Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be recognized after me for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if I might, I would like to yield to Senator Barrasso from Wyoming to discuss the important bill that was just objected to.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank both Senators from Wyoming for their support. I know we will go back to work in the next Congress because, as the Senator pointed out, this bipartisan bill would provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional summertime use of ski areas which would help create jobs and grow sustainable economies in ski country. It is no cost. It is common sense, as the Senator pointed out. That is why it not only has support from the two Wyoming Senators but also Senators Risch, Ensign, Bennett, and Gregg. It was favorably reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in September. The CBO projects it will actually generate revenue for the Federal budget and will help improve the economy in a lot of hard-hit mountain communities. Mr. President, we passed a number of other bills out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that, unfortunately, will not receive votes in this Congress. I want to touch on a couple of them. I begin with the National Forest Insect Disease Emergency Act. I have been working on this concern for the entire time I have served in the Congress, whether in the Senate or the House. We have an enormous bark beetle epidemic in our Western forests. Those who study our forests say that because of climate change and drought and human activity, these epidemics will become more and more common. What the bill would have done is provide the tools and resources to the Forest Service to help address this serious natural disaster. It is slow moving but nonetheless a natural disaster. That disaster is the deaths of millions and millions of acres of trees due to insect infestations. Senators Crapo and Risch were cosponsors. It is a very significant disappointment that we didn't move to consider this bill. I know it would have passed the Senate. Another bill is the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Act, commonsense legislation that would directly benefit a community in Colorado and, indeed, the entire Arkansas River Valley, one of the significant watersheds in the State of Colorado. This mine drainage tunnel near Leadville, in 2008, was backed up with a large volume of contaminated water which then created a safety hazard to the community, but it was unclear whether the Bureau of Reclamation or the Environmental Protect Agency was responsible for addressing it. My bill would clarify that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat this backed-up water and is responsible for maintaining the tunnel so that in the future these kinds of threats will not arise and, if they do, it is clear who is responsible to mitigate them. It is a straightforward bill. It doesn't cost anything. It would give the people of Leadville the certainty they have needed for years. Finally, I wish to mention the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act. This would help protect public safety. It facilitates a fair exchange of lands on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest near Boulder between the Forest Service and the Sugar Loaf Fire District. The fire district is seeking this exchange so they can upgrade and maintain fire stations which serve this community which has been subjected to wildland/urban fires. We want to protect the homes and the built structures and people who live in those areas. The exchange would reduce costs related to forest boundary maintenance as well as provide better service to the residents of the fire district, neighbors of the district, and individuals who travel through. I appreciate the patience of my colleagues. The point I wish to make is, we had tens and tens of bills in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that this body should have considered. It would have been important to give these commonsense bills an up-or-down vote. Almost all of them were bipartisan in nature. It is a disappointment to me that we have not done the will of the people in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if I might, I know Senator Durbin has a pressing unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that when he has concluded his request, Senator Barrasso and I could engage in a colloquy on the very bill that has been objected to.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 636, H.R. 2476; that the Udall of Colorado substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the Udall of Colorado title amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I rise to support the nomination of Bill Martinez. Senator Leahy made the case for his nomination and for him to be confirmed. I have great affection for my friend from Alabama, but I want to set the record clear that Bill Martinez did not work for the ACLU, he advised the ACLU. If we are going to raise that standard and change the rules, then we ought to remember that the Bush nominations often included Federalist Society members and contributors. We ought to be careful about setting false standards. Bill Martinez was recommended by a bipartisan nominating commission that Senator Bennet and I created. He is a good man. His story is a quintessential American story. He will be an excellent judge. I urge us all to vote for his confirmation today. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise in response to Senator Sessions' comments about a nominee we are going to consider shortly, Bill Martinez. Senator Sessions just spoke about the ACLU for 30 minutes, trying to define Bill Martinez--a district court nominee, not the appeals court as Sessions noted--as an ACLU-like nominee and then criticizing his hearing responses on the death penalty and the empathy standard. I wanted to clarify for the record three points of misinformation. Bill Martinez did not work for the ACLU. He served on an advisory board regarding cases in Denver. Several Bush nominees were members of the Federalist Society and contributors to other conservative litigation centers and were confirmed just a few years ago. Bill Martinez is not the ACLU, and we ought to be careful to avoid setting false standards. From the Martinez Hearing: Senator Sessions: Have you ever acted as counsel in a matter on behalf of the ACLU? If so, please provide the Committee with a citation for each case, a description of the matter, and a description of your participation in that matter. Martinez Response: No. Senator Sessions claimed he was dissatisfied with Bill Martinez's response regarding the death penalty, stating that he was not clear in his beliefs. This is misleading and the record states otherwise. From the Martinez Hearing: Senator Sessions: Please answer whether you personally believe that the death penalty violates the Constitution. Martinez Response: It is clear under current Supreme Court jurisprudence that, with very limited exceptions, the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 129 S.Ct. 1 (2008). Consistent with this precedent, I do not believe the death penalty is unconstitutional. Senator Sessions also claimed that Bill Martinez stated empathy can be taken into consideration with legal decisions. This is misleading and the record states otherwise. From the Martinez Hearing: Senator Sessions: Do you think that it's ever proper for judges to indulge their own subjective sense of empathy in determining what the law means? Martinez Response: No. Let me end on this note. Bill Martinez is a man of high character, he is a good man, and he will make an excellent Federal judge. Let us vote to confirm Bill Martinez to the Colorado U.S. District Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, before I begin the focus of my remarks and the reason I came to the floor, I wish to commend the Senator from Tennessee for his thoughtful remarks and what I think is a thoughtful and important position he is taking on the START treaty. I listened with great interest, and I learned additional information about the importance of putting this treaty in effect. I also acknowledge the Senator's concerns about missile defense, about tactical nuclear weapons, and the other concerns that have been raised in this very important and obviously historic debate on the floor of the Senate. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership. Tributes to Retiring Senators Arlen Specter I also wanted to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Bennet, the Senator from Colorado, in regard to Senator Specter's farewell address to the Senate. In particular, I think Senator Specter laid out a thoughtful and comprehensive way we can change the Senate rules in the upcoming 112th Congress in ways that respect the rights of the minority but also provide the Senate with some additional ways to do the people's business. I know the Presiding Officer spent significant time on finding a way forward for the Senate. I look forward to the debate that will begin when we convene in just a couple of weeks for the 112th Congress. Nomination of William Martinez Let me turn to the reason I came to the floor initially, and that is to urge my colleagues to support an outstanding nominee to the Federal bench, Mr. William Martinez. Bill's story is an inspirational one, and I will share that with you in a moment, but I wanted to first talk about why there is such an urgency to confirm this fine nominee. The situation in our Colorado District Court is dire, and I don't use that word lightly. There are currently five judges on the court and two vacancies, both of which are rated as judicial emergencies by the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts. These five judges have been handling the work of seven judges for nearly 2 years. It has been over 3 years since our court had a full roster of judges. I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with the need for a fully stocked Federal bench as a former attorney general. There is even more to the story. In 2008, based on the significant caseload in Colorado, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended the creation of an eighth judgeship on the Colorado District Court. This is a pressing situation, but I know it is not unique just to Colorado. Of the 100 current judicial vacancies, 46 are considered judicial emergencies--almost half of those vacancies. I understand the Senate has confirmed just 53 Federal circuit and district court nominees since President Obama was elected, including the judges over the last weekend. This is half as many as were confirmed in the first 2 years of the Bush administration and represents a historic low, which, no matter who is to blame, is very detrimental to our system of justice. Bill Martinez was nominated in February of this year, had a hearing in March, and was referred favorably by the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate in April. So today his nomination has been sitting on the Senate's Executive Calendar for over 8 months. I am not going to complain about partisan delays, although I know this continues to plague the Senate. Instead, in hope that we might improve the nomination process, I want my colleagues to hear the real effect of imposing these delays on nominees. The people of Colorado deserve well-qualified justices, but what the Senate put Bill Martinez through should make each of us question where our priorities are--and I say that because, unlike other judicial nominees before the Senate, Bill Martinez' life has been turned upside down because of this delay in his confirmation. While many other nominees--and I don't begrudge them this--continued their judicial careers because they were sitting on the bench, he has essentially had to dismantle his law practice to avoid Federal conflicts and even limit taking clients to ensure they continue to receive representation once he is confirmed. Both his life and his livelihood have been put on hold just because he was willing to become a dedicated public servant. If we continue this record or this habit of needlessly delaying judicial nominations, we risk chasing off qualified nominees such as Bill Martinez. His long and winding road began last year when Senator Bennet and I convened a bipartisan advisory committee, chaired by prominent legal experts in Colorado, to help us identify the most qualified candidates for the Federal bench. The committee interviewed many impressive individuals, and then, based on his life experience, his record of legal service, and his impressive abilities, both Republicans and Democrats on this panel together recommended Bill Martinez for a Federal judgeship. The President agreed and then subsequently nominated Bill for the vacant judgeship I mentioned. There is no doubt that being nominated for a Federal judgeship is a prestigious honor, but since being nominated, Senate delays have not only affected Bill and his family, but those delays have sent a discouraging message to future nominees. Despite these disruptions the process has caused for Bill and the dangerous precedent his delay may have set, I am relieved that the Senate is finally giving this qualified candidate the confirmation vote he deserves today. I have spoken about his impressive intellect and experience on the floor before, but in advance of my vote, I would like my colleagues to hear one more time why Bill Martinez was selected by the bipartisan advisory committee for this judgeship. In addition to being an accomplished attorney and a true role model in our community in Colorado, he has a personal story that captures what is great about America and highlights what can be accomplished with focus, discipline, and extraordinary hard work. Bill was born in Mexico City, and he immigrated lawfully to the United States as a child. He worked his way through school and college and toward a career in law, becoming the first member of his family to attend college. He received undergraduate degrees in environmental engineering and political science from the University of Illinois and earned his law degree from the University of Chicago. As a lawyer, Bill has become an expert in employment and civil rights law. He first began his legal career in Illinois, where he practiced with the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, litigating several law reform and class action cases on behalf of indigent and working-class clients. For the last 14 years, he has been in private practice and previously served as a regional attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Denver. As you can imagine, over the years Bill has been a very active member of the Denver legal community. During the 1990s, he was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver College of Law and has been a mentor to minority law students. He is currently vice chair of the Committee on Conduct for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and he has been a board member and officer of the faculty of Federal Advocates. Bill also sits on the board of directors of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, where he serves as the chair of the bar association's Ethics Committee. More recently, he was appointed by the Colorado Bar Association to the board of directors of Colorado Legal Services and by the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Board. Like all of us, I believe in a strong, well-balanced court system that serves the needs of our citizens. Bill Martinez will bring that sense of balance because of his broad legal background, professionalism, and his outstanding intellect. I am proud to have recommended Bill, and I am certain that once confirmed he will make an outstanding judge. Before I conclude, I did want to give special acknowledgment to my general counsel, Alex Harman, who has worked night and day on this nomination. Alex has worked tirelessly to see that Bill Martinez receives the vote he deserves, and I want to acknowledge him here on the floor of the Senate. I ask my colleagues to give their full support to this extraordinary candidate and vote to confirm his nomination to the Colorado District Court as a new Federal judge. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, the reason I have offered this consent agreement today is that this would help literally hundreds of small businesses to create hundreds of thousands of jobs at no cost to the American taxpayer. I did want to, in the spirit of bipartisanship, mention the cosponsors of the bill: Majority Leader Reid from Nevada, and Senators Snowe, Collins, Schumer, Boxer, Brown, Gillibrand, Inouye, Lieberman, Nelson of Florida, Bennet of Colorado, Sanders, and Wyden. The bill addresses a problem that everybody in the Chamber agrees needs to be addressed, and that is the trouble small businesses are having accessing capital so they can grow and create jobs. We saw that our unemployment rate inched up to 9.8 percent in November. That is indicative of the fact that our economy is having trouble gaining traction. We all know that if small businesses expand and grow, our economy will be getting back on track. If I might, let me tell you how this bill would help small businesses. Under current law, credit unions are doing what they can to help business interests and meet the demands of particularly family businesses. But they are constrained by an arbitrary cap on the size and amount of the loans they can issue. In every State, there are credit unions that would like to lend more, responsibly. But the Federal Government gets in the way. This legislation would get the Federal Government out of the way and allow credit unions help jumpstart the economy. Under current statute, credit unions are constrained to dedicating no more than 12.25 percent of their total assets to small business lending. Many credit unions have run up against that cap. What this legislation would do is take the most experienced and well-run credit unions and allow them to meet the rising demand for small business loans. The National Credit Union Administration, the Federal regulator, would have the authority to allow the small business lending cap to slowly increase from the current 12.25 percent limit to a maximum of 27.5 percent of total assets. Lest you think this has been pulled out of thin air, the proposal has the backing of the Banking Committee, the Treasury Department, and National Credit Union Association. It also has the support of the National Small Business Association, the National Association of Realtors, and even the Conservative Americans for Tax Reform thinks this is a good idea. The Credit Union National Association projects that these reforms are sensible reforms and would increase small business lending by $10 billion within the first year, with an increase of nearly $200 million in my State, and I am sure it would be similar in all States. It is expected to also increase 100,000 jobs nationwide. This is disappointing. It is a shame we can't move this legislation forward. We should be helping our economy, but we are embroiled in other things here. I will continue to fight for this, and I hope other Senators here today will join me in helping unleash the power of credit unions and get Americans back to work.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if I might, for the record, I will talk briefly about the legislation I referred to. This is a bipartisan bill. I filed it----

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. In legislative session, I wish to make a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2919, the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that a Udall of Colorado substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I would like to take the time to honor the memory of Ms. Joy Rushmore Hilliard, a supporter of the environment, outdoor enthusiast, and a friend of Colorado. Joy passed away peacefully this past August at the age of 86. As an avid outdoorswoman, Joy was well known as a great angler and lover of nature. She climbed all 54 of the 14-ers in Colorado well before it became a popular pursuit. Barbara Mandrell might even say Joy was a climber, outdoorswoman, and environmentalist before it became ``cool.'' In fact, when I look back and think of her heart and passion for life, she reminds me of what being an authentic Coloradan is all about. Joy even reminds me a lot of my own mother. Of the same generation and cut from the same cloth, Joy not only enjoyed hiking, climbing, skiing and fly-fishing, but managed to balance that love with raising a family. She also was a world traveler and was part of the 1963 expedition that trekked from Katmandu to the base camp on Mount Everest. In addition to her love of the outdoors and traveling, Joy was also a passionate philanthropist who donated her entire life to bettering her community and the world around her. Not only was she actively involved with many environmental organizations, Joy also was the chairwoman of Colorado Outward Bound, a nonprofit organization that teaches hands-on life lessons using the environment. As you may know, I was a former educator and mountain guide for Outward Bound. Its programs have greatly helped struggling teens and groups with health, educational, or social needs to not only experience the outdoors, but to also learn about the potential embodied in themselves. As the chairwoman, Joy led Outward Bound to new heights and was the inspiration for many participants as well as staff. In addition to her chairwomanship of Outward Bound, Joy was also president of the Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, and an avid participant in other organizations such as Trout Unlimited, Silver Trout Foundation, and Colorado Open Lands. Her involvement in all of these civic groups reflects not only her respect and love for the environment and Colorado, but also her passion for life. For her many sacrifices and hard work, Joy received several recognitions, including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the George E. Cranmer Award from Colorado Open Lands, and the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. Joy's other philanthropic actions include helping to establish the conservation wing of the Denver Public Library and a 10th Mountain Division Hut in memory of her late husband Ed, who was a partner of the Redfield Gun Sight Company. Joy's service to her community, to Colorado and to the environment will always live on in our hearts; she was truly an inspiration for all of us.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I start by noting it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Chairman Levin, Senator Gillibrand, and others in the effort to repeal this outmoded law. I have spoken many times about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and how it improves our national security, but I would like to make a few additional short points today before we take this important vote at 10:30. First, repealing this law is not about scoring political points or catering to a special interest group. Rather, it is about doing the right thing for our national security, especially during a time of two wars. Instead of turning away qualified interpreters, mechanics, infantrymen, and others, we need every able-bodied man and woman who is willing to fight for their country. An exhaustive study by the Pentagon recently revealed what numerous reports have shown, that don't ask, don't tell can be repealed without harmful effects. In fact, what it shows is our national security will be enhanced by this repeal. That is one of the reasons our Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, have strongly urged us to repeal the law this year, before we adjourn this week. Second, the United States lags--sadly lags--behind the world's other top militaries which allow open service by gays and lesbians. Our troops fight next to servicemembers from many of these countries every single day. There is no evidence showing that our military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq are negatively affected by allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly alongside U.S. servicemembers. Third, the vast majority of Americans support repealing this harmful law. As the Pentagon study showed, our servicemembers are complete professionals. They will comply with the repeal, and they will not allow open service to negatively affect the jobs they do. Finally, if the Senate does not act to give the Department of Defense and the President the authority to end this policy, then we are leaving the issue in the hands of the courts. Secretary Gates has said it makes far more sense to bring certainty to don't ask, don't tell through legislation rather than through lawsuits. Let me end with the words of a Marine captain who wrote a courageous opinion piece this week that was in the Washington Post. He said: It is time for ``don't ask, don't tell'' to join our other mistakes in the dog-eared chapters of history textbooks. We all bleed red, we all love our country, we are all Marines. In the end, that is all that matters. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wish to reiterate what I have long believed to be the right step to take in addressing a longstanding issue that affects young people in my State of Colorado and across this country. That step is to pass legislation known as the DREAM Act that will ensure that upstanding young adults who were brought into this country illegally by no fault of their own have the opportunity to attend college and contribute to our economy or join the military and serve our country. Just over 3 years ago there was a large bipartisan group of Senators that understood that children who were brought to this country by no fault of their own should not be blamed for the sins of their parents. It is mind-boggling to me that we now have to struggle to get those same Members who are still in the Senate today to support that commonsense notion, which underlies the DREAM Act. I respect the decisions of my colleagues and I want to give my colleagues who have had a change of heart the benefit of the doubt, but my guess is that partisanship is what has prevailed here. I believe this because the bipartisan-approved legislation that the House of Representatives has sent us is more stringent than previous versions of this legislation that was once sponsored and supported by both Republicans and Democrats. When you run down the list of fees, restrictions, requirements, waiting periods, and other criteria for eligibility in the DREAM Act, you begin to see that this is a robust plan to give high-achieving young people an opportunity to contribute positively to our country. Not only will individuals who were brought to this country before the age of 16 have to prove they have been in the United States for at least 5 years before applying, they will also have to show that they are in good health, pass a background check, provide biometric data, and pay fees and taxes. Only then will they be allowed to enter a ``conditional non-immigrant'' status that would allow them to pursue their education or enter the military. During the 10 years of their conditional status, they would be ineligible for entitlement programs such as welfare, Federal education grants and would be unable to sponsor family members for immigration purposes. They would also have to remain in good standing with the law and prove that they have command of the English language and American civics. If they meet those and other requirements after 10 years, they will then have to get in at the back of the line to wait their turn for a minimum of 3 more years--for an opportunity to naturalize as U.S. citizens. That seems more than fair to me. The DREAM Act provides a robust and fair-minded plan to help America attract bright and talented individuals to contribute to our economy and strengthen our military. As military leaders who have served under Presidents of both parties have said, this bill will strengthen our readiness by giving these young men and women the chance to join our armed services. Furthermore, studies have shown that students who can realize their full earning potential can ultimately help pump billions of dollars back into our economy. These individuals are future businessmen, scientists, and innovators that could help our economy grow. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this legislation would even help to reduce our deficit. The DREAM Act has been debated for several years. It is finally time for us to do what is right in this situation, put aside partisanship and support this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, let me start by thanking my good friend from Indiana, not only for yielding the floor to me but for his strong leadership on this crucial treaty before us here in the Senate. I rise in strong support of the New START treaty. I want to start by reminding my colleagues that arms control treaties are an integral part of this country's modern history, premised on a shared belief that a world with fewer nuclear weapons is a safer world. Even as the Cold War raged, it was Ronald Reagan who committed America to the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the Earth. Those are his very words. This goal has animated numerous arms control agreements since then and it underpins the New START treaty, an agreement I believe we cannot fail to ratify. The dangers of nuclear proliferation have grown. As the Senator from Indiana knows well, because this has been a part of his life's work, the threat of global nuclear war has receded but the risk of nuclear attack has increased, enabled by the spread of nuclear technology and the danger of materials falling into the wrong hands. I believe we cannot be seen as a credible leader of a nation strongly committed to meeting our nonproliferation obligations unless we pursue further nuclear arms reductions ourselves. The United States and Russia have over 90 percent of the world's nuclear arms between us. Thus, we have an obligation to verifiably decrease our nuclear stockpiles and reduce this primary threat to global and national security. That is why the New START treaty matters. It establishes limits for U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons to levels lower than the 1991 START Treaty and the 2002 Moscow treaty. These limits have been validated by our defense planners and ensure that we have the flexibility to meet our security needs. The treaty also includes a strong verification regime, which Secretary Gates called the ``key contribution'' of the agreement. As we debate this agreement today, we should not only consider the consequences of ratification but also the consequences of failure. Because START expired over a year ago, we currently have no treaty and, therefore no constraints on Russia's stockpile or verification of their weapons. The choice facing U.S. Presidents through the decades has been whether we are better off signing arms agreement with the Russians or pursuing an arms race. Historically, Presidents from both parties and bipartisan majorities in the U.S. Senate have agreed that we are better served by agreements. Today is no different. As U.S. Strategic Command's General Chilton testified, without a treaty, Russia is not constrained in its development of force structure, and we have no insight into its nuclear program, making this ``the worst of both possible worlds.'' Failure to ratify this treaty would make the broad ``resetting'' of U.S.-Russian relations harder. The distrust it would engender would also reduce or even eliminate the possibility of further bilateral strategic weapons reductions. As former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft--I think we would all agree he is one of the wisest Americans about foreign policy--testified earlier this year, ``the principal result of non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos.'' But we need to remember that this treaty is not just about Washington and Moscow, it is also about the world community and our global relationships. Failure to ratify this treaty would signal to the world that America is not willing to constrain its own weapons arsenal, even as we ask other countries to restrict theirs or avoid joining the ``nuclear club'' altogether. It would discourage multilateral cooperation on nonproliferation goals and hinder our ability to lead by example. It would make global cooperation on dealing with rogue states like Iran and North Korea more challenging, tying our hands at a time when the threat from those two countries is increasing. Treaty opponents have tried to make the case that the dangers of ratifying the agreement outweigh the advantages of ratification. They are simply wrong. They argue that the treaty limits our ability to develop missile defense capabilities. The head of the Missile Defense Agency argued, that the treaty actually reduces constraints on missile defense. And countless military and civilian leaders, including the former Secretaries of State for the last five Republican Presidents, have publicly stated that New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses. Treaty opponents argue it inhibits our ability to maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal. It is true that this administration inherited an underfunded and undervalued nuclear weapons complex. But the President understands that the nuclear experts and infrastructure that maintain our arsenal also help secure loose nuclear materials, verify weapons reductions and develop technologies that underpin our nuclear deterrent. That is why the President's budget request provides $7 billion for these programs this year, a 10-percent increase over last year. New START would in no way limit these investments. And as treaty opponents know well, the President has offered an even more robust investment in modernization and refurbishment of our nuclear infrastructure over the next 10 years, totaling $84 billion. The importance of ratifying this treaty goes beyond politics. We know that a lack of demonstrated bipartisan support could poison relations with Russia and our allies. And we cannot risk the loss of American leadership in the world that would ensue if we are perceived as too entangled in our own internal politics to ratify a strategic arms treaty that is clearly beneficial to our own security. I know that some of my colleagues hope to amend this treaty and, in so doing, kill it, since any changes will require the administration to start from scratch and reopen negotiations with the Russians. I urge them to reconsider and to think about what is at stake. And I urge them and all my colleagues to listen to our military leadership when they tell us that this treaty is essential to our national security. As Senator Lugar pointed out yesterday in his eloquent statement, ``Rejecting an unequivocal military opinion on a treaty involving nuclear deterrence would be an extraordinary position for the Senate to take.'' Let us not allow this to be the first time in history that the Senate denies ratification to a treaty with overwhelming bipartisan support and the endorsement of the full breadth of our military and civilian leaders. I urge my colleagues to support this treaty and to support a safer world.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to explain my votes in relation to the impeachment of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. I take my role in the rare process of impeachment seriously, and welcome the opportunity to explain my reasoning for voting guilty on all four Articles of Impeachment and to clarify for the record the limited precedential value that I believe the conviction on Article IV should provide. When considering the evidence presented by the House and Judge Porteous, I first had to establish what standard of proof I would use to determine his guilt or innocence on each Article of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate has never adopted a standard of proof like `beyond a reasonable doubt' from the criminal context or `a preponderance of the evidence' from a civil dispute context; rather, the Senate has allowed individual Senators to decide for themselves what standard is most appropriate. I ultimately settled on the standard suggested by the House Manager, that I be convinced of the truthfulness of the allegations and that they rise to a level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Mr. President, our founders granted Congress the power of impeachment to protect the institutions of government from those judged to be unfit to hold positions of trust. In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote of the jurisdiction to impeach an official: ``There are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' This captures the standard I applied to reach a determination of guilt on each Article of Impeachment. I was convinced that Judge Porteous, through each action and through his pattern of behavior, undermined the public's faith in him as a government official and in the institution that he represented--the United States Federal Court. With respect to Articles I, II and III, I am confident that the evidence of specific acts and the pattern of behavior displayed by Judge Porteous justifies my determination that he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Article IV, however, gives me pause. While I believe that the guilty vote on Article IV was correct, I have reservations about the precedent that scholars and future Senators might find in this impeachment. The questionnaire the judicial nominees fill out for the Senate Judiciary Committee provides an opportunity for those nominated to answer questions about their past activities and involvement in and with the law. From these questionnaires, we are able to learn of a nominee's legal experience, find information about past statements and generally assess the fitness of the nominee for the federal bench. On his questionnaire, Judge Porteous was asked whether any unfavorable information existed that could affect his nomination, and he answered that he did not know of any. I believe that Judge Porteous engaged in a pattern of behavior prior to, during and after his nomination to the federal district court that undermined the public's faith in him as a government official, and that this pattern of behavior rose to the level of an impeachable offense that met the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. Having said that, I do not believe that future nominees should be subject to impeachment simply for a failure to answer a subjective, open-ended question on the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. Judge Porteous abused the questionnaire process, misrepresented his background and misled the Senate in an egregious manner that was unique to this specific situation. However, I can imagine a scenario whereby a nominee could falsely affirm that no negative information affecting his nomination existed, yet I might not find that false answer to be an impeachable offense. I do not wish to see the nomination process become even more difficult for qualified men and women of good character, solely because of an onerous application process. Many of us have things in our backgrounds that we might miss when asked open ended questions, and the Senate should not hang the cloud of impeachment over every nominee's head because of such oversights alone--otherwise, we will find ourselves without any nominees. As a Senator who is not a lawyer, I would like to thank my colleagues who took on the historic task of preparing and presenting this impeachment trial. Specifically, Senator Claire McCaskill and Senator Orrin Hatch who shared the role of chair of the Special Impeachment Trial Committee. I came away from this experience with a renewed respect for the Senate as an institution. When given the opportunity, Senators can work in a productive and civil manner, and I am sure that if he were able to see the dignity and respect with which the Senate treated this impeachment, Alexander Hamilton would be very proud.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I am pleased and proud to follow my colleague from Idaho. What we are hearing about is all the challenges that face our Nation, and there are many of them right now. This massive set of budget deficits and overall debt we face--it is a crippling debt--requires probably the most serious and difficult effort we are facing right now as a people. A strong country--I heard Senator Wyden say this, in effect--is a solvent country. Conversely, a broke country is a weak country. I can't help but remember Erskine Bowles, the Cochairman of the Commission we are talking about today. He was asked: Why are interest rates still low? Why are our bonds still desirable? He said: Don't let's fool ourselves. Senator Chambliss would appreciate this because he used a Southern turn of phrase. He said: Look, we are still the best looking horse in the glue factory. That is the only reason that our interest rates and our bonds are still strong. What do we do about that? There is a way forward. The bipartisan commission has put in front of us a plan. None of us agree with every single item. It is a way forward. It is important to note of the 11 votes, 5 of those votes were Senators from our body. Five of the six Senators who represented us on this Commission voted to move forward. That is the way forward--for us to join together, Democrats and Republicans alike. Despite our differences of opinion on many other issues, I think we can agree on one thing; that is, developing fundamental tax reform and addressing, in the process, our long-term debt problems. Like Senator Wyden, I am going to vote no tonight. I think this is a misguided effort, and we will add $900 billion to our debt load. But I respect my colleagues who see it otherwise. I am going to vote no, and I am going to come right back to work tomorrow with all of us in the Chamber. We are going to meet this challenge head on. The stakes are too high if we do not. I yield the floor to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the bill in front of us today, and I wish to start out by saying that, in addition to all the many challenges facing our Nation, a massive budget deficit and a crippling debt may prove to be the most difficult challenge we face as a country. A deep structural defect, such as the one our government has accumulated because of these debt levels, not only threatens our long- term economic stability, it darkens the horizon in a way that discourages the innovation investment we need to spur American jobs today. Moreover, our apparent inability to squarely address the problem in a bipartisan way is a signal to the American people--as if they needed more proof--that our democracy is not working, and that is as dangerous as any attack on our country. It is a timebomb in our midst, the ticking of which we cannot ignore unless we are comfortable knowing it will eventually and inevitably blow up on our children. Just last week, a bipartisan group appointed by the President confirmed the seriousness of a threat with a different metaphor but one equally apt. The President's fiscal commission called our national debt a cancer that is threatening our country from within. Whether a timebomb or a cancer, the threat is real, and the Commission confirmed it in the starkest possible terms. The chairman's recommendations on how to respond were sobering. But in a way, they were also like a strong cup of coffee after a serious drinking binge. Americans sat up and listened, and for a few days between the release of the Commission's report and the vote of the full Commission the following Friday, it looked like we might be able to set aside the ideological differences that have poisoned our politics and address this problem. It looked like we might be able to follow the old adage when you are in a hole, stop digging. However, the next week, the President announced a plan that he negotiated with Republican leaders to extend the Bush tax cuts across the board--a plan that would add $900 billion to our national debt over the next 2 years. What is staggering to me is, it took just 4 days to switch the conversation from reducing the debt to adding to it. Just 4 days after the most substantive conversation we have had about addressing the debt, we start arguing about the wisdom of extending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that alone will cost $700 billion over the next decade. That is $700 billion in additional debt the people of the United States will owe to China and our other creditors around the world. To paraphrase one of my colleagues, I feel like we are operating in some kind of a parallel universe. Now, as the debate over the last several days has exhibited, Senators in this body--and the American people themselves--have a diverse set of views on tax policy and how to get our economy back on track. Central to these questions about tax policy is how to find mechanisms that will get our skyrocketing national deficit and total debt under control. Despite disagreements--our disagreements here and in the other body--I believe we owe it to the American people and to one another to be pragmatic and truthful about the fiscal challenges confronting us. It's the way that Coloradans like to operate, and I believe it's the way that most Americans want their elected official to behave. So I respect and even applaud the President's efforts to reach a compromise based on political pragmatism. But what I respectfully disagree with is the notion this compromise is based on anything approaching fiscal reality or truth in accounting, which is the point I believe the chairmen of the President's fiscal commission--Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson--were making. If I might, I would remind my colleagues of the history of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Those tax cuts were passed after we experienced one of the strongest economic environments in our history. Those who supported tax cuts for the wealthy believed that because we had begun to reduce our long-term debt, we could afford them. They believed those tax cuts would stimulate our economy further and create millions of new jobs. In the words of then-Vice President Cheney, it was a time when ``deficits don't matter.'' I did not support the tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 or 2003, for much the same reason I don't support them today. I voted against them as a Member of the House of Representatives. In fact, I'll remind this body that the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2003 was only possible because Republicans pushed them through on a reconciliation vote, which requires only a simple majority. It took Vice President Cheney to break the tie vote. I sincerely wish those tax cuts had effectively spurred sustained job growth. I do. But unfortunately, the next decade saw a decline in our economy such as we haven't seen since the Great Depression--banks failed, foreclosures reached a crisis point, we were forced to bail out financial institutions, an insurance giant, and the auto companies to keep the economy from crashing further. During that time, real income for average households decreased and the unemployment rate nearly doubled, as millions of workers were laid off. If tax cuts for the wealthy among us were an efficient way to spur innovation and investment, I have to believe economists would be telling us to continue them. But here is what they are actually saying: Economists of all stripes are telling us extending tax cuts for the wealthy is one of the least effective ways to create jobs and build the economy. Even some of America's most successful businessmen, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, among those who stand to gain dramatically from the bill before us, have urged us to prioritize seniors, long-term economic growth, and job creation instead. They know what recent history has shown--that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not help our economy, and it certainly doesn't help our national debt. Just over 1 week ago I stood here with all of my colleagues and voted to support a proposal that would have followed the advice of economists, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett and extended relief to middle-class families. Most importantly, that plan would have heeded the overwhelming wishes of Coloradans--and Americans across our country, who do not believe it makes common sense to extend tax cuts for the rich. Americans understand, maybe better than many of us in Washington, DC, that middle-class tax relief is the way to spur our economy. To a family making $50,000 a year, an $800 tax cut could make the difference between paying for daycare or health insurance or a second car so both parents could work. As more and more Americans become the first in their families to stand in an unemployment line, I find it hard to explain or justify last week's filibuster preventing middle-class tax relief so millionaires and billionaires can get an extra six-figure check from the Federal Government. We have heard all kinds of arguments for extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we have been told this bill represents the best deal we could get in order to bring further tax relief to middle- class Americans. But, again, those arguments are based on political pragmatism not a truthful or objectively measured analysis of the actual impact on our budget deficit. That is why the cochair of the President's deficit commission, Erskine Bowles, a university president who knows the impact our budget crisis has had on our States, on education, and on families, has spoken out against this irresponsible tax deal for wealthy Americans. He said: I'm deeply disappointed that we have this short-term deal and it's not linked to long-term fiscal restraint. I think that hits the nail on the head. I take no pleasure in opposing most of my colleagues today. I have long held the view that by working together, we can bridge divides and find solutions that are both pragmatic, collaborative and factually sound. I regret that the bill before us speaks more to our failure as an institution than it does as an example of effective compromise. This deal is about politics and a President backed into a terrible corner by a looming deadline when this Congress must adjourn and a new one will take its place. The bill we are considering today is where the negotiations should have started--not where they ended. We should be voting on a plan that would allow us to extend tax relief for working families and put the $700 billion we would save over a decade toward our deficit, unemployment insurance, tax credits for low-income Americans, and other ways to get our economy growing. We should be voting on a plan--a compromise negotiated in good faith and based on the realities of our economy and not a date on the calendar--whose economic and fiscal impacts can be verified. That is what I wish had been negotiated. And I would prefer to stay here in Washington, through the holidays if necessary, to work out a better deal for the Coloradans I represent, and for the American people. Mr. President, I sincerely fear that the bad choices made in the last decade will haunt us through the next decade. For these reasons, the legislation before us today is a step too far, and that is why I oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, we have again witnessed gridlock at its worst on the heels of the vote that just concluded. When the Senate was given a chance to lead on critical issues crucial to our national security, to our troops and to our leadership in the 21st century, the Senate let politics obstruct progress that we should make. This is the second time this year we have prevented ourselves, if you will, from debating critical national security issues. Like so many other debates that we wanted to have this year, this one was derailed by obstruction before it even began. The last time the minority party blocked debate of a national defense authorization act, they argued that the DREAM Act should not be considered as an amendment to the bill and that we needed to wait on the report of the Pentagon study group on how to repeal don't ask, don't tell before we can vote on the broader bill. This time we did consider the DREAM Act in a separate vote and this time, after voting today, we voted after the Pentagon's task force on don't ask, don't tell has weighed in with the most comprehensive review of a personnel policy that DOD has ever conducted on any policy being proposed. But the obstruction continues. There are new excuses this time. Opponents now say we need to extend tax breaks before we can consider legislation necessary to ensure our national security. It doesn't seem to matter to those who voted no today that the Pentagon study group looking at repeal confirmed what many of us have been saying for years, that don't ask, don't tell can be overturned without disrupting our Nation's military readiness. It doesn't seem to matter to these opponents that Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and a host of other military and civilian leaders believe that repeal by a Federal judge would be far more disruptive and damaging to readiness and morale than repeal through legislation that has been thoughtfully and comprehensively drafted by the Congress. This wide-ranging and highly respected group of military and civilian leaders has strongly urged us, the Senate, to act on this Defense authorization bill this month. Unlike what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, the repeal language in this legislation respects the Pentagon's timeline and it gives our military leaders the flexibility they say they need to implement repeal in a way that tracks with military standards and guidelines. The best way to change the policy is for elected representatives--that is us--to pass the legislation before us now and to do it this year. But the vote we just had means we will have no debate on don't ask, don't tell. And just as importantly--and I know the Presiding Officer serves on the Foreign Relations Committee--it thwarts a serious discussion about pressing national security issues. Imagine that. We are prevented from debating fundamental national security concerns at a time of two wars. People in my State of Colorado do not understand such obstruction, and I do not think Americans all across the country do. This is further illuminated because every year for nearly a half century, Congress has taken up and passed a bill renewing our defense policies for the Nation for the coming year. That is 48 years consecutively. And this Defense authorization bill, like all those that came before it, is as critically important as the 48 that have preceded it. It provides funding for our military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq. It supports our servicemembers and keeps Americans safe through needed resources and policies, including fair and competitive pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform. The bill also includes many important provisions directed at the health and needs of our servicemembers' families. Specifically, if I might, I want to mention a provision I authored with help from other of my colleagues which would extend health insurance for military families, enabling children of active-duty servicemembers and retirees to stay on their parents' policies until they turn age 26. It is similar to what we did in the Affordable Care Act last year and this year more broadly for Americans. Also importantly, this legislation provides improved care for our wounded servicemembers and their families--not just the physical wounds of war but also the mental wounds of war. As I conclude, I have to tell you I remain hopeful that somehow this Congress can find a way, even in the midst of this partisan rancor, to pass this Defense authorization bill for the 49th consecutive year. I am willing to stay until Christmas, even through Christmas, and the week after, to get this done. I will tell you, if we cannot get don't ask, don't tell repeal as part of the Defense authorization bill, I am willing to stay through the holidays to debate it on the floor as a stand-alone measure, and I will urge my colleagues to join me in that debate. So despite the vote today, I have to say I am optimistic about our future, and I am committed, as I know the Presiding Officer is, to a new kind of politics where we can find consensus among our disagreement. I know the people of our States and Americans at large want us to tackle tough decisions. It is why they sent us here: to resolve the tough problems. But I think opportunities that are inherent in those problems led us to want to serve in the Nation's capital. Let's reach out to each other. Let's find common ground. Let's call on each other to work together to accomplish our shared priorities and demonstrate support for our Armed Forces. After all, they are standing up for us. We can stand up for them. Americans sent us here to do no less. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, like many Americans, I am frustrated with the gridlock in the Senate, and I am very concerned by our dysfunctionality, witnessed once again here today. When we were asked to lead on critical issues facing our men and women in uniform, our troops--also tied to our national security and our international leadership in the 21st century--the Senate has once again taken a pass, has once again let politics obstruct our progress. Coloradans sent me here to lead, like they sent the Presiding Officer here from her great State of North Carolina, and to find solutions to problems however vexing. I, for one, am increasingly tired of the partisan wrangling that besets each and every issue. This debate, like so many others we have attempted to have, was derailed by obstructionism before it even began. Now, I realize some will say they scuttled this critical Defense bill in part because the majority leader announced he expected to have a vote on the DREAM Act, which, by the way, would allow young, undocumented immigrants a chance to attend college and serve in our military. They were brought here to this country through no decision they made as very young people. But I have to tell you, I think it was about more than just that. In my humble opinion, the issues mattered far less than the politics. There has been a concerted effort to prevent or stall debate on nearly every major bill this year, and, sadly, a bill dealing with our troops is not free from the same tactics. There is no reason we should not have a debate on any issue, let alone a vote, and the DREAM Act is no exception. I know the Presiding Officer and I joined the Senate at the same time. We heard about how the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. If you do not deliberate, what does that make us? I also know that repeal of don't ask, don't tell is a contentious subject, and it has also been used as an excuse to sink this very important bill. But, I have to tell you, I think this is an outdated, discriminatory policy that undermines the strength of our military and the basic fairness upon which our great Nation was built. At a time when we are fighting two wars, we need every skilled servicemember we have: airmen, mechanics, translators, and all the many other specialties our military serve in. Unlike what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, the language in this bill repealing don't ask, don't tell respects the Pentagon's timeline and gives our military leaders flexibility to implement repeal in a way that tracks with military standards and guidelines. As Admiral Mullen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee--the Presiding Officer remembers what a powerful day that was--he said repealing don't ask, don't tell is the ``right thing to do.'' Unfortunately, political debate and disagreement has prevented us from having this important discussion on how best to support our troops, plus thwarted a serious discussion about numerous pressing national security issues. I am disappointed in the partisanship, but I have to tell you, I am even more disappointed in the disservice to the men and women in uniform that today's inaction has caused. Our American citizens, our constituents, our friends and neighbors face difficult decisions in their lives every day, but many here in Washington bristle at the notion that they face hard choices. They say taking votes on certain issues will be too difficult, that the politics are too tough, or that they cannot stomach the thought of losing. But Americans have not run away from hard decisions in the past. What about us? This place is a forum--or it should be a forum--where we can work together. But, today, with the Senate blocking this bill, I fear our national security and our troops will suffer. Every year for nearly a half century--I think accurately put, 49 years consecutively--Congress has taken up and passed a bill that renews, in some cases reforms, and in other cases replaces our defense policies. This Defense authorization bill, like all those that came before it-- the previous 49 Defense authorization bills--is critically important. It provides funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It supports our servicemembers who keep America safe by including fair pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform. Preventing this debate keeps us from pushing forward with this bill's provisions to enhance our military's readiness, improve our servicemembers' training, and upgrade equipment and resources to succeed in combat. We are also leaving behind provisions in the bill to strengthen our nonproliferation programs and enable the reduction of our nuclear weapons stockpile while ensuring the stockpile has continued reliability. We are foregoing the crucial opportunity--I know the Presiding Officer has believed this is very important as well--to increase the Pentagon's use of alternative energy technologies and fuels to improve the Department's efficiency and energy security. The bill also includes so many important provisions for the health and resiliency--both mental and physical--of our servicemembers and their families. Specifically, it includes a provision I authored extending health insurance for military families, enabling the children of Active-Duty servicemembers and retirees to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26--similar to what we did in the Health Care Reform Act for the civilian sector. Importantly, the bill provides improved care for our wounded servicemembers and their families. As part of a longer term effort to treat both the physical and the unseen mental wounds of war, I have been reviewing the Army's report on Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention, which was published earlier this summer. One passage particularly struck me: In just six years, Soldiers experience the equivalent of a lifetime when compared to their civilian counterparts. In other words, at the age of 24, the average soldier has moved multiple times, been deployed around the world, married and had children, seen death, had financial and relationship problems, is responsible for dozens of soldiers, and gets paid less than $40,000 a year. The lives of average soldiers bear no resemblance whatsoever to ours. Their sacrifices are far beyond what many of us can imagine, and we have demanded so much of them for so long. That is why I have continued to focus my efforts on how we can help our brave service men and women suffering from mental wounds when they come home. Fort Carson in Colorado has had its share of difficulties addressing the needs of our soldiers, but we are seeing real progress. I am particularly proud of what Fort Carson has been doing in the way of providing behavioral health care to soldiers not just when they get back home but also while they are still on the battlefield. That is the essence of Fort Carson's Mobile Behavioral Health Teams, which embed credentialed behavioral health providers within a brigade combat team, both during deployment and in garrison. Language I authored in this bill encourages the Army to replicate this successful program to help facilitate early identification and treatment of behavioral health problems. The bad news, again, is that this provision--and so many important provisions in this bill--will not be debated today. It appears election year partisanship has prevailed over the responsibility and the need to provide for our men and women in uniform as they fight two wars. Having said that, I do remain optimistic about our future, and I am committed to working toward a new kind of politics, where we find consensus amidst disagreement. I know Americans want their leaders to tackle challenging problems and resolve the tough issues. That is what America does. That is what Americans do. That is what we were hired to do. So in that spirit, I will continue to reach out to all my colleagues who wish to find common ground and call on others to let this debate move forward in the coming weeks so support for our troops is not held back any longer. Americans sent us here to do no less. Madam President, I thank you for your attention. I thank you for your service on the Armed Services Committee alongside me. With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, due to ongoing efforts to address the impacts of one of the most destructive Colorado fires in decades, I was unable to cast a vote for rollcall No. 230, the nomination of Jane Branstetter Stranch to be United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm the nominee.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I believe over the last hour and a half the Senate has heard from almost one-tenth of the body. Nine Senators have come to the floor to talk about a litany of great nominees for district court positions all over our country. The viewers have heard and our colleagues have heard the importance of passing these nominees through the process so we can deliver justice to our citizens in all the ways that our courts operate. In that spirit, therefore, I have a series of unanimous consent requests that I wish to make at this time. Unanimous-Consent Requests--Executive Calendar Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 813, William Martinez, to be a U.S. district court judge for the district of Colorado; that the nomination be debated for up to 3 hours with time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 696, Louis Butler, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin; No. 697, Edward Chen, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California; No. 703, Benita Pearson, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; No. 948, John J. McConnell, to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island; that the nominations be debated concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.