Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Inouye amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 286 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 360, S. Res. 361, S. Res. 362, S. Res. 363, and S. Res. 364.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, we hope to have votes in relation to amendments to the STOCK Act during Wednesday's session.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, February 1, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2038, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, these generals put it right to the point we all need to hear: Our ideals are assets, not liabilities. In that spirit, interestingly enough, we had a very robust debate about these detention provisions, and it bolstered my faith we could continue to have great and substantive debates in this body. Because of the concerns that were raised and serious questions that were presented about the provisions, we were able to secure some improvements that may reduce some of the grave concerns I have outlined here. I see my good friend from Illinois, who I know is going to speak and who shares some of my concerns, so let me touch on a couple of the adjustments that have been made. Senator Feinstein's amendment clarified that detainee provisions are not to be interpreted ``to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens.'' I was a member of the conference committee on this bill, and during the conference committee negotiations resulted in a clarification that was made to ensure these provisions are not to be interpreted to ``affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency.'' These were helpful changes and, hopefully, will prevent the undermining of our constitutional liberties and the disruption of domestic counterterrorism efforts. However, while I was pleased my colleagues were willing to acknowledge the language presented serious problems and left many questions unanswered, I still remain concerned about the detention provisions. Making changes to the law that have serious ramifications for our Constitution and our national security deserve serious thought and deliberation. Yet to this day we have not had a single hearing on these matters. Hearings would allow us to understand and mitigate the concerns of national security experts such as FBI Director Mueller. Director Mueller testified yesterday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and said that because of the requirements of this language, ``the possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining.'' One of our primary goals in these cases is to gain actionable intelligence, and the FBI is very good--in fact, they are unbelievably good--at using a variety of techniques to gather the information we need--techniques, by the way, that fit within the Bill of Rights and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Some of my colleagues believe that intelligence will be lost if a suspect receives a Miranda warning, but now we may be jeopardizing entire cases by adding new layers of bureaucracy and questionable legal processes. These detention provisions, even as they are amended, will present numerous constitutional questions that the courts will inevitably have to resolve, and the provisions will present logistical problems that our national security experts will have to wade through. It sure feels to me as though these changes are being forced on an already nimble and effective counterterrorism community against their warnings, and I remain unconvinced of their benefit. I continue to believe the best course of action would be to separate these detention provisions from the Defense authorization bill so we can take our time, speak to experts in the field, and make sure we are effectively balancing our counterterrorism needs and the constitutional freedoms of American citizens. Most importantly, we need to understand and we need to ensure we are not damaging our national security. That is why I made it clear in signing the conference report that I do not support the two flawed detention provisions, sections 1021 and 1022. All of that said, the Senate has a solemn obligation to our men and women in uniform to pass a Defense Authorization Act. As a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I understand the importance of this bill for our military and for their families, and while I continue to have serious reservations about the detention provisions and sought to separate them from the Defense authorization bill, we face a single vote on the entirety of the Defense bill, which includes the amended detention provisions. That is not how I wanted to proceed, but that is the choice in front of us. For those who joined me in voicing opposition to the detention provisions, I thank you. We fought to ensure that the rights of American citizens are not trampled with ease, and we joined the counterterrorism community to demand the full use of existing tools to fight the enemy. We showed that such a debate was worth having and secured revisions to the language that will now help us continue the important work of ensuring that both our Constitution and our national security remain protected. Although I intend to vote for final passage of the conference bill, I want to make clear I do not fully support the bill. I sincerely believe this debate is not over and there is much work left to do. Over the coming months and years, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I intend to hold this administration, and any further administration, accountable in the implementation of these provisions. I will also push the Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible as it relates to these provisions. We must apply a heightened level of scrutiny to ensure that what passes the Senate today does not deny U.S. citizens their due process rights and does not impede our counterterrorism efforts by hamstringing our military, the FBI, the CIA, or others who keep us safe. If these provisions stray in any way from that standard, I will be the first to demand hearings and changes to the law. In conclusion, I believe we owe it to our men and women in uniform to pass a Defense authorization bill, but we also owe the American people a full and honest debate about our national security strategy that keeps us both safe and protects this document--the Constitution--we all have taken an oath to uphold. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act conference report we will be voting on later today. First, I wish to acknowledge that Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain have worked tirelessly to craft the Defense authorization bill to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment and services they need to keep us safe. I thank them, their staffs, and all my colleagues for their diligence and dedication to this important work. I also come to the floor because I want to share, as I have over the last few weeks, the concerns that many Americans--and especially the people I represent in Colorado--have expressed over the last few weeks about the detainee provisions that have been included in the Defense authorization bill. I wish to make it clear that I still have very strong concerns about these provisions, especially because they have been presented as a solution to alleged gaps that exist in our counterterrorism policy. It is my strong belief that our military men and women, law enforcement officials, and counterterrorism professionals have done an outstanding job since 9/11 to keep our Nation safe. For 10 years we have killed, captured, and prosecuted terrorists, and I believe--in fact, I know--our system has been successful. The professionals whom I just mentioned, who are in charge of waging this battle to keep us safe, agree that the detainee provisions are of real concern. That includes the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Directors of both the FBI and CIA. In speaking to these same concerns that I continue to hold, along with the people just mentioned, the administration has stated: 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. I know many agree, especially Coloradans, who have contacted me in very impressive and large numbers. They believe, as I do, that these detention provisions could endanger our national security and that we ought to take a hard look at where we are heading. I strongly objected to these detention provisions back in the summer when the Armed Services Committee first considered them. In fact, I was the only member of the committee who cast a ``no'' vote during the committee markup. I felt a little lonely at that point in time, but I think my judgment has been recognized by the outpouring of concern about where we may be headed. Let me talk about what they do. The provisions could authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens who are suspected of involvement in terrorism, without charge, even those captured in the United States. The point I have tried to make over and over again is that this concerns each and every one of us. If these provisions deny American citizens their due process rights under a nebulous, new set of directives, it would not only make us less safe, but it would serve as an unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties. Senator Graham, my friend from South Carolina, has stated that if an American citizen takes up arms against the United States, he or she could be treated as an enemy combatant. I agree. However, the dangerous part of that proposition is as follows: How do we go about determining who those individuals are? No matter how serious the charge may be, the Constitution requires us to provide our citizens with due process before they are incarcerated--especially indefinite incarceration. If we start labeling our citizens as enemies of the United States without any due process, I think we will have done real damage to our system of justice in our country, which is admired all over the world. My colleagues and I all agree that we have to take every action necessary to keep our Nation safe. But what separates us--what makes America exceptional--is that even in our darkest hours, we ensure that our constitution prevails. We do ourselves a grave disservice by allowing for any citizen to be locked up indefinitely without trial, no matter how serious the charges against them. Doing so may make us feel safer, it may be politically expedient, but we risk losing the principles of justice and liberty that have kept our Republic strong, and it does, frankly, nothing to make us safer. No terrorist, no weapon, no physical threat is powerful enough to destroy who we are as a people, and that is why we have to remain diligent in ensuring we hold true to the principles that make our country great. I took note of this very principle in a powerful piece written by two retired four-star Marine Corps generals, General Krulak and General Hoar. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article written by these two generals.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise this morning to speak in favor of the legislation that I have authored to amend the Constitution to require that Congress, on behalf of the American people, balance the Federal budget. Yesterday I spoke about the merits of a balanced budget amendment, and I appreciate the debate that has occurred on the Senate floor which was in the best traditions of the Senate. I particularly have enjoyed hearing Senator Hatch's point of view. I think we have some disagreements about how we implement a balanced budget amendment, but we both agree that we need to put the Federal Government's finances in balance. Perhaps if we both fall short today on these important votes, we can go back and work together in the best tradition of Senator Hatch and Senator Simon. Senator Simon, on our side, was a strong proponent in the 1990s of a balanced budget amendment. Senator Hatch referenced those efforts then. Let me quickly summarize my arguments for why we need a balanced budget amendment. I start out thinking about Coloradans and the common sense they apply to their everyday finances, and there is a big dose of Colorado common sense in my proposal. It is aimed at finding common ground that both parties and a big majority of Americans can support, and it starts with a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. That is the heart of the issue. It is something on which many of us agree. But my proposal also asks us to avoid the mistakes of the last decade that have resulted in debt that is not only significant but it is exploding. For example, it would prevent deficit-busting tax breaks for Americans who earn $1 million or more a year. Why should we continue to give additional tax breaks to the wealthiest among us during times when we are in these tough deficit situations? I would also create a Social Security lock box to keep Congress from raiding the trust fund to hide the true size of our annual deficits. We have been using the Social Security fund as a slush fund to remedy our budgeting problems. That would end. In sum, the proposal I brought forward is straightforward, it is simple, and upholds the principle: We should pay for our government in a responsible manner. I think, looking at the Presiding Officer, in your home State most Americans agree to that, most New Yorkers do. Most Coloradans certainly do. I also want to be clear, there are some important differences between my approach and my dear friend Senator Hatch's approach. We will vote on his proposal today as well. Senator Hatch's proposal--this is in my estimation--goes far beyond balancing our books, and it is a balanced budget amendment only in part. That is because it includes some unrealistic limitations on our government that could prevent us from securing the retirement of hard- working Americans, undermine our national defense, and send the United States back to a time before Social Security, Medicare, and a host of other important programs were put in place to protect our middle class, the true heart of our country. Even worse, it locks in some special interest tax breaks that do nothing to grow our economy or create jobs. It, in effect, would turn the Constitution into a document that protects every special tax break that has been successfully lobbied over the years. That is not what our constituents, hard-working Americans, expect from a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, my approach is straightforward. It requires us to pay for what we spend. It creates flexibility depending on the economic conditions that we face and the year in which we find ourselves. But it wouldn't lead to the erosion of seniors' retirement security or it wouldn't lock in special interest tax breaks. So I say to all of my colleagues, it is time to put aside our political differences, check our ultimatums at the door, and let's work across the aisle and challenge ourselves to put our country first through balancing the budget. Our debt is $15 trillion and it is growing. The bipartisan cochairmen of President Obama's commission on the debt have called our debt a cancer, and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, has said it is the single biggest threat to our national security. It is clear it is time to act. We have run out of time to act. So, as I close, I just want to say the American people have demanded we get our fiscal house in order. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us, and it is now time for us in the Congress to catch up. So I am asking my colleagues of both parties and both Chambers to support my proposal. This is the right approach. It will enhance our economic security. It will ensure that we keep faith with our children. We shouldn't pass off this unsustainable debt to our children. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this important proposal. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, as I rise to ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment, I point out my amendment is not a cover amendment. It includes many of the principles and provisions the House considered in a balanced budget amendment they voted on recently, and it also contains many of the provisions and principles that this body in the 1990s considered when Paul Simon and Senator Hatch and many others led on a balanced budget amendment proposal. With that, I ask for the yeas and nays on S.J. Res. 24.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of legislation I have authored to amend the United States Constitution to require that Congress balance the Federal budget. The Senate's debate on the balanced budget amendment, which will occur over the next few days, is an incredibly important debate. It is a debate that will spark a wide range of emotions and it will test our policies, goals, and philosophies. Thus, I want to recognize at the outset that we hold strong and differing opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Amending the Constitution is not something any of us in the Senate takes lightly. In fact, we have only amended our Constitution some 27 times in the history of our Nation. Our Founding Fathers in their wisdom designed the Constitution to discourage amendments. They created a high hurdle to clear before an amendment can be passed by the Congress and ratified by the States. I intend today to make a case for why my proposal, which has been cosponsored by several of our colleagues, meets that elevated standard. Today I aim to explain why this balanced budget amendment will help restore the fiscal health of our Nation, protect our national security, and spur our future competitiveness in the global economic race. Let me start by discussing some basic facts that color this debate. First, our government debt now totals over $15 trillion. That is $48,000 for every man, woman, and child in our country. Let me say that again: $48,000 for every man, woman, and child. Moreover, we borrow 40 cents of every dollar that the Federal Government spends. The total amount of public debt now held by us equals 68 percent, almost 69 percent, of our gross domestic product. That reflects a level rarely seen in our country's history. Finally, in August of this year, one of the major credit agencies downgraded our Nation's credit rating because of Congress's inability to work in a bipartisan manner to reduce our debt. I don't think I have to tell the viewers that the last thing our struggling economy or job creation efforts needed was that downgrade. It is little wonder that Americans hold us in such low regard or that other countries wonder what we are doing in the Nation's Capitol. I could go on and on, but I will not. These facts are appalling enough to most Americans. These are hard-working Americans who balance their checkbooks on a weekly and monthly basis. It is appalling to me that Congress is so unable to resist the temptation to spend without limit while also trying to keep taxes as low as possible. We have even been willing to watch the debt grow to a level where national security experts are telling us that our own self-created problem is a bigger threat than any of our enemies. In the last several years Congress has taken steps to try to reach an agreement on how to reduce our deficit and pay down our debt. Many of us have spent countless hours working in bipartisan groups to chart a commonsense balanced debt reduction plan. I have not given up hope that we may eventually reach a comprehensive plan to cut spending, reform the Tax Code, and shore up programs such as Social Security and Medicare which are critical to our Nation's middle class. To give up on that goal would be to say to hard-working Americans, we are not serious about ensuring that the American dream is within everyone's reach. After watching Congress struggle to reach even a basic plan to cut spending or reasonably raise new revenues to pay our bills, I am convinced we need additional tools that force fiscal discipline. If we don't put limits on how Congress does its budgeting, the question won't be whether we can stop the bleeding, it will be how much do we cut to the bone or even into vital organs the programs that we value. In other words, without some fundamental reforms now, the foundations of our government will be severely weakened later. To be sure, a balanced budget amendment will not solve the problem on its own, but a reasonable balanced budget amendment would help us ensure we never get into this position again. Passing my middle-ground, commonsense balanced budget amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we are serious about stabilizing our budget for the long term. That is the signal they want to see to give them the confidence to expand and create jobs. Before I move to making the case for specifics in my balanced budget proposal, I want to make a few points about exactly how our skyrocketing national debt affects all of us. As a start, our debt threatens investments we need to make. It harms our ability to compete with countries around the world, it inhibits job growth here at home, and it dampens our innovative spirit. If we don't address our debt now, it would sap the economic power that has enabled our Nation to become the most powerful force on the globe. Throughout most of our history--perhaps aside from the Great Depression--our economic strength has enabled the United States to create an environment that is good for business. This strength has then helped our own people on our Main Streets thrive in communities all over Colorado and across our Nation, and it has meant that every generation has been able to build on their parents' success, seize opportunity, and live the American dream. We all know this is what has made the United States exceptional. But today across our great country, families are wondering whether the American dream is still within their reach. Whether you are a college graduate and living at home because you are unable to find a job or a middle-aged factory worker laid off for the second or the third time struggling to pay your bills, our economic future seems a bit tougher. Our country has endured a terrible economic slump for over 3 years now. In order to move quickly to turn things around, we need businesses to hire again. Business and community leaders across Colorado and elsewhere have told me that in order to have the confidence to do that, they need to know our national debt is not poised to send our economy off a cliff. The cochairman of President Obama's bipartisan commission on debt reduction tapped into that sentiment and called our debt a cancer that is eating away at our economic health. Beyond pure economic factors, our growing debt burdens us more broadly. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for whom we all have enormous respect, ADM Mike Mullen, warned that our national debt is ``the single biggest threat to our national security.'' By now these are familiar arguments here on the floor of the Senate. We know the challenges that confront us. The problem is Congress is not doing what every economist and every one of us in this body acknowledges we must do, and that is get our out-of-control budget under control. We all have our theories for why this is the case. I personally believe that part of the problem is the nature of Congress itself. We are all temporary single Members of a greater body. We each have our own constituents, goals, and responsibilities. It is sure tempting to come to Washington, fight like hell for our corner of the Nation, and lose sight of or willfully ignore the bigger picture. As Members of Congress, it seems as if we are hardwired to fight for results that are important to our constituents and our political ideologies. Let me give you a couple of examples. Democrats are reticent to support meaningful adjustments in entitlement spending, and many of my Republican friends turn a blind eye to the revenues needed to support retiring baby boomers and our national security needs. My father, who had the great privilege of serving for 30 years in the House of Representatives as a Congressman from southern Arizona, witnessed this same phenomenon several decades ago, and he used to recall the advice that was given to freshmen House Members. That advice was: ``If you want to get ahead in Congress, do two things--vote for every appropriations bill and against every tax bill.'' In many ways the Federal budget deficits we face are so daunting today because too many Members of Congress have taken that advice literally over the past decades, but also because it is what Americans expected of us. It is only natural that people want the best of both worlds. We cannot continue down this budgetary path and hope that the results will be any different than they have been in the past. In fact, the results get worse by the day. Based on what I hear from Coloradans, our constituents are now ready to make a little sacrifice. They are ready for us to make some tough decisions that may cause a little budget pain. Americans now get it, and that is why it is time for some serious action. A balanced budget amendment to our Constitution is serious action. It would require us to consider our larger, collective obligation to the national economy. I will admit that my support of the balanced budget amendment has not made me particularly popular with some of my Democratic colleagues. Democrats traditionally have not been big fans of the balanced budget amendment idea. These days Democrats are suspicious that balanced budget proposals are a Trojan horse. They look good on the surface, but actually they are designed to further dismantle government programs that most Americans value. But a few decades ago Democrats were leading the charge for a reasonable balanced budget amendment. Most notably, Senator Paul Simon of Illinois--a progressive and serious-minded legislator--was perhaps the greatest champion of a balanced budget, and I want to share with my colleagues some of his words. In debating the balanced budget amendment in 1993, Senator Simon said the following, which he addressed to his fellow progressives: I am here to tell you that the course we are on, unless it is changed soon, absolutely threatens all of the programs that you and I have fought for and believe in so strongly. The fiscal folly that we followed for more than a decade has brought us to a crossroads. We face a basic decision, whether through default or through our actions to choose wisely the course that will lead us away from the brink. If we do not act, interest payouts will spiral upward until they consume not only Social Security but health care, education, transportation investments--every need on our national agenda. My warning to you today is that a rising tide of red ink sinks all boats. That is a powerful warning from a very wise and respected colleague. His warning is even more serious in December of 2011 than it was in 1993. There are not any easy answers here, especially since our aging population and the post-9/11 national security needs have squeezed our Nation's budget in ways we have seldom seen in our country's history. But it is time for us to listen to hard-working Americans who are telling us loudly and clearly, make the tough decisions necessary to get our national debt under control. So I say to my colleagues here today, it is time to put aside our political differences, check ultimatums at the door, work across the aisle, and challenge ourselves to put our country first. I want to reiterate a point I made earlier, which is that a balanced budget amendment is not the sole answer to the problems we face. It is not a perfect solution, and I recognize that. For example, it will not help us deal with our current debt, much less reduce it. For that we need a comprehensive plan along the lines of the recommendations of President Obama's bipartisan commission. It has been headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Senator Al Simpson. Two years ago I helped create the Bowles-Simpson Commission, and I continue to believe its recommendations, which would lower the debt by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, are the best place to start on a path toward fiscal soundness. Let's own up to the mistakes of our past and take charge of the opportunity staring us in the face by passing the Bowles-Simpson debt reduction plan. That plan would require all of us to put some skin in the game, and it represents our best path to balance our books. I have also fought for bipartisan proposals to create a Presidential line-item veto to ban earmarks and to enforce pay-as-you-go budgeting. These should all be and could be and must be tools in our responsible budgeting toolbox. Even though we have to find the courage to get our current fiscal house in order, we also need to have stronger rules in place to ensure Congress is not tempted to fall off the wagon in the future. In my view, passing a balanced budget amendment to prevent us from ever again trading fiscal responsibility for political expediency is a critical step we must take. That long windup brings me to the balanced budget amendment proposals under debate in the U.S. Congress today. Let me start by saying that I was pleasantly surprised to see last month the U.S. House of Representatives pursue a balanced budget amendment that was more realistic than what some of my Republican colleagues here in the U.S. Senate have proposed. The House proposal required a balanced budget unless three-fifths of the House and Senate agreed there was an economic downturn, a national disaster, or another emergency that required temporary expenditures and increases thereon. It was a straightforward measure, and it was designed to garner a broad range of support. However, the House proposal fell short by nearly two dozen votes, largely because it did not win enough support from Democrats. As we know, in order for a balanced budget amendment to succeed, it must be bipartisan. So I was surprised to see that after the House balanced budget amendment failed, instead of seeking to find consensus with those who could bring along additional Democratic votes like me, my colleagues in the Senate on the other side of the aisle, led by my dear friend Senator Hatch, have taken an altogether different route. There are important differences between the two approaches the Senate will vote on this week, my amendment and Senator Hatch's amendment. So I want to spend some time differentiating between the two proposals because they represent two philosophically different ideas. We will have a vote on both of these proposals later this week. Balancing our books is a simple equation based on the principle that our Nation is healthier without an unreasonably large debt load. Members of both parties can agree on that. Yet Senator Hatch's proposal goes a number of steps further and seemingly seeks to shrink government altogether. Not only does it require an unwieldy two-thirds majority to waive it in case of national emergencies, it also locks in special interest tax breaks and could weaken Social Security, Medicare, and other important programs that are supported by a vast majority of Americans. Ironically, Senator Hatch's proposal--at least by some analyses-- could jeopardize our national defense as well. Why do I say that? I see my dear friend on the Senate floor. I look forward to engaging with him over the course of this important debate. The Republican proposal prevents government from spending more than 18 percent of gross domestic product, which is less than the historical average, less than what George W. Bush spent, less than what Ronald Reagan spent, and less than what is required to care for our Nation's seniors and protect our homeland against terrorist attacks. Quite simply, to my way of looking at this, Senator Hatch's alternative proposal goes too far and has the potential to harm our middle class and future economic growth. So what am I proposing? Well, let me tell you what I think my proposal would do, and I would note that it is cosponsored by a number of my colleagues from across the country. My amendment would allow us to avoid the mistakes of the last decade without locking ourselves into a requirement that could tie our hands in an emergency. In such a case, if we tie our hands, we could make our economy worse for the middle class and small businesses and therefore for all of us. My balanced budget amendment proposes and incorporates a big dose of Colorado common sense. It is aimed at finding common ground that both parties and a big majority of Americans can support. It starts with a strict requirement for balancing our books. My proposal would then allow deficits only when three-fifths of the House and Senate vote to address serious economic downturns or a war or other emergencies. However, it would also prevent some of the worst mistakes Congress has made in the past 10 years. For example, it would prevent deficit- busting tax breaks for Americans who earn $1 million or more per year. I think the Presiding Officer and I have a fundamental question. We wonder why we should continue to give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us during times when we are running huge deficits and aggregating debt like never before. My amendment would also create a Social Security lockbox to keep Congress from raiding the trust fund to hide the true size of our annual deficits. Right now, the Treasury Department owes close to $3 trillion to the Social Security Administration. What I want to do is to see that never again is Social Security used as a slush fund to remedy our budgeting problems. In sum, my proposal upholds the principle that we should pay for our government in a responsible manner, with waiver authority to be used only in exceptional circumstances. I think most Americans could agree to that. Coloradans certainly do. I encourage all of my colleagues to acknowledge that passing a balanced budget amendment will require some flexibility and cooperation, and my version is designed to do just that. It is meant to bridge the divide between us. The American people are demanding that we get our fiscal house in order. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. We have an opportunity to catch up to the American people. So I am here on the floor of the Senate today to ask my colleagues of both parties and both Chambers to support my proposal. As I have said, amending the Constitution may not be the solution desired by many in this Chamber. It is not something to be done without great thought. I, therefore, look forward to an honest and spirited dialog about the balanced budget amendment. I look forward to discussing the best ways to dig ourselves out from under our suffocating debt in a way that will encourage investment and job creation and help Americans and small businesses feel secure about their economic future. Our children's future depends on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I came to the floor to speak about Richard Cordray's nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but I wish to acknowledge the remarks of Senator Manchin. We have coal miners in my great State of Colorado. They are particularly located in the northwestern section of our State. They are hardworking. They are patriotic. We have some of the cleanest coal in the world. It is used all over our country and exported to many countries around the world. I thank him for his remarks and for drawing attention to their accomplishments and their contributions to America.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I come to the floor to put in a word for Richard Cordray, who has been nominated to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is otherwise known as the CFPB. Nearly 2 months ago, I urged our leaders to prioritize a vote on the nominee because without a Director of the CFPB, there is important consumer protection work being left undone. It is work that would benefit hard-working Coloradans, those citizens of New Hampshire, and families all across our Nation. I wish to begin my remarks by thanking both the majority leader and the Republican leader for moving to this important nomination. After having done that, I wish to turn and speak directly to Coloradans and any other Americans who may be listening. We get up here as Senators, and we will talk about this agency or that agency. Frankly, at times it sounds as if an alphabet soup. But this agency is not just another alphabet agency. The CFPB may be one of the most important Federal agencies we have, and it should be allowed to open its doors fully and begin the important work of protecting our consumers. The CFPB was created in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to protect American consumers from predatory and unfair financial practices. It was chartered to prevent the same kinds of abuses banks and other large financial firms engaged in as they drove our economy into the ditch just a few short years ago. When we look back at the financial collapse in 2008, many of us still cannot believe the largest banks and financial institutions in our country were able to put our economy at such risk. As drastic measures had to be taken and billions of dollars invested in these firms, it certainly didn't seem fair that banks and other financial institutions should get taxpayer help after having taken advantage of the good intentions of American consumers and, as a result, tanking our economy. The truth is we were forced to act in the Congress or even worse financial troubles awaited us--in fact, potentially a worldwide financial depression. That is why the Congress created the CFPB, to ensure that kind of abuse never happens again. When we passed the Wall Street Reform Act, Congress made clear its intent to create a watchdog with the responsibility to make the financial marketplace safe for consumers. I think the Presiding Officer would agree that is something we should all want, to make sure Americans are not being taken advantage of by big businesses and Wall Street bankers, to ensure someone is looking out for the little guy, to ensure there is slightly more of a level playing field for the Americans who play by the rules. Unfortunately, it is not. Many of our colleagues are raising a host of issues related to one central argument, that the CFPB will not be accountable to Congress and it will go hog wild in its efforts to look out for hard-working Americans. Yes, that is right. They argue the CFPB will have too much power to protect consumers. I know that seems strange to hear, especially after the banking sector abuses nearly sent our economy down an irrecoverable path and millions of Americans saw many of their investments and much of their net worth disappear overnight. But, yes, some of our colleagues actually want to weaken the consumer protections that were included in the Wall Street reform bill which, by the way, is the law of the land. In order to make sure that happens, they vow to block, to filibuster all nominees to head the CFPB, regardless of who they are. There have been blanket statements made at the front end of this effort that whoever the nominee is, that person will be blocked. It strikes me that by doing that, they think they are going to deny the CFPB a Director and that will erode the Bureau's effectiveness and make it easier for banks to operate without limitation. That is precisely why we have to overcome the filibuster that is being waged against Mr. Cordray right now. Without his leadership and a strong CFPB to look after the interests of consumers, we are going to put the financial security of hard-working American families at risk and the country's economic recovery at risk. By failing to give the CFPB a Director, a confirmed Director, we are actually reducing oversight of predatory lending and deceptive banking practices. These are practices that in no way help our economy or our economic recovery. I do not think I am stretching the facts saying this. Deceptive financial practices continue to threaten Americans every day, and we can do more to ensure these abuses are brought to an end. Let me focus on one particular area. Credit reporting agencies continue their deceptive ads on Web sites with misleading names such as www.freescore.com and www.freecreditscore.com that lure people into a costly credit monitoring service. They do not offer free credit scores at all. Instead, what they do is they take the person's credit card number and then they begin charging them a monthly fee. It is a similar hustle that many other too-good-to-be-true Web sites offer. The problem is this deceptive ad strikes at the heart of America's personal financial health. A person starts by doing the responsible thing--trying to check their credit score--but the next thing they know their credit card is being charged and they don't have that important data tied to their credit score. The point I am trying to make is without a confirmed director, the CFPB has diminished power to investigate the actions of the major credit reporting agencies and pull down these kinds of deceptive ads. That doesn't make any sense to me. It is sort of what Coloradans have been asking me, along these lines: When are you guys in DC, when are you guys in the Senate going to side with us and stop always looking out for the big banks? In these tough economic times, we need to do all we can to block such dishonest advertisements and help empower consumers to avoid these financial traps. The CFPB is the best way to accomplish these important goals, but it needs a director to be able to act. As some watching today know, and I hope Coloradans know, the Wall Street reform bill contained a bipartisan provision I authored that now requires lenders and other creditors to actually provide consumers a free credit score when their score is used to deny them credit or they are offered credit with less favorable terms. I authored this provision because credit scores are the most important and influential measure of a consumer's creditworthiness. As millions of Americans continue to work to repair their credit status in the wake of the Nation's worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, it is my belief that the CFPB must fully implement its congressionally appointed oversight of consumer credit scores and related products to stop deceptive advertisements and other setups. So I will say it again: In order to carry out this mission, the Senate must confirm a director to head the CFPB. The Consumers Union--one of the leading consumer advocates in the United States--is urging Congress to confirm Mr. Cordray so the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can tackle other critical consumer protections such as reducing the penalty fees and punitive interest rates banks can charge, requiring credit rating agencies to maintain accurate consumer credit files, and investigate and fix errors reported by consumers. I know the Presiding Officer has heard stories about consumers who are operating in good faith and then they come to find out their credit files are not accurate and they are penalized because of that situation. The CFPB could require credit agencies to maintain accurate files. Finally, the CFPB could police the mortgage market to stop scams against consumers and prevent the return of the toxic loans and the dangerous lending practices that led to the foreclosure crisis and, ultimately, the recession. I don't think I am overstating the situation when I say there are still a slew of unsafe financial products and services in the marketplace. When consumers are lured into those traps, they then can get into a high-interest debt situation, and then that affects all of us. It affects our economic health more broadly. So the CFPB would be given the capacity to tackle these abusive and deceptive practices and then be on the lookout for the next breed of financial scam. For these reasons, it is my hope the Senate will take action quickly to confirm Mr. Cordray's nomination and then put in place an effective consumer financial watchdog to ensure Americans get the tools they need to take control of their own financial destinies. It will help our economy; it will help Americans; it will help small businesses. This is the right approach. Let's confirm this gentleman to head the CFPB. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein amendment No. 1125, which would modify the requirement that the Armed Forces detain suspected terrorists by adding the word ``abroad'' to ensure we are not disrupting domestic counterterrorism efforts. I wish to correct the Record, because some of the opponents of this amendment have stated that by inserting the word ``abroad'' we would be ``preventing the military from detaining al Qaeda terrorists on U.S. soil.'' This is simply not true. I am not comfortable with the detention provisions in this bill because I think they will undermine our fight against terrorism. While section 1031 of this legislation will authorize the military to detain terrorists, section 1032 requires that the military detain certain terrorists even if the FBI or local law enforcement is in the middle of a larger investigation that would yield the capture of even more dangerous terrorists. This may disrupt the investigation, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorist suspects by forcing the military to interrupt FBI, CIA, or other counterterrorism agency operations--against each of these organizations' recommendations, including the military's. This would be an unworkable bureaucratic process that would take away the ability to make critical and split-second decisions about how best to save Americans lives. That is why the director of the FBI and the director of National Intelligence have strongly opposed the underlying provisions. The Feinstein amendment would simply provide the needed flexibility for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to work to fight and capture terrorists without having to stop and hand over suspects to the military. However, even with the Feinstein modification, with the authorization in section 1031 the military could still detain a suspected terrorist but would not have to step in and interrupt other domestic counterterrorism operations. In other words, the Feinstein amendment would do nothing to prevent the military from acting, it would simply take away the mandate that they interrupt other investigations. I still do not believe we should enshrine in law authorization for the military to act on U.S. soil, but to argue that adding ``abroad'' to section 1032 would take away from the authority given in this bill is just wrong. Clarifying that the military is only required to detain suspected terrorists abroad is the best approach to address the FBI's concerns about this legislation, and it is the best approach for our national security. What we are doing is working. We should not take away the flexibility that is necessary to keep us safe. Passing this amendment would be welcome news to Secretary of Defense Panetta, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, FBI Director Mueller, and CIA Director Petraeus--who oppose the intrusive restrictions on their counterterrorism operations that the underlying bill would create. The other side has argued that this is fundamentally about whether we are fighting a war or a crime. I think that is a false choice and it does a disservice to our integrated intelligence community that is fighting terrorism successfully using every tool it possibly can. We can debate this in theoretical, black-and-white terms about whether this is a war or a crime. Or we can get back to the business of taking on these terrorists in every way we know how, including by using our very effective criminal justice system. At the end of the day, it is about protecting Americans, protecting this country. Why on Earth would we want to tie our hands behind our back? Our national security leadership has said the detention provisions in this bill could make us less safe. We should listen to their concerns and pass this amendment to preserve the U.S. Government's current detention and prosecution flexibility that has allowed both the Bush and Obama Administrations to effectively combat those who seek to do us harm. Again, I encourage my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment, to keep faith with the Directors of the FBI, the DNI, the Secretary of Defense, and our Attorney General, who say these provisions could create unwanted complications in our fight against terrorism. Let's adopt the Feinstein amendment. It will help us win the war against terror. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wanted to rise at this time in support of the Feinstein amendment No. 1125, which would modify the requirement that the Armed Forces detain suspected terrorists by adding the word ``abroad'' to ensure that we aren't disrupting domestic counterterrorism efforts. And I would like to correct the record because some of the opponents of the amendment have stated that by inserting the word ``abroad,'' we would be preventing the military from detaining al-Qaida terrorists on U.S. soil, and that is simply not true. The President knows and my colleagues know that I am not comfortable with the detention provisions in this bill because I think they will undermine our fight against terrorism. But this would be an important change, a narrowly focused change in the provisions that have already been put on the floor. Mr. President, is the vote imminent?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendments Nos. 1125 and 1126, which have been offered by the Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Senator Feinstein. While the Senate did not adopt my amendment that would have instructed the Senate to consider these detainee matters separately from the Defense authorization bill, I believe Senator Feinstein's amendments make important changes and improvements to the bill-- improvements that may yet avoid a problem with a Presidential veto. I thank the Presiding Officer for his comments yesterday on the detainee provisions that are in this proposed legislation. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments. I want to be clear. I intend to support them. I have serious concerns going forward about the unintended consequences of enacting the detainee provisions in subtitle D of the Defense Authorization Act. These amendments help to alleviate some of my concerns. I wish to, in the context of the debate we are having, note that in addition to the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta; the Director of National Intelligence, General Clapper; and FBI Director Mueller--who all oppose the detainee provisions--CIA Director Petraeus's senior staff has indicated they, too, oppose the detention provisions. The CIA believes it is important to preserve the current U.S. Government's prosecution flexibility that has allowed both the Bush and the Obama administrations to effectively combat those who seek to do us harm. After the vote yesterday, I had a chance to talk with a number of Members on the other side of the aisle and, frankly, on the other side of the debate, because this had bipartisan support on both sides of the debate. But the folks I talked to told me they did not support my amendment, but they were still interested in making some more targeted changes to the detention provisions. I hope those colleagues will take a close look at what Senator Feinstein is offering here today. Let me speak to specifically what she would help resolve with her amendments. There are two important shortcomings that still exist in the current bill. One of her amendments would preserve the flexibility of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies to collaborate, without undue limitation, in any investigation, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. The other amendment would make it clear that American citizens cannot be held indefinitely in military detention without a trial. Again, I know the Presiding Officer spoke powerfully to that very legitimate and important concern yesterday. The current language in the bill--which is why I took to the floor yesterday and I know on other occasions to make this point--I believe will disrupt the investigation, interrogation, and prosecution of terror suspects by forcing the military to interrupt FBI, CIA, or other counterterrorism agency operations--against each of these organizations' recommendations, including the military's. In sum, we are going to create an unworkable bureaucratic process that would take away the intelligence community's and the counterterrorism community's capabilities to make critical and, in some cases, split-second decisions about how best to save Americans' lives. Further--I cannot emphasize this enough--although my friends on the other side of this debate argue otherwise, the detainee provisions do allow for the indefinite military detention of American citizens who are accused of planning or participating in terror attacks. Simply accused--that cuts directly against values we hold dear: innocent until proven guilty, presumption of innocence. That is why this is such an important debate. Let me be clear. There are American citizens who have collaborated with our enemies. There are American citizens who have participated in attacks against our soldiers and civilians. Those Americans are traitors. They should be dealt with, and we already have a system for ensuring they are brought to justice and made to pay a very heavy price for their crimes. That system is working. However, even in the darkest hours, we must ensure that our Constitution prevails. We do ourselves a grave disservice by allowing for any citizen to be locked up indefinitely without trial--no matter how serious the charges may be against them. Doing so may be politically expedient, but we risk losing our principles of justice and liberty that have kept our Republic strong, and it does nothing to make us safer. Our national security leadership has even said if we implement these provisions, it could make us less safe. If I might reflect a bit on what we have learned. At least in three different wars--three wars we all learn about in our history classes: the Civil War, World War I, and World War II--as we look back at those three wars, we made the decision and we drew the conclusion as Americans that we overreached, that we constricted civil liberties. President Lincoln limited habeas corpus in the Civil War. I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with the Palmer Raids during World War I and the aftermath of World War I. Of course, we know all too well the history of the interment of Japanese Americans. I am not suggesting these provisions, as they are now included in this bill, would result in historians drawing those similar kinds of conclusions 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. But why not be safe? Why not take the time to ensure that we keep faith with those core values that make America what it is? That is all I am asking. I think that is all Senator Feinstein is asking for us to do. That is what the 38 Senators who joined us yesterday to vote for my commonsense approach were saying as well. In sum, Senator Feinstein has offered some small changes. It would help alleviate some of the justifiable concerns with these provisions. As I have said, I continue to worry that there will be unintended consequences to enacting the detainee provisions altogether. However, we can make some of these small improvements to avoid harming our counterterrorism activities and preventing the loss of rights and freedoms granted to all Americans by our Constitution. In closing, I urge all of our colleagues to support Senator Feinstein's amendments.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Would the Senator respond to a question?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. As the Senator from Arizona knows, I have the utmost respect for the time the Senator has spent in this very important area. I think what I have been trying to say is that in regard to this particular set of detainee provisions, I want to ensure that all of the questions the FBI Director, General Clapper, Secretary Panetta, and others have raised about how these provisions would actually be applied--I have no question that the intent is spot on--I just am aware that there have been some concerns raised about how these new provisions would actually be applied. I think Senator Feinstein's amendments--and I do not know where the Senator from Arizona stands at this point--may provide some greater clarification. I know there have been some conversations on the floor as to how we will deal with these amendments. So I appreciate the Senator's comments.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield the floor as well and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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.