Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor, the members of the Appropriations Committee and others who have been down to speak in support of passing this continuing resolution. I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee, and I have been very impressed with the work our chair, Senator Mikulski, and Ranking Member Shelby have done. They have crafted the appropriations bills that would address the budget for the coming year. Those appropriations bills would replace the harmful cuts from sequestration. Those are cuts that people on both sides of the aisle have said they oppose. Unfortunately, because of the obstructionism we have seen so clearly this week, those bills have not yet come to the floor and so we need a short-term CR to keep the government open. We all know that the continuing resolution before us is not ideal. It is short term and it doesn't replace sequestration. So it doesn't either deal with the cuts or give businesses and our economy the certainty they need. But this suggestion that we should refuse to keep the government open is irresponsible. There is too much at stake for our economy, for our small businesses, and for our families across this country. Unfortunately, what we have seen this week is that there are some who are pushing this country to the brink of another manufactured crisis as a tactic to prevent health care reform from going into effect. I am not going to review what Senator McCain said so well about how the democratic process works in this country and the fact that once a law goes into effect, it is important to implement it. I think democracy works, but it doesn't always work the way I want it to either. When a law is passed, we have a responsibility to go ahead and make it work. We have a seen a small minority of this body and of the House who are willing to shut down government to defund the new health care law. The people I talk to in New Hampshire don't think that shutting down government is a good approach because they understand the serious consequences it would have for them, for their businesses, and for the country. It would especially hurt small businesses, which are the foundation of the economy in New Hampshire and the Presiding Officer's home State of Maine and Rhode Island, Senator Reed's home State. Those small businesses create two out of every three new jobs. Many of those small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country rely on Federal contracts as they figure out how they are going to grow and create new jobs. We talked to one CEO of an innovative small company in New Hampshire who told me if its contracts were shut down: Our income would drop to essentially zero and we would burn our very thin cash reserves . . . when that money is burned it is not able to be replaced so our basic financial viability can be irrevocably damaged even after the crisis passes. There will be no way to recover those dollars. We had a chance to hear from the former Secretary of the Treasury, Bob Rubin, this week. He said: Unlike 1995, when there was a short-term consequence to shutting down the government, if we do that this time, it will be felt not just for years but for decades to come. A shutdown would close the Small Business Administration's lending programs, and those SBA lending programs are critical to small business in New Hampshire and across this country. On average, SBA supports loans to over 1,000 small businesses per week. Then there is the housing market. In New Hampshire and across this country, the housing market has been one of the slowest sectors to recover, but in the last year we have begun to see some signs of improvement. The Federal Housing Administration has been a big part of that recovery because they have helped families afford homes and kept our housing economy afloat. Under the shutdown, it is estimated that assistance to 34,000 homeowners would be delayed. With all of the problems that have been caused by the housing crisis, we should not be stalling one of the most effective programs we have for assisting homeowners, and that is what we would do with a government shutdown. Then, of course, this would be terrible timing for the tourist industry in New Hampshire and across New England because fall foliage is one of our biggest seasons and tourists come from all over the world. They spend money in our local restaurants and hotels. Many small businesses rely on this time of year to increase their revenues. But if the government shuts down, we will be turning away those customers. Applications for visas will come to a halt. According to the Congressional Research Service, during the 1995-1996 shutdowns, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 applications by foreigners for visas to come and visit in America went unprocessed. That will not just affect the tourism industries in New Hampshire, it will affect airlines and people across the country. Then, of course, there are Federal workers. In New Hampshire there are 7,400 of them. It is one of the State's largest employers, the Federal Government, and their salaries are not just important to them and their families but to the grocery stores and gas stations and all of the other businesses they support. The Presiding Officer certainly knows, as I do, about the impact on the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard of a potential government shutdown. These are just some of the effects on the economy. Considering the many industries that would be affected, it is no surprise that economists have forecast that failure to pass a continuing resolution, as Bob Rubin said, would do significant damage to our economy. Even a 3- or 4-day shutdown would slow growth by 0.2 percent, according to economist Mark Zandi. It doesn't have to be this way. I was a Governor for three terms. The Presiding Officer was a Governor for two terms. We understand what it is like to work across the aisle. We always passed a budget because we had to put in place a budget.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski on the floor of the Senate today. I want to sign up for the ``get it done caucus,'' because I think this is legislation we can get done. It has bipartisan support from I believe the majority of the Members in this Senate. I think if we can get some agreement to move forward on this legislation and on the amendments, we can show the public, which is very frustrated with what is happening here in Washington, that we can actually get something done. I wish to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski for all of their great work on the energy committee. I had the opportunity to serve my first 4 years on the energy committee. It is a great committee. They have done a terrific job of showing what it is like to be able to get work done, to be able to get people to come together and figure out where they can get agreement and move forward. It was in that spirit that Senator Portman and I started working together 3 years ago, when we were both members of the energy committee, on energy efficiency legislation, working with the Alliance to Save Energy, and a number of members of the business community, and with all of these groups that have endorsed this legislation, to try and put together a bill where we could find some agreement. There has been a lot of division around energy issues in the last decade or so. That is why it has been I think 6 years--actually since 2007--since an energy bill has come to the floor of the Senate, because there are those of us who believe the best way forward is to focus on fossil fuels and more oil and gas. There are others who believe alternatives and renewables, hydro and solar and wind, are the best way forward. One of the aspects that is true in this entire energy debate, whether one comes from North Dakota, as the Presiding Officer does, or New Hampshire, as I do, is that energy efficiency benefits all of us. It doesn't matter which form of energy one supports or which region of the country one is from; this is a place where we can get some consensus. It is agreement that allows us to move forward on job creation; it allows us to move forward on saving on pollution. We have had several Senators on the floor over the last couple of days talking about the challenges of climate change and what is happening with our weather. This is a way to save on those emissions. It is a way to address cost savings. I have been to businesses all over New Hampshire that have been able to stay competitive because they have reduced their energy costs. In a State such as New Hampshire where we have the sixth highest energy costs in the country, it is important for us to figure out how we can lower those costs. That is one of the things this bill does. The other aspect of the legislation that we haven't talked about as much on the floor is it reduces our dependence on foreign oil and foreign sources of energy, so it is also critical to our national security. As we think about our energy challenges in the future, making sure we can produce the energy we use in the United States is very important. As we think about what is happening in the Middle East, as we think about the challenges we have to stay competitive in the world, energy, as Senator Murkowski said so well, is something that affects everything we do. This bill has been criticized by some quarters for not being robust enough. I appreciate there are provisions in the legislation I might not have chosen to put in. There are others I would like to have seen in it we didn't get consensus on. But I think that is what we are talking about when we are talking about how do we reach consensus on a bipartisan bill and how do we get something done that can get through not only the Senate but the House. I think we have a good start in this legislation. The bill would do several things. First, it would strengthen national model building codes to make new homes and new commercial buildings more energy efficient. We know about 40 percent of our energy used in this country is used in buildings, so making sure those buildings are more energy efficient is critical. It is particularly important for those of us who are in the northeast. In New Hampshire we have a lot of old buildings because we are an older part of the country, so we have a lot of buildings that have been there for a long time and we need to do what we can to make them more energy efficient. Then the legislation would also train the next generation of workers in energy-efficient commercial building design and operation. It would expand on university-based building training and research assessment centers--something that is very important as we think about the future workforce. Let me go back because when I talked about the national model building codes, I wanted to make sure everybody is clear that these building codes are voluntary; they are not mandatory. As Senator Portman has said so well, there are no mandates in this legislation. This is an effort to look at incentives, to look at how we can encourage the private sector and consumers to be more energy efficient. Then the bill also deals with the manufacturing sector, which is the biggest user of energy in our economy. It directs the Department of Energy to work closely with private sector partners to encourage research, development, and commercialization of innovative energy- efficient technology and processes for industrial applications. That is a mouthful, but what it says is--and this is something we heard from stakeholders, from those businesses that work in the energy industry, which is they want to have a better working relationship with the Department of Energy. They want to be able to feel as though there is support there as they are trying to take technologies to commercialization. It also helps manufacturers reduce energy use and become more competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy- efficient electric motors and transformers. About 4 percent of energy use in this country is through electric motors and transformers. I have been interested in transformers because we have a company in New Hampshire called Warner Power that has made the first breakthrough in transformer design in 100 years. If we can get their energy-efficient transformers, or something like them, into buildings and projects across the country, we could save significant amounts of energy. As we look at the manufacturing sector, the legislation also establishes a program called Supply Star, to help make companies look at their supply chains and figure out how to make their supply chains more efficient. I can remember when I was on the energy committee and we were talking about this whole issue of supply chains and we were debating whether it was important to encourage companies to look at their supply chains, people were saying, It doesn't make that much difference in terms of the actual energy use. I pointed out that we have a company in New Hampshire called Stoneyfield Farm that makes yogurt--great yogurt. If my colleagues haven't had it, they should try it. But they have been very interested in being more energy efficient. They have looked at all of their processes and they have figured out how they can do the best possible job at saving on energy. What they discovered is their biggest problem isn't how they produce the yogurt, it is the cows they depend upon for the milk to produce the yogurt because the cows release so much methane. That was the problem in terms of their supply chain and with the amount of energy they were using. So helping companies take a look at their supply chain and figure out how to reduce the energy use through that supply chain is very important and it is an important piece of this bill. Then the third section in the legislation deals with the Federal Government. I know all of us know this because we are here and we are working hard on energy. The Federal Government is the biggest user of energy in this country. Most of that energy is used by the military. About 93 percent is used by the military. The military understands it is important for them to figure out how to be more energy efficient. They have been real leaders in government--the Navy in particular, but all branches in the military have looked at how they can be more efficient in using energy. Our legislation tries to incentivize the rest of the government to catch up with the military. So we would ask agencies to look at data centers--and we have some very good amendments from Senators Risch and Udall and Senator Coburn to take a look at data centers because they are a big waster of energy in the Federal Government. It would allow Federal agencies to use existing funds to update plans when they are constructing new buildings so they can make them more energy efficient. We have a number of amendments which would also address how we can make the Federal Government more energy efficient and be a leader as we look at what is happening in the private sector to save on energy, so this bill is a very good start for how to address energy efficiency. Senators Murkowski and Wyden have said we have over a dozen agreed to, bipartisan amendments that would make the bill even better. I hope we can get to those amendments. I think it is really important for us to do this. But to answer those people who say that this is just a little bill, that it is not going to make much difference, I would point to a new study that just came out from the American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy. They looked at this legislation without the amendments--and the amendments are going to make it better--and they said that if we can pass this legislation, by 2025 the legislation will encourage the creation of 136,000 new jobs, not just in businesses that are going to be more efficient and so they can create more jobs but in businesses that are producing the energy-efficient technologies that are going to allow us to be more energy efficient. By 2030 the bill would net an annual savings of over $13 billion to consumers, and it would lower carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. That is a pretty good savings and solution. So, as we have all said, this is a win-win-win. It makes sense for us to move on this legislation. It makes sense for what we can accomplish with the legislation itself. It makes sense in terms of other energy issues that are pending and what we need to do to make sure we position the United States and our businesses and our families to be more energy efficient to be able to compete in the new energy world we are entering. We need to start now to address energy, and I hope we are going to be able to get by the impediments that currently face us so we can begin to vote, so we can adopt the great amendments that have been proposed, and so we can actually act on this bill. Thank you very much, Madam President. I am pleased to see my partner on this legislation on the floor to talk about why we need to pass this bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I would.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I see my colleague from North Dakota Senator Hoeven is here so I will be brief. I wish to pick up on something Senator Enzi talked about, which is that the American people are expecting us to get something done. I couldn't agree with him more. That is why I have been on the floor for the last 3 days, along with my colleague from Ohio Senator Portman, who has worked so hard with me to put together an energy efficiency bill to address the very real challenges facing this country around energy security, and energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs. We have multiple bipartisan amendments to this legislation. We have a lot of bipartisan support for this legislation, with more than 260 groups, as varied as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Resources Defense Council, supporting this legislation. I hope all those people who would like to have a different conversation around health care, or whatever else, will be willing to postpone that conversation so we can deal with the bill before us, which is the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. I appreciate all the work of my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven. He has been willing to engage with us on this legislation and I urge all of us to get to the bill at hand and deal with energy issues and let us have those other debates at the appropriate time. Now is not the appropriate time.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to speak to the Shaheen- Portman legislation that is on the floor, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. But I have to start by responding to my colleague from Louisiana because, first of all, I appreciate that he wants a vote on this issue of the OPM ruling. There are a lot of things I would like to see a vote on, and I understand he is saying he is not opposed to the bill, which I very much appreciate. But the fact is, he chooses to be here to hold up this bipartisan piece of legislation at a time when we can get some real agreement on energy legislation coming out of the Senate--the first time since 2007 we have had an energy bill on the floor. This is a bipartisan energy bill. It is a bill that has over 16 bipartisan amendments that have been vetted by the energy committee, that have support not just from the chairman of the energy committee and the ranking member but from the committee staff, from Senator Portman and myself. We think we have a real opportunity to pass this bill and to make it even better because of all of these bipartisan amendments. But my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, is refusing to allow us to get these votes because he wants a vote on his amendment. I am happy to take a vote on his amendment. I would like to be able to clarify for the record the OPM ruling. I think there is a lot of misinformation--people who are calling to say that Members of Congress are not going to be in the exchange. Well, the fact is, Members of Congress who choose to continue to have their health care through the Federal program are in the exchange, as are our staffs. But we are not asking other large employers such as the Federal Government to eliminate the employer share of health care, as Senator Vitter would ask--that the Federal Government eliminate its employer share of health care for all of our staffs who are working for the Federal Government. I do not think the American people believe the employer's share of health care should be eliminated. I think we have a system of health care that is employer based, and the system we have in the Federal Government is going to continue to be employer based as well. That means the Federal Government will pay a share of health care. I think this is a debate we ought to have because I think there are a lot of people who are on the extreme right who want to be disingenuous about what is going on here. They are interested in spreading misinformation about what is happening with the health care law because they cannot believe Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, and that, in fact, we are already seeing the benefits for people across this country from the Affordable Care Act. We are seeing people who have had previous illnesses--so preexisting conditions--who are no longer going to be denied health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. We are seeing people who can stay on their health care--young people--until they are age 26 because of the Affordable Care Act. We are seeing people who no longer have lifetime limits on what their share is for health insurance when they become ill. We are seeing people who are in the doughnut hole with their prescription drugs who are getting help for those prescription drugs. So I am happy to have that debate on the Affordable Care Act. But now is not the time to do it. This is a time when we can get some real agreement on energy efficiency, on an energy bill that, as the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has said, would create 136,000 jobs by 2025, that would save consumers billions of dollars by 2030, that would be the equivalent of taking millions of cars off the road. It is a win-win-win, and it is a bill that has not just considerable bipartisan support in this Chamber but it is a bill that has support from groups that are as far apart as the American Chemistry Council and the Sierra Club, groups that do not normally come together on a bill--over 260 groups. That list is growing every day, private businesses that say: The way we need to begin to address our energy challenges is by saving energy. The cheapest, fastest way to address our energy needs is through energy efficiency. This is a bill that does not depend on whether you support fossil fuels or new alternatives. The Presiding Officer knows we can support coal, investments in coal, and still support energy efficiency. We can support wind and still support energy efficiency. We can support solar and still support energy efficiency. We can support more drilling and still support energy efficiency. This bill is a win-win-win, and we need to get on the bill. We need to get those people who would rather debate issues that are extraneous to this legislation to hold those debates for a later time. As I said, I am happy to continue to debate health care. Even though we have been debating it now for the 4 years since the bill has been passed, I am happy to do that. But now is not the time to do that. So, Mr. President, I will yield the floor and hope we can reach some agreement that will address Senator Vitter's concerns, that will address some of the other concerns that have been waiting that will allow us to move forward on an energy bill that is in the best interests of the country. Thank you.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Before my colleague from Delaware leaves the floor, I wish to think him for coming down, speaking on the bill, and for his kind words. As the Senator pointed out, we were Governors together. Actually, we have another former Governor on the floor, Senator King of Maine, who also appreciates dealing with the challenges of high energy costs. The Senator pointed out, and something that I know, that as Governors energy was a big issue for us. In New Hampshire we have the sixth highest energy costs in the country, so it is still a big issue for us in New Hampshire. As the Senator points out, energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs because the energy we don't use doesn't cost us any money. I would argue that, as the Senator mentioned when he closed, this is not just an opportunity for a triple play but an opportunity for us to win on four fronts: on job creation, on reducing pollution, on savings for businesses and for consumers who have to use energy, but also on national security. Because to the extent we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it helps improve our national security. So this bill is a win-win-win-win. The amendments, such as the one the Senator is talking about today with Senator Inhofe, improve the bill significantly. If we can call up that amendment today--the amendment of the Senator from Delaware on thermal energy--we can probably get a voice vote on it because it has that kind of bipartisan support in this body. It is something the committee has looked at--both the majority and the minority on the energy committee--and said this is an amendment we think can be supported and has great bipartisan support. As the Senator from Delaware says, we need to have these votes on energy, we need to get a comprehensive energy-efficient strategy in this country, and that is what Shaheen-Portman does. I very much appreciate the Senator's good work on this legislation.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. There is no doubt about that. I have been impressed with the amount of thought that has gone into these bipartisan amendments and with the variety of ways in which they improve on energy efficiency. The Senator talked about the Isakson-Bennet amendment. Senator Bennet has an amendment with Senator Ayotte, my colleague from New Hampshire, talking about tenants who are renting and the incentives we can provide to tenants to address their energy use. Senator Gillibrand, who came to the floor last week, talked about how we could look at emergency disaster relief and try and make sure when we rebuild from disasters we rebuild in a way that is much more energy efficient. So we have a whole range of ideas. Senator Hoeven, who is on the floor, is talking about addressing water heaters and the need to make sure water heaters are more efficient. He is working with Senator Pryor. We have a whole list of amendments that are thoughtful and that have been the result of a lot of work on the part of a lot of Senators in this Chamber. It is unfortunate we can't get to those amendments and get them passed. I think most of them would pass on a voice vote.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Senator Portman can correct me on this, but I think we introduced this legislation early in 2011, not too long after he came to the Senate, and we have been working for 3 years. We reintroduced it in this Congress and have made a number of changes over the years in response to what we heard from stakeholders and in response to some of the concerns expressed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make the bill better and to try and put together legislation that could actually pass the Congress. We have another bill in the House that is very similar, which is also a bipartisan piece of energy efficiency legislation. There has been a lot of interest expressed in the House in trying to act on this issue, so we have a real opportunity to get a bill through Congress, to get it to the President's desk, to get it signed, and to begin making progress on those 136,000 jobs we have heard about from the ACEEE--the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy--that could be created as a result of passing this bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely. And I think that is Senator Portman's interest. We would like to get some agreement on how to move forward. As I said last week, I don't have any objection to voting on Senator Vitter's legislation if we can get some agreement on limiting those extraneous amendments that really don't have anything to do with energy efficiency so we can get onto this bill, get it done, and make progress because, as the chairman knows, it is going to be very challenging to tackle some of those other energy issues that are much more controversial than this energy efficiency bill. So it would be nice to be able to have agreement so we can move on to some of those other issues. I especially appreciate the Senator's leadership and Senator Murkowski's leadership in reaching some agreement and trying to move an energy agenda on the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. As my colleague Senator Murkowski said, I am thrilled to be here on the floor of the Senate today after 3 years of work with Senator Portman and so many other people to be talking about the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. I wish to begin by thanking Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for all of the support and great work the Energy Committee has done to help get this bill to the floor. As they pointed out, and as I know the Presiding Officer knows, the Energy Committee in the Senate has been very bipartisan. I had the opportunity to spend my first 4 years here on the Energy Committee and I can attest to that. I know what great work they have done. The fact they have moved so many bills through the committee already speaks to the consensus they have been able to build on the committee around energy policy. Thank you both very much for all of that great work. Thank you to my partner in this effort, Senator Portman of Ohio. He is not on floor right now, but I sort of claim him in New Hampshire because he went to Dartmouth, so we figure he has some New Hampshire roots. We have worked in a partnership on this legislation. It has been a very bipartisan effort. It reflects what I believe is an affordable approach to the use of energy efficiency technologies. It will help create private sector jobs. It will save businesses and consumers money. It will reduce pollution, and it will make our country more energy independent. I know we are all very aware of the crisis in Syria and how that looms over this discussion. It couldn't be more timely over how we can make this country more energy independent. This bill, which Senator Portman and I have been working on for 3 years, has been the result of years of meetings and negotiations, of broad stakeholder outreach. It has been an effort to craft the most effective piece of energy legislation, efficiency legislation, with the greatest chance of passing both Chambers of Congress and of being signed into law. The legislation will have a swift and measurable benefit to our economy and our environment. In fact, as Senator Wyden pointed out, we had a recent study by experts at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which found this legislation, if it is passed, has the potential to create 136,000 domestic jobs by 2025. They did a study in the last Congress, when we first introduced the bill, which showed in addition to that job creation, it would also save consumers $4 billion by 2020 and be the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off the road. It is a huge benefit to our environment and to job creation, which is probably at the top of our agenda right now, and also for savings to consumers. Simply put, as my colleagues have said, we need a comprehensive national energy policy. We have been overly dependent on foreign oil. We have been reliant on an outdated energy infrastructure. This is a situation that hurts business and that also gives our overseas competitors an advantage. We have to think about an ``all of the above'' strategy, as everybody has commented, that utilizes a wide range of energy sources: natural gas, oil, nuclear, and renewables such as wind, biomass, and solar. This will give us a stronger and more stable economy. We can't just focus on the supply side, we also need to think about how we consume the energy once we have it, the demand side. Efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to address our energy needs. Energy savings techniques and technologies, lower costs--they free up capital that allows business to expand and our economy to grow. I have been to so many businesses throughout New Hampshire in the last 3 years that, because of their ability to save on their energy costs, have been able to stay competitive and have been able to add jobs. This has a real benefit to our economy and to businesses. Efficiency, as I said, is the fastest way to address our energy needs. I think a lot of times people think about energy saving and energy efficiency as turning down the thermostat, turning off the lights, putting on a sweater, but energy efficiency today is about a whole lot more than that. We can start by improving our efficiency by installing ready and proven technologies. These are off the shelf. They are already available, such as modern heating and cooling systems, smart meters, computer-controlled thermostats, and low-energy lighting. These are all available today for the benefit of people who wish to save on their energy consumption and their energy bills. There are substantial opportunities that exist across all sectors of our economy to conserve energy and to create good-paying private sector jobs. As we have already said, I think efficiency has a great shot at passing both the House and Senate and becoming law. Energy efficiency has emerged as an excellent example of bipartisan and affordable opportunity to immediately grow our economy and improve our energy security. In addition to being affordable, efficiency is widely supported because its benefits aren't confined to a certain fuel source or a particular region of the country. So much of the energy debate over the last few years has been about who benefits, whether it is fossil fuels, alternatives, whether it is the Northeast, the South, the West. Everybody benefits from energy efficiency. It is one of the policy areas where we can come to a real agreement. It is no wonder that this legislation, Shaheen-Portman, enjoys such large and diverse support. It has received more than 250 endorsements from a wide range of businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and trade associations, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to the National Resources Defense Council. These are the types of nontraditional alliances that have helped us get this bill to the floor. Senator Portman and I worked with diverse groups to craft this year's bill, and we maintained a transparent and open process in which we tried to make sure all stakeholders had a meaningful opportunity to comment on existing and proposed provisions and to suggest their substantive additions. So using that process of coalition building, we were able to find common ground on a number of important provisions, including commercial and residential building efficiency codes, workforce training, and language that aims to create a more robust public-private partnership between DOE's Advanced Manufacturing Office and industrial energy consumers. To talk a little about what is actually in the legislation, this bill provides incentives and support but, as we have all said, no mandates for residential and commercial buildings in order to cut energy use. That is very important because buildings consume about 40 percent of the energy used in the United States. The bill strengthens voluntary national model building codes to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient, and it works with State and private industry to make the code-writing process more transparent. The legislation trains the next generation of workers in energy efficient commercial building design and operation through university- based building training and research assessment centers. Shaheen-Portman assists our industrial manufacturing sector, which consumes more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy. The bill would direct the Department of Energy to work closely with private sector industrial partners to encourage research, development, and commercialization of innovative energy efficient technology and processes for industrial application. This is something we heard very clearly from businesses throughout the country. They really need and they want a more collaborative effort with the Department of Energy. They want to feel as though the Department of Energy is working with them. So hopefully these provisions will help make that happen. It also helps businesses reduce energy costs and become more competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy efficient electric motors and transformers. It also establishes a DOE voluntary program called SupplySTAR, which is modeled on something that has been a great success, the ENERGY STAR Program, to help make companies more aware of their supply chains and how to make them more efficient as well. The legislation requires the Federal Government, which is the single largest user of energy in the country, to adopt more efficient building standards and smart metering technology. The bill would require the Federal Government to adopt energy-saving technologies and operations for computers. Our data centers are huge users of energy. It would allow Federal agencies to use existing funds to update plans for new Federal buildings using the most current building efficiency standards. Finally, as has been said, this legislation is fully offset, so there is no new spending in this bill. We reallocate authorization from existing programs. To conclude--and I know we are going to have a lot of amendments to this bill--we have a number of bipartisan amendments that are going to make this bill better, that will make it more substantive, and I look forward to those amendments and to the debate we are going to have. I think this is a bipartisan, affordable, and I believe widely supported first step as we begin addressing our Nation's very real energy needs, particularly not just on the supply side but on the demand side. As I have said, a lot of people have worked very hard to get this bill to the floor, and while I am not going to walk through who all of those people are, I again thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for all of their support, and I thank Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell for their support in reaching an agreement to get the bill to the floor. I also thank three staff members whose hard work has really made this possible--first, someone who was in my office earlier but who has now moved on, Trent Bauserman, who worked very hard to get us started on the legislation; Robert Diznoff, who has now taken over in my office to work on the bill; and Steve Kittredge from the office of Senator Portman. Without the three of them and without all of the other staffers both in my office and in the office of Senator Portman and all of the people on the committee who have worked so hard, we would not be here to have this debate today. So I thank all of them, and I look forward to hearing the amendments and the robust discussion on the floor and to continuing to work with my colleague Senator Portman as we try to move this bill through the process.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Before the Senator from Rhode Island leaves, I wanted to commend him for this effort. I think it is a great proposal. I haven't had a chance to look at all the details, so I look forward to that, but using performance contracting to provide for savings on energy costs is a very effective way to address the upfront costs for these kinds of retrofits. As the Senator points out, the person who is doing the contracting-- the private company--is assuming the burden of those costs. Yet the benefits are going to taxpayers. Ultimately, the contractor that does the retrofits is also going to benefit over the long term, and those savings will keep coming back year after year. So once the initial cost is paid off, taxpayers will continue to get those savings year after year. As Governor, we started retrofitting State buildings exactly this way, and it saved the taxpayers of New Hampshire hundreds of thousands of dollars a year--it is still saving them that--and also thousands of pounds of pollution because, as we know, 40 percent of our energy is used by buildings. So if we save on that energy use in buildings, then that saves not only on those costs, but it also saves on the pollution that comes from heating and cooling those buildings. So I commend the Senator for his effort and I look forward to having a chance to debate it on the floor and to having a chance to review the proposal in greater detail.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to commend Senator Klobuchar on her efforts. This is another one of the great bipartisan amendments that has been worked on to add to this energy efficiency legislation. It shows how great the opportunity is for this legislation to provide for savings for people, to get people engaged in the idea of how much energy they are using and what the costs of that energy are, and also what the environmental benefits and the benefits to consumers and the benefits to our national security are in encouraging energy efficiency. So I want to commend her and thank her for all of her efforts, and we will continue to have this discussion on the floor as we wait for some kind of an agreement from Senator Vitter. Thank you.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I know that--and what we have heard this morning--what is rightfully at the forefront of all of our minds this week is the debate about whether to authorize the use of force in Syria. This is a very serious matter, as we all know. It raises a number of geopolitical and national security issues. The decision to undertake military action is not one to be taken lightly. I am very aware that people are war-weary, that they are concerned about the consequences of the use of military force. Consequently, I believe we should pursue every possible diplomatic solution prior to engaging in military action. I welcome the possibility of international cooperation to secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. I hope that Russia is being serious and that they will take real, legitimate actions to quickly follow through on what they have raised with their effort to try to encourage Asad to give up his chemical weapons to international control. I am working with some of my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on an amendment to the resolution that would incorporate this new development and pressure the Syrians to ensure that we see credible concrete steps in any possible effort to place their chemical weapons under international inspection. I look forward to hearing from the President today and this evening, and I look forward to the debate later this week as we consider the situation in Syria.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this morning to talk about legislation that was previously scheduled to be debated on the Senate floor this week--the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as Shaheen-Portman. I know the Presiding Officer has been very involved in energy issues for all of his time in public life, and I do appreciate the work he did as a Member of the House. I know he is following this debate very closely. I appreciate that. This bill is one Senator Rob Portman and I have been working on for 3 years. I appreciate that he has come to the floor today to talk about it as well. We have had 3 years of meetings, negotiations, and broad stakeholder outreach in an effort to craft the most effective piece of energy legislation, with the greatest possible chance of passing both Chambers of Congress and being signed into law. Shaheen-Portman is a bipartisan effort that reflects an affordable approach to boost the use of energy efficiency technologies. It will help create private sector jobs, save businesses and consumers money, reduce pollution, and make our country more energy independent. It will have a swift and measurable benefit on our economy and our environment. In the last few weeks we saw a study from experts at the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy which found that this legislation has the potential to create 136,000 domestic jobs by 2025, all while saving consumers billions of dollars and reducing pollution. Efficiency is the cheapest and fastest approach to reduce our energy use. Energy savings techniques and technologies lower costs and free up capital that allows businesses to expand and our economy to grow. Perhaps equally important, energy efficiency has emerged as an excellent example of a bipartisan and affordable opportunity to immediately grow our economy and improve energy security. In addition to being affordable, efficiency is widely supported because its benefits are not confined to a certain fuel source or a particular region of the country. It is clearly one of the policy areas where we really can come to a common agreement. It is no wonder that energy efficiency legislation--Shaheen-Portman-- enjoys such large and diverse support. It has received more than 250 endorsements from a wide range of businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and trade associations, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to the Natural Resources Defense Council. I am hopeful the Senate will return to Shaheen-Portman when we have finished debating the serious issue of Syria. I appreciate the commitment of our leadership on both sides of the aisle in the Senate to do so. I recognize this will be the first time a major energy bill has reached the Senate floor since 2007; therefore, it only makes sense for us to have a robust energy debate that allows for amendments from both sides of the aisle to be considered. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find an agreement on the way forward. I thank my good friend Senator Portman for his partnership in bringing this bill to the floor. I also thank the majority and minority leaders as well as Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for all of their support as we have gone through this process and hopefully will bring this bill to the floor in the next couple of weeks. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and that following my remarks Senator Portman be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today I wish to recognize an important milestone for the town of Gilsum, NH, upon the occasion of its semiquincentennial anniversary. Situated in scenic southwest New Hampshire, Gilsum actually received its first charter in 1752 under the name Boyle but was never settled. Governor Benning Wentworth re- chartered this land in 1763 to five proprietors, including Samuel Gilbert and his son-in-law Thomas Sumner. The name ``Gilsum'' was a compromise reached to resolve Gilbert and Sumner's ongoing dispute over the name of their new settlement. Historically, Gilsum was a farming and manufacturing community, making use of the nearby Ashuelot River to power multiple factories by the 1850s. Gilsum also boasted a productive mine, which provided important economic stability for the town during its early years of development. Today, Gilsum is home to the W.S. Badger Company, a quintessential New Hampshire small business success story that now sells its wonderful skincare products, including its ``Badger Balm,'' across the country. Gilsum will mark its 250th anniversary in August with a parade, talent show, community exhibits and music to commemorate its proud heritage. I rise today to wish Gilsum a joyful celebration of this important milestone and thank all its citizens for their contributions to New Hampshire.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the town of Croydon, NH. The town of Croydon was incorporated and granted in 1763 by Gov. Benning Wentworth. Named for the London suburb of Croydon, England, our Croydon is situated on the highlands between the Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers. It is home to Corbin Park, one of the largest private game reserves in New England. Visitors may hunt a variety of animals including elk, European boar and bison on 24,000 acres of forested and mountainous terrain. Croydon also boasts the Croydon Village School, one of two remaining one-room schoolhouses still in use in the State of New Hampshire. Today, Croydon's quaint, small-town feel and natural beauty continue to charm visitors and residents alike today. I congratulate this close- knit community on their sestercentennial anniversary and wish them continued success in their next 250 years.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the town of Alstead, NH. Alstead was first chartered by Massachusetts Governor Jonathan Belcher as one of nine forts established in 1735 to protect southwestern New Hampshire from attack. Once New Hampshire was decreed its own province, New Hampshire Governor Benning Wentworth granted the land, then called Newton, in 1752. The area was finally incorporated in 1763 and renamed Alstead in honor of Johann Heinrich Alsted, a German professor and encyclopedist, whose works were popular at Harvard College. Alstead was a predominantly agricultural community, but its waterways also provided sufficient power to run a number of small mills, including New Hampshire's first paper mill, built in 1793. Alstead boasts a quintessentially New Hampshire history with the exception of a small misstep in 1781 when the town voted to join the State of Vermont. Alstead was not alone in this wavering allegiance after the Revolutionary War, but I am very pleased to report that residents came to their senses the following year and rejoined the Granite State. Two hundred and fifty years later, Alstead's views of Feuer State Park and Warren Pond serve as a beautiful backdrop to the community's rich history and small town charm. From August to October, Alstead will celebrate their sestercentennial with historical plays and tours, parades, lectures and exhibits. I congratulate Alstead on this milestone in their history and thank this community for its great contributions to our State.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to recognize first responders from New Hampshire who heroically worked together to save two swimmers who were struggling to make their way back to shore at Hampton Beach in Hampton, NH, on July 25, 2013. On the night of July 25, Hampton Fire & Rescue and the Hampton Police Department received notification that three individuals swimming in the water at Hampton Beach were unable to make their way back to shore. First responders from the departments immediately sprang into action and quickly arrived at Hampton Beach. While one of the three individuals was rescued by fellow beachgoers, two young men remained in the water not far from shore, struggling in riptide conditions and unable to swim back to land. Hampton firefighters including Fire Chief Christopher Silver, Deputy Fire Chief Jameson Ayotte, Captain William Kennedy, Lieutenant Michael Brillard, Greg Smushkin, Jed Carpentier, Nate Denio, Jason Newman, Kyle Jameson, Kyle Averill, Buck Frost, Matthew Clement, Donald Thibeault and Hampton Police Officer James Deluca worked together to save the two 28-year old men who were caught in the water. The first responders worked in varying capacities, with some in the water, some aboard the Hampton Fire Department's rescue boat and others on shore, and acted as a unified team to successfully pull the swimmers to safety. First responders are fundamental to the safety of individuals and communities in New Hampshire and throughout the country, as evidenced by the lives that were so recently rescued at Hampton Beach. These public servants came together from across different departments and divisions, as they often do, to perform their selfless work on behalf of people in need. The work of heroes like those in Hampton often goes unnoticed, but it is important that we do not take for granted the daily efforts made by all first responders to make our communities safer and improve the quality of life of all Americans. I commend these gentlemen for their selfless actions on the night of July 25. The Hampton-area community and all New Hampshire residents applaud the work that dedicated first responders do every day. We specifically thank this group of public servants for saving lives on the night of July 25, 2013.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish today to honor the town of New Boston, NH, which celebrates its 250th anniversary this year. As its name suggests, New Boston's long and admirable history bridges that of New Hampshire and our neighbor Massachusetts. New Boston's first settlers came north in search of new opportunity. The land was originally granted in 1736 by the regional governor of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, Jonathan Belcher. Records show that locals had originally planned to christen the town ``Lanestown,'' but over time referred to the property as New Boston in honor of their former home. From 1736 until 1763, New Boston was legally part of Massachusetts; but during the course of those 30 years, the original grantees failed to establish a proper claim. In 1763, New Boston was formally incorporated and recognized as part of New Hampshire by Governor Benning Wentworth. From its first census, we know that New Boston's residents quickly established a bustling community, building a lumber mill and clearing 200 acres of land. By the early 19th century, New Boston boasted 16 school houses, a bark mill, clothing mills, over 25 saw mills and even a tavern to host both travelers and townsfolk after a long day. Unfortunately, many documents depicting New Boston's origins were destroyed by the Great Village Fire of 1887, which ravaged the town and set over 40 of its buildings ablaze. New Boston's residents were undeterred by this tragedy, taking stock and quickly rebuilding their industrial center. By 1893, New Boston had a railroad station, allowing merchants to move goods and services through their town into Massachusetts and further northeast. In the 1940s, New Boston became the proud home of two military institutions: the Gravity Research Foundation, which conducted research in hopes of creating a gravitational shielding system, and the New Boston Air Force Station, which tracks military satellites. New Boston continues to inspire our State with its industrious and creative spirit. There is much to celebrate in New Boston's 250 years, and I am sure that the next 250 years will be equally or even more successful.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today I wish to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Warren, NH. Situated in the White Mountain region just south of Franconia Notch, residents of Warren are surrounded by stunning wooded scenery that is quintessential North Country. Warren is a truly perfect example of small town New Hampshire. In 1763, Gov. Benning Wentworth granted a tract of land to John Page, who settled on this land 4 years later. The area would be officially incorporated in 1770 by Benning Wentworth's nephew and successor, Gov. John Wentworth. Warren is one of two towns in New England that were named for Admiral Sir Peter Warren of County Meath, Ireland. Admiral Warren, a high ranking officer in the British Royal Navy, commanded a fleet that joined forces from Massachusetts to lay siege and capture the fort at Louisbourg, Nova Scotia in 1745. This victory united the colonies against Canada, as well as providing them with crucial fishing and fur trading rights. For the better half of the 20th century, the Glencliff State Sanatorium operated in the village of Glencliff in Warren. Before the advent of antibiotics, it was thought that the thin, pure mountain air of the North Country could cure tuberculosis, and nearly 4,000 patients sought respite and cure in the White Mountains facility until its closing and conversion to Glencliff Home for the Elderly in 1970. While modern medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds, we certainly understand why a patient would seek the serene beauty of the North Country as a cure for any ill. Warren's most famous landmark is a Redstone Ballistics Missile, which stands in the center of the village green today. These missiles were commissioned by the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War as defense against the former Soviet Union and were the first to carry live nuclear warheads. This decommissioned missile was placed in the center of town to honor Senator Norris Cotton, a Warren native who served a long career in both the New Hampshire General Court and the United States Congress. I honor Warren's sestercentennial and congratulate its residents on this important milestone.