Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Both Senator Sessions and Senator Snowe are here, and I don't know if they wanted to speak. I know we have had a flow of speakers on this side, and if one of you wants to speak before I speak, I think it is the fair thing to do.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I am probably going to be the concluding remarks on celebrating Senator Mikulski, so I am going to proceed with that. Madam President, we have been here now for almost 3 hours--I was down here when we started. Senator Feinstein started about 2:00 and we are approaching 5:00 now--for an incredible celebration of Barbara Mikulski's career. I have listened to a lot of it both at my office and here on the floor, and it is pretty remarkable to hear the kinds of things she has done with her life and I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski. As has been noted, this month Senator Mikulski becomes the longest serving woman in the history of Congress. With her perfect sense of timing, Barbara reaches this historic milestone during Women's History Month. And it is for the history books. But, as Barbara has said: It is is not how long I serve but how well I serve. And she has served very well. She has served her beloved State of Maryland very well, and she served this country in a number of capacities on the Appropriations Committee and on various committees in the Congress. We celebrate this historic occasion but, more deeply, we celebrate Barbara's record of achievement--a record that transcends gender, a record that is rooted in a life dedicated to public service. Since she was first elected to public office in 1971 to the Baltimore City Council, Barbara has been setting milestones. Think about that for a minute--1971. This is 40 years plus of public service. As the Chair knows, this is pretty remarkable. She served in public service for a while. I have served for a while. But 41 years of public service is remarkable--the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland; the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right; the first woman in the Senate Democratic leadership; and the first Democratic woman to serve in both Houses of Congress. Yet it is not her being first that is the most impressive; it is her commitment to putting others first. Barbara has shown that commitment time and again. In over 35 years in the Congress, she has never wavered in her service to our Nation and her dedication to the people of Maryland. She has fought for quality education. She has fought for American seniors. She has fought for women's health and for veterans. For women facing unequal pay, Barbara championed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. For senior citizens facing bankruptcy because of a spouse's nursing home care, Barbara wrote the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act. Yes, she is a trailblazer, but she blazes those trails to help others--for young people who dream of going to college, for families facing devastating illness, for opportunity for all Americans. That has been her passion, that has been her true achievement, and that will be her greatest legacy. When Barbara was first elected to the Senate in 1986, there was only one other female Senator. Now there are 17. Barbara is, rightly so, the dean of the women. She is a mentor to her female colleagues, but no less so she is an inspiration to all of us. I admire Barbara's remarkable determination and her tenacity, but also her ability to work with others to get things done. She will fight for what she believes, but she will sit down to dinner with her colleagues across the aisle. And she has never forgotten where she came from. The daughter of a Baltimore grocer, each night she returns home to Baltimore. She has never forgotten the values she learned there: hard work, helping one's neighbor, patriotism. She is diminutive in height only. That was evident early on. The story is well known how, as a young community activist, Barbara stopped that 16-lane highway from coming through Baltimore's Fells Point neighborhood. She is not afraid to stand up to power, and she is not afraid of speaking strongly to power. In all the ways that count, Senator Barbara Mikulski is a towering figure. Albert Schweitzer once said: I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know for sure. The only ones among you who will be truly happy are those who have sought and found how to serve. This Barbara Mikulski has done. From her early days as a social worker to her years in Congress, she has served. She has served long and well. Congratulations, Barbara. It is an honor to be your colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss our broken judicial confirmation process. I know many of my colleagues will discuss individual nominees and how long they have languished on the executive calendar without a vote. We can point to many statistics about the length of time it takes to confirm President Obama's nominees versus President Bush's and how many nominees each had confirmed in their first term. This is an important argument to make. And while these statistics are helpful in highlighting the problem, they are merely the symptoms of a much larger disease--a broken Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2009, I've said repeatedly that we must take decisive action to reform our rules in order to restore deliberativeness to this body. At the beginning of this Congress, Senators Harkin, Merkley, and I tried to do that. Ultimately, our success was limited. We didn't achieve the broad reforms we wanted. But we did initiate a debate that highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules, including how the rules are manipulated to obstruct the confirmation process for judges and executive branch nominees. There was some hope that the debate we had, along with the modest reforms that were adopted, would encourage both sides of the aisle to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in today's Senate. Unfortunately, any goodwill rapidly deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship quickly returned. That is why we are here again today, talking about yet another aspect of this body's dysfunction--the broken judicial confirmation process. This is not a new problem, nor is it one on which either side can claim to be innocent. For about the past decade, the minority party-- whether Republicans or Democrats--has gone to inexcusable lengths to slow or block judicial nominees who have strong majority support. This has lead to a new norm in the Senate--the need for any nominee to get at least 60 votes for confirmation. This directly conflicts with the Founders' intent and a plain reading of the Constitution. The arguments my colleagues and I make today--that judicial nominees who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee deserve a vote by the full Senate--are the same arguments my Republican colleagues made when President Bush's nominees were held up by a Democratic minority. In April 2003, the freshmen members of the 108th Congress sent a letter to Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle. That freshman class was made up of nine Republicans and one Democrat. I'd like to read part of that letter. The senators wrote: [W]e write to express our concerns about the state of the federal judicial nomination and confirmation process. The apparent breakdown in this process reflects poorly on the ability of the Senate and the Administration to work together in the best interests of our country. The breakdown also disserves the qualified nominees to the federal bench whose confirmations have been delayed or blocked, and the American people who rely on our federal courts for justice. . . . We seek a bipartisan solution that will protect the integrity and independence of our nation's courts, ensure fairness for judicial nominees, and leave the bitterness of the past behind us. Regrettably, the rest of the Senate did not heed their advice and the confirmation process remained dysfunctional. Two years later, Senator Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote an op-ed in the National Review Online that clearly outlined the problem. Senator Hatch's commentary began with the following: Judicial nominations will be one of the most important issues facing the Senate in the 109th Congress and the question is whether we will return to the tradition of giving nominations reaching the Senate floor an up or down vote. The filibusters used to block such votes have mired the judicial- confirmation process in a political and constitutional crisis that undermines democracy, the judiciary, the Senate, and the Constitution. He then went on to argue that there was a solution to address this crisis--using the Constitutional Option to amend the Senate rules. Just as I argued last year at the start of the session, Senator Hatch stated that at the beginning of a new Congress, a simple majority can invoke cloture and change the Senate rules. The rules weren't amended then, and they weren't amended last year, either. This is why we are here today, having the same debate about judicial nominations that the Republicans had when they were in the majority and President Bush's nominees were stalled. It's time we stop having this debate and actually fix the process. Both sides have acknowledged the problem and offered solutions when they were in the majority. In the 108th Congress, Senator Frist introduced a resolution to change Rule XXII that would have gradually reduced the cloture threshold on nominations after successive votes over the course of several days of debate. That resolution was cosponsored by Senators McConnell, Kyl, and Cornyn--all members of the current minority leadership. Last year, at the beginning of this Congress, Senators Harkin, Merkley, and I introduced a resolution to reform the rules. It included reforms that would have addressed the broken confirmation process, including reducing the post-cloture time on nominees from thirty hours to two and requiring real debate in order to sustain a filibuster. Unfortunately, neither of these resolutions was adopted. During the debate on our resolution last year, Senator Harkin made a very good point. He said, ``I believe each Senator needs to give up a little of our pride, a little of our prerogatives, and a little of our power for the good of this Senate and the good of this country.'' Let's hope that someday enough of our colleagues will agree with him and we finally institute the reforms necessary to restore the Senate's reputation as the ``World's Greatest Deliberative Body.'' I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the freshman class of the 108th Congress and Senator Hatch's National Review op-ed be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I also rise today to join New Mexico's senior Senator, who has served New Mexico so well. It is a real honor to join Senator Bingaman in paying tribute to one of our great New Mexico citizens, Speaker Ben Lujan. Ben, as Senator Bingaman said, is retiring this month. He is an esteemed colleague of ours, and he is also our friend--a good friend at that. Indeed, Ben Lujan is a friend to all New Mexicans. Ben recently said: Let us make our time on Earth . . . worthwhile, and do what is right, and make a difference for the children, our working families, and our elderly. He has lived up to that challenge throughout his career, fighting for education, for workers, for middle-class families, for Native Americans, for health care, and for jobs. In a world that grows ever more cynical, Ben Lujan has always been the real deal. Ben was born in 1935 in the small community of Nambe, NM, one of nine children. His family, like so many, struggled through the Great Depression. He used to relate tales of his father as a sheepherder herding sheep from the Valley Grande to the Chama in New Mexico. Ben still lives on the property that has been in his family for three generations. Ben is that rare combination--humble but tenacious in what he believes. He has never forgotten from where he came, and he has always been a champion for the less fortunate among us. Even in his youth, Ben showed a remarkable talent for teamwork, for playing by the rules, for just plain hard work, and for determination. He loves basketball. In high school he was the captain of his high school varsity basketball squad, and the gymnasium where the Pojoaque Elks play today is named in his honor. Ben Lujan has been leading teams ever since. He attended the College of Santa Fe but had to disenroll for lack of money. For the next couple of years, he sought work wherever he could find it in California and in New Mexico, wherever he had to go to get a job. He understands hard times. He knows what it is like to try to make ends meet. And in all of his years of public service, a sense of justice and fair play has always been at his core. Ben worked as an iron man in Los Alamos. He joined the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers. In 1959 Ben married his high school sweetheart, the love of his life, Carmen, his devoted partner for over half a century. They began a family that would grow to include four children: Shirley, Jackie, Jerome, and Congressman Ben Ray Lujan. As Jeff said, we are fortunate to have Ben Ray serving in our delegation, and we have worked with him on many occasions on a daily basis. Ben began his extraordinary career in public service when he was elected to the Santa Fe County Commission in 1970. Four years later he was elected to the New Mexico House of Representatives. After a quarter of a century of service in that body, he was elected speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives. He has always called attention to the needs of others and not to himself. Ben is an inspiration not just to those who aspire to a life of public service but also to a life of personal integrity. His word is his bond to his family and to the people of New Mexico. His principles have illuminated his life and brightened the lives of all who know him. I count myself among that number. I am proud to call Ben Lujan my friend. I was present at the opening of the New Mexico State Legislature last month when Ben informed us of his illness--an illness that left him weakened but not defeated. Like everyone in that room, I was deeply saddened at the news of Ben's illness, but that sorrow is tempered by admiration--admiration for Ben, for Carmen, for the entire Lujan family and for the incredible strength they have shown. He would not allow a terrible illness to distract from his duties as speaker of the house. He remains steadfast in his services to the people of New Mexico. Even while undergoing chemotherapy, he continued to work as speaker. Even a devastating illness could not deter Ben Lujan from the job he had committed to do, and his family supported him every step of the way. That is honor, that is integrity, and that is courage. None of us will ever forget Ben's brave words the day last month when he said, ``While this has taken a toll on me physically, it has not broken my spirit, my will, my faith and my commitment to New Mexico.'' So to Ben, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your service, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your friendship. As we celebrate this great son of New Mexico, I will close with these lines from the poet, Lord Alfred Tennyson: Though much is taken, much abides, and though we are not now that strength which in the old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are--one equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. That, my friends, is Ben Lujan--to serve, to strive, and not to yield. It is a real honor to be on the floor with Senator Bingaman to talk about our good friend Ben Lujan. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Two weeks from today, the payroll tax cut championed by the President and extended by Congress in December will expire. Congress should renew this financial relief to American working families while our economy is still recovering. For a family making $50,000 a year, the payroll tax cut means about $1,000 a year, or about $40 in every paycheck. I'm encouraged by recent progress that Congress will resolve this issue, but the payroll tax cut is not the only tax provision that can create jobs in New Mexico, and across the Nation. The production tax credit for wind is set to expire at the end of this year. The Treasury Grant Program for renewable energy tax credits expired this past December. One of the best things we can do to help our economy recover is invest in the clean energy economy. It has created the jobs of the future while the broader economy was struggling. According to the Brookings Institute, the clean energy economy grew twice as fast as the broader economy during the recession. To maintain the growth of wind energy jobs, Congress should renew the production tax credit as part of the payroll tax cut. If we wait until the end of the year, or delay until 2013, many projects will be delayed and thousands of jobs will be lost. The production tax credit has, by any measure, been extraordinarily successful. It was first used in 1992 and has led to the installation of wind energy capacity in America equivalent to 75 average coal-fired power plants, and it is rapidly growing. We added the equivalent of 10 large power plants worth of wind power in 2011, and are on track to do even more in 2012. In New Mexico, we have enough wind power either already built, or currently under construction to power 200,000 homes. New Mexico has tremendous wind capacity, with 20 times more capacity in the planning stages. Those plans depend in large part on Congress continuing to support the American wind industry. The tax credit has been extended seven times by Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Wind is becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels. A 4-year tax credit extension would allow the industry to thrive long term. With 60 percent of wind turbines made in America, the beneficiaries of the wind production tax credit are legion, including: U.S. iron and steel producers, over 400 U.S. manufacturing facilities in 43 States, 85,000 employees in well-paid engineering and technical jobs, thousands of farmers and ranchers who lease their land, rural school districts that receive tax payments, and rural local governments. The future is wide open. The Department of Energy estimates the U.S. could receive 20 percent of its power from wind by 2030. Wind is not just in the west and midwest. The east coast can be powered by huge offshore wind resources in the Atlantic Ocean. If the wind production tax credit is the engine for the clean energy economy, the Treasury grant program is the turbo boost. Enacted as Sec. 1603 of the Recovery Act, this program allows renewable energy tax credit earners to receive the value of the tax credit as a grant. This eliminates the need for complex financing arrangements and finding other parties who are able to use the tax credits. Typically financial institutions will receive 10 or 15 percent of the value of renewable tax credits in return for financing a project. The Treasury grant program removes the middle man, and has led to the rapid expansion of renewable energy in the last 2 to 3 years, especially with solar energy. Until it expired in December, the program awarded over 4,000 grants worth $1.75 billion for 22,000 solar projects in 47 States. This innovative financing then supported over $4 billion in private sector investment. One report found that an extension of the program would create an additional 37,000 jobs in 2012 in the solar industry alone. China, the EU, India, Japan, and other nations are acting aggressively to take leadership of the clean energy economy. They want the job growth and the energy security that results. I am confident that our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with anyone. But if we do counterproductive things, and pull the rug out from underneath our fastest growing clean energy industries, our economy and our energy security will fall behind. The payroll tax extension is a logical vehicle for extending other expiring tax provisions that benefit the economy. On the other hand, the payroll tax extension is a terrible place to make unrelated policy that subverts Congressional process on behalf of special interests. The Environmental Protection Agency is, by and large, following the Nation's long-standing environmental laws and court orders when it updates standards to reduce pollution. If Members are opposed to the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, then they can propose bills to change those laws. Pollution does not create jobs. In fact, reducing pollution saves money for business and reduces health care costs for citizens. I am personally opposed to wholesale rollbacks of long-standing, bipartisan environmental laws. But I am even more strongly and passionately opposed to backdoor attempts to undermine those laws on unrelated legislation. Congress has voted down several resolutions of disapproval for EPA updated standards. While I have opposed those efforts in the past, at least that is a legitimate process under the Congressional Review Act. Holding much needed tax relief hostage for anti-environmental policy riders will not stand up to public scrutiny. We must remain vigilant and keep upcoming legislation focused on tax relief that will benefit working families and invest in clean energy jobs. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record. The material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Facts About an Average American Wind Farm An average wind farm in America built today has about 50 large wind turbines. Each turbine can produce electricity to power roughly 500 homes, even accounting for variability of wind. So the average wind farm can power around 25,000 homes. That average wind farm then produces many other benefits: $20 million in construction payroll in the year of construction, $875,000 per year to rural local school districts, $280,000 per year to rural county governments, $150,000 per year in ongoing direct payroll for employees, $1.5 million per year in contract labor payroll, $300,000 to $600,000 per year in royalties to landowners, farmers, and ranchers.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, may I just ask the Senator-- and I know he may have other places to go, but he mentioned offshore wind on the Atlantic coast, and the study out of the University of Delaware indicated that off of the Atlantic coast there is the potential in wind to generate enough electricity to power the entire east coast group of cities--very large cities, as you know--from Providence, to New York, to Boston. And Google is already out there starting to lay the grid with some other partners. So we have huge potential to move forward, and basically what we are being told at this point is, oh, let these things expire. That is a very shortsighted position. But that study about the coast is an eye-opener because it tells the American people: Look, here is clean energy. We do not have to import oil anymore. We do not have to bring in energy from outside. Just off our coast, we can go out there and put a grid in place and generate wind energy. I know the Senator has probably heard about this study.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Just to the point of why we aren't able to move--and I agree with Senator Whitehouse, and I think Senator Sanders has seen this also--when you get into energy, there are huge, powerful special interests--especially those special interests that are representing fossil fuels--and they would love nothing better than to just have the status quo. What we have seen is they are relying--and this is amazing to me, and the Senator has been one of the leaders on this issue where Big Oil is getting subsidies today from the Federal Government, and we have tried to take those Big Oil subsidies and move them over into the clean energy area. They resist that even though President Bush and the leaders of their industry say: We don't need these subsidies.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I say to Senator Sanders, one of the things that I think is very instructive is that the history of the wind production tax credit has been completely bipartisan. I would like to lay out a little bit of that history. The production tax credit began in a bipartisan energy policy in 1992, signed by then-President George H.W. Bush. It was extended in December 1999 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It was extended again in 2002 and in 2004, this time signed into law by President George W. Bush. In 2005, it was extended again as a part of bipartisan energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The Senator and I, I think, were both in the House at that time, and we voted for that in the House. In December 2006, it was extended again. Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was signed by President Obama. So Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition and extend the wind production tax credit, these other tax credits that create clean energy jobs, and stay focused on the good job we have been doing that has been bipartisan. That is why I do not understand the House, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee saying: Oh, we can do these later. We need to do this work today. We need to put that in place now so that we can grow these clean energy jobs. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I say to Senator Sanders, the thing we should focus on, when it comes to wind farms, is how much these wind farms can be expanded in terms of jobs. The average wind farm in America built today has 50 large wind turbines. Each turbine can produce electricity to power roughly 500 homes, even accounting for the variability of the winds. So the average wind farm can power about 25,000 homes. The average wind farm, then, produces many other benefits. This is what is remarkable to me: There is $20 million in construction payroll in a year from an average wind farm; $875,000 per year to rural local school districts; and also $280,000 per year to rural county governments; $150,000 per year in ongoing direct payroll for employees; $1.5 million in contract labor payroll; and $300,000 to $600,000 per year in royalties to land owners, farmers, and ranchers. So when we talk about wind--wind power--what we are talking about is American jobs, clean energy jobs, growing the economy, and it mystifies me that our friends on the Republican side and in the House are saying: These things are going to expire in 2 weeks, and there is no hurry to push them, to put them in place, and to move it. Is that the Senator's understanding, that they are saying we are going to let them expire?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, thank you so very much. I first wish to ask my colleague from Vermont a little bit about some of the things he said that I find remarkable. We are still in a very fragile recession. The economy is starting to grow, but it is not strong enough, and we could slip back. So what has happened is, we have these--what we call in this language--tax extenders. What we are talking about is jobs, isn't it? We are talking about the idea that we can have a clean energy economy; that over the last couple years this has been the fastest growing sector, and we have a production tax credit for wind, we have a section in the Treasury Department's 603, and those provisions create jobs. I just wish to ask the Senator, it seems to me, at this particular time, we have the potential to grow the American economy, but we have to get off the dime because these things expire on February 29--in less than 2 weeks.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, as to the history of the wind production tax credit, the production tax credit began in the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 1992, signed by President George H.W. Bush. It was extended in Dec. 1999, by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It was extended again in 2002 and 2004, this time signed into law by President George W. Bush. In 2005, it was extended again as part of bipartisan energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act. I voted for that legislation when I served in the House. In December 2006, it was extended again. Most recently, it was extended in the 2009 Recovery Act, which was signed by President Obama. Congress should continue this bipartisan tradition, and extend the wind production tax credit very soon. We should avoid the mistakes of the past, where last minute extensions led to uncertainty and job losses. I would like to thank the Senator for asking us to come to the floor, for leading this debate. This is a debate we need to carry on until we get the production tax credits and other tax extenders in place and move our clean energy industry forward. I thank the Senator for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today as we enter a new year to honor a brave young soldier who, sadly, did not see this new year. Army SSG Pernell Herrera died December 31, 2011, while serving in Afghanistan. He was 33 years old. At times like this, words of elected officials seem so inadequate. Words will not ease the profound loss of Staff Sergeant Herrera's family. Words will not fully express our gratitude for Staff Sergeant Herrera's service to our Nation. But the death of a young soldier like Staff Sergeant Herrera demands our attention. It demands our respect, and it demands that we remember. Pernell Herrera just wanted to serve his country. He enlisted in the New Mexico National Guard in 2006. He was assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 171st Aviation Regiment, and he served honorably over the last 5\1/2\ years. His journey ended in the course of that service. We are forever in his debt. When we talk about our fallen soldiers, we honor their sacrifices and we also honor their lives. Pernell Herrera was born in Los Alamos. He grew up in Espanola and graduated from Espanola High School. He leaves behind a son Julian and a daughter Alicia. Pernell wrote about himself on his Facebook page the following description: I am a very easygoing dad of one son, and one daughter. They are the biggest joys of my life. I enjoy spending my free time with my mom, and brother, family and friends. I'm currently in Afghanistan with the United States Army. I have served in the military for 5 years. In the decade that our military has been fighting in Afghanistan, thousands of our fellow citizens have volunteered in service to our country. They have put their own safety at risk to protect the safety of others--in defense of the ideals we hold so dear. Some of these brave warriors, such as Staff Sergeant Herrera, tragically, do not come home. To Staff Sergeant Herrera's family, I offer my deepest sympathies. We mourn your loss while we also honor his dedication to our country, and we are thankful for his service. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I very much appreciate joining all my colleagues on the floor who have been speaking about the Citizens United case. I think what we are seeing in the Senate is what we are seeing in the country. The citizens of this country are concerned about unlimited corporate funds in campaigns, and Senators who are also concerned about that are standing and speaking out, as I know our Presiding Officer has, and are offering constitutional amendments in trying to resolve the situation we have before us. Two years ago this week, the Supreme Court issued its misguided decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Citizens United was a victory for special interests at the expense of the average American. It held that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans. It enables these corporations to spend freely from their treasuries on campaign advertising. It also gave rise to so-called super PACs that we are seeing too much of. These super PACs can raise and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates. Now, what do we mean by corporate treasuries and super PACs? Let me cite an example. Exxon--the large oil company--has $80 billion in its corporate treasury. If Exxon wanted to go out and create a super PAC or contribute to these 200-plus super PACs that are out there to the tune of $80 billion, it could do it. That is what the Supreme Court opened in terms of its ruling. The toxic effect of this ruling has become brutally clear in the last 2 years. The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unprecedented campaign spending, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. Huge sums of unregulated, unaccountable money are flooding the airwaves. An endless wave of attack ads, paid for by billionaires, is poisoning our political discourse. The American public--rightly so-- looks on in disgust. As we head into the election year, this bad situation will only get worse. The checkbooks are out, and the money is gushing. Citizens United really means citizens denied--denied a fair playing field, denied an equitable influence in our political system, denied their right to be truly heard, and denied the right to even know who is spending all of this money. While much of the focus this week is on Citizens United, we must realize that the corruption of our campaign finance system did not suddenly happen 2 years ago. The Citizens United decision sparked a renewed focus on the need for reform, but the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for a broken system many years ago. In 1976, the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting candidate campaign expenditures violates the first amendment right to free speech. It established the flawed precedent that money and speech are the same. Since then, the influence of money has continued to play an increasing role in our Nation's elections. Sadly, in many cases, a candidate's ability to either raise money or self-finance can outweigh the quality of a candidate's ideas or dedication to public service. The Buckley and Citizens United decisions, among others, demonstrate the Court's willingness to ignore longstanding precedent and declare our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe the only way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the Constitution and grant Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system. In November of last year, I introduced such an amendment. I am proud to say it currently has 19 cosponsors and support continues to grow. Our proposed constitutional amendment is broadly tailored and similar to bipartisan proposals introduced in previous sessions of Congress dating back to 1983. It would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for Federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and it would allow States to regulate such spending at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations. I chose my approach to not only overturn the previous bad Court decisions but also to prevent future ones. We don't know what a future Court may do. In Citizens United, the Court upheld campaign contribution disclosure requirements. A future Court might declare the same laws unconstitutional. Our amendment would remedy this problem by restoring Congress's authority--stripped by Buckley v. Valeo and subsequent decisions--to regulate the campaign finance system. If ratified, the amendment would ensure that campaign finance laws would stand constitutional challenges regardless of the makeup of the Supreme Court. The text of my constitutional amendment and any of the others is less important right now than the concept. Hearings can be held, and the text can be worked out. That is really the easy part of a difficult process. What is harder to achieve--and something we rarely see in our country--is gaining the widespread support necessary to amend the Constitution. The Citizens United decision was disastrous, and it may have been the very catalyst we needed to build a movement to amend the Constitution. There is a groundswell of support growing across the country for a constitutional amendment to rein in the out-of-control campaign finance system. City councils, from places as diverse as Los Angeles and New York to Missoula, MT, have endorsed resolutions calling on Congress to pass an amendment. Several grassroots organizations and coalitions have formed to advocate an amendment. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have signed petitions. Is it difficult to amend the Constitution? Yes, and it should be. But I believe the growing momentum demonstrates that this is the right time for Congress to act. Our Founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid for by secretive super PACs. Our Founders did not bequeath a government of the millionaires, by the millionaires, and for the millionaires. Money can have a corrosive effect on the political process. We have seen evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of government. We need to put elections back in the hands of average Americans and not in the hands of special interests with unlimited bank accounts. We need to answer to the American people and not just to the privileged. Our Nation cannot afford a system that says ``come on in'' to the rich and powerful but then says ``don't bother'' to everyone else. The faith of the American people in their electoral system is being corrupted by big money. It is time to restore that faith. It is time for Congress to take back control. It is time for a constitutional amendment that will allow real reform. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3801, the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012, and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation today. Passing this bill will not only help to secure our southwest border, but it also affords us the opportunity to honor an incredible colleague. I had the privilege of serving with Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in the House of Representatives, and she is the force behind this legislation. She originally introduced it in 2010, before the senseless act of violence that took place, and she won its passage. But the Senate failed to take it up. Over this past year, we have been working with Gabby's staff, and I was honored to introduce her bill in the Senate with Senators Heller, Bingaman, and Feinstein. It passed by unanimous consent in December but was held up in the House because of a procedural issue. This allowed Gabby to reintroduce it in the House this week with Congressman Jeff Flake. Yesterday, as we all bid Gabby an emotional farewell, the House overwhelmingly passed it by a vote of 408-0. I commend the House leadership for working to make sure this important legislation passed as Gabby's final legislative act before resigning. I want to especially say how honored I am to have worked on this legislation with her. Like all Americans, I have watched in awe at Gabby's courage and her remarkable grace. She inspires us all. She represents the best of our Nation. Dr. Martin Luther King once said that darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Gabby is truly a shining light to all who know her. The Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act is a testament to Gabby's commitment to securing our borders from illegal activity. A new trend in drug smuggling is to fly a one-person ultralight aircraft over the border to drop drugs. Hundreds are flown across the southwest border each year. Each one can carry hundreds of pounds of narcotics. Because ultralights are not categorized under existing law as aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration, they do not fall under the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means a drug smuggler piloting an ultralight is subject to weaker criminal penalties than one who uses a small plane. Ultralight presents a unique challenge for Border Patrol and prosecutors. Our legislation will close any unintended loopholes. It will give our law enforcement and prosecutors the additional tools they need to combat drug smuggling. It will also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to the aviation smuggling law. This enables prosecutors to charge people other than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. It gives prosecutors a new tool to go after the ground crews who aid pilots as well as those who pick up drugs that are being dropped off in the United States. This bill will also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to establish and collaborate in identifying the equipment and technology for border protection to detect ultralights. The ultimate purpose of this legislation is to make our communities safer, and it is fitting that Gabby, from the very beginning, has been so instrumental in making it happen. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of her staff who worked on this bill tirelessly every day. Peter Ambler is one of her staff members who has been key. I know Gabby's staff is very dedicated to her, and I know Gabby's perseverance to advance her legislative priorities during her recovery demonstrate what a good public servant she is. Gabby, we know you will be back. But until then, we wish you and Mark all the very best, and we thank you for your extraordinary service to our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, last week we marked the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, an event that led to the U.S. into the Second World War. But that wasn't the only important 70th anniversary commemorated last week. Seventy years ago, on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, halfway across the world the long battle for control of the strategically important country of the Philippines began. This is a battle that began in the air and on the sea, but would ultimately see the surrendered American and Filipino troops forced on a brutal death march, languishing in substandard POW camps, and in many cases, succumbing to malnourishment, mistreatment, and disease. It is on behalf of all of these soldiers that I introduce legislation to honor the Defenders of Bataan, a peninsula on the island of Luzon where the battle ended, but the hellish journey began, with a Congressional Gold Medal. They are most deserving and this honor is, I believe, long overdue. Soon after the air and naval battle for the Philippines began, the Japanese would land a sizable force to take control of Luzon. Ten days later the Japanese began their main offensive into the island. On Christmas Eve, 1941, General MacArthur put War Plan Orange 3 into effect. This plan called for some troops to delay the Japanese advance as the greater force withdrew into Bataan. According to historical documents, the purpose of the plan was to keep Manila Bay from Japanese control until the U.S. Navy could reopen the supply lines that had been cut off after the attack on Pearl Harbor. With the supply lines cut off, troops also had no hope of reinforcements. Despite this logistical nightmare, they valiantly fought to defend the Philippines. For months, against all odds, they held back the enemy advance. The Japanese, hoping for a swift victory, were forced to slow the pace of their Pacific strategy. The delay enabled U.S. and allied forces the chance to regroup in the Pacific and prepare for the eventual liberation of occupied Pacific islands and the Philippines. But by April of 1942, the defenders of Bataan were malnourished and exhausted. With no hope of overcoming the overwhelming conditions, they were ordered to surrender. While many followed the order to lay down their arms, others still fought to disrupt the Japanese by forming guerrilla units to maintain the opposition. One such guerrilla leader was Oklahoma native and Choctaw Warrior Lt. Colonel Edward McClish, who, according to the U.S. Navy's historical website, ``had an organization of more than 300 soldiers, with four machine guns, 150 rifles, and six boxes of ammunition.'' Following capture, the defenders of Bataan suffered three years of intense hardship. Many would not survive. They would be forced to endure what became known as the horrendous 65-mile Bataan Death March. They would languish in substandard POW camps, where their malnourishment worsened and disease was rampant. Many others would be shipped to Japan on the dreaded hell ships. One such ship, the Arisan Maru, claimed nearly 1,800 American lives. For us New Mexicans, the events of Bataan strike home particularly hard. Eighteen hundred men from New Mexico's 200th and 515th regiments left their homes to fight. Approximately half returned. These soldiers, largely of Hispanic origin, earned the honor of being the first to fire and defend the Philippines on December 8. A special group, they were successors to the New Mexico National Guardsmen who made up part of Teddy Roosevelt's famed ``Rough Riders'' from the Spanish-American war. One of these men, Eliseo Lopez, a Bataan defender who was born in Springer, NM, endured all the horrors Bataan had to offer. A member of the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment he trained at Ft. Bliss and was deployed to Manila before war broke out. He fought the Japanese on Bataan. He survived the Death March to Camp O'Donnell and was moved to Cabanatuan prison camp. He was taken on a hell ship to Japan, and was forced to labor in a copper mine until he was rescued in September of 1945. Mr. Lopez died this past November at the age of 92. His obituary alone is a record of the tremendous service to the United States given by the Bataan defenders. In New Mexico, we continue to honor and respect our Bataan Defenders. We remember their suffering. We take pride in their heroism. Every year we commemorate their sacrifice with a march at White Sands Missile Range. Other States, such as Missouri, have similar marches. In April, Missouri will honor their Bataan veterans with a march on the Katy Trail State Park. The people of the United States and Philippines are forever indebted to Eliseo Lopez and the other men who served with him and endured the similar horrors. They represented the best of America. They hailed from diverse locales, but were united in their valor and in their devotion to their country. Their courage and tenacity during the first four months of World War II, and their perseverance during 3 years of imprisonment truly deserves the recognition of a Congressional Gold Medal. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for working with me on this amendment. I think he gave us a modification that is a good one. This amendment I offer with Senator Schumer and Senator Sanders closes the Buy American loopholes, and applies Buy American requirements to solar projects that are funded by the Department of Defense to meet energy goals in this bill. If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' energy security, then American solar firms should have the ability to compete. I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, solar power increases energy security for American military installations and our troops in the field. With solar power, our military is less dependent on the surrounding electricity grid or fuel supplies for generators. As a result, the Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar power--not for environmental reasons, but for energy security reasons. However, if we are going to use taxpayer funds to support military solar power--which also qualifies for federal solar tax incentives--we must provide a level playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers in the contracting process. Last year's Defense Authorization bill took an important step, by clarifying that DOD's Buy American Act requirements apply to solar. Previously, when solar was installed on DOD property, Buy American would not apply because DOD purchases the power, not the panels. DOD uses that arrangement for two reasons--first, it spreads the cost out through long term power purchase agreements instead of up-front costs; second, it allows the project to use tax credits DOD cannot use. While last year's bill attempted to fix this situation, it left two loopholes. First, the Buy American requirements from last year's bill are limited ``to the extent that such contracts result in ownership of [solar] devices by DOD.'' The nature of power purchase agreements means that often this requirement is not fulfilled, thus allowing Chinese solar makers to undercut bids for DOD funded solar projects. Second, last year's provision also only applied when ``reserved for the exclusive use'' of DOD for the ``full economic life'' of the device. Solar power projects may sometimes sell back to the grid, and DOD may use them for 20 years, when they are warranted for 25. The combined effect of these loopholes is that Buy American does not currently apply to DOD-funded solar. The amendment I am offering with Senator Schumer and Sanders closes these loopholes and applies Buy American requirements to solar projects that are funded by DOD to meet the energy goals in this bill. If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' energy security, American solar firms should have an ability to compete. We know that other nations like China are spending vast resources to become leaders in the solar power market. They do not play by our trade rules, and they are taking advantage of our taxpayer funds. Think about it this way: China does not spend its tax dollars on U.S. solar panels at Chinese military bases. Why should Congress provide market access that is not extended to U.S. manufacturers? This amendment halts that practice, while maintaining all existing provisions of the Buy American Act: Nations who are in the WTO are not discriminated against--``Buy American'' does not bar nations that allow reciprocal access to U.S. firms to their government procurement. Existing exemptions such as availability and cost still apply, so we do not expect this to harm DOD's procurement in any way. Our amendment is supported by a strong coalition of U.S. solar manufacturers and U.S. workers. I thank Senator Schumer and his staff for working with us, along with Chairman Levin and his staff, and I urge the Senate's support.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Will the Senator from Michigan yield? I don't think we disposed of the Udall amendment.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank Senator McCain, I thank Senator Levin, and I appreciate their help on this amendment. Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Parent Companies Active in Iran

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me first say, before I talk about my amendments, I had the opportunity yesterday to listen to Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Senator Durbin, and many other Senators with regard to the debate on this bill. I thought it was excellent debate. I thought it was lively, it was robust, it was to the point, and it was the Senate at its best. I don't know how we get to the point where we have the kind of debate they were having on this Defense authorization bill, but I hope we can do more of it, and I look forward to returning after Thanksgiving and having the opportunity to do that. I compliment the two top Members of that committee and the other Senators who were here on that debate. Amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 En Bloc Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments in order to call up amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 by number en bloc, and that once the amendments are reported the Senate return to the regular order.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. At this point I am still listening and trying to ascertain as much as I can about the actual provisions of the Defense authorization bill. But the Senator is correct. There could be trouble in Udall Valley. There might be a split. We do not see that yet, but there is a possibility of it.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I did. Let me say to Chairman Levin, not only lively, robust, but very informative. I learned a lot in the process of listening to him and to Senator McCain and Senator Durbin and the other Senators who came down about the issue. I think that is the way the Senate works best: to have the amendments and various provisions of the Defense authorization bill be a part of a lively and informative debate. I thank the Senator for that, and I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment, along with my cosponsors Senators Heller, Bingaman, Feinstein, and Gillibrand, to provide a simple fix to a loophole in the Tariff Act of 1930. Our amendment will allow our Federal agents and prosecutors to crack down on smugglers who use ultralight aircraft, also known as ULAs, to bring drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border. In the last Congress, then-Congressman Heller introduced a very similar bill in the House with Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords. That bill passed overwhelmingly by a 412-3 vote. I hope we can have a similar bipartisan result here in the Senate. ULAs are single-pilot aircraft capable of flying low, landing and taking off quickly, and are typically used for sport or for recreation. However, because of increased detection and interdiction of more traditional smuggling conveyances, ULAs have increasingly been employed along the Southwest border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs into the United States. The use of ULAs by drug smugglers presents a unique challenge for law enforcement and prosecutors. Every year hundreds of ULAs are flown across the Southwest border and each one can carry hundreds of pounds of narcotics. Under existing law, ULAs are not categorized as aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration, so they do not fall under the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means that a drug smuggler piloting a small airplane is subject to much stronger criminal penalties than a smuggler who pilots a ULA. Our amendment will close this unintended loophole and establish the same penalties if convicted--a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine--for smuggling drugs on ULAs as currently exist for smuggling on airplanes or in automobiles. This is a common sense solution that will give our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors additional tools they need to combat drug smuggling. The amendment would also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to the aviation smuggling law to allow prosecutors to charge people other than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. This would give them a new tool to prosecute the ground crews who aid the pilots as well as those who pick up the drug loads that are dropped from ULAs in the U.S. Finally, the amendment directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to collaborate in identifying equipment and technology used by DOD that could be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detect ULAs. Amendment No. 1154 Mr. President, this next amendment would establish an Open Burn Pit Registry. This amendment, filed by myself and lead cosponsor Senator Corker, is important to both our active duty troops and veterans. In both Afghanistan and Iraq open air burn pits were widely used at forward operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was admittedly a major challenge. Commanders had to find a way to dispose of it while concentrating on the important mission at hand. The solution that was chosen, however, had serious medical and environmental risks. In Afghanistan and Iraq, pits of waste were set on fire, sometimes using jet fuel for ignition. Oftentimes, these burn pits would turn the sky black. Some burn pits were small, but others covered multiple acres of land. At Joint Base Balad, Iraq, over ten acres of land were used for burning toxic debris. This was a base, that at the height of its operations, hosted approximately 25,000 military, civilian and coalition personnel. These personnel would be exposed to a toxic soup of chemicals released into the atmosphere. According to air quality measurements taken near the base, the air at Balad had multiple particulates harmful to humans. These particulates ranged from plastics and Styrofoam, metals, chemicals from paints and solvents, petroleum and lubricants, jet fuel and unexploded ordnance, medical and other dangerous waste . . . all of this was in the air and being inhaled into the lungs of service members. More specifically, air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some nasty stuff: Particulate matter--chemicals that form from the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances--Volatile Organic Compounds such as acetone and benzene. Benzene is known to cause leukemia and dioxins associated with Agent Orange. Our veterans have slowly begun to raise the alarm as they learn why, after returning home, they are short of breath, or experiencing headaches or other symptoms and in some cases developing cancer. Many other independent organizations have also urged action on this issue, including the American Lung Association which has stated that: Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. The registry created by this amendment will help our medical and scientific experts better analyze who was exposed and who is suffering. In New Mexico, service members and veterans have begun to come forward about their medical conditions. Some, like MSG Jessey Baca, a member of the New Mexico Air National Guard who was stationed in Balad, Iraq, are facing serious ailments such as cancer and chronic bronchiolitis. It is stories like Master Sergeant Baca's which have motivated me to take action on this issue and I urge my colleagues to hear the stories of heroes like him in all 50 States. During my meetings with veterans and active duty members of the military, I have truly learned how important it is that we act now. Among active duty members there is uncertainty regarding the link between burn pits and the illnesses that they are suffering from. This uncertainty is discouraging service members from coming forward to have their illness diagnosed because they are fearful about the implications on their career. A registry will help create the data set needed to bring certainty to the issue because it will improve our understanding of the link between the burn pits and illness. The information will also help DoD better understand the link and aid their efforts to improve treatment of our troops. The Open Burn Pits Registry Act has bipartisan and bicameral support. In the House, Representative Akin, a Republican, is sponsoring this important piece of legislation with a strong bipartisan group. I thank all the supporters and champions for our veterans suffering from these hidden wounds and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 1202 Mr. President, solar power increases energy security for American military installations and our troops in the field. With solar power, our military is less dependent on the surrounding electricity grid or fuel supplies for generators. As a result, the Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar power--not for environmental reasons, but national security reasons. However, if we are going to use taxpayer funds to support military solar power--which also qualifies for solar energy tax incentives--we must provide a level playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers. Last year's Defense Authorization bill took an important step, by clarifying that DOD's Buy American Act requirements apply to solar. Previously, when solar was installed on DOD property, Buy American would not apply because DOD only owned the power, not the panels. While last year's bill attempted to fix this situation, it left 2 loopholes: No. 1, first, Buy American requirements still do not apply to many DOD facilities, including much of DOD housing, since these facilities are leased and not technically ``owned'' by DOD. If we do not close this loophole, several hundred megawatts of DOD taxpayer funded solar projects could go to Chinese firms. No. 2, last year's bill only applied Buy American when solar devices are ``reserved for the exclusive use'' of DOD for the ``full economic life.'' Solar power projects often sell back to the grid, so the combined effect of both of these loopholes is that Buy American does not apply to DOD-purchased solar on DOD property. The amendment I am offering today, on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer, closes these loopholes and applies Buy American requirements to all solar panels that are part of contracts with DOD. If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' energy security, American solar firms should have an ability to compete. We know that other nations like China are spending vast resources to become leaders in the solar power market. They do not play by our trade rules, and they are taking advantage of our taxpayer funds. This amendment halts that practice, while maintaining all existing provisions of the Buy American Act: nations who are in the WTO are not discriminated against and existing exemptions such as availability and cost still apply. Our amendment is supported by a strong coalition of U.S. solar manufacturers, many of which are based overseas, and U.S. workers and labor unions. I thank Sen. Schumer and his staff for their work on this and I urge the Senate's support. Mr. President, I yield the floor.