Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce unique legislation to remedy a clear mistake by the Federal Government that affects only a single person, an Army veteran, formerly from Alaska, now living in Idaho, who for the past nearly 40 years has been trying to get the Federal Government to remedy an inequity that has affected him, but also has impacts on his family.

While Congress is struggling to find solutions for the economic and health care problems of all 311 million Americans and a means to fund the Federal Government, I hope we also can find the time to right a wrong for a single man and his family.

The issue briefly is that Michael Faber, a Tsimshian Indian whose family has long roots in Southeast Alaska, initially had been granted membership/stock in 1973 in the Sealaska Native Regional Corp., the corporation made up of Southeast Alaska Natives formed as a result of the aboriginal land claims settlement between the Federal Government and Alaska Natives accomplished through passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, of 1971. Because of a clerical error by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the early 1970s Mr. Faber was shifted without cause or his permission to the out-of-state 13th Regional Corporation in late 1976. For decades Mr. Faber has been trying to win reinstatement to the Sealaska Corp., a request the corporation has endorsed, but that the Federal Government, and now seemingly the Federal courts, have decided can't happen without Congress expressly authorizing his reenrollment.

The legislation I offer today, which to my knowledge is supported by everyone possibly connected to this case, will do nothing but right an error by our government that never should have happened. It is a bill that affects a sole individual, which I know is something that has become unpopular on Capitol Hill in recent years. But Congress early in history provided an avenue for passage of legislation to provide relief for individuals who are the victims of an injustice. In fact, it was once relatively common for Congress to pass such legislation. There were hundreds of such bills approved between 1817 and 1971. Admittedly just one was approved last year, when Nigerian student, Sopuruchi ``Victor'' Chukwueke, became the first person in two years to win a private relief bill so he could stay in the United States on an expired visa and gain a path to permanent residency so he could enter medical school in Ohio. Mr. Faber's case is even more worthy of approval because this bill simply remedies a mistake clearly caused by a Federal agency.

This issue stems from the fact that during the original enrollment process following passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Michael Faber enrolled in the Sealaska Corporation, the tenth of the thirteen corporations created by the Act, along with his father, Clyde Benjamin Faber, his brother Gary Dennis Faber and his sister Debra Marlene Faber. Michael Faber's enrollment was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and he received Sealaska share number 13-752-39665-01, and an initial 100 shares of stock in the Sealaska Corporation. The family lived in Metlakatla, Alaska prior to passage of the claims act, and by the time of implementation of the act had moved to Juneau, AK.

In the mid-1960s Mr. Faber joined the U.S. Army and was stationed in Germany. At some point in 1976, while Mr. Faber was on duty with the Army, and consequently had an out-of-Alaska mailing address, someone in BIW apparently moved to shift his enrollment from the Sealaska Corp. to the then newly created 13th Corporation. That corporation was intended to serve the needs of Alaska Natives living outside of Alaska.

Under the law, Mr. Faber was sent a ballot that he was required to sign to accept the shift in enrollment. However, he never received the ballot; it was returned to BIA--unopened and unsigned. Mr. Faber had been badly injured during his military service and, in early 1976, was in and out of rehabilitation hospitals and clinics at different locations. By late 1976, Mr. Faber spent 19 months in a military hospital in Texas recovering from severe burns. Unfortunately, someone at BIA went ahead, and without Mr. Faber's legal approval, administratively completed the enrollment shift. Mr. Faber eventually was placed on the military's Temporary Disability Retirement List, TDRL, and then was involved in years of post-service counseling. It wasn't until after his recovery that he fully realized he had been shifted from Sealaska to the 13th Corporation, and it was then that he began his effort to be reenrolled in the Sealaska Corp.

The record indicates that during the 1990s BIA acknowledged it made an error in shifting Mr. Faber's enrollment without his written approval. Unfortunately, by then BIA believed it did not have the legal authority to reenroll Mr. Faber in the Sealaska Corporation shareholder rolls. Over the years, Mr. Faber won a resolution of support by the Sealaska Corporation's Board of Directors. The resolution welcomed his

reinstatement to that corporation. He filed in U.S. District Court in Idaho a request for a writ ordering BIA to change his enrollment back to membership in Sealaska. In late 2012, however, a Federal judge in Idaho encouraged all parties to dismiss the suit without prejudice. Accordingly, there is no avenue for this injustice to be rectified without congressional authorization of Mr. Faber's reenrollment in the Sealaska Corp.

This case has been complicated by the fact that Mr. Faber moved back to the community of Metlakatla, Alaska in the mid-1990s to work as the Executive Director of the Metlakatla Housing Authority. The complication is that residents of Metlakatla, the main community on the Annette Island Indian Reservation, were allowed by ANCSA to maintain their reservation status--the only reservation in the state to be reauthorized by the claims settlement act. But in return, members of the Metlakatla Indian Community were required to denounce other ANCSA benefits. This legislation, to prevent any precedents and to clarify the factual record, not only requires Mr. Faber to surrender or abrogate any possible membership in the Metlakatla Indian Community before his enrollment in the Sealaska Corp. can take effect, but also in no way alters the Section 19(a) provisions of ANCSA involving Metlakatla reservation status.

Mr. Faber has been waiting for nearly 40 years for someone to champion his quest to be restored to the Sealaska Corp., a legacy he wants largely for the benefit of his children. This legislation will allow Mr. Faber retroactive benefits only to 2011. In that year, Sealaska's board voted to welcome Mr. Faber back to its membership. It also voted to support the legislation. The bill sets no precedents for other Natives to seek changes in their ANCSA enrollments because of the unique and singular nature of the clerical error that was responsible for this change in enrollment status in the first place. This bill will simply treat Mr. Faber and his descendants humanely and formally recognize their legal and cultural status as Alaska Natives.

I hope that Congress will see fit to pass this bill promptly--truly the right and just result.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce unique legislation to remedy a clear mistake by the Federal Government that affects only a single person, an Army veteran, formerly from Alaska, now living in Idaho, who for the past nearly 40 years has been trying to get the Federal Government to remedy an inequity that has affected him, but also has impacts on his family.

While Congress is struggling to find solutions for the economic and health care problems of all 311 million Americans and a means to fund the Federal Government, I hope we also can find the time to right a wrong for a single man and his family.

The issue briefly is that Michael Faber, a Tsimshian Indian whose family has long roots in Southeast Alaska, initially had been granted membership/stock in 1973 in the Sealaska Native Regional Corp., the corporation made up of Southeast Alaska Natives formed as a result of the aboriginal land claims settlement between the Federal Government and Alaska Natives accomplished through passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, of 1971. Because of a clerical error by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the early 1970s Mr. Faber was shifted without cause or his permission to the out-of-state 13th Regional Corporation in late 1976. For decades Mr. Faber has been trying to win reinstatement to the Sealaska Corp., a request the corporation has endorsed, but that the Federal Government, and now seemingly the Federal courts, have decided can't happen without Congress expressly authorizing his reenrollment.

The legislation I offer today, which to my knowledge is supported by everyone possibly connected to this case, will do nothing but right an error by our government that never should have happened. It is a bill that affects a sole individual, which I know is something that has become unpopular on Capitol Hill in recent years. But Congress early in history provided an avenue for passage of legislation to provide relief for individuals who are the victims of an injustice. In fact, it was once relatively common for Congress to pass such legislation. There were hundreds of such bills approved between 1817 and 1971. Admittedly just one was approved last year, when Nigerian student, Sopuruchi ``Victor'' Chukwueke, became the first person in two years to win a private relief bill so he could stay in the United States on an expired visa and gain a path to permanent residency so he could enter medical school in Ohio. Mr. Faber's case is even more worthy of approval because this bill simply remedies a mistake clearly caused by a Federal agency.

This issue stems from the fact that during the original enrollment process following passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Michael Faber enrolled in the Sealaska Corporation, the tenth of the thirteen corporations created by the Act, along with his father, Clyde Benjamin Faber, his brother Gary Dennis Faber and his sister Debra Marlene Faber. Michael Faber's enrollment was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and he received Sealaska share number 13-752-39665-01, and an initial 100 shares of stock in the Sealaska Corporation. The family lived in Metlakatla, Alaska prior to passage of the claims act, and by the time of implementation of the act had moved to Juneau, AK.

In the mid-1960s Mr. Faber joined the U.S. Army and was stationed in Germany. At some point in 1976, while Mr. Faber was on duty with the Army, and consequently had an out-of-Alaska mailing address, someone in BIW apparently moved to shift his enrollment from the Sealaska Corp. to the then newly created 13th Corporation. That corporation was intended to serve the needs of Alaska Natives living outside of Alaska.

Under the law, Mr. Faber was sent a ballot that he was required to sign to accept the shift in enrollment. However, he never received the ballot; it was returned to BIA--unopened and unsigned. Mr. Faber had been badly injured during his military service and, in early 1976, was in and out of rehabilitation hospitals and clinics at different locations. By late 1976, Mr. Faber spent 19 months in a military hospital in Texas recovering from severe burns. Unfortunately, someone at BIA went ahead, and without Mr. Faber's legal approval, administratively completed the enrollment shift. Mr. Faber eventually was placed on the military's Temporary Disability Retirement List, TDRL, and then was involved in years of post-service counseling. It wasn't until after his recovery that he fully realized he had been shifted from Sealaska to the 13th Corporation, and it was then that he began his effort to be reenrolled in the Sealaska Corp.

The record indicates that during the 1990s BIA acknowledged it made an error in shifting Mr. Faber's enrollment without his written approval. Unfortunately, by then BIA believed it did not have the legal authority to reenroll Mr. Faber in the Sealaska Corporation shareholder rolls. Over the years, Mr. Faber won a resolution of support by the Sealaska Corporation's Board of Directors. The resolution welcomed his

reinstatement to that corporation. He filed in U.S. District Court in Idaho a request for a writ ordering BIA to change his enrollment back to membership in Sealaska. In late 2012, however, a Federal judge in Idaho encouraged all parties to dismiss the suit without prejudice. Accordingly, there is no avenue for this injustice to be rectified without congressional authorization of Mr. Faber's reenrollment in the Sealaska Corp.

This case has been complicated by the fact that Mr. Faber moved back to the community of Metlakatla, Alaska in the mid-1990s to work as the Executive Director of the Metlakatla Housing Authority. The complication is that residents of Metlakatla, the main community on the Annette Island Indian Reservation, were allowed by ANCSA to maintain their reservation status--the only reservation in the state to be reauthorized by the claims settlement act. But in return, members of the Metlakatla Indian Community were required to denounce other ANCSA benefits. This legislation, to prevent any precedents and to clarify the factual record, not only requires Mr. Faber to surrender or abrogate any possible membership in the Metlakatla Indian Community before his enrollment in the Sealaska Corp. can take effect, but also in no way alters the Section 19(a) provisions of ANCSA involving Metlakatla reservation status.

Mr. Faber has been waiting for nearly 40 years for someone to champion his quest to be restored to the Sealaska Corp., a legacy he wants largely for the benefit of his children. This legislation will allow Mr. Faber retroactive benefits only to 2011. In that year, Sealaska's board voted to welcome Mr. Faber back to its membership. It also voted to support the legislation. The bill sets no precedents for other Natives to seek changes in their ANCSA enrollments because of the unique and singular nature of the clerical error that was responsible for this change in enrollment status in the first place. This bill will simply treat Mr. Faber and his descendants humanely and formally recognize their legal and cultural status as Alaska Natives.

I hope that Congress will see fit to pass this bill promptly--truly the right and just result.

Madam President, I join my colleague Senator Pryor. I don't think any of us had planned to do anything coordinated at this point in time. I came to the floor and was anticipating the announcement from both leaders. But I see so many of our colleagues who have been working on this proposal with Senator Collins from Maine. She has truly been remarkable in her persistence and insistence that we continue this effort to work collegially, to work collaboratively on these very difficult issues that we have been facing these past several weeks.

I thank Senator Collins for her leadership most particularly, but we all know, if you are trying to move the ball, just one person, you don't get anywhere. We do a lot of sports analogies around here. Honestly, I am tired of the sports analogies. But what I do appreciate is that as a Senate we cannot work together as individuals and expect to accomplish the work that is needed, not only for my constituents in Alaska but around the country. Regardless of who is in the majority or who is in the minority, in order to make it work for the country we have to be working together.

As difficult as all this has been in the past several weeks, what I found encouraging is there has been a nucleus of folks who would come together as the need arose, or perhaps just for a little moral support, and continued the effort to try to find common ground. We went from a small group to a group of six on each side to a group of seven on each side. I think with every passing day we had more colleagues who were interested in helping and participating to try to find that common ground. As we noted, the agreement that has been reached by our respective leaderships, while it is not what our working group came up with, there are certain elements of it that we had helped to shepherd.

But this should not be about who claims authorship, who puts their name behind it. What this should be about is whether we can get the government open again, we can get focused on dealing with our fiscal issues, dealing with the fact that we are up against the debt ceiling perhaps tomorrow. Our reality is in front of us right now.

Getting caught up with whether it is the Senate that should make this happen or the House that makes this happen, whether it is Leader Reid or Minority Leader McConnell, that is not what the public cares about. The news that is coming out today is that there is a deal. There is a deal. That deal should give America hope.

But it does not get us out of the mess we are in. I think we are at pretty low approval ratings. It is going to take a while for us to rebuild any credibility. But I think the effort to rebuild credibility begins when we honestly and earnestly roll up our sleeves, tackle the big problems, recognize we have to do it together rather than to retreat into our respective corners and just hope that we can get it right without talking to one another.

I again thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I thank all my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle for coming to this point. I am most hopeful we will see it quickly resolved today so the country can breathe easily and sleep a little better tonight.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I introduced last week to provide forward funding appropriations for the Indian Health Service. The IHS is charged with delivering health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives as part of our Federal trust responsibility, and I believe that forward funding the IHS is the right thing to do, just like Congress forward funds our VA as part of our obligation to our veterans.

The budget uncertainty we have put our tribal health providers in is shameful. We may not be able to ensure our Nation's indigenous children will receive their immunizations. We might not be able to ensure our elders will be able to receive the care they need. We cannot guarantee basic medical services will be provided, including prenatal and dental for our first Americans, who rely on funding from the Indian Health Service. The situation is disgraceful, and the health statistics of our first Americans reflect that.

Without Federal funding for fiscal year 14, HHS has determined that those receiving care from the Indian Health Service will continue to receive clinical care, but for tribes that operate their own health programs, payments will not be transferred. Yet, just like the Indian Health Service, our tribal health providers must keep providing care. The budget uncertainty we have imposed on those delivering health services is unconscionable.

As I mentioned previously, my bill to forward fund the Indian Health Service makes sense because the IHS is charged with delivering health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives, as promised by the United States for the removal of Indians from their lands. The United States calls this obligation the Federal trust responsibility. This is not a relationship based on race--but a legal and political relationship defined by treaties, Executive orders, the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and Supreme Court decisions.

Health care services are either delivered by the Indian Health Service or by tribal health providers themselves operating under Indian Self-Determination Act agreements. Delayed funding means health care providers cannot budget with certainty, recruit health professionals, retain health professionals, adequately deliver services, nor manage facility maintenance and construction efforts. Late funding for tribal health programs has significantly hampered the delivery of health services for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Let me take this opportunity to remind you of the health status of our Nation's first peoples. For too long in our Nation's history, American Indians and Alaska Natives have experienced severe health disparities compared to other Americans as a result of the poor economic and social conditions. According to the Indian Health Service, American Indians and Alaska Natives die at higher rates compared to other Americans from many causes: alcoholism is 522 percent higher, diabetes is 182 percent higher, unintentional injuries is 138 percent higher, homicide is 83 percent higher, and suicide is 74 percent higher.

We must recognize the historical traumas that played a role in these percentages, including the removal of lands, forced relocation and assimilation of Native communities, new diseases introduced, deaths experienced, and the loss of indigenous cultures. These are wounds that have been internalized and manifest themselves in high rates of alcoholism and substance abuse, driving the statistics of domestic violence, sexual assault, and suicide. And this sadness is passed down from one generation to the next.

Our tribes are working to break this cycle. Under the Federal policy of Indian self-determination we have empowered tribes to address the needs of their tribal members. Yet whether it be the denial of full operational support costs for Indian programs or the ceasing of payment under a government shutdown, we are failing on that promise.

Just as this Nation has made a promise to its veterans for the delivery of health care, we cannot forget the promise made to American Indians and Alaska Natives. In 2010, Congress forward funded the VA. Veterans groups, alarmed by the impact of delayed funding and concerned about the VA's ability to plan and manage its resources, demanded forward funding. Let me tell you our tribal health providers have those same concerns. Our tribal health providers have demanded that Congress forward fund IHS appropriations so they may better manage the health funds for American Indians and Alaska Natives, and I think we should do so.

The present government shutdown demonstrates why this is so important: we have compromised the delivery of health services for our first Americans, especially those who receive care from tribally administered hospitals. Forward funding would allow Indian health programs to more be more effectively managed and improve health outcomes for our first Americans. Tribal administrators would know how many physicians and nurses they could hire without wondering if funding for positions would be available. They would also be able to manage clinics without the uncertainty of shutting them down.

I am proud to introduce this bill to forward fund HIS, and I hope my colleagues support this effort.

Mr. President, from what I heard from those who have just spoken prior to me, it sounds as if we ought to be able to get something done. We listened to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, with her commitment to advancing issues through the budget process. I think we too need to go to conference and get that moving.

We are sitting here in a kind of a rarefied world in the Senate Chamber. Some would suggest we live in a little bit of a bubble. Let me tell everyone about the folks who are not living in a bubble: the furloughed Federal employees and those who have been shut out of whatever it is that they had hoped they were going to be doing this past week and those in my State, for instance, who are looking to fill the family freezer.

It is moose season in my State, but now they were told they cannot access any of the refuge lands because Fish and Wildlife has said they cannot access the land regardless of what ANILCA provides and regardless of the full public access to these Federal lands. Those folks who are feeling the real impact of a government shutdown are not living in a bubble.

We just heard the chairman of the Finance Committee talk about the looming threat we are facing as we approach the debt limit, and he refers to a fiscal cliff. In fact, as a nation, we could lose our financial footing. We could go over that fiscal cliff.

For a lot of folks, they are already looking at their own fiscal cliff. They are not waiting for us to figure out what we are going to do or not do when it comes to dealing with the debt limit. They are not getting paid. They are perhaps a small business, such as Seong's Sushi Bar & Chinese, which is located across the street from the Federal Building in Juneau. They are sitting there losing revenues on a daily basis because they don't have the customers they anticipate every day. The folks who frequent Capital Brew, which is a drive-through coffee shop that is also in Juneau across from the Federal Building, Bill's Mini Cache, which is a snack shop inside the Anchorage Federal building, these are folks who are looking at it, and they are feeling their own fiscal cliff right now, with or without the threat of the debt limit.

So they are looking at us and they are saying: Wait a minute. You told us a couple weeks ago that we were going to avert this shutdown, that we would figure out how we were going to pass a continuing resolution.

We didn't pass a continuing resolution. Somehow, that all gets wrapped up in ObamaCare. They are trying to figure out where the nexus is here between funding the government and what is going on with the Affordable Care Act. They then find out: We are in a government shutdown. What does that mean for me? I am sitting here in Alaska, 4,000 miles from Washington, DC. But then they learn Fish and Wildlife is saying: No, you can't go out and get the moose to put in your freezer to make it through the winter. Or you are the crab fisherman who is waiting at the crab grounds beginning October 15, but the quotas have not yet been determined from within the National Marine Fisheries Service center yet, so you can't go out. The revenues the industry might be able to derive, about $7 million from the sale of great king crab that we would all love--a great market out there--but they are not going to be able to get out in the water because some Federal agency 4,000 miles from home hasn't delivered to them the quota.

So when we talk about these fiscal cliffs, it is not just waiting for us to hit a debt limit. It is what is happening with this government shutdown.

So what they are asking me--and I know each and every one of us is hearing from our constituents--is: So what is your plan? And oh, by the way, you better get on it pretty quick, because you have my attention now. What is the plan? So they see some of the things coming out of the House. The House has these mini efforts to fund a specific section, and it doesn't go anywhere here. We are told: Well, we want to open the whole thing. So if we can't open the whole thing and we can't open a portion of it, nothing happens. Nothing happens. So where is the plan? What are we going to do?

So I am pleased to stand with my friend from Maine Senator Collins as she has described a plan which I think is pretty reasonable. I think it is pretty sensible. When we think about those small, rational, reasonable steps that might get us to a place where we can stop the madness, if you will, break this impasse--a proposal that would pull back on the medical device tax, with an offset, so that we are not eroding, we are not undercutting the revenues that would come in for the Affordable Care Act, a 6-month extension of the continuing resolution, as well as a sequestration with a little bit of flexibility and, oh, let's add in some oversight, it sounds pretty rational.

Some suggest maybe the President doesn't want to do this because it is a small incursion in his signature bill. Do my colleagues know what. Right now, what we need to be thinking about is who we work for, whether it is the crab fisherman who wants to get out in the water and who is waiting for NMFS to step it up, whether it is the family out in Galena who is hoping they are going to be able to get their moose before moose season closes, whether it is the guy at Seong's Sushi Bar and Chinese there in Juneau, or whether it is the Alaska family. I got an e-mail a couple of days ago. This family has been planning for a year to bring all the kids together, including boyfriends and girlfriends. They are going to do a great hike out in the Moab National Park for a week, and they are stuck. Nothing is going on, and their family vacation is ruined.

What about what is going on--this is an amazing one--in the Kenai River, which happens to proceed through some refuge areas. People can still go fishing now, and there is good rainbow fishing out there. But when you move down river through that refuge park, you better bring your lines in because we are going to have enforcement action on the river.

There are so many stories we can all attest to, and some of them are horrible. Some of them, as Senator McCain has indicated, are about families who are grieving the loss of their loved one--someone who has served this country with honor--being denied death benefits.

The country expects us to get our act together, and they expect us to do it without delay. They are not interested in knowing which side is going to gain more leverage the further we delay. Nobody is winning. I tell my friends the Democrats: You are not winning. And I tell my friends the Republicans: We are not winning. The administration is not winning. Everybody is losing when we cannot come together with a plan, with the resolve to do the job we are tasked to do, which is basic governing, and keeping the government open is basic governing.

So whether it is Senator Collins' plan, whether it is an effort that is yet to be created, as the Senator from Arizona challenged us, let's start this now. Let's not delay any further because real people--the people we care for, the people we are charged to help--are hurting right now. This goes beyond mere inconvenience. This is hurt.

So let's do what we have pledged to do. Let's do what we have signed up to

do, which is to work together. At the end of the day, this is not going to be a Republican plan or a Democratic plan or a Senate plan or a House plan. It is going to be a plan that allows us to govern.

With that, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to follow the comments from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This has been a tough week. It has been a tough weekend. It has been a tough day. I think as Members of the Senate, as we approach the showdown of a potential shutdown, it is important for us to recognize what is at stake. This is not just me staying here holding the floor late on a Monday evening. I have neighbors here in Washington, DC, who work for the Federal Government. One works for Homeland Security. One works for the Department of Defense. They asked me over the weekend: Am I working on Tuesday? What is happening on Tuesday? Are we shutting the government down?

When we talk about those who are uncertain about what happens this next week with their jobs, I think it is important to recognize it is not just jobs we are talking about; it is the reality that if I am not at work is the childcare facility my kids go to going to be open? What does that mean to me?

If I am the local sandwich shop owner around the corner from where the Fish and Wildlife Service building is and most of the folks who work for Fish and Wildlife are not working next week, what does that mean to me? How many loaves of bread do I make over this next week? I think we need to appreciate and understand, when we are talking about a government shutdown, it does not just mean those who receive a check from the Federal Government. The ripple effect from what we do has consequences.

As we debate, as we ping-pong back and forth between this body and our colleagues on the House side, I think we need to recognize that there are real lives, real families who are lying awake tonight wondering what the rest of the week is going to mean to them. This is a difficult time for us. There are stakes that are very high.

I have not hidden the fact that I am not a supporter of the Affordable Care Act. I have voted against it every time we have had the opportunity to do so. But do I believe we should shut down the Federal Government at this point because we have not been able to shut down the Affordable Care Act? I think we have a responsibility here. We have a responsibility to govern. We are not doing that right now.

Folks back home are talking about a lot of things, talking about the fact that they had a tough fish season in certain parts of the State, talking about the fact that winter is coming on, and our energy costs are still as high as they ever have been. They are worried about what is coming forward for them and their families. What they do not need is to see that their government cannot operate.

So as we deal with these very weighty decisions at this very late hour, we need to remember whom we represent, what we are doing here. It is not just about the next election; it is about making sure those people whom we work for are not stressing and are not anxious about what tomorrow is going to bring for them.

So I am hopeful in the less than 2 hours we have, we will be able to figure out how we keep the government running, how we keep the wheels on the bus, and how we get back together.

I yield the floor.

Yes, it is our expectation that BLM will consider economic impacts throughout the implementation of this bill and develop regulations for this and other provisions in the bill accordingly. I do not anticipate that the definition of ``excess refining capacity'' would change over the course of the law's implementation, however. Our intent is to ensure that refiners with excess refining capacity make that capacity available at commercially reasonable rates. As the auction system is phased in, I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the BLM to ensure that market disruptions are avoided and American taxpayers are protected.

If I may, I would at this time defer to Senator Barrasso and Senator Cruz before my comments. I know both of them need to dash off the floor.

If Senator Cruz wishes to speak at this point in time, then I will wrap up after he and Senator Barrasso have spoken.

Mr. President, I am pleased we are at this point. We will be able to move forward with this important legislation relating to our Nation's Helium Program. I would certainly encourage my colleagues to support passage of this bill that we have spent several years now developing in the energy committee to reform it.

The bill, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, is a bipartisan bill. It was an important piece of legislation that was reported to the Senate floor in June by a voice vote. It is yet again another good product coming out of the energy committee.

We need to move to pass this bill but also to reconcile the remaining issues we have with the House and we have to do this before October 1. October 1 is coming at us like a freight train on a lot of different issues. But if we want to prevent a shortage of helium gas in this country, we are going to need to do it and do it now.

Again, the chairman referenced some jokes about helium. Unfortunately, a lot of folks associate helium with helium balloons, party balloons, and not the things we are talking about. It is such an essential component to everything from medical imaging equipment, semiconductor manufacturing, rocket engines, and precision welding. I think folks would be amazed at how helium plays such a significant part in our high-tech world and our manufacturing world.

We have to act. What we need to do is prevent a massive disruption in the supply chains for all of these important economic sectors. We need to pass this bill.

As has been mentioned, what we are doing is we are reforming and reauthorizing the Federal Helium Program. This program provides 40 percent of our domestic and 30 percent of our global helium supplies from the Cliffside field near Amarillo, TX.

The energy committee, as I noted, developed this bill before us. What we focused on was bringing market-based price discovery to the sale of this taxpayer-owned resource.

The approach we have taken in committee will ensure a better return to the taxpayer, which is what we are all looking for. It prevents a small number of corporations from effectively being able to pocket value that which belongs to the American public. It will also improve the management of the Helium Program to account for diminishing production and provide greater transparency for a program that clearly needs it.

So there are a lot of good reasons why we need to do this legislation. And as the chairman has mentioned, we are getting government out of the program. That ought to be something certainly all of us on this side of the aisle would agree on--getting the government out of the business altogether.

This bill completes a privatization process Congress set in motion back in 1996. It sets a hard-and-fast deadline for getting the Federal Government out of the helium business once and for all.

As has been mentioned, we do have a bill on the other side, in the other body, that doesn't take it all the way; it doesn't fully get the government out of the business. In our legislation, not later than 2022, all of the assets that are associated with the helium reserve will be sold off and the Federal Government's involvement in what should be a private market will end.

Of all the options before us for preventing an imminent helium shortage, this Senate bill is the only one that also addresses the long-term goal of exiting the sector and leaving the development of future supplies to private industry. As has been mentioned, when we do this--when we get out of the business, when we conduct these auction sales--we will generate revenue of approximately $500 million. That is both a good and important thing around here. So what the energy committee did, in a very bipartisan and very open process within our committee, we chose to devote some of this revenue to other programs within our committee's jurisdiction--not creating new programs but basically providing funding for obligations that have already been made.

One way or another, we are going to be providing for these payments-- whether it is to the abandoned mine land fund, to the Secure Rural Schools Program, adjusting the royalty rates for the soda ash operators, or addressing the National Park Service backlog or the mess left by the Federal Government when it comes to drilling exploratory wells and then abandoning them. So what we have done is we have looked critically at these areas where we have had funding shortfalls within the energy committee's jurisdiction, and a portion of these revenues has been dedicated to that. But we also heard from our colleagues-- members on the committee and others--who said we need to make an effort to take some of these revenues and direct them to deficit reduction. So we have reduced the Federal debt by at least $56 million. This was a priority of Senator Flake and Senator Risch on the committee, and we have directed that.

Again, all of these are priorities among programs within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and given the $56 million that is devoted to deficit reduction, the resources we have devoted to addressing them are more than offset. I think our success in striking this balance has been confirmed by both the Congressional Budget Office and the bipartisan staff of our Senate Budget Committee.

We have an opportunity before us today, and I think we have a responsibility to act now, as this October 1 deadline is looming. First and foremost, we have to act to prevent a massive disruption to the helium supply chain that could harm so many sectors of our economy. This bill prevents that from happening. We also need to finish what the Congress started back in 1996 and fully and finally privatize the helium business so that the Federal Government can get out of the industry. And we should address these other priorities--including deficit reduction and other obligations the Federal Government has already taken on--by making responsible, thoughtful decisions about the use of the revenues associated with the reauthorization and the eventual closure of the Federal Helium Reserve.

For these reasons I would certainly encourage my colleagues to support the bill when we go to a vote in just about an hour and a half.

With that, I yield for my friend and colleague.

Mr. President, thanks to the chairman of our energy committee, we have been working on this legislation for some time now-- a couple of years. As the chairman has noted, what we are doing with the reauthorization of this Helium Program is we are getting the government out of the business of helium. We are on our way to completing a process that has been underway effectively in Congress since 1996.

We have an opportunity today to do the right thing, but we also have a very clear opportunity to make sure that we do not have a helium crisis, that we do not see a disruption in supply. That is effectively what could happen if we here in the Senate do not act quickly and work with the House to get this resolved before an October 1 deadline. So that is the imperative to take this vote this afternoon and move it across the line so we can conclude our business as it relates to the Helium Program. This is significant. It is important. We have a chance to make a difference. We can prevent a massive disruption to the helium supply chain.

We recognize that when we are talking about helium, it is not just party balloons; we are truly talking about an impact on our high-tech sector, our manufacturing sector, so many sectors of our economy that are reliant and dependent on helium. We should also finish the business we started back in 1996--fully privatize the helium business so that the government is out of the way. Truly, what we are doing is making sure helium supplies are determined by market forces.

As the chairman has noted, we need to address other priorities here in the Congress. We have done that with the revenues and the distribution that the chairman has outlined and that I have outlined previously here on the floor, and at the same time we have seen fit to direct a good portion of revenues toward deficit reduction. These are good, responsible decisions.

Our legislation here in the Senate differs from what our counterparts in the House have done. We end the government's intervention or activities within the helium business. We have a thoughtful glidepath out.

It is legislation that is not only thoughtful, it is bipartisan. It moved through the energy committee unanimously. I am pleased to be able to stand here today with the chairman of the energy committee urging colleagues to support this critically important legislation.

Madam President, I certainly appreciate the comments from my friend and fellow Senator. He does speak to the obvious. We have an opportunity for some amendments on what I think most of us would agree is an important bill, this energy efficiency bill. How we move forward is indicative of whether this is a body that is going to start working, whether this is going to be a body that is defined as dysfunctional or, as was suggested earlier in a report that came out early in September, that this Senate could prove to be the least productive in our Senate history.

That is not a title or a banner this Senator wants to wear. I think we want to work around here. I think we want to try to produce. I think we want to legislate. In fact, I know that is what I want to do. That is why I applaud my colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, for all of the effort they have given--themselves, their staffs working with the chairman of the energy committee, his staff, my staff working together for a couple of years now--to produce what I think is a pretty good bill. This is a bill that is focused on a piece of our energy portfolio, if you will, that is critically important: the aspect of efficiency and how we work to use less.

What we have in front of us is not legislation that is controversial in the sense that it is pitting different philosophies against one another. We are bogged down in our own inertia and cannot figure out how we even get to start. That is a pretty poor reflection on us. The way we get to start is how we started this debate just a few days ago, when Senator Wyden and I came to the floor with the sponsors of the bill, Senator Shaheen, Senator Portman, and we said: OK, great bill. We talked about the advantages of energy efficiency and all that Shaheen- Portman delivers, this very bipartisan product and effort.

Then we started talking about amendments, amendments that would actually strengthen this bill. We had no fewer than one dozen Members come to the floor, on both sides of the aisle, talking about their good ideas, how we are going to build in more efficiencies--whether it is in our schools or public buildings; how we can help nonprofits. These are all good, strong, healthy ideas.

Then we are here today and, as my friend from Wyoming has indicated, we are stalled out. We are not moving forward. The majority leader suggested this morning--his words, not mine--that we perhaps would not finish this legislation. That is quite disturbing to me. That is quite disturbing to me because if we cannot finish legislation such as an energy efficiency bill, something that most of us would recognize is a good approach to our energy issues in this country, what are we going to be able to do on the very big stuff?

We talk about pent-up demand for amendments. Let me suggest there is a pent-up demand for real energy legislation. For 5 years now we have not seen an energy measure debated on the floor of the Senate. That doesn't mean we have not passed some good energy bills. In fact, I was pleased to work with the chairman in passing two hydroelectric bills just before the August recess. These are good bills. These are truly going to help us as we work to reduce our emissions, provide for jobs, provide for greater electrification across the country. These are good. But we have not had that good, comprehensive discussion about the energy issues that have impacted our Nation in the past 5 years.

Think about what has happened in 5 years. Five years ago, if someone had mentioned the shale revolution, people would not have had a clue what they were talking about.

Think about what has happened with natural gas over the past 5 years. The Presiding Officer knows full well because her State has the lowest unemployment in the Nation. The Presiding Officer represents a State where almost everybody has a job. In fact, most people have two or three jobs.

When you think about the changing dynamics of an energy world, think about it in the context of a timeline. What happened over the last 5 years? Boom. Think about what happened to the economy. We read the articles from just a couple of weeks ago about how natural gas is not only helping those who work in the industry, it is a rising tide that lifts all boats. When people are paying less for their utilities, it allows them to spend more on the economy, and as a result everyone is benefiting. Our economy is benefiting and the unemployment picture is improving.

We are seeing good, positive things because of our energy future. Everybody seems to be bullish about it except us in the Senate because we cannot seem to get an energy bill to the floor. When we do finally have a bill, after years of good hard work by good folks wanting to do the right thing, we get to the floor and we get stalled out.

Again, there is pent-up demand for amendments because what we have known as regular order has not been so regular anymore. The chairman of the energy committee, and I, as the ranking member, think we have worked very hard. We have worked diligently on a daily basis to make sure we are working within our committee. We are producing bills.

In fact, as I understand, our committee has produced more than half of all the bills that have been reported and are ready for action on the floor. We have rolled up our sleeves and said: There are going to be areas where we disagree, but on those areas where we can come together and make some good happen, let's make it happen, and we have been doing that. But you know what. If a committee works hard and produces good things and still doesn't go anywhere--wow. After a while we wonder why we are working so hard around here.

I know why I am working hard. I am working hard because the people in my State pay more for their energy than anyplace else in the country. I am working hard to make sure we have jobs for Alaskans and jobs for all people. I am working hard because I think the energy policy is fundamental to everything we do. We need to have the opportunity to have a full-on debate, and if we have some amendments that are tough, that is the way it is. Nobody asked me to come here and represent the people of Alaska because they knew that every vote was going to be easy. That is not how it works. Let's take some of the hard votes and let's get to the business at hand, which is a good, strong, bipartisan energy efficiency bill. Then when we are done with that one, I want to work with the chairman to address the unfinished business.

I want to work on measures that will help us enhance our energy production, whether it is with our natural gas onshore or offshore, whether it is to do what we can so we truly become an energy- independent nation or whether it is how we deal with some pretty hard issues, such as how we treat our nuclear waste and how we are going to move forward with an energy future that is based on renewables and alternatives, which I am all about.

We all stand here and talk about an ``all of the above'' approach. But you know what. People stop believing it when we just talk about it and we don't do anything to enhance our policies because we cannot get a bill to the floor. Then, when we get a bill to the floor, we hamstring ourselves.

I am not ready to give up on this energy efficiency bill. I am not ready to give up on energy policy or legislating in the energy sector just because we are getting bogged down. We have to demonstrate to the American public that we are governing. They are asking us to lead in an area on which we have not legislated in 5 years.

I know my colleague from Oregon, the chairman, agrees with me when I say we had some issues within our committee, and we are proud of the work we have done. We have proposals that focus on how we can make existing programs better or perhaps we need to repeal them. We have worked hard on a bipartisan basis with the authorizers and the appropriators to develop a good, solid proposal for how we deal with nuclear waste. If we cannot move forward on energy efficiency, how are we going to tackle these hard issues? How are we going to tackle the issues as they relate to this amazing expansion of natural gas and the recognition that we need to have an infrastructure

that keeps up with demand and everything else that is going on?

We are not giving up on this bill. We are not going to give up on the good bipartisan work Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman have crafted. There are many other Members who have stepped forward to say: This is good stuff. Let's make it happen. So there is a lot of pent-up demand. For those who have waited a couple of weeks for their amendment, good. We need to address those too. But let's not sacrifice a good, strong bill that can be made better by good amendments to the bill itself. Let's not sacrifice that. This is a bill that has been in process for a couple of years because folks are saying: I have to have my piece right now. We can figure out how we craft an agreement that is workable from both sides.

I am certainly prepared to continue that work, and if the deal that has been offered at this point in time is not acceptable, OK, let's go back and figure out what is going to be acceptable. Let's not throw in the towel. This is too important. We have too much pent-up demand for energy solutions for this country.

I am here to stay focused on the issues at hand, but what we have in front of us--the bill we are working on--is a good, strong, bipartisan energy efficiency bill, and I want to continue that. I know my colleague, the chairman of the committee, wants to continue with that, and I think that is our effort here.

With that, I thank those who have stuck with us throughout this past week, but I am hoping we are going to be sticking with this for a while longer and we are going to see this bill cross the finish line.

I know the chairman wants to speak as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Responsible Seafood Certification and Labeling Act which I am introducing today. This bill addresses an issue of great importance to fishermen, seafood producers and coastal communities in my state and around the country-- the issue of how fisheries are managed sustainably. Based on the most recent economic data, the Alaska seafood industry supported more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributed over $4.6 billion to the state's economy. Nationally, those numbers go up to 165,800 total jobs and an economic contribution of $15.7 billion.

The salmon fisheries are a major part of my State's seafood economy and commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this season. With nearly 1 in 7 Alaskans employed in the commercial seafood industry, and numbers like the ones I just shared, you can understand why I take seriously how the Federal Government affects my State's fishermen.

On June 5, the National Park Service announced new guidelines to promote healthy food options for concessionaires at National Park Service facilities. These guidelines include the following statement:

Where seafood options are offered, provide only those that

are `Best Choice' or `Good

Alternatives' on the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch

list, certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship

Council, or identified by an equivalent program that has been

approved by the NPS.

Within the week, I was hearing from constituents, and they were not happy. Digging further into the origins led to policies developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration that served as precursors to the NPS Guidelines, and an indication that this is a broader problem within the Federal Government.

How bad could this be? Why are these guidelines a problem? Why I am so concerned? Before delving into those questions, I want to acknowledge what some of you may know: Alaska salmon is a `Best Choice' according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. You can check your smart phone app. Problem solved, no impediment to the Park Service allowing its vendors to serve Wild Alaska salmon to its visitors, or any other Federal agency creating a problem for wild Alaska seafood . . . right? Wrong! It is a problem, a big problem, and here is why.

I believe it is bad Federal policy to allow third party certifiers, including Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, from the UK, to be the arbiters of what seafood is allowed to be sold in National Parks, or procured by Federal agencies. Not too long ago, wild Alaska salmon served as the flagship species for--MSC. Now MSC is disparaging the ``sustainability'' of Alaska salmon. These NGOs have political agendas, lack transparency, and are soliciting payment for their certification schemes. These NGOs are meddling, and their efforts to usurp Federal and State management expertise is harming U.S. seafood interests. What started as voluntary efforts to differentiate well-managed fisheries, to create market value for seafood products, to reward responsible fishermen and processors, has turned into an aggressive scheme apparently intent on taking over federal and state management responsibilities, intruding into the fabric of fisheries management in my State and around the country. The U.S. currently spends almost a billion tax dollars each year to sustainably manage American fisheries in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There is no reason to let groups with no accountability interfere with this process.

On July 12 I sent a letter to HHS, GSA, and the Park Service stating my concerns, defending wild Alaska seafood, and requesting that all three agency heads meet with me to discuss how to change these guidelines. At an Energy and Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing on the Park Service's maintenance backlog, I questioned Director Jarvis on this issue. When Director Jarvis responded that he would make sure wild Alaska seafood would be included, I said that is not good enough, this is a national issue important to seafood interests around the country, and federal agency regulations, policies and guidelines need to be changed to eliminate the references to third party certification NGOs.

The bill I am introducing today will prohibit any U.S. Federal agency from requiring or endorsing the use of any third party non-governmental organization's label, criteria or other scheme to certify fish or seafood as sustainable. This prohibition will apply to any federal agency's purchase of fish or seafood, the sale of fish or seafood by a vendor or lessee on federal land or property, and any reference to a seafood sustainability standard developed by a third party non- governmental organization in any regulation, policy or guideline.

This is the right Federal policy for the Alaska seafood industry, and for our Nation's fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy and sustainable fisheries. It also is the right policy to ensure that hard working fishermen and the coastal communities that depend on them are not disadvantaged by the agenda of several misguided NGOs.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Responsible Seafood Certification and Labeling Act which I am introducing today. This bill addresses an issue of great importance to fishermen, seafood producers and coastal communities in my state and around the country-- the issue of how fisheries are managed sustainably. Based on the most recent economic data, the Alaska seafood industry supported more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributed over $4.6 billion to the state's economy. Nationally, those numbers go up to 165,800 total jobs and an economic contribution of $15.7 billion.

The salmon fisheries are a major part of my State's seafood economy and commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this season. With nearly 1 in 7 Alaskans employed in the commercial seafood industry, and numbers like the ones I just shared, you can understand why I take seriously how the Federal Government affects my State's fishermen.

On June 5, the National Park Service announced new guidelines to promote healthy food options for concessionaires at National Park Service facilities. These guidelines include the following statement:

Where seafood options are offered, provide only those that

are `Best Choice' or `Good

Alternatives' on the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch

list, certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship

Council, or identified by an equivalent program that has been

approved by the NPS.

Within the week, I was hearing from constituents, and they were not happy. Digging further into the origins led to policies developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration that served as precursors to the NPS Guidelines, and an indication that this is a broader problem within the Federal Government.

How bad could this be? Why are these guidelines a problem? Why I am so concerned? Before delving into those questions, I want to acknowledge what some of you may know: Alaska salmon is a `Best Choice' according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. You can check your smart phone app. Problem solved, no impediment to the Park Service allowing its vendors to serve Wild Alaska salmon to its visitors, or any other Federal agency creating a problem for wild Alaska seafood . . . right? Wrong! It is a problem, a big problem, and here is why.

I believe it is bad Federal policy to allow third party certifiers, including Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, from the UK, to be the arbiters of what seafood is allowed to be sold in National Parks, or procured by Federal agencies. Not too long ago, wild Alaska salmon served as the flagship species for--MSC. Now MSC is disparaging the ``sustainability'' of Alaska salmon. These NGOs have political agendas, lack transparency, and are soliciting payment for their certification schemes. These NGOs are meddling, and their efforts to usurp Federal and State management expertise is harming U.S. seafood interests. What started as voluntary efforts to differentiate well-managed fisheries, to create market value for seafood products, to reward responsible fishermen and processors, has turned into an aggressive scheme apparently intent on taking over federal and state management responsibilities, intruding into the fabric of fisheries management in my State and around the country. The U.S. currently spends almost a billion tax dollars each year to sustainably manage American fisheries in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There is no reason to let groups with no accountability interfere with this process.

On July 12 I sent a letter to HHS, GSA, and the Park Service stating my concerns, defending wild Alaska seafood, and requesting that all three agency heads meet with me to discuss how to change these guidelines. At an Energy and Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing on the Park Service's maintenance backlog, I questioned Director Jarvis on this issue. When Director Jarvis responded that he would make sure wild Alaska seafood would be included, I said that is not good enough, this is a national issue important to seafood interests around the country, and federal agency regulations, policies and guidelines need to be changed to eliminate the references to third party certification NGOs.

The bill I am introducing today will prohibit any U.S. Federal agency from requiring or endorsing the use of any third party non-governmental organization's label, criteria or other scheme to certify fish or seafood as sustainable. This prohibition will apply to any federal agency's purchase of fish or seafood, the sale of fish or seafood by a vendor or lessee on federal land or property, and any reference to a seafood sustainability standard developed by a third party non- governmental organization in any regulation, policy or guideline.

This is the right Federal policy for the Alaska seafood industry, and for our Nation's fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy and sustainable fisheries. It also is the right policy to ensure that hard working fishermen and the coastal communities that depend on them are not disadvantaged by the agenda of several misguided NGOs.

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.

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.

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.

I welcome an exchange for the record.

I thank the Senator for his support of this legislation and for his inquiry about Section 6 of the Act. Streamlining the licensing process for ``closed-loop pumped storage'' projects will encourage development of new and important sources of renewable energy that will help balance the country's energy resources and provide critical support to the Nation's power grid.

Section 6 of the bill directs FERC to develop criteria for identifying projects featuring ``closed loop pumped storage'' that would be appropriate for licensing within a 2-year process. This term was used in the bill to generally describe pumped storage projects that have a low impact on the various resources considered by FERC during the licensing process such as environmental, recreational, and navigation interests.

For example, pumped storage projects that are removed from major streams are likely to have fewer significant resource impacts and issues to be addressed and resolved, which makes them appropriate for the 2-year licensing process. Accordingly, the types of pumped storage projects considered ``closed loop'' and, therefore, eligible for FERC's expedited licensing process under this bill, would include projects where the upper and lower reservoirs do not impound or directly withdraw water from a navigable stream and projects that are not continuously connected to a naturally-flowing water feature.

These types of ``closed loop pumped storage'' designs are candidates for a 2-year licensing process because the resource impacts associated with such projects can be minimal as compared to more traditional pumped storage hydro designs and other conventional hydro projects for which the existing FERC licensing process was designed.

Mr. President, last week the leadership sought unanimous consent to discharge S. 1294, a bill to designate as wilderness certain public land in the Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and to rerefer the bill to the Agriculture Committee. I am consenting to this discharge and rereferral because the wilderness in this bill would be created out of public lands in the Cherokee National Forest, a national forest created from lands acquired under the Weeks Act. The Agriculture Committee has primary jurisdiction for acquired lands forests. However, I am not conceding the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee jurisdiction over national forests created from the public domain or its jurisdiction over our Nation's wilderness system.