Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about the issue that is before us now on the floor, the energy efficiency act, led by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman.

The issue the Senators from Oklahoma and Vermont just spoke about is extremely important, and there will be, I am sure, appropriate time to debate that issue. I thank Senator Leahy for his extraordinary leadership for the safety and support of our police officers, for the many, literally dozens of years--decades--he has served, and he continues to do a magnificent job, and I will be supporting him in those efforts.

But I came to the floor to speak today about the bill that is now before us, with a vote of 79 votes--a very strong bipartisan signal that Republicans and Democrats would like to debate an energy efficiency bill that came out of the Energy Committee on a vote of 19 to 3.

I just became the chair of this committee, but I have served on it now for almost 18 years and just a few weeks ago became the chair. I have had the privilege to work with Republican and Democratic chairs of this committee. I am excited about the opportunity to try to find a path forward with the Presiding Officer, who has been, although not a member of the committee, an absolutely outstanding leader on energy issues since arriving in the Senate, and really look forward to working with her and Members from both sides of the aisle to actually deliver what I think the American people want: a sensible mainstream energy policy for America that increases domestic energy production, efficiency, and conservation; creates millions of jobs right here at home; makes us more energy secure and energy independent; and works with our friends, not our enemies.

I think we can get it done. I have been in the Senate long enough to know that things aren't easy, but I refuse to be cynical. I refuse to be, woe is me, the world is coming to an end, which I hear a lot around here. I think there are a lot of positive things going on in the country.

In the Presiding Officer's home State, North Dakota, I think there is zero unemployment. I think we come in second at about 4.5 percent unemployment in Louisiana because we are busy working--not fighting but working--together to produce energy jobs for the country.

I was very proud to support this efficiency bill in committee. I would like, of course, to see some additional things added to it, but to move it forward--I voted for it to move this bill forward to the floor.

When I became the chair of the committee, I had committed to Ron Wyden, the former chair, and Lisa Murkowski, the ranking member--which it is really their work, along with Senators Shaheen and Portman, two outstanding members of the committee--to see what I could do to move this bill forward.

I wanted to talk a minute about why this is important and frame this in a way that our Members can understand it.

First--I am going to talk about the bill itself in a minute, but let me just step back and say this: There have been 302 bills filed in this Congress that relate to energy that have been sent to our committee for review. I am sad to say, and I think my constituents and others will be disappointed to hear, that only 13 of those bills have become law. I want to repeat that: 302 bills have been referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources since the beginning of this Congress and only 13 have become law. One of the reasons I wanted to bring the energy efficiency bill to the floor is because I think we need to make that 14.

I think this record is pretty dismal, and this is not a negative statement to the leadership of the committee prior to my being there. It is rather a reflection on the lack of cooperation that we are getting either at the committee level or in the Senate. It most certainly is not a reflection on the talents of the former chairman, Ron Wyden, and Lisa Murkowski, who couldn't have worked--and this is sort of the sad underpinning. You couldn't find two leaders who tried to work together more than these two. I know because I have sat next to them on that committee for 18 years and I have watched them. I am an eyewitness to their cordial, respectful conversations, both on and off the committee, when the cameras were on and when the cameras were off. Nobody can question this or deny it because everyone knows it is true, and there are many eyewitnesses besides myself.

The question becomes, if a committee has two people who are working well together, a committee that is as important in jurisdiction as Energy and Natural Resources is in this country, how is it possible that we can only get 13 out of 302 bills passed? That is a very interesting question. Why couldn't we get 14 done this week? That is why I brought this bill to the floor or asked for it to come to the floor, particularly because it is important to both Democrats and Republicans.

Let's talk for a minute about how important this bill is. I have 10 pages of a single-spaced list of businesses, organizations that support this Shaheen-Portman bill, which I will submit for the Record. Remember, it came out of committee, one of the few of the 300 filed, on a 19-to-3 vote.

There are roughly 200 organizations and businesses. I am going to submit all of their names for the Record, but I just wanted to read a few, to understand the breadth of support for this bill before I talk about what this bill does. They are: Alcoa, American Air, Inc., Aspen Skiing Company, BAE Systems, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Corning, Eastern Mountain Sports, Intel, International Paper, Owens Corning, Raytheon Company--one of the largest in the world, Solar Turbines Incorporated, Universal Lighting, American Jewish Committee, Christian Coalition, ConservAmerica, Earth Day Network, the National Wildlife Federation, the American Chemistry Council, American Lighting Association, Consumer Federation of America, League of Women Voters, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of endorsements.

I could go on and on, but the point I think is clear. There are organizations from the left, the right, the center, large and small, business coalitions, consumer coalitions, saying act now on energy efficiency.

We may not be able to, and I doubt sincerely that in the next 4 days on floor of the Senate we can draft an energy policy for America. That would be a bar set a little too high for what we will be able to do between Tuesday and Friday.

But we could do two important things for the country: pass this energy efficiency bill and pass the Keystone Pipeline, something I am proud to vote for. You will vote for it. It is a piece of the energy infrastructure this country needs, this country deserves, and we need to move forward on it.

So in the spirit of balance, compromise, fairness, and common sense-- which we are not finding around here very often--I thought: Let's see. We have an energy efficiency bill that is supported by an extraordinarily broad and deep coalition of businesspeople and supported by two of the most respected Members of this body.

May I remind everyone, Jeanne Shaheen was a Governor before she was a Senator. She has been serving for decades in public office and is well known and well respected.

Bob Portman is not only a Senator from Ohio but was formerly the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, so he understands about finance, cost, and savings. I don't think either he or Jeanne Shaheen would have put their names on this bill,

which they have been working on now for 5 years. This is not an election-year bill, as some would call it. This is a 5-year, very hard effort by these two wonderful legislators to provide a bill the country needs. So why aren't we all jumping up and down voting for it? That is a good question.

Rob Portman, who was also the U.S. Trade Representative under the Bush administration and saw firsthand when Congress passed very poorly thought-out bills or made mistakes in bills we passed, and seeing so many jobs leaving to go to China and India, probably jumped on a chance to create jobs in America. Thank goodness for Rob Portman. That is what our energy efficiency bill does. It creates jobs for America.

When I go home and I am out in my parishes, whether it is Tangipahoa Parish or Richland Parish or De Soto Parish or Caddo Parish or East Baton Rouge or Orleans Parish, people look at me and say: Senator, I don't know why everybody is yelling and screaming in Washington. I don't know why everybody is yelling and screaming about the President or this or that. Would you please tell them we want high-paying jobs.

Yes, raising the minimum wage is important. I am voting for the minimum wage. People don't want to make the minimum wage. They want to make $40-, $50-, $60-, $70,000 a year. They want an income for their families so their kids can go to school, go to college, so they can live in their homes and retire securely. Do you think you can do that at a minimum wage, whether it is $7 an hour or $10 an hour? No.

We have a bill on the floor that is going to create American jobs with American manufacturers--maybe not all U.S. technology because frankly we get good energy efficiency technology from around the world, but Americans are very good at this--very good at it. In fact, it is so good that in an old graph--which I am going to have updated and blown up because no one can see this but me, unfortunately, because it is so small. If the cameras can pick it up--and I am going to have it updated by this afternoon--we can see that it says, ``Energy Efficiency: America's Greatest Energy Resource.''

Energy efficiency supplies 52 percent of our overall resources, petroleum is 35, natural gas is 23, coal is 19, and nuclear is 8.

Think about energy efficiency as our Nation's greatest resource. Energy savings from efficiency are real and save Americans money. Since 1970, energy efficiency improvements have reduced U.S. energy costs by about $700 billion from what it would have been otherwise.

When we think about energy saved, it is the cleanest energy. It is completely or almost completely American because we are the ones saving it. We may import a little of that technology from other places, but it is all American, all day, all clean. Why aren't we doing it?

The other side--and I know Senator Thune is going to speak in a minute--said energy efficiency is not enough for us. We want to build the Keystone Pipeline, so I agree. I agree. I think it is time to do both; to do this energy efficiency bill, to build the Keystone Pipeline. Why? Not because I don't respect the process but because the process is over--5 years, 5 studies as required by law. Five studies were completed, the last of which was a State Department study that concluded it is actually environmentally safer to transport oil from Canada, from the oil sands in Canada to the refineries along the gulf coast to provide energy for this Nation and create anywhere from 30- to 50,000 jobs, depending on conservative or liberal facts, talking points, to create jobs and to put America and Canada closer together. We already are together but even closer together to be a North American energy powerhouse.

Canada has very high--as the Presiding Officer knows because she visited the oil sands. I am looking forward to going as soon as I can, but I do know, because she shared her experiences with me, that it is very spectacular to see the environmental safeguards Canada has used to produce this resource that is so important to them in the Alberta Province and to us.

Why not have an energy efficiency bill that is very popular with Democrats and supported by Republicans and then an energy piece, just a piece, not the whole energy policy of the world, not the whole energy policy of the United States but two important pillars, efficiency and production, put them together, try to find compromise and move it forward on these two pieces of legislation. Then we can get it over to the House, let the House decide if they will do it, and move it to the President's desk separately because the President has powers in the Constitution, and we have our own powers.

One would think that would make a lot of sense, and this is what I was hoping to do by asking the leadership to allow the Shaheen-Portman bill to come to the floor. But evidently, as balanced, as fair as that sounds, I think it is unfortunately probably not going to be sufficient to move this issue forward. We shall see. We are going to open this for debate.

I wish the debate could be about energy efficiency and the importance of this bill, things that might improve this bill relative to energy efficiency and not on other matters that both sides know do not have this kind of broad-based support.

Some of the matters colleagues want to file as amendments that are pending, or those I know of that might come to the floor, have not even come through our committee. This bill did come through the committee on a 19-to-3 vote. While the Keystone Pipeline has not yet come through committee, it can come to this floor and there may be enough votes to pass it--very, very close. We have about 57 to 58 votes, as I stand here. We need two or three or four more. We might get those votes as the debate goes on and as people listen to the importance of promoting America as an energy superpower.

I will talk more about that later in the week. I have a lot more to say about the importance of the Keystone Pipeline. But for right now, I want to ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to really think about the benefits to their districts, to their people, and to our country, to support the energy efficiency bill and to agree on a vote on the Keystone Pipeline in hopes of getting a balanced effort moving forward.

There will be time to talk about other issues that are much more controversial. Although I support many of them, they are much more controversial, if you can believe it, than these two. Even though Keystone is controversial, we still have almost 60 votes, so it is worth trying for. So that is my pitch--to try to be as cooperative as we can.

I think Leader Reid has been extremely reasonable in allowing the efficiency bill to come to the floor, knowing there are lots-- hundreds--of amendments that could be talked about and that are extraneous to this issue. Technically, he is agreeing to a stand-alone vote on Keystone, which is a big concession for the leader of a party where the majority of our Members, unfortunately, aren't supporting it. I support it, Senator Begich supports it, Senator Tester supports it, and Senator Heitkamp supports it. But my friends on the Republican side should understand that when Boehner says he can't take up an issue unless a majority of his caucus is for it, they all jump up and down and say: Go Speaker Boehner, yes. That is the way to go. Yet when Harry Reid stands up and says, listen, I am going as far as I can go here-- the majority of my caucus doesn't even support Keystone, but I am going to allow a vote on it--my Republican colleagues want to just push that aside as if he is not cooperating. It is disingenuous, it is hypocritical, and it is unfair.

Now, Harry can fight his own battles. He doesn't need me to fight them for him. But let me just say to the other side that I don't want to hear anything from you all: Well, we can't get that done because even though we have the votes in the House, we don't have a majority of Republicans. This is about Republicans and Democrats sometimes crossing the aisle to do what is right for our country and not being held hostage by the side wings of our parties. I wish I had a little more help around here doing that.

Anyway, we will give it the old college try and try to get this energy efficiency bill through and get an up-or-down vote on the Keystone Pipeline. If people cooperate, we will get it done. If not, we will have had only 13 bills passed out of this Congress from the

energy committee, and we will have to roll up our sleeves and go back to work and figure out a better approach. This is the best one I could come up with. It may work; it may not.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished coach and sports enthusiast, Mr. David ``Big Daddy'' Clyde Thibodeaux. Coach Thibodeaux is best known throughout his hometown of Acadiana as ``Big Daddy'' for his warm and fatherly spirit to his family and former players alike. Mr. Thibodeaux served with distinction as head coach of both the Stone Junkies Softball Team and AAU Team Louisiana. In 2005, Coach Thibodeaux was awarded for his remarkable coaching career when he was inducted into the AAU Louisiana Hall of Fame.

Coach Thibodeaux disseminated his sage knowledge of the game to more than just his players. Through his work as a sports announcer, Coach Thibodeaux also imparted his wisdom of basketball and football with sports fans from around the country. Over the course of his announcing career Coach Thibodeaux broadcast live on KPEL's ESPN 1420 Radio, Friday Night Football, Big Time Sports Show on Sundays, and Kevin Foote's Wednesday Football Show in the morning, as well as the online show of PrepBallers.net. His love of people and sports was evident to everyone who met Coach Thibodeaux, and his life embodied a career of service to others and God.

David Thibodeaux is survived by his wife, Rose A. Thibodeaux; his son Derrick and Niema LeBlanc Sr., of Petal, MS; his daughter, Adrienne and Johnathan Goodie of Breaux Bridge; two step brothers, Raymond Green of New Iberia and Colby Green of Dallas, TX; his uncle, Yancy Thibodeaux of Reno, NV; his brother-in-law, Nolan Hamilton Sr. of New Iberia; his nephew and godchild, Nolan Hamilton Jr., of New Iberia; six grandchildren, Dayton LeBlanc, Braylen Goodie, Derrick LeBlanc Jr., Carmyn Goodie, Kennedy LeBlanc, and Jalen Goodie; two nieces, Patience Thibodeaux and Setonya Mouton; nephew, Gregory Martin Thibodeaux Jr; great niece, Zaylen Mouton; great nephew, Zyren Lastrapes; and his aunt, Janzina Thibodeaux.

It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me, along with David ``Big Daddy'' Thibodeaux's family, in recognizing the life and many accomplishments of this incredible coach, mentor, and friend, as well as his lasting impact throughout the State of Louisiana.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Southern University located in Baton Rouge, LA, as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. Southern University at Baton Rouge was established on March 9, 1914, when Southern University moved from New Orleans to Scott's Bluff, overlooking the Mississippi River in the northern section of Baton Rouge. The University opened its doors just outside of Baton Rouge with nine professors and just one central building to 47 students. The original building, now called the Archives and Information Center, housed the administration, all classrooms, and even served as an all-girls dorm. The original campus is now a part of the Louisiana African American Heritage Trail.

Southern University remains the only land-grant school in the State of Louisiana and now has more than 200 buildings worth more than $200 million. This year's Southern University and A&M College at Baton Rouge, SUBR, Centennial Celebration will honor Southern's historical contributions as well as acknowledge exceptional alumni in a variety of fields, including its first president, Dr. Joseph Samuel Clark. The Jaguar Nation of SouthernUniversity is well-known for its role in the civil rights movement in the State of Louisiana and for its nationally recognized marching band nicknamed, ``the Human Jukebox.''

Undergirding all of the centennial events will be an ambitious fundraising effort that will solicit financial support from corporations, foundations, businesses, religious organizations, alumni, university retirees, former and current board members, former system presidents and chancellors, former student campus leaders and athletes, current faculty, staff and students, elected and appointed officials, community leaders, and the public in general. The

funds generated will be credited to a scholarship fund to assist qualified SUBR students.

Today, Southern University at Baton Rouge enrolls more than 7,000 across 44 undergraduate degree programs. Southern also offers 30 post- graduate degree programs including six doctoral programs and an ABA- accredited law school program. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Southern University at Baton Rouge as it celebrates its 100th Anniversary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``New Routes for Funding and Financing Highways and Transit.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2014, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Ukraine--Countering Russian Intervention and Supporting a Democratic State.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``A More Efficient and Effective Government: Cultivating the Federal Workforce.''

Mr. President, I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished former Southern University Director of Bands who passed on April 28, 2014, at the age of 85 in Baton Rouge, LA. Dr. Greggs was the third child born in Shreveport, LA on January 22, 1929 to Sarah and Isaac Greggs. Dr. Greggs was baptized in the Bethel Baptist Church in Frierson, LA and later joined the Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church in Baton Rouge. He was a visionary, who created and led the Southern University Marching Band, affectionately known as the Human Jukebox for 36 years.

Dr. Greggs graduated from Central Colored High School in Shreveport, LA and at 15 years of age enrolled in Southern University and A & M College in Baton Rouge, LA. where he received a B.S. in music education. He received a M.S. in music education from Vander Cook College in Chicago, IL. Later, he entered the University of Peru to complete his doctorate degree in music. He was then drafted into the U.S. Army. His service in the Army was honored with and dedicated to playing in the Army band, 4th Division, 4th Infantry, APO 39, and to playing early morning reverie. While in Germany, he received the Occupational Medal.

After his return from service in the U.S. Army, he began teaching at J. S. Clark Junior High School and Notre Dame High School in Shreveport, LA. He and his family later moved to Baton Rouge, LA where he taught and directed the band at the Southern University Laboratory School. During his tenure at Southern University, Dr. Greggs directed countless future band directors, musicians, and myriad of industry leaders outside of music. He attracted thousands of students to Southern, who were drawn as a result of his unmatched leadership and lyrical genius. Under his leadership, the Human Jukebox performed at six Super Bowls, four Sugar Bowls and three Presidential inaugurations. His grueling practices were well known throughout Louisiana and the discipline that Dr. Greggs instilled in his musicians produced exceptional results year end and year out. Dr. Greggs retired in 2005.

With pride, the State of Louisiana honored Dr. Greggs in 2013 by inducting the legendary band leader into the Louisiana Black History Hall of Fame for his commitment to serving African American students for nearly four decades. He was also the recipient of the Key of Life Award at the 31st NAACP Image Awards; an award created in honor of Stevie Wonder and presented each year to a musician who embodies Wonder's ``inner vision.''

Dr. Isaac Greggs was a true inspiration to all that had the great privilege of knowing him. I am grateful and honored to have known him. He will be greatly missed. My deepest condolences go out to his wife of 58 years, Rose Audrey Metoyer Greggs; his children: Audree Greggs Vaughn (Percy), Colette Greggs, Dedrick Jon Greggs (Carla), and Mark Eric Greggs (Tricia); grandchildren: Kirsten Vaughn Watson (Benjamin), Kory Greggs Vaughn MD, Jamal Greggs Russell, Kyle Greggs Russell, Daniel Isaac Greggs and Casey Daniel Greggs; great-grandchildren Grace Makayla Watson, Naomi Love Watson, Isaiah Benjamin Watson and Judah Seth Watson, and a host of other relatives, family and friends. He was preceded in death by his parents: Sarah and Isaac Greggs, brother Edmond and sister Ellen Greggs.

His legacy could not end without, ``It's gonna be alright; just make it right.''

It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Dr. Isaac Gregg's family in recognizing the life and many accomplishments of this incredible musician, leader, and mentor, as well as his lasting impact throughout the Nation.

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

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

Madam President, I am going to speak very briefly this afternoon about a very timely and important subject. My colleague and partner, Senator Hoeven, came to the floor earlier--I was unable to come at that time--to speak about a bill for which he has actually provided extraordinary leadership.

I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, and Senator Hoeven for his leadership as well, to try to help bring to the floor of the Senate a vote to help construct the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue a group of us have been working on now for quite some time. I wish to thank the Presiding Officer again. I wish to also thank the other Democratic leaders who have been so supportive and helpful to us in this effort: Senator Pryor from Arkansas, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, Senator Tester from Montana, who agreed to cosponsor the bill, Senator Warner from Virginia, Senator Hagan, Senator Begich, Senator Manchin, Senator Donnelly, and Senator Walsh. I really want to thank them and other colleagues who have decided they may not want to cosponsor the bill that will be introduced later tonight, but they very well may vote for it, and I appreciate it.

I know this has been a very contentious issue for many, because people have very strong feelings about this particular pipeline called the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some of us who support it have a little trouble understanding why it is such a big deal, but I appreciate there are strong feelings on the other side of this issue. For those of us from States such as Louisiana and Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota, particularly, that are affected by this pipeline, it is clear that the technology--and we should be proud of it--is extraordinary, it is exploding and, in some ways, unprecedented and unexpected. The technology is creating a real opportunity for America and for North America. That opportunity is for us to produce more oil and gas. The opportunity is to continue to maintain coal supplies that are clean and appropriate for the environment--or advanced coal technologies, I should say--and provide the kind of energy, including as well alternative energies that are emerging, such as wind and solar, and maintaining our nuclear and strategic advantage as part of our electric grid. It provides a real opportunity for us to go from a major country that was scrambling to plan where our energy was going to come from and really concerned about it--paying very high prices sometimes at the pump and through our electric grid--to now a country that gets to actually say, My gosh, look at the resources we have right here in America and the resources we potentially have with our partners and our allies. One of the strongest allies we have in the world is Canada, and an emerging ally--emerging in its relationship with us--is Mexico: The North American continent. I think there is so much potential for Canada, the United States, and Mexico--and others share my view--to become completely not only energy independent but an energy powerhouse for the world--a world in which the North American continent, at least, wants to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights. Senator Cardin was just on the floor talking about how important that issue is for our Nation and world. He has given literally his life as an expert on human rights around the world and is leading the Helsinki Commission. He was just talking with us about the importance of this and what is happening in Ukraine and in Russia and in Europe recently.

So the issue of freedom and private enterprise and opportunity and education and energy self-sufficiency are goals we treasure and it is possible for the rest of the world and our allies around the world.

But what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here in America and transporting oil and natural gas and other emerging fuels--alternative fuels, alternative sources of electricity--when we are not doing our very best?

I know it is contentious, but I come to the floor to talk about this issue. Senator Hoeven gave an excellent defense of why the Keystone Pipeline is important. But I want to underscore that in terms of jobs and the economy. I want to underscore the process. Because there are a lot of Democrats and others in my caucus--friends and colleagues--who have said: Well, has the process been complete? Has the process been thorough?

I want to review for the record a couple of very interesting aspects. Before I start, I want to point out, again, this, shown on this map I have in the Chamber, is the Keystone XL Pipeline.

There is already a ``Keystone Pipeline'' that has been constructed and has been operating for quite some time. This is an existing pipeline that is operating from Canada down to the refineries in Texas technically, but very close to the Louisiana border. We are very proud of our industry in Texas and Louisiana--the refining capacity we have, the ability to generate resources this country and the world need. Hopefully, if we can open exports appropriately--which is happening, as we speak. Permits are being issued. The jobs that are created here, the opportunity for creating jobs in every one of our 50 States, including Hawaii and Alaska, and in our territories and in our first nations, as they are called, in our tribal territories, is almost without peer in the last several decades.

But this XL Pipeline is an alternative route, and it has been debated for quite some time. There have been these permits I am going to talk about in a minute that have been reviewed and will put that into the Record because there is some concern: Have we really reviewed what we need to do? Have the environmental studies been met?

So into the Record I want to put: On April 16, 2010, the Department of State

issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It opened a 45-day comment period, which extended for additional days.

Then, a year later, on April 15, 2011, the Department of State issued a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and opened another 45-day comment period. At that time, there were 280,000 comments that were received. Those comments were read, responded to, and absorbed into the process.

On August 26 of that year--2011--the Department of State issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement and opened an additional 90-day review period. The agency continued to accept public comments.

Then, on March 1, 2013, the U.S. State Department issued its Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Presidential Permit application, which includes the proposed new route through Nebraska because there were some questions earlier in the process whether it should go through Nebraska.

Let me say, as strongly as I support the Keystone Pipeline, I also support States--whether it is Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, or North Dakota--to make determinations according to their own laws and their own constitutions about the takings of private property, which is sometimes required for projects such as this. Those processes cannot be shortchanged and they cannot be ignored.

One of the court cases right now in Nebraska is because--the courts have ruled this--the Governor there overstepped his bounds and he, according to the court in Nebraska, took actions that were contrary to the law in Nebraska and the constitution.

So these laws I am not dismissive of--the rules and regulations. Nebraska still has some issues that have to be resolved. But the rest of the pipeline to the south here has already been constructed. This part is being worked on. There are other parts of the pipeline that can be started while Nebraska finishes its very legitimate decisions between its courts, its public service commission, and its legislature about the issues in Nebraska--which, let me say, the landowners have valid concerns, and the courts have ruled so.

But, nevertheless, on January 31, 2014--this year--the State Department issued its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the permit application, confirming that the project is safe and will have limited environmental impacts. The report reflects that TransCanada has agreed to incorporate 59 special safety conditions recommended by the pipeline safety commission.

So to my colleagues who say: Have we given ample time to review, I would say the answer is clearly yes. Is it time to build the pipeline? Yes. And should we get about a vote on the Senate floor to express strong support for a piece of America's infrastructure--North American infrastructure that is critical to the future growth of our economy and to the promise of opportunity, economic opportunity for our citizens? I think the answer to that is yes.

This group of Democrats--of which the Presiding Officer, Senator Warner from Virginia, is a part--has been working on this now for several years.

One other point I would like to make: the comparison here of other pretty well-known and very large public works projects or private developments--some of them are public and some of them are private-- that have been constructed.

The Hoover Dam--very well known--took 5 years to complete, from 1931 to 1936. From planning, design, to completion--5 years.

The Pentagon took 2 years to complete, from 1941 to 1943.

The Space Shuttle Discovery took 4 years to complete, from 1979 to 1983.

The Ambassador Bridge between the United States and Canada--3 years to complete. Design, build, and complete--from 1927 to 1929.

The Theodore Roosevelt--4 years to complete, from 1968 to 1972.

America and Canada: Together we have been building major projects for many years--complicated, tough projects that require tremendous cooperation between agencies, and dealing with environmental protection rules and regulations, and meeting citizens' concerns.

This is not anything new. We have been doing this in America for a long time. It is time to stop studying and stop waiting and start building this Keystone XL Pipeline.

Now, again, the legislation we have introduced today--Senator Hoeven, Senator Landrieu, and 10 other Democrats, and several other Republicans--to build this pipeline would simply say it is time to stop studying; start building. With all due respect, the process is complete. We just acknowledged the process is done.

We also acknowledge there is still an outstanding issue in Nebraska. Nothing in this bill will affect the court decisions, the timeframe in Nebraska. But what it will send is a signal that this other section can start to be built and constructed. And then, of course, Nebraska will take--we do not know. It could be 6 months, it could be a year. We do not know when that process will finally be resolved.

But we can start now. It is going to take several years for this to be completed. If we wait another year, it is pushing this even further back for no good reason.

Let me mention a third argument.

I think some people are under the mistaken impression that this is maybe the first time we have built infrastructure with Canada. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are 100 cross-border permits that have already been approved for oil and natural gas and electric transmission facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico or the U.S.-Canadian border. Of these 100 are 21 oil pipelines crossing the border.

So this is such a basic, important point of building infrastructure between Canada, America, and Mexico that some of us who support these kinds of things fairly routinely are having difficulty understanding why 5 years and five permits and five reviews is not satisfactory to build something that has been basically built multiple times before.

Some people may say: Oh, but the difference is, this is connecting the oil sands. The oil sands in Canada are a very important resource, not just for Canada but for the United States. I am glad these oil sands are here as opposed to in Venezuela or I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in Cuba. I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in the middle of Russia with everything else they have.

I am happy Canada has resources. I am happy. They are a friend and a neighbor and close to us. I am also really impressed with Canada's environmental standards, which are, by my calculations--not in depth, but just a broad review, after speaking to so many industry and government leaders there--very rigorous. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would counter that.

It is well known and understood that Canada has very high standards. They understand, accept climate change. They believe carbon is affecting the climate in a negative way. They believe they can reduce the amount of carbon coming out. They are sensitive to that. But they know what we know--that the world is going to need oil and gas for decades to come. It is not going to stop in 5 years or 10 years. We need oil and gas for decades. Why not use our own? Why not use the oil and gas from Canada, America, and Mexico--creating jobs right here at home, instead of importing it from places around the world that we do not even get along with or places around the world that do not share our values or places around the world that can use the price of oil or gas to hurt our economy. Why don't we take charge of our own economy?

So when some people complain about the oil sands in Canada, I am, frankly, glad they are there. I am glad we can tap into them with extraordinary new, cleaner technologies to have oil and gas and energy for this country that has a very bright future.

So with the reviews--five over 5 years--hundreds of thousands of comments from business, industry, citizens, environmental groups that have been taken into consideration, the Department of State has issued its final review, and that final review said it is safer and more environmentally in tune with our environmental rules and regulations to transport this oil through a pipeline than through rail or highway.

For those of us who live in places that do a lot of production, we always

say we are proud of the industry, and we are--the industry makes mistakes, and when they mess up, they have to clean up--but I also have to say, I am very conscious, as most Americans are, of the traffic on our highways, of the backups on our rail system. I hear complaints from businesses, manufacturers: We cannot get our products fast enough.

So here we have a chance to move a commodity under the ground, safely through a pipe, but know if we do not build this pipeline, it is going to move by rail or truck, which congests our highways, congests our rail lines, and causes even more impact on our environment.

I think the record is clear. I think the arguments are in. I think there is no question that this is right for the environment, right for the country, and clearly in the interests of the United States. This will benefit not just the gulf coast where the refineries are, but it is going to create jobs throughout our entire country. Suppliers to this project exist everywhere.

There is a terrific map that I have shown before where suppliers from all over the country are providing either labor or support for the construction of this pipeline and much other similar infrastructure in the Nation.

We already have 2.9 million miles of pipeline in America. This piece we are speaking about today is 1,000 miles. We already have 2.9 million miles of pipe. Yes, some of it needs to be upgraded. Yes, not every inch of it is safe. We are working on that. But this is probably going to be the safest pipeline ever built in the history of America. It has been reviewed so many times. I cannot wait to look at the details of what has been required. I am positive that it is going to be the safest pipeline ever built. It has taken 5 years to get it.

So that is what our bill does. I am going to end with again thanking the Democrats who have joined with me to support the Keystone XL Pipeline. I thank the caucus for at least the opportunity. Hopefully, we will introduce this bill tonight. Hopefully, we can get a vote on this bill. Let me say that the vote will be in connection with the energy efficiency bill that will also be brought to the floor. The reason, as chair of the energy committee, I think that is so important is that while neither one represents a comprehensive energy plan for the country, which I hope to develop with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I just stepped into this position in the last month-- these are two important energy-related pieces that need resolution.

The energy efficiency bill has now been worked on by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman--bipartisan--for 5 years, almost as long as the Keystone Pipeline has been under consideration by the administration. We have had an energy efficiency bill worked on by Republicans and Democrats that will create thousands of private sector jobs.

It is supported by the Business Roundtable, the Real Estate Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, labor leaders all over our country, building owners, and retail establishments. The energy efficiency bill is a terrific piece of legislation. Again, it came out of our committee 18 to 3. There are very few things that have come out of the energy committee that are that impactful. There are little bills that come out that really do not mean much to anybody. They may come out unanimously. It means a lot to the person who is sponsoring it, but it does not have national impact. This has national and international impact--all positive.

Senator Shaheen has been a champion of trying to bring this bill to the floor. We have been rebuffed and rebuffed and rebuffed by the Republican side for no reason because some of them are wanting to debate health care and some of them want to debate Iran sanctions. I said: Let's just talk about energy. It is important for the country to focus at least a few hours of the Senate's attention on energy.

America is focused on it. They want it to be affordable. They want it to be as clean as possible. They do not want to have to buy it from countries they do not share values with and do not appreciate. They want less imports to America, more domestic production of alternatives and oil and gas. So let's get about that business.

So efficiency is basically doing a lot more--a lot more with a lot less--saving taxpayers and saving huge sums of money. The example that everyone is becoming more familiar with is the Empire State Building in New York, an extraordinary private sector effort to take one of our most iconic buildings that we all know and which many millions of Americans have actually visited, and to take an old building that was constructed in the 1930s, retooling it with private money--not public grants, private money--and saving the building owners and the tenants of that building millions and millions of dollars as an example of what can be done in commercial buildings throughout this country.

That needs to be unleashed with the legislation of Jeanne Shaheen-- that power, that promise, to do more of that is going to be unleashed by this bill that Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have carefully put together and Senator Wyden also when he was chair, with Senator Murkowski's help, and they got it out of the committee.

I committed when I stepped into the leadership of the committee to build on their good work and to do my very best to get that bill to the floor. We have an energy bill with Keystone. I thought the two of them, working together, Republicans and Democrats, we could get a good compromise by working on both of them at the same time. We are capable of doing it. They are clearly broadly supported. It will help create jobs in America.

We will begin with two important steps--not the only ones. There is more that can be done. People come to me and say: Senator, we should do this, we should do that. Yes, we can work on coal. We can work on propane. We had a hearing on propane today. We can work on additional rail for the country. We can work on pipeline safety. We can work on alternative fuels. We can work on strengthening our relationship with Israel and China. We can work on new kinds of automobiles.

But that is for another day. We cannot do all of it at one time. But what we can do is what is before us. We can do what is before us. We can do what is clearly timely. The energy efficiency bill, for 5 years, has been waiting for action by this Senate. The House has already passed an energy efficiency bill.

The pipeline has been waiting 5 years and has been reviewed five times. It is time to move forward on both and create the kinds of jobs for America that we need--high-paying, middle-class jobs--and to begin to help build America and North America as the energy powerhouse that it can be, doing it together. We can recognize the transport of oil and gas, and the production is important, but also alternative and focusing on efficiency and conservation, and many of our Democrats are very proud of the work in that area.

I am sorry to keep the Senate. I think I might be the last speaker of the evening. But I thank the leadership for providing the time, and again, I want to thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership.

Madam President, I am going to speak very briefly this afternoon about a very timely and important subject. My colleague and partner, Senator Hoeven, came to the floor earlier--I was unable to come at that time--to speak about a bill for which he has actually provided extraordinary leadership.

I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, and Senator Hoeven for his leadership as well, to try to help bring to the floor of the Senate a vote to help construct the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue a group of us have been working on now for quite some time. I wish to thank the Presiding Officer again. I wish to also thank the other Democratic leaders who have been so supportive and helpful to us in this effort: Senator Pryor from Arkansas, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, Senator Tester from Montana, who agreed to cosponsor the bill, Senator Warner from Virginia, Senator Hagan, Senator Begich, Senator Manchin, Senator Donnelly, and Senator Walsh. I really want to thank them and other colleagues who have decided they may not want to cosponsor the bill that will be introduced later tonight, but they very well may vote for it, and I appreciate it.

I know this has been a very contentious issue for many, because people have very strong feelings about this particular pipeline called the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some of us who support it have a little trouble understanding why it is such a big deal, but I appreciate there are strong feelings on the other side of this issue. For those of us from States such as Louisiana and Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota, particularly, that are affected by this pipeline, it is clear that the technology--and we should be proud of it--is extraordinary, it is exploding and, in some ways, unprecedented and unexpected. The technology is creating a real opportunity for America and for North America. That opportunity is for us to produce more oil and gas. The opportunity is to continue to maintain coal supplies that are clean and appropriate for the environment--or advanced coal technologies, I should say--and provide the kind of energy, including as well alternative energies that are emerging, such as wind and solar, and maintaining our nuclear and strategic advantage as part of our electric grid. It provides a real opportunity for us to go from a major country that was scrambling to plan where our energy was going to come from and really concerned about it--paying very high prices sometimes at the pump and through our electric grid--to now a country that gets to actually say, My gosh, look at the resources we have right here in America and the resources we potentially have with our partners and our allies. One of the strongest allies we have in the world is Canada, and an emerging ally--emerging in its relationship with us--is Mexico: The North American continent. I think there is so much potential for Canada, the United States, and Mexico--and others share my view--to become completely not only energy independent but an energy powerhouse for the world--a world in which the North American continent, at least, wants to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights. Senator Cardin was just on the floor talking about how important that issue is for our Nation and world. He has given literally his life as an expert on human rights around the world and is leading the Helsinki Commission. He was just talking with us about the importance of this and what is happening in Ukraine and in Russia and in Europe recently.

So the issue of freedom and private enterprise and opportunity and education and energy self-sufficiency are goals we treasure and it is possible for the rest of the world and our allies around the world.

But what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here in America and transporting oil and natural gas and other emerging fuels--alternative fuels, alternative sources of electricity--when we are not doing our very best?

I know it is contentious, but I come to the floor to talk about this issue. Senator Hoeven gave an excellent defense of why the Keystone Pipeline is important. But I want to underscore that in terms of jobs and the economy. I want to underscore the process. Because there are a lot of Democrats and others in my caucus--friends and colleagues--who have said: Well, has the process been complete? Has the process been thorough?

I want to review for the record a couple of very interesting aspects. Before I start, I want to point out, again, this, shown on this map I have in the Chamber, is the Keystone XL Pipeline.

There is already a ``Keystone Pipeline'' that has been constructed and has been operating for quite some time. This is an existing pipeline that is operating from Canada down to the refineries in Texas technically, but very close to the Louisiana border. We are very proud of our industry in Texas and Louisiana--the refining capacity we have, the ability to generate resources this country and the world need. Hopefully, if we can open exports appropriately--which is happening, as we speak. Permits are being issued. The jobs that are created here, the opportunity for creating jobs in every one of our 50 States, including Hawaii and Alaska, and in our territories and in our first nations, as they are called, in our tribal territories, is almost without peer in the last several decades.

But this XL Pipeline is an alternative route, and it has been debated for quite some time. There have been these permits I am going to talk about in a minute that have been reviewed and will put that into the Record because there is some concern: Have we really reviewed what we need to do? Have the environmental studies been met?

So into the Record I want to put: On April 16, 2010, the Department of State

issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It opened a 45-day comment period, which extended for additional days.

Then, a year later, on April 15, 2011, the Department of State issued a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and opened another 45-day comment period. At that time, there were 280,000 comments that were received. Those comments were read, responded to, and absorbed into the process.

On August 26 of that year--2011--the Department of State issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement and opened an additional 90-day review period. The agency continued to accept public comments.

Then, on March 1, 2013, the U.S. State Department issued its Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Presidential Permit application, which includes the proposed new route through Nebraska because there were some questions earlier in the process whether it should go through Nebraska.

Let me say, as strongly as I support the Keystone Pipeline, I also support States--whether it is Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, or North Dakota--to make determinations according to their own laws and their own constitutions about the takings of private property, which is sometimes required for projects such as this. Those processes cannot be shortchanged and they cannot be ignored.

One of the court cases right now in Nebraska is because--the courts have ruled this--the Governor there overstepped his bounds and he, according to the court in Nebraska, took actions that were contrary to the law in Nebraska and the constitution.

So these laws I am not dismissive of--the rules and regulations. Nebraska still has some issues that have to be resolved. But the rest of the pipeline to the south here has already been constructed. This part is being worked on. There are other parts of the pipeline that can be started while Nebraska finishes its very legitimate decisions between its courts, its public service commission, and its legislature about the issues in Nebraska--which, let me say, the landowners have valid concerns, and the courts have ruled so.

But, nevertheless, on January 31, 2014--this year--the State Department issued its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the permit application, confirming that the project is safe and will have limited environmental impacts. The report reflects that TransCanada has agreed to incorporate 59 special safety conditions recommended by the pipeline safety commission.

So to my colleagues who say: Have we given ample time to review, I would say the answer is clearly yes. Is it time to build the pipeline? Yes. And should we get about a vote on the Senate floor to express strong support for a piece of America's infrastructure--North American infrastructure that is critical to the future growth of our economy and to the promise of opportunity, economic opportunity for our citizens? I think the answer to that is yes.

This group of Democrats--of which the Presiding Officer, Senator Warner from Virginia, is a part--has been working on this now for several years.

One other point I would like to make: the comparison here of other pretty well-known and very large public works projects or private developments--some of them are public and some of them are private-- that have been constructed.

The Hoover Dam--very well known--took 5 years to complete, from 1931 to 1936. From planning, design, to completion--5 years.

The Pentagon took 2 years to complete, from 1941 to 1943.

The Space Shuttle Discovery took 4 years to complete, from 1979 to 1983.

The Ambassador Bridge between the United States and Canada--3 years to complete. Design, build, and complete--from 1927 to 1929.

The Theodore Roosevelt--4 years to complete, from 1968 to 1972.

America and Canada: Together we have been building major projects for many years--complicated, tough projects that require tremendous cooperation between agencies, and dealing with environmental protection rules and regulations, and meeting citizens' concerns.

This is not anything new. We have been doing this in America for a long time. It is time to stop studying and stop waiting and start building this Keystone XL Pipeline.

Now, again, the legislation we have introduced today--Senator Hoeven, Senator Landrieu, and 10 other Democrats, and several other Republicans--to build this pipeline would simply say it is time to stop studying; start building. With all due respect, the process is complete. We just acknowledged the process is done.

We also acknowledge there is still an outstanding issue in Nebraska. Nothing in this bill will affect the court decisions, the timeframe in Nebraska. But what it will send is a signal that this other section can start to be built and constructed. And then, of course, Nebraska will take--we do not know. It could be 6 months, it could be a year. We do not know when that process will finally be resolved.

But we can start now. It is going to take several years for this to be completed. If we wait another year, it is pushing this even further back for no good reason.

Let me mention a third argument.

I think some people are under the mistaken impression that this is maybe the first time we have built infrastructure with Canada. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are 100 cross-border permits that have already been approved for oil and natural gas and electric transmission facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico or the U.S.-Canadian border. Of these 100 are 21 oil pipelines crossing the border.

So this is such a basic, important point of building infrastructure between Canada, America, and Mexico that some of us who support these kinds of things fairly routinely are having difficulty understanding why 5 years and five permits and five reviews is not satisfactory to build something that has been basically built multiple times before.

Some people may say: Oh, but the difference is, this is connecting the oil sands. The oil sands in Canada are a very important resource, not just for Canada but for the United States. I am glad these oil sands are here as opposed to in Venezuela or I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in Cuba. I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in the middle of Russia with everything else they have.

I am happy Canada has resources. I am happy. They are a friend and a neighbor and close to us. I am also really impressed with Canada's environmental standards, which are, by my calculations--not in depth, but just a broad review, after speaking to so many industry and government leaders there--very rigorous. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would counter that.

It is well known and understood that Canada has very high standards. They understand, accept climate change. They believe carbon is affecting the climate in a negative way. They believe they can reduce the amount of carbon coming out. They are sensitive to that. But they know what we know--that the world is going to need oil and gas for decades to come. It is not going to stop in 5 years or 10 years. We need oil and gas for decades. Why not use our own? Why not use the oil and gas from Canada, America, and Mexico--creating jobs right here at home, instead of importing it from places around the world that we do not even get along with or places around the world that do not share our values or places around the world that can use the price of oil or gas to hurt our economy. Why don't we take charge of our own economy?

So when some people complain about the oil sands in Canada, I am, frankly, glad they are there. I am glad we can tap into them with extraordinary new, cleaner technologies to have oil and gas and energy for this country that has a very bright future.

So with the reviews--five over 5 years--hundreds of thousands of comments from business, industry, citizens, environmental groups that have been taken into consideration, the Department of State has issued its final review, and that final review said it is safer and more environmentally in tune with our environmental rules and regulations to transport this oil through a pipeline than through rail or highway.

For those of us who live in places that do a lot of production, we always

say we are proud of the industry, and we are--the industry makes mistakes, and when they mess up, they have to clean up--but I also have to say, I am very conscious, as most Americans are, of the traffic on our highways, of the backups on our rail system. I hear complaints from businesses, manufacturers: We cannot get our products fast enough.

So here we have a chance to move a commodity under the ground, safely through a pipe, but know if we do not build this pipeline, it is going to move by rail or truck, which congests our highways, congests our rail lines, and causes even more impact on our environment.

I think the record is clear. I think the arguments are in. I think there is no question that this is right for the environment, right for the country, and clearly in the interests of the United States. This will benefit not just the gulf coast where the refineries are, but it is going to create jobs throughout our entire country. Suppliers to this project exist everywhere.

There is a terrific map that I have shown before where suppliers from all over the country are providing either labor or support for the construction of this pipeline and much other similar infrastructure in the Nation.

We already have 2.9 million miles of pipeline in America. This piece we are speaking about today is 1,000 miles. We already have 2.9 million miles of pipe. Yes, some of it needs to be upgraded. Yes, not every inch of it is safe. We are working on that. But this is probably going to be the safest pipeline ever built in the history of America. It has been reviewed so many times. I cannot wait to look at the details of what has been required. I am positive that it is going to be the safest pipeline ever built. It has taken 5 years to get it.

So that is what our bill does. I am going to end with again thanking the Democrats who have joined with me to support the Keystone XL Pipeline. I thank the caucus for at least the opportunity. Hopefully, we will introduce this bill tonight. Hopefully, we can get a vote on this bill. Let me say that the vote will be in connection with the energy efficiency bill that will also be brought to the floor. The reason, as chair of the energy committee, I think that is so important is that while neither one represents a comprehensive energy plan for the country, which I hope to develop with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I just stepped into this position in the last month-- these are two important energy-related pieces that need resolution.

The energy efficiency bill has now been worked on by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman--bipartisan--for 5 years, almost as long as the Keystone Pipeline has been under consideration by the administration. We have had an energy efficiency bill worked on by Republicans and Democrats that will create thousands of private sector jobs.

It is supported by the Business Roundtable, the Real Estate Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, labor leaders all over our country, building owners, and retail establishments. The energy efficiency bill is a terrific piece of legislation. Again, it came out of our committee 18 to 3. There are very few things that have come out of the energy committee that are that impactful. There are little bills that come out that really do not mean much to anybody. They may come out unanimously. It means a lot to the person who is sponsoring it, but it does not have national impact. This has national and international impact--all positive.

Senator Shaheen has been a champion of trying to bring this bill to the floor. We have been rebuffed and rebuffed and rebuffed by the Republican side for no reason because some of them are wanting to debate health care and some of them want to debate Iran sanctions. I said: Let's just talk about energy. It is important for the country to focus at least a few hours of the Senate's attention on energy.

America is focused on it. They want it to be affordable. They want it to be as clean as possible. They do not want to have to buy it from countries they do not share values with and do not appreciate. They want less imports to America, more domestic production of alternatives and oil and gas. So let's get about that business.

So efficiency is basically doing a lot more--a lot more with a lot less--saving taxpayers and saving huge sums of money. The example that everyone is becoming more familiar with is the Empire State Building in New York, an extraordinary private sector effort to take one of our most iconic buildings that we all know and which many millions of Americans have actually visited, and to take an old building that was constructed in the 1930s, retooling it with private money--not public grants, private money--and saving the building owners and the tenants of that building millions and millions of dollars as an example of what can be done in commercial buildings throughout this country.

That needs to be unleashed with the legislation of Jeanne Shaheen-- that power, that promise, to do more of that is going to be unleashed by this bill that Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have carefully put together and Senator Wyden also when he was chair, with Senator Murkowski's help, and they got it out of the committee.

I committed when I stepped into the leadership of the committee to build on their good work and to do my very best to get that bill to the floor. We have an energy bill with Keystone. I thought the two of them, working together, Republicans and Democrats, we could get a good compromise by working on both of them at the same time. We are capable of doing it. They are clearly broadly supported. It will help create jobs in America.

We will begin with two important steps--not the only ones. There is more that can be done. People come to me and say: Senator, we should do this, we should do that. Yes, we can work on coal. We can work on propane. We had a hearing on propane today. We can work on additional rail for the country. We can work on pipeline safety. We can work on alternative fuels. We can work on strengthening our relationship with Israel and China. We can work on new kinds of automobiles.

But that is for another day. We cannot do all of it at one time. But what we can do is what is before us. We can do what is before us. We can do what is clearly timely. The energy efficiency bill, for 5 years, has been waiting for action by this Senate. The House has already passed an energy efficiency bill.

The pipeline has been waiting 5 years and has been reviewed five times. It is time to move forward on both and create the kinds of jobs for America that we need--high-paying, middle-class jobs--and to begin to help build America and North America as the energy powerhouse that it can be, doing it together. We can recognize the transport of oil and gas, and the production is important, but also alternative and focusing on efficiency and conservation, and many of our Democrats are very proud of the work in that area.

I am sorry to keep the Senate. I think I might be the last speaker of the evening. But I thank the leadership for providing the time, and again, I want to thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 1, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is, Short on Gas: A look into the propane shortages this winter.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact, Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905, or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I think we are prepared to have several unanimous consent requests regarding the issue of how to care for veterans in our country. I first want to begin by thanking Senator Sanders for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of caring for and supporting veterans, their families, their dependents, and the communities in which veterans live. There has been no stronger voice on the Senate floor for veterans on either side of the aisle than Senator Sanders, and I appreciate his leadership. He has been spending a great deal of time on the floor explaining the importance of his legislation. He has joined me today to talk further about it.

Inside of this very important and major piece of legislation, there is a piece of it that passed the House unanimously that would authorize the construction of 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and in Puerto Rico, two of which would be in Louisiana--one in Lafayette and one in Lake Charles. I have been leading the effort--contrary to the testimony put on the Record by the junior Senator from Louisiana-- with Congressman Boustany, whose district this is in, and he has been the leader of our delegation. There is no hesitation among our delegation about who the leader has been about getting these clinics built.

We have been working with the veterans office for years. We got them to admit that they actually made the mistake that caused our clinics to have to be delayed in their construction because of a mishap of great proportion in the way these contracts were bid. The veterans in our State--and Senator Sanders knows this--have rightly been complaining for years that they have been left out and left behind.

Our entire delegation, Democrats and Republicans, has been fighting on their behalf vigorously. We have written letters, made phone calls, and made multiple visits to the region. Contrary to the testimony by the junior Senator from Louisiana, the fact is everybody has been working well together.

Congressman Boustany got to pass this piece of legislation out of the House that basically says: Yes, let's go forward and build these clinics and not require an offset.

I ask unanimous consent right now to do just that and take the House bill that has passed with no amendments, no modifications, and pass this bill so it doesn't have to go back to the House. It can go right to the President's desk for signature. It costs $1.8 billion, and there is no offset. As I have said, in my view--and this is only my view--the veterans this is going to help have already paid the price. They have already paid the price. They should not have to pay twice.

I agree with the House of Representatives. There doesn't need to be an offset to this. I don't agree with Senator Vitter's amendment that there needs to be an offset. I think we just need to go ahead and unanimously decide to send this to the President's desk for his signature. I am confident he would sign this, and it would authorize these clinics not only in Louisiana but in the States around the country.

I understand there is some opposition from outside of our State. I don't understand any opposition from within the State.

I ask unanimous consent the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521, the bill read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Is that an order?

I understand that the House of Representatives passed this bill, H.R. 3521--and I will get the exact vote in a minute--with a vote of 346 to 1. They passed this bill, H.R. 3521, with a vote of 346 to 1, that has no offset.

Does the Senator from Utah have any reason to know why Senator Coburn would now require an offset since the bill and the politics is controlled by the Republican leadership in the House?

Mr. President, that is very good to know that Senator Coburn is objecting--or not objecting--to an offset that is not a real offset.

The reason there is some objection from our side, and I think from Senator Sanders as well, is because the Vitter offset is not real. It doesn't generate $1.6 billion in savings. So I think we should go forward with no offset because the $1.6 billion is not a real offset.

The CBO analysis of this offset basically says, from our preliminary estimate of the amendment, based on information from the Department of Defense, there are no savings--there are no savings--for drug-related purchases to the current law. The preliminary estimate is zero.

With that, I wish to reiterate my unanimous consent request--please don't interrupt--I would like unanimous consent for my amendment, which has no offset--and the bill does not have to go back to the House of Representatives. The bill can go straight to the President's desk.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I regret having missed the April 7, 2014 vote on passage of H.R. 3979, as amended, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014.

Had I been present, I would have voted for the passage of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014 to support the 16,000 Louisianians awaiting the extension provided by this legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The title of this oversight hearing is ``Keeping the Lights On--Are We Doing Enough to Ensure the Reliability and Security of the U.S. Electric Grid?''

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected], or [email protected].

For further information, please contact Dan Adamson at (202) 224- 2871, Kristen Granier at (202) 224-1219, or Afton Zaunbrecher at (202) 224-5479.

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

Mr. President, I came to the floor today with the intention of asking unanimous consent to pass H.R. 3521, which we have heard a lot about on the floor lately between Senator Vitter and Senator Sanders. This bill would authorize the construction of 27 veterans clinics--2 of them in our State, Louisiana, 1 in Lake Charles and 1 in Lafayette.

It is a long and sad story about why these clinics have not been built. I will get into that in a minute. As you can see, Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, and other States are affected. I know the Senators from those States support what we are trying to do.

Yesterday or the day before, my colleague came to the floor to call me ``ineffective.'' I would like to say that I was a little bit shocked to hear that. I have been called many things on the floor of this Senate--hardheaded, stubborn, tenacious, the Senator who never quits. I have never been called ineffective, so it was a little bit shocking.

What I can say is that I think I have spent 18 years on the floor of the Senate and here working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and developing very strong friendships, very good relationships and trusting friendships that I think have accrued in large measure in a very beneficial way to the State I represent and to the region of the country I am also so proud to represent, the gulf coast.

Maybe my colleague was having a bad day. I am going to let it go, but it was a little shocking to hear that word.

Back to the issue. The issue is quite serious. The issue is that we have had a process of building veterans clinics in this country a certain way for a very long time. About 3 years ago CBO kind of out of the blue decided to change the scoring mechanism--instead of the way we were doing it through a leasing process, change the scoring system to cause the budget problem, the constraints in the budget to not allow us to move forward with the construction of these veterans facilities.

But added to that change, what is really happening in Louisiana and why this is such an important issue for us is that we were scheduled to build our two clinics and had waited in line patiently for many years. Our clinics were getting ready to be built in Lafayette and Lake Charles, which are a very important part of our outreach to the tens of thousands of veterans in our State.

The Veterans' Administration itself made a very serious mistake, which they have admitted in writing, verbally. General Shinseki has been down to our State to visit these sites, to talk with many of us in Louisiana about how unfortunate it was that mistakes in the bidding process were made--not by us, not by the State, not by the locals, but by the Federal Government. Because of these mistakes, our process of building these clinics was delayed.

That is why House Member Boustany--a wonderful colleague and a dear friend and a great leader--has been leading the effort. These are basically in his district. He and I have been working very closely to try to bring to the attention of the leadership here the fact that they made the mistake, not us. We should not have to pay the penalty because of that.

Then, in the midst of that fight, this new scoring mechanism came down.

Now we cannot get out from underneath either the offset required or the new process required to get our clinics built. It has nothing to do with need--we are at the top of that list. We have the need. We have the veterans. We have the commitment of the Federal Government to get these built.

All of our delegation has been working very closely to try to get these clinics built. I am happy to say that I am here today--as I have always been on this issue--supporting it and will ask in just a minute--I wanted to ask but will not ask in just a minute--for unanimous consent to build these clinics without an offset, just as the House bill passed. It is a $1.6 billion charge. It would move without an offset. That is what the House voted on. It was a huge vote, 346 votes, Republicans and Democrats. I think when we have a vote like that, we need to really pay attention over here. They voted to build these clinics at a cost of $1.6 billion without an offset.

That is what I am going to ask for. Senator Coburn will object. He has let me know he will object. Unfortunately, because of personal reasons, he is unable to be here today. So out of respect for the process of the Senate and out of courtesy, I will not be asking for that unanimous consent now, but I will be asking for it early next week.

Just to be clear, it will be a unanimous consent to build these 27 clinics based on the House vote without this bill going back to the House, going straight to the President's desk for signature by the President.

The offset the Senator from Louisiana offered is a bogus offset. We have a letter from CBO that I would like to read into the Record. The junior Senator from Louisiana offered his offset to supposedly raise the $1.6 billion that will pay for this. This is from the CBO analysis.

It says: Based on preliminary estimates of the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, based on the information of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs and their current practices and joint purchases of prescription drugs, I do not estimate any savings for drug purchases relative to current law. My preliminary estimate of the amendment would be a minimal discretionary cost of less than $500,000.

There is no money to be saved by the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, so I would be offering the bill to build these clinics with no offset, and that is what the House passed. It will go directly to the President's desk, and we will resolve the problem for these States. Then we will finally figure out a way to get back on track building clinics that we need and figure out a way to pay for these clinics in the future, but these clinics got stuck in kind of a technical bureaucratic mess in the recalculation. Ours, in particular, were caught because they should have been built in the 2 years before this new scoring process came to be, which is why Louisiana is having a particularly difficult time.

But as the record will show, our entire delegation has supported this effort. I honor the leadership of Congressman Boustany from the House, who has literally worked on this tirelessly for 6 years. I thank the House delegation for sending this bill over.

I will not require an offset. The offset Senator Vitter offered is bogus.

As soon as Senator Coburn can get back, which will be early next week, I will be offering this unanimous consent. Unfortunately, I understand he will object to it because he believes we should find a way to pay for it. There might be other objections as well, but I am looking forward to the debate with Senator Coburn next week.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will now be held before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014, at 1 p.m., at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, Manoa Campus, in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the successes and challenges of meeting sustainability goals in Hawaii and the Pacific, including oversight of existing activities and Federal-Island partnerships in energy, water, land use, marine resources, and other sectors.

For further information, please contact Al Stayman at (202) 224-7865 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The business meeting will be held on Thursday, March 27, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., in room, SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to resume consideration of the following nominations: Rhea S. Suh, to be the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks; and Janice M. Schneider, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management.

The Committee previously met to consider the two nominations on February 13, 2014, but the meeting was adjourned in the absence of a quorum.

In addition, the Committee will be asked to approve new subcommittee assignments, appointing Senator Wyden to subcommittee assignments previously held by Senator Landrieu.

Because of the limited time available for the business meeting, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Sallie Den at (202) 224-6836.