Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the dedication and selfless service of Colonel Laura J. Richardson, who has served as the chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Division since October, 2009. As a member of the Secretary of the Army's Office of Legislative Liaison, Colonel Richardson was responsible for advising Army senior leadership on legislative and congressional issues and for educating Senators and staff on Army matters. Colonel Richardson's outstanding leadership and hard work was made clear by the tremendous support that she and her office provided to the U.S. Senate for both sessions of the 111th Congress and the first session of the 112th Congress.

It is a personal honor and a privilege to recognize Colonel Richardson today on the floor of the U.S. Senate. She is a native of the great State of Colorado and was a tremendous athlete at Northglenn High School. She attended Metropolitan State College in Denver, and upon graduation; she was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. She then attended flight school and earned her wings as an Army aviator.

Colonel Richardson's career highlights include a variety of command and staff positions including three years of service in the 17th Aviation Brigade in Korea. She went on to serve on the III Corps Staff, with the 6th Cavalry Brigade, and with the 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault. She was also selected to serve as the military aide to Vice President Gore from 1999 to 2001, and following her tour at the White House, she returned to the 101st to take command of the 5th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment. Colonel Richardson's skill and leadership were clearly displayed when she led 5th Battalion into Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. Following her highly successful battalion command, she served in a variety of positions on the Army staff in the Pentagon and as the installation commander at Fort Myer,

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind words. I also wish to echo his remarks about the leadership of the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee and her focus on keeping our country safe and our citizens protected.

I also wish to make the point that, as my colleague from Oregon, I also oppose reauthorization of the expiring provisions in the PATRIOT Act without significant reforms. I believe it is critical that the administration make public its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act so Members of Congress and the public are not kept in the dark.

Mr. President, let me say once again, as does my colleague from Oregon, I oppose reauthorization of the existing provisions of the PATRIOT Act that we have been debating on the Senate floor without significant reforms. I also have to say I believe it is critical that the administration make public its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act so Members of Congress and our public are not kept in the dark. That is the important work we have in front of us, and we have a real opportunity to accomplish those goals.

Mr. President, as we begin to end this important colloquy, I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Wyden on this important matter. I also wish to acknowledge the involvement of the Senator from New Mexico, who is presiding at this moment in time, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, who has been very involved in bringing this case to the attention of all of us. I wish to also thank my good friend from California, the chairwoman of the committee. She has shown a great willingness to work with everybody and to listen.

I have to say I expect that once the committee examines this issue more closely, I think many more of our colleagues will want to join us in reforming the law in this area. I think this is important. I do think we can find the right balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting the health and welfare of the American citizens.

Mr. President, I rise today in conjunction with my colleague from Oregon to discuss what is before us here on the floor, which is the extension of the PATRIOT Act.

I rise as well to express my opposition to the extension of the three most controversial provisions in the PATRIOT Act which are before us here today. The process by which we have considered these provisions has been rushed. I believe we have done a disservice to the American people by not having a fuller and more open debate about these provisions.

Along with Senator Wyden, I want to acknowledge the difficult position the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, has been in. I want to thank him for trying to find an agreement to vote on more amendments. We were very close to reaching that agreement, but even in that context, the debate we have had on this bill has been insufficient.

If you look at what we are about to approve, it is a one-page bill which just changes the dates in the existing PATRIOT Act. This is a lost opportunity.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that what most people--including many Members of Congress--believe the PATRIOT Act allows the government to do--what it allows the government to do-- and what government officials privately believe the PATRIOT Act allows them to do are two different things. Senator Wyden has been making that case. I want to make it as well.

I cannot support the extension of the provisions we are considering today without amendments to ensure there is a check on executive branch authority. I do not believe the Coloradans who sent me here to represent them would accept this extension either. Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out.

I appreciate the Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, working with us to hold hearings in the committee to examine how the administration is interpreting the law. I believe that is a critical step forward. However, that addresses only the overarching concern. I still have concerns about the individual provisions we are considering today.

We just voted to invoke cloture to cut off debate on the 4-year extension of provisions that give the government wide-ranging authority to conduct wiretaps on groups and individuals or collect private citizens' records. I voted no because the debate should not be over without a real chance to improve these authorities. I recently supported a 3-month extension so the Senate could take time to debate and amend the PATRIOT Act. We were promised that debate, but that opportunity is literally slipping through our hands. I would like to stay here and continue making the case to the American people that this bill should and could be improved.

While a number of PATRIOT Act provisions are permanent and remain in place to give our intelligence community important tools to fight terrorism, the three controversial provisions we are debating, commonly known as roving wiretap, ``lone wolf,'' and business records, are ripe for abuse and threaten Americans' constitutional freedoms.

I know we must balance the principles of liberty and security. I firmly believe terrorism is a serious threat to the United States, and we must be sharply focused on protecting the American people. In fact, with my seats on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, much of my attention is centered on keeping Americans safe both here and abroad. I also recognize that despite Osama bin Laden's death, we still live in a world where terrorism is a serious threat to our country, our economy, and to American lives. Our government does need the appropriate surveillance and antiterrorism tools to achieve these important goals. However, we need to and we can strike a better balance between protecting our national security and the constitutional freedoms of our people. Let me give you an example. This debate has failed to recognize that the current surveillance programs need improved public oversight and accountability.

I know Americans believe we ought to only use PATRIOT Act powers to investigate terrorists or espionage-related targets. Yet section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the so-called business records provision, currently allows records to be collected on law-abiding Americans without any connection to terrorism or espionage. If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism or other nefarious activities, where do they end?

Coloradans are demanding that in addition to the review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, we place commonsense limits on government investigations and link data collection to terrorist or espionage-related activities. If--or I should say when--Congress passes this bill to extend the PATRIOT Act until 2015, it will mean that for 4 more years the Federal Government will have access to private information about Americans who have no connection to terrorism without sufficient accountability and without real public awareness about how these powers are used.

Again, I underline that we all agree the intelligence community needs effective tools to combat terrorism, but we must provide these tools in a way that protects the constitutional freedoms of our people and lives up to the standard of transparency that democracy demands.

Again, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, while I cannot say how this authority is being used, I believe it is ripe for potential abuse and must be improved to protect the constitutionally protected privacy rights of individual innocent American citizens. Toward that goal, I have worked with my colleagues to come up with commonsense fixes that can receive bipartisan support. For example, Senator Wyden and I filed an amendment that would require the Department of Justice to disclose the official legal interpretation of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. This would make sure the Federal Government is only using those powers in ways the American people believe they are authorizing them to.

While I believe our intelligence practices should be kept secret, I do not believe the government's official interpretation of these laws should be kept secret. This is an important part of our oversight duties, and I look forward to working with Chairwoman Feinstein in the Intelligence Committee to ensure this oversight occurs.

I have also filed my own amendments to address some of the problems I see with the roving wiretap, ``lone wolf,'' and business record provisions. For example, I joined Senator Wyden in filing an amendment designed to narrow the scope of the business records materials that can be collected under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. And I just highlighted some of the problems with that provision. Our amendment would still allow enforcement agencies to use the PATRIOT Act to obtain investigation records, but it would also require those entities to demonstrate that the records are in some way connected to terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Today, law enforcement currently can obtain any kind of records. In fact, the PATRIOT Act's only limitation states that such information has to be related to ``any tangible thing.'' That is right. As long as these business records are related to any tangible thing, the U.S. Government can require businesses to turn over information on their customers, whether or not there is a link to terrorism or espionage. I have to say that I just do not think it is unreasonable to ask that our law enforcement agencies identify a terrorism or espionage investigation before collecting the private information of law-abiding American citizens.

These amendments represent but a few of the reform ideas we could have debated this week. But without further debate on these issues, this or any other administration, whether intentionally or unintentionally, can abuse the PATRIOT Act. And because of the need to keep classified material classified, Congress cannot publicly fulfill our oversight responsibilities on behalf of the American people.

So, as I started out my remarks, I plan to vote against the reauthorization of these three expiring provisions

because we fail to implement any reforms that would sensibly restrain these overbroad provisions. In the nearly 10 years since Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, there has been very little opportunity to improve this law, and I, for one, am very disappointed that we are once again being rushed into approving policies that threaten the privacy-- which, under one definition, is the freedom to be left alone--of the American people. It is a fundamental element and principle of freedom.

The bill that is before us today, in my opinion, does not live up to the balanced standard the Framers of our Constitution envisioned to protect both liberty and security, and I believe it seriously risks the constitutional freedoms of our people. By passing this unamended reauthorization, we are ensuring that Americans will live with the status quo for 4 more long years. I am disappointed and I know that many of our constituents would be disappointed if they were able to understand the implications of our inaction on these troubling issues.

As I close, I just want to say there is a gravitational pull to secrecy that I think we all have as human beings. It is hard to resist it. And the whole point of the checks and balances our Founders put in place was to ensure that power couldn't be consolidated and that power abused, again whether intentionally or unintentionally. We would all like to be king for a day. We all have ideas about how we could make the world a better place. But we know the dangers in giving that much power to one person or one small group of people.

Ben Franklin put it so well. I can't do justice to his remarks and the way he stated them, but to paraphrase him, he said that a society that would trade essential liberty for short-term security deserves neither. And our job as Senators is to ensure that we actually enjoy both of those precious qualities, security and liberty.

This is an important vote today. This is an important undertaking. I know we can, through the leadership of Senator Wyden and many of us who care deeply about this, ensure that the PATRIOT Act keeps faith with the principles we hold dear.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize a native Puebloan, sometimes critic, and staple of Colorado's political journalism, Tom McAvoy.

Tom McAvoy has been with the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper in Colorado for over three decades, including 21 years of covering the Colorado statehouse. For the past 7 years, he has served as the Chieftain's editorial research director and a member of its editorial board. He will retire at the end of May, but I hear he will continue to make an occasional appearance in the editorial section.

Tom graduated from Pueblo's Central High School in 1964 and from the Southern Colorado State College in 1968, before going on to earn a master's degree in journalism from Ohio State University. He served in the National Guard after college and went on to work for the Associated Press, joining the Chieftain in 1977.

Coloradans have truly benefited from Tom's canny political analysis over the years. He set the standard for reporters covering State government and politics for regional papers, keeping in mind the big picture for the State even as he paid special attention to what was important from the local angles.

In particular, he has been a faithful fighter for shedding light and stimulating public discourse about the lifeblood of the West: water. In numerous articles and editorials, he has outlined for his readers the issues surrounding and complicating water use in the agricultural heartland that is southern Colorado and served as a megaphone for their interests to legislators.

Tom wrote in an editorial last year, ``Our obligation is to the public, not the office-holder.'' To recognize his committed coverage of the Colorado statehouse, the Colorado Press Association awarded Tom its inaugural Shining Star in 1995 for being the best all-around reporter.

Many reporters who cut their teeth on Colorado politics will tell you that Tom's example and mentorship helped them become better eyes and ears for their own communities.

He also proved that showing up is half the story: there is a legend that the only time Tom ever took a leave of absence is when he came down with the West Nile virus. That dedication to his work speaks of a deep love and sense of responsibility for his hometown community, and it earned him the respect of his peers and his subjects alike.

Southern Colorado will miss Tom McAvoy's voice on the issues that matter to the region, but I have a feeling his wife Sue and their three children will have to share him in retirement with his continued service to his community.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill that is born from the forward-thinking ideas of my constituents, a bill that will help spur our Nation's new energy economy and create jobs: the Solar Uniting Neighborhoods Act, or SUN Act.

Over the last three years, I have been travelling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs. The SUN Act comes directly from visiting with Coloradans.

This bill will help bring commonsense to our tax code, get government out of the way of developing solar energy, and spur job growth in every community across the United States.

I installed solar panels on my own home several years ago to take advantage of the strong Colorado sun. However, I understand this option is not available for all American families who want to receive their home's energy needs from solar power. There can be difficulties attaching solar panels to your home, which is why more and more neighborhoods and towns are creating so called ``community solar'' projects.

Instead of affixing solar panels to every roof on the block, an increasing number of Americans have decided to place those same solar panels all together in one open and unobstructed sunny area near their homes. By grouping solar panels together, it reduces the cost by up to 30 percent compared to installing each panel on every roof separately. Whether used by neighbors living at the end of a cul-de-sac or developed by our rural energy cooperatives, creating these group solar projects to share energy is a great way to lower the cost of developing solar energy.

But there is a problem: our tax code is getting in the way. It discourages neighborhood solar projects by requiring that solar panels must actually be on your property instead of allowing neighbors and others to partner on community solar projects. This discourages innovation and slows the growth of solar power as an alternate energy source.

The SUN Act would make a small change to the tax code that would no longer constrain this innovative solar energy development. By eliminating the requirement that solar panels be on one individual's property, it allows Americans to work together on community projects where each individual can claim a tax credit. This simple solution makes it easier to adopt and use clean, renewable energy.

What excites me about this bill is that it will create jobs for Americans in every neighborhood where these community solar projects are developed. This bill reduces barriers that currently prevent Americans from adopting solar energy, opens up new markets, and creates a simple structure to allow people to utilize clean energy for their home.

Mr. Presdient, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill that is born from the forward-thinking ideas of my constituents, a bill that will help spur our Nation's new energy economy and create jobs: the Solar Uniting Neighborhoods Act, or SUN Act.

Over the last three years, I have been travelling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs. The SUN Act comes directly from visiting with Coloradans.

This bill will help bring commonsense to our tax code, get government out of the way of developing solar energy, and spur job growth in every community across the United States.

I installed solar panels on my own home several years ago to take advantage of the strong Colorado sun. However, I understand this option is not available for all American families who want to receive their home's energy needs from solar power. There can be difficulties attaching solar panels to your home, which is why more and more neighborhoods and towns are creating so called ``community solar'' projects.

Instead of affixing solar panels to every roof on the block, an increasing number of Americans have decided to place those same solar panels all together in one open and unobstructed sunny area near their homes. By grouping solar panels together, it reduces the cost by up to 30 percent compared to installing each panel on every roof separately. Whether used by neighbors living at the end of a cul-de-sac or developed by our rural energy cooperatives, creating these group solar projects to share energy is a great way to lower the cost of developing solar energy.

But there is a problem: our tax code is getting in the way. It discourages neighborhood solar projects by requiring that solar panels must actually be on your property instead of allowing neighbors and others to partner on community solar projects. This discourages innovation and slows the growth of solar power as an alternate energy source.

The SUN Act would make a small change to the tax code that would no longer constrain this innovative solar energy development. By eliminating the requirement that solar panels be on one individual's property, it allows Americans to work together on community projects where each individual can claim a tax credit. This simple solution makes it easier to adopt and use clean, renewable energy.

What excites me about this bill is that it will create jobs for Americans in every neighborhood where these community solar projects are developed. This bill reduces barriers that currently prevent Americans from adopting solar energy, opens up new markets, and creates a simple structure to allow people to utilize clean energy for their home.

Mr. Presdient, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the role safe nuclear energy can play in moving our country toward a more secure energy future.

Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats that we face, we need a comprehensive energy policy. In this regard, safe nuclear energy clearly has emerged as an important player in our search for stable and domestic energy sources with fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

A cleaner energy economy will spur innovation in, and accelerate the shift to, clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new industrial sector employing millions of Americans in the research, development, and commercialization of new energy technologies. And it will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world and cleaner energy technologies will help us get there.

Finally, as we try to emerge from perhaps our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we need an ``all of the above'' solution to jump-start our economy and create new jobs. Beyond renewables and natural gas, this also means next generation nuclear energy.

That is why I am introducing the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act today. This bill would authorize the Department of Energy to carry out a research, development, and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs of safe nuclear reactors. It would support research in areas critical for us to achieve these goals, while also protecting national security. For example, it would support research into: modular and small-scale reactors, balance-of-plant issues, cost-efficient manufacturing, licensing issues, and enhanced proliferation controls.

In light of the disaster at the Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan, it is evident a new era of safe nuclear energy development is needed: one with enhanced safeguards and more agile manufacturing and operating capabilities. My bill seeks to achieve those objectives.

Nuclear power's energy security and environmental benefits have earned this industry an important place at the table. It is my hope that we can build new, safe nuclear plants over the next decade to create jobs and build a cleaner, more secure tomorrow. My bill would help us accomplish these goals.

I would like to thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for joining me in introducing this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the role safe nuclear energy can play in moving our country toward a more secure energy future.

Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats that we face, we need a comprehensive energy policy. In this regard, safe nuclear energy clearly has emerged as an important player in our search for stable and domestic energy sources with fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

A cleaner energy economy will spur innovation in, and accelerate the shift to, clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new industrial sector employing millions of Americans in the research, development, and commercialization of new energy technologies. And it will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world and cleaner energy technologies will help us get there.

Finally, as we try to emerge from perhaps our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we need an ``all of the above'' solution to jump-start our economy and create new jobs. Beyond renewables and natural gas, this also means next generation nuclear energy.

That is why I am introducing the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act today. This bill would authorize the Department of Energy to carry out a research, development, and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs of safe nuclear reactors. It would support research in areas critical for us to achieve these goals, while also protecting national security. For example, it would support research into: modular and small-scale reactors, balance-of-plant issues, cost-efficient manufacturing, licensing issues, and enhanced proliferation controls.

In light of the disaster at the Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan, it is evident a new era of safe nuclear energy development is needed: one with enhanced safeguards and more agile manufacturing and operating capabilities. My bill seeks to achieve those objectives.

Nuclear power's energy security and environmental benefits have earned this industry an important place at the table. It is my hope that we can build new, safe nuclear plants over the next decade to create jobs and build a cleaner, more secure tomorrow. My bill would help us accomplish these goals.

I would like to thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for joining me in introducing this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the proposed reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act incorporated in S. 1038. I have to tell you, I find reauthorization especially troubling since we have waited until the last minute and are now being told we must rush this bill through the Senate of the United States.

There are a number of PATRIOT Act provisions that are permanent, and they remain in place to give our intelligence community important tools to fight terrorism. But there are three controversial provisions we are debating, commonly known as roving wiretap, lone wolf, and business records. I have to tell you, at least from my point of view--and I think there are other Senators here who agree with me--they are ripe for abuse, and they threaten Americans' constitutional freedoms.

As I start my remarks at the onset, I want to state that I firmly believe, as we all do, that terrorism is a serious threat to our great country, the United States, and we have to be focused like no other time in our history in seeking to protect our people, the American people.

I sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. On those two committees, much of my attention is centered on keeping Americans safe, both here and abroad. I recognize that despite bin Laden's death--which we all celebrate because justice was delivered--we still live in a world where terrorism is a serious threat to our country, our economy, and to American lives.

Our government does need the appropriate surveillance and antiterrorism tools to achieve these important goals--indeed, many of the PATRIOT Act's provisions which I support and have made our Nation safer since those devastating attacks on that day we will always remember, on 9/11, we know that for a fact. But the problem we confront today is there are three provisions we are debating that fail to strike the right balance between keeping us safe, while protecting the privacy rights of Coloradans and all Americans.

Instead, these three provisions are far too susceptible to abuse by the Federal Government, even in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism. I do not say this lightly, but my concerns about some of these provisions have only grown since I have been briefed on their interpretation and their implementation as a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Let me share some examples. Currently, the intelligence community can place wide-ranging wiretaps on Americans without even identifying the target or the location of such surveillance. That is one concern. Second concern. The intelligence community can target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations. A third concern I have is they can collect business records on law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism. We ought to be able to at least agree that the source of an investigation under the PATRIOT Act should have a terrorist-related focus. If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism, my concern is, where do they end? Is there no amount of information our government can collect that should be off-limits? I know Coloradans are demanding that we at least place commonsense limits on government investigations and link data collection to terrorist- related activities.

If we pass this bill to extend the PATRIOT Act until 2015, it would mean that for 4 more years the Federal Government will continue to have unrestrained access to private information about Americans who have no connection to terrorism, with little to no accountability as to how these powers are used.

Again, I wish to go back because we all agree the intelligence community needs effective tools to combat terrorism. But we must provide those tools in a way that protects the constitutional freedoms of our people and lives up to the standard of transparency democracy demands.

The three controversial provisions I have mentioned can be much better balanced to protect our people. Yet it seems to me that many of my colleagues, many of our colleagues, oppose any changes. By making the PATRIOT Act provisions I have outlined permanent, we would be, in effect, preventing debate on them ever again.

To travel that path would be to threaten constitutional and civil liberties we hold dear in this country. That is not the right path. Let me be clear. I do not oppose the reauthorization of these three provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but I do aim to bring forward some commonsense reforms that will allow us to strike an important balance between keeping our Nation safe, on the one hand, while also protecting privacy and civil liberties.

Toward that goal, I have worked side by side with my colleagues in coming up with commonsense fixes that could receive bipartisan support. Senator Wyden from Oregon has filed an amendment, which I have cosponsored, that would require the Department of Justice disclose to Congress the official legal interpretation of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. While I believe our intelligence practices should be kept secret, I do not believe the government's official interpretation of these laws should be kept secret.

I have also filed my own amendments to address some of the problems I see with the three expiring provisions. The first amendment I have filed is bipartisan with Senator Paul of Kentucky, who is on the floor, and Senator Wyden, who has joined as well. Our amendment would modify the roving wiretap authority under section 206 of the PATRIOT Act.

Specifically, our bipartisan amendment would require intelligence agencies to identify either the target or the place to be wiretapped. They currently do not have to do so. I believe that when seeking to collect intelligence, law enforcement should at least have to identify who is being targeted.

I have also filed an amendment to address the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision which currently allows the government to conduct wiretap surveillance on individuals, even when that person has no connection to a government or a terrorist organization.

This amendment would simply require that should the intelligence community use the ``lone wolf'' provision, that Congress simply be notified--again, a safeguard that is not in place as we stand here today. Without safeguards like that, how do we in this body conduct our constitutional duties of oversight?

Finally, I was joined by Senator Wyden in filing an amendment designed to narrow the scope of business record materials that can be collected under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This amendment would still allow law enforcement to use the PATRIOT Act to obtain such records but would require these entities to demonstrate that the records are in some way connected to terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Right now, law enforcement can currently obtain any kind of records. In fact, the PATRIOT Act's only limitation states that such information has to be related to any tangible thing. That is right. As long as these business records are related to any tangible thing, the U.S. Government can require businesses to turn over information on all their customers, whether or not there is any link to terrorism.

Yes.

The Senator from Oregon has put his finger on why it is so important to have a debate on the floor and not rush these provisions to the House because of a deadline that I think we can push back. We can, as you know, extend the PATRIOT Act in its present form a number of other days or a number of weeks in order to get this right.

But the Senator from Oregon makes the powerful point that the law should not be classified--as far as its interpretation goes. Of course, we can protect sources and methods and operations, as we well should. Both of us serve on the Intelligence Committee. We are privy to some information that should be classified. But we have come to the floor to make this case because of what we have learned on the Intelligence Committee.

I thank the Senator for his question. I look forward to his comments in a few minutes. The Senator from Oregon, in effect, points out that these are just a few of the reform ideas we could debate. But without further debate on any of these issues, this or any other administration can abuse the PATRIOT Act and could actually deny us, as Members of Congress, whether in this Congress or future Congresses, the opportunity to fulfill our oversight responsibilities on behalf of the American people.

I voted against the original passage of the PATRIOT Act in 2001, and I plan to vote against the reauthorization of the expiring provisions this week, unless we implement some reforms that will sensibly restrain these overly broad provisions. Simply put--again, to make the point that the Senator from Oregon made so importantly--I believe Congress is granting powers to the executive branch that lead to abuse and, frankly, shield the executive branch from accountability.

It has been 10 years since we first passed this law, and there has been very little opportunity to improve the law. I resist this rush to again rubberstamp policies that threaten the very liberty we hold dear. I recently supported a short-term extensions of the expiring provisions before us as a bridge to take time and debate and amend the PATRIOT Act and its controversial provisions.

But we were notified--unfortunately, a few days ago--that we would be voting on a 4-year extension of these expiring provisions. That is not the way to assure Americans that we are diligently considering these important public decisions.

In Federalist 51, James Madison, whom we venerate, who was the author of many of the documents that structure the way in which we organize and operate our democracy, wrote: ``In

framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.''

The bill before us does not live up to that standard. I believe it seriously risks the constitutional freedoms of our people. We need to strike a better balance between giving our national security and law enforcement officials the tools necessary to keep us safe, while not damaging the very Constitution we have sworn to support and defend.

By passing an unamended reauthorization, we are assuring that Americans will live with the status quo for 4 more long years. I believe this bill may well be a lost opportunity to improve the balance between our security and our civil liberties. That is not the result that our Founding Fathers envisioned, and it is not a result that our constituents want.

For these reasons, if the PATRIOT Act provisions are not amended, I plan to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture and on passage of S. 1038. Before I yield the floor, I wish to make one last historical reference.

Ben Franklin, one of our Founding Fathers, said, compellingly and presciently: ``A society that would sacrifice essential liberties for short-term security deserves neither.''

I think that is the question before us. There is a way forward. There is a way to keep the PATRIOT Act in place to protect our national security but also to protect our essential liberties. But in order to do that, we have to have a chance to debate and pass these important amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Act of 2011 to address concerns of federal jurisdiction and public safety regarding a mine drainage tunnel in Leadville, CO.

In 2008, a blockage formed in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel that backed up a large volume of contaminated water, creating a serious safety hazard for the surrounding community if a catastrophic tunnel failure were to occur. The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, took actions to address the immediate threat, including installing a dewatering relief well to relieve water pressure behind the tunnel blockage. However, in the process, questions arose as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns the tunnel, has the authority to help implement a number of remedies by treating contaminated water from the tunnel. My bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat this water and is responsible for maintaining the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel to protect public safety and reduce future threats to the community.

The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was originally constructed by the federal Bureau of Mines in the 1940s and 1950s to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for World War II and Korean War efforts. The Bureau of Reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959, hoping to use it as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a water diversion project in the Fryingpan and Arkansas River Basins. Although the tunnel was never used for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, water that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural flow of the Arkansas River. With the passage and subsequent signing into law of H.R. 429 during the 102nd Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel.

Water levels in the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years. The 2008 collapse in the tunnel increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly, leading to new seeps and springs in the area. Estimates suggest that up to 1 billion gallons of water may have built up behind the blockage within the mine pool.

In November 2007, EPA sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation expressing concerns over a catastrophic blowout as a result of the built-up water, and, in February 2008, the Lake County Commissioners declared a state of emergency. The Bureau of Reclamation developed a risk assessment in the area, and the EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation performed some emergency measures to relieve water pressure in the tunnel.

While this emergency work was important and successful, the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to participate in a long-term solution remains an open question. It is unclear whether the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat the water from the dewatering relief well or surface water diverted into the tunnel from a nearby National Priorities List site.

In short, we found there is not only a physical blockage in the tunnel, but also a legal blockage that has prevented the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado from reaching an agreement on a long-term solution. This legislation will clear out the legal blockage by allowing the Bureau of Reclamation and the EPA to work collaboratively on solutions and address the unsafe mine pool in the tunnel.

Specifically, the bill does three things:

First, the bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation is required to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel to minimize the chance of a catastrophic failure of the tunnel leading to the uncontrolled release of contaminated water.

Second, the bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to participate in the long-term solution by treating water pooling up behind the blockage and surface water diverted into the tunnel from operable unit 6 of the California Gulch National Priorities List, Superfund, site. Current law restricts the Bureau of Reclamation to treating only ``historically discharged'' effluent, and it is uncertain whether that includes treating water as part of the remedy.

Third, the bill requires the Bureau of Reclamation and EPA to cooperate on any Record of Decision for the California Gulch Superfund site that impacts the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel or the associated water treatment plant. As part of that cooperation, the agencies must enter into an

agreement describing how they will pay for any necessary changes to the tunnel or treatment plant.

The bill also authorizes any funding that might be necessary for the Bureau of Reclamation to perform its clarified responsibilities under this bill.

By clearing up the legal blockage, the bill will help create a collaborative working relationship between the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado to solve this problem for the long- term benefit of Lake County and all of Southeastern Colorado.

Concerns about the safety of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel have persisted for over 30 years, as have questions about federal agencies' responsibility to address those concerns. My bill will finally clarify federal jurisdiction and give the residents of Leadville, Colorado, as well as the entire Arkansas River Basin, an additional measure of certainty that the federal government will maintain safe conditions at the tunnel. I look forward to working with the rest of the Colorado Congressional delegation on this legislation and to its speedy passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Act of 2011 to address concerns of federal jurisdiction and public safety regarding a mine drainage tunnel in Leadville, CO.

In 2008, a blockage formed in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel that backed up a large volume of contaminated water, creating a serious safety hazard for the surrounding community if a catastrophic tunnel failure were to occur. The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, took actions to address the immediate threat, including installing a dewatering relief well to relieve water pressure behind the tunnel blockage. However, in the process, questions arose as to whether the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns the tunnel, has the authority to help implement a number of remedies by treating contaminated water from the tunnel. My bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat this water and is responsible for maintaining the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel to protect public safety and reduce future threats to the community.

The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was originally constructed by the federal Bureau of Mines in the 1940s and 1950s to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for World War II and Korean War efforts. The Bureau of Reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959, hoping to use it as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a water diversion project in the Fryingpan and Arkansas River Basins. Although the tunnel was never used for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, water that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural flow of the Arkansas River. With the passage and subsequent signing into law of H.R. 429 during the 102nd Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel.

Water levels in the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years. The 2008 collapse in the tunnel increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly, leading to new seeps and springs in the area. Estimates suggest that up to 1 billion gallons of water may have built up behind the blockage within the mine pool.

In November 2007, EPA sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation expressing concerns over a catastrophic blowout as a result of the built-up water, and, in February 2008, the Lake County Commissioners declared a state of emergency. The Bureau of Reclamation developed a risk assessment in the area, and the EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation performed some emergency measures to relieve water pressure in the tunnel.

While this emergency work was important and successful, the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to participate in a long-term solution remains an open question. It is unclear whether the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat the water from the dewatering relief well or surface water diverted into the tunnel from a nearby National Priorities List site.

In short, we found there is not only a physical blockage in the tunnel, but also a legal blockage that has prevented the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado from reaching an agreement on a long-term solution. This legislation will clear out the legal blockage by allowing the Bureau of Reclamation and the EPA to work collaboratively on solutions and address the unsafe mine pool in the tunnel.

Specifically, the bill does three things:

First, the bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation is required to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel to minimize the chance of a catastrophic failure of the tunnel leading to the uncontrolled release of contaminated water.

Second, the bill clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to participate in the long-term solution by treating water pooling up behind the blockage and surface water diverted into the tunnel from operable unit 6 of the California Gulch National Priorities List, Superfund, site. Current law restricts the Bureau of Reclamation to treating only ``historically discharged'' effluent, and it is uncertain whether that includes treating water as part of the remedy.

Third, the bill requires the Bureau of Reclamation and EPA to cooperate on any Record of Decision for the California Gulch Superfund site that impacts the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel or the associated water treatment plant. As part of that cooperation, the agencies must enter into an

agreement describing how they will pay for any necessary changes to the tunnel or treatment plant.

The bill also authorizes any funding that might be necessary for the Bureau of Reclamation to perform its clarified responsibilities under this bill.

By clearing up the legal blockage, the bill will help create a collaborative working relationship between the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA and the State of Colorado to solve this problem for the long- term benefit of Lake County and all of Southeastern Colorado.

Concerns about the safety of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel have persisted for over 30 years, as have questions about federal agencies' responsibility to address those concerns. My bill will finally clarify federal jurisdiction and give the residents of Leadville, Colorado, as well as the entire Arkansas River Basin, an additional measure of certainty that the federal government will maintain safe conditions at the tunnel. I look forward to working with the rest of the Colorado Congressional delegation on this legislation and to its speedy passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue, energy consumption. Do each of us know how much energy we actually consume? How much does our energy use affect our pocketbooks? Consumers should be able to answer these questions. That is why I am introducing the Electric Consumer Right to Know Act today.

This legislation takes a common-sense step toward broadening consumers' access to data about their electricity usage. I first began working on this issue while serving in the Colorado General Assembly back in 1997, when I introduced a bill that would have given consumers information about the price, water consumption, pollutants, and emissions used to generate the electricity they were sold. However, I am proud to say that this refined transparency bill--which gives consumers access to their energy use and price--was developed directly from the input of Coloradans who participated in my energy jobs summit in Denver in February 2010.

In today's marketplace, consumers have a clear understanding of what their car mileage means for their wallet. They also have ready access to the number of minutes remaining on their cell phone. However, consumers lack clear, timely data about their electricity use and its price. Providing increased transparency will help consumers with their decisions about electricity usage in their homes or businesses.

The Electric Consumer Right to Know Act, or E-Know Act, would provide this transparency by establishing consumers' clear right to access data on their own electricity usage. This right is an important step toward a more effective, reliable and efficient electric grid, and a step toward helping consumers use electricity more efficiently and save money on their electric bills.

For the past two years, I have been traveling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs. I also hosted an Energy Jobs Summit in Denver in February 2010. As part of this summit, we asked experts in energy policy and business to join us for a conversation about how we can better position Colorado and the United States to lead in the 21st century clean energy economy and win the global economic race.

We heard from U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, then-Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Michael Bennet, and Congressman Ed Perlmutter. But, more importantly, we heard from Coloradans who came to share their views on what the federal government can do, or in some instances not do, to support job creation and transition to cleaner and more efficient energy use.

One consumer participant at the summit noted that even though he had a smart meter at his home, his power company would not let him access his electrical meter readings to learn how he was using electricity. If he could access those readings, he could better understand his energy use, learn how to be more energy efficient and save money. That is why I am reintroducing E-Know Act today, to improve communication between the consumers and their utility and spur innovation in developing creative technologies that will save energy.

The bill directs the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission to convene an open, extensive and inclusive stakeholder process to work through the details of this measure to ensure that implementing the consumers' right to access their information also retains consumer privacy, and ensures the integrity and reliability of the grid.

The outcome of this process will create national guidelines establishing the right of consumers to access their electricity data, including minimum national standards that utilities must meet to ensure that right of access. In developing those minimum standards, the FERC will take into consideration the ongoing and important work at the National Institute of Standards and

Technology in developing a smart grid roadmap, as well as the innovative state and local programs already being developed across the country to integrate smart meters into the electrical grid, including Colorado, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and others.

In my home state of Colorado, Xcel Energy has been working with the city of Boulder on a pilot program called SmartGridCity to develop a community-scale smart grid with over 20,000 residents participating. In Fort Collins, Colorado, the business community and utilities have teamed up to form the FortZED project with the goal of turning the downtown into a net zero energy district using smart technology. I am proud to see Coloradans and others around the country taking important steps together in learning how to make the grid more reliable, efficient, and help save everyone money.

Finally, part of ensuring the right to access your data includes the right to retain the privacy of your data. When consumers gain access to their data, they will also need to clearly understand how it will be used, especially when consumers grant third-party access to it. This is why this bill states that the FERC will establish, among other important measures, guidelines for consumer consent requirements. Retaining privacy is critical to building consumer trust in the smart grid and facilitating the transition of the smart grid to an integral part of everyday life for every American family.

I look forward to working with my colleagues from both parties and all interested stakeholders in establishing this right, defining it in a way that eliminates unintended consequences, and enforcing this right in a way that promotes the efficient use of electrical energy.

This bill is an important first step in implementing smart meters across the country, moving us toward an electrical grid that is more reliable and more efficient, a ``smart grid,'' if you will. There are several pieces of the puzzle that will be required to realize that future, and one critical part of that puzzle is the right of consumers to access their electricity data. I urge my colleagues of both parties to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue, energy consumption. Do each of us know how much energy we actually consume? How much does our energy use affect our pocketbooks? Consumers should be able to answer these questions. That is why I am introducing the Electric Consumer Right to Know Act today.

This legislation takes a common-sense step toward broadening consumers' access to data about their electricity usage. I first began working on this issue while serving in the Colorado General Assembly back in 1997, when I introduced a bill that would have given consumers information about the price, water consumption, pollutants, and emissions used to generate the electricity they were sold. However, I am proud to say that this refined transparency bill--which gives consumers access to their energy use and price--was developed directly from the input of Coloradans who participated in my energy jobs summit in Denver in February 2010.

In today's marketplace, consumers have a clear understanding of what their car mileage means for their wallet. They also have ready access to the number of minutes remaining on their cell phone. However, consumers lack clear, timely data about their electricity use and its price. Providing increased transparency will help consumers with their decisions about electricity usage in their homes or businesses.

The Electric Consumer Right to Know Act, or E-Know Act, would provide this transparency by establishing consumers' clear right to access data on their own electricity usage. This right is an important step toward a more effective, reliable and efficient electric grid, and a step toward helping consumers use electricity more efficiently and save money on their electric bills.

For the past two years, I have been traveling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs. I also hosted an Energy Jobs Summit in Denver in February 2010. As part of this summit, we asked experts in energy policy and business to join us for a conversation about how we can better position Colorado and the United States to lead in the 21st century clean energy economy and win the global economic race.

We heard from U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, then-Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Michael Bennet, and Congressman Ed Perlmutter. But, more importantly, we heard from Coloradans who came to share their views on what the federal government can do, or in some instances not do, to support job creation and transition to cleaner and more efficient energy use.

One consumer participant at the summit noted that even though he had a smart meter at his home, his power company would not let him access his electrical meter readings to learn how he was using electricity. If he could access those readings, he could better understand his energy use, learn how to be more energy efficient and save money. That is why I am reintroducing E-Know Act today, to improve communication between the consumers and their utility and spur innovation in developing creative technologies that will save energy.

The bill directs the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission to convene an open, extensive and inclusive stakeholder process to work through the details of this measure to ensure that implementing the consumers' right to access their information also retains consumer privacy, and ensures the integrity and reliability of the grid.

The outcome of this process will create national guidelines establishing the right of consumers to access their electricity data, including minimum national standards that utilities must meet to ensure that right of access. In developing those minimum standards, the FERC will take into consideration the ongoing and important work at the National Institute of Standards and

Technology in developing a smart grid roadmap, as well as the innovative state and local programs already being developed across the country to integrate smart meters into the electrical grid, including Colorado, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and others.

In my home state of Colorado, Xcel Energy has been working with the city of Boulder on a pilot program called SmartGridCity to develop a community-scale smart grid with over 20,000 residents participating. In Fort Collins, Colorado, the business community and utilities have teamed up to form the FortZED project with the goal of turning the downtown into a net zero energy district using smart technology. I am proud to see Coloradans and others around the country taking important steps together in learning how to make the grid more reliable, efficient, and help save everyone money.

Finally, part of ensuring the right to access your data includes the right to retain the privacy of your data. When consumers gain access to their data, they will also need to clearly understand how it will be used, especially when consumers grant third-party access to it. This is why this bill states that the FERC will establish, among other important measures, guidelines for consumer consent requirements. Retaining privacy is critical to building consumer trust in the smart grid and facilitating the transition of the smart grid to an integral part of everyday life for every American family.

I look forward to working with my colleagues from both parties and all interested stakeholders in establishing this right, defining it in a way that eliminates unintended consequences, and enforcing this right in a way that promotes the efficient use of electrical energy.

This bill is an important first step in implementing smart meters across the country, moving us toward an electrical grid that is more reliable and more efficient, a ``smart grid,'' if you will. There are several pieces of the puzzle that will be required to realize that future, and one critical part of that puzzle is the right of consumers to access their electricity data. I urge my colleagues of both parties to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is close to my heart: introducing our children to National Parks across the country.

Enjoying the outdoors has been a lifelong passion for me and it began in my youth. Growing up in the American Southwest, my parents would take our family on frequent trips to the nearby parks. This helped inspire my brother, Randy, and I to take a 10-day backpacking trip to Glacier National Park in Montana when we were in college. I know now these important visits to the parks were the building blocks of a life filled with enthusiasm for mountains and the outdoors.

I have always enjoyed being outdoors with others, first as an instructor with Outward Bound and then with my wife and kids. In Congress, I have similarly tried to ensure that open spaces in both urban and rural areas are preserved so that families in Colorado and across America have ample opportunity to get out and take advantage of our greatest natural resources, our parks and open spaces.

I believe today more than ever it is important that we are encouraging our Nation's youth to get outdoors. In America today, one in three children are overweight or obese. Kids between the ages of 8 and 18 spend an average of 7\1/2\ hours a day using some sort of entertainment media such as TVs, computers, video games, cell phones and movies. I believe this is a major reason why only one-third of all children get the recommended level of physical activity every day, contributing to childhood obesity.

In this spirit, on Saturday families all across the Nation will get outside and visit a city, State or national park in honor of the first annual National Kids to Parks Day. National Kids to Parks Day celebrates America's commitment to getting kids outdoors and highlights the importance of preserving open spaces for American's to recreate.

That is why today I will be submitting a bipartisan resolution that recognizes Saturday, May 21, 2011, as the first annual National Kids to Parks Day. National Kids to Parks Day encourages more of our Nation's youth to get outdoors and enjoy the great system of city, State and national parks we have in this country.

I thank Senator Burr, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Bingaman for their cosponsorship and support.

Getting kids outdoors won't completely solve our childhood obesity problem, but it may help them get excited about being active and healthy outdoors, and it may help inspire the next generation of American stewards to enjoy and protect our Nation's special places.

I plan to celebrate National Kids to Parks Day by attending the 100- year anniversary of Colorado National Monument near Grand Junction, CO. I encourage my colleagues to do something similar--highlight the national, State, and local parks in your State and encourage American families to get outdoors.

I ask my colleagues to support my National Kids to Parks Day resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the energy-related votes we face this week in the Senate.

Coloradans--and all Americans--are feeling the sting of skyrocketing gas prices. And ``pain at the pump'' puts a crimp in the budgets of hardworking families and small businesses everywhere. I hear this every time I am back in my home State, talking to folks. They think it is unfair--and I agree.

Runaway gas prices are not acceptable and we must work across the partisan divide to bring a stop to it.

In fact, I recently called on the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative to do everything they can to crack down on global oil market manipulation. And I joined my colleagues in urging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to ratchet up their efforts at preventing overspeculation in oil trading domestically. Taking these steps would help reduce the chance that market manipulation is hurting American consumers.

But from a larger perspective, the challenge is that we simply do not have any quick fixes. And substantial relief today would have required us to take steps years ago to reform our energy system. Unfortunately, we let those opportunities pass us by. That is the unvarnished truth the American people

need to hear, not false promises or bumper sticker solutions.

The real solutions involve tough choices and strategic investments in clean energy that will help wean our Nation off foreign sources of oil. It really is the only way we will be able to dig ourselves out of this hole and lower gas prices. And, importantly, it is one of the ways that we will get the United States back on the path to winning the global economic race.

Unfortunately, neither of the votes we will take this week will reduce gas prices for consumers.

As are most Americans, I am frustrated that once again politics is getting in the way of progress I would much rather be debating a comprehensive energy policy this week that includes a renewable electricity standard, promotes energy efficiency, and encourages responsible development of domestic resources such as safe nuclear power and natural gas.

We need to move beyond partisan fights and blame games. Instead, we need to work toward what we all can agree are key priorities: developing energy that brings affordable prices to American families and businesses; building a sustainable, long-term energy future; and doing it in a way that protects our clean air and water for future generations. Put simply, establishing energy security--perhaps above any other issue--will assure our Nation's future success.

We each often say that our States are the best laboratories to create innovation. But in Colorado, we have a great example of this in action.

Back in 2004, Colorado cast aside partisan politics and bumper sticker solutions by taking a big, brave step forward and embraced the emerging clean energy economy. That year I led a bipartisan ballot initiative with the former Republican Speaker of the Colorado House, Lola Spradley, in a campaign to convince the voters of Colorado to approve a State-based RES that would harness renewable resources like the sun, the wind, and geothermal energy. We barnstormed the State, speaking over and over to anyone who would listen.

There was a lot of industry opposition to an RES, and dire predictions that it would cost consumers money and damage Colorado's economy. But, those arguments were proven wrong. And Colorado industries, consumers, and people across the political spectrum have embraced clean energy as part of Colorado's effort to win the global economic race.

In fact, last year, the Colorado Legislature approved, and former Governor Bill Ritter signed, a bill to increase the RES standard even further: from 20 percent to 30 percent renewable energy by 2020. This makes the Colorado RES the second most aggressive standard in the Nation, only after California.

Even more refreshing is that in the years since Colorado established one of the earliest and strongest renewable electricity standards, our energy producers have embraced the move. One of our State's largest utilities, Xcel Energy, has become a national leader in clean energy. In proving that clean energy can be profitable and competitive, Xcel is making the case for how an RES can create jobs, stimulate the economy, and help us achieve energy independence.

The clean energy economy is one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century, and the global demand for clean energy is growing by $1 trillion every year. The lesson to be learned from Colorado is that clean energy can unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit. We must pursue forward-thinking policies that will help America seize and lead this growing market.

Make no mistake. We are in a race against foreign competitors and are quickly being left behind. Last year, I returned from China where I discussed clean energy issues with American businesses located there. I saw it firsthand. They are ready to eat our lunch when it comes to clean energy. China is pursuing renewable energy and clean energy technology so ambitiously, not because they want to save the planet but because it makes good business and economic sense.

In fact, China has announced that it is investing over $738 billion over the next 10 years in clean energy development--nearly the size of our entire American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Just imagine, their economy uses a comparable amount of energy, but they take clean energy so seriously that they plan to invest a stimulus-sized amount of money solely in renewables.

But we can't just rely on renewable energy. Rather, America must have an all-of-the-above energy policy. For example, conservation and energy efficiency efforts offer the quickest way to reduce energy demand today. And safe nuclear energy and natural gas can and should fill a larger share of our energy portfolio as they both are cleaner fuels. In addition, we all know America will be dependent on fossil fuels for years to come, so it is not realistic to exclude them in our strategy. All of these elements should be in America's energy mix and we must acknowledge that to really embrace 21st century solutions.

But when we look at the future demands for clean energy and the economic opportunities ahead of us, renewable resources hold the greatest promise. And the more home-grown renewable energy we can produce, the less money we need to spend buying oil from foreign nations that wish to do us harm, which means less money spent at the gas pump. I don't think anyone in this Chamber can argue with the proposition that we should be moving aggressively toward energy independence with dividends like that.

It is time we made a concerted national effort to reclaim our position at the front of the pack. We should be harnessing the wind and sun and other renewable resources here in America, and putting Americans to work in good-paying jobs developing, building, and leading the clean energy revolution. It is an example of what we call back home ``Colorado common sense.''

But instead of pursuing some commonsense goals that are sure to move our economy forward, we are here today exchanging political punches on issues largely unrelated to our energy independence and the prices Americans pay at the pump.

While I support reducing tax breaks for the five largest oil companies, I honestly wish this issue was a smaller part of a larger discussion on a comprehensive energy strategy that allows the U.S. to lead the global economic race. That said, I will vote to repeal these needless tax breaks for Big Oil. Traditional energy production has received billions in subsidies over the last 70 years. And the top five oil companies in particular make billions in profits that far exceed the need for government support.

I happen to agree with the thousands of Coloradans who have told me: these companies--among the biggest in the world--don't need and shouldn't receive taxpayer money, especially as we look for ways to consolidate our Tax Code and reduce the deficit.

It is important to me that this bill is limited to the top five companies and does not include small, independent producers that provide many jobs in Colorado. I should note that there are some tax credits--such as the production tax credit for wind, the investment tax credit for solar, and the intangible drilling costs tax credit for small oil and gas producers--that are important to jobs in Colorado and across the country. While my ideal energy market would be free from any tax credits, I also want to make sure we continue to invest in domestic energy industries that still need help getting off the ground. Just as with most policy, it is a delicate balance.

In my home State of Colorado and in the Presiding Officer's home State of Pennsylvania and all over our country, Americans are feeling the sting of rising gas prices. The pain at the pump puts a real crimp in the budgets of hard-working families and businesses everywhere. I hear this every time I am back in my home State listening and visiting with the folks there. They think it is unfair, and I have to say I agree.

Runaway gas prices are not acceptable. I think it is our job, working across the partisan divide, to bring a stop to it. I have to tell my colleagues, instead of pursuing some commonsense goals that would move our economy forward and would mold a comprehensive energy proposal, we are punching away at each other on issues largely unrelated to our energy independence and the prices Americans pay at the pump.

I am going to support the vote today. We ought to reduce tax breaks for the

five largest oil companies. But I have to say I wish this had been part of a larger discussion on a comprehensive energy strategy to allow us to lead the global economic race. That said, I am going to vote to repeal what I think are needless tax breaks for Big Oil.

Traditional energy production has received billions of subsidies over the last 70 years--70 years--and the top 50 companies in particular make billions in profits that far exceed the need for more government support. I happen to agree with thousands of Coloradans who have been in touch with me to say that these companies, which are among the biggest in the world, don't need and shouldn't receive taxpayer money, especially as we look for ways to consolidate our Tax Code and reduce the deficit.

It is important to me that the bill is limited to the top five companies and doesn't include small, independent producers that provide a lot of jobs in Colorado. I should note that there are some tax credits, such as the production tax credit for wind, the investment tax credit for solar, and the intangible drilling costs tax credit for small oil and gas producers that are important for jobs in Colorado and across our country.

I think we would agree that the ideal energy market would be free from any tax credits, but I also wish to make sure we invest in our domestic energy industries that still need help getting off the ground. As with most policy matters, this is a delicate balance.

Let me wind down my remarks with this request to my colleagues, that we would take responsibility for our economic future and get serious about energy independence. That means we would have to shed, each and every one of us, some of our doctrinaire positions and what is too often on the floor a ``my way or the highway'' approach. There are ways to responsibly drill for oil while also increasing our renewable electricity production. There are ways to safely expand nuclear power while also boosting energy efficiency. There are ways to harness natural gas as a bridge fuel while also spurring a generation of electric cars.

These are not either/or propositions. I think we especially have to seize the clean energy opportunity that is in front of us, so 2, 4, and 10 years from now we are not still sidetracked by political infighting because we, once again, failed to make the tough decisions. A comprehensive energy policy is critically important to our Nation's economic recovery and our long-term energy future. Believe me, Americans are ready for it. In fact, they are demanding it.

Thank you. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.