Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I wish to echo the comments of Senator Leahy on Ambassador Holbrooke. My sense was, Ambassador Holbrooke was a remarkable diplomat and public servant. I got to see him both when he was in his public position and a private position. He was always dedicated to peace in the world. I remember reading his book, ``To End a War,'' which was about the Balkans, and sharing it with my father and my father having discussions with him on the phone. He said: This diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, is a remarkable guy. If you read that book, it is a classic about bringing peace to a very difficult situation. I express my heartfelt condolences to his wife Kati Marton and his two children, David and Anthony Holbrooke. I tell the family we will miss him very much on the international scene.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise to discuss the Presidential review that is taking place on the war in Afghanistan. We are approaching another signpost in the conflict that has kept our military men and women in harm's way longer than any other in our history--109 months and counting. That is longer than the wars in Vietnam or Iraq. It is even longer than the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The signpost I wish to speak of is one President Obama posted when he ordered the troop increase in Afghanistan last December. In his orders, he also called for a review of our war strategy to be conducted 1 year later. That review was to include: The security situation and other conditions, including improvement in Afghan governance, development of Afghan National Security Forces, Pakistani actions and international support. That review is due this month. I commend our President for his foresight in calling for this review. But in recent months, I have read troubling statements from administration and military leaders. These statements lead me to believe this review is seen as nothing more than a check in the box. In a Washington Post article, an Under Secretary of Defense said as much when he stated that the review will not go into much more detail than what is already provided to the President during his monthly status updates. General Petraeus was also quoted in the same article as saying: ``I would not want to overplay the significance of this review.'' I think this approach to this review would be another tragic mistake in what I fear is an ongoing series of them. After 9 years and $455 billion, the unfortunate reality is, we are still not anywhere near where we want to be or should be in Afghanistan. Anything less than a thorough and unflinching review is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to the American people. A famed military author, Carl von Clausewitz, wrote a book titled ``On War,'' which is required reading for any military professional. In that book, he wrote: The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive. Today, our struggles in Afghanistan necessitate that we again follow von Clausewitz's advice. We must answer the big questions about the kind of war we set out to fight and the kind of war we are fighting. Everyone knows the big question when it comes to Afghanistan. That is why it is the big question: Is our prolonged involvement in Afghanistan worth the costs we as a nation are paying for it? Is it worth the human cost? Thousands of Americans have been maimed or killed in this war so far, and thousands more stand in harm's way as we speak. Is it worth the fiscal cost? Our wars in the last decade have left us with huge deficits. And for the last decade, wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq went unpaid for. Instead of rallying the Nation during a time of war, asking for sacrifices from everyone, Congress and two Presidents chose to pass this massive debt on to future generations--the first time we have done so in modern times. The real issue is not what we are spending to protect our Nation but whether that spending is making us safer, which leads to the question: Is our continued involvement in Afghanistan worth the cost to our larger national security priorities? Our commitment in Afghanistan is pulling time, energy, and funds from other equally important national security priorities, priorities such as energy independence, counterproliferation, and countering terrorist activities in Yemen, Somalia, and many other places around the world. That is why this review is so critical. We have to decide as a Nation if our prolonged involvement in Afghanistan is worth it, and we must decide on an exit strategy. We have a responsibility to answer that big question with a thoroughness and honesty that honors the sacrifices of our military men and women. I believe we answer that question by using this signpost--by using this review--to address four key issues that will ultimately mean the difference between our success and our failure in Afghanistan. To me, those four issues are: our timeline for an exit strategy, an accelerated transition to an Afghan-led security operation, corruption in the Karzai government, and safe havens in Pakistan. Let me take them one at a time. First, our timeline for an exit strategy. This review should provide an honest assessment of where we are in the timeline that President Obama laid out last year. In his speech at West Point last December, President Obama rightly dropped the open-ended guarantee of U.S. and NATO involvement. Here is what he said: The absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. His order last year for the military mission was clear and included a timeline based on a ``accelerated transition.'' In that order--quoting from the order--he focused on: Increasing the size of the ANSF and leveraging the potential for local security forces so we can transition responsibly for security to the Afghan government on a time line that will permit us to begin to decrease our troop presence by July 2011. July 2011. That is a little more than 6 months from now. The American people deserve to know if July 2011 is still a realistic timeframe to begin our exit from Afghanistan; and, if not, what has happened to cause a delay and how long will that delay be? What will be the additional costs, both human and budgetary? The bottom line is this: Without an aggressive timeline for reducing U.S. military support in the region--a timeline that the Afghans believe is rock solid--there is no incentive for them to defend their villages and cities. With the U.S. and NATO as guarantors of security, the people of Afghanistan could rely on our forces to provide security indefinitely. Chairman Levin, our Armed Services chairman here in the Senate, has given careful thought to the issue of a timeline. In a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he said: Open-ended commitments encourage drift and permit inaction. Firm time lines demand attention and force action. Without an aggressive timeline, there is no exit strategy. Issue No. 2, and directly related to No. 1, the accelerated transition to the Afghan people. This must be an Afghan-led security effort. This month's report should update the American people on our progress or lack thereof in turning over security duties to the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Security Forces, and the Afghan National Police. The famed British officer T. E. Lawrence, known to many as Lawrence of Arabia, once said, with regard to the Arab insurgency against the Ottoman Empire: Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than they do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are there to help them. This quote is also mentioned in the Army Field Manual on counterinsurgency. In Afghanistan, I believe the same approach can be applied. The Afghan security forces are not doing their job perfectly, nor should we expect the Afghan forces to match the might of the U.S. military. But to echo T. E. Lawrence, they are beginning to do it tolerably, and I believe it is better that the Afghans continue to build on their new success. Combined, an aggressive timeline and an accelerated transition to the Afghans will help us achieve two equally important goals: first, the timely handover of security helps prove to the international community that the American people do not have imperial ambitions in Afghanistan. As President Obama said at West Point: We have no interest in occupying your country. And second, a timely handover allows the United States and its allies to bring our heroes home, and it allows us to begin the important work of reducing our deficits, investing in our Nation and our people so we can remain strong and build a more prosperous Nation. This brings me to issue No. 3: Corruption in the Karzai government. There is no doubt our Armed Forces have the ability to conduct the difficult counterinsurgency work of clearing and holding. The question is whether the Afghan Government has the ability to build their nation and to be ready for a timely transition. That is why in his order to the military President Obama was clear when he said: Given the profound problems of legitimacy and effectiveness with the Karzai government, we must focus on what is realistic. Our plan for the way forward in dealing with the Karzai government has four elements: Working with the Karzai government when we can, working around him when we must; enhancing sub-national governance; strengthening corruption reduction efforts; and implementing a post-election compact. There is no doubt that corruption is rampant throughout Afghanistan and, in particular, within the Karzai administration. For years, independent daily press reports from Afghanistan, as well as official U.S. Government reports, confirm corruption at all levels of Afghan society. A recent leak of diplomatic cables reveals the severity of the problem. First, let me stress I do not condone these recent leaks. They have needlessly put our military and diplomatic corps at risk. But these documents pull back the curtain on the scale of the corruption in Afghanistan. One example in particular illustrated the tremendous difficulty we face in our search for an honest, reliable partner. That was the account in the New York Times of former Afghanistan Vice President Ahmed Zia Massoud. Massoud was detained after he brought $52 million in unexplained cash into the United Arab Emirates. He was allowed to keep the $52 million. Let me say that again: $52 million. That is a lot of money, especially when you consider that his government salary was a few hundred dollars a month. Not only is corruption rampant in Afghanistan--with the reports of Karzai's own brother involved in double dealing and unscrupulous actions--but basic government functions are suffering because of Karzai's inability to manage his own government. In Kandahar, our military has made this former Taliban stronghold a much more secure city. But despite that progress, the Washington Post has reported multiple vacancies in key government positions. As an unnamed U.S. official stated: We are acting as donor and government. That is not sustainable. We cannot be expected to indefinitely shoulder the security or governmental burdens in Afghanistan. Having a firm timeline will put President Karzai on notice that he must step up his efforts to make this an Afghan-led effort. Our goal must be to transition responsibility and authority for the future of Afghanistan to the Afghan people, and this month's review should include a report to the American people on our progress and how he is making that happen. This brings me to the fourth and final issue: safe havens in Pakistan. For years, safe havens have been permitted to exist in Pakistan for insurgent and terrorist forces, enabling them to operate freely. This has been one of the worst kept secrets in the region, which is why President Obama stated during his West Point speech: We will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. Since 2001, the United States has sent more than $10.4 billion to Pakistan to support humanitarian and security operations. Despite these expenditures, radical militant groups such as the Quetta Shura Taliban and the Haqqani Network have continued to leverage their freedom of movement to kill, maim and disrupt our efforts and those of our NATO allies. These insurgent activities are nearly textbook--something that the Army Field Manual on counterinsurgency describes in detail as having occurred throughout the history of insurgent warfare. The issue of sanctuaries thus cannot be ignored during planning. Effective COIN operations work to eliminate all sanctuaries. With such military advice in mind, I must ask: How do we expect to defeat an insurgency that is being supported by elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence service on the other side of the Khyber Pass? After 9 years, why are we tolerating these safe havens? Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban insurgents, is in exile in Pakistan. His followers regroup and rest in Pakistan only to cross the border and fight our troops once again. Insurgent fighters have increased their attacks by 53 percent over the last quarter. And when both ISAF and U.S. forces are unable to infiltrate their base of operation, how can we expect to maintain an adequate level of security for the future? President Obama's order specifically spelled out assessment criteria for Pakistan. The assessment was intended to include the following question: Are there indicators we have begun to shift Pakistan's strategic calculus and eventually end their active and passive support for extremists? Thus far, Pakistan's ``strategic calculus'' has been overly focused on India and toward turning a blind eye to radical groups in Waziristan and other regions near the Afghan border. Furthermore, the current position of the Pakistani Government has only led to a host of crazed conspiracy theories about the United States and its involvement in the region, giving fuel to the recruitment efforts of our enemies. Because of double-dealing by some in Pakistan and a Pakistani Government that has not fully supported our efforts, we are sending our men and women to fight in Afghanistan without a true partner. We are asking them to fight with one hand tied behind their back. These challenges I discussed are not a secret. Each and every one of them has been debated, discussed, dissected, and yet the answers remain elusive. We invaded Afghanistan as a justifiable military response to the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. This response was overwhelmingly supported by Congress--including myself, the public, and the international community. But I believe today, after 109 months of fighting, after more than 1,400 American military deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom, almost 10,000 American military men and women injured, after $455 billion and counting expended, a good, hard, realistic assessment of our mission is needed. If our plan to succeed in Afghanistan is not yielding the results we seek, then we must also reevaluate our plan and mission. Make no mistake, I am proud of our brave men and women in uniform and what they are doing there. I am equally proud of our diplomatic workers, aid workers, and civilians who are working hard to improve the livelihoods of Afghan people. I had an opportunity to meet many of them earlier this year on a CODEL led by my colleague Senator Carper of Delaware. These are some of the finest men and women our Nation has to offer to the Afghan people. But it is not their job that is in question--it is ours, the Congress, the President, his administration, the military leadership. It is up to us to find the answers, to ensure we have a clear, achievable mission for our soldiers to carry out. Today I am not sure that is the case. I am looking forward to hearing the conclusions of the review the President called for 1 year ago. I also look forward to hearing the President reaffirm his July 2011 deadline for an accelerated transition to the Afghans. We all must be prepared to ask the hard questions and demand honest answers, regardless of the political consequences. Our military men and women deserve no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, as a member of the Impeachment Trial Committee, I had the privilege of carrying out a constitutional duty that fortunately is a rare occurrence. I commend the work of Chair McCaskill and Vice-Chair Hatch, as well as the staff of the committee, Senate legal counsel, and CRS. They have done an excellent job of making a complex and time-consuming process as clear and straightforward as possible. I began the impeachment process with the belief that my legal background would help guide my judgment as to whether or not Judge Porteous is guilty. As the attorney general of New Mexico for 8 years and a former assistant U.S. attorney, I saw the impeachment process as closely analogous to a criminal trial. It turns out, however, that the two are very different in many key aspects. Unlike a criminal trial, our role is not to punish the guilty, but is instead to protect the integrity of the judiciary. The U.S. Judicial system is the greatest in the world, but it can only remain so as long as the integrity and impartiality of our judges is never in doubt. Judge Porteous's actions were so contrary to everything we demand of our judges that I have no hesitation in voting to convict him on each article. One of the primary aspects that make an impeachment trial unique from a criminal trial is the standard of proof. I began the impeachment process believing that the House must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a conviction. This is not the case. Obviously Judge Porteous would like all of us to use the standard of ``beyond a reasonable doubt,'' while the House managers would prefer a ``preponderance of the evidence standard.'' Some scholars have urged a middle ground, suggesting that the appropriate standard of proof should be ``clear and convincing evidence.'' But the fact is that we each have to make our own decision. I believe that the ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' standard is too high. The Senate does not have the authority to take away Judge Porteous's liberty but only the authority to remove him from a position of public trust. I also believe that whether you use a clear and convincing evidence standard or a preponderance of the evidence standard, the House managers have met their burden. Another important question each of us must decide is what constitutes an impeachable offense. Judge Porteous's attorneys argue that much of his conduct is not impeachable because it does not meet the constitutional standard of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They also argue that most of his conduct occurred prior to his confirmation to the Federal bench or was not related to his duties as a Federal judge, and therefore not grounds for impeachment. I do not believe any of these arguments are persuasive. I initially thought of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in the context of a criminal trial. My prosecutor experience made me ask what elements had to be proven in order to convict on each article. But now I understand that an impeachment is so fundamentally different than a criminal trial that such comparisons do not work. Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses ``proceed from . . . the abuse or violation of some public trust'' and ``relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' The Framers also did not use the term ``misdemeanor'' to mean a minor crime, as it is used today. At the time of the Constitution's drafting, a misdemeanor referred to the demeanor or behavior of a public official. Judge Porteous's counsel made several references to the fact that the judge was not criminally charged for his actions. But this is not a relevant consideration. The 1989 report on the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon provides us with guidance as to what constitutes an impeachable offense. It states: The House and Senate have both interpreted the phrase other high Crimes and Misdemeanors' broadly, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct. Congress has repeatedly defined [the phrase] to be serious violations of the public trust, not necessarily indictable offenses under the criminal law. Thus, the question of what conduct by a Federal judge constitutes an impeachable offense has evolved to the position where the focus is now on public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When a judge's conduct calls into question his or her integrity or impartiality, Congress must consider whether impeachment and removal of the judge from office is necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial branch and uphold the public trust. We are also faced with deciding whether impeachable offenses are limited to acts occurring after an individual became a Federal official. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``it does not appear that any President, Vice President, or other civil officer of the United States has been impeached by the House solely on the basis of conduct occurring before he began his tenure in the office held at the time of the impeachment investigation, although the House has, on occasion, investigated such allegations.'' I do not see how we can restrict our authority to impeach and convict a Federal official to conduct that only occurred after he or she took office. To do so would lead to a perverse result, one in which, as the House managers argue, ``makes the position of federal judge a lifetime safe harbor for someone who is able to hide his misdeeds and defraud the Senate into confirming him.'' In considering whether pre-Federal conduct should be considered as a basis for impeachment, Professor Michael Gerhardt testified before the House that, ``[t]he critical questions are whether Judge Porteous committed such misconduct and whether such misconduct demonstrates the lack of integrity and judgment that are required in order for him to continue to function'' as a Federal judge. I believe this is an appropriate standard, and I believe Judge Porteous's conduct as a State court judge was incompatible with the trust we place in our Federal judges. Had his pre-Federal conduct been serious, but outside of the scope of his role as a State judge, I might have been more hesitant to consider it as a basis for impeachment. In this case, however, his corrupt conduct was directly connected to his duties as a judge. In arguing against considering pre-Federal conduct, Judge Porteous is essentially telling the Senate that although he was a corrupt State court judge, that conduct should not be considered in determining his fitness to continue as a Federal judge. I do not find this argument the least bit persuasive. A final question is whether impeachable offenses should be limited to official acts that are directly related to his duties as a judge. Just as I don't believe pre-Federal conduct must be excluded as a basis for impeachment, I do not feel that nonofficial conduct must be excluded. In fact, Judge Porteous's own attorney, Jonathan Turley, wrote in a law review article that ``Congress repeatedly rejected the view that impeachable conduct was limited to official acts or abuses of authority. Impeachable conduct often included acts that were incompatible with continuing to hold an office of authority, including crimes or misconduct outside the official realm.'' I believe the question to ask when considering nonofficial acts is the same as that for pre-Federal acts does the misconduct demonstrate a lack of integrity and judgment that are required in order for him to continue to function as a Federal judge? Once again, I found Judge Porteous's nonofficial conduct to reach the level of an impeachable offense. We expect a Federal judge to have the utmost respect for the rule of law, but Judge Porteous knowingly filed for bankruptcy under a false name, an act that he knew was illegal. His attorneys argue that this act was insignificant he filed amended forms a few weeks later and none of his creditors were harmed. But this argument misses the point that a Federal judge had so little respect for the legal process that he would commit perjury in order to avoid embarrassment. Such actions make him unfit for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. For the reasons discussed above, I voted guilty on each of the four Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, in the more than 9 years that our military has been fighting in Afghanistan, thousands of brave men and women have volunteered their service to our country. They have sacrificed time with their families, travelled to foreign lands, and put their lives in jeopardy, all in the defense of the ideals we hold dear. This month, New Mexico lost one of those brave soldiers. His name was James Thode. He was a 45-year-old married father of two who had served for 14 years as a police sergeant for the city of Farmington. He was in Afghanistan as a member of the Utah National Guard as a sergeant first class in the 118th Sapper Company. Sergeant Thode was killed by a roadside bomb on December 2 when insurgents attacked his unit in Afghanistan's Khost province. Too often, when we are faced with the loss of one of our brave men or women in uniform, the first thing that is talked about is how they died. A roadside bomb. A firefight with the enemy. Protecting a fellow soldier from harm. That is important. But it is equally important that we remember how they lived. That is what I would like to do today. I want to remember how Sergeant James Thode lived. Those who served with Sergeant Thode saw him as a father figure to the younger soldiers. ``The glue that held people together,'' said one. He was ``a humble person, soft spoken and had a way of connecting with everybody he met,'' said another. A third soldier recalled that Thode had an opportunity for a command position with a different unit--but he, quote, ``chose to stay with his men, knowing the risk.'' When he deployed to Afghanistan in July, Sergeant Thode left behind his wife Carlotta and their two children, 18-year-old daughter Ashley and 8-year-old son Tommy. It was his second deployment. His first was to Iraq in 2003. Back at home, Thode had served as a member of the Farmington Police Department since 1996 as a field training officer, member of the SWAT Team, and eventually a member of the detective unit. Sergeant Thode was well-known and well-respected within the close- knit Farmington community. As Farmington Police Chief Kyle Westall said upon learning of Thode's death, ``The community lost a truly great man who will be missed by many.'' Sergeant Thode lived a life to which we all should aspire--a life of service to family, community and country. To Sergeant Thode's wife, children, parents, sister, and extended family and friends, my wife Jill and I offer our deepest sympathies for your loss, and our deepest thanks for your loved one's service to our country. You are forever in our hearts, and we are forever in your debt.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming has said these bills we are trying to bring to the floor here aren't out of committee. I believe he is incorrect when it comes to things such as the START treaty. Here we have the Republican Party saying they aren't going to consider anything else until they get these taxpayer-funded bonuses for their millionaires and billionaires. That is what they are saying. Yet we have a treaty that is pending. It is on the calendar, Mr. President. If we look on that Executive Calendar there, it is on the calendar. We want to bring that up. In fact, I believe Senator Kyl said today that we are not going to bring that up. We are going to stop everything. I saw him on television talking about how we are going to stop everything and that we are just not going to bring up that treaty. So there are things pending on the calendar that are ready to go. And this treaty in particular deals with our national security. National security used to be an issue where Democrats and Republicans worked together. But with this letter, it looks as if they are not going to be bipartisan. They are going to issue this ultimatum, and they are not going to try to work with us on these kinds of issues. While they are doing that, we no longer have inspections, we no longer are allowed to go to Russia and look at their sites and find out if they are complying with previous treaties. This new START treaty would allow us to do that. But, instead, what we are seeing here, over and over again, are these kinds of objections. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, we have heard here and in speaking with the Senators here on the floor about a really appalling action that has been taking place. I have a letter here signed by all of the Republicans who are really threatening to bring this place to a halt, completely bring it to a halt. They have written a letter to Senator Reid, and in the letter, they say: We write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to any legislative item. They will not proceed to any legislative item until they get what I would characterize as these taxpayer-funded bonuses for millionaires and billionaires. So they are going to bring the entire Senate to a stop. Their letter quotes President Obama saying: We owe it to the American people to focus on those issues that affect their jobs. Well, I have a bill right here that will affect the jobs of the American people. It is called the clean energy bill. This is a clean energy bill. It is S. 1574, the Clean Energy for Homes and Buildings Act. As all of us know, clean energy is going to be the industrial revolution of the future, trying to move us toward renewable energy-- solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. This is where we are going to see job growth in the future. This is our chance to be out there in front on the technology we invented here in the United States. This is the way you create clean energy jobs. So the demand they have issued to us--the ultimatum, really--is, you can't bring a clean energy jobs bill, which we have worked on very hard to get to the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1574; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, for many of those who experienced it, the Bataan Death March marked the end of lives that made up in courage what they lacked in length. For Eliseo ``Cheo'' Lopez a native of Springer, NM, this atrocity was only the beginning of a life lived to the fullest. That life ended on November 11 after 92 years. Fittingly, November 11 is Veterans Day, a day where our Nation pauses to honor and remember the veterans who sacrificed so much to keep our country safe. The brave Americans who fought at Bataan were heroes in a story that was central to the broader story of Allied victory in World War II. It is a story too few Americans know. The soldiers who fought at Bataan helped slow the Japanese advance at the beginning of the war in Asia, which would eventually give Allied troops the time to reorganize and reverse Japan's progress. Thanks to the heroism of these troops, America was able to recover from Pearl Harbor and take the fight to the Axis powers in Asia and the Pacific Islands, leading to V-J day in 1945. When the troops in Bataan were finally forced to surrender, they faced inhumane conditions and atrocities at the hands of their captors. By the time they were rescued, toward the end of the war, half of New Mexico's 1,800 soldiers had died. Another 300 would die within a year of returning to the U.S. as a result of complications related to their captivity. Mr. Lopez was forced to work in copper mines as a slave laborer and spent time in several Japanese prison camps until he was rescued in September 1945 nearly 3\1/2\ years after he was captured. He was part of a brotherhood of troops belonging to the 515th Coast Artillery Unit, of whom only 69 are known to still be living. The 515th, and all who fought in Bataan, played a crucial role in our country's history, showing valor that I believe is deserving of a Congressional Gold Medal. When he returned to New Mexico, Mr. Lopez went to work for a bank in his hometown of Springer. He later left the bank for a job with a manufacturing company in California, where he worked for more than 30 years. In 2003, Mr. Lopez was recognized as Alabama Ex-POW Veteran of the Year by the National Veterans Day Organization of Birmingham, AL. Mr. Lopez leaves behind his wife Katherine Young, who was raised in Las Vegas, NM, along with two daughters, two grandchildren, a brother, and two sisters. He will be buried with full military honors this week at Santa Fe National Cemetery. Today, the town of Springer and all of New Mexico mourn a dear friend and America marks the passing of a true hero. I wish to honor Mr. Lopez's memory. It will live on in the hearts of all who knew him.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began nearly 9 years ago, 72 service members with New Mexico ties have lost their lives while defending our Nation and the freedoms we hold dear. Seventy-two. They were brothers and fathers and husbands and sons and friends. Each was irreplaceable to his family. Each had a different story. Today, I rise to tell the story of one of those men. U.S. Army PVT Charles High was 21 years old, a son of the city of Albuquerque who attended Eldorado High School. Known as ``Charlie'' to his friends, he played the viola in his high school orchestra. He ran track. And he taught himself how to play guitar. Charlie's dad says he always knew that his son would join the military. He signed up for Junior ROTC when he was 14, and his dad said he was hooked. He went on to join the Army in June of 2007 and was stationed at Fort Campbell in Kentucky as part of the elite 101st Airborne Division. His tour in Afghanistan was his second overseas. He served his first tour in 2008 in Iraq. Charlie was killed last month when an IED detonated near his vehicle, which was patrolling in Afghanistan's Kunar Province. He leaves behind his dad Charles, his mom Kimberlea Johnson of Illinois, his fiancee Maggie Jo Simmonds, four siblings, his grandparents and great-grandmother, and dozens of other family members and friends. A month before he was killed, Charlie had gone home to Albuquerque for a visit with friends and family. Here is what his Dad said when asked about his son's death: I would say he's a true American hero. He fought and died for his country. He died doing what he wanted to do. I hate to see him go so young, but he was quite a young man all the way around. When he was home, we could see how much he had grown. Charlie's impact on all who knew him was evident in the messages of condolence left for his family after his death. ``He was a great friend and example,'' read one. ``You never gave up and never surrendered,'' said another. ``He gave his life for freedom.'' ``He is a hero to us all.'' Private High: you truly are a ``hero to us all.'' You are forever in our hearts, and we are forever in your debt. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, cell phones today are becoming ubiquitous and more essential to our everyday lives. Americans today have 285 million wireless phones. We use these phones in new and innovative ways. Consumers today increasingly use their cell phones for much more than just talking. Mobile broadband services now allow us to surf the Internet, search for nearby shops or restaurants, and watch videos right on our wireless handsets. Since we now use these devices in new ways, it can be more difficult for consumers to realize they have exceeded their monthly subscriptions for cell phone service. This can have dramatic consequences for consumers. Consider the case of a Navy ROTC midshipman who mistakenly left his smartphone's roaming function turned on while he was abroad. His phone downloaded e-mail messages, and he was sent a bill for almost $1,300. News outlets have highlighted other cases from across the country, including cases where children on family subscription plans racked up thousands of dollars in extra charges. A 13 year-old's cell phone data usage led to a bill for almost $22,000. Another man was billed $18,000 for a 6-week period when his son used a cell phone to connect a computer to the Internet. These stories we hear about in the media are certainly not isolated cases, just the most egregious. In fact, a recent Federal Communications Commission, FCC, survey found that 30 million Americans, or 1 in 6 adult cell phone users, have experienced cases of ``bill shock.'' Cell phone bill shock is when a consumer's monthly bill increases when they have not changed their plan. In about one in four cases, the consumer's bill increased by more than $100. According to a survey by Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports magazine, the median bill shock amount was $83. Although consumers can already access their phone usage by requesting this information from their cell phone provider, the FCC survey found that almost 85 percent of American consumers who suffered bill shock were not alerted that they were about to exceed their allowed voice minutes, text messages, or data downloads. In many cases, a simple alert message would help consumers avoid bill shock. That is why today I am introducing the Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2010. My legislation would require that cell phone companies do two things; first, that they notify cell phone customers when they have used 80 percent of their limit of voice minutes, text messages, or data usage. This notification could be in the form of a text message or email, and should be free of charge. Secondly, this legislation would require cell phone companies to obtain a customer's consent before charging for services in excess of their limit of voice, text, or data usage. Customers could give such consent by calling or sending a free text message or e-mail to their phone company. In the European Union, wireless phone companies already provide similar notifications when wireless consumers are roaming and when they reach 80 percent of their monthly data roaming services. Earlier this year, Congress approved legislation to help consumers avoid bank overdraft fees from everyday debit card and ATM transactions. Banks must now obtain their customer's permission before allowing debit card transactions which would incur overdraft fees. My legislation extends that same concept to cell phone customers, who should benefit from similar protections against ``bill shock.'' The texting and Internet capabilities that make today's cell phones more useful than ever should be applied to help consumers avoid bill shock. Sending an automatic text notification to one's phone or an e- mail alert should not place a burden on cell phone companies. Passing my commonsense legislation will help prevent consumer's from facing ``bill shock'' problems in the future. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, cell phones today are becoming ubiquitous and more essential to our everyday lives. Americans today have 285 million wireless phones. We use these phones in new and innovative ways. Consumers today increasingly use their cell phones for much more than just talking. Mobile broadband services now allow us to surf the Internet, search for nearby shops or restaurants, and watch videos right on our wireless handsets. Since we now use these devices in new ways, it can be more difficult for consumers to realize they have exceeded their monthly subscriptions for cell phone service. This can have dramatic consequences for consumers. Consider the case of a Navy ROTC midshipman who mistakenly left his smartphone's roaming function turned on while he was abroad. His phone downloaded e-mail messages, and he was sent a bill for almost $1,300. News outlets have highlighted other cases from across the country, including cases where children on family subscription plans racked up thousands of dollars in extra charges. A 13 year-old's cell phone data usage led to a bill for almost $22,000. Another man was billed $18,000 for a 6-week period when his son used a cell phone to connect a computer to the Internet. These stories we hear about in the media are certainly not isolated cases, just the most egregious. In fact, a recent Federal Communications Commission, FCC, survey found that 30 million Americans, or 1 in 6 adult cell phone users, have experienced cases of ``bill shock.'' Cell phone bill shock is when a consumer's monthly bill increases when they have not changed their plan. In about one in four cases, the consumer's bill increased by more than $100. According to a survey by Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports magazine, the median bill shock amount was $83. Although consumers can already access their phone usage by requesting this information from their cell phone provider, the FCC survey found that almost 85 percent of American consumers who suffered bill shock were not alerted that they were about to exceed their allowed voice minutes, text messages, or data downloads. In many cases, a simple alert message would help consumers avoid bill shock. That is why today I am introducing the Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of 2010. My legislation would require that cell phone companies do two things; first, that they notify cell phone customers when they have used 80 percent of their limit of voice minutes, text messages, or data usage. This notification could be in the form of a text message or email, and should be free of charge. Secondly, this legislation would require cell phone companies to obtain a customer's consent before charging for services in excess of their limit of voice, text, or data usage. Customers could give such consent by calling or sending a free text message or e-mail to their phone company. In the European Union, wireless phone companies already provide similar notifications when wireless consumers are roaming and when they reach 80 percent of their monthly data roaming services. Earlier this year, Congress approved legislation to help consumers avoid bank overdraft fees from everyday debit card and ATM transactions. Banks must now obtain their customer's permission before allowing debit card transactions which would incur overdraft fees. My legislation extends that same concept to cell phone customers, who should benefit from similar protections against ``bill shock.'' The texting and Internet capabilities that make today's cell phones more useful than ever should be applied to help consumers avoid bill shock. Sending an automatic text notification to one's phone or an e- mail alert should not place a burden on cell phone companies. Passing my commonsense legislation will help prevent consumer's from facing ``bill shock'' problems in the future. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Solicitor General Kagan's experience. Over the past few months, there has been a lot of talk from our friends across the aisle about whether Ms. Kagan is qualified to be our country's 112th Supreme Court Justice. They say she has never been a judge. How conveniently they forget that some of the most well-respected Justices in the history of the Supreme Court also brought life experiences outside the ``judicial monastery,'' which President Obama so ably encouraged us to look beyond. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist is one example. Former Justice Lewis Powell, Jr., is another. They also conveniently forget that just a few decades ago, most Justices had little or no judicial experience. In fact, it is General Kagan's diversity of life experiences that, in my opinion, make her exceptionally qualified for the High Court. President Obama said one of the primary reasons he nominated General Kagan was because of her ``understanding of law--not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page--but as it affects the lives of ordinary people.'' I couldn't agree more. The inscription that greets visitors to the Supreme Court building just across the street reads: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' That inscription is at the heart of the experience General Kagan would bring as the newest member of the High Court. That experience includes a reputation as one of the Nation's foremost legal minds; as a legal advisor to two Presidents; as the first woman to serve as Dean of Harvard Law School; and as the Nation's first female solicitor general. It also includes more personal experiences, many of which mirror the lives of the American people she has committed her own life to serve. She is the child of immigrants. She is the daughter and sister of public schoolteachers, and she has been a teacher herself. She is an advocate for her students. And she is a proponent of discussion and debate that educates, respects and improves upon the lives of all it impacts. It is because of all of these experiences--as President Obama said on the day he introduced her--that General Kagan will make the Nation's highest Court ``more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.'' I am confident that Solicitor General Kagan has the experience that will make her a stellar Justice, and I look forward to casting my vote in favor of her confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, today, I join Senators Bingaman, Bennet of Colorado, and Udall, in submitting a resolution to recognize the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad on its 40th anniversary this August. Representative Lujan, a member of the New Mexico delegation, is introducing a companion resolution in the house. The Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad has been an integral part of the Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado economies since its construction in 1880 as part of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad's San Juan Extension. From its construction until it was abandoned in 1969, the railroad provided a critical passenger and freight link serving communities throughout New Mexico and Colorado. In 1970, recognizing the economic impact abandonment of the line would have on communities served by the railroad and appreciating the railroad's historic significance, New Mexico and Colorado came together to purchase the facilities, locomotives, cars and line between Chama, NM and Antonito, CO. To acknowledge the sheer beauty of the route, they renamed it the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad. Since that time the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad has been recognized as a national historic site and, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, as a civil engineering landmark acknowledging the challenging terrain the railroad crosses. Today, the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic railroad continues to be critical to the local communities. The railroad offers tourists trips daily between May and October and serves to showcase the history and beauty of this region of the country. These trips offer a glimpse into railroad travel of the past and provide the visionary tourist a taste of what could be with future expansion of passenger rail in the West. In August, the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad will celebrate 40 years of co-ownership and this resolution honors its efforts in preserving the history of and building a future for railroad in America. I ask all my Senate colleagues to join Senators Bingaman, Bennet, of Colorado, Udall of Colorado and me in recognizing the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad days by agreeing to this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. UDALL of New Mexico pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 581 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, today I stand to recognize one of the greatest scientists and leaders of our time and to introduce a resolution honoring the educational and scientific significance of Dr. Jane Goodall on this the 50th anniversary of her first day's work in what is now Tanzania. Fifty years ago today, Jane Goodall, a young and ambitious scientist, first set foot on the shores of Lake Tanganyika to begin her research under the direction of Dr. Louis Leakey. In the ensuing years, Dr. Goodall became the world's expert on chimpanzees. She had numerous groundbreaking discoveries. She published articles and books that remain the foundational scientific works on chimpanzee and wildlife studies. She established the Gombe Stream Research Center and the Jane Goodall Institute to support further research. Jane has received many of the highest honors in her field and has become a prominent advocate for international conservation and peace. Consequently, she has been recognized and honored by political leaders and kings and queens throughout the world. The resolution I submit today recognizes Dr. Goodall for her past, present, and future contributions in the fields of science and conservation. Beyond her incredible knowledge and skills in the sciences, Dr. Jane Goodall is an amazing human being. Her love of others and of the living things around her is what I believe drove her to achieve such great successes. Anyone who hears her speak can feel her sincere adoration for the chimpanzees to which she dedicated her life. It is that love and drive that have made Dr. Goodall world-renowned in her field and admired and beloved throughout the world. I imagine the ambitious young Jane, who boldly set out on the shores of Lake Tanganyika, was much like the many inspired young people who now work for her and with her. Across the globe, the same hope and inspiration that took Jane into the jungles of Africa now drive thousands of young people to organize conservation and community programs through the Roots and Shoots program which was founded in 1991. These young people care about their communities, their natural resources, and about the living things around them. They, like the young Jane Goodall, want to make a difference in the world, and they strive every day in their own lives to be a catalyst for positive change. I believe Jane's focus on encouraging young people is one of her greatest accomplishments. Through her own experience as a young scientist, she knows the strength of the connection young people develop with nature if they have the opportunity. We live in a world where many young people have no connection to the natural world or to their community--a world where urban areas lack any connection to the rhythms of nature, where video games and indoor activities predominate, where a sense of community is absent. A generation lacking that connection is doomed to failing. Jane saw the need to connect them. She saw the need to inspire them. Roots and Shoots provides that crucial connection. Dr. Goodall's work with young activists does not focus on one area of the world or on one issue of significance; her Roots and Shoots program is in 120 different countries. Young people from preschool through college gather in classrooms, nature centers, refugee camps, zoos, and many other places to identify issues that concern them, and then they act. And, boy, do they act. They are a force for positive change. We thank Jane Goodall for all her contributions to making this a better world. We know that when one person in a community ignites positive action, it is contagious. When each community works for positive change, they connect. Community efforts become national endeavors. And nations take action on a global scale. The world becomes a better place--one person at a time. With the help of student leaders and adult mentors, these young people create hands-on projects to address the issues impacting their homes and communities. Over the past two decades, tens of thousands of young people have formed a network across the globe and are building upon Dr. Jane Goodall's legacy of positive change in the world. This is a network of hope and a generation of positive actors. Thanks to their young and active hearts, our world will thrive into the future. For 50 years, Dr. Goodall has worked to expand and improve our world. Her work has spread so widely that Jane Goodall is a household name. And with that name, young people from America to Africa and all around the globe learn the wonders of the natural world and our link to the creatures around us, including Dr. Goodall's beloved chimpanzees. Dr. Goodall recognizes the power that each person has to make positive change. She is a brilliant example of the great things that are possible when one young person connects with the natural world and is inspired to make a difference. Today, I honor my good friend Dr. Jane Goodall. I ask my colleagues to do the same. And I thank her for her example, and for her confidence in the immense power that young people have to improve the future. Let us all work together to make positive change in our communities and support coming generations in their creative and noble ambitions.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life--and mourn the loss--of one of New Mexico's finest public servants. The Land of Enchantment suffered a tremendous loss last Saturday, when Polly Arango was involved in a fatal accident in Alamosa, CO. As a long-time resident of Algodones, NM, Polly was one of the most exemplary advocates for children living with disabilities our State has ever known. During her time with us, Polly taught us that regardless of socioeconOmic status, culture, race, religion or health conditions, our children have inalienable rights that we must fight to protect. Born in Green Bay, WI, Polly moved to our State in 1962 to attend University of New Mexico. After marrying John Arango, she began her career as an advocate placing Ecuadorian orphans with families in the United States while her husband served as Peace Corps director in Panama and Ecuador. A turning point for Polly and John came with the adoption of their son Nicolas. As Polly learned that Nicolas had a severe developmental disability, she began her work securing full education and access to health care for children with chronic health conditions. Nicolas inspired Polly's work to open the eyes of school officials, policymakers, community leaders, friends and neighbors to the challenges facing children with disabilities. Her efforts were not only for Nicolas, but for thousands of other New Mexican families in need. In 1992, Polly cofounded a national grassroots network called Family Voices. Today, Family Voices consists of more than 45,000 New Mexican families and friends working together to improve health care for children and youth with special needs. Polly served as the first executive director and most recently served on the board of directors. Polly also cofounded Parents Reaching Out, a statewide network of programs designed to meet the ever changing needs of New Mexican families. Based on her leadership, this organization continues to connect children and their families to resources that will improve their quality of life. Polly represented families and family-centered care on many national boards, commissions and international forums. She was named to the New Mexico Medicaid Advisory Committee and served as a member of the New Mexico Supreme Court's Court Improvement Project on foster care. She also co-authored several books and many articles on health care, foster children, and families, and she was executive producer and writer of a PBS documentary about inclusion titled: ``What Does Normal Mean?'' Through her work, Polly displayed a noble commitment to fight for the health and civil rights of all children, especially disabled children, who often cannot fight for themselves. Polly actively demonstrated one of our greatest American values: that families can be the most important caregivers, and every child deserves a family. She was survived by her husband, John; her four children--Carlos Arango, Francesca Wilson, Maria Arango and Nicolas Arango; her seven grandchildren--Sloan Wilson, Conor Arango, Gabby Arango, Kellen Wilson, Grace Arango, Lenor Arango and Isabel Arango; and seven of her eight brothers and sisters--Richard Egan, Kevin Egan, Martha Egan, Kathryn Stout, Patrick Egan, Michael Egan and Thomas Egan. In her recent obituary, Polly's friends and family kindly thanked me for my role in health care reform and my support for rural health programs. While I appreciate these sentiments, I want to thank Polly. I want to thank her for her invaluable contributions as a mother, friend, and public servant on behalf of all she touched. Our State won't be the same without her. I am blessed to have known her. New Mexico will miss Polly Arango, but we know that her legacy will live on. As Polly Arango is laid to rest this week, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable public servant.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

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, I rise today to join my colleagues as we mourn the death and celebrate the life of a man who touched all of ours; a man who loved his country, loved the Senate, and dedicated his life to preserving its traditions; a man who above all cherished his State and who every day considered it his highest honor to represent her people. On Monday morning, Senator Robert Byrd took his rightful place in our history books as a titan of the Senate. On Thursday we will honor him as his body lies in state in this Chamber where he served longer than any other Senator in our history. Today, we grieve his loss with his family and with the entire country. My family's history with Senator Byrd goes back many years. My father, before he became Secretary of the Interior, served with Senator Byrd, then Congressman Byrd, in the House of Representatives. A half century later, my father's honor became my own. I am proud to have had the privilege of serving in this Chamber with Senator Byrd, of experiencing firsthand his distinguished service and remarkable career. Senator Byrd will be remembered for many things. He will be remembered for his historic length of service; for his rise from humble roots to the pinnacles of political power; for his encyclopedic knowledge of Senate rules and procedure; and for his love of his wife of 68 years, Erma. What I will remember Senator Byrd for is his willingness to stand up and fight for what he believed in. Two of the most pressing issues of the past decade are perfect examples--the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the very beginning, Senator Byrd was a voice of opposition to the Iraq war. He delivered what will become one of his most memorable speeches in the days leading up to the Senate's vote to authorize its funding. He spoke out against a war at a time when any opposition to the President's path meant putting his own political future in jeopardy. But he did not waiver. Here is part of what he said: No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium. Eight years and thousands of American lives lost later, his words read as prophetic. But he didn't stop there. Last year--this time with his party holding the reins of power in both the White House and the Congress--he did the same thing. Seven years had passed, and Senator Byrd was older and more fragile than ever before. None of that stopped him from getting to the Senate floor that day. How did I know this? I had a front row seat as the presiding officer of the Senate that day. This time, he questioned the proposed buildup of troops in Afghanistan--a proposal I myself had questioned many times as well. Here is what Senator Byrd said: I have become deeply concerned that in the 8 years since the September 11 attacks, the reason for the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan has become lost, consumed in some broader scheme of nation-building which has clouded our purpose and obscured our reasoning. He continued: . . . President Obama and the Congress must reassess and refocus on our original and most important objective--namely emasculating a terrorist network that has proved its ability to inflict harm on the United States. Time will tell if Senator Byrd's concerns about Afghanistan prove as prescient as those he expressed about Iraq almost a decade ago. Time also will tell if we heed those concerns. What is clear is that Senator Byrd understood the importance of asking the tough questions, regardless of their impact on himself personally or professionally. In this regard, we could all learn a little bit from Senator Byrd. I know my Senate colleagues will agree with me when I say this institution, this country, this democracy lost a powerful advocate this week, and all of us in this Chamber lost a good friend. Today I join with my colleagues in expressing my deepest sympathy to Senator Byrd's family for their loss and remembering a man whose legend and legacy will endure beyond us all.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, the Senate Rules Committee held another important hearing today to review yet another example of how the Senate rules are abused. I want to thank Chairman Schumer again for holding these hearings--they have been invaluable in exploring ways to make the Senate work better for our country. Over the past few months during this series of hearings, we have discussed and debated example after example of how the filibuster in particular--and the Senate's incapacitating rules in general--too often stand in the way of achieving real progress for the American people. Today's hearing topic--secret holds and the confirmation process--was just one more example of how manipulation of the rules continues to foster a level of gridlock and obstruction unlike any we have seen before. Senators Wyden, Grassley, and McCaskill testified at the hearing about their efforts to end the practice of secret holds. I applaud their work and dedication to transparency in government. Their fight to end the practice of secret holds is a worthy one that I wholeheartedly support. Earlier this year I was proud to sign on to Senator McCaskill's letter to the majority and minority leaders, in which we pledged to no longer place anonymous holds and asked for Senate leadership to end the practice altogether. At today's hearing, Senator McCaskill said that she has gathered enough support to surpass the 67-vote threshold required to consider and amend the Senate rules. That is no small task, as everyone in the Senate would attest. She should be congratulated for her work, as should all of our colleagues--Democrat and Republican--who have signed on to this effort. This bipartisan effort is proof that we are capable of working together. But the mere fact that we have to have this conversation, that Senator McCaskill had to work for months for 67 votes to change rules that the Constitution clearly authorizes us to do with a simple majority vote, illustrates that secret holds are just another symptom of a much larger problem. That problem is the Senate rules themselves. The current rules--specifically rules V and XXII--effectively deny a majority of the Senate the opportunity to ever change its rules. This is something the drafters of the Constitution never intended. As I have explained numerous times in committee hearings and here on the floor, a simple majority of the Senate can adopt or amend its rules at the beginning of a new Congress because it is not bound by the rules of the previous Congress. Many colleagues, as well as constitutional scholars, agree with me. As my esteemed colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, stated in a National Review article in 2005: The Senate has been called a `continuing body.' Yet language reflecting this observation was included in Senate rules only in 1959. The more important, and much older, sense in which the Senate is a continuing body is its ongoing constitutional authority to determine its rules. Rulings by vice presidents of both parties, sitting as the President of the Senate, confirm that each Senate may make that decision for itself, either implicitly by acquiescence or explicitly by amendment. Both conservative and liberal legal scholars, including those who see no constitutional problems with the current filibuster campaign, agree that a simple majority can change Senate rules at the beginning of a new Congress. It is through this path--by a majority vote at the beginning of the next Congress--that we can reform the abuse of holds, secret filibusters, and the broken confirmation process. We can end the need for multiple cloture votes on the same matter, and we can instead begin to focus on the important business at hand. Now, critics will argue that the two-thirds vote requirement for cloture on a rules change is reasonable. They'll say that Senator McCaskill managed to gather 67 Senators, so it must be an achievable threshold. As I said at today's hearing, I commend Senator McCaskill for her diligence in building support to end secret holds. But I think it is also important to understand that other crucial reform efforts have failed because, inexplicably, it takes the same number of Senators to amend our rules as it takes to amend the U.S. Constitution. As Senators Wyden and Grassley said in their testimony today, their efforts to end secret holds goes back more than a decade. Indeed, the effect of holds, on both legislation and the confirmation of nominees, is hardly a new problem. In January 1979, Senator Byrd--then majority leader--proposed changing the Senate rules to limit debate to 30 minutes on a motion to proceed. Doing so would have significantly weakened the power of holds--and thus curbed their abuse. At the time, Leader Byrd took to the Senate Floor and said that unlimited debate on a motion to proceed, ``makes the majority leader and the majority party the subject of the control and the will of the minority. If I move to take up a matter, then one senator can hold up the Senate for as long as he can stand on his feet.'' Despite the moderate change that Senator Byrd proposed, it did not have the necessary 67 votes to overcome a filibuster. Efforts to reform the motion to proceed have continued since. In 1984, a bipartisan study group recommended placing a 2-hour limit on debate of a motion to proceed. That recommendation was ignored. And in 1993, Congress convened the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress to determine how it can be a better institution. Senator Pete Domenici, my immediate predecessor, was the co-vice chairman of the committee. At a hearing before the committee, he said, ``If we abolish [the debatable motion to proceed], we have gone a long way to diffusing the validity of holds, because a hold is predicated on the fact that you can't get [a bill] up without a filibuster.'' The final report of that joint committee stated: ``There was significant agreement that the motion to proceed to a bill should not be debatable, or that debate on the motion should be limited to 2 hours.'' Despite the recommendation, nothing came of it. And here we are again today--31 years after Senator Byrd tried to institute a reform that members of both parties have agreed is necessary. Talking about change, and reform, does not solve the problem. We can hold hearings, convene bipartisan committees, and study the problem to death. But until we agree that the Constitution provides the right for each Senate to adopt its rules of proceedings by a simple majority vote, there will be no real reform. Recognizing our constitutional right to change Senate rules by a majority will not only allow reform, but it will help prevent abuse. Members are less likely to abuse a rule if they know that it can be changed by a majority in the next Congress. Conversely, if they think it takes 67 votes to change the rule, there is no disincentive against abuse. I look forward to future hearings in the Rules Committee and exploring ways that we can bring needed reform to the Senate at the beginning of the 112th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that an April 19 Roll Call article titled, ``In Senate, Motion to Proceed' Should be Non-Debatable'' and Senator Hatch's 2005 article from the National Review Online be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Global Conservation Act of 2010 with my colleague and fellow advocate on international conservation issues, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. As our world grows increasingly intertwined through commerce, communication, and culture, we must also work together to protect the earth's natural resources through conservation. This bill acknowledges the important role our natural resources play in global economics, global health, and global security, and takes steps to strengthen the United States' involvement and productivity in conservation on a global scale. As described in the legislation being introduced today, competing needs around the world are taxing natural resources that are vital to human survival. For example, 500 million people in developing countries depend on fresh water from natural areas that are under threat of degradation, and two billion people depend on rapidly diminishing fish stocks for a significant source of their daily protein. In contrast, wild species provide more than $300 billion in protection and benefits to world agriculture, including natural pest control and the pollination of two thirds of the crop species that feed the world. Forests prevent catastrophic flooding and severe drought, and coral reefs and mangroves reduce the impact of large storms on coastal populations, saving $9 billion in damages each year and reducing outlays for disaster assistance. As natural resources continue to be polluted and depleted throughout the world, economies are threatened and conflicts begin to emerge. The United States National Intelligence Council expects demographic trends and natural resource scarcities relating to water, food, arable land, and energy sources to lead to instabilities and conflict in the years ahead. With such threats looming, it is with urgency that we introduce this legislation that recognizes the intrinsic link between communities, conflict, and natural resources, and which looks to a future of local involvement in the preservation of natural resources for the benefit of international communities. The bill establishes conservation as a fundamental element in economic development, conflict mitigation, and adaptation to climate change. To meet the conservation challenges of the 21st century, the Global Conservation Act reduces the duplication of Federal programs by bringing all U.S. agencies involved in conservation together to establish a national strategy for global conservation. Several executive branch agencies are engaged in some aspect of international conservation, yet their efforts are not coordinated in a manner that maximizes the effectiveness of the overall international conservation efforts of the United States. By establishing an interagency working group, a special coordinator, and a presidential advisory committee on global conservation, this bill sets up the infrastructure to coordinate the efforts of the various federal agencies under a national strategy for international conservation. The bill identifies measurable goals, benchmarks, and timeframes for long-term action in the area of global conservation. As our nation continues to strengthen its participation in the global community through conflict mitigation, foreign aid, and economic interaction, it is essential that we promote strong international conservation initiatives focused on the involvement and support of local communities. Such initiatives will only strengthen global security, health, and economies. This bill establishes a clear and unified direction for our international conservation efforts, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to move it through the legislative process.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Global Conservation Act of 2010 with my colleague and fellow advocate on international conservation issues, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. As our world grows increasingly intertwined through commerce, communication, and culture, we must also work together to protect the earth's natural resources through conservation. This bill acknowledges the important role our natural resources play in global economics, global health, and global security, and takes steps to strengthen the United States' involvement and productivity in conservation on a global scale. As described in the legislation being introduced today, competing needs around the world are taxing natural resources that are vital to human survival. For example, 500 million people in developing countries depend on fresh water from natural areas that are under threat of degradation, and two billion people depend on rapidly diminishing fish stocks for a significant source of their daily protein. In contrast, wild species provide more than $300 billion in protection and benefits to world agriculture, including natural pest control and the pollination of two thirds of the crop species that feed the world. Forests prevent catastrophic flooding and severe drought, and coral reefs and mangroves reduce the impact of large storms on coastal populations, saving $9 billion in damages each year and reducing outlays for disaster assistance. As natural resources continue to be polluted and depleted throughout the world, economies are threatened and conflicts begin to emerge. The United States National Intelligence Council expects demographic trends and natural resource scarcities relating to water, food, arable land, and energy sources to lead to instabilities and conflict in the years ahead. With such threats looming, it is with urgency that we introduce this legislation that recognizes the intrinsic link between communities, conflict, and natural resources, and which looks to a future of local involvement in the preservation of natural resources for the benefit of international communities. The bill establishes conservation as a fundamental element in economic development, conflict mitigation, and adaptation to climate change. To meet the conservation challenges of the 21st century, the Global Conservation Act reduces the duplication of Federal programs by bringing all U.S. agencies involved in conservation together to establish a national strategy for global conservation. Several executive branch agencies are engaged in some aspect of international conservation, yet their efforts are not coordinated in a manner that maximizes the effectiveness of the overall international conservation efforts of the United States. By establishing an interagency working group, a special coordinator, and a presidential advisory committee on global conservation, this bill sets up the infrastructure to coordinate the efforts of the various federal agencies under a national strategy for international conservation. The bill identifies measurable goals, benchmarks, and timeframes for long-term action in the area of global conservation. As our nation continues to strengthen its participation in the global community through conflict mitigation, foreign aid, and economic interaction, it is essential that we promote strong international conservation initiatives focused on the involvement and support of local communities. Such initiatives will only strengthen global security, health, and economies. This bill establishes a clear and unified direction for our international conservation efforts, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to move it through the legislative process.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her comments, and I yield myself any remaining time in our 30-minute block. Today, America faces an energy crisis. The Senate owes the American people solutions. But this resolution is an attempt to bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality. The oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico is only the most visible aspect of our energy crisis. The true consequences of our energy policy are spread even wider than the spill and the costs, even more deadly. First, our dependence on imported oil is a threat to our national security. Imported oil fuels dictators and terrorists, and the CIA believes climate change will make the world more unstable. If we block the clean energy transition with this resolution, we will be forced to use an additional 450 million barrels of oil, most of which will be imported. Instead, the Senate should reject this resolution and recognize that the transition to a clean energy economy is a national security priority. Americans want our national security out of the quagmire of foreign oil dependency. This resolution puts us in deeper. Here at home, this dependence is also a threat to the pocketbooks of American families and businesses. In 2008, American families and businesses sent $475 billion overseas to pay for foreign oil. Last year, we sent over $300 billion overseas. By the end of this year, we will have sent over $1 trillion outside the U.S. for imported oil in the last 3 years. That is a massive transfer of wealth from families in New Mexico and the other 49 States to the treasuries of foreign nations. If this resolution succeeds, we will import millions more barrels of oil and send billions more of our hard-earned money overseas. If the Senate fails to act, the administration must take up the slack. This resolution would paralyze the Federal Government. The administration is already making progress with new vehicle fuel efficiency rules, which will save 450 million barrels of oil. This resolution would jeopardize that effort, taking us backwards. Further administration efforts will improve efficiency at power plants and major factories and reduce pollution. Small businesses, farmers, and ranchers need not worry. They will not be subject to any EPA regulations on greenhouse gases. Our dependence on dirty fossil fuels is also a threat to the global climate system--the air we breathe and the water we drink--in New Mexico and around the world. This resolution specifically rejects the EPA's scientific finding, conducted by nonpartisan scientists, that greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to public health and to the environment. There are no climate scientists in the Senate. This body has no business injecting political bias into scientific deliberations. The resolution should be rejected for this reason alone. It is revealing that this resolution is supported by dozens of special interests that have worked for years to discredit strong science. The vast majority of the evidence tells us that global warming is real. Strong scientific evidence shows that unless we transition to clean energy sources, our home States will pay a heavy price. Many supporters of this resolution doubt climate science. In response, I point to the scientists of Los Alamos National Lab. The scientists and supercomputers there keep America's nuclear arsenal safe, secure, and reliable. They have no margin for error. Los Alamos also runs some of the most sophisticated global climate models used by scientists around the United States and the world. These models indicate a serious risk to our landscapes and water supplies. Many scientific studies in the field confirm those risks. In New Mexico, scientific evidence indicates devastating forest fires, droughts, and invasive species will be worsened by global warming. According to the Nature Conservancy, over 95 percent of New Mexico has seen temperature increases due to global warming. Ninety- three percent of our watersheds have become dried, and snowpack has decreased over the last 30 years. Making matters worse, this same reliance on fossil fuels pollutes our atmosphere with toxic compounds such as sulfur dioxide, soot, and mercury, alongside greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Luckily, we have numerous cost-effective solutions at hand to address the energy and climate crisis. New Mexico and many other States across the Nation are rich in much cleaner domestic sources of energy, sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and natural gas. Last week, a uranium enrichment plant opened in New Mexico to provide emission-free fuel for American nuclear powerplants. Several years ago, wind energy was unusual, but now it is increasingly common, especially in the American West. Offshore wind has the potential to provide 30 percent of the east coast's power as well. The United States is now installing over a gigawatt of solar power each year. And there are another six gigawatts of concentrated solar power projects planned nationally, particularly in the Southwest. U.S. natural gas reserves have also increased by 35 percent in just 1 year. We now have a century's worth of supply. While natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is significantly cleaner than either coal or oil, and it is more abundant. The clean energy transition does not just mean renewable energy; it also means a renewed focus on natural gas and nuclear power. Ironically, this resolution would also eliminate the incentive to invest in carbon capture technologies which are the future of coal. Even worse, this resolution undercuts the push for energy efficiency. Without rules to reduce pollution, powerplants lack the right incentives to save energy. Both government and industry studies have found that the right efficiency investments could save energy and more than $1 trillion at the same time. Energy efficiency does not mean turning down the heater in the winter or the air-conditioner in the summer. Mr. President, at its core, this resolution is about delay. The House is not going to take up this resolution. The sponsor of this resolution knows the President does not support this. There are not the votes. And really what is going on here is delay. Mr. President, I yield the floor.