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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. President, I understand we are debating a specific resolution. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the time of the debate of the previous order be extended until 7 p.m., with all the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I believe we may be in a situation where we are exchanging speeches one side and the other. May I withdraw my unanimous consent request for Senator Coons?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business and that Senator Coons be allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I came to the floor to deliver a speech on the debt ceiling and all the activity surrounding the need to increase our debt ceiling, but I took the time to listen to Senator McCain while I was here, and I have to say I agree with Senator McCain. We need a breakout strategy. We need cooler heads to prevail, and I think many, if not all, of us can agree our tax system is overly complex. It ought to be simplified. We ought to lower rates. We ought to end the loopholes and the subsidies and the deductions and let the free market reign. I look forward to working with the Senator from Arizona as we, hopefully--and hope sometimes is a strategy--but we get a broad agreement, we go big. We deal with our debt, we strengthen our entitlement programs, we reduce spending, and find ways to generate more revenues. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments. I rise, as I just implied, because I think the fiscal challenges that confront us demand a bipartisan solution. Both parties approach the issues before us from very different points of view, but time is truly running out on our Nation's structural deficits and our long-term debt and the need for us to address those. I want leaders in both parties to show genuine commitment to action. How about if we set aside our talking points so we can get some work done. If any other Members believe the solution to our deficit and debt demands comprehensive and bipartisan solution such as the fiscal commission or the Gang of 6, I would invite them to come down to the floor and let our colleagues know we are clearly racing toward a crisis that seems like we can't let go of the partisanship and the political posturing that creates gridlock in the Capital City of Washington. It sure strikes me as childish. I think it strikes many Americans and Coloradans as that way as well. We are more broadly having this debate because the time is upon us to decide the economic future of our country. Yes, we have to raise the national debt, but this is about our economic future, and this is the country we inherited by our children and grandchildren. Quite simply, we are not going to win the global economic race of this 21st century unless we start taking action now to improve our economy, grow American jobs, and get our debt under control. With these challenges, as large as they are facing us, this is the time to set aside our political differences and challenge ourselves to put our country first. A few basic facts focus the attention. Our national debt is $14 trillion and it is growing. Today, each citizen's share of that debt is over $46,000 per individual. If we remain on this path, which is irresponsible, there is no question about that. The Government Accountability Office projects that by 2050, our Nation could owe more interest on our debt than the Federal Government raises in taxes in a given year, and our sky-rocketing debt is not only spooking international markets, but it is a serious threat to our national security. Listen to Secretary of Defense Gates or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, they will make that point in a compelling fashion. Look, we got here in ways that are not simple. But unquestionably two unpaid-for wars, two rounds of massive tax cuts, unpaid-for prescription drug benefits, and drastic rescue measures needed to address the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression have all contributed to the current situation. The solutions are even more difficult. While we may disagree about the path forward, I think we all know in our hearts that we cannot get to a solution unless we all agree to come to the negotiating table willing to compromise to ensure that our country, the United States-- the largest economy in the world--can honor our bills and begin to pay down our debts. That is the challenge, that is the problem, that is the opportunity, as I see it, that brings us to the Senate floor today. We began this year with serious and, I believe, earnest conversations about this in not one but two groups of lawmakers in the House and Senate. Yet, despite all the talk and a lot of hard work, rather than nearing an agreement, we seem to be coming to an impasse. In the last few weeks, the state of negotiations seems to have fallen apart, with key players choosing to walk away rather than compromise. We hit the same roadblock that always inhibits action when things get tough: Politics get in the way. In fact, it seems as if everybody in the world except the Congress seems to know time is running out. Think back to April. Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. ratings outlook to ``negative'' due to the uncertainty over budget deficits and the debt ceiling. This month, Moody's piled on, warning that it too may downgrade the U.S. ratings outlook to ``negative'' as early as July--it is July 6--because of concern over gridlock in Washington. I have to say the American people are running out of patience as well. Back home in Colorado, people are wondering what in the world we are doing in Washington. I was not up for reelection in 2010, but I was listening to what the voters were saying. They clearly said to us they want us focused on jobs, the economy, and the debt. And they want us to work together. Consider the direction I got recently from Curt, who is a constituent in Arvada, CO. He wrote: I am counting on you to put the interests of everyday Americans above party politics and join your legislative colleagues on both sides of the aisle in finding sensible solutions to our long-term national debt problem. Many more Coloradans have sent me similar messages. I got one from a Boy Scout, David, in Evergreen, CO, whose words were stronger than mine. He said: I think the United States government should stop spending unnecessary money. We should first focus on what is necessary. . . . It is amazing how much money our country owes. It is constantly going up! I just looked at information about the United States debt clock, and I think this debt is way too high. People in the federal government in Washington D.C., are spending money as if they had all the money in the world. David, if you are listening, I agree. No question, Americans want quality roads, a safety net for the sick and elderly, and strong investments in education and research that will spur innovation and good-paying jobs. But we need to commit to ensuring we have the financial stability to pay for them. For too long, the American people have collectively been told by us here in Washington that they can have more of everything they want without us fully paying for it. But to preserve a promising future for our children--for Curt's children, for David--we are going to need to face up to some hard truths. Fifty years ago, my father, former Arizona Congressman Mo Udall, supported what should only seem natural: tying spending directly to revenues. Let me give you a couple examples. If we want to give oil companies $1 billion in tax subsidies, then let's raise taxes by $1 billion to pay for them. The same thing, though, goes for overseas conflicts, agricultural subsidies, infrastructure, and, yes, even entitlements. Coloradans from across my home State have told me they want to see their leaders try using some common sense--the kind of common sense Americans use when they are faced with the hard job of balancing their own budgets when money is tight. As a Senator, I have successfully led the fight to end wasteful earmark spending, proposed measures to cut redundant government programs, demanded line-item veto authority for the President, and, yes, pushed--and I see my colleagues from the other side of the aisle here--for a very sensible balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. But these measures only serve as tools to get Washington to clean up its act, and that is not enough. We need to suck up our courage and actually make the tough budgeting decisions. If we are going to get anywhere, we have to realize we all have skin in the game and we have to check ultimatums at the door--especially on issues such as Social Security and taxes. The challenge facing us is so great we cannot afford to let partisanship or electioneering get in the way--and both parties are guilty. For example, we cannot seriously address debt reduction without looking at Social Security. If we do nothing, by 2036, Social Security benefits will have to be cut by 20 percent. Congress will undoubtedly be under enormous pressure to fill in that hole in lieu of telling seniors their benefit checks would be reduced. To say Social Security-- when you look at it that way--must be divorced from deficit reduction, as many Democrats do, is to ignore the problem. In a similar vein, it is unrealistic to maintain, as my Republican colleagues do, that raising revenues cannot be a part of the deficit and debt reduction equation. We should all be honest enough to admit a simple fact: No amount of spending cuts alone will reduce our deficits without unreasonably harming Social Security and Medicare. For some to say that revenues should not be part of the deficit reduction picture is either a sign that they are not serious about getting our debt situation under control or they are being disingenuous about the dangerous implications spending cuts alone would have on our hard- working constituents who rely on these important programs. What is so agonizing about the last 6 months is that we have a bipartisan solution in front of us, one that I know--I don't just believe but I know--would responsibly reduce our debt while also allowing the economy to grow and protect our middle class. In December 2009, I know the Presiding Officer and I, along with a number of other Senators, pushed for the creation of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which was then chaired by Erskine Bowles, a North Carolinian, and Alan Simpson, a Wyoming resident. They did an exhaustive study of what it would take to get our debt under control, and last year they delivered a report on how to reduce the debt by over $4 trillion in the next decade and bend the curve back to a much more sustainable Federal budget situation. They comprehensively addressed all of the issues that must be on the table; namely, spending cuts, reasonable entitlement reform, and some new revenues. The plan has already received bipartisan support, including from Senators of each party who were members of the commission. Rather than arguing, we could be acting on these recommendations. And, look, if we do not want to follow those exact recommendations, let's all at least agree that everything must be on the table in these ongoing debt discussions. Many of us here simply want to roll up our sleeves and get to work. I see some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I know they share that sentiment, even if our leaderships in both parties are demanding that we be quiet. But I think we can all focus our attention on a sensible, bipartisan plan, work together, and pass it into law before our national credit rating is downgraded and we damage our chances of winning the global economic race. The Presiding Officer knows, my colleagues know, I am not a particularly dramatic person. But I have to tell you, I believe that nothing less than the fate of the U.S. economy hangs in the balance, and I am certainly willing to stay here day and night, weekends and holidays, in Washington, DC, to help put a plan in motion. Madam President, thank you for your attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, Senator Coons would like to share his thoughts.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, the Senator, in effect, is saying that rather than this being a problem, although it is, this is an enormous opportunity for the country to chart a new course. If we agree to do it first and foremost as Americans----

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I was proud of the Senate when five of the six Senators on the Commission voted for the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, not without some concerns, not without an interest in working to fill in and flesh out the plan, but five of the six Senators from across the political spectrum said this is a very good starting point.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. We thank the Chair for that notification. We look forward to next week continuing this conversation. I wish to thank my colleague for joining me and Senator Bennet in this discussion this afternoon.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from Colorado, particularly underlining the salient points he made during his remarks. I think most important to note about Colorado is it is a third Republican, a third Democratic, and a third Independent in our political and electoral makeup. I think it drives us to find bipartisan solutions and bipartisan ground. That is why we came to the floor this afternoon. It was in the hope that our colleagues from both sides of the aisle would join us in the discussion about how we move forward, not just on lifting the debt ceiling, for the reasons Senator Bennet outlined, but for the reasons that we think are as follows: We will lay a new foundation for our 21st century economy, we will send a message to the markets and the business community that we are serious about dealing with our annual deficits and our long-term debt. In effect, in doing such we will inject a healthy dose of confidence into our country, into our markets, and into our business community. Taking those steps will be a way of moving forward, as the Senator said. I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague Senator Bennet.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. My colleague and I hosted the Colorado Capital Conference a few weeks ago. We had Coloradans from all sections of the State, all walks of life. We had the three main political points of view represented: Democrats, Independents, Republicans. They remarked to Senator Bennet and to me, as well as hearing from a broad range of our colleagues who were gracious enough to take time to speak to our constituents and answer questions, that we all had identified the problem and we all had identified the solution, which was a comprehensive plan that we implemented together. We are here again on the floor this afternoon to call on all of our colleagues to join us in working together, finding that common ground, because there is a lot at stake but there is enormous opportunity. My colleague was a successful businessman in one of his previous lives, but he may want to comment on the capital conference as well.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the Senator would yield, I would comment on two elements my colleague just alluded to. Let's talk about Social Security. There are those in our party who have said keep your hands off Social Security. I know what a strong and important program Social Security has been. It has allowed me and my wife to raise our children. My parents were treated with dignity in their latter years. They also had the assurances of Medicare. If we think because Social Security on paper is solvent, we ought to think again because there is $3 trillion owed to the Social Security trust fund by the Federal Government, and, yes, Social Security isn't responsible for that shortfall because we have taken those dollars and put them in the general fund, but that $3 trillion is going to have to come from somewhere. There are some commonsense fixes we can put in place that will protect and serve and strengthen Social Security. On the other hand, we hear in the Chamber tax revenues, I should say more appropriately, are off the table. Every economist and every observer points out we cannot get there from here, there being a balanced Federal budget, without additional revenues. Why can't we start, as the Bowles-Simpson commission proposed, eliminating many of the subsidies and loopholes and special deals in our Tax Code that total something over $1 trillion. That is a great place to start. If we follow that with tax reforms, lowering rates for corporations and businesses, that is an even bigger step we can take. There is a broad agreement in the Chamber--certainly in our conversations with people across the country who represent their States here--those are commonsense steps forward.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I will support the nomination of GEN David Petraeus to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Over the many years that he has served our country, he has proven himself time and again as a man of integrity, who will act in the best interests of the nation and--in this new position--the men and women of the CIA. As one of the finest military leaders of our time, General Petraeus has been instrumental in the fight against Islamic extremism, playing key roles as Commanding General in Iraq and Afghanistan and as the Commander of U.S. Central Command. He has developed great expertise and deep knowledge of the threats we still face in South Asia and the Middle East. He will now take that expertise and knowledge to the CIA, where he will use different tools to face those and many other national security challenges around the world. Despite my support for the general, I would be remiss if I did not add that I am concerned about a statement he made in answer to a question I asked during his Senate Intelligence Committee nomination hearing on June 23, 2011. General Petraeus has been on the record time and again explaining that torture does not fit with American values, that it creates new enemies, and perhaps most importantly, that it isn't effective. Yet he did not give a simple answer at the hearing when I asked him whether he sees torture any differently in a CIA context than in a military context. Instead, he suggested that there might be a ``special case'' in which enhanced interrogation techniques might be an acceptable last resort option, for example, in the ``nuclear football'' scenario, where the government has in custody an individual who has placed a nuclear device under the Empire State Building, and only he has the codes to turn it off. I understand the general's point that such a scenario--in which there is specific knowledge of imminent devastation--would be the exception, not the rule, and that it is a hypothetical one that might never occur in reality. He is certainly not the first to raise the ticking timebomb question in this context, nor is he the first to suggest that policymakers consider addressing this question in statute. Perhaps it is time for Congress to weigh in definitively on the CIA's interrogation techniques. Today, only President Obama's executive order--not a law--prohibits the CIA's use of coercive interrogation, so it's possible that a new administration might decide to move this policy in a different direction. As I told General Petraeus at last week's hearing, I look forward to a debate and discussion with him about this important issue. And as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I look forward to working with CIA Director Petraeus on our country's many intelligence and national security challenges.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act with the support of Senators Risch, Tester, and Bennet. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort. This bill would provide funding flexibility to the states to help construct and maintain needed public shooting ranges, designated areas where people can sharpen their marksmanship skills and safely enjoy recreational shooting. For a variety of reasons, the number of places where people can safely engage in recreational shooting and target practicing has steadily dwindled. This includes areas on our public lands. In an effort to establish, maintain and promote safe and established areas for such activities, this legislation would allow States to allocate a greater proportion of their Federal wildlife funds for these purposes. Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This act established an excise tax on sporting equipment and ammunition that is used to fund many state activities, including wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety programs. Pittman-Robertson funds can also be used for the development and maintenance of shooting ranges. However, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act contains certain restrictions on the use of Pittman-Robertson funds that limit their effectiveness for establishing and maintaining shooting ranges. The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to adjust certain funding limitations so that States have greater flexibility over the use of funds available for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges. To be clear, the bill would not allocate any new funding to the construction of shooting ranges, it would not raise any fees or taxes, nor would it require states to apply their allocated Pittman-Robertson funds to shooting ranges. Instead, by reducing the amount of other funds states would have to raise and allowing states to ``bank'' Pittman-Robertson funds for 5 years for shooting ranges, the bill gives States greater flexibility to use their existing Pittman-Robertson funds as they think best. Also as a result of this bill, States will be able to extend their existing license fee revenue and other State- generated funds on other important programs, such as wildlife habitat conservation. Hunting and recreational shooting are an integral part of the Colorado way of life, activities that also are appropriate where not prohibited on our public lands. This bill is designed to improve the quality of the recreational shooting experience by promoting safe, designated places to shoot. In addition to the improvements this bill contains, it is my hope that the public land management agencies will continue to work with the States, sportsmen and women, the recreational shooting interests, local communities, and others so that these opportunities are safe and available. 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 am introducing the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act with the support of Senators Risch, Tester, and Bennet. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort. This bill would provide funding flexibility to the states to help construct and maintain needed public shooting ranges, designated areas where people can sharpen their marksmanship skills and safely enjoy recreational shooting. For a variety of reasons, the number of places where people can safely engage in recreational shooting and target practicing has steadily dwindled. This includes areas on our public lands. In an effort to establish, maintain and promote safe and established areas for such activities, this legislation would allow States to allocate a greater proportion of their Federal wildlife funds for these purposes. Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This act established an excise tax on sporting equipment and ammunition that is used to fund many state activities, including wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety programs. Pittman-Robertson funds can also be used for the development and maintenance of shooting ranges. However, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act contains certain restrictions on the use of Pittman-Robertson funds that limit their effectiveness for establishing and maintaining shooting ranges. The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to adjust certain funding limitations so that States have greater flexibility over the use of funds available for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges. To be clear, the bill would not allocate any new funding to the construction of shooting ranges, it would not raise any fees or taxes, nor would it require states to apply their allocated Pittman-Robertson funds to shooting ranges. Instead, by reducing the amount of other funds states would have to raise and allowing states to ``bank'' Pittman-Robertson funds for 5 years for shooting ranges, the bill gives States greater flexibility to use their existing Pittman-Robertson funds as they think best. Also as a result of this bill, States will be able to extend their existing license fee revenue and other State- generated funds on other important programs, such as wildlife habitat conservation. Hunting and recreational shooting are an integral part of the Colorado way of life, activities that also are appropriate where not prohibited on our public lands. This bill is designed to improve the quality of the recreational shooting experience by promoting safe, designated places to shoot. In addition to the improvements this bill contains, it is my hope that the public land management agencies will continue to work with the States, sportsmen and women, the recreational shooting interests, local communities, and others so that these opportunities are safe and available. 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, I rise to speak about the Department of Defense Energy Security Act of 2011 or DODESA, that I am introducing today. This bill takes a number of important steps toward addressing some of our most critical national energy security challenges. It authorizes increased development of alternative fuels and increased usage of hybrid drive systems and electric vehicles. The bill streamlines communication between agencies responsible for energy programs across the DOD, and authorizes DOD to examine where the greatest potential exists for renewable energy programs. And it authorizes DOD to determine how best to incorporate smart grid technology and to work with local communities to develop contingency plans in the event of a power outage caused by cyber attacks or natural disasters. Simply put, this bill addresses the military's single largest vulnerability: Its dependence on fossil fuel. When you talk about that dependency in theater--you're talking about putting service members' lives at risk. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service men and women have been injured and killed each year in attacks on fuel convoys. Osama bin Laden reportedly called those convoys our military's ``umbilical cord.'' In the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen: ``Saving energy saves lives.'' He said: ``Energy needs to be the first thing we think about before we deploy another soldier, before we build another ship or plane.'' That dependence on oil also costs taxpayers a staggering amount of money. But our military's reliance on vulnerable energy resources is not just on the battlefield. At home, defense facilities rely on a fragile national grid, leaving critical assets vulnerable. The Defense Science Board found in its 2008 report, ``More Fight--Less Fuel'' that, ``critical national security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid.'' All told, the military spends $20 billion on energy each year, consuming a whopping 135 million barrels of oil and 30 million megawatt-hours of electricity. It consumes more fuel and electricity each year than most countries. The Pentagon's energy consumption has serious national security implications, but it also presents opportunities. As the Logistics Management Institute wrote, ``Aggressively developing and applying energy-saving technologies to military applications would potentially do more to solve the most pressing long-term challenges facing DOD and our national security than any other single investment area.'' That is why we have introduced this legislation. I say ``we'' because this bill is the product of a joint effort with Congresswoman Giffords' office. Gabby is a great friend, and we introduced this bill together last Congress. This year, my staff has worked closely with hers on this updated version. This is an issue that is near and dear to Gabby's heart, and I know that she is eager to continue her work on it in the House. I am very proud of this legislation for a number of reasons. First and foremost, DODESA will help the Department of Defense cut fuel consumption and long-term costs. Secondly, it provides authorization that will expand existing renewable energy studies and pilot programs through a Joint Contingency Base Resource Security Project. This project will help the service branches share lessons learned as they study the best ways to incorporate renewable energy sources and fuel reduction initiatives, such as the Marine Corps' outstanding Experimental Forward Operating Base, and the Army's Net Zero Installations. Third, Colorado is leading the way in this commonsense area of energy security. In particular, I would like to highlight the leadership of Fort Carson, in my home state, which has been chosen as one of two bases to participate in the Army's ``Triple Net Zero'' pilot program. They are truly pioneers in this important work, and I appreciate all of their efforts. In sum, our legislation will make America more secure, will save taxpayer dollars, and it will save lives. There is no single solution to our energy security challenges. DODESA is not a silver bullet that will solve all of our problems. However, it's part of a silver buckshot solution that will require multiple changes in the way that we do business. We owe it to our service members and the American people to find ways to use energy smarter and more efficiently, and I believe this bill takes a number of important steps in the right direction. 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, I rise to speak about the Department of Defense Energy Security Act of 2011 or DODESA, that I am introducing today. This bill takes a number of important steps toward addressing some of our most critical national energy security challenges. It authorizes increased development of alternative fuels and increased usage of hybrid drive systems and electric vehicles. The bill streamlines communication between agencies responsible for energy programs across the DOD, and authorizes DOD to examine where the greatest potential exists for renewable energy programs. And it authorizes DOD to determine how best to incorporate smart grid technology and to work with local communities to develop contingency plans in the event of a power outage caused by cyber attacks or natural disasters. Simply put, this bill addresses the military's single largest vulnerability: Its dependence on fossil fuel. When you talk about that dependency in theater--you're talking about putting service members' lives at risk. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service men and women have been injured and killed each year in attacks on fuel convoys. Osama bin Laden reportedly called those convoys our military's ``umbilical cord.'' In the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen: ``Saving energy saves lives.'' He said: ``Energy needs to be the first thing we think about before we deploy another soldier, before we build another ship or plane.'' That dependence on oil also costs taxpayers a staggering amount of money. But our military's reliance on vulnerable energy resources is not just on the battlefield. At home, defense facilities rely on a fragile national grid, leaving critical assets vulnerable. The Defense Science Board found in its 2008 report, ``More Fight--Less Fuel'' that, ``critical national security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid.'' All told, the military spends $20 billion on energy each year, consuming a whopping 135 million barrels of oil and 30 million megawatt-hours of electricity. It consumes more fuel and electricity each year than most countries. The Pentagon's energy consumption has serious national security implications, but it also presents opportunities. As the Logistics Management Institute wrote, ``Aggressively developing and applying energy-saving technologies to military applications would potentially do more to solve the most pressing long-term challenges facing DOD and our national security than any other single investment area.'' That is why we have introduced this legislation. I say ``we'' because this bill is the product of a joint effort with Congresswoman Giffords' office. Gabby is a great friend, and we introduced this bill together last Congress. This year, my staff has worked closely with hers on this updated version. This is an issue that is near and dear to Gabby's heart, and I know that she is eager to continue her work on it in the House. I am very proud of this legislation for a number of reasons. First and foremost, DODESA will help the Department of Defense cut fuel consumption and long-term costs. Secondly, it provides authorization that will expand existing renewable energy studies and pilot programs through a Joint Contingency Base Resource Security Project. This project will help the service branches share lessons learned as they study the best ways to incorporate renewable energy sources and fuel reduction initiatives, such as the Marine Corps' outstanding Experimental Forward Operating Base, and the Army's Net Zero Installations. Third, Colorado is leading the way in this commonsense area of energy security. In particular, I would like to highlight the leadership of Fort Carson, in my home state, which has been chosen as one of two bases to participate in the Army's ``Triple Net Zero'' pilot program. They are truly pioneers in this important work, and I appreciate all of their efforts. In sum, our legislation will make America more secure, will save taxpayer dollars, and it will save lives. There is no single solution to our energy security challenges. DODESA is not a silver bullet that will solve all of our problems. However, it's part of a silver buckshot solution that will require multiple changes in the way that we do business. We owe it to our service members and the American people to find ways to use energy smarter and more efficiently, and I believe this bill takes a number of important steps in the right direction. 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 wish to recognize the dedication and selfless service of Colonel Laura J. Richardson, who has served as the chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Division since October, 2009. As a member of the Secretary of the Army's Office of Legislative Liaison, Colonel Richardson was responsible for advising Army senior leadership on legislative and congressional issues and for educating Senators and staff on Army matters. Colonel Richardson's outstanding leadership and hard work was made clear by the tremendous support that she and her office provided to the U.S. Senate for both sessions of the 111th Congress and the first session of the 112th Congress. It is a personal honor and a privilege to recognize Colonel Richardson today on the floor of the U.S. Senate. She is a native of the great State of Colorado and was a tremendous athlete at Northglenn High School. She attended Metropolitan State College in Denver, and upon graduation; she was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. She then attended flight school and earned her wings as an Army aviator. Colonel Richardson's career highlights include a variety of command and staff positions including three years of service in the 17th Aviation Brigade in Korea. She went on to serve on the III Corps Staff, with the 6th Cavalry Brigade, and with the 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault. She was also selected to serve as the military aide to Vice President Gore from 1999 to 2001, and following her tour at the White House, she returned to the 101st to take command of the 5th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment. Colonel Richardson's skill and leadership were clearly displayed when she led 5th Battalion into Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. Following her highly successful battalion command, she served in a variety of positions on the Army staff in the Pentagon and as the installation commander at Fort Myer, VA. Throughout her service to our Nation Laura has been a shining example for the people of Colorado and the United States. Her selfless service, professionalism, and outstanding performance in each of her assignments led to her recent selection for the rank of brigadier general. This well-deserved promotion will take her to Fort Hood, TX, where she will serve the next commanding general of the Operational Test Command. That move will also reunite Laura with her husband, BG Jim Richardson, who is currently serving at Fort Hood. I want to say a special thank you to their daughter Lauren. She is a wonderful young woman, and she is a great role model for other military children. I am proud to call Colonel Richardson a friend and a fellow Coloradan. Her tireless work helped to further strengthen the relationship between the Senate and the Department of the Army, and through her leadership, new doors were opened between our proud institutions. We will miss her here in the Senate, but I know that she will continue to excel in her next assignment and any endeavor that follows. On behalf of my colleagues and all Coloradans, thank you for your service, Laura, and all the best to you and your family.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill that is born from the forward-thinking ideas of my constituents, a bill that will help spur our Nation's new energy economy and create jobs: the Solar Uniting Neighborhoods Act, or SUN Act. Over the last three years, I have been travelling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs. The SUN Act comes directly from visiting with Coloradans. This bill will help bring commonsense to our tax code, get government out of the way of developing solar energy, and spur job growth in every community across the United States. I installed solar panels on my own home several years ago to take advantage of the strong Colorado sun. However, I understand this option is not available for all American families who want to receive their home's energy needs from solar power. There can be difficulties attaching solar panels to your home, which is why more and more neighborhoods and towns are creating so called ``community solar'' projects. Instead of affixing solar panels to every roof on the block, an increasing number of Americans have decided to place those same solar panels all together in one open and unobstructed sunny area near their homes. By grouping solar panels together, it reduces the cost by up to 30 percent compared to installing each panel on every roof separately. Whether used by neighbors living at the end of a cul-de-sac or developed by our rural energy cooperatives, creating these group solar projects to share energy is a great way to lower the cost of developing solar energy. But there is a problem: our tax code is getting in the way. It discourages neighborhood solar projects by requiring that solar panels must actually be on your property instead of allowing neighbors and others to partner on community solar projects. This discourages innovation and slows the growth of solar power as an alternate energy source. The SUN Act would make a small change to the tax code that would no longer constrain this innovative solar energy development. By eliminating the requirement that solar panels be on one individual's property, it allows Americans to work together on community projects where each individual can claim a tax credit. This simple solution makes it easier to adopt and use clean, renewable energy. What excites me about this bill is that it will create jobs for Americans in every neighborhood where these community solar projects are developed. This bill reduces barriers that currently prevent Americans from adopting solar energy, opens up new markets, and creates a simple structure to allow people to utilize clean energy for their home. Mr. Presdient, 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, let me say once again, as does my colleague from Oregon, I oppose reauthorization of the existing provisions of the PATRIOT Act that we have been debating on the Senate floor without significant reforms. I also have to say I believe it is critical that the administration make public its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act so Members of Congress and our public are not kept in the dark. That is the important work we have in front of us, and we have a real opportunity to accomplish those goals.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind words. I also wish to echo his remarks about the leadership of the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee and her focus on keeping our country safe and our citizens protected. I also wish to make the point that, as my colleague from Oregon, I also oppose reauthorization of the expiring provisions in the PATRIOT Act without significant reforms. I believe it is critical that the administration make public its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act so Members of Congress and the public are not kept in the dark.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, as we begin to end this important colloquy, I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Wyden on this important matter. I also wish to acknowledge the involvement of the Senator from New Mexico, who is presiding at this moment in time, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, who has been very involved in bringing this case to the attention of all of us. I wish to also thank my good friend from California, the chairwoman of the committee. She has shown a great willingness to work with everybody and to listen. I have to say I expect that once the committee examines this issue more closely, I think many more of our colleagues will want to join us in reforming the law in this area. I think this is important. I do think we can find the right balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting the health and welfare of the American citizens.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today in conjunction with my colleague from Oregon to discuss what is before us here on the floor, which is the extension of the PATRIOT Act. I rise as well to express my opposition to the extension of the three most controversial provisions in the PATRIOT Act which are before us here today. The process by which we have considered these provisions has been rushed. I believe we have done a disservice to the American people by not having a fuller and more open debate about these provisions. Along with Senator Wyden, I want to acknowledge the difficult position the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, has been in. I want to thank him for trying to find an agreement to vote on more amendments. We were very close to reaching that agreement, but even in that context, the debate we have had on this bill has been insufficient. If you look at what we are about to approve, it is a one-page bill which just changes the dates in the existing PATRIOT Act. This is a lost opportunity. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that what most people--including many Members of Congress--believe the PATRIOT Act allows the government to do--what it allows the government to do-- and what government officials privately believe the PATRIOT Act allows them to do are two different things. Senator Wyden has been making that case. I want to make it as well. I cannot support the extension of the provisions we are considering today without amendments to ensure there is a check on executive branch authority. I do not believe the Coloradans who sent me here to represent them would accept this extension either. Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out. I appreciate the Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, working with us to hold hearings in the committee to examine how the administration is interpreting the law. I believe that is a critical step forward. However, that addresses only the overarching concern. I still have concerns about the individual provisions we are considering today. We just voted to invoke cloture to cut off debate on the 4-year extension of provisions that give the government wide-ranging authority to conduct wiretaps on groups and individuals or collect private citizens' records. I voted no because the debate should not be over without a real chance to improve these authorities. I recently supported a 3-month extension so the Senate could take time to debate and amend the PATRIOT Act. We were promised that debate, but that opportunity is literally slipping through our hands. I would like to stay here and continue making the case to the American people that this bill should and could be improved. While a number of PATRIOT Act provisions are permanent and remain in place to give our intelligence community important tools to fight terrorism, the three controversial provisions we are debating, commonly known as roving wiretap, ``lone wolf,'' and business records, are ripe for abuse and threaten Americans' constitutional freedoms. I know we must balance the principles of liberty and security. I firmly believe terrorism is a serious threat to the United States, and we must be sharply focused on protecting the American people. In fact, with my seats on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, much of my attention is centered on keeping Americans safe both here and abroad. I also recognize that despite Osama bin Laden's death, we still live in a world where terrorism is a serious threat to our country, our economy, and to American lives. Our government does need the appropriate surveillance and antiterrorism tools to achieve these important goals. However, we need to and we can strike a better balance between protecting our national security and the constitutional freedoms of our people. Let me give you an example. This debate has failed to recognize that the current surveillance programs need improved public oversight and accountability. I know Americans believe we ought to only use PATRIOT Act powers to investigate terrorists or espionage-related targets. Yet section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the so-called business records provision, currently allows records to be collected on law-abiding Americans without any connection to terrorism or espionage. If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism or other nefarious activities, where do they end? Coloradans are demanding that in addition to the review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, we place commonsense limits on government investigations and link data collection to terrorist or espionage-related activities. If--or I should say when--Congress passes this bill to extend the PATRIOT Act until 2015, it will mean that for 4 more years the Federal Government will have access to private information about Americans who have no connection to terrorism without sufficient accountability and without real public awareness about how these powers are used. Again, I underline that we all agree the intelligence community needs effective tools to combat terrorism, but we must provide these tools in a way that protects the constitutional freedoms of our people and lives up to the standard of transparency that democracy demands. Again, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, while I cannot say how this authority is being used, I believe it is ripe for potential abuse and must be improved to protect the constitutionally protected privacy rights of individual innocent American citizens. Toward that goal, I have worked with my colleagues to come up with commonsense fixes that can receive bipartisan support. For example, Senator Wyden and I filed an amendment that would require the Department of Justice to disclose the official legal interpretation of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. This would make sure the Federal Government is only using those powers in ways the American people believe they are authorizing them to. While I believe our intelligence practices should be kept secret, I do not believe the government's official interpretation of these laws should be kept secret. This is an important part of our oversight duties, and I look forward to working with Chairwoman Feinstein in the Intelligence Committee to ensure this oversight occurs. I have also filed my own amendments to address some of the problems I see with the roving wiretap, ``lone wolf,'' and business record provisions. For example, I joined Senator Wyden in filing an amendment designed to narrow the scope of the business records materials that can be collected under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. And I just highlighted some of the problems with that provision. Our amendment would still allow enforcement agencies to use the PATRIOT Act to obtain investigation records, but it would also require those entities to demonstrate that the records are in some way connected to terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Today, law enforcement currently can obtain any kind of records. In fact, the PATRIOT Act's only limitation states that such information has to be related to ``any tangible thing.'' That is right. As long as these business records are related to any tangible thing, the U.S. Government can require businesses to turn over information on their customers, whether or not there is a link to terrorism or espionage. I have to say that I just do not think it is unreasonable to ask that our law enforcement agencies identify a terrorism or espionage investigation before collecting the private information of law-abiding American citizens. These amendments represent but a few of the reform ideas we could have debated this week. But without further debate on these issues, this or any other administration, whether intentionally or unintentionally, can abuse the PATRIOT Act. And because of the need to keep classified material classified, Congress cannot publicly fulfill our oversight responsibilities on behalf of the American people. So, as I started out my remarks, I plan to vote against the reauthorization of these three expiring provisions because we fail to implement any reforms that would sensibly restrain these overbroad provisions. In the nearly 10 years since Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, there has been very little opportunity to improve this law, and I, for one, am very disappointed that we are once again being rushed into approving policies that threaten the privacy-- which, under one definition, is the freedom to be left alone--of the American people. It is a fundamental element and principle of freedom. The bill that is before us today, in my opinion, does not live up to the balanced standard the Framers of our Constitution envisioned to protect both liberty and security, and I believe it seriously risks the constitutional freedoms of our people. By passing this unamended reauthorization, we are ensuring that Americans will live with the status quo for 4 more long years. I am disappointed and I know that many of our constituents would be disappointed if they were able to understand the implications of our inaction on these troubling issues. As I close, I just want to say there is a gravitational pull to secrecy that I think we all have as human beings. It is hard to resist it. And the whole point of the checks and balances our Founders put in place was to ensure that power couldn't be consolidated and that power abused, again whether intentionally or unintentionally. We would all like to be king for a day. We all have ideas about how we could make the world a better place. But we know the dangers in giving that much power to one person or one small group of people. Ben Franklin put it so well. I can't do justice to his remarks and the way he stated them, but to paraphrase him, he said that a society that would trade essential liberty for short-term security deserves neither. And our job as Senators is to ensure that we actually enjoy both of those precious qualities, security and liberty. This is an important vote today. This is an important undertaking. I know we can, through the leadership of Senator Wyden and many of us who care deeply about this, ensure that the PATRIOT Act keeps faith with the principles we hold dear. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.