Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President. PATRIOT Act Today, I rise to express my longstanding concerns about the PATRIOT Act and in particular section 215, which is set to expire on June 1. A major use of this section--the bulk collection of Americans' phone records--has just been ruled illegal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If we didn't already have enough concern about reauthorizing section 215, this decision should raise alarm bells. Yet, the majority leader is asking us to act quickly to reauthorize this law unchanged for another 5 years. Without significant reforms to the law, I cannot support an extension of any length of time, and I urge my colleagues to listen to the court and listen to the numerous oversight groups from within the administration and the millions of citizens who are saying that Congress needs to rethink whether this program is violating our rights in the name of keeping us safe. Ben Franklin was very fond of saying, ``Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither.'' That is where we are today. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act over a decade ago after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Our Nation was devastated. Our security was at stake. But this legislation was hasty, it was far-reaching, and it undermined the constitutional right to privacy of law-abiding citizens. It still does. I have made my opposition clear in the years since 2001. The major advocates of this law--primarily former President Bush and his key national security officials--used a potent combination of fear and patriotism to drive this bill through. I was one of only 66 Members to vote against the PATRIOT Act in the House of Representatives. I also voted against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in 2006 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. In 2011, I opposed once again the extension of three controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps, government access to ``any tangible items,'' such as library and business records, and the surveillance of targets that are not connected to any identified terrorist group. Back in 2001, I said on the House floor that I was unable to support this bill because it does not strike the right balance between protecting our liberties and providing for the security of our citizens. I went on to say: The saving grace here is that the sunset provision forces us to come back and to look at these issues again when heads are cooler and when we are not in the heat of battle. That is exactly what we should do. To govern in a post-9/11 world, we have to strike the right balance, to fight terrorism without trampling our Constitution. We can do both. The Bill of Rights was established immediately following a war. Our Founders knew the tension between freedom and security. Our Nation was founded on the right of individual liberty, in stark contrast to the long tradition of total sovereign authority of most other governments. I strongly believe we should not force through a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act without a hard look at the long-term ramifications of the law. We must look at how the law is being used for things such as the collection of all Americans' phone records. We must consider whether that use is necessary to keep us safe and whether it is in line with the Constitutional rights we are sworn to uphold. I urge our colleagues not to be swayed by the false argument that this provision must be reauthorized urgently, that we will be vulnerable to attack if we let it expire--another false argument. Here is the reality. This provision is being used to sweep up the phone calls of all Americans across this country. Yet there is zero conclusive evidence that it has kept us safe from attack. What we do have, however, is ample evidence that the PATRIOT Act, section 215, has been used to violate the privacy of everyday Americans. I believe it has violated the Constitution. I certainly agree with the Federal court of appeals which last week ruled that the bulk phone record collection goes far beyond what Congress intended when the law was passed. We have a decade of hindsight. Let's be honest in this debate and let's be thorough. The entire law bears careful scrutiny. Senators Lee and Leahy have introduced the USA FREEDOM Act to reform the law while reauthorizing the expiring provisions. I commend their efforts, but I think we can go even further. The House also overwhelmingly passed its version of the USA FREEDOM Act just yesterday. It deserves Senate consideration. Congress has a duty for robust oversight, to ensure real constitutional privacy rights are upheld. I pushed for this from when I was in the House. I advocated then for the creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, also called PCLOB. In June 2013, after details about NSA's bulk collection program were made public, I led a bipartisan call for the PCLOB to conduct an independent review. Their review assessed the impact of NSA's spying program on Americans' constitutional rights and civil liberties. The Board concluded what many Americans had feared: One, that the spying program is an unconstitutional intrusion on their privacy right, and, two, that it has almost no impact on safety. The Board's oversight role is crucial. Its independent evaluation of section 215 demonstrates why. It has an important job, and it requires more support so it can do its job. That is why yesterday Senator Wyden and I reintroduced the Strengthening Privacy, Oversight, and Transparency Act, or SPOT Act. Our bill, with bipartisan cosponsors in the House, would strengthen the Board. This is key to real oversight, and it should be included as part of any reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. The SPOT Act extends the Board's authority to play a watchdog role over surveillance conducted for purposes beyond counterterrorism. It also allows the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to issue subpoenas without having to wait for the Justice Department to issue them. It makes the Board member's positions full-time. Finally, it makes the Board an authorized recipient for whistleblower complaints for employees in the intelligence community, so they can take concerns to an independent organization, one that understands the intelligence community. I know we must protect the Nation from future attacks. But there must also be balance. We cannot give up our constitutional protections in the name of security. To do so does not protect our Constitution nor does it increase our security. We need to have a serious debate about these issues and allow Senators to offer amendments. This is important to the American people, to our security, and to our liberties. Congress cannot just leave town and leave this work undone. I voted against the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Act amendments, because they unduly infringed on the guaranteed rights of our citizens. I believe that time has shown that to be true, and the time has come to correct it. We all value the work of our intelligence community. Their efforts are vital to our Nation's security. But I believe these amendments are crucial. We can protect our citizens and their constitutional rights. We acted in haste before. It was a mistake then. It would be a mistake now to approve a straight reauthorization of that law. We need to take the time this time to get it right. I see Senator Wyden is on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bianca Ortiz Wertheim, a member of my staff, be given floor privileges today.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I came from a press conference on the third floor, with Chairman Inhofe, Senator Vitter, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Merkley, about the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. So I thought I would talk a little bit about what we are trying to do and where we are headed. Americans trust that when they go to the grocery store or when they are in their own homes, the products they reach for are safe. The current system fails that trust. It fails to provide confidence in our regulatory system, and it fails to provide confidence in our consumer products. We cannot let that failure continue. I rise today to urge support for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. It is the best chance we have-- possibly for many years--to protect our kids from dangerous chemicals. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, or TSCA, is supposed to protect American families. It does not. There are over 84,000 known chemicals and hundreds of new ones every year. Of all of these chemicals, how many have been regulated by the EPA? Less than half a dozen. The EPA cannot even regulate asbestos, a known carcinogen, since losing a court battle in 1991. So for decades, the risks and the dangers are there, but there is no cop on the beat. Some States are trying to fill the gaps by regulating a few chemicals. But my home State of New Mexico, and the vast majority of other States, have no ability to test chemicals. They have no department to write regulations. Without a working Federal law, they have no Federal protection--no protection at all. Even in the 7 years since California--which probably has the greatest capacity of all States to test and regulate--passed a law to regulate chemicals, it has only begun the process on three. We have an opportunity and an obligation to reform our broken chemical safety law. That is why I and others have worked so hard to find compromise. That is why I introduced the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. I have been privileged to work with Senator Vitter on this bill. I thank the Senator from Louisiana and our colleagues who have worked with us. This is a true bipartisan effort. We don't always agree, but we have one goal. Reform is overdue--40 years overdue. Our esteemed former colleague, the late Senator Lautenberg, led the way for many years with great determination. His bipartisan effort with Senator Vitter to reform TSCA was the last major legislation he introduced. Two years ago, the New York Times endorsed the Lautenberg-Vitter bill. The Times said correctly that previous efforts at reform had gone nowhere and the bill ``deserves to be passed because it would be a significant advance over the current law.'' I was honored to take over as the lead Democrat on the bill. Since then, I have listened to concerns, I have reached across the aisle, and I have brought everyone into the room--or at least tried to. With Senator Vitter we have improved the bill. By working with three of our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee--Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker--we made more progress. I thank them and Senator Vitter for coming to the table and working with us. I also thank our cosponsors. We are up to 36 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle--half Democrats, half Republicans. This is a big accomplishment. The bill is even stronger now with more protections for consumers and a stronger role for States to play in keeping their citizens safe. I want to talk for a moment about how this bill moves forward. First, the manufacturer of a new chemical cannot begin until the EPA approves it. More than 700 new chemicals come into commerce each year. Our bill gives the EPA the time it needs and keeps these chemicals out of American homes in the meantime. Second, the current TSCA has no requirement for evaluating existing chemicals--none. Our bill does and includes deadlines even more aggressive than the EPA itself said it was ready for. Third, we require a stronger safety standard for all chemicals to be evaluated. No longer will the EPA be required to choose the least burdensome regulation. Its criteria will be safety, science, and public health--never costs or convenience. Fourth, our bill requires, for the first time, that the EPA protect our most vulnerable populations--pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and workers--from chemicals in commerce or manufacturing. Fifth, TSCA is silent on animal welfare and testing. The Lautenberg act minimizes animal testing and develops a strategy to do so. Finally, we limit the protection of confidential business information so that businesses cannot hide information from the public. Let's be clear. We have a choice. We can continue with a law that has failed, we can continue to leave the American people unprotected or we can actually make a difference. I believe the choice is obvious. Our bill will make Americans safer--and not just for Americans fortunate enough to live in States with protections. All Americans, no matter where they live, will be protected. For those Americans in States with existing safeguards, that will not change. Those safeguards will stay in place. Any regulations in place as of August of this year will remain. And there is a role for States to play to help with the thousands of chemicals that the EPA will not be able to evaluate. But the EPA has the largest staff on chemical safety of any country in the world. They should be able to put that staff to good work. To do otherwise is wasted opportunity and continued failure. This has not been an easy process, but it has been a necessary one. I believe it will result in a good bill. We welcome a healthy debate, we welcome constructive amendments, and at the same time we should not lose sight of the key goal to actually pass a bill. I believe we can do this, and Senator Lautenberg, who was a great environmental champion, believed we could as well. He used to talk a lot about his children and grandchildren and that this bill might save more lives than anything he had ever done. We have a historic opportunity to create a chemical law that works and provides American families with the protections they expect and deserve. Let's work together. Let's make that happen. Let's not wait another 40 years. I thank the Presiding Officer. I may speak again after Senator Durbin has finished his statement on the floor. I thank Senator Durbin. I have had some very good exchanges with him on this bill. I look forward to working through the issues that Illinois has. I know that Illinois is a big State, and the Senator cares about chemicals and chemical safety. I want to make sure the Senator is comfortable with what we have in this bill and will try to work with my colleague as we move down the road. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I would ask the Chair to notify me when I have consumed 5 minutes.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise to support the President's negotiations with the P5+1 and Iran and to speak about the tremendous work--especially at our national laboratories--to create a framework agreement that meets the scientific requirements to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I also wish to express my support for the Corker-Menendez bill as passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Congress must have an oversight role; there is no doubt about that. While I do not believe this bill is necessary to have such a role, I do believe it is the best compromise to ensure a congressional oversight role without weakening the President's hand to continue critical negotiations. First, let's be clear, we all agree on one basic point: a nuclear- armed Iran is a serious threat. No one doubts this. No one questions the history of Iran's deception. That history is well documented and the danger is evident. This is the greatest nuclear nonproliferation challenge of our time. It is of tremendous import to our Nation, to the Middle East region, and to our ally, Israel. It is a challenge we must meet. We do not disagree on the danger; we disagree on the response. The Corker-Menendez bill is truly bipartisan. It passed the Foreign Relations Committee on which I am proud to serve unanimously. I wish to thank Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin for their leadership and all of their hard work to find a compromise solution. This is a solid bill. It gives Congress the opportunity to review a final agreement, to hold hearings and ask tough questions, and it creates an orderly method for Congress to approve or disapprove of any final agreement, providing more than enough time for both. The administration still has work to do and needs time to do it. I believe the framework agreement has promise to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, to protect Israel, and to prevent a new war in the Middle East. And it would take longer for Iran to secure the nuclear materials needed to make a bomb. As a result the United States and its allies would have much more time to respond if Iran attempted to break out and build a nuclear weapon. This is not speculation. This is not wishful thinking. Energy Secretary Moniz and Secretary of State John Kerry make this commitment clear. If anyone doubts this, visit our nuclear security experts at the labs in New Mexico, California, and Oak Ridge, TN, or Argonne in Illinois. Talk to the engineers and scientists who know the most about nuclear weapons and what is needed to make them. The Secretary said in his recent op-ed in the Washington Post: An important part of the parameters is a set of restrictions that would significantly increase the time it would take Iran to produce the nuclear material needed for a weapon--the breakout time--if it pursued one. The current breakout time is just two to three months . . . that would increase to at least a year for more than 10 years, more than enough time to mount an effective response. Secretary Moniz goes on to say: ``The negotiated parameters would block Iran's four pathways to a nuclear weapon--the path through plutonium production at the Arak reactor, two paths to a uranium weapon through the Natanz and Fordow enrichment facilities, and the path of covert activity.'' These negotiations must continue. The President and his team must have room to proceed. Let's not kid ourselves. This process is complex. It is daunting. Success is not guaranteed. I will oppose any amendments to the Corker-Menendez bill that would tie the President's hands. Efforts such as the letter sent by 47 Members of this body and other efforts to derail negotiations only serve to confound and weaken our position. Politics must stop at the water's edge. The Senate will have ample time to review any agreement and to approve or reject any agreement. But our debate is within these halls. It is with each other and with our fellow Senators and with our President. The Ayatollah has no place in that debate. The Congress should give the President the room he needs to negotiate. This is a world of imperfect choices. And if negotiations fail, make no mistake, our options are limited and likely costly. We are dealing with an unstable region. Use of force or regime change has unforeseen consequences. That path may seem simple. It is not. Both recent history in Iraq and the history of our interactions with Iran in the 20th century surely have taught us that much. Senators Corker and Cardin have given us a solid bill, one that is in the best tradition of the Senate and in the best interest of our country. I commend them for this, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976: Senators Barrasso, Booker, Cornyn, Cotton, Isakson, Kaine, McCaskill, Merkley, Murkowski, Murphy, Rubio, Scott, Shaheen, and Whitehouse. There is a substantial list here that brings the total up to 36 cosponsors on this piece of legislation.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise on Earth Day to speak about our children and about chemical safety. We come in contact with thousands of chemicals every day. As I am speaking now, millions of our fellow citizens are buying groceries or going to the hardware store or getting clothes or toys for their children. They assume the government has studied the chemicals in these products and determined they are safe. But that is not the case. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, or TSCA, is supposed to protect American families, and it doesn't. There are over 84,000 known chemicals in manufactured and commercial products, and hundreds of new ones come on the market every year. How many of those products have been regulated by the EPA? Less than half a dozen. These are troubling numbers. TSCA has been in existence for almost 40 years, and out of 84,000 chemicals--and counting--less than a dozen are actually regulated. The EPA cannot even regulate asbestos, a known carcinogen. Since losing a court battle in 1991, they have not been able to regulate it. The risks and dangers have been around for decades, but there is no cop on the beat. TSCA has failed. Some States are trying to fill the gap by regulating a few chemicals, but my home State of New Mexico, and the vast majority of others, have no ability to test chemicals. They don't have a department to write regulations. Without a working Federal law, they have no protection. Even California, which probably has the greatest capacity of all States to test and regulate, has only proposed rules for three chemicals. In 7 years, since California passed a law to regulate chemicals, it has only begun the process on three chemicals. That is why I and others have worked so hard to find compromise on this issue. That is why I introduced the Frank R. Lautenberg Safer Chemicals for the 21st Century Act. I come to the floor today on Earth Day to urge all of my colleagues here to make reforming our broken chemical safety law a priority. We have a moral obligation to protect our kids from dangerous chemicals. I have been privileged to work with Senator Vitter on this bill. I thank him and our colleagues who have worked with us. This is a true bipartisan effort. We don't always agree on some of the issues, but we have one basic goal here. Reform is overdue. It is 40 years overdue. All of our landmark environmental laws have been reformed or amended--the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act--but not the Toxic Substances Control Act. It should have been--and it was not for lack of trying. Our esteemed former colleague, the late Senator Frank Lautenberg led the way for many years, with great determination. He never gave up. Together we fought the good fight to pass our dream bill, but were never able to make any progress. And he realized we needed to work with all stakeholders. Everyone at the table, including industry. Because he understood, this is not about getting all that we want. This is about getting the American people the protections they need. His effort to reform TSCA was the last major legislation he introduced. Mr. President, 2 years ago, the New York Times endorsed the Lautenberg-Vitter bill. The Times said--correctly--that previous efforts at reform had gone nowhere, and the bill ``deserves to be passed because it would be a significant advance over the current law.'' That was 2 years ago. I was honored to take over as the lead Democrat on the bill. Since then, I have listened to concerns. I reached across the aisle. I brought everyone into the room, or at least tried to. With my Republican colleague, Senator Vitter, we have improved the bill. I want to talk for a moment about what this bill actually does, and how it moves us forward. Specifically, it does the following: First, the manufacture of a new chemical cannot begin until EPA approves it. Currently, a new chemical is on the market after 90 days, unless EPA finds unreasonable risk. Our bill gives EPA the time it needs, and keeps these chemicals out of American homes in the meantime. Second, current TSCA has no requirement for evaluating existing chemicals. None. Our bill does and includes deadlines, even more aggressive than the EPA itself asked for. Third, we require a stronger safety standard for all chemicals to be evaluated. No longer will EPA be required to choose the ``least burdensome'' regulation. Its criteria will be safety, science, and public health--never cost or convenience. Fourth, our bill defines, for the first time, our most vulnerable populations--pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and workers--and explicitly requires that EPA ensure they are protected from chemicals in commerce or manufacturing. Finally, we limit confidential business information protection for industry. Currently, it is limitless, unless challenged by EPA. We call for a 10-year sunset on confidential business information claims. Reform takes time. But, it should not take decades. We can't afford to wait any longer. Our children and our communities can't afford to wait for protection from chemicals. Yes, that means compromise. The goal was not a perfect bill. The goal was, and is, real reform. We have worked to address the issues with the original bill, and we still have work to do. It doesn't do everything I want. Senator Vitter has given a great deal as well. But this is a strong, bipartisan bill. I am confident it can pass the Senate. It will ensure EPA has the authority to keep us safe, something EPA cannot do now. So, let's be clear. We have a choice. We can continue with a law that has failed. We can continue to leave the American people unprotected. Or we can actually make a difference. We can give the EPA the power it needs to do its job--so that chemicals are tested--so that our homes and workplaces are safe--and so that American families are protected. I believe the choice is obvious. To those who disagree, I would ask a simple question. Are you willing to live with a failed law another 20 or 40 years? Because we all agree on one thing--TSCA is a failure. This is the best chance we have, possibly for many years, to pass a law that will protect our kids from dangerous chemicals. Our bill will make Americans safer. Not just Americans fortunate to live in States with protections. All Americans. No matter where they live. For those Americans in States with existing safeguards, that won't change. Those safeguards will stay in place. Any regulations in place as of January of this year will remain. And there is a role for States to play--to help with the thousands of chemicals that EPA will not be able to evaluate. But, let's be clear. The EPA has the largest staff on chemical safety of any country in the world. They should be able to put that staff to good use. To do otherwise is wasted opportunity and continued failure. This has not been an easy process. But, it is a necessary one. I believe it will result in a good bill. We welcome a healthy debate. We welcome constructive amendments. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the key goal--to actually pass a bill. To reform a law that is not working. To protect our families and communities. I believe we can do this. And Senator Lautenberg, who was a great environmental champion, he believed we could as well. Americans trust that when they go to the grocery store, or when they are in their own homes, that the products they reach for are safe. The current system fails that trust. It fails to provide confidence in our regulatory system. And it fails to provide confidence in our consumer products. We cannot let that failure continue. It hurts our economy, and it hurts the American people. We need solutions, not roadblocks and closed doors. Senator Vitter and I will continue to work with all stakeholders. If we can make this bill better, we will. We all share that goal. But, here's the bottom line: We must work through the remaining challenges. Now is not the time for digging in our heels--and going nowhere. Mr. President, 40 years of that is enough. Now is the time for change. There is only one essential question before us. Is this reform better than what we have? The answer is yes. Can we make it even better? I hope the answer to that question is yes as well. But, that will require a spirit of cooperation and compromise. That will require that we continue to have everyone at the table. Critics charge that this is an alliance with the chemical industry. That is false. It is an alliance with the American people. They put their trust in the American government to protect them. That trust has not been met. It is in everyone's interest--to identify dangerous chemicals, to protect the American public, and restore confidence in the safety of the products made by American companies. We have a historic opportunity to create a chemical law that works and provide American families with the protections they expect and deserve. Let's work together. Let's make that happen. Let's not wait another 40 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when 6 minutes are consumed.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last week the Senate Budget Committee gave a green light to the Republican budget. A caution light, a yellow light, was more in order. It calls for $4.7 trillion in nondefense spending cuts over the next 10 years and no increases in revenue. Where would those cuts come from? They would be piled on the backs of the middle class, the elderly, and children. They would cut the earned-income tax credit, slash Medicare and Medicaid, child care, Head Start, education, public safety, and law enforcement. And--just for good measure--the Republican budget rolls back reforms on Wall Street--and on and on. All this and more is to pay for lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires. When I first came to the Senate, our economy was in a free fall. We were losing 20,000 jobs a day, every day. Thousands of jobs were gone. Our financial system was crashing. Deficits were at historic highs. That was 6 years ago. It has been a long road back. We asked the wealthy to pay their fair share. We passed long-needed reforms to Wall Street. We have seen 12 million more private sector jobs, the deficit cut in half, and Wall Street at historic highs. Profits are up; unemployment and deficits are down. That is the story, but it isn't over. We are not done yet. Not everyone has found solid ground. My State still faces great challenges. Many New Mexicans are still struggling, still pulling out of the worst recession in 75 years. How do we go forward? How do we build on the progress we have made? Those are the questions the voters elected us to solve. The short answer is we have to work together. We have to get past the shutdowns and the showdowns. Politics is the art of standing your ground but also finding common ground. That is why the Republican budget is so troubling. It doesn't start a conversation. It doesn't reach across the aisle. This budget is bad for working families, bad for the middle class, bad for our economy. It makes a U-turn right back to failed policies of the past. This budget says no to the middle class, no to the most vulnerable, and no to the critical investments we know we need--but yes to lower taxes for hedge funds. It is Robin Hood in reverse, and it will hurt so many people who have suffered so much for so long. This is the wrong way to go at the worst possible time, because--make no mistake about it--this budget is one big yes for those at the top and one big no for everybody else. In my State, one in three children is in poverty. For Native American children, it is even higher. It is 44 percent. One in five children goes to bed hungry. Their parents can't find adequate child care. They can't get quality medical care when they need it. They lack access to safe housing and clean water. This just isn't the case in New Mexico. We see it across the Nation. Children and families are falling behind. This has to change. The future--not only for our children but for our economy--depends on changing it. We need to be doing more, but the Republican budget does less. It would cut programs for low-income children, seniors, and families by up to $660 billion over 10 years, including SNAP and child nutrition programs. Healthy kids are an investment in our future economy. We need renewed commitment--not draconian cuts--to the programs that help children reach their full potential. That means infant and toddler care, preschool, and home-visiting programs. We know that they work and they can help in a big way. A recent White House report tells the story. These programs make a difference, get results and save money--more than $8 for every $1 invested. That is why I introduced the Saving Our Next Generation Act, or SONG Act. We should fully pay for what works. That is why I am a cosponsor of the PRE-K Act to expand high-quality, early learning programs for children from birth to age 5. Children should be our priority. They should not take a back seat to billionaires and neither should the elderly, who depend on Medicare, not a voucher program. The Republican budget cuts $2.5 trillion from health care for low- and moderate-income people. Repealing the Affordable Care Act, block-granting Medicaid--seniors would pay more for prescription drugs and more for preventive services. Crucial support for nursing care and home health care would be slashed. We have a lot to do to get America's economy back on track. The Republican budget--at every turn--fails to do it. A budget isn't just numbers. It is about choices, and it is about priorities. That means investing in infrastructure. We have to upgrade our roads and manage our water resources. Federal dollars are almost half of New Mexico's total transportation budget and 70 percent of funding for our highways and bridges. It means making sure we have an educated workforce--not cutting Pell grants by 30 percent. It means full funding for the PILT program--to help communities pay for law enforcement, schools, and other services folks depend on. It means making sure our national labs and our military bases have the resources they need. All of this makes a difference for the people of my State. It makes a difference for hardworking families. It makes a difference for the future of our country. These should be our priorities, including doing more for small businesses. They are the engine of our economy. They create most new jobs. They need a fair tax policy--because they pay their fair share-- and don't have an army of lawyers working to find tax loopholes. We cannot ask Main Street to keep sacrificing while we fail to close a single tax loophole on Wall Street. We need a tax system that supports the middle class--not corporations sending jobs overseas. Our economy is recovering, but the benefit needs to go to all Americans, not just those at the top. These are the choices we should be making. These are the choices the Republican budget fails to make. We need to invest in the programs that help all Americans get ahead-- and strengthen our economy--so that every hardworking American has the opportunity to build a better future. I hope we can work together and find common ground with a budget that makes sense, with a fair tax policy, and with smart investments. We need to look to the future--and move forward. Now is not the time to return to the failed policies of the past.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, in my State of New Mexico, we are proud to be home to some of the finest military bases in the Nation. We are home to White Sands Missile Range, Kirtland Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base, and Cannon Air Force Base. New Mexicans have a great heritage of service in the Armed Forces, and our State's military installations play a key role in the Nation's national defense. Today, I wish to express my thanks, and the thanks of all New Mexicans, to General Hanson Scott, who retired on January 30th, after many years of an illustrious career, both in active military service and in civilian life. He is a son of New Mexico, and a credit to our State. General Scott is originally from Reserve, NM. He attended New Mexico State University, prior to receiving an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy, from which he graduated in 1961. During his 30 years in the Air Force, he served with great distinction, including as commander of the 463rd Tactical Airlift Wing, Dyess Air Force Base; the 1st Special Operations Wing, Hurlbut Field; and Special Operations Command Pacific, Camp H. M. Smith. Following his retirement from the Air Force, General Scott continued to lead as the director of the New Mexico Office of Military Base Planning and Support, reporting to the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor. As director, he had the important responsibility of addressing State-level issues in support of New Mexico's military installations and supporting the New Mexico Military Base Planning Commission. During the last BRAC round, General Scott played a key role in supporting Operation Keep Cannon, as Cannon was saved from closure by determined State and community efforts. I was proud to work with him during this effort. When the BRAC Commission made the decision to place Cannon in enclave status, his team worked hard to ensure that a new mission would be identified for Cannon. As a result, the Air Force Special Operations Command made the decision to locate the 27th Special Operations Wing at Cannon. The wisdom of this decision cannot be denied. Today, pilots from the 27th SOW can take advantage of New Mexico's outstanding airspace as they prepare to carry out the country's national security priorities. Prior to his appointment as the director of the Office of Military Base Planning and Support, General Scott was the executive director of the Office for Space Commercialization, New Mexico Economic Development Department, and director of aviation for the city of Albuquerque, NM. He also was a member of the steering committee of the Kirtland Air Force Base Retention Task Force, working with community leaders and the New Mexico congressional delegation in preventing a significant realignment of the base. General Hanson Scott has led a life of service and commitment. He has proven his dedication to our military and the defense of our Nation time and again. That dedication has required tremendous determination, tireless effort, and, at times, personal sacrifice. It has meant getting up at 3 a.m. to make the roundtrip from Albuquerque to White Sands or Holloman in 1 day. It has meant manning the phones, in all time zones, sometimes while walking his dog Barney. Most of all, throughout his career, it has meant trying to do what is best for New Mexico and for the men and women of our Armed Forces. It is a privilege to say here today, to General Hanson Scott, thank you. Thank you for a job well done. Thank you for your service. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership on the Homeland Security bill. She has taken that over this year and learned it, knows the ins and outs of it. She is someone who truly cares about being fiscally responsible. She just recently pointed out to our caucus that if we pass the House bill with all of the riders in it, it would cost $7.5 billion more and put us $7.5 billion more into debt, which I do not think is a fiscally responsible move. So we should be taking a very hard look at these riders as they come through from the House. I have come to the floor to talk about how important it is for us to pass a clean appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. I wish to talk about how failing to pass a bill will impact the southern border, impact my State of New Mexico, where DHS plays a vital role in security, in business, and in people's daily lives. The men and women at DHS make sure commerce is conducted smoothly across our border with Mexico. They make sure workers can get back and forth. They inspect shipments coming into the country, and they protect our communities from drug smugglers and crime. It is inconceivable to me that Republicans would threaten to stop funding this agency over a policy dispute with the President. I have heard Republican leaders say the era of shutdowns was over, but here we are again, rapidly approaching the date when DHS funding expires. We need an appropriations bill that does not disrupt this important work. I talk to New Mexicans who live in the border communities. I talk to ranchers and farmers in my State. Border security is not theoretical. It is not a political game. It is crucial to safety. It is crucial to trade at our ports of entry, such as Santa Teresa and Columbus. In New Mexico a shutdown of DHS is a threat to our security, to jobs, and to our economy. I have read some reports where congressional Republicans have said on the record that a delay in funding DHS would not be a big deal. They say most of the Department's employees are considered essential so they would still be working at our borders and screening airline passengers. That may be true, but those employees would not get paid. I am not willing to tell our Border Patrol agents and TSA officers with families to feed that they still need to go to work, but they are not going to get paid because Washington cannot get its act together. I know my constituents would feel a lot more secure in border communities if the Border Patrol officers were getting paid rather than worrying about their mortgages, their car payments, tuition payments, and other household expenses. Despite the Republican claims that DHS will not actually shut down, there would be significant consequences if Congress failed to fund DHS. Consider what would happen to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC as they are called out in New Mexico. FLETC serves as the law enforcement training academy for 96 Federal agencies. FLETC in Artesia, NM, trains all of our Border Patrol agents and Bureau of Indian Affairs police officers. If we fail to fund DHS, FLETC training grinds to a halt. This will impact every Federal agency whose law enforcement officers must complete basic training before they can be deployed in their posts of duty. A delay in training impacts securing the Nation's borders, aviation security, protecting our Nation's leaders and diplomats, securing Federal buildings, and other countless Federal law enforcement activities. The economic impact is huge. Over 3,000 students, 350 of them in Artesia, NM, are expected to be in training at the end of February. If DHS is not funded, they have to go back home. This will cost about $2.4 million in airfare to send students back to their agencies, and then turn around and fly them back to FLETC when Congress does its job and funds DHS. Regardless of your views on immigration policy, wasting law enforcement's time and taxpayer money does not improve our security. Artesia is not a big city. Its economy relies on FLETC. The students spend their money at local businesses. Many residents are contract employees at the facility. If FLETC closes, it has a real impact in our community. As a New Mexican, I am appalled that a DHS shutdown is even being considered. We cannot risk our national security, our community safety, and our border commerce just so Republicans can prove some sort of inside-the-beltway point about how angry they are about immigration reform. The House Republican bill threatens to deport millions of people who have been living and working and going to school in our country for many years. The Senate should choose a different route: Put a clean bill on the floor, allow an open amendment debate, and enact a bill the President can sign before any shutdown occurs. Few States understand the importance of comprehensive immigration reform as New Mexico does. We need a system that secures our borders, strengthens families, and supports our economy. In fact, we almost had just that. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill in the last Congress, but House Republicans let it die--would not even take it up, would not put it on the floor. That bill was not perfect. It did not satisfy everyone in every case, but that is what compromise means. That is what a bipartisan effort requires. Due to the House's failure to act on immigration reform, over 400,000 people in my State live in immigration limbo, all the while they work and raise families. Deporting these children and families is not a realistic option. We need to focus limited resources, as the President has done, on securing the border. We need to go after drug dealers and gang members and potential terrorists. I and so many other New Mexicans are appalled that Republicans want to take out their anger on the DREAMers. They will not commit to real reform, but they will commit to chasing down children--innocent children--brought to this country by their parents. These are inspiring young people in my State, when I talk about these young DREAMers. They have worked hard. They have persevered. They know and love this country as their own. They are young leaders such as Mabel Arellanes. Mabel came to Santa Fe with her mother from Mexico when she was just 6 years old. Mabel graduated from Capital High School. Her dream was to go to college, but her immigration status made that impossible. From the age of 15, Mabel worked to help other DREAMers. She helped pass the New Mexico DREAM Act. Mabel eventually did get to college and graduated from the University of New Mexico with honors. She is in her second year of law school now. Another one of the DREAMers--this is Alejandro Rivera. Another DREAMer, he moved to Belen, NM, when he was 7 years old. After high school, Alejandro enrolled at the University of New Mexico. Undocumented, he could not get financial aid. He and his mother worked hard to pay tuition. Alejandro also volunteered to help other young people get an education and to follow their dreams. He is at work now on his Ph.D. in education. We may disagree on the specifics of immigration reform, but these DREAMers have earned our admiration. They should not be pushed back into the shadows by the House deportation bill. The men and women who work to keep us safe, who screen more than 1 million people a day through our ports of entry, who patrol our borders and help secure our communities should not be a bargaining chip. In New Mexico we believe homeland security should be a priority, not a talking point. Secretary Johnson at DHS has been very clear. Key security initiatives are left waiting. His predecessors have also been very clear. Last week all three former DHS Secretaries, two of whom are Republican, sent a letter to the Senate leadership urging them to pass a clean funding bill. We live in a very dangerous world. We face terrorist threats at home and abroad. Recent events make that very clear. Now is not the time to play politics with homeland security. In fact, there never is a right time for that. The American people are watching. The people of my State are watching. They are watching these games. What they see is a lot of sound and fury that leads nowhere. What they want is a government that works. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. I know the managers will be here shortly, and when they arrive I will obviously yield the floor to them.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, this amendment creates a national market for renewable energy. A bill similar to this has passed the Senate three times and also passed the House once. These are the jobs of the future--renewable energy jobs. More than half of the new generation of energy in the world is in renewables, and this amendment--it is estimated by the people who have studied it and the experts--would create about 300,000 new jobs. So I ask my colleagues to support it. It is a good complement to the bill we are on, and it would create a lot of new jobs. I yield back.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today we are voting in the 11 o'clock series on the renewable electricity standard--a bill to promote 25 percent of our electricity to come by renewable sources by 2025. From what we have heard these past few weeks, we are either on the floor debating an energy bill or a jobs bill. This is what my Republican friends and colleagues have been saying. The Keystone Pipeline fits neither one of these descriptions. The Keystone Pipeline is not an energy bill. The bill lacks a comprehensive energy policy; it lacks even trying to set one. This is not a ``do it all, do it right'' energy bill. It isn't even a ``drill, baby, drill'' bill. This is the ``drill, Canada'' bill. If we are going to debate energy policy, we need to debate and adopt a renewable electricity standard. The Keystone Pipeline is an investment in doing things the old way--importing foreign oil. Instead of doubling down on foreign oil, we should be talking about how we can move America forward by investing in homegrown energy for the future. The renewable electricity standard is such a bill. I wish to point out that States already recognize this fact significantly. Colorado has a 30-percent target by 2020. Nevada has a 25-percent target by 2025. Oregon has a 25-percent target by 2025. A number of other States have renewable electricity targets. Twenty-nine States, in fact, are developing a national market. There are many States that are meeting these goals and moving forward aggressively. In 2013, the State of Iowa produced 27 percent of its electricity alone with wind power. I see the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the floor. I promise to yield. I only have a couple of more minutes. I thank the chairwoman. This amendment--the renewable electricity standard--is a start to a comprehensive energy policy for the United States. We are told the Keystone Pipeline is a jobs bill. We are told Keystone will create jobs. Of course, we are all for that. But how many jobs? We are talking about 2,000, 3,000 construction jobs, but the permanent jobs are in the range of 50. How about a renewable electricity standard that promotes long-lasting manufacturing and installation jobs--American jobs, permanent jobs--jobs that can't be outsourced? The renewable electricity standard could create an additional 274,000 to 297,000 jobs in the United States in such areas as construction, operations, and engineering. Over 50 percent of these jobs would be created in the manufacturing sector. These are hundreds of thousands of 21st century American jobs in my State and across the country. We owe it to all Americans to consider this and other amendments that would improve the bill. Right now, we are losing out to other countries in both solar and wind. China has the largest market share. A national renewable electricity standard would help us move forward aggressively to get our market share in those two areas. It is clear to me a national renewable electricity standard would combat global warming while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. It will help maximize our energy potential while strengthening our economy and our energy security. Let's vote on that. Let's move forward to meet the real energy needs of American families. I thank the chairwoman for being so gracious and for her courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me just say to the two leaders on the floor who have participated in this open amendment process that I really appreciate the way Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell have worked through this bill. I really appreciate all their help. I have heard, at least on our side of the aisle, over and over that this is the way the Senate should be moving, this is the way we should be working. So I think all of us are very appreciative of how the two managers of the bill have worked together. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Moran amendment, which would delist the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species. To be clear, I appreciate some of the concerns about this listing by farmers, ranchers, and industry. I am concerned about any unintended consequences this listing may have on rural New Mexicans. I strongly support and I assume the Senator from Kansas supports the bipartisan five-State effort for a thorough review. The Fish and Wildlife Service took numerous steps in this process to respond to all stakeholders and to enable habitat conservation and economic growth. New Mexico has been and continues to be a leader in cooperative conservation in places where the prairie chicken is found. Ranchers and oil and gas industries deserve their praise for their efforts. So it is working and the sky is not falling, but we should not take this top-down political approach. Listing and delisting of the species by Congress goes against the intent of the law, which requires the government to make these decisions based on science, not politics. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 77.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today we are voting to end debate on the Keystone Pipeline bill. I want to be clear right from the start. I do not support this bill. I will vote against cloture and against final passage of the Keystone Pipeline bill. And I am disappointed about the way it is being jammed through to a vote. I supported the motion to proceed to this bill for one reason and only one reason--because we were assured there would be an open amendment process. We started that process last week. We have worked back and forth between Republican and Democratic amendments. Many of those amendments are important. And I believe we should continue until every Senator who wants to amend this bill has had a chance to make his or her case. I have an amendment for a renewable electricity standard which would create hundreds of thousands of 21st-century American jobs in my State and across the country. We owe it to all Americans to consider this and other amendments that would improve the bill. The bill as it stands is not acceptable on many levels. First, I am concerned that the new leadership chose to begin with a bill mandating a single pipeline for a foreign private company. This is a questionable use of the Senate's time and an unprecedented piece of legislation. Congress has never gotten involved in mandating a pipeline of this nature. But that is where we are. Now we are voting to cut off debate. The majority leader moved last week--late in the night--to set aside the Democratic amendments and bring an end to debate. So we have a bill with a questionable beginning and a regrettable ending. The result is a missed opportunity to seriously address the energy needs of our country. I said at the beginning of this debate that we are faced with a choice, a profound choice. We can deny that our climate is warming. We can fall behind our economic competitors. We can ignore the danger to our planet and to our security. That is one choice. Or we can move forward with a clean energy economy, with an energy policy that makes sense, that creates jobs, that protects the environment, and that will keep our Nation strong. We had a good debate on climate change during this bill about whether or not humans significantly contribute to it. Many Senators made it clear where they stand. Many agree that yes humans are significantly contributing to climate change. But while that is good for the record, it doesn't do much for the reality, because we have fallen short of taking any real action to address this great challenge. In fact, we are now compounding the problem by trying to pass this bill. The bill lacks a comprehensive energy policy; it lacks even trying to set one. This is not a ``do it all'' energy bill. This isn't even a ``drill, baby, drill'' bill. This is a ``drill, Canada'' bill. I believe we should continue working on the bill to address serious climate solutions, like a renewable electricity standard. The Keystone Pipeline is an investment in doing things the old way--importing foreign oil. Instead of doubling down on foreign oil, we should be talking about how we can move America forward by investing in the homegrown energy of the future. A national renewable electricity standard would combat global warming, while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. It will help maximize our energy potential, while strengthening our economy and our energy security. Let's vote on that, and let's move forward to meet the real energy needs of American families.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me say to my cousin, my heart goes out to you, and my condolences on what you have talked about here today. I really appreciate you coming down and talking so sincerely about that.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me talk a little bit this evening about amendment No. 77 that I filed. This is an amendment I filed to the bill that is pending that we are now on, what I would call the oil sands pipeline. It has been called a jobs bill, I know, on the other side. But, you know, the reality is, there are good construction jobs here. But as soon as the pipeline is built, the permanent jobs are really very small. What we need to do--my belief--in terms of energy, is work to where there are larger numbers of jobs. I do not know whether people know this, but the energy that is being added to the system now worldwide and in the United States is renewable energy. Sometimes it is wind, sometimes it is solar, to a lesser extent biofuels, biomass and things like that. But the renewable sector is growing. The new energy is growing. Some of this is rather dramatic in terms of the numbers and the size. That is the direction clearly we need to head, because we want to in the future be lessening our carbon footprint. There is absolutely no dispute that we need to be moving in that direction. That is where all the scientists are. We are even seeing today in the amendments that we have on the floor our friends across the aisle agreeing that we have got a real problem with climate change and that human beings are causing this and we need to address this. I applaud them stepping forward and saying that. How do you do this? How do you encourage more of the renewable forms of energy? Let me say before I get into that, my hope is to have a discussion with the two Senators who are on side who are leading the debate here, Senator Boxer and Senator Cantwell, about offering this amendment and getting in line in the next tranche of amendments. But how do you get moving in the direction of more renewable energy? Well, we already know we have got a very good pattern here. We have started in the States and started in the District of Columbia, where more than half of our States in the United States of America have adopted what have been called renewable electricity standards. New Mexico has one. We have 15 percent by 2015. Some of our bigger States have been more aggressive. States such as California and New York are really pushing the envelope. They are saying by about 2025 we are going to have 30 percent or close to 30 percent renewable energy. So, really, what they are doing by putting a standard in place is they are saying to their power companies in their State: This is important to do. We know it is cost effective. Go out and develop your portfolio so that you put more renewable energy in it. The remarkable thing, looking around the country, is how many States have done this. We have seen 29 States, I believe, including the District of Columbia, for a number of years now that have put a renewable electricity standard in place. So that is something that we know is working at the State level. In fact, my Senator from New Mexico--who retired just a couple of years ago, Senator Bingaman--one of the things he did was go out to Stanford and study all of these renewable electricity standards that were in place and came up with ideas on the best practices and where there were disadvantages. He has actually published a report with a bunch of other researchers. So there is good wealth of knowledge about what is working and what isn't working. But the major thing that is working is when we encourage a marketplace in renewable energy. We don't necessarily call out winners and losers. I know that is something that on both sides of the aisle we object to when we said: This is going to be a winning form, that is not going to be a winning form. What we are doing is saying: Let's try to move toward renewables. Let's put a goal out there and then let's let the marketplace work on that. Let's see innovation. Let's move forward down that road. We have seen the 29 States do it and the District of Columbia. My proposal in this amendment--and it is one I have worked on--has a good history. One of the things we know is when Senator Bingaman was in the Senate and head of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he was able to pass through the Senate three times, over his career as chairman, a renewable electricity center out of the Senate. When I was in the House of Representatives from 1998 to 2008, my cousin Mark Udall and I worked on a renewable electricity standard in the House. For the first time we were able to get a bill through the House of Representatives. So our big challenge always was we were never able to match the House bill and the Senate bill and put in place something that a President can sign and have a national standard. That is where we are today. We have had good support, and really what this amendment would do is set up a national marketplace. Many States across the Nation, and almost every State, have renewable energy. If you go into the South, it may be more biomass than it is of solar. If you go to the West and Midwest, it may be more wind and solar, but it depends on location. What is clear from all of the experts who looked at this is it is very easy to focus on when you have a goal, and you say, in the case of this amendment, by 2025, let's get 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources. So if we have a goal like that, we could get there. I am urging everybody to take a look at this amendment to see what it is that we should be doing. If we are talking about moving down the road with this proposal that we have before us, where we are scavenging, in a way, for the dirtiest forms of energy, these tar sands--which are much dirtier than the environmental impact statement said. Not only are they dirtier by about 17 percent, but when you tear down all those forests, which are taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you are putting yourself in a position where you are headed down the wrong road in terms of easing our carbon footprint. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this amendment. I will visit with the leaders on the floor about this amendment and see if we can't get it in line in terms of being considered. This is an important debate about our energy future. There is a lot of work to be done. I hope we can work together. We are at a crossroads in our energy policy. We can lead the world in clean energy production with wind, solar, and advanced biofuels. We can reduce global warming pollution. We can become energy independent--and create permanent American jobs. That is our future. That should be our priority. We have the technology. We have the resources. We need the commitment. That is why we need a national Renewable Electricity Standard. It takes us forward. My amendment would require utilities to generate 25 percent of electricity from renewable resources--by 2025. There are many benefits to a national RES. It would create 300,000 jobs. Over 50 percent of these jobs are in manufacturing. It would save consumers $64 billion by 2025--and $95 billion by 2030--in their utility bills. There would be $263 billion in new capital investment. It would provide over $13 billion to farmers, ranchers, and other landowners in the form of lease payments, creating new economic activity in rural communities across the U.S. It would add more than $11 billion in new local tax revenues--and revitalize communities, especially rural communities. I have pushed for this ever since I came to Congress. The House passed it. The Senate has passed a version of this three times. New Mexico and over half the States already have an RES. The States are moving in that direction. The Nation needs to move in that direction. I have long said we need to do it all, and do it right as an energy policy. That includes traditional energy sources. Oil and gas play an important role in my State. New Mexico is a leading producer of both. We have strong, independent companies. They employ over 12,000 New Mexicans. They help pay for our schools and other public services. We invested in the oil industry. We also need to invest in wind, solar, and biofuels. The U.S. has incredible wind energy potential--enough to power the Nation 10 times over. My State has some of the best wind resources in the Nation--enough to meet more than 73 times the State's current electricity needs. Wind power has almost no carbon pollution. It uses virtually no water. It already saves folks in my State 470 million gallons of water a year. The U.S. solar industry employs more than 143,000 Americans--more than coal and natural gas combined. Solar jobs grew 10 times faster than the national average. These are well-paying, local jobs. These are permanent jobs, and they won't be shipped overseas. Now is the time to build on the momentum and invest in a clean energy economy. Now is the time to create energy at home and jobs at home-- now, not later. We can't lose this market to our overseas competitors in Germany, China, and elsewhere. They can see the future too--and they are going after it. A national Renewable Electricity Standard gives certainty to business, to companies that are looking to invest billions of dollars in our economy, to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable energy components. We have a great opportunity to grow our manufacturing sector, to create jobs, and to move toward a cleaner energy future. This is a new Congress. Let's find common ground, and let's move forward. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, climate change is one of the greatest challenges of this century. We have a profound choice before us. We can deny that our climate is warming, we can fall behind our economic competitors, we can ignore the danger to our planet and to our security--that is one choice--or we can move forward with the diversified energy portfolio that includes clean energy, with an energy policy that makes sense, that creates jobs, that protects the environment, and that will keep our Nation strong. There is a lot of work to be done. We can work together, we can find common ground, become energy independent, move us on a path to energy independence, grow our economy, and fight climate change. But instead, unfortunately, our focus today is on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The new majority has not chosen to start with energy policy as a whole or innovation or manufacturing policy or our response to climate change. Instead, we are debating on the floor of the Senate just one pipeline project, which primarily benefits another Nation. There is really one basic question. Is the Keystone Pipeline in our Nation's interest--not Canada's interest or Wall Street's interest but our Nation's interest. I do not believe it is. I say this for two reasons. First, we are being asked to do something I believe is unprecedented--for Congress to step in and promote a bill for one private-sector energy project, to wave ahead a private pipeline for a private foreign company so that Canadian oil can be piped to Texas for export to other nations. Again, how does this serve our Nation? We are told it is about jobs. Keystone will create jobs, and, of course, we are all for that. But how many jobs? About 3,900 temporary construction jobs. But how many permanent jobs--jobs that American families can count on for years to come? Maybe about 50. Yet with all the challenges we face, at home and abroad, this is the priority. This is priority No. 1 for the new Republican Congress. This is one choice. It is the wrong choice and the wrong priority. This brings me to my second point. We are at a crossroads in our energy policy. We can still lead the world in clean energy production-- wind, solar, advanced biofuels--to reduce global warming pollution, to become energy independent, and to create permanent American jobs. That is our future. That should be our priority. New Mexicans are already seeing the impact of global warming. The Southwest is at the eye of the storm, with historic drought, with severe flooding when it does rain, and with more and more wildfires. I talk to farmers and ranchers in my State, and they are struggling. According to a study at Los Alamos National Laboratory, by 2050--not far away--we may not have any forests left in my State. It will be as if New Mexico were dragged 300 miles to the south. Our climate will resemble land that is now in the middle of the Chihuahuan Desert. I am not a scientist; neither are my colleagues. But the experts at Los Alamos National Laboratory and scientists all over the world are clear: If we do nothing, it will only get worse. We are already seeing the impact. Recently the Government Accountability Office issued a warning: Climate change will continue to increase costs to taxpayers for the Federal Flood and Crop Insurance Programs. FEMA is already $24 billion in debt due to extreme weather events such as Hurricane Sandy and last year's floods in New Mexico. The cost of the Federal Crop Insurance Program has increased 68 percent just since 2007. If left unchecked, these costs will continue to skyrocket. But this is more than numbers, disturbing as they are. This is the burden of climate change on farmers, ranchers, and our communities. The damage is real. The threat is here. But so are the solutions and the opportunities, and there are many opportunities. With the right priorities, we can encourage the production of clean energy. We can create a clean energy economy that leads the world. We can create the jobs of the future right here at home and revitalize rural America. I have long said we need a ``do it all and do it right'' energy policy. That includes traditional energy sources. Oil and gas play an important role in my State. New Mexico is a leading producer of both oil and gas. We have strong, independent companies. They employ over 12,000 New Mexicans. They help pay for our schools and our other public services. They are an important part of the mix, and so are renewables such as wind and solar. The United States has incredible wind energy potential, enough to power the Nation 10 times over. New Mexico has some of the best wind resources in the Nation, enough to meet more than 73 times the State's current electricity needs. Wind power emits almost no carbon pollution. It uses virtually no water. It already saves folks in my State 470 million gallons of water a year. The U.S. solar industry employs more than 143,000 Americans--more than coal and natural gas combined. Solar jobs grew 10 times faster than the national average. The majority are in installation, sales, and distribution. Those are well-paying local jobs. Those are permanent jobs, and they won't be shipped overseas. Now is the time to build on the momentum and invest in a clean energy economy. Now is the time to create energy at home and jobs at home. Now. Not later. And we need to do it before we lose too much of the market to our overseas competitors in Germany, China, and elsewhere. They can see the future too, and they are going after it. A national renewable electricity standard would help us get there. The proposal I have introduced for many years would require utilities to generate 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. New Mexico and over half the States already have one. The States are moving in that direction. The Nation needs to move in that direction. We need a national standard. Experts have said a national standard could create 300,000 new jobs. I have pushed for this ever since I came to Congress. The House of Representatives has passed it. The Senate has passed a version of this three times. We have to get it right. We have to do this. Let's get it done. America can lead the world in a clean energy economy. We have the technology, and we have the resources. We just need the commitment and the cooperation. This is a new Congress. Let's find common ground where we can move forward. Just as we invested in the oil industry, we need to invest in wind, solar, and biofuels. We should support tax credits for renewables. We should encourage important cutting-edge energy research at great institutions such as Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. What we don't need is Congress simply acting as a permitting agency for a Canadian pipeline. I understand the frustration that this project has been pending for so long. I believe the President should make a decision now. The necessary studies have been done. The recent litigation is over. We have debated this project extensively in this Congress and in several elections. If the President decides to approve it without some strong conditions that mitigate its climate impact, I will be very disappointed. If the President rejects it, the supporters can raise this issue in the next election. But Congress should move on to real, pressing policy debates. Let's get our heads out of the tar sands and work together for our economy, for our energy independence, and for our future. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.