Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. I object.

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator from New Hampshire yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Larcus Pickett, a fellow in our office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of consideration of S. 1392.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to stay here to see if other colleagues would like to bring over their amendments. As I indicated in opening comments a couple hours ago, I think there are at least a dozen good amendments here--amendments that are going to be good for American productivity, they are going to create good-paying, high-skill jobs, and they are going to be winners for the environment. That is a trifecta of valuable concerns being addressed with one piece of legislation, being done in a bipartisan way. I know the popular wisdom is you cannot thread the needle on legislation and that even on something such as energy efficiency, these folks are going to try to see if they can get their bipartisan amendments passed, but at the end of the day, the forces who want to block legislation, because they care about a particular issue, are too strong. I hope Senators are going to see we are going to make sure people have a chance to have their issues heard. But we also want them to see that to lose the ability to have a key part of an ``all of the above'' energy policy--I have said you cannot have an ``all of the above'' energy policy if you are not for energy efficiency. To not advance this particular cause--and we passed the hydropower bill. It is a good bill. People said it was the first major energy bill since 2009. This is the next logical step. We ought to take it. I see the Senator from Ohio here, who has done so much good work, and I will yield at this time. I know he has a great interest in this topic. I hope, when we get a chance to vote on the Bennet-Ayotte amendment, Senators will support it. I yield back.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado on a fine amendment. I hope we are going to get a chance to vote on it. I think he mentioned that commercial buildings consume almost half of the energy used in the United States. What I think is important for the Senate to see is the bipartisan amendments are now piling up. We started off with a very good amendment, the Inhofe-Carper amendment in terms of thermal power, Senator Udall and Senator Collins talking about retrofitting schools, getting more for the kids and for a better environment without spending new Federal money, and now we have the Bennet-Ayotte proposal to deal with commercial buildings consuming almost half of the energy consumed in the United States. You have bipartisan amendments, I say to my colleagues, in effect, stacking up on the floor of the Senate. I think the reason that is the case is because Senators are coming back from the August break. They were home having community meetings and talking to folks, and people said--whether you are from Ohio, like the Presiding Officer, or Oregon or New Hampshire, different parts of the country--you go back there and find a way to deal with some real challenges, and do it in a bipartisan way. So that is what the underlying bill does. That is what the three amendments we seek to be able to vote on do. In the case of this particular amendment, the voluntary ENERGY STAR Program has created an incentive for commercial building owners to increase the efficiency of their buildings by recognizing the most efficient. So today there are over 20,000 commercial buildings in the country certified as highly efficient ENERGY STAR buildings. The challenge, however, is that about half of the energy used in commercial buildings is under the control of the tenants, not the owners. This amendment would promote efficiency in commercial buildings by establishing a Tenant Star program to recognize the energy efficiency achievements of building tenants, as ENERGY STAR does for the owners. We looked at this in the committee, particularly in the Energy Subcommittee on June 25. To me, again, trying to build on successful approaches is simply what the country wants us to be doing here in the Senate. It is the focus of the underlying bill. It is the focus of the amendments that are pending--each one of them supported in a bipartisan way. This amendment, as far as I can tell, has a real cross section of businesses interested, for obvious reasons. It constitutes almost half the buildings in the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support we received be printed in the Record.