Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate Kiefer's Florist of Coshocton, OH on 100 years of successful operation. Andrew Kiefer started Kiefer's Florist in 1913 when he was 36 years old and the business has since been handed down through three generations. Ed Kiefer, Sr. joined the business in the 1940s and in 1975 Ed Kiefer, Jr., returned from college to Coshocton to partner with his father in running the business until his father's passing in 2006.

Kiefer's Florist has experienced many ups and downs in its 100 years of operation, but through the hard work and dedication of its owners, it has persevered. In January 2011, Kiefer's Florist moved from its original location to its current location in Historic Roscoe Village, where the business continues to grow.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize Kiefer's Florist on 100 years of success. I would like to commemorate Andrew Kiefer and Ed Kiefer, Sr., for their dedication to the family business and would like to thank Mr. Ed Kiefer, Jr., for the positive impact his business has made on the community. I wish Kiefer's Florist continued success.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the city of Dublin, OH, and Muirfield Village Golf Club as hosts of the 10th Presidents Cup from October 1 to 6, 2013. The Presidents Cup was first played in 1994 and is a biennial event played in non-Ryder Cup years. Similar to the Ryder Cup, the Presidents Cup gives the world's best non-European players an opportunity to compete against the United States in an international team match-play competition featuring two teams of twelve golfers.

In total, more than $27 million has been distributed to at least 425 charities in 16 countries since the inception of the Presidents Cup in 1994, including a record-setting $4.5 million from the 2011 event alone. These funds are distributed to charitable causes around the world as chosen by the 30 players, captains, and captain assistants.

Muirfield Village will become the third golf course in the United States to host the Presidents Cup and will be the only golf course in the world to have hosted the Presidents Cup, the Ryder Cup, the Solheim Cup, and an annual PGA tour event, the Memorial Tournament. Muirfield Village is a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course in Dublin, OH, that was established in 1974. Jack Nicklaus, four-time U.S. Presidents Cup captain, will serve as the tournament host this year.

I had the opportunity to visit Muirfield Village in early June at the Memorial Tournament and saw firsthand how special this golf course is and how great a venue it will be to host the Presidents Cup. The Presidents Cup will bring nearly 150,000 spectators and an expected $22 million in revenue to the Columbus region. Today, I congratulate everyone involved in bringing the Presidents Cup to Ohio.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and offer some clarity about the treatment of wood products in the amendment that Senator Wicker and Senator Landrieu have offered with regard to green building standards. I commend Senator Wicker for his hard work on this amendment, which will update the current EISA statute to reflect the evolution of green building rating systems and create a more strategic approach for the Federal Government so that we have the highest performing, most efficient, and most cost-effective buildings while also taking advantage of an abundant domestic resource.

I agree with the Senator. We have a lot of hard-working Americans who are employed by this industry, and we need to ensure that there is a level playing field for them so that the Federal Government's green building policy doesn't stand in the way of bringing sustainably produced domestic wood to market. I would also emphasize that wood is a vital component of sound architectural design and construction, in addition to being a renewable resource that sequesters huge amounts of carbon. This amendment strengthens our bill by making clear that green building programs avoid discriminatory or arbitrary provisions and ensuring that they consider environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of a building material or product by incorporating Life Cycle Assessment.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of Donatos Pizzeria, LLC, headquartered in Columbus, OH. In 1963, Jim Grote, then a college sophomore at The Ohio State University, opened the first Donatos Pizzeria on the south side of Columbus. Since then, Donatos Pizzeria has expanded to 200

restaurants in multiple States, and has employed generations of Ohioans.

Mr. Grote founded his business on three fundamentals: creating a superior product, hiring great people, and adhering to strong principles that promote goodwill in business and the community. These principles have made Donatos Pizzeria one of the most well respected pizza chains in the industry, and in the community. As part of its service to its communities, Donatos Pizzeria provides the opportunity for schools, churches, sports teams, and other social organizations to fundraise by purchasing its discounted pizza card, which can be sold to receive a 70% return toward their organization.

I extend my sincere congratulations to Donatos Pizzeria on 50 years of quality service throughout Ohio.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire on the important benefits of this legislation. I will start by saying I think we are pretty close to figuring out a way to move forward if we can get both the majority and the minority party leadership teams to look at the list. We have about a dozen bipartisan amendments ready to go on. In fact, more than half of those amendments have already been discussed at some length on the floor, so I think the time agreement could be relatively narrow, and we could move quickly. Some of them could be voice-voted. And then we have some amendments that are not directly related to energy efficiency but related to energy. I would hope we could take those up as well.

My understanding is that there has been a general agreement to have a vote on the Vitter amendment. That is something I have heard on the floor from leadership. And then we also have a Keystone amendment that I think there is an agreement to move forward on that relates to energy more broadly and one where I think this body has a strong interest in expressing itself.

I hope we could figure out how to move forward on this and do it quickly. We are wasting time right now. We have spent the last couple days on the floor, again, talking about all these amendments. So if there are concerns about time, let's get going because we can process these amendments quickly. I appreciate the fact that the majority leader is working with us. He is keeping the door open. So we are going back and forth.

I really do believe this is a seminal moment in the sense that if we cannot even do a bipartisan bill like this on energy efficiency that came out of the committee with a 19-to-3 vote, what can we do? It is an important piece of legislation. It is not a major piece of legislation like the continuing resolution or the debt limit or tax reform or entitlement reform--things this body knows it has to address--but it is a step forward, and I think it would provide a model for how we can move forward on other issues.

We have spent 2\1/2\ years working on this legislation. We have been able to garner the support of over 260 businesses and trade associations that believe this is good legislation for our country. That is one reason we got a 19-to-3 vote out of committee. That is one reason there is a lot of support on the floor for this underlying bill. It is ultimately about having a smart energy strategy.

I believe we should produce more energy here in this country, particularly in the ground, in America, right now. I think that is good for our economy and our country. We should also use it more efficiently. This is an opportunity to have a true ``all of the above'' strategy--in this case, energy efficiency, going along with production and other important elements of an energy strategy that makes sense. I hope we will be able to make progress on this today and move forward and start to have some votes on these good amendments that actually improve the legislation, in my view.

The jobs issue is also one that is paramount. Think about it. There is a report out that my colleague from New Hampshire talked about that says there will be 136,000 additional jobs created by this legislation by 2030. I think that is a low-ball estimate because there will be jobs created in energy efficiency. In other words, by encouraging--not through mandates because there are no mandates in this legislation except on the Federal Government to get them to practice what they preach, as we talked about yesterday--by encouragement and incentives, there will be more jobs created in the energy efficiency field. That is good for our economy.

More significantly to me, there will be jobs created because American businesses will be more competitive. They will be able to spend less on energy and more on expanding plant and equipment and people, and they will be hiring more people as they level the playing field, in essence, on one of the essential costs of doing business, which is the cost of energy. We need that right now. Our economy is weak. We have not had the recovery all of us hoped for. They say it is the weakest economic recovery we have lived through since the Great Depression. We simply need to have that shot in the arm. This is one way to do it. It is not the only way to do it, but it would certainly help.

Finally, it is going to help our economy in ways that are important. Right now we have a trade deficit, and it is driven by a couple factors. One is China and the other is energy. Taking those two out would be almost an even balance of payments. That trade deficit is driven in part by the fact that we still have this demand for a lot of foreign energy. By making these relatively small important steps in energy efficiency, it will actually reduce our dependency on foreign sources of energy.

As I said earlier, I think we should produce more energy in this country. That is part of the answer, but part of it is also using it more efficiently, using it more wisely, which I believe is a conservative value, and it also happens to help on the trade deficit and therefore will help our underlying economy.

These are all positive aspects of this legislation that I would think Members on both sides of the aisle acknowledge. If we cannot move forward again on something that makes so much sense, that does have that kind of support across the aisle, I worry about whether we can deal with these bigger issues that we must deal with for the American people.

It also, of course, leads to a cleaner environment. Why? Because of having to build fewer powerplants. And through efficiency you are going to have fewer emissions.

This is why you have groups from the chamber of commerce--which is key voting this legislation, by the way--to groups on the environmental side saying this is good legislation. It makes sense. Strange bedfellows when you have the National Association of Manufacturers and the chamber of commerce and other business groups with environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, saying this makes sense. Let's move forward with it.

I am hopeful we can move forward not just on resolving these differences on what amendments can be offered and voted on but also move forward on this underlying bill, send it to the House, where there is interest in this bill, where there is on both sides of the aisle an interest in taking up efficiency legislation, and then send it to the President for his signature and actually be able to go home and say: You know what. We did something here to help create jobs, grow the economy, have a cleaner environment, deal with our trade deficit, and again create a model for how other issues can be resolved.

For Members who are listening and who have not come to the floor yet to talk about their amendments, I hope they will do that because we may have a relatively narrow window now because of the fact that we are spending so much time trying to resolve these differences on which amendments can get a vote. I am hopeful we will have the opportunity to start voting today yet. If we do, we can move quickly and we can dispose of these issues.

By the way, some of the issues are not directly related to energy efficiency. If they do not come up on this bill, they are going to come up on another bill, so it is better, in my estimation, for us to go ahead and have some of these debates, have some of these discussions, go ahead and see the votes. Again, they should be subject to time limitations. We should have a reasonable list. We think we have a reasonable list now, going back and forth, and I am hopeful we will be able to resolve that. But in the meantime, if Members can come down and talk about their amendments, that would be very helpful for us to ensure we can get to the underlying bill and move forward.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member because they have been working very closely with us not just for the last 2\1/2\ years to put together legislation that has this broad support, but more recently they have been helping Senator Shaheen and me to ensure that we do have on both sides of the aisle good lines of communication and the ability to move forward with an energy bill. They care about efficiency. I will let them speak for themselves, and they have done that ably earlier today. But they also care about an energy agenda for our country, and they view this as one of the first major pieces of energy legislation that can lead then to other bills.

For those who would like to discuss broader energy topics but would not have the ability to do it on this legislation--or maybe they do not have their amendments fully formed on that--the commitment from the chairman and ranking member is that they are going to have additional energy legislation. I serve on the committee. I can tell you, I have a strong interest in moving forward on some of the fossil fuel legislation, for instance. They have made a commitment to do that.

So there will be other opportunities where we will have broader energy legislation that deals with the production side, deals with the important part of our energy strategy--in addition to energy efficiency--that lets us truly have an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. I thank them for that commitment and for their strong work on this legislation. Once we move this, it will be much easier then to see us move forward on these other bills. Success begets success.

With that, I am hopeful that Members will come to the floor and talk about their amendments--I see one of my colleagues coming to the floor now--and we can move forward with a good discussion on energy issues and move to these amendments as soon as possible and then move to final passage.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee regarding this Energy bill and his suggestion of a way forward. We did have a good debate last week--not just on the underlying legislation but also, as he indicated, on seven different bipartisan amendments. I know we have a couple of colleagues interested in coming to the floor today to talk about additional amendments. We have an opportunity to actually come together as Republicans and Democrats with a good bill but to improve it through some of these amendments that have been discussed on the floor.

We do need a way forward. We need to know we are going to have the opportunity to have good debate on these issues, to have votes on these issues. Specifically, I know Senator Vitter is going to speak in a minute on his amendment. I hope he will be given a vote on his amendment. I understand there is an interest in doing that and perhaps allowing the other side to have their point of view expressed as well, along with his vote. If we can have that move forward, my understanding is that then we would be able to agree to a series of amendments, perhaps an equal number on each side.

I am looking at a list here of about a dozen amendments that are truly bipartisan. I am looking at another list of maybe 20 amendments that people on our side of the aisle are interested in offering, some of which are directly related to energy, some of which are not. I am hopeful we can come up with some time agreements that are reasonable and come up with a list that makes sense. The alternative is for us to turn our backs on an opportunity here to help grow our economy, to reduce our imports of foreign energy--specifically oil. We will miss an opportunity to save taxpayers a bunch of money by forcing the Federal Government to be more energy efficient, to practice what it preaches.

Finally, we have an opportunity before us to have a cleaner environment and to have one of the important legs of an ``all of the above'' energy strategy not just debated on the floor but actually passed by the Senate and would then go to the House, where there is a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle in together doing something comparable, and go to the President's desk for signature and actually be able to move the country forward in the way I think is needed, which is a national energy plan that takes into account producing more energy, as we talked about last week. I am interested in ensuring that we use the resources we have here in the ground in America but also using that energy more efficiently. It makes too much sense for us to allow this opportunity to go by.

I am hopeful that even in the next few hours here we can come together with a list of amendments that make sense, that we can move forward by allowing the Senate to express its view on the Vitter amendment and other amendments on both sides of the aisle that come forward but also move this underlying legislation forward at a time when, frankly, we need a little bipartisanship around here, at a time when we seem to be gridlocked on so many big issues. Maybe by finding a way forward on the relatively narrow issue of energy efficiency--one where there is a lot of consensus, one where there is a lot of common ground, frankly--we can find a model for dealing with some of the bigger issues.

We do have some time this week to do this; however, the continuing resolution is likely to come over from the House soon. I hope it will because we have to deal with that issue before the end of the month.

My urging of my colleagues is, if you have not already come over to talk about your amendment, please do so today, understanding that you will not be able to offer it in an official manner. You will be able to talk about it, which will help expedite the process later as we begin moving on these amendments, which I hope we will do again even after coming up with this agreement today. And then if you have an amendment you do not think is on this list, please be sure to tell us right away.

I do think getting this across the finish line should be something Republicans and Democrats alike can agree to. I am not suggesting that everybody is going to vote for it, but I think everybody should be willing to let us have a chance to move to this legislation.

By the way, it is endorsed by over 260 groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which decided to key vote the legislation late last week. As they looked at some of the these amendments and the underlying bill, they thought it was important enough to key vote it. But it is not just the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it is the Alliance to Save Energy, which is a group that has worked on this legislation with us for almost 3 years now, and it is also the National Association of Manufacturers and the environmental groups, including NRDC. It is an unusual combination when you have business groups and environmental groups saying: This makes sense. It helps make our economy more competitive, helps create jobs, and gets us away from our dependency on foreign oil. It actually makes the environment cleaner. That is a combination we do not see often.

My hope is that we will move forward, and I again urge my colleagues to come forward to help us move forward by talking about your amendments today so that when we have a chance to move forward officially on these amendments, we can do so expeditiously.

I see my colleague from New Hampshire Senator Shaheen is on the floor. I know she is speaking with her side of the aisle as I am talking to my side of the aisle to try to come up with a list of amendments to which we can agree within a reasonable timeframe, and I am hopeful we can move forward with that in the next few hours.

I yield back my time and look forward to talking about some of these amendments as people bring them to the floor.

Would the Senator yield?

I know my colleague is going to talk about another one of his amendments in a moment. I wish to briefly stay on this amendment.

It makes a lot of sense, and he said it well. In Ohio as well as other States, during these off-peak periods--and often it is renewable energy--think about a time when you can generate power during the day from solar or wind or other sources, and if you can store that during the peak times and if these water heaters are well enough insulated, they can store that heat that is otherwise wasted or not used.

It seems it makes a lot of sense to ensure that the 2010 DOE rule the Senator talked about doesn't preclude the possibility of manufacturing these large water heaters for electric thermal storage and for these demand-response programs the Senator talked about that some of them have. One is the Buckeye Power Utility, an electric co-op, and they are very interested in this amendment.

I support the amendment. I think it is an example of an amendment brought to the floor that is going to help make the bill better. It is consistent with the energy efficiency goals of the legislation.

I thank the Senator for his work.

Mr. President, the second amendment my colleague from North Dakota spoke about is another example of a bipartisan piece of legislation. In fact, I think the Presiding Officer of the Senate this afternoon is a cosponsor of it, which I think makes sense because I think the current program which would, by 2030, lead to no fossil fuel- generated energy for use in newer renovated buildings is not practical. I think the impracticality of it is shown by the inability of the Department of Energy to move forward with their regulations.

I will say while this amendment repeals the fossil fuel ban in section 433, it also strengthens other existing provisions for Federal energy management, including extending the Federal efficiency targets for Federal buildings to 2013. I think it is a responsible approach and a practical approach. It will give the Federal Government added flexibility to achieve these reductions in energy production without adding burdensome new requirements to the Federal building energy managers.

It is also, in combination with many aspects of the underlying bill which deal with energy efficiency on Federal Government buildings and practices, basically encouraging the Federal Government to practice what it preaches and be more efficient, as the largest energy user in the country and probably in the world.

I think it is consistent with the legislation, although there may be some alternatives people want to talk about, but I do think this is an amendment which actually makes sense because it

is practical and I think it also is consistent, again, with our underlying purpose which is to, in a way that provides flexibility, achieve efficiency standards at the Federal Government level. It encourages more efficiency.

Finally, on the farm bill comments, I agree with my colleague from North Dakota. Our farmers need the predictability and certainty that comes with the farm bill. He talked about 1 year not being enough. I do agree with that. I hope we will be able to get the conferees named and get in conference and come out with a bill that helps farmers know what the rules of the game are. That is what they are looking for. They want to know the crop insurance program is going to be there and be sure and strong, the safety net will be there--which this bill will provide, regardless whether it is the House version or Senate version, and then they need to know what the rules of the game are for the other commodities and other programs.

I hope that can move forward because it would be great for our country, great for Ohio. The No. 1 industry in Ohio is agriculture. We are proud of that. We want to make sure those farmers have the ability to succeed.

I will yield back my time and thank Members who have come to the floor to talk about amendments. I hope other Members who might be listening will do that.

This is an opportunity, even before we can officially file or introduce amendments and debate and vote them. At least we can have the discussion so we are ready to go when I suspect we will have an agreement between leadership of both of our parties even later today. We are working on that. We think we have limited the number of amendments to a reasonable level and we are trying to encourage Members to work with us to ensure we can get to this underlying legislation and move forward with a bipartisan energy efficiency bill that is going to help on our trade deficits, going to help our economy grow jobs, make our environment cleaner, and is going to be one that actually shows this body we can in a bipartisan way do what is good for our constituents.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, today I wish to congratulate Crossroads Church on 50 years of ministry in Pickaway County, OH. The Crossroads Church held its first service in 1963 under the leadership of Rev. Roy Ferguson.

Crossroads Church was created as an extension of Circleville First Church to provide ministry in the growing community. In 1998, as it continued to grow, the church purchased 71 acres just east of the city of Circleville. In October 2001, Crossroads Church opened its doors for the first service at the new spacious location.

Crossroads Church remains grounded in the traditions of the Christian faith. Today, I congratulate all who have been involved in the first 50 years of ministry to Circleville.

Ten minutes for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

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

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

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

I yield.

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

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

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

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

It also builds on the success of the voluntary ENERGY STAR Program

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

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

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

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

With that, I yield back my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we rise at a time of great debate here in this Chamber and in this country about what the appropriate response should be by the United States to the horrific use of chemical weapons by the Government of Syria. That is a debate which will unfold over the next days here. We will see, as the situation continues to develop, what actually comes to the floor.

But the President of the United States has asked for our input here in the Senate. Today we are focused on really the most important question an elected representative is asked to respond to; that is, whether to commit America to military combat. To that end, we have all spent time looking over intelligence reports. We have participated in classified intelligence briefings. I have also had the opportunity to meet with top members of the administration. From the information I have received, I do believe the Government of Syria used chemical weapons against its own people.

I believe an international response is appropriate, but I do not believe the administration's proposal of a U.S. military strike is the right answer. There is no guarantee it will prevent Asad's use of chemical weapons. I do not believe it will end the senseless bloodshed in Syria. I do not believe it will bring stability to the region that is so critical to our national security. I do not believe it will enhance Israel's security. I do not believe, most fundamentally, that it is nested in a broader strategic plan for the region.

The situation we face in Syria today is partly the result of a failed foreign policy. It is time for a change of course. We need a comprehensive long-term strategy first, not a strike and then the promise of a strategy, which is what the administration has proposed. ``Strike first, strategy later'' is a recipe for disaster. If the current resolution comes to the floor as a result, the current resolution being considered, I would not be able to support it.

America must also look to its interests here at home. Senator Shaheen just talked about that. Without a doubt, the ongoing chaos in Syria has served to remind us once again of the volatility and the instability that has plagued the Middle East for many years. It should also serve as a wake-up call.

As a country, we have for way too long been dependent on dangerous and volatile parts of the world for our foreign energy needs, particularly foreign oil. We have seen the impact in the price of oil, even in the last couple of weeks. We certainly have seen it in our economy, the roller coaster we have seen with energy prices up and down. As a result, the need for American energy independence is not just a matter of the economy or economic security or energy security, it is also a matter of national security.

Given these realities, it is incumbent upon us now more than ever to pursue a true ``all of the above'' domestic energy strategy. We have to find ways to produce more energy here at home. Just as important, we have to figure out how to use less by wasting less. We will save money, we will save energy, we will make our economy more competitive and create more jobs, and, yes, we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The piece of legislation on which I joined with the senior Senator from New Hampshire, which we introduced just before we left for the August recess, takes important steps toward that goal of reducing the amount of energy we waste in this country. Senator Shaheen just talked about it. It is called the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. It was meant to be on the floor today. We were supposed to be debating it. It is absolutely critical that we are debating Syria instead, but I do hope we can take up this legislation after the discussions about what we do with regard to the situation in Syria.

This bill, the energy security bill, is bipartisan. It is bicameral in the sense that there is support in the House and the Senate for it. It is, as Senator Shaheen said, a bill that reduces our energy waste and moves us toward energy independence. According to the recent study she talked about, it is estimated to aid in the creation of 136,000 new jobs, saving consumers over $13 billion a year by the year 2030. That is why it is no surprise that it is supported by such a broad group, as Senator Shaheen talked about. That support, by the way, is one big reason it passed the Energy Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 19 to 3.

Simply put, the legislation we proposed makes good environmental sense, it makes good energy sense, and it makes good economic sense too. It is a rare example around here of bipartisanship, which ought to be encouraged in a number of areas, but certainly this is one where we can find common ground.

I want to thank the majority leader this morning, and the minority leader, for working out a unanimous consent agreement that allows us to move forward on this commonsense approach in the coming days. In that debate, we will talk more about the legislation, how it helps manufacturers on the global stage, and how the savings companies will accrue from energy efficiency will lead to better paying jobs. We will talk about how our legislation helps to train the next generation of workers in the skills they need to compete in the growing energy efficiency field. We will talk about how it makes

the Federal Government practice what it preaches, to reduce the waste in the largest user of energy in the world, which is our Federal Government. We will describe how our bill accomplishes these goals with no new mandates, no mandates on the private sector, no new spending, entirely offset. And again, it is a commonsense approach that is bipartisan. I look forward to that discussion. I look forward to seeing the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act become law so this Nation can take a big step toward achieving the true goal of an ``all of the above'' energy strategy and indeed make us less dependent on those dangerous and volatile parts of the world.

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

I thank the Senator for yielding. I appreciate that and I will yield back to her in a moment.

First, I want to say that I appreciate her working with me over the last couple years on this legislation. This is the kind of legislation we ought to be doing around here because it has a lot of benefits. It reduces our trade deficit. It helps encourage job creation. It actually makes our environment cleaner. I think it can be helpful in a renaissance to our manufacturing in America. It is called the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.

I also want to thank the ranking member and chair of the Senate Energy Committee--that is Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski--for their consistent support of this legislation. We got it through the committee with a strong vote, and we need to get it to the floor when we come back in September with a strong vote.

I am told this is going to be the first substantive Energy bill on the floor since 2007. It is about time. I hope it will have support from both sides of the aisle, and I know it has support on both sides of the Capitol. It is going to help job creators all over the country. It is the right thing to do.

On this side of the aisle, we focused a lot on an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. We believe we ought to be producing more energy, particularly domestic sources of energy in the ground in America, and I support that strongly. We also, though, talk about embracing smart, economically viable policies that let us use less energy. So it is producing more and using less. There is a lot of focus on producing more but less on this part about using less, and that is what this bill does.

It is supported by more than 250 businesses, trade associations, advocacy groups--the National Association of Manufacturers, the Sierra Club, the Alliance to Save Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--so it is a group that does not normally come together to support legislation. They like this bill because, again, it has these benefits for the environment, but also benefits for the economy and for our energy policy in this country.

It passed the Energy Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 19 to 3. Simply put, Senator Shaheen and I have a bill that I think makes good environmental sense. It makes good economic sense, and it makes good energy sense.

I have visited with businesses and job creators all over Ohio, and they tell me pretty much the same thing. They are competing in a global marketplace. They are competing with companies in Indiana but also in India, and their ability to compete depends on their costs. They go up against companies and countries where the cost to produce goods tends to be lower. We are never going to compete on wages in developing countries, nor should we. We are not going to be able to reduce the quality of our goods, nor should we. We want to be sure we are not cutting corners.

One thing we can do is reduce the costs to our manufacturers on energy because it is a big input, particularly with heavy manufacturing. This enables us to do that through energy efficiency technologies.

What we can do as the Federal Government--through research, through disseminating best practices, through supporting skills training--is help the private sector develop the energy efficiency techniques of the future. We can make it easier for them to use efficiency tools to reduce their costs, which enables them to put those savings toward expanding their companies and hiring more people.

The proposals contained in the bill are commonsense reforms we have needed for a long time. The bill has no mandates on anyone in the private sector. In fact, many of our proposals come as a direct result of our conversations we have had with people in the private sector about how the Federal Government can best help them to become more energy efficient, save money, and create more jobs by reinvesting in their businesses and communities.

Here is a brief overview of what the legislation does.

First, it helps manufacturers by reforming what is called the Advanced Manufacturing Office. This is an office at the Department of Energy. We need to provide clear guidance to this office that its responsibilities ought to include and ought to be prioritized to help manufacturers develop energy-saving technology for their businesses. Frankly, they have gotten a little bit off track and have focused more on helping manufacturers of clean energy, which other Departments and agencies do, including at DOE. This office ought to be focused on energy-saving technology.

It also requires the Department of Energy to assist with on-site efficiency assessments for manufacturers. It facilitates the already existing efforts of companies around the country to implement cost- saving energy efficiency policies by streamlining the way the government agencies in this area work together.

It increases partnerships with National Labs--the National Laboratories, which are a great source of research and technology--and energy service and technology providers together to leverage private sector expertise toward energy efficiency goals.

The legislation also strengthens model building codes, so that builders in States that choose to adopt them will have the most up-to- date energy-efficient building codes that are available--again, no mandates, but best practices.

It also establishes university-based building training and assessment centers, building on existing industrial assessment centers located around the country. We have one in Dayton, OH, that does a great job. We want to make sure they can also do energy efficiency work.

These centers will help train the next generation of workers in energy-efficient commercial design and operations through this legislation. Not only will these programs save energy but they also help provide our students and unemployed workers with the skills they need to compete in what can be a growing field, which is the energy efficiency field.

Again, this bill is not about forcing companies to become more energy efficient or imposing mandates, it is about giving these companies the help they are asking for. We can do that at no additional expense to the taxpayer because the cost of this legislation under our bill is fully offset.

In fact, I believe this bill will save the American people a bunch of money. Why? Because the legislation takes on the largest user of energy in the world. That is the U.S. Government. The Federal Government needs to practice what it preaches. By requiring it in this bill to adopt energy-saving techniques that make its operations more efficient and less wasteful, we are doing just that.

The bill directs DOE to issue recommendations that employ energy efficiency on everything from computer hardware to operation and maintenance processes, energy efficiency software, power management tools. It also takes commonsense steps toward allowing the General Services Administration to update building designs that are out. Some of them have been out there for years. They have developed these designs over time. They are going to be permitted finally to update these efficiency standards, again with the latest energy efficiency technology. The government has been looking for places to tighten its belt. This is certainly one. Energy efficiency is a darn good place to start.

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

According to a recent study of our legislation and its impact, by 2020, using the tools of Shaheen-Portman, the private sector can create 80,000 new jobs, lower CO2 emissions by the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off the road, and save consumers $4 billion a year in reduced energy costs. A vote on the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act is one more step toward achieving the goal of a true ``all of the above'' energy policy that produces more energy at home while using less. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Again, I commend my colleague from New Hampshire for working with us. I yield to her after having answered her.

Will this bill pass the Senate is a question that I pose to my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Newark, OH native Jerrie Mock, the first woman to fly solo around the world. On September 14, 2013, a bronze statue will be dedicated in honor of her accomplishments at The Works: Ohio Center for History, Art & Technology, a science and history museum for children in Newark, OH.

On March 19, 1964, at the age of 38, the Ohio native and self- described ``flying housewife'' set off from Columbus, OH on her solo flight around the world in a 1953 Cessna 180 single-engine monoplane named the ``Spirit of Columbus.'' She made the flight in 29 days, including 21 stopovers, covering 22,860 miles.

Jerrie has received numerous awards, including the FAA Gold Medal for Exceptional Service. She made her mark in the aviation world as the first woman to fly solo around the world and also completed other feats worthy of recognition. Her contributions have helped to shape the future of American aviation for our children and grandchildren.

Today, I would like to commend Jerrie Mock for her accomplishments and thank all those who contributed to enshrining her legacy for all Ohioans.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Tony Petkovsek, who will be inducted into the International Polka Association Hall of Fame on August 3, 2013. Mr. Petkovsek has devoted his life's work to cultivating Cleveland-Slovenian music and culture, most notably by hosting the longest running daily radio show in the world.

Growing up in Cleveland's St. Clair neighborhood, Mr. Petkovsek was immersed in Slovenian culture from a young age. After completing college and broadcasting school, he began producing and broadcasting his own radio shows on Cleveland's WXEN, on November 23, 1961, which was Thanksgiving Day. Since 1962, his show has been broadcasted daily.

Mr. Petkovsek is one of the most prominent ambassadors of Cleveland- style polka both locally and nationally. In 1967, he originated the Polka Tour at Kollander World Travel, which has since taken thousands of polka fans all over the world. His annual Thanksgiving celebration evolved from a dance in 1963 to a national focal point of Cleveland- style polkas, attracting polka fans from all over America to join the festivities. Mr. Petkovsek was instrumental in founding the United Slovenian Society, the Cleveland-Slovenian Radio Club, the East 185th Street Business Association, and the American Slovenian Polka Foundation. Notably, Mr. Petkovsek served on the Ohio Arts Council under Gov. George Voinovich.

His contributions to Cleveland-style polka have been widely recognized over the years. Some of these honors have included the Federation of Slovenian Homes' ``Man of the Year'' in 1966, his induction into the St. Joseph High School Hall of Fame in 1987 and his induction into the National Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 1991. Mr. Petkovsek was also recognized with a merit badge by the President of Slovenia, Danilo Turk, in 2012 for his service to the country of Slovenia and to Slovenians in Cleveland.

I would like to honor Tony Petkovsek for his contributions to Cleveland-style polka and to the Cleveland Slovenian community.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1749 and send a modification of my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, thank you for allowing me to offer this amendment today, and I thank my colleagues from Maine and Washington State for agreeing to work with us on this important amendment. I also thank them for the way they are conducting this appropriations bill by allowing amendments to come forward and having debate.

This amendment is one that I think will be relatively noncontroversial. This is an amendment to the underlying Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. It simply says that our nation's bridges that need repairs the most ought to be prioritized.

There are bridges that are classified by the Federal Highway Administration as ``functionally obsolete'' or ``structurally deficient,'' and we want to be sure they receive priority consideration under the section of the bill that provides for Bridges in Critical Corridors. This is a fund that is established under the appropriations bill. In this way, we are helping to ensure that fund in question actually accomplishes its objective.

We all know the Federal Government's highway trust fund dollars are stretched very thin and, frankly, there are not enough dollars that are making their way to the core infrastructure needs we have in this country. In fact, in 2008, the fund got in trouble, and since that time it has been bailed out four times from the Treasury's general fund, and a fifth bailout is now scheduled for fiscal year 2014. Clearly, the funds are very limited, and we have to be very careful and resourceful in how we spend those funds.

This appropriations bill does include, as I said earlier, a separate funding mechanism--$500 million--for Bridges in Critical Corridors across the country. I know there are some in this Chamber who wonder whether that is necessary in the legislation, and I understand their argument. But if we are going to include this special fund, let's be sure the money is used in the most efficient way possible, and that is what this amendment is all about. Let's be sure we target the limited resources we have in a way that addresses our Nation's bridges that are outdated and often at risk.

This amendment narrows the number of bridges that receive priority consideration by 75 percent, and does so by focusing these resources on functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridges throughout the country that need the funding. These are the bridges with problems that if left unaddressed could be in tomorrow's headlines.

We do not have to just deal with hypotheticals, it is happening. We have all seen recent accounts of this functionally obsolete Skagit River Bridge on Interstate 5 in Washington State that collapsed in May. I know Senator Murray was very involved in responding to this. It was struck by a truck that exceeded the bridge's height limit. The good news is there were no direct fatalities, unbelievably--at least in this instance there were not. The bad news is there are a lot of bridges that are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient around the country. There are thousands of them, and we need to be sure that, again, they are prioritized in this legislation.

One of those bridges happens to be the Brent Spence Bridge in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH. The bridge is located at the critical intersection of I-75 and I-71--an important artery--and it is a bridge between southwest Ohio and northern Kentucky.

This Brent Spence Bridge was built nearly 50 years ago, and it was designed to carry 80,000 vehicles every day. As of this year, it is carrying more than double that number every day. It is expected to exceed 200,000 vehicles per day by 2025.

To facilitate the increased traffic and congestion on the bridge, the engineers actually removed the bridge's emergency shoulders, so there are no emergency shoulders on the bridge anymore. They also had to narrow the lanes to 11 feet rather than the 12 feet recommended by the Federal Highway Administration. So this makes it hazardous for drivers. It also has not alleviated the congestion much because it continues to result in an average of 3.6 million hours of delay for passenger vehicles every year.

So Brent Spence is one example of an endangered bridge this amendment could help. We need to ensure that bridges such as Brent Spence receive the priority access to the funds in the Bridges in the Critical Corridors section of this legislation.

So for this reason, I would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Again, I want to thank Senator Collins and Senator Murray for allowing this amendment to be part of the process.

Madam President, I would defer to the chairwoman. I would like a voice vote, if that is what the chairwoman would prefer. But it might be a good amendment to have a recorded vote on.

What is the chairwoman's preference?

Madam President, I think I will take the Senator up on her offer.