Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the joint resolution of disapproval that will reject the open Internet or the net neutrality rule that was put forward this year by the Federal Communications Commission. I am a strong supporter of the principle of network neutrality that the open Internet rule seeks to protect, and I believe we should oppose this effort to reverse the FCC order. The rule this resolution seeks to eliminate--the open Internet rule--was adopted by the FCC in December of 2010, and it will go into effect on November 20 of this year. Simply put, this rule creates commonsense obligations and requirements for broadband Internet service providers, such as telephone and cable networks, in order to keep the Internet free and open. I know the open Internet rule will provide the certainty needed to foster job-creating investments and innovations while protecting broadband Internet consumers. Why is this important? Well, net neutrality is a way of saying the Internet ought to be free and open. It is a fundamental concept that is underpinned with some marvelous new technology that we call the Internet. This open Internet rule will make sure we hew to the concept that the Internet ought to be free and open. We watched and are still watching as democratic uprisings topple totalitarian regimes all over the Middle East. Social networks such as Twitter and technologies such as text messaging are largely thought to facilitate the so-called Arab spring. None of that would have been possible without an open and free Internet. I have to ask, what kind of message will we be sending to the remaining dictators--but probably even more important, those people who quest and thirst for freedom--if the citizens of the United States, through their Senate, vote to limit Americans free access to the Internet? We have to set an example for the rest of the world. The Internet must remain free and open. The open Internet rule will achieve this by ensuring that four key Internet policies are maintained. Let me list them for my colleagues. No. 1, it will prevent broadband Internet providers from blocking lawful Internet content or services. No. 2, it will require transparency about broadband network management policies. No. 3, there will be a level playing field for consumers on the Internet. No. 4--this is important in these tough economic times we face--it will provide predictability for both broadband providers and Internet innovators. As I have said, what is so important about this debate is that in these economic times, net neutrality is also about jobs and economic development. As I travel in my State of Colorado--and I know the Presiding Officer travels his State of New Mexico--the refrain I hear from businesses and business leaders is that they need predictability in order to invest in their companies and create good-paying American jobs. Thousands of entrepreneurs who have built small Internet businesses can only be successful if they can reach their customers. However, if we don't preserve this net neutrality rule and content blocking is prevented, there will not be any guarantees that the next great online innovation or pioneering application will even be able to access the Internet. For example, the next Google or Amazon or Twitter will only be able to grow and be successful if they can reach their customers without worrying about interference from broadband providers that might want to preference another more established competitor. So what we are talking about is the FCC is promulgating a commonsense rule that will provide predictability for both the broadband providers and the Internet innovators. The certainty of knowing the rules broadband providers have to follow will give the confidence needed for investors to help the next Groupon breakthrough or many of the other numerous applications we are all familiar with online. Innovation and job creation is what will finally lift our economy out of the slump from which we have been desperately trying to recover. We need net neutrality to ensure that innovation thrives and that the next great product, service, or way of doing business is not inhibited by market manipulations or restrictive online policies. I came to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. It only serves to distract us from the hard work we have to do to foster job growth and get our economy back on track. Let's agree to cement fair and reasonable rules of the road, as the FCC rule seeks to achieve, in order to provide certainty in a climate of innovation for the next generation of job creators. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an important holiday we will recognize later this week. Veterans Day is a time we have set aside to pause and remember the veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country. We honor them for their courage and dedication in helping secure our freedom. It is without saying that we are all indebted to these men and women and we celebrate them and their selfless service on behalf of every American. Last month the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month came to a close, but as Veterans Day nears, I believe that it is timely and fitting to call attention to the contributions of the American Latinos who have served in every major war of the United States and continue to be an invaluable part of America's military. Approximately 1.3 million of America's current 22.7 million veterans are of Hispanic origin. In Colorado, each of these veterans deserves our recognition and continued support. Due to the sacrifice of so many from our state, such as Medal of Honor recipient Joe P. Martinez, who was laid to rest in 1943 in Ault, CO, our country has been made stronger. Other veterans, such as Albert Gonzales, a Colorado Springs resident who currently serves as the national commander of the American G.I. Forum and was recently appointed by President Obama as a member of the National Selective Service Appeal Board, demonstrate the ongoing commitments of Colorado's veterans. Albert represents another example of the thousands of exemplary Coloradan Hispanic veterans. In Colorado, paying tribute to the State's Hispanic veterans is a strong part of our effort to support all veterans. In the small southeastern Colorado agricultural town of Avondale, which has come to call itself the ``Pueblito of Heroes,'' it has become an annual tradition to recognize the many veterans who have served from this small community. Just this year, they honored long-time resident Eutimio Sandoval who received a Bronze Star, Korean Service Medal, Japan Service Medal and a 50th anniversary medal for his service. Many humble men and women who have served in our military are celebrated in communities across Colorado, and I wish to join them to express my appreciation and highlight the contributions of servicemembers of all backgrounds that make up the larger family of veterans who have given so much. This November 11, I encourage everyone to take the time to thank a veteran and servicemember for his or her involvement in protecting America and the principles for which we stand.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I speak in support of a bill I am introducing called the Healthy Kids Outdoor Act of 2011. This bill will help the development of locally-based plans that will encourage kids to enjoy one of our nation's most cherished past-times: recreating outdoors. I am introducing the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act of 2011 with the support of Senators Gillibrand, Merkley and Bennet. My friend and colleague Representative Kind of Wisconsin is introducing companion legislation today in the U.S. House of Representatives. I want to thank Rep. Kind for his leadership on these issues over the years. I especially want to thank him for the opportunity to steal his good idea and appropriate it for myself in the Senate. Specifically, the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to provide grants, one per State, to eligible organizations for the development of State-level outdoor recreation plans. Working in cooperation with local partners, the eligible entities will develop plans designed to ensure that States have appropriate programs and infrastructure in place to help Americans effectively connect with the outdoors. These plans supplement current outdoor recreation planning by emphasizing how to use outdoor recreation resources and infrastructure, such as public parks, transportation and health systems, to facilitate outdoor activities. The plans supported by Federal funding under this act must be updated every five years based on evaluations of each state strategy and lessons learned from their implementation. Additionally, in order to ensure that state and local partners are contributing to this effort, funding recipients must provide a 25-percent non-federal cost share. Finally, this bill requires the administration to develop a national strategy to get Americans active outdoors and evaluate the health impacts of the State strategies authorized under the legislation. The national strategy, to be developed with significant public participation, should align with the State strategies and identify barriers to and opportunities for outdoor activities. Why is this important you might ask, especially at a time when we are looking at ways to cut spending and other programs? We live in an increasingly sedentary world that makes it more difficult for our Nation to reach the heights that it can achieve. Today's society provides more distractions from active lifestyles and the natural world around us than ever before. This is particularly true among children, who spend on average just 4-7 minutes a day in unstructured outdoor play while spending an average of 7.5 hours a day in front of electronic media. Partially as a result of this, obesity has become a major public health problem. Today, one in three children is either overweight or obese, whereas only about 4 percent of children in 1960 were. Working together, we must find proactive ways to reverse this harmful trend. Being overweight or obese can lead to many chronic health conditions, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. All of these conditions are costly for health care purchasers and patients, reduce quality of life, and are among the top 6 leading causes of death each year. The good news is that, in the vast majority of cases, obesity is completely preventable. Particularly for children, if we teach them good eating and fitness habits early in life, they will have a much better shot at maintaining a healthy weight later in life. In addition, research demonstrates the myriad mental health benefits of active lifestyles that make use of green spaces outside the home. Furthermore, spending time in the outdoors, connecting with our public lands and waters and green spaces, furthers America's conservation legacy. For example, research demonstrates that hunters who become engaged in the sport as children are among the most active and interested sportsmen as adults. Spending time in the outdoors also supports the outdoor recreation industry. We have a large and growing industry in this country of supply stores, manufacturers, guides, hotels, and other important businesses that are the backbone of many rural communities. In fact, outdoor recreation activities add over $730 billion to the national economy every year. In this time of economic uncertainty, outdoor recreation is one of the bright spots in our economy. Additionally, at a time when disparities in health status and health insurance rates for minority populations are at an all-time high, particularly in my State of Colorado, the common sense goals of the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act can help level the playing field for good health across America. This legislation will make it easier for all Americans, regardless of cultural differences, geography or socio- economic status, especially children and families, to connect with healthy, active, outdoor lifestyles and the natural world. By doing so, we can combat the obesity epidemic, improve public health overall and bolster America's proud legacy of conservation and outdoor recreation economy. Finally, I want to note that this bill could play a small role in making sure our children, as they reach adulthood, are qualified to serve in our U.S. military, if they so choose. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen firsthand the studies that have shown that greater and greater numbers of young adults are ineligible to serve in the Armed Forces due to disqualifying health factors such as being overweight. Nearly one in four applicants is rejected for being overweight, which is the most common reason for medical disqualification. It's not a stretch to say that a more fit population can result in a more secure nation. This legislation is a small but important step we can take to promote healthy, active lifestyles supporting the use and enjoyment of our natural world. I want to thank the Outdoor Alliance for Kids, whose members include many of the country's leading conservation groups and outdoor recreation companies, for its support and help developing this bill. I also want to thank the Campaign to End Obesity for their endorsement of it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I speak in support of a bill I am introducing called the Healthy Kids Outdoor Act of 2011. This bill will help the development of locally-based plans that will encourage kids to enjoy one of our nation's most cherished past-times: recreating outdoors. I am introducing the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act of 2011 with the support of Senators Gillibrand, Merkley and Bennet. My friend and colleague Representative Kind of Wisconsin is introducing companion legislation today in the U.S. House of Representatives. I want to thank Rep. Kind for his leadership on these issues over the years. I especially want to thank him for the opportunity to steal his good idea and appropriate it for myself in the Senate. Specifically, the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to provide grants, one per State, to eligible organizations for the development of State-level outdoor recreation plans. Working in cooperation with local partners, the eligible entities will develop plans designed to ensure that States have appropriate programs and infrastructure in place to help Americans effectively connect with the outdoors. These plans supplement current outdoor recreation planning by emphasizing how to use outdoor recreation resources and infrastructure, such as public parks, transportation and health systems, to facilitate outdoor activities. The plans supported by Federal funding under this act must be updated every five years based on evaluations of each state strategy and lessons learned from their implementation. Additionally, in order to ensure that state and local partners are contributing to this effort, funding recipients must provide a 25-percent non-federal cost share. Finally, this bill requires the administration to develop a national strategy to get Americans active outdoors and evaluate the health impacts of the State strategies authorized under the legislation. The national strategy, to be developed with significant public participation, should align with the State strategies and identify barriers to and opportunities for outdoor activities. Why is this important you might ask, especially at a time when we are looking at ways to cut spending and other programs? We live in an increasingly sedentary world that makes it more difficult for our Nation to reach the heights that it can achieve. Today's society provides more distractions from active lifestyles and the natural world around us than ever before. This is particularly true among children, who spend on average just 4-7 minutes a day in unstructured outdoor play while spending an average of 7.5 hours a day in front of electronic media. Partially as a result of this, obesity has become a major public health problem. Today, one in three children is either overweight or obese, whereas only about 4 percent of children in 1960 were. Working together, we must find proactive ways to reverse this harmful trend. Being overweight or obese can lead to many chronic health conditions, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. All of these conditions are costly for health care purchasers and patients, reduce quality of life, and are among the top 6 leading causes of death each year. The good news is that, in the vast majority of cases, obesity is completely preventable. Particularly for children, if we teach them good eating and fitness habits early in life, they will have a much better shot at maintaining a healthy weight later in life. In addition, research demonstrates the myriad mental health benefits of active lifestyles that make use of green spaces outside the home. Furthermore, spending time in the outdoors, connecting with our public lands and waters and green spaces, furthers America's conservation legacy. For example, research demonstrates that hunters who become engaged in the sport as children are among the most active and interested sportsmen as adults. Spending time in the outdoors also supports the outdoor recreation industry. We have a large and growing industry in this country of supply stores, manufacturers, guides, hotels, and other important businesses that are the backbone of many rural communities. In fact, outdoor recreation activities add over $730 billion to the national economy every year. In this time of economic uncertainty, outdoor recreation is one of the bright spots in our economy. Additionally, at a time when disparities in health status and health insurance rates for minority populations are at an all-time high, particularly in my State of Colorado, the common sense goals of the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act can help level the playing field for good health across America. This legislation will make it easier for all Americans, regardless of cultural differences, geography or socio- economic status, especially children and families, to connect with healthy, active, outdoor lifestyles and the natural world. By doing so, we can combat the obesity epidemic, improve public health overall and bolster America's proud legacy of conservation and outdoor recreation economy. Finally, I want to note that this bill could play a small role in making sure our children, as they reach adulthood, are qualified to serve in our U.S. military, if they so choose. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen firsthand the studies that have shown that greater and greater numbers of young adults are ineligible to serve in the Armed Forces due to disqualifying health factors such as being overweight. Nearly one in four applicants is rejected for being overweight, which is the most common reason for medical disqualification. It's not a stretch to say that a more fit population can result in a more secure nation. This legislation is a small but important step we can take to promote healthy, active lifestyles supporting the use and enjoyment of our natural world. I want to thank the Outdoor Alliance for Kids, whose members include many of the country's leading conservation groups and outdoor recreation companies, for its support and help developing this bill. I also want to thank the Campaign to End Obesity for their endorsement of it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, today I honor the Colorado Nonprofit Association as it celebrates 25 years of supporting Colorado's nonprofit organizations and strengthening our communities. Colorado has a strong and diverse nonprofit sector with almost 19,000 public charities. These nonprofits perform many services that strengthen Colorado's communities and enrich the lives of our residents. It is also important to note that even in our current troubled economy, these organizations are an engine of growth, generating almost $17 billion in revenue in 2009 and sustaining thousands of jobs throughout the State. Colorado Nonprofit Association is a statewide organization with almost 1,400 nonprofit members whose mission is to lead, assist, and strengthen nonprofits. Founded in 1986 as the Colorado Association of Nonprofit Organizations, its original charge was to create and support programs designed to increase the effectiveness of nonprofits around the State. The Association has since expanded its scope as the nonprofit sector has grown. The association has developed key resources for nonprofit organizations and the public. ``The Principles and Practices for Nonprofit Excellence in Colorado,'' first published in 2007, contains State and Federal legal requirements, management best practices, and transparency and accountability standards. Supported by Colorado's secretary of state and attorney general, the association has distributed more than 30,000 copies of this resource and conducted numerous training sessions around the State. The association's Colorado Generosity Project seeks to increase charitable giving in Colorado by increasing awareness of the nonprofit sector. It has also published several research reports about nonprofit economic activity and the beliefs and behaviors of Colorado's donors. Each of these initiatives has contributed to a greater culture of giving in the State while strengthening local economies and improving the well-being of every Coloradan. The association further encourages civic engagement by nonprofit organizations. With wide community networks, nonprofits are well situated to solve community and social problems and to engage policymakers in this effort. The Colorado Nonprofit Association provides resources and information to nonprofits to support their advocacy and develop productive working relationships with elected officials. I appreciate the association's continued partnerships, which make our State a better place to live. In the Nation's current economic climate, the demand for services and programs offered by nonprofit organizations is greater than ever. The Colorado Nonprofit Association provides the right leadership to assist our nonprofits in these challenging times. I recognize this organization for its contributions over the years and look forward to its continued success.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to discuss an issue I have addressed many times in this Chamber over the course of the past few years, and that is the urgent need for this Congress to come together to pass policies that will spur job creation in our country. I know the Presiding Officer, my colleague from Colorado, has done so in powerful ways himself. I want to talk specifically about the Rebuild America Jobs Act, legislation that is pending as I stand here and as you sit here for Senate debate. We both know that the Rebuild America Jobs Act is one component of President Obama's comprehensive job creation package which he and the American people have been urging us in this Congress to pass. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, have uniformly filibustered the President's comprehensive job creation package, so we are now attempting to debate the package in smaller legislative pieces. This week we are attempting to begin debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling bridges, our roads, and our airports. It is an important bill. It is worthy of this Chamber's debate consideration. It should not be subject to another filibuster that leaves the American people wondering why the heck we cannot charter a path forward that would help create jobs and build our economy. Before I specifically address what is in the Rebuild America Jobs Act, I thought it would be informative to briefly talk about how our economy got in the rough place it is in today. We are 3 years removed from a near global economic meltdown. If you think about it, in the final year of the Bush administration we lost nearly 4.5 million jobs. That is very significant. Our economy was bleeding over 800,000 jobs a month when President Obama was sworn in. Credit markets were frozen, job losses mounted, and there was real concern that we as a nation risked slipping into another Great Depression. The Presiding Officer remembers all too well, as we all do, the concerns and the dynamics that were present at that point. Fortunately, President Obama took a leadership role and the Congress worked with him to take steps to avert a catastrophe. But we are left with an enormous hole we are trying to climb out of. Beginning in 2009, we slowed the economic free fall that we passed and we put an end to the great recession--at least on paper. The Presiding Officer knows that. But, as typical of any recession, let alone the great recession, job growth has trailed economic growth. Under the President's leadership, in the last year and a half, the economy has added nearly 2 million jobs. We are nearly halfway restoring the jobs lost under the Bush recession. Yet with unemployment standing at 9.1 percent nationwide, we still have a long way to go. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, in order to speed up economic recovery and bring down this stubborn unemployment rate, the President presented to us a few months ago an ambitious job creation package called the American Jobs Act. The bill, which consisted of bipartisan proposals, as we well know, proposals that both parties had supported time and time again, ran into a wall of uncooperative partisanship in this Chamber and was grounded by a Republican filibuster. Mr. President, you and I both adhere to the concept of bipartisanship, working with the other party, but this kind of obstructionism has become way too common in the modern Senate and it truly is getting in the way of our capacity, our desire to create jobs. I say that in a plain and simple way. It has put in jeopardy our future, frankly. We have to win a global economic race. We have traded the burden of governing--I should say also the responsibility of governing and legislating--for seemingly a set of ideological positions and gamesmanship, and you know and I know Coloradoans are flat out tired of it. They want their elected leaders to lead, to work across the aisle and produce some results that will help working Americans, will help small businesses. I could not agree more with our citizens at home. I have to say that I think impartial observers would say with regularity, tea party interests in the Congress have taken our economy, have walked our economy, driven our economy to the edge of a cliff with the repeated threats of a government shutdown. If I could use the words of my colleague from Colorado: Can you imagine a city government leader allowing Denver, for example, to forfeit and default on its financial obligations? It would not happen. It feels as though we are creating in this Congress crises out of thin air, to rattle our economic markets. You do not have to look back to August, to those dark days when the debate over the debt ceiling and then threat of default was an economic crisis completely of this element's own making. Then what followed? What was predicted to follow: Our credit was downgraded and it had economic effects. I have been meeting with businesspeople this week who can give you example after example. I was a businessman in the private sector. My colleague from Colorado was. We know the Federal Government can only do so much to grow jobs and positively affect the economy. But when you have self-inflicted wounds, such as those that were produced in August, you are going to stifle recovery and you are going to create real business uncertainty in the private sector. If we were serious about economic recovery, we would stop taking the Federal budget to the brink of disaster at every opportunity. I know there are people in this town who want to score points, but hard- working Americans, hard-working Coloradoans, and our businesses ultimately pay the price for this kind of increased uncertainty. If we were serious about providing businesses, particularly small businesses, with the capital they need, we would look for opportunities to do so. One of the ways I believe the Senate could help would be to consider and pass a bipartisan piece of legislation that I have introduced now in a series of Congresses that will double the amount of loans credit unions can offer to small businesses. This would literally help tens of thousands of Americans. It would allow businesspeople to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans and there would be no cost to the American taxpayer. This is a form of lifting a regulation. Credit unions are overly regulated and this simple change in the policy that applies to their access to the small business sector would make a difference. Instead--and this pains me to say--what I hear from the other side of the aisle, what my Republican colleagues offer are proposals that rely almost entirely on attacking the administration or suggesting that we implement the failed policies that got us into this situation in the past. This is one area where the commonsense rules that protect our consumers and preserve our clean air and our clean water are designated as the problem. There is, frankly, scant evidence to support their regulatory boogeymen. They offer no hard evidence of these claims. I am convinced the constant drumbeat about regulations is more harmful to our country's job creation potential than the alleged effect of the regulations themselves. In fact, a recent Bloomberg study noted that this administration has issued 5 percent fewer regulations than the Bush administration at the same juncture. Economic data shows that these regulations have a minor effect, if at all, on the economy. I have in hand studies that show the right kinds of regulations, particularly when it comes to protecting the public's health, that actually can create jobs. The Assistant Secretary of Economic Policy at the Department of the Treasury recently wrote: ``None of these data support the claim that regulatory uncertainty is holding back hiring.'' On the contrary, she found that a lack of demand in the market and global financial and economic conditions are the primary culprits for our slow recovery. This jives with what we hear generally from business leaders who, by large margins, point to a lack of demand and uncertainty in the marketplace as the primary barriers to their businesses, not Federal regulation. What feeds this uncertainty and lack of demand is the constant political threats to send our economy off a cliff and the constant scare campaign that tells Americans to fear the Obama administration. I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the regulated sectors of our economy. President Obama said it well. He said: ``We should have no more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the American people require,'' and we should make compliance with the ones we do have as easy as possible. I don't want to overstate this, but that is why I have taken steps to eliminate unnecessary Federal redtape, such as easing the cap on how much credit unions can loan to small businesses. But to constantly spread fear about our Government's work to provide oversight and protect clean air and clean water is a further uncertainty and worsen the lack of demand we see in the economy. To break through this nonsense--and I don't use this word lightly-- this ``nonsense'' about the effect regulations are having, President Obama has offered a real path forward based on sound economics and bipartisan ideas. The Rebuild America Jobs Act was introduced yesterday. As I said, it is a part of the President's overall comprehensive approach. I hope we can move to debate this important infrastructure bill. We are going to have a vote tomorrow morning, I believe, that would allow the Senate to move to actually debating the bill, and it would significantly and immediately boost job creation across the country. We would be able to ensure that we keep our roads and our bridges and other infrastructure safe, while investing in new projects that will stimulate businesses to invest and begin to create new, good-paying, American-based jobs, the type of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. The American people, without question, overwhelmingly support the ideas in this projobs bill. It is all about investing in the future of hard- working Americans and making sure they have the tools to achieve the American dream. In Colorado alone, the investments for highway and transit projects in the bill are estimated to support the creation of at least 6,400 local jobs. We would accept those jobs in a minute. We know those people. We know the construction sector is one of the ones languishing in our State. These are trained, committed Coloradans who are dying to improve our State, to improve our infrastructure, to improve our economy. Why is that important beyond our State or beyond our country? We cannot compete if we do not have the infrastructure that allows commercial activity to thrive. That has been one of our competitive advantages for decades. Our competitors are not sitting back and waiting for us. They are investing in their infrastructure now. We don't have to go any further than China, India, Africa, South America. Those countries and continents are investing in their infrastructure. What was heartening is that recently we have seen a great coalition, one that maybe we could mirror in the Congress, to support the President's proposal. That is the AFL-CIO, the leading labor organization in the United States that speaks for all the various unions across our country, allied with business interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These are diverse interests. They are often at loggerheads. They have come together to urge us to pass such a measure that would build America. The bill will not solve all our infrastructure challenges. It will not respond to every infrastructure opportunity we have. For example, we ought to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. That is another less-than-valiant effort we made this year. As the Presiding Officer knows, we left in August with the FAA not funded and that cost us some economic growth. It put people out of work. Even for a week or two, that was too much time to be out of work. We ought to fully reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and in the process upgrade our national system of air travel. I served in the House. I worked on the NextGen concept, which would upgrade the way in which we direct airplanes to travel across our country using satellite technology. Now we use radar technology. That is a 20th century technology. We need a 21st century technology. So let's pass a full authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. We ought to pass a robust highway bill. For too long we have not had the full funding and full direction on a robust highway bill. I wish to applaud the bipartisan work that has gone into that. Senators Boxer, Inhofe, and Vitter have taken the first steps on a bipartisan proposal to do just that. I note that many of my Republican colleagues object to the Rebuild America Jobs Act on the grounds that we would pay for it with additional revenue from those who make annually more than $1 million. I wish to point out that the American people disagree with them. Polls show close to 70 percent of Americans support offsetting the costs of the bill--because we are going to pay for this. We heard that message loudly and clearly; that those who make over $1 million a year could help shoulder more of the burden. I know I talked to people who have done quite well at home in Colorado who are willing to make that kind of investment if they see the return on the investment. The American people are ahead of us on this. They know it is a matter of simple fairness. If I were in an ideal world--therefore, I am running the show--I would make some changes to the bill to address our broader infrastructure challenges. I would fold in the FAA; I would fold in the highway bill I mentioned. But let's take the first modest step. Let's open the floor of the Senate to debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act just like the American Jobs Act more generally. We could discuss how to pay for it and what are the best mechanisms. Perhaps there is another way to pay for it, but let's begin the process. I wish to close by focusing on our home State of Colorado. I return home, as the Chair does, almost every weekend and take the time to hear out my fellow citizens and those who hired me to represent them in the Senate. They will briefly complain about our inability to get things done, as we know, even the simplest things it seems like this year. I know my colleagues have similar experiences. But they quickly move to what they are doing at home and how they are making their lives better. I get energized by their commitment to working in their own communities. The other thing I don't hear much at home is a litmus test as to what political party we are a member of or what their concerns are about who is up for reelection next year. They come together all across our State, in Alamosa and Durango and Grand Junction, Sterling, and the list goes on and on of communities that come together. That isn't to say there isn't disagreement or that the solution comes easy, but they don't deal in the kind of partisan bickering that has become so common here. I know the Presiding Officer feels that sense of possibility at home. So let's match that sense of possibility. Let's match their energy. We can take some heart from the fact that our economy is beginning to show some signs of improvement. The Department of Commerce report showed a 2.5-percent growth in Gross Domestic Product. That is welcomed news and signals that we are slowly making progress. I want to underline unemployment remains stubbornly, maddeningly high at 9.1 percent. We must do better. I hope we can start by a minimum voting tomorrow to at least debate the Rebuild America Jobs Act. Let's end the filibusters, particularly when it comes to starting a debate. Literally, we are not even going to debate this bill. If we were to open the debate tomorrow, in a few days' time, we would have to have an additional cloture vote to end debate on the vote itself. If the minority and my Republican colleagues don't want to move to end debate, they certainly have that option at that time. Let's keep faith with the description of the Senate, which was one of my motivations for wanting to represent Coloradans here, which is the most deliberative legislative body in the world. If we are the Chamber that many look to for debate, for time spent to understand the best policies for the country, let's keep faith with that. Let's keep faith with our obligations as Senators. So the time for filibusters is over. Let's go to work on behalf of the American people. I remain optimistic. I think we can bring forth creativity and a sense of cooperation. That is what we see at home. That is what happens in Colorado. That is what happens in all the States that are represented here. That is the American way. Let's bring the American way to the Senate and put Americans back to work. I thank the Chair for his patience, his interest, his partnership, his service to the State of Colorado and the United States itself. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the recent trade votes that the U.S. Senate had over the last several weeks. I believe that bilateral trade agreements should be based on the premise that by growing economic ties with foreign trading partners our nation levels the playing field on which our companies and workers compete. Trade agreements should also be a means to growing a relationship with established allies that share our commitment to democratic values in an effort to work toward achieving common goals. Over the past several weeks, the U.S. Congress has weighed in on several pieces of legislation that--on balance--keep faith with these goals. Before I speak to each of the free trade agreements, I would like to reflect on the currency exchange rate oversight reform bill that the U.S. Senate considered just before the pending free trade agreements. It is important to note that playing by the rules is an important element of fair and free trade, and it is a theme I will address several times today in my remarks. The concerns of many Coloradans who both supported and opposed this currency legislation were fundamentally based on fairness. Both sides understand that intentionally undervalued foreign currencies hurt the competitiveness of American exports. I supported currency reform legislation because any country that is intentionally undercutting American companies and workers through the manipulation of its currency, especially if it had agreed to play by specific rules, must be held accountable. That is common sense--and a matter of fairness. This legislation will allow the United States to clearly identify fundamentally misaligned currencies and initiate purposeful efforts to work bilaterally and multilaterally to seek corrective action. We must work in the interest of American manufacturers--and American workers--that rely on a level playing field to succeed, while also engaging our trade partners to work collaboratively to resolve these important concerns. I believe that this currency-related legislation, which passed the U.S. Senate in a bipartisan manner, will send the appropriate signal that we expect our trade partners to live up to our shared commitment to compete fairly in the global marketplace. More recently, the U.S. Congress considered free trade agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia. We enjoy good diplomatic relationships with each of these countries and the United States has a particular interest in maintaining strong diplomatic and economic ties to these countries given our shared values on the international stage. More importantly, the Obama administration, in consultation with Congress, has been able to incorporate pragmatic and responsible ways to address the outstanding concerns raised with each agreement. While these free trade agreements are not perfect, I supported the passage of all three after studying each one carefully, and hearing from a wide range of Coloradans. Regarding the Korea free trade agreement, the new concessions that protect America's auto industry in addition to reductions in tariffs for U.S. products and strong protections for intellectual property and labor rights solidified my support for the agreement. Over the last several months the Obama administration worked with the Korean government to gain concessions that will help American manufacturers compete in the Korean market, Asia's fourth largest economy. For example, the Koreans have committed to immediately reduce their eigh percent tariff on U.S.-built passenger cars, including electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, to four percent and immediately reduce their ten percent tariff on trucks to zero. After 5 years, tariffs on U.S.-made motor vehicles, including electric cars and plug- in hybrids, will be reduced to zero. In addition, we have strengthened safeguards that will prevent any large influx of Korean cars into the U.S. market to protect against unintended effects of the removal of trade barriers. These new concessions won the support of both the U.S. auto industry and the United Auto Workers. With regard to agricultural products, Colorado producers will benefit from increased market access in Korea through the reduction of existing tariffs on wheat and corn. Existing 40 percent tariffs on certain beef products will be phased out over 15 years and the United States will engage continuously with Korea to plan the removal of other tariff barriers. When I hosted the Korean Ambassador, Han Duk Soo, in Colorado in April of this year, I made it clear that Colorado agricultural producers expect a reasoned approach to removing restrictions and other trade barriers that are in conflict with international sanitary standards and sound science. I am very hopeful that this agreement will help Colorado producers build a relationship of trust with Korean consumers so that they come to understand the high quality of Colorado beef and the well-justified pride that our State feels about its beef. Autos and agricultural products are just a few areas where American producers will gain better access to the Korean market. Overall, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that tariff cuts alone to a variety of U.S. goods could amount to an increase of $10 billion to $11 billion of U.S. goods exports alone. This will help produce a much- needed boost to the U.S. economy. This agreement also includes provisions related to labor and the environment that are the strongest standards to enforce domestic environmental and labor laws included in any trade agreement. It also includes robust protections for intellectual property rights that will set a new benchmark to protect American-made ideas. In addition to supporting opportunities for American exports, the agreement will enhance America's relationship with a strong partner that is committed to democratic values on the Korean Peninsula. More than 60 years after the Korean war, this trade agreement will serve to further strengthen bilateral ties in a region of growing strategic value to the United States. As a member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, this was another important factor in my support of the Korea free trade agreement. Similarly, the Panama free trade agreement, like its Korean counterpart, is aimed to help grow the U.S. economy. In the Panama agreement, we have also included enforceable mechanisms to protect the environment and the rights of Panamanian workers. To address financial and tax concerns and further support labor protections, the United States worked bilaterally with Panama to institute robust legal reforms that protect against the country being used as a tax haven while further enhancing labor protections in Panama. The United States and Panama have worked collaboratively to strengthen tax transparency in support of curbing illicit financial transactions associated with money laundering activities. Notably, due to its positive actions, Panama was removed from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ``Gray List'' of countries that have agreed to, but not yet adopted an international tax transparency standard. These improvements to the Panama free trade agreement will be incorporated along with reductions in tariff barriers that will improve access to the Panamanian market for U.S. goods and services. Again, this should give a boost to American business at a time when our government should be doing everything it can to help grow our economy. Currently, U.S. industrial goods face an average tariff of seven percent in Panama and U.S. agricultural goods face an average tariff of 15 percent, while most of Panama's products enter the United States duty-free. After implementation of this agreement, more than 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Panama will become duty-free immediately, with remaining tariffs phased out over ten years. Almost half of U.S. agricultural exports will also benefit from immediate duty-free treatment, with most of the remaining tariffs to be eliminated within 15 years. Of particular importance for Colorado is beef, which will see an immediate removal of a 30 percent tariff for prime and choice cut beef, and wheat, which will lock in its already tariff-free treatment. As Panama embarks on a historic $5 billion infrastructure project to revamp and expand the Panama Canal, American businesses will be better situated to compete for opportunities in the Panamanian market as a result of this free trade agreement. Additionally, this agreement will enhance our strong relationship with Panama, which serves as a major international trade thoroughfare for the United States and the world. And finally, the Colombia free trade agreement, which was a vote that took even greater deliberation. Colombia is a strong U.S. ally in Latin America and is a critical regional and global partner. Colombia's market is the third largest for the United States in Latin America and U.S. producers have been losing market share quickly as the Colombians strengthen economic ties with Canada, the European Union and the Mercosur countries of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. As other countries facilitate trade with Colombia, American producers have faced continued tariffs on goods exported to Colombia, while Colombian goods face few tariffs into the United States. Currently, the average U.S. tariff on the few Colombian goods subject to a tariff is 3 percent. Colombia's average tariff on U.S. exported goods is 12.5 percent. This agreement will increase market access for U.S. goods and services in Colombia by immediately eliminating duties on 80 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia, with all remaining tariffs eliminated within 10 years. These numbers show why American businesses have been eager to level the playing field with foreign competitors that have benefited from preferential tariff treatment in Colombia. Still, there have been long- standing concerns with Colombia's history of violence and its human rights record, issues that deeply concern not only me, but many Coloradans. I have looked to Colombia and supporters of this agreement to make the case that adequate progress has been made to determine if the United States should move forward with a trade agreement at this time. The Colombian and U.S. governments, as well as organizations that have opposed and supported the agreement, acknowledge the problematic record Colombia has had on human rights and labor protections. Most agree that progress has been made, though many disagree to what extent that progress has improved labor conditions and lessened human rights violations. After meeting with groups on both sides of this debate, I concluded that maintaining the status quo was not the best answer. Leaving things as they are now would not create any more incentives for Colombia to maintain or further cultivate its commitment to resolving issues of violence. Nor do I believe that the status quo would strengthen the ties with this key ally in South America. I ultimately believe that the recent labor and legal reforms in Colombia represent concrete steps in the right direction. The commitment of Colombia's political leadership to improving its record is also an indication that Colombia can move beyond its past. The primary objective is for our two countries not only to maintain the shared goal of reducing violence and protecting workers' rights, but also to become stronger economic partners, enabling American business to compete in Colombia's market on a level playing field with our international competitors. Both of these goals help justify moving beyond the status quo. Let me be clear: we must continue to work collaboratively with the Colombian government to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken toward responsible and meaningful reforms. A meaningful step in this direction is President Obama's commitment to allow the agreement to enter into force only when Colombia has sufficiently met predetermined benchmarks. These benchmarks include efforts to increase protection of labor activists, enforce core labor rights and reduce impunity for perpetrators of violence against union members. Additionally, the underlying agreement includes strong labor provisions that protect the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, and to provide protections against forced labor, child labor, and employment discrimination. These changes may not all happen overnight, but we can ensure that what remains to be fixed will be supported by our strengthened economic relationship and the social and economic incentives for Colombia to maintain a positive trajectory in reducing violence. Does the passage of this agreement mean that all of the ills facing Colombia will be cured? I make no such assumption, and I know it will take work and diligent oversight. The burden will be on the Colombian government to follow through on promised reforms and ensure they have the intended effect. It will also be up to this administration to ensure that the benchmarks laid out in its labor action plan are met to the greatest extent possible and that Colombia continues to meet these goals. Finally, it will be up to Congress to provide ongoing oversight to ensure everyone is meeting their responsibilities. I, for one, will be watching. In addition to these agreements, I note briefly that Congress came together in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize a robust Trade Adjustment Assistance Program that will assist workers, firms and farmers to retrain and retool so they can better compete in the global economy. This was a necessary precursor to my support of these three free trade agreements. In sum, the free trade agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia, while not perfect, present strong opportunities for Colorado and U.S. businesses while also including some of the most robust labor and environmental provisions that we have ever had in a trade agreement with any country. Trade issues are never clear cut, but simply put, trading with our neighbors and partners can help our economy when we set the terms fairly and find balance. By helping to ensure that our trading partners play by fair rules, and by opening foreign markets for U.S. products, the United States is better positioned to win the global economic race.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning to talk about the most important issue facing our country and our people; that is, jobs and job creation. In a bit of good news last night, overcoming 18 months of obstacles in the Senate, the Senate passed my Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act that will help expand economic opportunities in many of our mountain resort towns in Colorado. It will also help create jobs throughout the rest of the country in States such as the Presiding Officer's, New York, which has a robust ski industry, as our State does. I wish to acknowledge Senators Barrasso of Wyoming and Risch of Idaho. They have been tremendous partners in this effort, both in this Congress and in the last one. I thank them upfront for their leadership in pushing for passage of this important piece of bipartisan legislation. Even though our economy is showing some signs of recovery, there is still a long way to go. This is especially true in rural communities that are dotted all over my State of Colorado. I know this question of job creation is on the forefront of the minds of all my colleagues. It is on the minds of Coloradans wherever I am in the Centennial State. So the action we took last night not only represents a major step forward in our efforts to create jobs, it is a reminder to the American people that we can work together on commonsense, job-creating legislation. Let me speak a little bit about the bill we passed last night. It is narrowly tailored, it is pragmatic, it is bipartisan, it doesn't cost one dime to the American taxpayers, and it reduces government regulation while allowing businesses to create more jobs. That is the direction we need to head. It gives greater flexibility to businesses to productively use public lands. It facilitates outdoor recreation, and it endorses responsible use of our natural resources. Often, ski areas are located on National Forest lands through the use of permits issued by the Federal Government that spell out what activities are allowed. But under the existing law--although we are going to change the law given what we did last night--the National Forest Service limits ski area permits primarily to ``Nordic and Alpine skiing.'' This is the phrase used in Federal regulation. But the classification I mentioned doesn't reflect the full spectrum of snow sports or the use of ski areas for nonwinter activities. For example, the word ``snowboarding'' is not used in the law, even though we know snowboarding now exists in every single ski area across the country. So the problem with that regulation is it has created uncertainty for both the foresters and the skiers as to whether now other activities, particularly those in the summer, can occur in permitted areas. In effect, ski areas on National Forest lands are restricted to winter recreation as opposed to year-round recreation. One only has to imagine what will happen when we open ski areas to year-round recreation. We will create opportunities for businesses to expand and openings for new businesses to explore previously restricted ventures. Colorado ski resorts have told me they will be able to create more jobs this year when they are given more flexibility, and Colorado's ski towns have said the same to me, so it is just plain common sense. The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act clarifies how ski area permits can be used. It ensures that ski area permits can be used for additional snow sports such as snowboarding, as well as specifically authorizing the Forest Service to allow additional recreational opportunities, such as summertime activities, in these permitted areas. Let me note that the authority--this expanded authority--is limited. It doesn't give ski areas carte blanche use of public lands. The primary activity in the permit area must remain skiing or other snow sports. We want to preserve the unique characteristics of our world-renowned mountain communities. Therefore, certain types of development--water parks, amusement parks, and other activities that require new and intrusive structures--are prohibited. Rather, we envision opening opportunities for zip lines, mountain bike terrain parks, Frisbee golf courses, ropes courses and activities that are similar. As I mentioned, not only will they increase economic activity and create new jobs, the ski areas tell me it will actually help them recruit more Americans for jobs that currently go to foreign visa holders. Many Coloradans would love to work year-round in and around our mountain communities, but they are forced to take other jobs that can ensure them year-round employment. Subsequently, our ski areas often recruit visa holders to run the lifts, work in the resorts, and cover the winter months because they oftentimes can't recruit locals for such short-term employment. In effect, this bill we passed last night will help create year-round demand in our mountain communities and provide the year-round employment that Coloradans need. This is a win-win situation. For those who earn a job because of this bill, it will be very welcome news from a Congress they see as increasingly ineffective and disengaged. As I have implied and said already, I represent a State where the use and the enjoyment of the outdoors is just who we are. It is why we live in Colorado. One could say it is in our blood, but it is also in our wallets. Tourism and outdoor recreation is the No. 1 economic driver for our State. Activities such as hiking, skiing, shooting, and angling contribute over $10 billion a year to our economy, supporting over 100,000 jobs and generating $500 million in State tax revenue. This is not limited to Colorado. The Outdoor Industry Foundation found that outdoor recreation activities add over $730 billion to the national economy every year. In fact, during this time of economic uncertainty, outdoor recreation and tourism are two very bright spots in our economy. Perhaps most important, this is an area of our economy that continues to grow. It has grown by more than 6 percent in just 2011, and it has outpaced U.S. economic growth more generally. More Americans are spending time outside, enjoying nature and getting exercise. I have long felt it is in the National interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor activities that can contribute to our health and wellbeing. But as Americans enjoy recreating outdoors, they are also supporting a large and growing industry of supply stores, manufacturers, guides, hotels, and other important businesses that are the backbone of many rural communities. Ski resorts are a major component of this economic sector in Colorado, many western states, and, indeed, many places throughout the country. This bill is a huge priority for them and its passage--while long overdue--is truly a remarkable move that will help job creation all across the country. Michael Berry, president of the National Ski Areas Association, said it best when he noted: Ski areas serve as a portal to the country's national forests. Bringing summer and year-round recreation to rural communities is the No. 1 priority in Washington for ski areas today. We are anxiously awaiting to plan and implement year- round operations at ski areas, create year-round jobs and encourage more kids and families to enjoy the great outdoors. All of this will of course benefit the rural communities in which ski areas are located. The ski areas have been great partners in this effort, and I cannot wait for President Obama to sign this important legislation into law so they can begin immediately creating the important and well-paying jobs Americans are desperately waiting for. At a time when it seems as though Congress is too wrapped up in partisan wrangling to find commonsense ways to create jobs, this is a remarkable achievement. It signals to job seekers everywhere that not only are we capable of finding creative ways to create jobs, but that when we put our minds to it, we can set aside our differences and work together. I hope this bipartisan action will catch on and that we can continue to chip away at both our unemployment numbers and our record of partisan dysfunction. Here is what is most important to note: The outdoor recreation industry is a part of our economy across our country and there is very significant growth occurring. So this is an important achievement because we have been tied up in partisan knots. We showed last night we can actually do something on behalf of the American people that will help create jobs. I wish to particularly acknowledge the staff who worked so hard on this piece of legislation. Scott Miller, a longtime staffer on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, worked tirelessly, as did a former staff member of mine, Doug Young, who now works for the Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper. We began this work in the House of Representatives, where the Presiding Officer and I both served. I wish to thank also, in special fashion, Wendy Adams and Stan Sloss, who persevered time and time again as we fought through a series of procedural holds and other setbacks. While economic challenges still face our country, this is a positive step forward. I wish to thank all my colleagues for supporting me in this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I welcome this spirited debate we have been having in the Senate on these important appropriations bills. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to yield to the chair of the Agriculture Committee who has some comments to make in response to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I have another set of comments I want to make on a pending amendment. I don't know where we are in the order here.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Amendment No. 753 offered by the junior Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I will rise in opposition to an amendment already offered.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Maryland. This is a spirited debate about an important set of amendments being offered, and I wish to rise in opposition to amendment No. 753, which has been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte. While I enjoy working with Senator Ayotte on the Armed Services Committee, and I appreciate her contributions to the committee, I have to say I strongly disagree with her amendment. Senator Ayotte's amendment would prohibit the United States from trying enemy combatants in article III civilian courts. These courts refer to article III of our U.S. Constitution. Our article III courts, as the Presiding Officer knows, are the envy of the world. While there is a role for military tribunals, they are certainly not the only solution. Frankly, by prohibiting the use of article III courts, we may actually hinder our efforts to bring terrorists to justice. The Ayotte amendment would put the military smack in the middle of our domestic law enforcement efforts in our fight against extremists and terrorists. My friend from New Hampshire argues this is a war that should be prosecuted by our military. But the reality is, in many cases, the best course of action is for our domestic law enforcement, the FBI, and others, to take the lead. This amendment would prevent the Department of Justice from questioning or prosecuting terrorists caught on U.S. soil engaged in the criminal act of terrorism, and it would prevent Federal prosecutors from bringing these terrorists to justice in so-called article III courts. Federal prosecutors have tried, convicted, and imprisoned hundreds of terrorists in article III courts. The Department of Defense has obtained only six convictions in military tribunals. DOD's job is to track down, kill or capture those who would harm America or our citizens. They do an incredible job of that. We all stand in awe of the work they do to keep us safe. But it is not the job of the Department of Defense to try each and every one of those individuals. It is a mission they do not want, and they would have to radically change their entire system to accommodate prisoners who are already handled by civilian courts. Article III courts have kept Americans safe for over 200 years. I have to say I don't believe it is prudent to build a new judicial system from scratch in order to meet objectives that are already being met. For example, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, also known as the Underwear Bomber, was arrested in Detroit after trying to set off an explosive on an airplane. He was read his rights, questioned, prosecuted, and he recently pled guilty. Under this amendment, the FBI would have had to call in the military to detain Abdulmutallab without any resolution in his case. In fact--and I think this is an extremely important point--under this amendment, Abdulmutallab would have been given complete immunity from criminal Federal prosecution. Further, if this amendment passes, our allies may well refuse to extradite terror suspects to the United States. If military commissions are determined as someday not having jurisdiction over these terrorists or invalidated by the Supreme Court--which, by the way, has happened in other settings in the Supreme Court--there would be no way ever to prosecute these high-value foreign terrorism suspects because of this amendment. What would that mean? It would mean no conviction of the Blind Sheik, who planned the first World Trade Center attack; no conviction of Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker on 9/11, and no conviction of the east Africa Embassy bombers, all of whom were convicted in article III courts. Again, the Ayotte amendment, however well intended, would provide 100 percent immunity from Federal prosecution to suspected terrorists and eviscerate a very effective tool in our counterterrorism portfolio. That doesn't strike me as being as tough as we possibly could be on terrorists. The fact is, the prosecutors at the Department of Justice have numerous Federal criminal laws at their disposal with which to charge suspected terrorists. The Federal courts have more than 200 years of precedent to guide them, while tribunals have almost none. As I have said, our Federal prosecutors have had great success so far. In summary, I urge my colleagues to vote against amendment 753. It is simply not necessary, and I believe it will do more harm than good, while subverting the finest justice system in the world in the process. As I yield, let me be clear that I wholeheartedly support the underlying bill, as it has been very ably authored by Senator Mikulski and others, but I have to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the Senator from Maine for her graciousness and for her leadership on this important amendment that she and I brought to the floor. Clearly, the 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill that will direct the USDA to provide adequate flexibility to schools to deliver students nutritious school meals while effectively managing costs is very important. But we have to do it in the right way. I want to share my thinking on what the right way is. In January of this year the USDA issued a proposed rule for nutritional standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs that would limit total servings of certain vegetables--most notably potatoes, corn, green peas, and lima beans--to one cup per week and eliminate potatoes from school breakfasts. I have heard from school lunch providers in Colorado that this restriction will result in significant challenges for food service operations through increased costs, reduced flexibility, and decreased school meal participation. This is especially concerning for them in my State, and I think as the Senator from Maine has pointed out, all over our country because school districts are facing increasingly tight budgets. Many children from Colorado and across the Nation depend on school meal programs to keep them nourished and ready to learn. That is why it is important for school meals to include healthy food options while also allowing sufficient flexibility to school meal providers to help build a foundation for healthy eating going forward. In order to achieve this goal, a very worthy goal, it is important that we implement the bipartisan child nutrition reauthorization the Congress passed last year. In order to ensure that implementation is successful for both kids and schools, it is important the USDA takes into consideration the insights and the experiences of those who are in the school cafeterias every day across America serving meals to our children. These are well-trained and qualified individuals who see our children, our students, on a daily basis. They know their parents, and they very well may be parents of students themselves. Here is what they are saying. I will read to you from a letter the Colorado School Nutrition Association sent me recently regarding this proposed rule: We believe it is a realistic and attainable goal to create meal plans that meet the current dietary guidelines for Americans while allowing schools the flexibility to manage cost and maintain student participation. Improved nutrition is a vital aspect of our nation's health, one which we heartily support, and we believe it can be accomplished without significant damage to the programs we are trying to improve and without additional strain on local schools. That is what the Collins-Udall amendment intends to do. It would direct the USDA to not set maximum limits on the frequency that schools can serve any one fruit or vegetable while allowing schools to continue to moderate portion size appropriately. Our amendment will also ensure that schools have the flexibility to serve healthy fruits and vegetables in a manner consistent with guidelines established jointly by the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Some wonder why Senator Collins and I have taken such issue with this proposed rule. Yes, we both do come from potato-producing States. We both believe potatoes have gotten a bad rap. The truth is, when prepared properly, the potato can provide critical nutrients to students that will help them lead healthy lives and be ready to learn in the classrooms. In some areas, increased flexibility to serve this nutritious and available vegetable can actually help schools manage costs so they can afford to purchase other more expensive vegetables. Where I believe school meal providers, potato producers, and health advocates can agree is that this issue is less about any one vegetable and more about the preparation of the vegetable. Anything can be fried or drowned in any number of fats available to us as consumers. Let's be honest. Even Agriculture Secretary Vilsack agreed in testimony before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee that it is not the potato, it is the way in which potatoes are being prepared and provided. We should be encouraging schools to prepare potatoes and other fruits and vegetables appropriately, not limiting their flexibility and potentially increasing their cost unnecessarily. I have spent a good portion of my time in Congress working to promote physical activity, getting children and families into the great outdoors and reducing the amount of time children spend in front of the TV and video games. Through my Healthy Kids From Day One Act and the National Kids to Parks Initiative I have focused on getting kids to eat healthier and become more active. Another way we promote healthy lifestyles is making sure kids have access to needed nutrients and balanced meals. That is why Congress directed the USDA to ensure that all fruits and vegetables are part of Federal food nutrition programs, particularly the school meal programs. I believe, and I know Senator Collins believes, there is a balance we can find, a balance that preserves needed flexibility for our cash- strapped schools but also preserves guidelines that will ensure our kids are getting the best nutrients possible in their school meals, including from the potato. So instead of pointing fingers, we need to provide commonsense solutions that help school kids and their parents make wise choices that in turn will make a healthier America. A healthy country is a strong country. I believe this amendment is an important tool to ensure that our schools can be an active and effective participant in ensuring our children are healthy, well cared for, and ready to become the next leaders in our goal of winning the global economic race. I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding time to me. I look forward to working with her, to reaching a successful conclusion, and to our amendment being agreed to.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions 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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, October 13, 2011; that following the prayer and the 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 until 12 p.m., 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 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes; and that at 12 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 251, 252, and 253, under the previous order.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 292, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, we expect two rollcall votes at approximately 2 p.m. tomorrow on judicial nominations. Additionally, there is a joint meeting of Congress with the President of Korea at 4 p.m. tomorrow. Senators will gather in the Senate Chamber at 3:40 p.m. to proceed to the House together.

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.