Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the military service of a group of remarkable Coloradans. At critical times in our Nation's history, these veterans played a role in defending the world from tyranny, truly earning their reputation as guardians of democracy and peace through their service and sacrifice. Now, thanks to an organization dedicated to honoring those who have defended us abroad, these great Coloradans have come to Washington, D.C. to visit the national memorials built to honor their service, to share their experiences with later generations, and to pay tribute to those who gave their lives. It was an honor to have them here, and I join with all Coloradans in thanking them for all they have done for us. I also want to say a word about the volunteers from Honor Flight of Northern Colorado who made this trip possible. They are great Coloradans in their own right, and their mission to bring our Northern Colorado veterans to Washington, D.C. is truly commendable. They have been doing great work since their inception in 2008 and their flight in September brought another group of American heroes to Washington, D.C. The volunteers of Honor Flight of Northern Colorado believe our veteran heroes aren't asking for recognition, but they certainly deserve it. This opportunity to come to Washington is just a small token of appreciation for those who gave so much. I want to publicly recognize the members of the Northern Colorado Honor Flight who are visiting their Nation's capital today, many seeing for the first time the memorials that stand as a tribute to their selfless service. These Coloradans risked their lives to defend freedom, and they have earned our deepest respect. I rise today to thank the veterans of Northern Colorado Honor Flight, and pause to remember those who laid down their lives for us all. I would like to read the names of all those who made this visit to our Nation's capital and to each of them, I say thank you. Veterans from World War II include: Willard Bauer, Robert Bell, Edward Coleman, Floyd Ewing, Albert Fairweather, Marvin Fowler, Elwyn Frazier, Robert Fulton, William Garcia, Edward Glover, Herold Hettinger, Raymond Holiday, Buford Johnson, William Kammlade, Donald Lawless, Russell Maxwell, Dale Norwood, Philip Owen, Paul Painter, George Parker, Theodore Pratt, Henry Redd, Kenneth Robb, Harley Rouze, Harold Scatterday, Dean Severin, Leonie Shannon, Keith Simons, Jacob Stieb Jr., Howard Teague, Margaret Thompson, Charles Vogel, Thomas Weathers, Victor Weidmann, Milo Whitcomb, John Williams, and Quentin Younglund Veterans from the Korean War include: Bobby Andersen, Emmett Achuletta, Donald Armagost, Robert Arnbrecht, Gary Beverlin, Stanley Black, Ronald Brasseur, Earl Buckendorf, Robert Buttner, Donald Campbell, Clarence Carnes, Jerald Clark, Robert Clayton, Keith Coates, Kenneth Comin, Victor Crenshaw, Dean Daggett, Lester Edgett, Arnold Engele, Roy Erickson, William Erickson, Bernard Erthal, Donald Fenske, Donald Fickenscher, Russell Foster, Franklin Fronek, Porfelio Garbiso, Wiliam Goble, Carl Goeglein, Delbert Gorsline. George Gray, Kenneth Hoff, Robert Hull, Robert Jones Jr., George Knaub, Arthur Kober, John Leach, Roger London, Willard Loose, Joseph Lopez, Arthur Lukemire, Charles Mahoney, Eathon Marr, Vernon Marston, Robert Martin, George Maxey, Loren Maxey, and Albert Melcher Veterans who served in Vietnam include: Leonard Beutelspacher, John Gruver, Gaylord Mekelburg, and Cloyd Rael. And from the War in Iraq: Marshall Spring Our Nation asked a great deal of these individuals. They left their families to fight in distant lands against our nation's enemies. And each of these brave Coloradans bravely answered the call, placing themselves between this country and harm. They served our country through dangerous times, when democratic nations and ideals around the world were threatened, and they saved millions of people from falling to fascism and tyranny. Please join me in thanking these American veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Northern Colorado for their tremendous service to an eternally grateful nation.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for the recognition. I am a proud member of that committee, and I am also a member of the Intelligence Committee. From those vantage points, I am well aware of the threats that face our country. Our military and our intelligence communities have to be prepared to counter threats from a wide range of enemies and bad actors. As we all know, our national security community is decisively engaged against those who would do us harm. When we capture those who are plotting against us, we are swiftly bringing them to justice by trying and convicting those terrorists in civilian courts and, when appropriate, in military commissions. This is a flexible strategy that has empowered our terrorism community to help keep Americans safe since 9/11, and those brave men and women who spend every waking hour defending this country have been successfully using our laws to pursue terrorists around the globe. But last year Congress changed some of those laws, against the wishes of our military and intelligence communities. Those detainee provisions last year suggest that our military should shift significant resources away from their mission and to instead act as both a domestic law enforcement agency and jailer with respect to terrorist suspects. They also call into question the principles we as Americans hold dear, because they could be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil without trial. I joined our highest ranking national security officials in warning my colleagues about the dangerous change that such policies would make and I urge us not to pass them. We have to get our detainee and counterterrorism policies right, but unfortunately I believe the policies that were enacted last year complicate our capacity to prosecute the war on terror and in the process erode our Nation's constitutional principles, both of which concern all of us. I have been working with the administration to ensure that those detention policies are not harmfully interpreted, but the law itself remains a problem. Several of my colleagues, including the Senator from Kentucky and the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, have suggested changes to the law that will help repair the flawed policies enacted last year. I have also crafted my own legislation working with the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith from Washington, to repair some of the harm that I believe was done in last year's NDAA. I filed that bill to this year's NDAA as amendment No. 3115, along with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. Senators Feinstein and Paul have a slightly similar but different approach, created as a result of the detainee provisions passed last year. There are efforts under way to assure that whatever path we take forward is supported by the greatest numbers possible, and I look forward to being part of those important discussions. I know we addressed this issue in part last year, but in speaking with other Members I know there is a renewed interest in getting our detention policies right, both from the view of counterterrorism effectiveness and constitutional protection. I believe both security and freedom are critically important, and I don't think we have to choose one over the other. I thank my colleagues for remaining diligent in addressing the detention policies that remain a concern, because Americans must remain engaged on this issue. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I return to the floor of the Senate to urge all of us here to extend the production tax credit for wind energy. This is a crucial tax credit that supports an industry that employs literally tens of thousands of workers across our entire country. Our failure in the Congress to quickly extend this job- creating credit has already halted further development and jeopardized the future of this industry and the good-paying jobs that come with it. The PTC, as it is known, the production tax credit, has been a major driver of wind power development because it literally leverages billions of dollars in investment, which then in turn creates thousands of jobs. But here in the Congress we have gone back and forth repeatedly between extending it and retiring it. This on-again/off- again status has contributed to a boom-bust cycle that threatens the future of this industry and our energy security in turn. It is time for us to act, act now, and extend the PTC so the wind industry and its employees can have a secure and prosperous future. Mr. President, I look forward to talking about your State, New Mexico. You know I come to the floor every day to talk about the importance of the PTC, and I focus on an individual State when I come to the floor. Today I would like to talk about New Jersey. New Jersey's wind industry will suffer without an extension of the PTC. Its industry is in the early stages of development, but the Garden State is already making real progress in becoming a manufacturing center for wind. While it is a manufacturing center that is building the turbines and blades, it is also taking a leading role in developing coastal wind power and then harnessing the offshore wind potential we know exists in the oceans off of New Jersey. An environmental review initiative by the Interior Department has paved the way for the sale of wind energy leases off the coast of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia in the Outer Continental Shelf. Several coastal projects are under way in the Garden State, including in South Jersey off the coast of Cape May, down here in the southern part of New Jersey. New Jersey is also home to the first coastal wind farm in the United States, the Jersey Atlantic Wind Farm. There are five turbines at that wind farm. They are producing a total of 7.5 megawatts, which is enough energy to power 2,000 homes. Like my Home State, like the home State of the Presiding Officer, New Jersey knows we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy to improve our energy security. My colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Menendez and Senator Lautenberg, have been fighting to accelerate the transition to renewable domestic energy. Both have been champions for extending crucial tax credits such as the PTC. They know these credits help both New Jersey consumers and New Jersey businesses install and utilize energy from the wind. The wind energy industry supports close to 500 New Jersey jobs, many of which are located at the 9 manufacturing facilities that make components for wind turbines. Those facilities are located in the green circles shown here on the map of New Jersey. The current level of wind production in New Jersey has helped the State reduce its carbon emissions by some 1,500 metric tons every year. I want to return to the point I make every day I come to the floor to talk about the production tax credit. If we do not extend it, the manufacturing sector in New Jersey and many other States will literally wither. If we do not extend the PTC, we risk sending our energy jobs overseas. This is flatout unacceptable. The wind production tax credit has strong support from a broad array of industry groups. Let me share some of those groups with my colleagues and with the viewers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the extension, as well as the Governors' Wind Energy Coalition, the National Governors Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, among a number of other groups that support this extension. Think of it this way: Wind energy is made-in-America energy that bolsters U.S. manufacturing. It creates good-paying American jobs, and it puts us on the path to energy independence. I urge my colleagues, I ask my colleagues of both parties to stand with me and stand for American manufacturing and made-in-America energy. Our wind energy industry and our energy security are depending on it. We need to extend the PTC as soon as possible. It is that simple. The PTC equals jobs. Let's pass it as soon as possible. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation that will improve the viability of agriculture and rural communities in western States like Colorado. This legislation will make it easier for mutual ditch and irrigation companies, which are an integral part of agriculture in arid regions where you often have to transport irrigation water over long distances, to remain profitable. I thank my colleagues Senators Crapo, Bennet and Barrasso for joining me in this effort. Mutual ditch and irrigation companies are primarily associations of farmers who band together to construct and operate water delivery and storage systems for use on semi-arid farmland. For 150 years, mutual ditch and irrigation companies have installed and maintained this kind of infrastructure to convey water to irrigated lands in the West. These companies can qualify for tax-exempt status if at least 85 percent of their income comes from their member assessments. The 85- percent rule is meant to ensure that the members of tax-exempt cooperatives are not able to enrich themselves by making investments unrelated to their charitable purpose. Over time, however, the cost to maintain and operate aging water infrastructure has made it impossible for many mutual ditch and irrigation companies to operate solely on member income. If member assessments were large enough to cover the true cost of operations, it would be cost prohibitive for most farmers to use the water to irrigate crops, leading to a loss of irrigated farmland. To sustain irrigated farmland, ditch and irrigation companies supplement the cost of operations with non-member income from, for example, recreational leases, crossing fees, storage rights and the exchange of water rights. This is a good thing, but this supplemental income can jeopardize the company's tax-exempt status. My legislation would exempt certain sources of income from the 85- percent member income test for mutual ditch and irrigation companies. However, to be excluded, the revenue from these sources must be used for the tax-exempt purposes of the company. My legislation specifically requires non-member income to be used for operations or maintenance of the mutual ditch or irrigation company in order to be exempted from the 85-percent test. By excluding these revenue streams, we can support local agriculture and help ditch and irrigation companies stay in business, while at the same time providing for more efficient use of precious water resources. Further, by requiring that the proceeds be used exclusively for operations and maintenance of the ditch or irrigation company, we will ensure that this income is reinvested in water infrastructure, helping to create and preserve rural jobs and our agricultural heritage. 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 bipartisan legislation that will improve the viability of agriculture and rural communities in western States like Colorado. This legislation will make it easier for mutual ditch and irrigation companies, which are an integral part of agriculture in arid regions where you often have to transport irrigation water over long distances, to remain profitable. I thank my colleagues Senators Crapo, Bennet and Barrasso for joining me in this effort. Mutual ditch and irrigation companies are primarily associations of farmers who band together to construct and operate water delivery and storage systems for use on semi-arid farmland. For 150 years, mutual ditch and irrigation companies have installed and maintained this kind of infrastructure to convey water to irrigated lands in the West. These companies can qualify for tax-exempt status if at least 85 percent of their income comes from their member assessments. The 85- percent rule is meant to ensure that the members of tax-exempt cooperatives are not able to enrich themselves by making investments unrelated to their charitable purpose. Over time, however, the cost to maintain and operate aging water infrastructure has made it impossible for many mutual ditch and irrigation companies to operate solely on member income. If member assessments were large enough to cover the true cost of operations, it would be cost prohibitive for most farmers to use the water to irrigate crops, leading to a loss of irrigated farmland. To sustain irrigated farmland, ditch and irrigation companies supplement the cost of operations with non-member income from, for example, recreational leases, crossing fees, storage rights and the exchange of water rights. This is a good thing, but this supplemental income can jeopardize the company's tax-exempt status. My legislation would exempt certain sources of income from the 85- percent member income test for mutual ditch and irrigation companies. However, to be excluded, the revenue from these sources must be used for the tax-exempt purposes of the company. My legislation specifically requires non-member income to be used for operations or maintenance of the mutual ditch or irrigation company in order to be exempted from the 85-percent test. By excluding these revenue streams, we can support local agriculture and help ditch and irrigation companies stay in business, while at the same time providing for more efficient use of precious water resources. Further, by requiring that the proceeds be used exclusively for operations and maintenance of the ditch or irrigation company, we will ensure that this income is reinvested in water infrastructure, helping to create and preserve rural jobs and our agricultural heritage. 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 ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Novemer 29, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 29, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Sandy and Its Impacts: A Local Perspective.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 29, 2012, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reclaiming Our Image and Identity for the Next Seven Generations.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 29, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 432 Russell Senate Office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Creating Jobs and Growing the Economy: Legislative Proposals to Strengthen the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.''

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 29, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hagan, Kerry, Begich, and Franken be added as cosponsors of my amendment No. 2985.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I believe we are reaching the end of our time.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Baucus, Coons, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Lieberman, Stabenow, Cantwell, Schumer, Durbin, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Bennet, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, and Collins be added as cosponsors to my amendment No. 2985.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Pursuant to Senator Levin's question about a time agreement, I ask unanimous consent that the majority side have 30 minutes to speak to my amendment and the Republican side have 15 minutes to speak to my amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent to speak to my amendment for 10, 12, maybe 15 minutes. I know Senator Inhofe would like to speak. Then I have additional speakers on our side.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform who stand watch around the clock around the world to protect us from a truly staggering range of threats. As I have alluded, I rise specifically to speak to my amendment No. 2985, which I have introduced in concert with our military officials and leadership. As a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have designed this amendment to support the Department of Defense and their efforts to pursue alternative fuels and energy investments. Senators Murray, Shaheen, Bingaman, Hagan, Kerry, Begich, and Tom Udall have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation. We, as Senators and as Americans, frequently acknowledge the courage and the sacrifice of our troops. But I would also point out that they are incredibly smart, insightful, and forward thinking. In order to keep ahead of current enemies and future threats, our military leaders must be students of history. They have to understand the past in order to predict the future. They have to be ready to face challenges from the air, sea, and land, and now increasingly from the cyber domain. They must prepare to defend our Nation from hostile nation States such as Iran and from terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida. In order to do all of this, they must have the best technology in the world. We must also provide them with the flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing landscape and the resources they need to research, develop, and employ new technologies. That is our solemn commitment, and I would offer our solemn responsibility, to those who fight on our behalf. They have placed themselves between us and harm's way. In return, we promise to invest in the technology, training, and resources they need to stay safe. For me and many of our colleagues that includes encouraging, supporting, requiring, actually, the DOD to invest in energy sources and fuel technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Ultimately, section 313 of the Defense authorization bill before us today would severely limit the ability of the Department of Defense to use alternative fuels. Given the threats facing our Nation today and in the future, that is not acceptable. I want to point out the Department of Defense strongly opposes the constricting provisions in the current Defense authorization bill for that reason and for a number of other reasons. I want to quote what the Office of the Secretary of Defense says about section 313. The OSD says that 313 is ``detrimental to DOD's long-term energy security;'' that it is ``overly broad,'' ``ambiguous,'' and it ``restricts the flexibility of military commanders.'' Those are the DOD's words about this section. I want to point out I strongly agree with those words. Therefore, I have offered this very simple amendment that would remove this limiting provision from the bill. I firmly believe that removing section 313 of the Defense authorization bill is in the best interests of our military and our country. Let me tell you why. In the carrying out of the work of our Nation, the Department of Defense consumes approximately 330,000 barrels of oil every single day. That works out to 120 million barrels of oil per year. That is a truly staggering number. This year, given those numbers, the military has already spent $15 billion on fuel. Because of rising global oil prices that is about $2.5 billion more than they forecast, and the year is not even over yet. We have another month to go. Those rising costs in dollars and operational capability are staggering. Think of it this way: For every 25-cent increase in the price per gallon of oil, the military's fuel bill increases by $1 billion. So then what happens? In order to make up for that shortfall, the DOD then has to pull money from the operations and maintenance accounts, which means that rising fuel costs result in less training, deferred maintenance, and reduced operational capability. Let me be clear. The current language that was added to this bill by some of my colleagues tells the Defense Department they cannot pursue energy security and instead must rely on an energy source that is quickly eating away at their capabilities and effectiveness. That means our people are less prepared when they go into harm's way, and they are less ready to fight when it matters most. For me, and I hope for the majority of my colleagues, that is far too steep a price. That is why the DOD is investing in technology to increase fuel efficiency, promote conservation, and to find alternatives to foreign oil. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said simply but powerfully: Saving energy saves lives. It should tell us something that in an era of reduced DOD budgets our senior leaders remain fully committed to this effort. We should support them in these commonsense approaches. That is why the DOD is funding research and development for new fuels that can be made from biological feed stocks. And these are fuels that can be literally grown here and refined here, right in our own country, right at home. This R&D effort I am alluding to is part of a proud legacy of military research programs that have benefited our entire country through many decades. So what I am saying is even under the threat of sequestration, investments in new energy technology and alternative fuels remain a top priority for our military leadership. For those who would say we cannot afford to spend money on alternative fuels, our uniformed senior leaders tell us otherwise and, in fact, suggest that we cannot afford not to make these investments. Let me share another way of looking at this. The investment is tiny when we compare it to the potential payoff. For less than .03 percent of the defense budget, our military is building a foundation for a new domestic energy source that could save billions of dollars and keep more of the money we do spend on fuel right here at home. We spend about $300 billion a year on overseas sources of oil--$300 billion. If we could keep one-twentieth of a percent of that money at home we would pay for this program. Let me put it in perspective another way. For about half of what we spend on military bands each year, we could be establishing a domestic energy industry. For less than the cost of a single F-35, we could diversify our energy portfolio and drive down costs. We would be taking billions of dollars out of the hands of terrorists and reducing the risk to our military personnel. So in that context, what is the problem? Well, the proponents for cutting off these investments in alternative fuels argue that the Defense Department should not be involved in the development of new energy sources. I think it has already become clear, but I want to say it again: I could not disagree more. These biofuels, when we produce them, cannot be used as leverage against us. These refineries cannot be overrun by Nigerian rebels or blockaded by Iranian gun boats. Energy security is national security. This is exactly the kind of investment our military should be making. In fact, military R&D has sustained the enormous technological advantage that we have maintained over our adversaries historically. Our willingness to invest in the future has kept us safe. So my colleagues say the DOD should not be spending money on energy development. I would respectfully remind them we have always spent money on energy development, and it has made us safer. If that view had prevailed in years passed, we would not have a nuclear-powered Navy. Without military investment in emerging technologies, we would not have jet engines, microchips, microwave ovens, radar, or GPS navigation. Ensuring our energy security ought to be a national priority. Our reliance on foreign oil is a threat to our security and our economy. Our reliance on foreign oil harms our economy and our national security. Now we have the chance to do something about it. This is a national problem. That is why DOD has partnered with the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and private industry to find a solution. That is exactly how our government is supposed to work. If we believe the DOD has a vested interest in having reliable sources of fuel and energy, then we should agree they have a role to play in ensuring that new fuels we have to develop meet their needs. Now, as with any technology, the cost of alternative fuels starts high, but they are coming down steadily. As we all know, the price of oil continues to climb and, equally important, is subject to those sudden spikes due to unpredictable global events. My colleagues who are opposed to the DOD energy programs would have us believe that alternative fuel prices are unaffordable. But let me share some facts. In 2009 the Navy paid about $66 per gallon for biofuels used for research. But that price decreased over a 3-year period by 61 percent. During that same period, oil prices rose by about 120 percent. Today, right now, drop-in biofuels for cars and jet aircraft are available for around $4 per gallon. These costs will continue to drop if we keep making smart investments in smart technologies. These are the facts, but even if we disagree with those points, there is another important factor I hope we will consider. Section 313 of the Defense authorization bill harms military missions and technologies that are being used right now to find and destroy our enemies. Let me explain. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has said the language is so broad and so poorly defined that it would prohibit the DOD from purchasing any nonpetroleum fuel that costs more than traditional fuels. So we have to ask, what does that mean? Let me give a couple of examples. That would include the solid oxide fuels used in rockets and missiles. That would include coal-to-liquid fuels. That includes alternative fuels purchased overseas where there are no petroleum-based fuels available, like in South Africa and in countries that have mandatory alternative fuel blends. It restricts fuel blends to a 50-50 ratio, even if that is not the best or the most practical mix. So the outcome of that would be if the DOD wanted to use a more efficient or cost-effective mix of traditional fuel to biofuel, they would not be able to do so. So I believe section 313 of the bill we are debating will send the wrong political message as well. It will make investors wary of the U.S. Government's commitment to weaning ourselves off foreign oil. It would help keep us reliant on foreign oil. Let me list the countries: Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, I have not even mentioned Iran. It is poorly drafted and damaging to our security. Instead, we have an opportunity today to help our military and our country. This is how we move forward. This is not about an environmental agenda or some kind of a green conspiracy. It is about doing the right thing, supporting our military brass, establishing a stronger national security and energy security posture in the years ahead. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike section 313. As I conclude, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Gillibrand and Tom Udall be added as cosponsors to my amendment No. 2985 to S. 3254. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I would add just a couple final remarks. I think we have heard a compelling reason to remove section 313 from the National Defense Authorization Act. National security is energy security and vice versa. Let's stand with our military leadership, let's stand with our NCOs, and let's stand with our enlisted personnel and ensure that the military can continue to invest in this important area of energy security which will save lives, create economic opportunity, and make sure we can project force abroad and protect the values we hold so dear. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment at 2:00 p.m. We have a tentative agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment at 2 p.m.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from the great State of New York, and I look forward to working with him and the entire Senate to find ways in which the Senate can continue to do the important work the public has asked us to do. Wind Energy Tax Credit Mr. President, I rise this morning again to speak to the importance of extending the production tax credit, otherwise known as the PTC, for wind energy. I wish to mention that the production tax credit has been used on many occasions to promote other kinds of energy development, including natural gas. The production tax credit for wind, particularly, is set to expire at the end of December and, as a result, thousands of hard-working middle-class families in Colorado and across our country who currently work in this important energy industry are at extreme risk of losing their jobs. In fact, many of these workers have already been laid off as companies brace themselves for the expiration of the PTC. To put it in stark terms, the potentially bright future of a quintessentially American industry is uncertain unless we act as soon as possible. I have come to the floor now some 22 times to discuss the wind energy industry, and when I do so I highlight the positive effects the PTC has had on one individual State. I have had the great opportunity and privilege of speaking about the wind energy industry in the Presiding Officer's State, the State of Montana, and today I want to take the opportunity to talk about the Wolverine State. Michigan is another remarkable illustration of how the PTC has revitalized manufacturing and created good-paying jobs while providing the State with clean energy. We have seen improvement in the Nation's economy, but many families and businesses across our country are still struggling to make ends meet. This has been especially true in Michigan, a State that has one of the Nation's highest unemployment rates and a sluggish manufacturing base. This is all as a result of the tough economic times we have experienced over the last 4 years. But if we look at Michigan, the wind industry saw an opportunity in Michigan. Michigan is known for its highly skilled workforce, and so the wind industry took root in Michigan, took advantage of this workforce, and now we see that in Michigan there is significant manufacturing of wind turbines occurring there. That has reinvigorated Michigan's industrial base, and it has aided in the recovery of the State's economy. If we think about it, thousands of parts go into each car manufactured in Michigan, and wind turbines--from the towers to the cells to the blades--are no different. Someone told me recently that something in the order of 8,000 parts go into a wind turbine. So if we think about that, the skills of these hard-working Michigan workers translate into the development, the engineering, the construction, and the manufacturing required for wind turbines, which then in turn provides the State of Michigan and the local communities with thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in investment. We can see all the green circles on the map of Michigan I have in the Chamber that identify the places in which this manufacturing is occurring. This is in large part as a result of targeted Federal incentives, such as the production tax credit. I would like to highlight further some of the many benefits of the wind energy industry in Michigan. There are at least 40 facilities that develop and produce various components for the wind energy industry, and that supports about 5,000 jobs. Furthermore, wind projects have contributed over $7 million in property tax payments to local governments; and that is money that helps fund schools, infrastructure, and other vital community services. So the State is building the towers and the blades and the cells so that we can harvest the wind. Michigan is taking advantage of that opportunity as well. They are ramping up their deployment of this technology to harvest the wind because the wind energy manufacturing sector is located there. So it is a virtuous cycle, if you will. In 2011, Michigan more than doubled its power production from wind energy, and it is on pace to increase its capacity by another 50 percent this year. That would include the completion of the State's largest wind farm, the Gratiot County Wind Project, which is located in the middle of the lower peninsula. This project itself not only created over 250 construction jobs and 15 permanent maintenance and operations jobs, it also doubled the tax base of the local schools. This has created a positive ripple effect on all these communities that has been noticeable and powerful. Moreover, there are currently enough wind projects under construction in Michigan to nearly double the current wind power production in the State, with even more potential developments in the works. The point I am making is that the key is the production tax credit when it comes to these projects and, most importantly, the jobs they create. There remains a vast untapped potential when it comes to wind energy in the State. In fact, the National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that Michigan has enough wind power potential to meet 160 percent of the State's current electricity needs. The extension, therefore, of the PTC is essential to the continued development of Michigan's wind resources, which will create good-paying American jobs, aid local communities, and build a clean energy economy. So it is pretty simple. The production tax credit, the PTC, equals jobs, and we need to pass it and extend it as soon as possible. How do we do that? Well, if we want that bright future to be realized, we need to work together and extend the wind PTC now. It is common sense. It has bipartisan support. It has bicameral support. We need to extend it now, as soon as possible. The PTC has not only aided in the growth and expansion of our manufacturing economies in States such as Michigan, but it has also shown us that America can and, frankly, must outcompete China and the other countries that are trying to develop their own wind energy industry. So let's come together. Let's find a path forward. Let's pass an extension of the wind PTC as soon as possible. The longer we wait, the longer we do not act, it puts the significant economic strides we have seen in States such as Michigan and all around the country at risk, and it substantially inhibits future job growth. We simply cannot afford to cede this promising new energy technology and energy future to countries such as China. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my colleague from Alabama, and I have great confidence that we will have a robust debate on the National Defense Authorization Act over the next few weeks and that we will keep our record intact that has now been in place for some 50 years of putting in place a national defense authorization act. We did so at this time last year and we did so the previous year and I have every confidence that we will have a comprehensive national defense authorization act that will direct the Pentagon and all the men and women in uniform who serve us so well as to the policies of the United States. I know I will work with my colleague from Alabama to see that accomplished. Wind Production Tax Credit I come back to the Senate floor, as I have on many occasions, to urge all of us to take action on a policy that is bipartisan in its support and in its ramifications, and that policy is the production tax credit for wind energy. We need to renew that production tax credit. Why? It has encouraged billions of dollars in investment and it has helped create tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs all across our country. However, I have to tell my colleagues that our inaction over these last few months is jeopardizing the future of what is a very promising industry. We have literally, over the last months, seen wind industry jobs in the thousands disappear. That is not just a statistic. That is not just a statement. Those jobs have affected real Americans. These job losses were completely preventable. It is time for us to get back to work and extend the production tax credit so our wind industry can also get back to work. One of the things I have done is I have come to the floor some 20- plus times to focus on an individual State. Today I wish to speak about a State that has an incredible potential for wind power; that is, Montana, the ``Last Best Place'' as Montanans like to describe their amazing State. Similar to almost every State in the country, Montana has seen the jobs, clean energy, and economic benefits of wind power. I wish to take the viewers on a little bit of a tour of Montana. ``Big Sky Country'' is home to wind resources that could mean the State's current electricity needs 210 times over. When we compare that to other States, we see that Montana then has the third highest wind resource potential in the country. So it is a prominent player in the future progress of our Nation's wind industry. Therefore, it is no wonder that Montana has seen strong development in the wind industry sector. Looking at this map, Toole County, up here in the northwest corridor of Montana, is the site of a new wind farm, the Rim Rock Wind Farm, north of Cut Bank. It has 126 turbines. They completed the project in September of this year. What is most important is when we think about the jobs for local workers, the generation of $2 million in tax revenue which contributes to the $5.7 million in property taxes from wind farms across the State, it all goes to those local communities for schools, roads, and social services to enhance the quality of life for Montanans. The Rim Rock Wind Farm will power thousands of Montana homes and, along with other wind farms across the State, as I have mentioned. it provided great construction jobs as the project was built. So Montana will continue to be an attractive State for wind development. However, with the expiration of the PTC looming-- literally, within a few weeks the PTC will expire--the future growth of this important industry in Montana is in jeopardy. We have seen how important this industry is to our energy and manufacturing future. If it is sidelined by partisan wrangling, that would truly be a tragedy. I know--as does the Presiding Officer in his State of New Mexico as well as my State of Colorado--and the people in Montana know we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy to improve our overall energy security, and wind is playing a major role in that effort. We know Montana's two Senators, Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, are hard-working. They are very effective. They have always supported the production tax credit for their State and for the country. Senator Baucus, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, pushed forward bipartisanly supported tax extenders in early August that included the extension of PTC. It is crucial we take up this package as soon as we possibly can and pass it. I wish to acknowledge the work of Senator Baucus and his focus on creating American jobs and securing true energy security. However, his work--our work--isn't finished. We have to get the PTC over the finish line and affirm our solemn commitment in this Chamber to Made-in-America energy and American manufacturing. It is this simple. If we fail to extend the production tax credit, we are, in effect, shipping thousands of jobs overseas to places such as China and Europe and our foreign competitors. So I come to the floor again to implore all my colleagues to stop this possibility from becoming a reality. I wish to reiterate this isn't a partisan issue. There is broad support in this body for wind energy. There is also support in the House. So there is bicameral support as well as bipartisan support. We risk losing thousands of jobs and crippling an industry that is just now establishing itself as a very important part of our economic portfolio. I think the Presiding Officer would agree we are sent by the people of our States to make smart, informed decisions about the future on behalf of the American people. If we let this important production tax credit expire, it would be a decision we would all regret. I wish to underline as well that the tax credit is applied once that power is produced. This isn't a speculative subsidy. This isn't based on hoping something will happen. It actually is based on power that is produced and that tax credit is directed to the utility or the power company and, in some cases, the community power agency that provides the power. So it is based on actually producing those electrons through wind energy. Let's show America and the world we are as committed to energy independence and job creation as we often say. Wind is key to reaching that goal. Wind is the path to that goal. Let's put action behind our words and pass the production tax credit as soon as possible. It is as simple as this: The production tax credit equals jobs. Let's pass it as soon as possible. Let's pass it ASAP. Thank you. I look forward to sharing some perspectives on the great State of New Mexico soon in the future, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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