Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Before I recognize Senator Durbin for 8 minutes, I just wish to respond to my friend, the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Senator from South Carolina is broadly admired in the Senate. If I am ever in court, I want him to be my lawyer. I would point out, however, that what I am proposing wouldn't destroy the system we have in place--a system, by the way, that has resulted in the convictions of numerous terrorists with life sentences. What I am asking is to listen to those who are on the frontlines who are fighting against terrorists and terrorism who have said they have concerns about this new proposal and would like a greater amount of time to vet it and consider it. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak in favor of amendment 1107. First, let me say that I know how hard Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain have worked to craft a Defense Authorization Act to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment, services, and support they need to keep us safe. I also thank my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee, a number of whom I see on the floor this morning, for their diligence and dedication to this important work. With that, let me turn to the amendment itself. I want to start by thanking the cosponsors of the amendment. They include the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein; the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy; and Senator Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy, someone whom I think we all respect when it comes to national security issues. I also point out that this amendment is bipartisan. Senator Rand Paul joined as a cosponsor this morning and gave a very compelling floor speech a few minutes ago. Senators Wyden and Durbin have also recently cosponsored it. I recognize their leadership as well. Let me turn to the amendment itself. A growing number of our colleagues have strong concerns about the detainee provisions in this bill. At the heart of our concern is the concern that we have not taken enough time to listen to our counterterrorism community and have not heeded the warnings of the Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the FBI, who all oppose these provisions. Equally concerning, we have not had a single hearing on the detainee matters to fully understand the implications of our actions. My amendment would take out these provisions and give us in the Congress an opportunity to take a hard look at the needs of our counterterrorism professionals and respond in a measured way that reflects the input of those who are actually fighting our enemies. Specifically, the amendment would require that our Defense intelligence and law enforcement agencies report to Congress with recommendations for any additional authorities or flexibility they need in order to detain and prosecute terrorists. My amendment would then ask for hearings to be held so we can fully understand the views of relevant national security experts. In other words, I am saying let's ask our dedicated men and women who are actually fighting to protect Americans what they actually need to keep us safe. This is a marked departure, in my opinion, from the current language in the bill, which was developed without hearings, and seeks to make changes to the law that our national security professionals do not want and even oppose, as I pointed out. Like other challenging issues we face here in the Senate, we should identify the problem, hold hearings, gather input from those affected by our actions, and then seek to find the most prudent solution. Instead, we have language in the bill, which, while well intended--of that there is no doubt--was developed behind closed doors and is being moved rather quickly through our Congress. The Secretary of Defense is warning us we may be making mistakes that will hurt our capacity to fight terrorism at home and abroad. The Director of National Intelligence is telling us this language will create more problems than it solves. The Director of the FBI is telling Congress these provisions will erect hurdles that will make it more difficult for our law enforcement officials to collaborate in their effort to protect American citizens. And the President's national security staff is recommending a veto of the entire Defense authorization bill if these provisions remain in the bill. With this full spectrum of highly respected officials and top counterterrorism professionals warning Congress not to pass these provisions, we are being asked to reject their advice and pass them anyway--again, without any hearings or further deliberation. I don't know what others think, but I don't think this is what the people of Colorado expect us to do, and it is not how I envision the Senate operating. The provisions would dramatically change broad counterterrorism efforts by requiring law enforcement officials to step aside and ask the Department of Defense to take on a new role they are not fully equipped for and do not want. And by taking away the flexible decisionmaking capacity of our national security team, by forcing the military to now act as police, judge, and jailer, these provisions could effectively rebuild walls between our military law enforcement and intelligence communities that we have spent a decade tearing down. The provisions that are in the bill--to me and many others--appear to require the DOD to shift significant resources away from their mission to serve on all fronts all over the world. This has real consequences, because we have limited resources and limited manpower. Again, I want to say that I don't think we would lose anything by taking a little more time to discuss and debate these provisions, but we could do real harm to our national security efforts by allowing this language to pass, and that is exactly what our highest ranking national security officers are warning us against doing. You will note I am speaking in the broadest terms here, but I did want to speak to one particular area of concern, to give viewers and my colleagues a sense of what we face. The provisions authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens who are suspected of involvement in terrorism--even those captured here in our own country, in the United States--which I think should concern each and every one of us. These provisions could well represent an unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties. Let me explain why I think that is the case. Look, I agree if an American citizen joins al-Qaida and takes up arms against the United States that person should be subject to the same process as any other enemy combatant. But what is not clear is what we do with someone arrested in his home because of suspected terrorist ties. These detainee provisions would authorize that person's indefinite detention, but it misses a critical point. How do we know a citizen has committed these crimes unless they are tried and convicted? Do we want to open the door to domestic military police powers and possibly deny U.S. citizens their due process rights? If we do, I think that is at least something that is worthy of a hearing, and the American people should be made aware of the changes that will be forthcoming in the way we approach civil liberties. But since our counterterrorism officials are telling us these provisions are a mistake, I am not willing to both potentially limit our fight against terrorism and simultaneously threaten the constitutional freedoms Americans hold dear. As I begin my remarks, I hope I have projected my belief we have a solemn obligation to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, but we also have a solemn obligation to make sure those who are fighting the war on terror have the best, most flexible, most powerful tools possible. To be perfectly frank, I am worried these provisions will disrupt our ability to combat terrorism and inject untested legal ambiguity into our military's operations and detention practices. We will hear some of our colleagues tell us not to worry because the detainee provisions are designed not to hurt our counterterrorism efforts. We all know the best laid plans can have unintended consequences. While I am sure the drafters of this language intended the provisions to be interpreted in a way that does not cause problems, the counterterrorism community disagrees and has outlined some very serious real world concerns. Stating in the language there will not be any adverse effects on national security doesn't make it so. These are not just words in a proposed law. And those who will be chartered to actually carry out these provisions are urging us to reject them. Shouldn't we listen to their serious concerns? Shouldn't we think twice about passing these provisions? I have not received a single phone call from a counterterrorism expert, a professional in the field, or a senior military official urging us to pass these provisions. We have heard a wide range of concerns expressed about the unintended consequences of enacting these detainee provisions but not a single voice outside of Congress telling us this will help us protect Americans or make us safer. In addition to our national security team, which is urging us to oppose these provisions, other important voices are also asking us to stop, to slow down, and to consider them more thoroughly. The American Bar Association, the ACLU, the International Red Cross, the American Legion, and a number of other groups have also expressed a wide range of serious concerns. Again, I want to underline, although the language was crafted with the best of intentions, there are simply too many questions about the unintended consequences of these provisions to allow them to move forward without further input from national security experts through holding hearings and engaging in further debate. I am privileged to be a member of the Armed Services Committee. I am truly honored. As I have implied, and I want to be explicit, I understand the importance of this bill. I understand what it does for our military, which is why, in sum, what I am going to propose with my amendment is that we pass the NDAA without these troubling provisions but with a mechanism by which we can consider in depth what is proposed and, at a later date, include any applicable changes in the law. It is not only the right thing to do policywise, it may very well protect this bill from a veto. The clearest path toward giving our men and women in uniform the tools they need is to pass this amendment and then send a clean National Defense Authorization Act to the President. In the Statement of Administration Policy, the President says the following--and I should again mention in the Statement of Administration Policy there is a recommendation the President veto the bill. We have spent 10 years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. These are striking words. They should give us all pause as we face what seems to be a bit of a rush to pass these untested and legally controversial restrictions on our ability to prosecute terrorists. I want to begin to close, and in so doing I urge my colleagues to think about the precedent we would set by passing these provisions. We are being told these detainee provisions are so important we must pass them right away, without a hearing or further deliberation. However, the Secretary of Defense, at the same time, along with the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the FBI, are all urging us to reject the provisions and take a closer look. Do we want to neglect the advice of our trusted national security professionals? I can't think of another instance where we would rebuff those who are chartered with keeping us safe. If we in the Congress want to constrain the military and give our servicemembers new responsibilities, as these provisions would do, I believe we should listen to what the Secretary of Defense has had to say about it. Secretary Panetta is strongly opposed to these changes, and I think we all know before he held the job he has now, Secretary of Defense Panetta was the Director of the CIA. He knows very well the threats facing our country, and he knows we cannot afford to make any mistakes when it comes to keeping our citizens safe. We have to be right every time. The bad guys only have to be right once. This is a debate we need to have. It is a healthy debate. But we ought to be armed with all the facts and expertise before we move forward. The least we can do is take our time, be diligent, and hear from those who will be affected by these new and significant changes in how we interrogate and prosecute terrorists. As I have said before, it concerns me we would tell our national security leadership--a bipartisan national security leadership, by the way--that we will not listen to them and that Congress knows better than they do. It doesn't strike me that is the best way to secure and protect the American people. That is why I filed amendment No. 1107. I think my amendment is a commonsense alternative that will protect our constitutional principles and beliefs while continuing to keep our Nation safe. The amendment has a clear aim, which is to ensure we follow a thorough process and hear all views before rushing forward with new laws that could be harmful to our national security. It is straightforward, it is common sense, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, I thank you for your attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I want to clarify for the record before I recognize Senator Webb for 5 minutes that some here have claimed that the Supreme Court's Hamdi decision upheld the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens captured in the United States. It did no such thing. Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, not the United States. Justice O'Connor, the author of the opinion, was very careful to say that the Hamdi decision was limited to ``individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban.'' I think that is important to be included in the Record. I yield to Senator Webb for 5 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank, again, the ranking member and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work. I want to close with a couple points. I want to, in the interest of clarifying the record, point out, on the heels of the chairman's comments about the Statement of Administration Policy, when it comes to section 1031, the full statement reads: Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. Second, there are questions that continue to be raised. I want to mention section 1033. The chairman said it is only section 1032 that is the focus of our attention, but there have been questions raised about section 1033. There is language in section 1033 that makes it clear that--we think it makes it clear that there is a provision that requires any receiving country is taking actions ``to ensure that the [detainee] cannot engage . . . in any terrorist activity.'' This is if we are releasing or transferring somebody who is detained. I was in Afghanistan recently, at Bagram prison. We have 20,000 detainees there. There are some who believe section 1033 would restrict us from releasing those prisoners at Bagram as we begin to draw down our efforts in Afghanistan. That is just one of the many questions that are asked. Finally, I listened to the passion that my friend from South Carolina Senator Graham exhibited on the Senate floor. We are all in this together. We are going to prevail. The bad guys in the world are not going to win. We do have, however--and this is what makes our country strong--different points of view on how we prosecute this war. I believe the intent of what is being suggested in these provisions is well and good and at the highest level. But there are many people we trust and respect--including the FBI Director, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security--who believe what will happen, if we interpret the language, will not actually reflect our intent. Therefore, let's set this aside, pass the NDA, send it to the President, and take the next 90 days to hold hearings and thoroughly vet what is in this set of provisions. I will be the first person to come to the floor if all of those individuals and our own experts tell us this is the right way to proceed, to say: Let's put this into the law. But let's not rush to take these steps. We have something that is working. We have over 300 terrorists who have been prosecuted through our civil system who are in jail, many of them for life sentences, sentences that will outlast their lifespans. Let's not fix something that is not broken until we really understand what the consequences are. I thank, again, my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee. This has been a helpful and important debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Director of the FBI, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Intelligence have all said let's go slow. Pass the Udall amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, this amendment strikes controversial detainee provisions that have been inserted in the National Defense Authorization Act. It would require that the Defense intelligence and law enforcement agencies report to Congress with recommendations for any additional authorities they need in order to detain and prosecute terrorists. The amendment would then ask for hearings to be held so we can fully understand the opposition to these provisions by our national security experts--bipartisan opposition, I might add--and hopefully avoid a veto of the Defense authorization bill. In short, we are ignoring the advice and the input of the Director of the FBI, the Director of our intelligence community, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the White House, who are all saying there are significant concerns with these provisions; that we ought to move slowly. We have been successful in prosecuting over 300 terrorists through our civil justice system. Let's not fix what isn't broken until we fully understand the ramifications. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I am familiar with the language in the general way it has been introduced. I would say to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee that we had a chance to review this language starting about 48 hours ago. One of the reasons I think my amendment is important is it would give those voices, which are being heard more and more as of today, who have concerns with this provision--they are not sure how it applies--that that is all the more reason to slow this down, to keep the existing law in place, and go through a more thorough process to understand the ramifications of the waiver provision and the other provisions the chairman and ranking member----

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I am. The Senator from Vermont is correct. That knowledge on my part is, in part, one of the reasons I filed the amendment we are discussing right now.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his question. My understanding is the Senator from Illinois is correct, that provision 1032 would change the way in which interrogations would unfold. There may be some in the Senate who would see it differently, but that is all the more reason to adopt my amendment, which would allow a thorough process of hearing from the very experts who interrogated the Underwear Bomber and other experts who have been on the front lines in fighting terrorism. We ought to go slow. We should not fix something that is working fine right now. I thank the Senator for his question.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, November 17, 2011. Statement of Administration Policy S. 1867--National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012--(Sen. Levin,

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I also point out these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect. One section of these provisions, section 1031, could be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved. These detainee provisions are unnecessary, counterproductive, and potentially harmful to our counterterrorism efforts. I know I have said this a couple of times already, but it feels as though they are being rushed through in a manner that does not serve us well. The Department of Defense has had little input. There have been no hearings. Earlier this week the changes were presented to us in the Armed Services Committee just hours before we were asked to vote on them. These are just too important a set of questions to let them pass without a thorough review and far greater understanding of their effect on our national security and our fight against terrorism. It feels to this Senator that we are rushing hastily to address a solution in search of a problem. We ought to hear from the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, our colleagues, and other relevant committees before we act. Do we believe this Congress--again, let me underline that after 10 years of successfully prosecuting the war on terror--should substitute its views for that of our Defense, intelligence, and Homeland Security leadership without careful analysis? I recently received a letter signed by 18 retired military leaders in opposition to these provisions. The letter states that: ``Mandating military custody would undermine legitimate law enforcement and intelligence operations crucial to our security at home and abroad.'' I could not agree more. I would ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I come to the floor to comment on the NDAA, the bill in front of us today. I want to start my remarks by acknowledging the leadership of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain. Under their tutelage and leadership the committee has worked tirelessly to craft a Defense Authorization Act that provides our Armed Forces with the equipment, the services, the training, and the overall support they need to keep us safe while they themselves are being protected. I thank the chairman and ranking member, my colleagues, and, most important, the wonderful staff that works for us for their diligence and dedication to this important work. I also come to the floor to speak out against a proposed change that I think would alter what has been a very effective set of terrorist detention policies and procedures. I believe to make those changes would complicate our capacity to prosecute the war on terror and call into question the principles we as Americans hold dear. I filed an amendment, No. 1107, that would take a look at what is proposed in the NDAA. We have a solemn obligation to pass the National Defense Authorization Act. But we also have a solemn obligation to make sure those who are fighting the war on terror have the best, most flexible, most powerful tools possible. I have to say again, and I will say it more than two times in my remarks, I am worried these changes we are about to push through would actually hurt our national security. I am a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As I have implied, and I want to be explicit, I understand the importance of this bill. I understand what it does for our military, which is why, in sum, what I am going to propose with my amendment is that we pass the NDAA without these troubling provisions but with a mechanism by which we can consider what is proposed and perhaps at a later date include any applicable changes in the law. We need to hear from the Department of Defense, our intelligence community, and the administration more broadly on what our men and women in the field actually need to effectively prosecute the war on terror, especially before we change detainee policies that are already working. As I am saying, I have serious concerns about the detainee provisions that have been included in the bill. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others--and I will share those opinions and insights with my colleagues--these provisions disrupt the capacity of the executive branch to enforce the law, and they impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on our ability to aggressively combat international terrorism. In so doing, they inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices. I am not the only one who has serious concerns. The Secretary of Defense has urged us to oppose these new provisions. Both chairmen of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees strongly oppose them. The President's team is recommending a veto. These are people whose opinions should be carefully considered before we put these new proposals into our legal framework. In the Statement of Administration Policy the White House states: We have spent 10 years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Those are striking words that should give us all pause as we face what seems to me a bit of a rush to submit these untested and legally controversial restrictions on our ability to prosecute terrorists. I ask unanimous consent to have the entire Statement of Administration Policy printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, these are complex issues that have far-reaching consequences for intelligence, civilian law enforcement agencies, and our intelligence community as they work to keep Americans safe from harm. Despite this fact, the Department of Defense and the national security staff, as far as I know, had little opportunity to review or comment on the final language in the provisions. As a result, these provisions restrained the ``Executive Branch's options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available.'' That quote comes directly from a letter addressed to the Armed Services Committee from Secretary Panetta. I think we all know that before he held the job he has now, Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta, was the Director of the CIA. He very well knows the threats facing our country, and he knows we cannot afford to make mistakes when it comes to keeping our citizens safe. I also ask unanimous consent that Secretary Panetta's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, the provisions I am speaking to are well intended. I have much admiration for my colleagues who propose them, but I think we need to take some more time to consider the ramifications. The United States, our country, can currently choose from several options when prosecuting terrorists. That flexibility has allowed us to try, convict, and imprison hundreds of terrorists, and it allows the government to select the venue that will provide the highest likelihood of obtaining a conviction. The current detention provisions in the bill we are debating would strip away that flexibility and potentially impair our capacity to successfully prosecute and convict terrorists. It is not clear to me why, after 10 years of successfully prosecuting terrorists and preventing another 9/11-like attack, why we would want to limit our options while our enemies are constantly adapting their tactics and expanding their efforts to do us harm. In a recent op-ed in the Chicago Times, a bipartisan group of three former Federal judges, including William S. Sessions, who was also the appointed Director of the FBI under President Reagan, said it best when describing these provisions: Legislation now making its way through Congress would seek to over-militarize America's counterterrorism efforts, effectively making the U.S. military the judge, jury and jailer of terrorism suspects to the exclusion of the FBI and local and State law enforcement agencies. As former Federal judges, we find this prospect deeply disturbing. Not only would such an effort ignore 200 years of legal precedent, it would fly in the face of common sense. And I ask unanimous consent that op-ed be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Yes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Senator from Illinois is correct. Mr. President, 1031 would do just that, and it would come directly at a piece of law, posse comitatus, which dates back to the Civil War, that is held dear by all of us in America because it distinguishes between the military used to protect us against foreign foes and how we manage our own civil affairs here at home. Also, as the Senator alludes to, it causes questions to be raised about something that is very sacred in our system of law, which is the writ of habeas corpus. You have to prove why you hold someone. You cannot detain an American citizen indefinitely in any other circumstance. I thank the Senator for his questions.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. We are already trying and convicting terrorists in both civilian courts and under military commissions. The provisions that are in this bill would require the DOD to shift significant resources away from their mission, to act on all the fronts all over the world, and they would become a police force and jailer. This is not what they are good at. This is not what we want them to do. I think it has potentially dangerous consequences because we have limited resources and limited manpower. We would not lose anything by taking a little bit more time to discuss and debate these provisions, but we could do real harm to our national security by allowing this language, unscrutinized, to pass, and that is exactly what our highest ranking national security officers are warning us against doing. This is a debate we need to have. It is a healthy debate, but we ought to be armed with all of the facts and expertise before we move forward. The least we can do is take our time, be diligent, and hear from those who will be affected by these new limitations on our ability to prosecute terrorists. It concerns me that we would tell our national security leadership--a bipartisan national security leadership, by the way--that we would not listen to them and that Congress knows better than they do. It doesn't strike me that that is the best way to secure and protect the American people. That is why I have filed amendment No. 1107. I think it is a commonsense alternative that will protect our constitutional principles and beliefs while also allowing us to keep our Nation safe. The amendment has a clear aim, which is to ensure we follow a thorough process and hear all views before rushing forward with new laws that could be harmful to our national security. What is in the amendment? It is straightforward. Specifically the amendment would require that our Defense, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies report to Congress with recommendations for any additional authorities or flexibility they need in order to detain and prosecute terrorists. In other words, let's not put the cart before the horse or fix something that is not broken. Let's first hear from the stakeholders as to what laws they believe need to be changed to give them better tools to do their job. My amendment then asks for hearings to be held so we can fully understand the views of respected national security experts. Moreover, it would require input from each of the relevant committees to ensure that we have carefully considered the benefits and consequences of our actions. The chairmen of our Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have deep concerns about the detainee provisions in the pending legislation. And, of course, as we underwent this process, the existing laws that guide our actions today would remain in place. They have been successful. I see some of my colleagues who I think share my views who have come to the floor. They also made the compelling case that it is a system that is working. Why would we change it without thinking it through? It is straightforward, it is common sense, and it allows us to make sure we will win the war on terror.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I am familiar now because the Senator from Michigan has shared that fact with me. I am also familiar with the fact that the administration has other questions and concerns which has caused it to issue a set of provisions and issues they wish to further consider.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to join my fellow Coloradans, my colleagues in the United States Congress and others across the country in celebration of Native American Heritage Month. Throughout this month we acknowledge the many accomplishments and contributions of the American Indian community in the United States. In Colorado, from the windswept plains in the east to mountains and plateaus in the west, Native American history has formed a strong part of our shared history. Today Colorado's native communities play an equally strong role in preserving our shared cultural heritage. Just this month, as the chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I held a hearing at Mesa Verde National Park that highlighted the importance of how this cultural landmark and others in the region can be better protected through cooperative efforts of our National Parks System and the region's tribes. Improved collaboration and consultation can be a positive step in achieving the goal of protecting these invaluable resources. Tribes have also worked independently to conserve and protect cultural resources that are important to our shared past. A strong example of these efforts has taken shape over many years in Southwestern Colorado where the Ute Mountain Ute tribe has worked to protect acres of sacred and historically important sites that are connected to the cultural resources that exist within Mesa Verde National Park. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park, situated on the Ute Mountain reservation, serves not only as a means to protect important resources, but also as a means to educate and develop an economic base for the tribe and the region as a whole. Also in Southwestern Colorado, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe has worked to protect important cultural resources. Just this year, the tribe opened a state-of-the-art cultural center that is dedicated to telling the story of the Ute people, providing another cultural draw to Southwestern Colorado. These are examples of how shared goals of cultural preservation can work symbiotically, and I believe that through close collaboration, the federal government and tribes throughout the country can better protect cultural resources while developing other opportunities in economic development and education. This relationship will be crucial in creating new jobs both on and off tribal lands while building opportunities for the next generation. For example, the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute are among the region's largest employers, each employing more than 1,000 workers and generating millions of dollars in economic activity that benefit the entire Southwest region of Colorado. Their success is a reminder that Indian Country is a strong economic driver that can play a critical role in our economic recovery. Of course respect for government-to-government relations between tribes and the federal government extends to other issues. As we celebrate Native American Heritage month, we must remind ourselves of this relationship and the trust responsibility that exists between our Federal government and tribal nations. This is especially important when addressing issues that have hit the Indian country especially hard, such as unemployment, access to health care, education and housing, reliable law enforcement and access to justice. The federal government's trust responsibility is a call to work together to address these issues. Upholding this responsibility is vital to respecting tribal sovereignty and protecting tribes' ability to determine what is in the best interest of their communities. Cooperation and collaboration are paramount in maintaining a strong government-to- government relationship, and it is in our shared interest to advance the goal of empowering America's Native communities. Mr. President, to close, I want to highlight a prominent figure in Colorado who we lost earlier this year named Ernest House, Sr. He was a stalwart defender of American Indian sovereignty and a champion of cultural preservation. Mr. House was a former Chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and he represented the tribe before national, state- wide, and private organizations for more than 50 years. Chairman House's passing was a great loss for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Indian Country and for Colorado. I would like to recognize his contributions as part of Native American Heritage Month. I have no doubt that his legacy will be a strong part of our lives in Colorado and my thoughts continue to be with his family. I am proud to join my fellow Coloradans in celebration of Native American Heritage Month. As we celebrate the many contributions of Colorado's American Indian community, I hope that we will call to mind the long history of America's Native Americans and their continued contributions to Colorado and our Nation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 1107 be called up.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.