Floor Statements

Mr. President, our national security depends upon minerals that enable nearly all of the defense and weapons systems used by the U.S. Armed Forces. These minerals are also critical to the clean energy, electronics, and medical industries. Yet, for how critical these minerals are, the vast majority of our domestic supply is imported from China in order to reduce cost. In fact, China supplies 90 to 95 percent of our rare earth oxides, a special class of critical minerals. We have seen how dangerous this dependence can be--in 2009, China choked off the supply of these materials to the rest of the world, restricting exports by 72 percent and causing the prices of rare earth elements to skyrocket here in the U.S.

I am pleased to join Senators Murkowski, Udall, and Heller as the leading sponsors of bipartisan legislation to prevent future supply shocks of these critical minerals that are the key to our defense, energy, electronics, and medical industries by expanding U.S. production and supply of these important substances. This legislation-- the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013--builds on two bills that were introduced in the 112th Congress and which were referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. 383, the Critical Minerals and Materials Promotion Act of 2011, which I cosponsored, was introduced by Senator Mark Udall. S. 1113, the Critical Minerals Policy Act, was introduced by Senator Murkowski. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on these bills in June 2011, and this new bill is a product of those efforts. We are being joined by 13 of our Senate colleagues as original bipartisan cosponsors: Senators Risch, Hagan, Thune, Begich, Enzi, Coons, Hoeven, Landrieu, Coats, Klobuchar, Blunt, Franken, and Crapo.

Critical minerals are pervasive in our everyday life. Let me give you a few examples. They are the key to stronger permanent magnets, which allow for smaller electric motors and other electronic devices, as well as for more efficient clean wind energy and MRI machines. They are essential for rechargeable batteries in hybrid and electric vehicles and the high-efficiency motors that power them. They are vital to phosphors, which give us more efficient lighting and flat panel displays. They serve as catalysts for fuel cells and for refining automobile fuel. Our Armed Forces also rely on critical minerals every time they use night-vision goggles, heads-up displays, satellite images, radar systems, high-energy laser weapons, precision-guided missiles, and fighter jets. By one estimate, the Defense Department alone constitutes 5 percent of total U.S. demand for rare earth elements. In short, critical minerals are so indispensable that we can't imagine life without them. They are called critical minerals because they are indeed critical to the development of so many high- tech weapons systems and commercial products.

Although China currently enjoys near-monopoly in the global production of critical minerals, the truth is that it doesn't have to be this way. China only holds 50 percent of the world's natural reserves, while the U.S. holds about 13 percent of the world's reserves, according a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey. In fact, a large part of the critical minerals supply shock in 2009 was due to uncertainty about the global distribution of critical minerals. When China began to restrict supply, the rest of the world was in the dark about what alternative sources of supply were even available. Clearly, there is significant work to be done in this field.

The bill being introduced today outlines a series of measures to expand U.S. supplies of critical minerals starting with the identification of which minerals and elements are truly in need of special attention. The bill then requires the Interior Department to conduct assessments of where these minerals are located within the U.S. and expands research to find more efficient ways of extracting and processing those minerals. The bill also includes research programs to extract critical minerals from unconventional sources, such as coal or geothermal energy wells, as well as recycling these important substances from obsolete devices. The bill also requires the two lead agencies which manage our public lands and forests--the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture--to reexamine the permitting processes for hard rock minerals under current law to see if there are ways of reducing delays for mining projects that would extract critical minerals. This legislation also includes programs to enable our next generation of scientists studying critical minerals and to prepare them for jobs in these fields as well as efforts to work with our international trading partners on expanding worldwide supplies of these materials.

I commend Senator Murkowski for her leadership on this issue. This legislation is important for our national security. It is important for our high-tech manufacturing industries. It is important for U.S. competitiveness. I ask all Senators to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, our national security depends upon minerals that enable nearly all of the defense and weapons systems used by the U.S. Armed Forces. These minerals are also critical to the clean energy, electronics, and medical industries. Yet, for how critical these minerals are, the vast majority of our domestic supply is imported from China in order to reduce cost. In fact, China supplies 90 to 95 percent of our rare earth oxides, a special class of critical minerals. We have seen how dangerous this dependence can be--in 2009, China choked off the supply of these materials to the rest of the world, restricting exports by 72 percent and causing the prices of rare earth elements to skyrocket here in the U.S.

I am pleased to join Senators Murkowski, Udall, and Heller as the leading sponsors of bipartisan legislation to prevent future supply shocks of these critical minerals that are the key to our defense, energy, electronics, and medical industries by expanding U.S. production and supply of these important substances. This legislation-- the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013--builds on two bills that were introduced in the 112th Congress and which were referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. 383, the Critical Minerals and Materials Promotion Act of 2011, which I cosponsored, was introduced by Senator Mark Udall. S. 1113, the Critical Minerals Policy Act, was introduced by Senator Murkowski. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on these bills in June 2011, and this new bill is a product of those efforts. We are being joined by 13 of our Senate colleagues as original bipartisan cosponsors: Senators Risch, Hagan, Thune, Begich, Enzi, Coons, Hoeven, Landrieu, Coats, Klobuchar, Blunt, Franken, and Crapo.

Critical minerals are pervasive in our everyday life. Let me give you a few examples. They are the key to stronger permanent magnets, which allow for smaller electric motors and other electronic devices, as well as for more efficient clean wind energy and MRI machines. They are essential for rechargeable batteries in hybrid and electric vehicles and the high-efficiency motors that power them. They are vital to phosphors, which give us more efficient lighting and flat panel displays. They serve as catalysts for fuel cells and for refining automobile fuel. Our Armed Forces also rely on critical minerals every time they use night-vision goggles, heads-up displays, satellite images, radar systems, high-energy laser weapons, precision-guided missiles, and fighter jets. By one estimate, the Defense Department alone constitutes 5 percent of total U.S. demand for rare earth elements. In short, critical minerals are so indispensable that we can't imagine life without them. They are called critical minerals because they are indeed critical to the development of so many high- tech weapons systems and commercial products.

Although China currently enjoys near-monopoly in the global production of critical minerals, the truth is that it doesn't have to be this way. China only holds 50 percent of the world's natural reserves, while the U.S. holds about 13 percent of the world's reserves, according a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey. In fact, a large part of the critical minerals supply shock in 2009 was due to uncertainty about the global distribution of critical minerals. When China began to restrict supply, the rest of the world was in the dark about what alternative sources of supply were even available. Clearly, there is significant work to be done in this field.

The bill being introduced today outlines a series of measures to expand U.S. supplies of critical minerals starting with the identification of which minerals and elements are truly in need of special attention. The bill then requires the Interior Department to conduct assessments of where these minerals are located within the U.S. and expands research to find more efficient ways of extracting and processing those minerals. The bill also includes research programs to extract critical minerals from unconventional sources, such as coal or geothermal energy wells, as well as recycling these important substances from obsolete devices. The bill also requires the two lead agencies which manage our public lands and forests--the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture--to reexamine the permitting processes for hard rock minerals under current law to see if there are ways of reducing delays for mining projects that would extract critical minerals. This legislation also includes programs to enable our next generation of scientists studying critical minerals and to prepare them for jobs in these fields as well as efforts to work with our international trading partners on expanding worldwide supplies of these materials.

I commend Senator Murkowski for her leadership on this issue. This legislation is important for our national security. It is important for our high-tech manufacturing industries. It is important for U.S. competitiveness. I ask all Senators to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I want to thank the Senator from Illinois for his kind words, and I certainly support the appointments, and I am glad we were able to get that legislation passed on a bipartisan basis to help American industry.

On Friday last, it was thrilling to read the United States is now No. 1 in the world when it comes to energy production--not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, but our country. It was a particular source of such satisfaction because, after all these years of the American people hearing about how we are dependent on foreign sources of energy, at the top of our papers Friday last the energy experts said the red, white, and blue was at the top in terms of energy production.

This good news story about the energy boom is, obviously, as the Presiding Officer knows, absolutely essential to creating more high- skilled, high-wage jobs. I saw it, along with my colleague, when I was in his State, and we see it all across the country. This energy boom, for example, has been key to triggering a manufacturing renaissance-- the lower cost of natural gas in particular being a magnet to bringing companies that had gone overseas back to the United States again and employing our workers with good-paying jobs. It has been key to the falling imports of foreign oil. Of course, wind and solar farms are adding tremendously to the power mix. In our part of the country, Shepherds Flat in eastern Oregon is our country's biggest wind farm, and we are especially proud of it.

The current senseless government shutdown is putting this good news story at risk. When it comes to causing problems, unfortunately, this shutdown has something for everybody. If you care about oil and natural gas development, Federal agencies now cannot approve drilling permits either on Federal land or offshore. If you care about renewable energy, wind and wave energy permitting is now at a standstill. It is at a standstill because of the shutdown. Environmental reviews for solar farms on Federal land have stopped. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has canceled a meeting about implementing two hydropower bills that passed this Congress on overwhelming votes.

In my part of the country we are especially proud of this legislation. Hydropower is responsible. It is actually the biggest source of clean power in the United States. Industry estimates it could generate perhaps as much as 60,000 megawatts of additional clean power. These hydropower bills--there were two of them--were the first stand- alone energy bills to become law since 2009. Now they languish because of the shutdown.

All of these developments--the developments I have described with respect to natural gas development, solar and wind energy, the hydropower laws that passed overwhelmingly in both the Senate and the House--are now, in effect, languishing. What it means is less new energy, fewer new jobs, and less revenue--less revenue that we are going to need in both the public and the private sector.

I might also add this shutdown harms the important safety work that needs to be done by blocking work that is going to speed up the response to oilspills and accidents offshore. Of particular concern to me, and I know to so many others in the Senate--I see my colleague from Alaska is here--are the people who get hammered, who get hit hardest by these consequences who live in our rural communities, the ones who depend upon producing energy, timber, and recreation. They are the ones who feel the biggest hit from the shutdown.

I am going to talk about what this means in terms of recreation and hunting and fishing. The hunting season starts at different times in different parts of the country, but between recreation and hunting and fishing we are talking about something in the vicinity of $646 billion a year which goes just to the recreation sector, and another $140- billion-plus in terms of hunting. I am going to describe the consequences there, but we are talking about policies with enormous impact for our rural communities.

I mentioned the thrilling news of last Friday, about how we were tops in terms of energy production, but I got some additional news that wasn't exactly thrilling last Friday when I was

called by the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, who called to report the Forest Service had canceled 450 timber sales on 120 national forests across the country. What that means is loggers, such as the hardworking folks I represent in Oregon, who want to do a hard day's work, are being benched because of this shutdown.

The shutdown comes at a particularly ominous time because winter is at hand, in effect putting an end to logging operations for the year in many parts of our country. That means workers won't be able to make up for this lost time and money this year. Those loggers will simply have to get by with less. So again, rural communities are the face of what this means. They are the ones that are going to get walloped because of a handful of Members of Congress--a handful of Members of Congress--who won't fund the government.

So logging, energy, recreation, I mentioned the hunting season, the sort of flip side of the coin with respect to recreation. While the hunting season for ducks and geese is starting in my home State and across the country, the government shutdown here is closing hundreds of wildlife refuges where those waterfowl are normally fair game. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, hunting, fishing and wildlife-related activities generate about $144 billion per year. Hunters contribute $5.4 billion in State and local taxes each year. Because the waterfowl season is only 3 months long in Oregon, if you lose 1 week, every lost week is a huge bite out of the benefits that hunting brings to our local economy.

What Senators may also not be aware of is the shutdown also means our government is less prepared to respond to these fires, these rapidly developing dangerous infernos in our national forests. The fires have lessened in some parts of the West, but there are areas of high to extreme danger in California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, South Dakota, and other States. While many firefighters are considered essential, others, such as our off-duty firefighters, have been furloughed. Public safety on Federal lands is also impacted by these furloughs. Although law enforcement continues, without rangers and other agency employees on hand, the conditions are ripe for visitors to find their way into severely understaffed forests and pose a safety risk. And, of course, thousands of hardworking employees at these key natural resource agencies are now out of work.

As we speak, there are 24,000 furloughed at the Forest Service, more than 10,000 furloughed at the Bureau of Land Management. If they are not working, Bureau of Land Management employees can't issue permits for grazing on Federal lands. Energy Department workers and contractors can't clean up nuclear waste sites, such as that at the Hanford Reservation that threatens the Columbia River and the million people who live downstream.

Our committee, recognizing the situation, recently had to cancel a hearing on the Columbia River Treaty, which is vital to the energy and environment of the Pacific Northwest. It is vital to our relations with Canada. This treaty is about managing a river that is the lifeblood for the Pacific Northwest. It is our lifeblood for transportation, for electricity, for fish, and there isn't much time for our two nations to come together to decide the treaty's future.

I have tried to describe what the shutdown means in terms of our status as No. 1 in energy production, what it means with respect to logging and forest fires, hunting and recreation, and it is all happening because a small group of Members in the other Chamber is demanding negotiations with the American economy tied to the train tracks. It is especially ironic that in many cases the districts of those Members are the ones that are going to bear the brunt of the impasse, those rural communities. They are the ones that are going to bear the consequences of stalled energy production and stalled logging.

I hope we can quickly come together and pass this budget without all the various additions that have made it impossible for Congress to go forward. It is time to reopen the government. I have spent a lot of time working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these other issues, and I will continue to do so, and I know a lot of Senators will. Right now it is time to reopen the government and end the shutdown.

I yield the floor.

I say to the Senator, we know for certain that 10,000 individuals have been furloughed at the Bureau of Land Management. And I tried to describe particularly getting these new permits. I guess if we are already out there with something--and I talked to Chief Tidwell about how we would try to stabilize operations that have, in effect, been put in place now. But we are not going to be able to go forward with new operations like the Senator from Alaska is describing.

Again, the Senator is right, because in Alaska, like Oregon, there is an extraordinary level of Federal ownership. In my State the Federal Government owns more than half of the land. The Senator is absolutely correct. With the shutdown, Federal agencies cannot approve drilling permits either on Federal land or offshore, and I saw both when I was in Alaska.

The point is that these are issues we can work on in a bipartisan way. As soon as the government gets reopened, we will go about the task of getting those permits out and coming together on a bipartisan basis, as we have done on so many issues. But we can't do it if the government is shut down. We can't do it if we can't pay our bills. That is what we are going to have to deal with.

It is. And I am sure the Senator was involved in this as well,

where, after all these years about hearing that the Senate hadn't passed a budget, we stayed up one night until the wee hours and passed a budget. We had scores of votes. Then a lot of us simply wanted to have a conference with the other body. After hearing that there hadn't been a budget, we thought we would be able to get that conference going, and we haven't been able to do that either.

It was there for the doing. I remember coming to the floor and asking unanimous consent to go to conference. I knew there had been some conferencing. But there was an immediate objection. At that time I pointed out that Republican and Democratic economists were saying look to the long term. I talked about it that day, saying that Senator Isakson of Georgia--a very able Member of the Finance Committee--and I have some new ideas on Medicare that we think can protect the Medicare guarantee and hold costs down. But we can't get at those kinds of issues unless, as the Senator says, we first reopen the government with that simple vote.

It is. And what I was struck by over the weekend with respect to those comments is, why not at least try that? If we add up all the Members on both sides of the aisle who said they would vote, for whatever----

Yes, the House Members who said they would vote for it, it sure looks as though the votes are there. And if they are trying to break the gridlock, why not try?

So I hope that kind of thinking will set in here in the next few hours because that would be the fastest way, as the Senator from Alaska has made clear, to get the government open.

I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

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 Tuesday, October 8, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider the nominations of Mr. Michael L. Connor to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and Dr. Elizabeth M. Robinson to be Under Secretary of Energy.

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, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224- 7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut for his help in crafting this bill and I appreciate that he has taken the time to raise this issue. One of the primary goals in drafting this legislation was to ensure stability of supply. The Senator is correct. The Secretary may lower the amount of helium that is auctioned if he or she determines the adjustment is necessary to minimize market disruptions that pose a threat to the economic wellbeing of the United States and only after submitting a written justification to Congress. I expect the Secretary would exercise this provision if those criteria are met.

Madam President, we know that in Washington, DC, it is almost as if there is an inexhaustible capacity to manufacture false crises. I am pleased to say that with today's vote Congress avoided a real crisis for scores of American manufacturing and technology companies employing millions of American workers. That is because without the legislation that the Senate just passed, those workers and companies would no longer have been able to get access to helium, which is a critical industrial gas without which these companies cannot operate.

In addition to avoiding an immediate crisis for these businesses and workers, the bipartisan legislation that passed the House of Representatives yesterday and the Senate today can be something of a model for how the Congress can act on must pass bills. Senator Murkowski and I have worked for many months on this legislation in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to achieve a number of goals that members on both sides of the aisle support.

First, our bipartisan legislation gets the Federal Government out of the helium business permanently--something that should have been done long ago. This bill also addresses the need to ensure helium supplies in the short term.

It does this by requiring the Federal Government to shift from selling helium at a government-set price to selling helium at a market- based priced. The bill does this over a 5-year period so that there is no panic, no sudden changes in supply, and American businesses can stop worrying about whether the helium supply truck is going to show up next month. The bill phases out commercial sales over the next 7 or 8 years and then gets the Federal Government out of the helium business entirely within 8 years by selling off the helium reserve. With prices for helium now reflecting their real value in the market place, the private sector will have the incentives it needs to invest in new helium supplies to replace the Federal reserve.

Second, our bipartisan bill ends the Federal helium program in a way that is not only fully paid for but would actually lower the deficit by $90 million. I particularly want to point out the contributions of two of the members of our committee, Senators Risch and Flake who were instrumental in ensuring that while the helium program gets phased out some of the savings for taxpayers should go to contribute to deficit reduction. So I wanted to point out the Senators' role in shaping the legislation to ensure a significant contribution to deficit reduction.

Contributing to deficit reduction, getting a better deal for taxpayers by transitioning helium sales to market rates and completely ending a Federal program that has gone far longer than it should have are priorities that all senators can support. And today's vote reflects that.

But the benefits of this legislation are not limited to helium users and taxpayers. Our bipartisan legislation also provides one-year of funding for the Secure Rural School program that expired earlier this year. This program provides funding for schools, roads and law enforcement in hundreds of rural counties in 41 States where there are national forests.

The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools Program left rural America out in the cold. The program needed to be extended for a year while the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee works on a longer term approach to meet the needs of forest dependent communities around the country.

This is a more than 100-year-old commitment that the Federal Government made to these counties when the national forests were created and will have to be met one way or another. Our bill pays for a short-term extension of this program without raising taxes or increasing the debt.

The bill before the Senate also includes a public-private program to help address the needs of one of our national treasures--America's National Parks. The bill creates a matching fund to leverage a $50 million federal investment that must be matched dollar for dollar with non-Federal funding.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing earlier this year on the multi-billion funding backlog that our national parks are facing.

Senator Coburn in particular has been a leader in pointing out the need to address this funding shortfall. The legislation that the Senate passed today makes a down payment toward reducing that backlog and does it in a way that brings private resources to the table.

With legislation that passed today, the Senate and House have shown how they can act to accomplish a number of important goals on a bipartisan basis. The bill completely ends a Federal Government program that has outlived its useful life; it ensures a fair return for taxpayer and meets the needs of helium users; it contributes $90 million to the Treasury for debt reduction; and it fulfills the Federal government's obligations to rural America all without raising taxes or increasing the debt.

I also want to recognize the important contributions of the House Natural Resources Committee and Chairman Doc Hastings in shaping the legislation. The final bill was truly a bipartisan and bicameral effort. That is the way the legislative process is supposed to work.

I am pleased that the Senate and House have been able to find a way to achieve all these important goals in one bipartisan, bicameral bill and I hope as the Congress considers other must-pass bills to keep the government open and to raise the debt ceiling, members can work together in the same type of cooperative bipartisan way, that Senator Murkowski and I and the other members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have done in passing the helium legislation.

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

I object.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor let me say to the Senator from Louisiana, I want to talk a little bit about exactly this question of reality and how we can address the Senate's business and address the issue of the Senator from Louisiana as well--not in principle but with an actual vote, because the reality is there could have been already a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. I will describe exactly why that has not taken place, but it could have and in my view should have already taken place. It should not have been about principles, it should have been about the reality of the vote the Senator from Louisiana is talking about.

Here we are. Of course it is hard for the public to figure out exactly how the Senate works. The new Senator from Hawaii is a student of this. We have a bipartisan energy efficiency bill on the floor of the Senate now.

As far as I am concerned, I describe it this way. This is a platonic ideal of what bipartisan consensus legislation ought to be all about. It is an extraordinary coalition built in favor of this--the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce--with some of the country's leading business organizations that favor energy efficiency, and they are doing it for a reason. This is going to increase American productivity. We are going to save money because we are not going to waste so much energy and this is going to create good-paying jobs in a variety of new fields and technologies that are going to be good for people in our country.

My view is we should have already finished this debate with relevant amendments--relevant amendments offered by both sides. In fact, when we started the debate, for the first 4 or 5 hours there was a good bipartisan amendment offered almost hourly. We have them all stacked up like planes hovering over an airport.

At that point conservatives indicated there were two areas they felt strongly about getting a vote on. Again, I am not talking about principles here. We are talking about the reality of a vote, a vote that could have already taken place. One of them was on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. I happen to disagree with the amendment strongly, but in all of the discussions I said it seems appropriate that there be a vote on that amendment and on another amendment which I disagree with, involving the Keystone Pipeline. At that point a very clear statement was made by the leadership that if we are talking about the energy efficiency bill and these two votes--not principles, but realities of having those two votes, a vote on the Vitter amendment and a vote on the Keystone Pipeline--and then have relevant amendments that relate to energy efficiency, we would be able to complete this bill. Since we started it last week, I am of the view that we would already have been done by now.

After that message was communicated by the leadership on this side of the aisle, we saw the response to that. It was in response to a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, a vote on the proposal offered by Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, and a procedural agreement to vote on other relevant amendments. We had scores and scores of other amendments offered to this bill that were clearly not related to energy efficiency. So I say to the Senator from Louisiana: That is the reality--not the rhetoric from the Senator or principles-- of why there has not been a recorded up-or-down vote.

By the way, this is a vote that would have met the Senator's principles, that he wanted the vote before October 1. We would have already had that up-or-down vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. It would have been done in accordance with the wishes of the Senator from Louisiana before October 1. The sole hurdle in terms of securing that has been the scores of amendments that have been offered primarily--really exclusively--from colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to deal with other energy issues.

I want to make one other comment with respect to this. Senator Murkowski and I--because we have worked in a bipartisan way since we were given the opportunity to lead the Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the beginning of this year, and we are honored to have the Senator from Hawaii on the committee--have said our sole focus is to try to find common ground on a host of energy issues that have been backed up, many of which colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel very strongly about.

I would highlight, for example, nuclear waste legislation, where there has been no progress for years and years. Senator Murkowski and I, with Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, have a bipartisan bill we think would allow us to finally get on top of a critical issue. I feel very strongly--and I know the Senator from Louisiana cares a great deal about this--that we need to look at ways to cap the potential of natural gas, which is 50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels. I have been working with industry and environmental leaders on what I call a win-win solution where we could build more pipelines--the Senator from Louisiana knows it is important for the infrastructure of the natural gas business--and in the future we are going to make them better pipelines. We would have pipelines that don't leak so much methane, which would be good for consumers, good for the planet, and it would be good for the industry.

We are interested in dealing with nuclear waste issues, natural gas issues, and offshore energy issues which, again, are important to the Senator from Louisiana. It is pretty hard to get Senators to focus on those kinds of issues if we cannot move a piece of legislation such as this energy efficiency bill which has an unprecedented coalition behind it. It has so many obvious benefits, without the mandates and

without a one-size-fits-all strategy from Washington.

I wanted to set the record straight in particular on that point.

The Senator from Louisiana and I are going to continue our discussions, as we have been doing, but I especially want to emphasize--since my colleague from Louisiana has been talking about whether people say you can vote in principle but you don't vote in reality--that the reality is: We could have already had a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana before the October 1 date, that he said he felt strongly about, if colleagues on his side had not insisted on all of these other amendments not related to energy efficiency.

By the way, I made it clear to them--coming from a State that doesn't produce fossil fuels--that I was willing to work with them, particularly in areas I have just described, such as tapping into the potential of natural gas.

So the reality is there could have already been a recorded up-or-down vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana before October 1, and I hope he and others will continue to work with the bipartisan leadership so we can quickly get a finite list of additional relevant amendments that would be offered after the Senator from Louisiana gets his vote and after there is a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. Those are the realities of what has happened over the last week.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, there are four Senators on the floor who are each going to take about 5 minutes or so as we try--the leadership is now working to make it possible for us to have a unanimous consent request so that we can have a vote on the helium legislation after the respective caucus lunches.

So as of now we all will take, the four of us involved--Senator Murkowski, Senator Barrasso, Senator Cruz--about 5 minutes. We hope to be able to propound the unanimous consent request as we all talk. We want all Senators to know that we hope to be able to vote on the legislation shortly after lunch.

We know that in Washington, DC, it is almost as if there is an inexhaustible capacity to manufacture false crises. I am here to say that if Congress does not act immediately to pass the legislation we are discussing, scores of American manufacturing and technology companies employing millions of American workers are going to find it impossible to continue their current operations. That is because without this legislation, those workers and companies would no longer be able to get access to helium, which is a critical industrial gas without which these companies cannot operate.

Every week in our country there are 700,000 MRI scans performed. Without liquid helium, which is used to cool these superconducting magnets, without which you cannot run MRIs--if you did not have that capacity, millions of Americans would lose access to a critical diagnostic test. Helium is also used for welding in the aerospace industry, and it is essential for manufacturing optical fiber for the telecommunications industry and for chip manufacturing in the semiconductor sector.

Without going into all of the history, our government got involved with helium after World War I because the defense sector needed it.

Ever since that time--I have been discussing this with colleagues-- President after President, Congress after Congress, has tried to come up with a policy that finally gets government out of the helium business while still ensuring the needs of the military business and our taxpayers were protected in the process.

Senator Murkowski and I have worked for many months on this legislation in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we believe our bipartisan bill accomplishes this. That is because the bill requires the Federal Government to shift from selling helium at a government-set price to selling helium at a market-based price. The bill does this over a 5-year period, so there is no panic, no sudden changes in supply, and American businesses can stop worrying about whether the helium supply truck is going to actually show up in the next month.

The bill phases out commercial sales over the next 7 or 8 years and then gets the Federal Government out of the helium business entirely. With prices for helium now reflecting their real value in the marketplace, the private sector would have the incentives it needs to invest in new helium supplies to replace what is now a Federal reserve. I will wrap up by saying there have been loads of bad puns over the years about Congress floating various ideas for new helium legislation, but this is no joke. If Congress does not pass legislation to extend operation of the Federal Helium Reserve, 40 percent of the U.S. supply of this absolutely necessary industrial

commodity will disappear at the end of the month.

We have been informed the Federal agency that handles this, the Bureau of Land Management, would actually start closing the valves on October 1 if Congress has not acted.

I note Senator Murkowski is here. I would ask my colleagues if Senator Murkowski could go next.

Senator Cruz has been very gracious in terms of how we are trying to handle this. Both Senator Murkowski and Senator Cruz could speak and Senator Barrasso is here. I think we would all be done by the 12:30 window.

Let me say to my partner, once again, this is the kind of bipartisan approach we have tried to show in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I am very appreciative of all she does to make our partnership to work.

Would the Senator yield for a question--I am going to ask a question and respond to Senator Sessions' point in one second.

There are differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. The House bill does not get the government out of the helium business permanently. The Senate bill gets the government out of the helium business permanently; A, it does it in a way that is fully offset and, B, not only is it offset under our proposal, passed unanimously in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, $51 million would actually be used to lower the deficit. There is a full offset, A; get the government out of the helium business permanently, and $51 million would be returned to be used for deficit reduction.

What I wish to do, by way of moving things along--and Senator Cruz has been very gracious in terms of the handling of this and saw me on short notice. I am very appreciative.

I wish to propound the unanimous consent request at this time. I am asking the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, a question, if this is acceptable, and then we will go right back to my colleagues.

I wish to ask the Senator from Texas if we would now move to ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of the House bill and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the substitute amendment at the desk, which I have been discussing and I have talked about, be agreed to.

We would then have 15 minutes of debate equally divided between yourself and myself or our designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill would be amended and be read a third time and the Senate would proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that motions to reconsider would be considered made and laid upon the table, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

I ask the Senator from Texas would this unanimous consent request be acceptable?

When the Senator--who was good enough to yield me time-- has completed with Senator Sessions and colleagues to whom he may wish to yield, I will then propound that unanimous consent request.

I don't anticipate any objection. Colleagues will know that we would then have a vote shortly after 2 p.m.

I thank Senator Cruz.

Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for an excellent statement. It very much reflects our desire to make this bipartisan.

I particularly appreciate her noting the contributions of two of the members of our committee, Senators Risch

and Flake, who also made the point that, yes, we are getting the government out of the helium business; yes, we are making sure we are not putting at risk millions of high-skilled, high-wage jobs; but we have to be serious, as my friend from Alabama likes to say, about this budget deficit. And so I will be. He and I have talked often about Medicare and other areas. We will be serious about that deficit reduction, as Senator Murkowski has talked about. And particularly in light of the comments of Senator Risch and Senator Flake, we were able to meet the needs of people, working families across this country who depend on these high-skilled, high-wage jobs. So we are meeting those needs, and we are contributing to deficit reduction. So I thought the Senator's points were well taken.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 527

At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today, the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 527 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that a Wyden substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that there be 15 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Wyden and Cruz or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, as I said this morning, Washington, DC, seems to have an inexhaustible capacity to manufacture false crises. I am here to say that this is not one of them. If the Congress does not act immediately to pass the legislation Senator Murkowski and I advance today, scores of

American manufacturing and technology companies employing millions of American workers are going to find it impossible to continue their current operations.

Our government got involved with helium after World War I because the defense sector needed it. Ever since, President after President and Congress after Congress has tried to come up with a policy that gets government out of the helium business while still meeting the needs of our middle-class workers, our businesses, and our taxpayers.

Senator Murkowski and I are here to say that our bipartisan bill does that. The reality also is that it raises some revenue. With that revenue, we will be able to meet--we talked about it in the committee-- ongoing needs, particularly for folks hurting in rural communities where the Federal Government owns most of the land. They are concerned about their schools and their police and their roads. And because of the good work by colleagues on the other side of the aisle-- particularly Senators Risch and Flake--we were able to secure an additional $51 million to pay down the deficit.

We have 7 minutes on each side. I know colleagues are anxious to vote. I yield time to Senator Murkowski. I thank Senator Cruz for his courtesy in this matter. I would yield to Senator Murkowski. I would urge all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation that came out of our committee unanimously.

I thank my colleague from Alaska for all of her work. We await our colleague from Texas who would like to speak.

How much time remains on our side?

Let me yield 1 minute at this time to our friend who in the House had begun working on this literally years ago. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for all of his efforts.

Mr. President, I believe we have 1\1/2\ minutes left. Let's go to Senator Cruz, and then hopefully we can vote.

Mr. President, we have a minute and a half. I will be very brief. I thank the Senator from Texas for his courtesy.

The bottom line is that the House bill, which the Senator is calling for, does not get the government out of the helium business. That is the single most important distinction. We are reaching out to all those hard-hit middle-class workers in aerospace and tech and a whole host of industries. We are doing it in a way that protects taxpayers. It gets the government out of the helium business.

This legislation passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee unanimously. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and the Senate now proceed to vote on the passage of the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a success story that is unfolding in Oregon just this week. It is a success story about forestry, economic development, and collaboration. It is a success story about real jobs guaranteed today and into the future at a time when many rural communities are struggling.

In December 2009, I brought together representatives of the timber industry and conservationists, two groups that had been at odds with each other for years over Federal timber policy. These two factions reached an historic agreement that was referred to as ``the end of the timber wars.'' While this agreement never became law, the Forest Service embraced portions of it and helped pave the way for the 10-year stewardship contract on the Malheur National Forest, valued at $69 million, that was just awarded to a consortium of local companies.

This contract will be a major step in creating a healthier, more fire-resistant forest while providing millions of board feet of timber to a local mill; in other words, jobs in the woods and jobs in the mills. After that contract was announced, Ochoco Lumber, owners of the last remaining mill in Grant County, immediately announced that it will invest $2 million to $4 million in its plant. Ochoco Lumber's forward- thinking owner, John Shelk, has consistently sought to innovate and use technology to keep up with the changing timber landscape.

In partnership with Iron Triangle, another local timber company, Ochoco is poised to stay in the timber business, and keep those paychecks coming, for years to come.

These investments in healthy forests and innovative mills are having impacts throughout Grant County. Another partner in the consortium has announced that they have purchased an historic hotel in order to make sure that there is housing for the influx of workers that everyone knows are going to be coming.

This is economic development and job creation at the speed of light when

you consider the disproportionate suffering the rural communities felt during this recession.

It is because of stories like this that I introduced the Eastside bill this Congress, which just had a hearing at the end of July. The new bill includes some modifications from a previous bill to reflect the progress on the ground.

A healthy forest means a healthy economy and my legislation will provide the certainty to advance the vision laid out in the agreement. Advancing this legislation will mean more jobs, more harvested trees, and healthier forests.

So I stand today to congratulate Ochoco Lumber and Iron Triangle and to thank the U.S. Forest Service. They are the partners that contributed to this this success. My hope is that we can make this kind of success the norm for all rural communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Triad: Promoting a System of Shared Responsibility. Issues for Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act'' on September 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Outside the Box: Reforming and Renewing the Postal Service, Part I--Maintaining Services, Reducing Costs and Increasing Revenue Through Innovation and Modernization.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

I could see that we both--the Presiding Officer and I-- were riveted by Senator Murkowski and her remarks for a reason. Her remarks were truly inspiring. I will just say I think the Senate needed to hear Senator Murkowski's remarks, and I think that is why the Senator from North Dakota, and all of us, were listening so carefully.

I just want to highlight some of what Senator Murkowski said. The bill we are considering now is pretty much the platonic ideal for consensus legislation. It pretty much follows the kind of rules Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy used to talk about--that wonderful 80-20 rule. I remember Senator Enzi talking to me about how they would try to agree on 80 percent but may not agree on 20 percent.

The Shaheen-Portman legislation has the Kennedy-Enzi type of principle, where 80 percent of it is common ground that makes sense, doesn't have any mandates, uses the private sector, and focuses on efficiency which creates jobs. Frankly, around the world, some of the other countries try to get ahead by paying people low wages. We are trying to get ahead with legislation such as this, so we can wring more value out of the American economy and save money for businesses and consumers.

I think Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman are going to talk more about the 3 years they put into meeting that kind of Kennedy-Enzi principle of good government and finding common ground. I can tell everyone that when they write a textbook on how we ought to put together a bipartisan bill, these two fine Senators have complied with it.

It is not by osmosis that they got the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable to meet halfway with some of the country's leading environmental groups. It is because--as the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Ohio demonstrated--they were out there sweating the efforts to try to find common ground. Of course, neither side gets exactly what they want, but that is how they built this extraordinary coalition.

Point No. 2 that Senator Murkowski addressed--and I think it is very important as it was highlighted by my visit to the Presiding Officer's State in the last few days--is the whole question with respect to future legislation.

I come from a State--my colleagues know this--that doesn't produce any fossil fuels. We are a hydrostate and we have renewables, so a lot of people said: Ron is going to be chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources so nobody is going to talk about anything except hydro and renewables.

The first hearing we held in our committee was on natural gas. The reason why Senator Murkowski and I made that decision jointly is because there ought to be bipartisan common ground on capping the potential of natural gas for our country, our consumers, and the planet. It is 50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels. We have it, the world wants it, and a lot of companies are talking about coming back from overseas because they want that pricing advantage.

What I have been talking about to Senators--and I do it at every opportunity--is how do we find a win-win approach that is good for the consumer and good for business and good for the environment? For example, for natural gas we are going to need a way to get that gas to markets, and that is going to mean more pipelines. So one of the ideas that I want to talk about with Senators on our committee as well as off the committee is, wouldn't it make sense to say if we are going to need more pipelines, the pipelines of the future ought to be better, meet the needs of the industry, and also help us get that added little benefit for consumers and the planet by not wasting energy.

I saw folks in North Dakota working really hard to try to deal with flaring and these methane emissions. So what I would like to do is exactly what Senator Murkowski described this morning. She wants to get a bipartisan energy efficiency bill, which is a logical place to start, as the Senator said, on the ``all of the above'' strategy.

When we are done with that, we are going to move on to a whole host of other issues and in each case take as our lodestar this kind of win- win concept that can bring people together to find some common ground so we can tackle big issues. If we do that in the energy context, we will be doing something that helps create good-paying jobs, helps the consumer, and is also good for the planet.

My sense right now is that we have a number of issues colleagues on the other side of the aisle have felt strongly about for quite some time.

I think there is a real chance--and I have been advocating for it--to work out an agreement to deal with the two issues that have been particularly on the minds of some colleagues on the other side of the aisle--the health care issue and Keystone. Certainly I think there is a way to find common ground on those two issues procedurally so we could have a vote on two issues I have heard particularly conservative colleagues say are extraordinarily important to them. At that point, if our leadership could get an agreement on those two--and they could negotiate on any other matters where we could agree--but what we would ensure is we wouldn't have a situation where, in effect, a handful of colleagues who want to offer amendments unrelated to energy efficiency wouldn't be blocking dozens of Senators of both political parties who would like to offer bipartisan energy efficiency amendments. That is what we would face if we don't find a way to work this out.

I am part of this ``we aren't giving up caucus'' Senator Murkowski described, because I think we came here to find a way to come together and deal with these issues. I will say, speaking for myself, if there is one thing I want to be able to take away from my time in public service--just one thing--and I would say to Senator Murkowski that apparently the Presiding Officer was a volunteer in my first campaign; I was a Gray Panther, had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and all that--she is denying that, I can tell--if there is one thing I wish to take away from my time in public service it is what Senator Murkowski alluded to, which is that we did everything on our watch to find common ground and deal with some of these issues.

That is why Senator Isakson and I have a fresh approach that I think will appeal to both sides of the aisle on Medicare. I have been involved with Senators on bipartisan tax reform, and Senator Murkowski and I have been working on energy. She said, Let's not miss this ideal opportunity to put good government into action and that is by moving ahead with the Shaheen-Portman legislation.

Let us get an agreement. I think it ought to be achievable in the next few hours. I am going to go back--I have met with leadership on both sides and I am making the case that I think there is a procedural way out. I think Senator Murkowski described it with the goodwill she demonstrated in what I thought was an inspiring address, and I can tell the Presiding Officer thought the same thing. I think we can find our way out of this.

I see the sponsors of the underlying legislation, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, on the floor. I wish to thank them for the fact they have consistently said throughout this process they are willing to work with Senator Murkowski and me for this kind of procedural route forward, and I think it is achievable, particularly if Senators reflect on the outstanding remarks just given by the Senator from Alaska.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, it strikes me that the Senator's idea is practical right now. Because you look at the changes we have seen in the last 4 or 5 years--particularly in areas such as natural gas. We were talking about it with the Senators from North Dakota. This would be the point of the Senator's amendment, to get the policies of the government to start being reflective of what goes on in the marketplace. Four or five years ago in our State we were having pitched battles whether to develop import facilities for natural gas. They were pretty spirited discussions. People were getting hauled out by the gendarmes and all of that.

Now we are having the same kind of battles about whether we ought to build export facilities. Is that the Senator's desire, to make sure the government and the policies of the government sort of keep up with the times? It strikes me the Senator from Arkansas is proposing an amendment that is particularly timely right now.

Madam President, as bipartisan discussions go on over the next hour or two on the important Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency legislation, I wish to take a few minutes to outline where we are, why this bill is so important, and how it is going to affect energy policy deliberations generally.

I appreciate the work of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I see Senators from both sides who I believe would very much like to see Democrats and Republicans work on an agreement to move forward on the Shaheen-Portman legislation.

When you look at this bill, it is almost the platonic ideal of how consensus legislation ought to work in the Senate. You have in effect a bipartisan Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are very pleased the Presiding Officer has joined the committee very recently.

This bipartisan committee, taking a piece of bipartisan legislation authored by Senators Shaheen and Portman, two of our most thoughtful Senators--took their bill to the floor of the Senate and hour after hour the bill got more bipartisan, starting with the distinguished Senators Inhofe and Carper, who came with a thoughtful amendment with respect to thermal energy. The list went on and on. Senatorial pair after senatorial pair came to the floor and said they wanted to show law-making 101 is Democrats and Republicans working together in a bipartisan way and to respond to what we have heard Americans say all during the summer break. No matter what part of the country you are from, the message was the same: Go back and deal with the important issues for the economy. Let us expand the winner's circle in a middle- class-driven economy. That is what this legislation does. It is going to help create jobs, it is going to allow consumers to save money through practical energy savings, and it is going to increase American productivity.

It is an extraordinary coalition that has assembled for Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman's legislation: Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, and environmental groups, public interest organizations--an incredible breadth of support for this bill.

What I have been struck by in discussions, particularly over the last 24 hours, is this question: OK, the Senate is now finally on energy legislation. We actually did a major bill right before the August recess, the hydropower bill. Hydropower is the biggest source of clean power in the country right now, 60,000 megawatts, essentially, of potential production delivery out of that legislation. But this is the first bill to actually be on the floor of the Senate since 2007.

A number of Senators have said we have got this huge pent-up demand to work on energy, and now we have scores of amendments coming in on this bill--perhaps as many as 60 amendments that Senators want to offer. Obviously, we could probably be here until New Year's Eve working on this legislation if we have scores of amendments coming in. What I have tried to tell Senators is, We can't do everything under the Sun--literally and figuratively--with respect to this bill and still be able to move on to other subjects. We would not be able to deal with the continuing resolution and a whole host of other issues the Senate has to tackle. So there has to be some limits.

My hope is that agreement can be worked out on several of the issues Senators have felt most strongly about. Then if Senators Reid and McConnell can work out an agreement to have a finite number of amendments that will address energy issues, hopefully bipartisan, we can then move to a vote on energy efficiency. It seems to me there is no reason why, theoretically, that could not be done this week. If we have votes on a couple of these issues through a procedural agreement that would address what Senators have been debating over the last few days and then the leaders come up with a finite list of amendments on the other issues, we could finish this bill this week. I think it is important for the institution to do so.

I say to Senators who want to debate a variety of energy issues that deal with, for example, the EPA, we can't do all of those issues on this bill. The energy committee doesn't have jurisdiction over those issues. Those are going to come up. On some of what Senators are most concerned about, the government hasn't even acted yet. In other words, it is one thing to have a response from the Senate after an agency has acted. On some of these matters, the agency hasn't even acted yet. So it ought to be possible to find a path forward that would allow for votes on several issues that have been

debated since the middle of last week. I think there is a way to do that if we can get an agreement on a finite list of additional amendments so both sides could have some other questions aired and we could vote on energy efficiency.

The reality is on the question of energy efficiency, those who are most knowledgeable on the subject say our country has plenty of room for improvement. As of 2011, our country ranked ninth out of the top 12 global economies in the amount of energy it uses to generate every dollar of goods and services it produces. This is what is commonly known as energy productivity. This is not a hypothetical exercise. As of 2008, industries consumed about one-third of the total U.S. energy use. The biggest users were chemicals and petroleum refining, pulp paper, iron and steel, and obviously other important industries are energy intensive as well. A lot of those employers know using less energy means lower costs and higher margins. Especially larger companies are in a position to take the steps that will allow them to tap those financial gains. But the small and medium-sized companies often don't have the technical expertise to know about which upgrades are going to make the biggest difference.

Here we have this bipartisan bill, and without putting any mandates on the private sector--not a single mandate on the private sector--this bill takes three steps that can help our small companies--the kind of company that dominates Oregon and Wisconsin and others as well. With this legislation, these small companies are going to be able to be more competitive.

First, the bill tells the Energy Department to reach out to the small and medium-sized businesses and make their experts available so the small businesses can learn directly what the commercially available energy-efficient technology is in their area that will allow them to become more competitive.

Second, it creates rebate programs to encourage manufacturers to replace some of their inefficient equipment, particularly motors and transformers. These are two pieces of equipment in particular that have long service lives and often get rebuilt instead of replaced because of the high cost of replacement.

Finally, the legislation establishes a program called Supply Star to recognize companies that have successfully made their supply chains more efficient--once again, voluntary, modeled after the ENERGY STAR Program. I offer that in this debate about what the role of the government is in an ``all of the above'' energy policy, these kinds of approaches that have a market-driven orientation, that are voluntary in nature, are ones that I think are going to allow our country in the days ahead to keep ahead of the competition.

In wrapping up, we do have, apparently, over 60 amendments filed. A significant chunk are them are not on the topic of energy efficiency. I see that the distinguished Senator from Ohio is on the floor, Senator Shaheen is on the floor, as are others who have strong concerns and are going to look to see if we can put together a bipartisan approach over the next few hours. I ask Senators to focus on what is doable, which is to have votes on the several issues that have been debated over the last few days, and then come to a finite agreement on the rest of the issues that would be offered--hopefully by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Then we can vote, quaint as the idea might be, on an energy efficiency bill, which is the topic that has been before the Senate since the middle of last week.

I note that the Senator from Ohio is on the floor. He brought a good bill, with Senator Shaheen, to the floor in the middle of last week. It got better with the Inhofe-Carper amendment on thermal energy; the Landrieu-Wicker amendment, which helps us make better use of the green building certification system; the Hoeven-Pryor amendment that allows the continued use of grid-enabled water heaters to make utility management programs more efficient; the Sessions-Pryor and the Landrieu-Wicker amendments that reduce regulatory burdens on testing consumer products; the Bennet-Ayotte amendment on commercial buildings; the Pryor-Alexander amendment to look at how the review process works in terms of planning our energy future; the Isakson-Bennet amendment to look at home efficiency during mortgage underwriting.

When you think about this, the reality is you seem to know more about the energy efficiency of the products you have around your house, such as a toaster, than you do about a major--really an extraordinary purchase, such as a home. So we have a bipartisan duo in the Senate, Senator Isakson and Senator Bennet, wanting to address it. It is a terrific amendment, in my view.

Then there is the Bennet-Coburn amendment and the Udall-Risch amendment--saving taxpayers money by saving energy in the Federal computer data centers--and Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hoeven trying to make our nonprofits make better use of their energy because with that tax status it is hard to qualify for some of the opportunities to save energy.

I could go on, but it just highlights how a bipartisan committee took a bipartisan bill from Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman and then a big group of bipartisan Senators made it better. And that is what we could pass, and we could do it this week.

For all the Senators who have said there is this pent-up demand since the Senate has not been dealing with energy since 2007, I say the only way we can really get to all those topics is to pass a bill such as this that does have a finite list of amendments, and then let's vote on Shaheen-Portman.

Several of my colleagues are on their feet.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator from New Hampshire yield for a question?

How many years has the Senator from New Hampshire been involved in this legislation? Because I can recall the various iterations that she and Senator Portman offered, and then she worked with various groups, business organizations and public interest groups, and I think it would be helpful to hear how long she has been working on this legislation and how long she has been waiting to actually get this bill in front of the Senate.

Is it the view of the Senator from New Hampshire that the amendments that have been offered--the bipartisan amendments--take her bill, the product of all those negotiations, more than 3 years' worth of work, and actually make the bill even better?

I look at some of the amendments, particularly the one offered by the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Colorado--the Isakson-Bennet amendment--and I realize we know more in America about the kind of common energy-efficient products that one might use, whether it is a toaster or something else around the house, than we do about the actual house itself. So we have two thoughtful Senators coming together and they have worked with a whole host of commercial building interests and they are going to make it possible, in my view, to save a lot of energy that will result in savings for homeowners and other Americans.

I would be interested in the Senator's take on the various amendments that have been filed because I think those amendments take the very fine bill she and Senator Portman have and make it even better.

Let me wrap up with one last question to get a sense of the Senator's intent. My sense is the Senator is very open, as is Senator Portman, that there will be votes. I see our colleagues on the floor who have also been here since Wednesday, but the Senator from New Hampshire, I believe, is open to giving them votes on the several issues that have come up in connection with this debate, that have been debated over the last few days, and then she would be open to the leadership on both sides agreeing to a finite list of amendments and then actually voting on the energy efficiency bill this week.

My hope is that is what the Senator would like to do because that is what I have tried to tell colleagues, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

I just came back from an excellent visit to North Dakota with Senator Hoeven. There are a lot of other issues the Senate wants to tackle in the energy area to make sure we fully tap the potential of natural gas. There are win-win opportunities that are also good for the environment. We would like to resolve the nuclear waste question. We have a bipartisan bill here in the Senate.

Is that the intent of the Democratic sponsor of this legislation, that in the next couple of hours we get a finite list of the additional amendments In other words, we have the Senator's bill, and we have several amendments that have been debated at length already. Those would be part of the vote, and then in the next couple of hours we would have a finite list, and then we could address those and finish the bill this week?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 Tuesday, October 1, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the following legislation:

S. 812, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to take actions to implement the Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico; and,

H.R. 1613, a bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes.

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 e-mail to Lauren_Goldschmidt@ energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905 or Lauren Goldschmidt at (202) 224-5488.