Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Charles ``Chuck'' Wielgus of Colorado Springs, a recipient of the 2010 Great Comebacks Award for the Western Region. This award honors 12 individuals throughout the United States who have struggled with a chronic intestinal condition and have exhibited extraordinary strength and courage in fighting to ensure that this condition does not affect their ability to live life on their terms. Chuck was serving as executive director of USA Swimming in 2006 when he was diagnosed with stage III colorectal cancer. His diagnosis required radiation and chemotherapy therapy, as well as ostomy surgery. With the constant support of his swimming family, as well as the inspiration given him by his wife Nancy, Chuck was quickly able to regain his fighting spirit. Four years removed from his ordeal, Chuck is as active as ever. In 2008, Chuck traveled to China with the U.S. Swim Team for the Beijing Olympic Games. Aside from his role with USA Swimming, Chuck is the chief executive officer of the USA Swimming Foundation, and is looking forward to taking on the responsibility of helping others through sharing his personal story of triumph. There are thousands of brave Coloradans who share Chuck's story, and it is an honor for me to be able to tell that story here, for the record. I congratulate Chuck and the other Great Comebacks Award recipients for 2010, and I urge my colleagues to take the time to learn more about the struggles brave citizens such as Chuck face in your own respective States. Their stories, like Chuck's, are inspirational; with help from all of my colleagues here today, we can together begin to heighten awareness about some of the huge strides being made by people living with intestinal diseases or recovering from ostomy surgery.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 wished to rise to speak on the legislation that is currently before the Senate, the America Invents Act of 2011. I wish to applaud the work of Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for working so hard to bring this complex, bipartisan legislation to the Senate floor. As we work to rebuild our economy, get Americans back to work, and win the global economic race, we should all appreciate this effort to spur innovation and create jobs. Patent reform is an important issue for Colorado's economy and, of course, our national economy. High-tech innovators represent over 12,000 jobs in Colorado, and they are an important part of our economic recovery. In addition, Colorado has a vibrant biotech, clean energy, and aerospace set of industries. That is why I believe getting patent reform right and achieving consensus on provisions such as inter partes reexamination is so important. Inter partes reexamines a proceeding at the Patent Office that allows for the validity of a patent to be challenged in an administrative proceeding. These proceedings are intended to serve as a less-expensive alternative to courtroom litigation and provide additional access to the expertise of the Patent Office on questions of patentability. Inter partes reexam is often the preferred method of examination because a panel of experts is more likely to reach the correct decision on a technical question compared to a jury composed of laypeople. The inter partes process is not frequently used today because of procedural restrictions in the existing law. Rather than expanding the opportunities to use the inter partes reexamination process, the America Invents Act before us today imposes standards that are more restrictive than current law and are not supported by top high-tech innovators. We need a patent reform bill that is fair to America's innovative technology companies and all users of the patent system. By failing to provide any relief from the huge burden abusive patent lawsuits impose on technology companies and instead reducing the protections in current law, I fear this legislation will force these companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on frivolous lawsuits. These are dollars that otherwise would be used to employ engineers, produce and market new goods and services, and help Colorado and America win the global economic race. As this legislation moves to the House, we must work to achieve consensus on inter partes reexamination. While I do not believe we have the right balance quite yet, I do believe this bill is a good faith effort to improve our patent system, and I am going to support moving it forward because we cannot let job-creating patents languish any longer. As we all know, the Patent Office has an enormous backlog of nearly 700,000 applications, in addition to a half million new applications every year. Each of these pending applications will create on average 3 to 10 jobs. But while these applications collect dust in America, other countries are getting a head start on technologies that can revolutionize the way we live. I am very pleased the America Invents Act will address the funding challenges faced by the Patent Office. This legislation will allow the Director of the Patent Office to set fees as necessary, but it will also ensure that those fees stay at the Patent Office--all without any cost to taxpayers. This legislation will allow the Director to finally clear the backlog and create needed jobs through innovation. It is my hope that the funding provisions in the America Invents Act stay in this legislation as it moves to the House. I am also pleased that this legislation includes an amendment I cosponsored with Senator Bennet to establish additional satellite patent offices around the country. It is no secret that we believe Colorado is well situated to house a regional satellite patent office because of the combination of our rich and diverse innovative economy, our strong research universities and the fact that Colorado is a great place to live. I am confident that Colorado will be competitive in the process of selecting these new satellite patent offices. In the end, I believe the America Invents Act goes a long way to help unleash America's innovative spirit, but we need to make sure that we don't make changes that could have unintended consequences for some of our most innovative companies. Let's get patent reform right. Let's move it forward, and let's continue working to make our patent system fair, efficient and supportive of innovators as we seek to compete in the global economy. I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention and interest in his own State of Montana. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I would also like to thank the chairman for helping us pass this important amendment. Right now, the European Union uses four geographically diverse patent offices. By only having one patent office, we are at a competitive disadvantage. We need to have these regional offices in order to connect innovators and businesses across the country. The current lack of regional satellite offices is even more of a problem when you consider all of the recruitment and retention issues the USPTO is having with its patent examiner workforce. USPTO is unable to hire and retain over 6,000 examiners at its single location in Alexandria, VA. This has resulted in one-third of patent examiners having been with the USPTO for less than 3 years. USPTO should be recruiting examiners from across the country. Establishing satellite offices will help the USPTO develop expertise from all regions of the country--and I know that a satellite office in Denver, CO, would attract highly qualified examiners.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I look forward to working closely with the Senator to advocate for an office in Denver. I think a Western office will go a long way toward ensuring the success of our patent system.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. There really are a number of objective reasons for choosing Denver. First, opening an office in Colorado will permit USPTO to recruit and hire from a pool of the best candidates the U.S. has to offer. Colorado is home to a great number of technology workers who would be excellent long-term patent examiners for an office located in Colorado. The technology workforce in Colorado is consistently ranked in the top-10 in the U.S. in many important categories. According to a report by Pew Research, Colorado is ranked: third for percent of workers with a bachelor's degree or more; fifth for number of workers with science and engineering degrees per capita; fifth for number of scientists and engineers as a percent of the labor force; and second for number of patents per 1,000 workers. Additionally, other Federal agencies have found Colorado to be a great place to locate an office. Outside of the Washington metro area, Denver has the highest number of Federal employees per capita. Because Colorado is a very desirable place to live, locating a satellite office in Colorado would allow the USPTO to dramatically improve its ability to recruit and retain its most valuable employees. According to the report by Pew Research, Colorado is ranked first for percent of U.S. workers who say they want to live there; and sixth for the percentage of sunny days. Colorado is also well known for its reasonable cost of living, especially in comparison to cities located on the east and west coasts, and Chicago. Colorado is also centrally located in the U.S. and easily accessible to the entire country. Our location in the middle of the country provides convenient access for the technology centers of the West, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain regions.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that affects both our economic and national security--critical minerals and materials. These materials are used in everything from wind turbines to cell phones to weapons guidance systems. However, these materials are primarily imported--many from China--and not always readily available. For example, several clean energy technologies-- including wind turbines, batteries and solar panels--require materials that are at risk of supply disruptions. According to the Department of Energy, clean energy technologies currently constitute 20 percent of global consumption of critical materials. As clean energy technologies are deployed more widely in the decades ahead, demand for critical materials will likely grow. Furthermore, these materials are needed for a number of products essential to protecting our Nation's security, including precision- guided munitions systems, lasers, communication systems, radar systems, avionics, night vision equipment, and satellites. Many of these materials are produced primarily in other countries, and some are not produced in the United States at all. One group of critical minerals with very high importance today is rare earth elements. The United States was once the primary producer of rare earth materials according to the U.S. Geological Survey, but over the past 15 years we have become 100 percent reliant on imports, with 97 percent coming from China. When the rare earth industry left the United States, our rare earth materials workforce dwindled as well, leaving very few experts with experience in processing these materials. Currently, there are no curricula in U.S. universities that are geared toward training a new expert workforce; rather, most of the expertise resides in China and Japan. In addition, the U.S.-developed intellectual property for making many of these materials is owned by Japan. Rare earth materials are not the only critical materials in demand today. Similar supply problems are imminent for other types of minerals and materials that will be essential for the increased deployment of technologies like batteries, solar panels and electric vehicles. Both the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences have identified minerals and materials--such as lithium, manganese and rhodium--that are now or could become critical in the near future. Today, I am introducing the Critical Minerals and Materials Act of 2011, a bill intended to help build up the supply chain of minerals and materials that are vital for the development of a clean energy economy and for our national defense. The National Academy of Sciences recommended improved data-gathering by the Federal Government along with research and development to encourage domestic innovation in the area of critical minerals and materials. My bill specifically would direct the Department of Energy to begin research and development on critical minerals and materials in order to strengthen our domestic supply chain. It would also direct the Department of the Interior to lead in gathering information on the current supply chain and to forecast what materials we might need in the future as our clean energy economy develops. Finally, my bill would build up the workforce necessary for the United States to regain its leadership in the critical minerals and materials industry. Fellow Coloradans in this industry have told me that it is difficult to find qualified workers to hire in the minerals and materials sector. There are good-paying jobs out there waiting to be filled, and more will become available as these industries grow. But we need to make sure our workforce is properly trained to be able to take advantage of these opportunities and retain U.S. expertise in this industry. My bill will provide for such training in the Nation's colleges and universities, as well as in our technical and community colleges. While there are a great many minerals and materials that are important for our economic and national security, my bill will focus on only the small portion of minerals and materials that have become critical due to their highly vulnerable supply chain. These critical minerals and materials are in danger of becoming simply unavailable or extremely expensive and I believe these deserve extra attention. We must also recognize that the raw minerals for these critical materials are often on Federal land and are a valuable resource owned by U.S. citizens. Mining for them must be done in a safe and environmentally responsible way--and that is why I continue to support mining law reform. However, we simply cannot be so dependent upon China or any other nation to provide these critical materials. My bill would ensure that the U.S. is armed with a robust domestic supply chain and a skilled workforce needed to produce these materials. I urge my colleagues of both parties to join me in supporting 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, while our economy is beginning to show signs of recovery, there is still a long way to go. This is especially true in our rural communities. That is why I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill that would help provide new economic opportunities in mountain communities across this country--the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act. The outdoors and recreation industries have been a bright spot in the economic downturn. More Americans are spending time outside, enjoying the natural world 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 their health and well being. Our public lands already play a key role by providing opportunities for hiking, skiing, mountain biking and a range of other activities. In Colorado and across the country, for example, many ski areas are located on National Forest lands. However, under existing law, the National Forest Service bases ski area permits primarily on ``Nordic and alpine skiing'', a classification that does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports, nor the use of ski permit areas for non-winter activities. This has resulted in uncertainty for both the Forest Service and ski areas as to whether and how other activities, such as summer-time activities, can occur on permitted areas. In effect, this means that ski areas on National Forest lands are primarily restricted to use for winter recreation, as opposed to year- round recreation. The legislation I am introducing with Senator Barrasso of Wyoming would clarify this ambiguity. It would ensure that ski area permits could be used for additional snowsports, such as snowboarding, as well as specifically authorizing the Forest Service to allow additional recreational opportunities--like summer-time activities--in permit areas. I should note that this authority is limited. The primary activity in the permit area must remain skiing or other snowsports. And there are specific types of development, such as water parks and amusement parks, that are specifically prohibited. This is a narrowly targeted bill that will lead to additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities at ski areas on public lands--and most importantly help create more sustainable, year round jobs. I would like to thank Senator Barrasso for his continued support of this legislation and his efforts to work with me in the last Congress to pass this bill. I know we were both disappointed that the objections of just two Senators prevented this common-sense legislation from becoming law. Hopefully we will have more success this year--because our mountain communities should be given every opportunity to thrive, as this legislation would help do. 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, while our economy is beginning to show signs of recovery, there is still a long way to go. This is especially true in our rural communities. That is why I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill that would help provide new economic opportunities in mountain communities across this country--the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act. The outdoors and recreation industries have been a bright spot in the economic downturn. More Americans are spending time outside, enjoying the natural world 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 their health and well being. Our public lands already play a key role by providing opportunities for hiking, skiing, mountain biking and a range of other activities. In Colorado and across the country, for example, many ski areas are located on National Forest lands. However, under existing law, the National Forest Service bases ski area permits primarily on ``Nordic and alpine skiing'', a classification that does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports, nor the use of ski permit areas for non-winter activities. This has resulted in uncertainty for both the Forest Service and ski areas as to whether and how other activities, such as summer-time activities, can occur on permitted areas. In effect, this means that ski areas on National Forest lands are primarily restricted to use for winter recreation, as opposed to year- round recreation. The legislation I am introducing with Senator Barrasso of Wyoming would clarify this ambiguity. It would ensure that ski area permits could be used for additional snowsports, such as snowboarding, as well as specifically authorizing the Forest Service to allow additional recreational opportunities--like summer-time activities--in permit areas. I should note that this authority is limited. The primary activity in the permit area must remain skiing or other snowsports. And there are specific types of development, such as water parks and amusement parks, that are specifically prohibited. This is a narrowly targeted bill that will lead to additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities at ski areas on public lands--and most importantly help create more sustainable, year round jobs. I would like to thank Senator Barrasso for his continued support of this legislation and his efforts to work with me in the last Congress to pass this bill. I know we were both disappointed that the objections of just two Senators prevented this common-sense legislation from becoming law. Hopefully we will have more success this year--because our mountain communities should be given every opportunity to thrive, as this legislation would help do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that affects both our economic and national security--critical minerals and materials. These materials are used in everything from wind turbines to cell phones to weapons guidance systems. However, these materials are primarily imported--many from China--and not always readily available. For example, several clean energy technologies-- including wind turbines, batteries and solar panels--require materials that are at risk of supply disruptions. According to the Department of Energy, clean energy technologies currently constitute 20 percent of global consumption of critical materials. As clean energy technologies are deployed more widely in the decades ahead, demand for critical materials will likely grow. Furthermore, these materials are needed for a number of products essential to protecting our Nation's security, including precision- guided munitions systems, lasers, communication systems, radar systems, avionics, night vision equipment, and satellites. Many of these materials are produced primarily in other countries, and some are not produced in the United States at all. One group of critical minerals with very high importance today is rare earth elements. The United States was once the primary producer of rare earth materials according to the U.S. Geological Survey, but over the past 15 years we have become 100 percent reliant on imports, with 97 percent coming from China. When the rare earth industry left the United States, our rare earth materials workforce dwindled as well, leaving very few experts with experience in processing these materials. Currently, there are no curricula in U.S. universities that are geared toward training a new expert workforce; rather, most of the expertise resides in China and Japan. In addition, the U.S.-developed intellectual property for making many of these materials is owned by Japan. Rare earth materials are not the only critical materials in demand today. Similar supply problems are imminent for other types of minerals and materials that will be essential for the increased deployment of technologies like batteries, solar panels and electric vehicles. Both the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences have identified minerals and materials--such as lithium, manganese and rhodium--that are now or could become critical in the near future. Today, I am introducing the Critical Minerals and Materials Act of 2011, a bill intended to help build up the supply chain of minerals and materials that are vital for the development of a clean energy economy and for our national defense. The National Academy of Sciences recommended improved data-gathering by the Federal Government along with research and development to encourage domestic innovation in the area of critical minerals and materials. My bill specifically would direct the Department of Energy to begin research and development on critical minerals and materials in order to strengthen our domestic supply chain. It would also direct the Department of the Interior to lead in gathering information on the current supply chain and to forecast what materials we might need in the future as our clean energy economy develops. Finally, my bill would build up the workforce necessary for the United States to regain its leadership in the critical minerals and materials industry. Fellow Coloradans in this industry have told me that it is difficult to find qualified workers to hire in the minerals and materials sector. There are good-paying jobs out there waiting to be filled, and more will become available as these industries grow. But we need to make sure our workforce is properly trained to be able to take advantage of these opportunities and retain U.S. expertise in this industry. My bill will provide for such training in the Nation's colleges and universities, as well as in our technical and community colleges. While there are a great many minerals and materials that are important for our economic and national security, my bill will focus on only the small portion of minerals and materials that have become critical due to their highly vulnerable supply chain. These critical minerals and materials are in danger of becoming simply unavailable or extremely expensive and I believe these deserve extra attention. We must also recognize that the raw minerals for these critical materials are often on Federal land and are a valuable resource owned by U.S. citizens. Mining for them must be done in a safe and environmentally responsible way--and that is why I continue to support mining law reform. However, we simply cannot be so dependent upon China or any other nation to provide these critical materials. My bill would ensure that the U.S. is armed with a robust domestic supply chain and a skilled workforce needed to produce these materials. I urge my colleagues of both parties to join me in supporting 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, I rise to urge my colleagues to support legislation I am introducing today to name the Veterans Telehealth Clinic in Craig, Colorado, after Medal of Honor recipient Major William E. Adams. I am pleased that Senator Bennet will join with me in introducing this bill. Our bill isn't the first effort to honor Major Adams. My good friend Congressman John Salazar introduced this legislation last year in the House of Representatives with the support of the entire Colorado delegation. I would like to see this bill through to passage in this Congress in part to honor John and his efforts to commemorate the heroism of Major Adams and to get the VA clinic established in northwest Colorado. I'd also like to honor Larry Neu, a local business owner and Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4265 quartermaster, who has been the architect of efforts to commemorate Major Adams. With Larry's leadership and the help of other Craig residents, the Colorado state legislature passed a resolution renaming part of Colorado Highway 13 the ``Maj. William Adams Medal of Honor Highway.'' I know he worked closely with Congressman Salazar in the last Congress to develop the legislation I am introducing today. Above all, this bill is intended to honor Major William Adams himself and his ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.'' A resident of Craig, Major Adams served and lost his life in the Vietnam War. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, after distinguishing himself while serving as an Army helicopter pilot. In May 1971, he volunteered to fly a lightly armed helicopter in an attempt to evacuate three seriously wounded soldiers from a small base that was under attack. He made the decision with full knowledge that numerous antiaircraft weapons were positioned around the base and that the clear weather would make him visible to enemy gunners. As he approached the base, the enemy gunners opened fire, but he continued his approach, directing the attacks of supporting gunships while maintaining control of the helicopter he was flying. He picked up the wounded soldiers, but his aircraft was then struck and damaged by enemy anti-aircraft fire and crashed. I was pleased to learn that many of his family members attended the ceremony in November dedicating part of Colorado Highway 13 to Major Adams. I want to pay tribute today to his wife Sandra and his daughter Jean, both Colorado residents, and his son, Col. John Adams, an intelligence officer in the Marine Corps, recently back from Afghanistan. I hope this bill serves to reinforce what they already know--that Major Adams is a real hero to this county, to Colorado and to Craig. He is part of a special class of American heroes who will forever be remembered for their service and sacrifice. His story will continue inspiring generations to come, while reminding us all about the contributions and sacrifices of America's greatest. I have introduced this legislation not only to recognize the sacrifice of Major Adams, but also to recognize the service of our Vietnam veterans and especially all veterans in Northwest Colorado. The Telehealth Clinic in Craig is on track to have nearly 1700 visits from area veterans this year, and I will always fight to make sure our veterans get the health care they earned and deserve. As Larry Neu said about Major Adams, ``The man made the ultimate sacrifice for his country--he should not be forgotten.'' Passage of this bill will help us remember Major Adams and so many other brave veterans who have sacrificed their lives for our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to continue to support our dedicated men and women in uniform.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support legislation I am introducing today to name the Veterans Telehealth Clinic in Craig, Colorado, after Medal of Honor recipient Major William E. Adams. I am pleased that Senator Bennet will join with me in introducing this bill. Our bill isn't the first effort to honor Major Adams. My good friend Congressman John Salazar introduced this legislation last year in the House of Representatives with the support of the entire Colorado delegation. I would like to see this bill through to passage in this Congress in part to honor John and his efforts to commemorate the heroism of Major Adams and to get the VA clinic established in northwest Colorado. I'd also like to honor Larry Neu, a local business owner and Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4265 quartermaster, who has been the architect of efforts to commemorate Major Adams. With Larry's leadership and the help of other Craig residents, the Colorado state legislature passed a resolution renaming part of Colorado Highway 13 the ``Maj. William Adams Medal of Honor Highway.'' I know he worked closely with Congressman Salazar in the last Congress to develop the legislation I am introducing today. Above all, this bill is intended to honor Major William Adams himself and his ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.'' A resident of Craig, Major Adams served and lost his life in the Vietnam War. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, after distinguishing himself while serving as an Army helicopter pilot. In May 1971, he volunteered to fly a lightly armed helicopter in an attempt to evacuate three seriously wounded soldiers from a small base that was under attack. He made the decision with full knowledge that numerous antiaircraft weapons were positioned around the base and that the clear weather would make him visible to enemy gunners. As he approached the base, the enemy gunners opened fire, but he continued his approach, directing the attacks of supporting gunships while maintaining control of the helicopter he was flying. He picked up the wounded soldiers, but his aircraft was then struck and damaged by enemy anti-aircraft fire and crashed. I was pleased to learn that many of his family members attended the ceremony in November dedicating part of Colorado Highway 13 to Major Adams. I want to pay tribute today to his wife Sandra and his daughter Jean, both Colorado residents, and his son, Col. John Adams, an intelligence officer in the Marine Corps, recently back from Afghanistan. I hope this bill serves to reinforce what they already know--that Major Adams is a real hero to this county, to Colorado and to Craig. He is part of a special class of American heroes who will forever be remembered for their service and sacrifice. His story will continue inspiring generations to come, while reminding us all about the contributions and sacrifices of America's greatest. I have introduced this legislation not only to recognize the sacrifice of Major Adams, but also to recognize the service of our Vietnam veterans and especially all veterans in Northwest Colorado. The Telehealth Clinic in Craig is on track to have nearly 1700 visits from area veterans this year, and I will always fight to make sure our veterans get the health care they earned and deserve. As Larry Neu said about Major Adams, ``The man made the ultimate sacrifice for his country--he should not be forgotten.'' Passage of this bill will help us remember Major Adams and so many other brave veterans who have sacrificed their lives for our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to continue to support our dedicated men and women in uniform.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it deserves to be recognized and protected. This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties. In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale. Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale. In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork. Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet. I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on the Senate floor. Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more success in passing this legislation in this Congress. 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, fighting fires is very serious business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire, near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over 6,000 acres. We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who serve them. One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire District owns the land under two of its three fire stations. The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training. The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns, an undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire threats. The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service. However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation. To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress. Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District. The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly. This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay. 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, fighting fires is very serious business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire, near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over 6,000 acres. We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who serve them. One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire District owns the land under two of its three fire stations. The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training. The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns, an undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire threats. The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service. However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation. To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress. Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District. The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly. This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it deserves to be recognized and protected. This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties. In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale. Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale. In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork. Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet. I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on the Senate floor. Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more success in passing this legislation in this Congress. 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 am proud to join my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in introducing legislation today that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. The idea of requiring a balanced Federal budget seems like common sense to most American families, who have to balance their own checkbooks. And in these hard times, they wonder why the Federal Government doesn't have to do the same. In fact, the United States has only balanced its budget 5 times in the last 50 years. We heard the Senator from Alabama point out the Federal budget balanced only twice in our history. The budgets of nations are not the same as family budgets. Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we have known that national emergencies sometimes require deficit spending. But we are fast approaching a tipping point where our debt threatens this economic orthodoxy. We are approaching a tipping point where an unprecedented level of debt--and our institutional failure to address it--risks our national security. We need to take action now to turn around our fiscal situation. By restoring responsible spending through a reasonable balanced budget amendment, we can begin climbing out of our economic hole, and, perhaps just as important, this amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. That is a signal I believe we need to send now. Before going further, I want to recognize the obvious--that there is a wide range of strong opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Tinkering with the Constitution is not something any of us takes lightly, and this amendment is certainly no exception. I myself have had doubts in the past about similar legislation. During the Clinton years, our government ran a surplus, and there was no pressing need for such a requirement. When we started running deficits again, part of me hoped we could use other tools at our disposal to get our Nation back on a financially sound path. Additionally, Members of my party raised--and continue to raise-- credible arguments about why a balanced budget amendment could actually hurt our economy in some circumstances. Some of them believe it is nothing more than a rhetorical tool designed only to make a political statement and move us inevitably toward smaller government. The recent history of the balanced budget amendment is a partisan one. Of the five proposals that were introduced last Congress, none had a Democratic cosponsor--largely because of, in my opinion, extraneous provisions that manipulated the budget in one way or another to protect favored tax breaks or certain spending. However, if you take a longer view into the past, it was actually progressive Democratic Senator Paul Simon--along with Senator Hatch of Utah--who led the balanced budget amendment effort that came closest to passage in 1995. They knew that if we balanced our Federal budget, we would be better able to make more intelligent choices about spending, rather than spending billions on debt service, and we would actually see family incomes rise. Today, the dilemma we face as a result of our debt is even more extreme. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation. Our government debt, as Senator Shelby pointed out, is now over $14 trillion. That is $45,300 for every person in this country. If we don't put limits on how we spend money, the question we face isn't whether we can make intelligent choices; it is whether we will be able to afford any of the programs that we value at all--programs we need to help propel the middle class and small business over the longer term. What is at stake isn't just family income; it is our Nation's ability to continue to lead in the global economic race. The cochairman of President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the debt called our debt a ``cancer'' that is eating away at our economic health. That is a point I wish President Obama had made in his State of the Union Address last week when he spoke about some of the investments America needs to make to spur innovation and economic growth--education, clean energy, and infrastructure, to name a few. He is right that without targeted investments to help hard-working Americans and businesses, the United States will be relegated to second-class status. We won't be able to compete with countries around the world or to grow jobs in America. We won't be able to unleash our innovative spirit and give our children and grandchildren their shot at the American dream. I have also come to the conclusion that unless we put constraints on spending, Congress simply lacks the political will to make the extremely difficult decisions that will lead us out of the dire fiscal situation in which we find our Nation. I have been fighting for many years for smart budgeting tools--the Presiding Officer has as well--including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal spending. I am also working with a group of bipartisan Senators trying to make sure the recommendations by the President's fiscal commission can get an up-or-down vote in Congress. A balanced budget amendment is one more important tool we need. Let me say a few words about the legislation itself. Senator Shelby, to his credit, first introduced this legislation--I think I can say that it was when he was a Democrat, some 25 years ago, and he continues to reintroduce it every Congress since he became a Republican. I thank him and acknowledge his leadership. The Shelby-Udall balanced budget amendment would create a requirement that Federal spending cannot exceed revenue and that total expenditures of the government cannot exceed 20 percent of the previous year's gross domestic product. As Senator Shelby pointed out, this requirement wouldn't apply when the United States is at war, and it can be suspended by a supermajority, or three-fifths, vote of each House of Congress in the event certain spending is necessary to address a national emergency. To my friends who worry that this balanced budget amendment puts our economy into an inflexible straitjacket, I say it is not true. It allows commonsense safety valves to be used for exceptional circumstances--to give the flexibility that is sometimes needed in situations that can't be predicted or planned for. All in all, I am confident our proposed amendment provides a responsible approach to putting us on a path toward a balanced budget. We talked a lot last week during and after the State of the Union Address about the need to work together to address our biggest challenges, not just sitting together. Today, I hope I am putting my money where my mouth is by joining my good friend from Alabama. I hope our partnership will send a signal that collaboration can help us address our most pressing national issues. The American people are demanding that of us. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. It is time for us to catch up. I ask my colleagues of both parties in both Chambers to work with Senator Shelby and me on this idea. We may not have it perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. But it is a good start. Let's at least have an honest and spirited dialog about this legislation and ways to dig ourselves out of our economic hole. Our children's future depends on it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise in celebration of Black History Month and to acknowledge the unique contributions of Colorado's African-American communities to my home State and our Nation. The history of Colorado's African-American communities is long, rich and diverse; it spans from our earliest days as a territory to modern times. I think it safe to say that all Coloradans have benefited tremendously from African-American communities' hard work and dedication to continuously making Colorado a better place to live. Last year in my remarks on Black History Month, I made special note of the diversity of settlers who moved west during the expansion of the United States. Like other settlers, African Americans moved west in search of new opportunity--some to be free, others to become entrepreneurs, traders, and leaders, but all played an active role in the formation of Colorado as a territory and then a State. A watercolor painting hangs in my Senate office to remind me of the early presence of African-American westerners. The painting ``One of the First'' by noted African-American artist and Coloradan James Wider depicts a Buffalo soldier during a snowstorm, reminiscent of a time of great hardship in our State's early history. For me, this image portrays the struggles and determination of all the people who shaped the West we know today. I am appreciative to the artist, as well as Dr. Anthony Young, the vice chairman of the Black American West Museum & Heritage Center, for allowing me the privilege to temporarily hang the painting in my office. While this painting highlights the early presence of African- Americans in the West, it also reminds me of the countless individuals in Colorado's Black community who have served and continue to serve their communities, our State and our Nation in more contemporary times. I would like to highlight two Coloradans who reflect this influence: Dr. Evie Dennis and Rev. Milton Proby. Dr. Evie Dennis rose in her career as a teacher to become the superintendent of Denver public schools from 1990 to 1994, when she worked to improve the education of all of Denver's schoolchildren. In 2008, Dr. Dennis was inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame, and she continues to work in support of communities across the State. Rev. Milton Proby was a prominent figure during his 47 years in southern Colorado, where he proudly faced adversity in championing against inequality and injustice. The reverend served under three Colorado Governors and helped to establish Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, among many other notable achievements and awards. People like Dr. Dennis and Reverend Proby have overcome struggle to serve--and lead--our State. Their contributions remind us of how vital African-American communities have been to our State's history, and I have no doubt that the same communities will continue to be a driving force toward a better future. Mr. President, Black History Month is a time for all Coloradans and Americans to reflect on the contributions of African Americans to our State and throughout our great Nation. I encourage my fellow Coloradans to celebrate these contributions not only during this month but throughout the entire year.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in introducing legislation today that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. The idea of requiring a balanced Federal budget seems like common sense to most American families, who have to balance their own checkbooks. And in these hard times, they wonder why the Federal Government doesn't have to do the same. In fact, the United States has only balanced its budget 5 times in the last 50 years. We heard the Senator from Alabama point out the Federal budget balanced only twice in our history. The budgets of nations are not the same as family budgets. Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we have known that national emergencies sometimes require deficit spending. But we are fast approaching a tipping point where our debt threatens this economic orthodoxy. We are approaching a tipping point where an unprecedented level of debt--and our institutional failure to address it--risks our national security. We need to take action now to turn around our fiscal situation. By restoring responsible spending through a reasonable balanced budget amendment, we can begin climbing out of our economic hole, and, perhaps just as important, this amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. That is a signal I believe we need to send now. Before going further, I want to recognize the obvious--that there is a wide range of strong opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Tinkering with the Constitution is not something any of us takes lightly, and this amendment is certainly no exception. I myself have had doubts in the past about similar legislation. During the Clinton years, our government ran a surplus, and there was no pressing need for such a requirement. When we started running deficits again, part of me hoped we could use other tools at our disposal to get our Nation back on a financially sound path. Additionally, Members of my party raised--and continue to raise-- credible arguments about why a balanced budget amendment could actually hurt our economy in some circumstances. Some of them believe it is nothing more than a rhetorical tool designed only to make a political statement and move us inevitably toward smaller government. The recent history of the balanced budget amendment is a partisan one. Of the five proposals that were introduced last Congress, none had a Democratic cosponsor--largely because of, in my opinion, extraneous provisions that manipulated the budget in one way or another to protect favored tax breaks or certain spending. However, if you take a longer view into the past, it was actually progressive Democratic Senator Paul Simon--along with Senator Hatch of Utah--who led the balanced budget amendment effort that came closest to passage in 1995. They knew that if we balanced our Federal budget, we would be better able to make more intelligent choices about spending, rather than spending billions on debt service, and we would actually see family incomes rise. Today, the dilemma we face as a result of our debt is even more extreme. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation. Our government debt, as Senator Shelby pointed out, is now over $14 trillion. That is $45,300 for every person in this country. If we don't put limits on how we spend money, the question we face isn't whether we can make intelligent choices; it is whether we will be able to afford any of the programs that we value at all--programs we need to help propel the middle class and small business over the longer term. What is at stake isn't just family income; it is our Nation's ability to continue to lead in the global economic race. The cochairman of President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the debt called our debt a ``cancer'' that is eating away at our economic health. That is a point I wish President Obama had made in his State of the Union Address last week when he spoke about some of the investments America needs to make to spur innovation and economic growth--education, clean energy, and infrastructure, to name a few. He is right that without targeted investments to help hard-working Americans and businesses, the United States will be relegated to second-class status. We won't be able to compete with countries around the world or to grow jobs in America. We won't be able to unleash our innovative spirit and give our children and grandchildren their shot at the American dream. I have also come to the conclusion that unless we put constraints on spending, Congress simply lacks the political will to make the extremely difficult decisions that will lead us out of the dire fiscal situation in which we find our Nation. I have been fighting for many years for smart budgeting tools--the Presiding Officer has as well--including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal spending. I am also working with a group of bipartisan Senators trying to make sure the recommendations by the President's fiscal commission can get an up-or-down vote in Congress. A balanced budget amendment is one more important tool we need. Let me say a few words about the legislation itself. Senator Shelby, to his credit, first introduced this legislation--I think I can say that it was when he was a Democrat, some 25 years ago, and he continues to reintroduce it every Congress since he became a Republican. I thank him and acknowledge his leadership. The Shelby-Udall balanced budget amendment would create a requirement that Federal spending cannot exceed revenue and that total expenditures of the government cannot exceed 20 percent of the previous year's gross domestic product. As Senator Shelby pointed out, this requirement wouldn't apply when the United States is at war, and it can be suspended by a supermajority, or three-fifths, vote of each House of Congress in the event certain spending is necessary to address a national emergency. To my friends who worry that this balanced budget amendment puts our economy into an inflexible straitjacket, I say it is not true. It allows commonsense safety valves to be used for exceptional circumstances--to give the flexibility that is sometimes needed in situations that can't be predicted or planned for. All in all, I am confident our proposed amendment provides a responsible approach to putting us on a path toward a balanced budget. We talked a lot last week during and after the State of the Union Address about the need to work together to address our biggest challenges, not just sitting together. Today, I hope I am putting my money where my mouth is by joining my good friend from Alabama. I hope our partnership will send a signal that collaboration can help us address our most pressing national issues. The American people are demanding that of us. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. It is time for us to catch up. I ask my colleagues of both parties in both Chambers to work with Senator Shelby and me on this idea. We may not have it perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. But it is a good start. Let's at least have an honest and spirited dialog about this legislation and ways to dig ourselves out of our economic hole. Our children's future depends on it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, the resolution before us, which I introduced, would encourage Senators to file their amendments 72 hours in advance of a vote to ensure that Members have time to review it, but it would also delay the practice of calling for an outloud reading of the amendment in front of us. It addresses a concern I think we all have about the amendment process. When a full reading of the amendment has been called for, it ties our Senate into knots. It is a spectacle, with the clerks standing here reading amendments for hours to an empty Chamber. My amendment would prevent needless delays by waiving the live reading of an amendment when the text has been available long enough for all of us to look it over. It would have to be submitted 72 hours in advance. So I ask for the yeas and nays, and I hope for an overwhelmingly bipartisan approval of this important change to the Senate rules.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I close on this note: I urge my colleagues to vote for the simple commonsense reform of the Senate rules. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a particular proposal we will consider later today, but I wish to associate myself with the Senator from Oregon, who has been tireless in pushing for commonsense reforms in the way the Senate operates. The majority whip made the comment in his remarks before the Senator from Oregon spoke that we want to make these changes so the Senate can respond to the changing nature of the world around us and in particular focus on our economy and getting Americans back to work. If the Senate is tied in knots, we are not going to put the policies in place that these stalwart, committed Senators, including the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, so compellingly presented to us. I know there are others who wish to speak, so I will briefly speak to the proposal I have submitted that would bring us a step closer to fixing some of the redundancy in the rules that slow down our progress here and I think ultimately make not just our constituents in our individual States frustrated but Americans all across our country. Put simply, this proposal would encourage Senators to file their amendments 72 hours in advance of a vote to ensure we all have a chance to review that amendment. But then it would also discourage the practice of delaying a final vote by calling for an out-loud reading of the amendment. I have heard concerns from Members of both parties about this particular practice. We all want to have an opportunity to read the provisions in amendments and broader bills, but it has become increasingly obvious to me that we need to make changes in our rules, as I said, to ensure the process works smoothly. My proposal would encourage Senators to file amendments 72 hours in advance, and it would prevent any Senators from creating a logjam on the Senate floor by forcing the text of that amendment to be read aloud if it is made available in advance. Mr. President, you and I have been around long enough to know that in the days before copy machines and the Internet, if one was serving in the Senate, it was probably helpful to sit here and hear the text of each amendment read out loud. That practice is outdated, and it is not the way the Senate operates today. Instead, our technology allows us instant access to the text of amendments, and therefore there is no crucial need to hear them read aloud at the last minute. Most of the time, in fact, we just waive the reading and move to the final vote. When a full reading, however, has been forced, it largely brings this place to a halt, as Senator Durbin pointed out earlier. The effect has been to tie the Senate in knots, and it creates a spectacle when the hard-working clerks, who are actually the people who make this Senate run, have to stand here and read amendments, sometimes for hours, to an empty Chamber. That said, there have been cases in which one party believes the text of a rather large amendment has been withheld from them in order to deny them adequate time to review it. I do not want to take that power away from the minority to reasonably voice their opinions on the floor to get the information they need, which is why my proposal is a balanced way of fixing the Senate rules. This resolution is designed to help us find common ground and prevent needless delays by allowing us to prevent the live reading of an amendment when the text has been available long enough for everyone to have studied it in advance. Instead of allowing an individual Senator to put the Senate on hold literally for hours by forcing an amendment to be read, a simple majority of Senators would be able to collectively vote to dispense with the reading, provided that it was filed on time. This is a commonsense approach. It seeks to address the concerns of those who want more time to read amendments and those who see the forced reading of amendments as needlessly obstructive. It is a simple approach, and I believe later today the Senate will approve such a rules change. In ending my remarks, I wish to acknowledge the work of Chairman Schumer and Senator Alexander. There is an agreement, as I understand it, and we will vote on it later today. I applaud their work and offer my very sincere thanks. I also acknowledge Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for helping bring this package to the floor today and for reaching their own agreement on how to improve the way the Senate works. Finally, as I did in my beginning remarks, I wish to acknowledge Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Tom Udall, and Senator Jeff Merkley for bringing true attention to a concern so many Americans have had on this particular issue. Senator Merkley and Senator Durbin spoke to the fact that this may seem an obscure topic to many constituents. This is historic progress we are going to make today that ultimately will make the Senate function together. I know that is the mission of these three outstanding Senators. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley be listed as a cosponsor of the resolution I am offering today.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, on Tuesday we made history in a small but significant way here in Congress. When we filed into the House Chamber for the President's annual State of the Union Address, many of us cast aside a long-held custom and crossed the aisle-- literally--and sat together rather than divided by party. In some cases, as with my colleagues from my home State of Colorado, we sat by State delegation, Republicans and Democrats together. I advocated for that change as a symbolic gesture. It was something I have done since I served in the Colorado State House. In the days leading up to Tuesday's speech, folks here, and in the media, had a lot of fun comparing our plans to finding a date to a high school dance. They started speculating on what was next--trust falls? A ropes course? I am an old mountaineer--I have been joking that the aisle has become a mountain to climb. And while those jokes have been entertaining for us inside the beltway, I think the media's interest in the drama highlights part of the problem that led me to call for a change in the way we sit during the State of the Union. My staff did quite a bit of research on the history of the State of the Union Address, and they couldn't find any historical reason for divided seating. It seems to have developed along with the evolution of broadcast journalism. So it appears that the media's hunger for drama--and our own need to use the media to project fierce party unity to the audience at home-- has made the State of the Union like a pep rally--or a kind of sideshow to the main event. We've lost our focus on the content of the speech in an effort to get a moment of air time or a good headline. I will be the first to admit that Tuesday's new seating arrangements aren't going to suddenly change the atmosphere here in Congress. But I hope it was the start of a new tradition. It certainly was a step in the right direction. Coloradans and Americans overwhelmingly supported the idea. It is something Americans are hungering for--I was just the messenger. There is no question it got us talking to people outside our comfort zones. I think the result was a more respectful--and less divided--State of the Union Address. And I bring this up today--2 days after the State of the Union-- because I don't want this to be an anomaly--a brief moment of half- hearted kumbaya before we slip back into our old habits. There was an even more serious reason for bringing us all together. We are not just divided during the President's State of the Union Address--it is nearly every day--in Washington and on the campaign trail. If you go out and talk to citizens--as I do when I am in Colorado-- the vast majority of people say they are frustrated with the bickering in Washington, and they believe it is hurting our Nation. The words used by politicians and commentators on the right and the left have become over the top--even violent. After the horrific events of January 9, it is only natural that we ask whether there is a connection between the fact that Congresswoman Giffords was the subject of violent gun metaphors on the campaign trail and the attack by a disturbed gunman only a few months later. I, personally, think it would be simplistic to believe that one was the sole--or even a part--cause of the other. But it is incontrovertible that the level of violence and vitriol in our political language has been escalating year after year to a point where the space between rhetoric and reality has grown from a gap into a chasm. To quote Jon Stewart of the ``Daily Show'' during his rally to restore sanity in politics: ``We live now in hard times, not end times.'' Yet you wouldn't know it by listening to the 24-hour media spin cycle. I know Gabby well. She represents the district my father represented for 30 years. I grew up in Tucson, and a piece of me will always be rooted in its sandy soil. It is a border district, full of independent westerners whose ancestors made a good living there, despite harsh conditions and punishing temperatures. Its people include moderates as well as staunch liberals and strong-minded conservatives. In order to represent the area well, you really have to be outside politics, willing to hear everyone's point of view and to bring them together regardless of party. That is Gabby in a nutshell. It would be a huge disservice to Gabby, Judge Roll, Christina Greene, and all of the other victims of the Tucson shooting if we didn't seize this moment to reflect on how to rein in the rhetoric--to become more civil to each other--and--as our President said eloquently--live up to their ideals for our democracy. So sitting together was only a small step. I hope we can follow it up with more efforts to work together--perhaps bipartisan retreats--or, as was suggested by a few of my colleagues--doing away with the aisle altogether. I want to thank my co-leaders in this effort--Senator Murkowski of Alaska, and Representatives Heath Shuler and Paul Gosar. I look forward to working with them and any others in ways that will eventually help us solve the big challenges that confront us--because if we cannot sit together, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can win the global economic race, pay down our debt, develop a 21st century energy policy, fix our broken immigration system--or address any of the myriad other problems facing our country.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, before I speak on the matter today, which the group of Senators today so eloquently and powerfully outlined for all of us, I want to acknowledge that the 111th Congress was one of the most productive in history. Legislation we passed will make real changes for American families who are struggling through a tough economy, as the Presiding Officer knows, and with rising health care costs. What we did also will make our military and Nation safe and stronger. We should be proud of the work we accomplished in the previous Congress. But I have to also say that the last 2 years was a time of unprecedented obstruction and partisanship. If you do not want to take my word for it, you do not have to go very far to listen to many impartial observers of the Congress who will tell you that it was exactly the case. I rise today to add my voice to the growing number of Coloradans and Members of the Senate who are deeply concerned about the gridlock that at times has paralyzed our Chamber and prevented meaningful debate. Many of us read with dismay an article by George Packer in the New Yorker magazine several months ago, which detailed examples of Senate dysfunction. Americans from both political parties--and Independents as well--have asked whether the rules of the Senate are working to help solve these problems that face us. Some of my colleagues have understandably sought to change or eliminate the filibuster to make it easier to pass important legislation supported by a majority of Senators. I come to this debate from a somewhat different perspective than my colleagues. I come to this debate with this guiding principle; that is, any attempt to limit the power of the minority by eliminating or weakening the ability to filibuster will simply lead to a further breakdown in what is already a fractured partisan relationship. While I share much of the frustration expressed by many of our colleagues, I believe we must be thoughtful about how we approach changes to the Senate rules. Several years ago, Minister Robert Fulghum had everyone using the phrase, ``everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten.'' His essays made the point that the simple rules we teach children about getting along, about being kind to one another, about cleaning up after ourselves apply throughout life. On one level, you could boil down the debate we are engaging in this week and say what we need are rules that will help us get along better in the Senate's sandbox, and we need to talk with each other more and we need to listen even more than we talk. Why? Because the consequences, if we cannot find a way to work together, are extremely serious. No problem we face is more troubling or urgent than our economic future. Our unemployment rate is still above 9 percent, and it is much higher in some regions of the country. Home foreclosures are still expected to rise. Even more troubling is this fact: Americans are less optimistic about their economic prospects than they were during the Great Depression. That is a very serious situation. On top of those grim statistics, we face a massive budget deficit and a crippling debt that not only threaten our long-term economic stability but darken the horizon in a way that discourages investment and innovation that we need to spur American job creation today. Moreover, our apparent inability to squarely address the problem in a partisan way is a signal to the American people--as if they need further proof--that their institutions of government are not working. And that, in my opinion, is as dangerous as any attack on our country. Many have remarked that it is past time to have a serious discussion about how to turn our economic situation around. I have faith we can do that, but only if we are able to set aside the ideological differences that have sidetracked our politics, and frankly our policymaking, up to now. We can't reach the level of bipartisan cooperation we need in this body if we prevent substantive debate and cut off the rights of the minority. But neither can we make necessary progress if Members of the Senate continue to be able to use technical loopholes and procedural gymnastics to hijack the Senate--literally--for days and, in some cases weeks at a time. That is why today's debate--so ably led by colleagues from across the country--is more than just an esoteric debate about the Senate's rules. It is a critical turning point, and it is why today I am again introducing a resolution which I believe can help reduce the opportunity for gridlock while also encouraging both sides to work together on the most important issues we face in our Nation. I developed this proposal after listening to and talking with experts on Senate procedure from both sides of the aisle, including the noted congressional scholar Norm Ornstein of the Conservative American Enterprise Institute. In a nutshell, I propose that by eliminating unnecessary opportunities for delay--without making changes that would jam through legislation at the expense of the minority party--we can improve the way the Senate works and make it more effective and fairer for the American people. If I might, I want to make a couple of comments on some of the specifics of what I am proposing, similar to what the Senators from Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, and others have put on the table. I would first level the playing fields between the majority and the minority on cloture votes and require Senators actually vote in opposition to the bill they are filibustering. Currently, cloture is invoked when three-fifths of the Chamber votes yes, so staying home is the same as voting no, and Members can simply threaten to filibuster and skip town with no recourse. My proposal would require that Senators show up, debate, and actually vote against a bill if they are conducting a filibuster, by changing the rules to invoke cloture not on three-fifths of the Chamber but invoking cloture when three-fifths of those voting to end debate create an incentive to actually have a meaningful discussion. If Members don't show, the threshold is lowered accordingly--three-fifths of 90 is 54 votes to end debate, three-fifths of 80 is 48 votes to cut off a filibuster, and so on. Second, I would reduce the number of votes required in debate on a single bill. The Senate rules now allow for a filibuster on a motion to proceed to a bill, a substitute amendment to a bill, final passage after we have already overcome a filibuster on the exact same text--and the list continues. There are three separate opportunities to filibuster before sending a bill to a conference committee. My proposal would eliminate all these opportunities to filibuster except for final passage. Third, I would shorten the timeframe required to invoke cloture. I would propose we vote 24 hours after cloture is filed, instead of waiting 2 days, as is required today. I would also allow the 30 hours of postcloture debate to be split between the parties, to avoid needless delays. In total, we could shorten the time required for cloture by nearly 40 hours for a single cloture motion. Fourth, I would end the requirement that amendments be read in their entirety if they have been made available on line at least 24 hours in advance. Fifth, I would end the requirement that Senate committees seek consent to meet. Sixth, after I propose that we change the rules to move more quickly on judicial nominations--allowing a final vote immediately after cloture is invoked on a nomination. Finally, I would provide a way to call up an amendment when a majority leader has filled the amendment tree. The Senate is famous for great debates and a free amendment process. But in recent years the process of presenting amendments has frequently been shut off by the majority party. So my proposal would, on a limited basis, give Senators the opportunity to present their amendments when they are otherwise being blocked from doing so. The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. But what happens if we don't deliberate? I am afraid we risk turning the Senate into an extension of the 24-hour political spin cycle, which seeks to separate us rather than allowing us to work out solutions to the problems we face. Every day, proud Americans come to our Capitol hoping to watch debates such as those of years past. Many are increasingly dismayed to see a small number of Senators, such as those here today, debating among themselves in an empty Chamber. We don't even require Senators to attend their own filibusters--no ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' no actual debate. I want the Senate to work the way Americans envision it does--where Members discuss their differences, cooperate, vote on amendments, and improve legislation for the good of the country. With that in mind, I hope our colleagues will join me to seize the opportunity we have before us. Let's work together to improve the way the Senate operates. I want to extend my hand to the Republicans to ask for ideas in how we can improve the way the Senate operates. I want to work with anybody, as I think all my colleagues do, to solve these problems in front of us. We have a responsibility to work together to bring about the cooperation and the problem solving Americans expect and deserve. Mr. President, I appreciate your attention, I appreciate the important work all my colleagues have undertaken, and I look forward to working with the 99 other Members of the Senate to make the Senate a Senate we know and love and believe is the greatest deliberative body in the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.