their chest, but they want to change things around here. My message to them is: The only thing standing in the way of our moving forward on energy efficiency or other bipartisan legislation is to move forward on it. And if Keystone is the object of what they want done, let's get it done.

I hope my Republican colleagues will think hard in the coming days about the right thing to do. Do they want to continue waging obstruction, as we have seen on minimum wage and on pay equity? We know the right answer is that we should move forward, and I hope in the days ahead we will come together. It is really for the American people.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the motion to proceed to H.R. 3474 is now pending.

There is a cloture motion I have brought to the desk and I ask the Presiding Officer of the Senate to report that.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 358, S. 2197.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 83, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the current resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 440.

Madam 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, May 12, 2014; 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 until 5:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; and, finally, that the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to S. 2262 be 4:30 p.m. Monday.

Madam President, I hope everyone has a good few days off. We are hopeful about next week. We have a lot to do. We had a couple of breakthroughs today, and maybe next week we can do a little more than this week.

On Monday there will be up to three rollcall votes at 5:30 p.m.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, postcloture.

Postcloture time will expire at about a quarter to 6 this evening.

Senators will be notified whether and if any votes are scheduled today.

Mr. President, it is not often I agree with what the Koch brothers say or do. Their radical agenda is normally so far out of the mainstream that it makes opposition to their agenda very easy.

So imagine my surprise when last week I read a quote from a Koch spokesperson in a Kansas newspaper. That is where they are based. Here is what the Koch brothers said:

We are not experts on climate change. We do believe there

should be free and open debate on the climate issue and it

should be based on sound science and intellectual honesty.

They go on to say:

The debate should take place among the scientific

community, examining all points of view and void of politics,

personal attacks and partisan agendas.

Listen to what they said: sound science and intellectual honesty from the Koch brothers on this issue.

Their statement sounds pretty good. I agree that the Koch brothers, Koch Industries, and their myriad political organizations are not experts on climate change--and that is an understatement.

I also agree that the debate on climate change should be based on sound science. In fact, the sound science has long been debated. The Presiding Officer has spent 38 years in Congress and has been one of the leading proponents of recognizing over the decades how our climate is changing. Everyone sees it is changing but not the Koch brothers, and I will explain a little more.

The sound science has long been debated and has reached a clear, unambiguous conclusion that climate change is here and it is real.

Of course Charles and David Koch know the debate on climate change is already taking place within the science community. They know that. The debate has been open and it has been free.

The overwhelming evidence proves that pollution is causing climate change.

No one has to take my word for it, including the multi-zillionaire Koch brothers--the two richest people in the world.

Just yesterday, the White House--not the White House; they announced it--released a report and an assessment that was authored by more than 300 scientists. Newspapers all over the world are talking about this.

One of the Hill newspapers we all read has a picture on the front that is stunning. It shows a picture of a man walking near a portion of a scenic highway that collapsed near Pensacola, FL. A new report--I am talking about the one released yesterday--finds climate change is rapidly--rapidly--turning the United States into a stormy and dangerous place and notes rising sea levels and natural disasters. The headline: ``New Climate Report: People's Lives Are at Risk.'' Subhead: ``Despite warnings, no signs of changed minds on Hill.''

The former head of the environment committee in the Senate said it is a hoax.

The Washington Post: ``Study: Climate Risks Growing.'' It has graphs here about the land surface air temperature rising, sea surface temperature rising, sea level rising, Arctic Sea melting, glacier mass decreasing.

Headline, Washington Post: ``Study: Climate Risks Growing.'' Subhead: ``Every Part of U.S. Being Affected.'' And, of course, the sub- subheadline: ``Conservatives criticize federal assessment.''

New York Times, front page, shows a picture of the United States: Rising temperatures. Now, plus two degrees, that is so significant. The temperature rising just less than a degree can change weather patterns in the world, and we are talking about two degrees. Now, they are changing.

Most of the State of Nevada is a desert. We have the most mountainous State in the Union, but most of Nevada is a desert. We have 314 separate mountain ranges. We have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. We have a mountain that is 14,000 feet high. But even in Nevada we are at the top of the rung in one part of Nevada. It is red, as it is in many places, from east to the west, to the Midwest. How can people deny what is going on? Look at the storms.

Mark Pryor described to our caucus yesterday what happened in Arkansas. The winds blew in Arkansas at 190 miles an hour. Think about that. I was in Reno, NV, once when the wind was blowing 80 miles an hour. I couldn't believe the wind could blow any harder. It is so frightening. I was staying in a hotel. They had picture windows. I put my bed in the bathroom so it wouldn't be near windows. But the wind blowing 100 miles an hour faster than that, that is what happened in Arkansas. As he described, these weren't mobile homes; these were brick structures that were just disintegrated. All that was left when that storm hit was the foundation--most of the time.

So the Koch brothers want some open debate. It is here. We have done it.

The report I am referring to concluded there are disastrous-- disastrous--climate changes taking place on our Earth due to human activity.

While the Koch brothers admit to not being experts on the matter, these billionaire oil tycoons are certainly experts at contributing to climate change. That is what they do very well. They are one of the main causes of this--not a cause, but one of the main causes.

An analysis by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst--the Presiding Officer knows this well as he is from the State of Massachusetts-- ranked Koch Industries as one of the Nation's biggest air and water polluters, period. In one year, Koch Industries released 31 million pounds of toxic air. How much is that? It is more than Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, and General Electric, combined, emit. They are the champions.

The Koch brothers' actions against the environment aren't limited, though, to toxic emissions. Charles and David Koch are waging a war against anything that protects the environment.

I know that sounds absurd, but it is true. These two billionaire oil barons are actively campaigning now and spending tons of money against anything that seeks to curb pollution, limit our dependence on fossil fuels or lower energy costs for working families. Even the Keystone debate--they are one of the main owners of all of that stuff up there, that ugly tar stuff in Canada. They are, if not the largest, the second largest owner of that stuff up there.

The Kochs are pumping millions of dollars into political organizations, fighting legislation that is good for the environment. They are not doing it only in Washington; they are doing it in State governments. They have intimidated State legislators.

This is ironic, having come from them, I guess--there should be a different way of describing it--given their statement urging the ``void of politics . . . and partisan agendas'' on issues pertaining to the environment.

For instance, we in the Senate are now considering an energy efficiency bill. Who is working against that more than anyone else? The Koch brothers. This bipartisan legislation will spur the use of energy efficiency technologies in private homes and in commercial buildings at no cost to the taxpayers. This bill will make our country more energy independent, protect our environment, and save consumers on their energy bills. If that is not enough, it would also create 200,000 jobs--American jobs that can't be exported. Even the Chamber of Commerce--by the way, huge amounts of money come from the Koch brothers to the Chamber of Commerce to run ads against Democratic Senators. But, in this instance, the Chamber of Commerce even supports Shaheen- Portman.

Unsurprisingly, Americans for Prosperity, the main arm of the Koch brothers--not the only one; they have lots of them--has been vocal in its opposition to even this bill I just talked about--energy efficiency. Remember, these are the same Koch brothers whose president Tim Phillips recently bragged that his organization targets Republicans who work on environmental issues. Again, you can't make up stuff like this. Here is a direct quote:

What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if

you . . . buy into green energy or you play footsie on this

issue, you do so at your political peril. The vast majority

of people who are involved in the [Republican] nominating

process--the conventions and the primaries--are suspect of

the science. And that's our influence. Groups like Americans

for Prosperity have done it.

They say, if you do anything that is good for the environment, they are against you. That is what they said.

So try to do something to affect climate change? The Koch brothers and their billions of dollars are coming after you not only here in Washington but in State legislatures around the country.

So that statement says it all. The Koch brothers admit they and their radical followers don't accept the science of climate change. The President of the Koch brothers' organization is actually bragging about Republicans' denial of evidence-based climate change. The Kochs know that scientists across the globe aren't working to mislead the world about the climate. They know that. These 300 scientists who are the nexus of the report issued yesterday are people working at universities--as indicated, at the University of Massachusetts, the one quote I cited today. All over the country, these people are trying to figure out what is going on. They know what is going on, and that is what the report is about.

Charles and David Koch choose to ignore climate change. They--the Kochs--choose to put our environment at risk. Why? Because it makes them richer, more affluent. They are making billions of dollars and in so doing are significantly damaging our environment.

A New York Times article recently highlighted the Kochs' attempt to fight renewable energy, even in State legislatures. It became so pronounced that the New York Times wrote an editorial criticizing these two wealthy men. As States promote solar and wind energy by offering incentives to renewable energy companies, the Koch brothers see how it will affect their bottom line.

They do not like that. They want to continue their coal operations, their diesel fuel operations, their spewing of chemicals all over America because they can make more money.

As renewable energy grows and becomes more efficient--and it is--oil and coal become a smaller piece of the pie. That is a fact, and that just won't cut it for Charles and David because it affects their bottom line. How unfortunate for the world that the Koch brothers trash this beautiful planet and jeopardize my children's and my children's children's health and future just to add more zeros to their huge bank account. Bloomberg publications now estimate that the Kochs' combined wealth exceeds $100 billion. How much money is enough for these two men?

I urge my Republican colleagues in the Senate to stand up to them. Well, they won't. You know, after I have given this speech, a few of them will come down here and say: It is freedom of speech. What is wrong?

We have an obligation to stand when these lies are perpetrated to the American people. So no Republican is going to come and defend this energy efficiency bill.

Energy efficiency and independence is good for our country, it is good for American families, and it is good for the Earth we live in. So do not be fooled--do not be fooled--by the greed of these billionaires named Koch.

Mr. President, during today people will be watching and they will see a quorum call, nothing on the screen. Why? Because we are in the midst again of one of these never-ending Republican filibusters--hundreds of them. Hundreds of them. Let me remind everyone that Lyndon Johnson was majority leader for 6 years. During that period of time he had to overcome one filibuster. Mr. President, I have lost track; it is hundreds and hundreds of filibusters that we have had to overcome, and we have the Republicans coming here today saying: Well, all we want is a few amendments.

They do everything they can to stop us from progressing on legislation that is good for this country. Anything that is good for Barack Obama they think is bad for the country, and for 5\1/2\ years they have opposed everything this good man has tried to do. It is a shame.

So to anyone out there wondering what is going on, it is another of the hundreds of filibusters they have conducted.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. President, my staff just told me we are now at more than 500 filibusters--500.

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

Mr. President, more than a year ago Senators Shaheen and Portman worked on an energy efficiency bill--a good bill. That was more than a year ago. That bill was, as I have indicated, good, but during the past many months, through the energy committee and the work of Ron Wyden and others, that bill was improved greatly. Ron Wyden was chairman of that committee at the time, and they did so many good things with that piece of legislation. We had six cosponsors--three Democrats and three Republicans.

This bill would create 200,000 jobs, and it would help our Nation's energy proficiency significantly.

So I moved to proceed to the bill in September, this past September-- and we have been through this a number of times, but I will repeat it very quickly. We were held up from doing that for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the junior Senator from Louisiana wanting to take away the health care for our staffs. That threw a few roadblocks in the way. So without going into detail, we never got that done.

But Senators Shaheen and Portman, as I have indicated, did not give up. They worked hard to incorporate 10

separate bipartisan amendments into this bill. So the bill was good last September, but it is terrific now.

As a result of that, we improved the number of people who were willing to support this legislation. We went from 3 and 3 to 7 and 7-- 14 cosponsors of this bill. On the Republican side are Senators Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Hoeven, Isakson, Murkowski, and Wicker. On the Democratic side are Senators Shaheen, Bennet, Coons, Franken, Landrieu, Manchin, and Warren. There is a good mix of Senators on both sides. So we worked very hard to finalize a more bipartisan bill. I worked with them. I didn't give up. We continued to try to move forward. We did that, as we did with childcare recently. It was in March, actually. I have looked for every bipartisan bill we could come to the floor on. We did it with the childcare bill, as I said, and we should do it on this bill. That was my anticipation. And we were able to do it, I thought.

So this Shaheen-Portman bill is a very fine bill. I reached out to Republican Senators. To be honest, I didn't reach out to them; they reached out to me. They wanted to work to get this passed. Originally, the arrangement was, let's just pass this bill as it is.

Right before the Easter recess, I was asked: How about a sense-of- the-Senate resolution on Keystone?

I said: I don't want to do that. We already have an agreement.

Anyway, we relented and said OK. So I came back after the Easter recess, and that agreement we had, well, they said: Let's change it. We no longer want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution; we want a vote on a freestanding piece of legislation.

I said: We have an agreement.

Anyway, I relented and we had that proposal. So we had that all worked out. Then we were told there needs to be five more amendments.

So, as I have said before, this has been very hard to do, this shell game. It can be described in other ways, but it has been very difficult to pin down the Republicans for anything more than a day or two because they keep changing their minds.

So here we are, and my offer is this: If Shaheen-Portman passes, with the seven Republican cosponsors, we will have a freestanding vote forthwith on Keystone, with whatever time is fair. I have put 3 hours in the proposal I will make in just a minute, but it doesn't matter-- whatever time they want for a freestanding vote on Keystone, which they have been wanting to have for a long time.

You get the picture, Mr. President. That is what I think should happen. It is a good bill, but it is so much better than it was a year ago. It is a great bill now, not a good bill.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me after consulting with Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 368, S. 2262; that there be no amendments, points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 3 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the bill be subject to a 60 affirmative-vote threshold; that if the bill is passed, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, at a time to be determined by me after consultation with the Republican leader but no later than Thursday, May 22, 2014--and I will just enter the comment here that if they want it earlier, they can have it, but that is the date I have suggested--that there be no amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to, again, 3 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the bill be subject to a 60 affirmative-vote threshold.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I incorporate by reference the statement I made earlier today on this bill and reluctantly object.

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

My friend talks about the left-leaning Senators. Three of the Democratic Senators who sponsored this legislation could be called anything but leaning left: Landrieu, Manchin, and Warner. That brings a smile to anyone's face.

It is a fiction that we haven't had votes to debate energy policy. We have had trouble having bills because of the obstruction of the Republicans. But we voted on the Keystone matter before we did the budget debate where we had over 100 votes. That was last year. So we debated Keystone last year, we had a vote on it, and we are willing to have another vote on it.

It is my understanding we are now going to enter into debate on whatever people want to talk about for the next hour, and I understand we are going to have a series of votes at 3:45 p.m.

I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time postcloture on the motion to proceed be yielded back.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Shaheen and Portman, I call up substitute amendment No. 3012.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment at the desk I ask to be reported.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a first-degree amendment which is at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit S. 2262, with instructions, which is at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 366,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 3:45

p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 3:45 p.m. it be in order for the Republican leader or his designee to offer up to two motions to table either the motion to commit S. 2262 or an amendment pending with respect to that bill; that if more than one motion to table is made, there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes.

Mr. President, before you rule, I am agreeing to this, but I don't want this to set any precedent of any kind, because I personally believe these are out of order. But for purposes of moving through this afternoon, I ask this consent request.

Mr. President, on the floor is Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire. I have never had a Senator better prepared than she on any issue that we bring up, who is more concerned about her State, and has worked harder on an issue than she has worked on the issue now before this body.

It is a shame that it appears my Republican counterpart has peeled off a couple of the cosponsors of this legislation, Republicans who aren't going to vote to finish this bill. What a shame. It happens every time we get to an issue which we are trying to move forward. It is the obstruction we have faced for going on 6 years. It is too bad. But I commend Senator Shaheen for her diligence. And I hope, prior to the final curtain call on Monday, we can work the next few days to try to come up with some way forward.