Floor Statements

I am also very pleased to talk about one of the most pressing challenges confronting our Nation and my State of Colorado, and that is climate change. We have seen in my State this is not an obscure threat or distant problem. We have had catastrophic floods and mega wildfires that have been the result of drought, of a whole series of changes in a way we see climate systems operating in Colorado. It is threatening our way of life.

I have a powerful photograph here. We have had in the past 2 years three successive mega fires. Last year's Black Forest fire brought destruction to Colorado Springs. Over 500 homes burned and we lost 2 lives. This fire quickly surpassed the Waldo Canyon fire which was the most destructive fire in Colorado history.

Now is the time to act. Now is the time to grab the opportunity to create new emergency technologies, to enhance our national security and, by the way, to keep faith with our children. We do not inherit this Earth from our parents. We are borrowing it from our children. If we do not act on climate change, we will leave them a less bright future. If we do act, we can create jobs and protect the environment.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, along with the Presiding Officer, we can enhance our Nation's security with these new technologies. Let's act now. I am here in this Congress and this Senate to protect our way of life. If we act now, we can protect that special way of life.

Mr. President, had I been present to cast a vote relative to rollcall vote No. 56 on March 3, 2014 on the nomination of Vince Chhabria to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam President, due to an unanticipated family emergency, I was unable to cast a vote on February 3, 2014, relative to rollcall vote No. 20 to invoke cloture on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as have so many of my colleagues, I rise to speak to this important Omnibus appropriations bill that we have before us today, and I too wish to thank the Senator from Alabama, whom I count as a friend, and the Senator from Baltimore and the great State of Maryland, more broadly, for all the great work they have done and their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee as well. We are showing the country we can work together. We are going to start the new year on a different note. I am excited to be a part of that effort. I will support the bill.

I come to the floor, as have a number of my colleagues, to speak about some of the business yet unfinished, to set the stage for more work we can do going forward. But before I do that, I wish to mention some of the specific good news in the bill.

I am looking at my good friend from Alabama. We have had a lot of fires in Colorado over these last number of years. This bill takes some important steps to help us combat the threat posed by what are now very fast-moving, indiscriminately burning, modern mega fires. We have had mega hurricanes and mega tornadoes. We have mega fires now in the great State of Colorado. We have seen those fires not just in my State but all over the West. In the Southeast we have seen increasing fires as well. So the budget includes about $3 billion for firefighting and wildfire prevention programs, which is essentially the same level we have seen in recent years.

I am a little disappointed that the bill doesn't include the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. This is a bill that I worked on with Senators Wyden and Crapo. It is, therefore, bipartisan. It would allow the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to access funding to support emergency wildfire suppression efforts. It is a lot cheaper to suppress fires at the beginning than to let them get out of control. It is also a lot cheaper to prevent fires from happening in the first place, and I will talk more about that. If we look at current projections, they only suggest that fires are going to increase in intensity and duration, and it underscores the need for us to get ahead of this growing threat to our communities--again, not just in Colorado but all over our country.

There are fiscally responsible reforms in this Wildfire Disaster Funding Act which would help us confront the skyrocketing threat that modern fires pose to our States' fiscal health as agencies work to protect life and property while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. That is just one of the many reasons I am going to continue to lead the fight--it is a bipartisan fight, a bipartisan cause--to see if we can't get this approach in place. This is a plan that will truly help us with these fires that threaten our communities.

I am also proud that Colorado is leading the way in pioneering commonsense wildfire prevention strategies that cut through redtape and then leverage private sector know-how to create jobs while reducing the fuel loads in our forests. We don't have enough Federal employees. We don't have enough government moneys to do all we need to do in our forests. One of the ways we can do more of that with this private- public sector type of partnership is to reauthorize the Good Neighbor Authority.

The Good Neighbor Authority was a pilot project in Colorado initially, and it has been successful. We want to expand it and apply it in other locales and in other States, and we have succeeded in doing that. It will allow agencies to work collaboratively across arbitrary Federal boundaries to improve forest health and reduce wildfire risks.

This bill also reauthorizes the job-creating Stewardship Contracting Authority, which allows the Forest Service and the BLM to partner with local businesses to improve fire safety on our public lands. This has been a critical tool in Colorado, and it is important that we include it in this bill.

So where do I think we have some shortcomings? I mentioned a couple of successes and important provisions in the bill. The bill doesn't address several key needs in my State, including support for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. It is known as PILT. I listened to the Committee on Appropriations chairwoman and I listened to the Senator from New Mexico Tom Udall and others speak about PILT today. I wish to touch on both the EWP, Emergency Watershed Protection Program, and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. We had real devastation in my State last year during the fall with historic amounts of rainfall and then the floods that followed. We had enormous support from all over the country. We deeply appreciate that outpouring. It was the most destructive natural disaster in our State's history. Now the floodwaters have subsided, thankfully--some 3 months ago--but we are still learning the true extent of the damage. Families and towns are clearing debris from their neighborhoods and from their water sources. They are working to rebuild their communities house by house and business by business.

Yet, despite this widespread damage from the floods and the broad consensus that more help is needed, this budget does not fund the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. This is a very important and crucial flood recovery program, and it has been applied all over our country, I think in almost every State.

If we do not get support sooner rather than later, we could see additional flooding this spring. We have a spring thaw that happens all over our State. Streams will overrun their banks, particularly because we have so much debris still in many of those stream courses. So we need these resources. It is simply not acceptable that we would not have them in hand before the spring runoff.

The Federal Government's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the NRCS, estimates that we need at least $122 million to protect lives and property from future flood damage. That support, as I have said, is not included in the bill, but I am going to continue fighting to secure this critical aid for Colorado's flood-ravaged communities.

Finally, I want to turn to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. As I mentioned earlier, many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have expressed their disappointment that the budget does not include PILT funding. It includes--when it works--funding for rural counties across the country. Fifty-five of our 64 counties in Colorado qualify for payment in lieu of taxes funding. Those counties qualify because there are Federal lands within those counties.

Those lands are an important part of the character and heritage of the West. But because Federal lands are not subject to local property taxes, they do not support essential services such as schools, roads, teacher hires, our firefighters, and our police.

I want to give you an example of what I am talking about.

Ouray County is in the southwestern portion of Colorado in the San Juan Mountains. It is home to about 4,400 people. Over half that county is public land, and half of the local school kids are already on free or reduced-price lunch programs. That county's budget is picked to the bone. Without $400,000 in PILT funds, Ouray County will not be able to maintain local roads or provide other basic services that residents there depend on.

Those funds may seem small by the standards here in Washington, DC, but they are indispensable for the rural communities in my home State of Colorado and across the West. That is why this week I introduced a bill that would fully fund PILT, and I am really pleased Senator Heller from Nevada has joined me. That fully funded PILT approach would give our rural communities certainty when it comes to their budgets and their futures. This is a commonsense approach. Let us pass it without delay. I am going to continue to work with all of my colleagues who support the PILT Program to ensure that we do the right thing.

I want to take a minute to speak to my county commissioners all over Colorado from those 55 counties I mentioned. I know you are wondering how you are going to keep critical public services going over this next year. To you I want to make this pledge: I will fight doggedly, I will fight every way possible, to make sure you have those PILT funds to which you are entitled and you need to make sure your communities are secure, are safe, and are preparing for the future.

I want to conclude by saying, again, I intend to vote for this bill, in part because of the critical functions across our government that it supports and because, as the Senator from Alabama mentioned just a while ago, it avoids another costly and unnecessary government shutdown. But I do raise some concerns. I know we will tend to the unfinished business that I mentioned. I am going to continue working with everybody on both sides of the aisle. I am going to keep fighting for the great State of Colorado in the process. We will do our part to be a great State in the United States of America.

I appreciate the Presiding Officer's attention. I appreciate the Presiding Office's service.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to welcome the final passage of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act-- frequently referred to as the NDAA. I would like to thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe, as well as Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith in the House of Representatives, for their tireless and collaborative efforts in securing this critical piece of legislation. Although the NDAA did not go through the optimal amendment process, its passage today extends the necessary authorities to implement our national security strategy and support and protect Colorado's military community. As we head into the second session of the 113th Congress, I hope that we will remain mindful of the importance of a full and robust debate and ensure that the 2015 NDAA is open to amendments on the floor of the Senate.

As the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I also want to thank my friend and colleague on the committee, Ranking Member Sessions. Senator Sessions has a long tenure on the subcommittee, and I have benefited from his experience. I am grateful for the collegiality he has shown over the past year, and I look forward to starting our work together again in the next session.

I would also like to recognize the staff of the subcommittee for their tremendous support and dedication. For Senator Sessions and his subcommittee staff, I want to thank Dr. Robert Soofer, who advises on nuclear and missile defense matters, and Daniel Lerner, who advises on space, intelligence and cyber security. I also want to thank both Pete Landrum, Senator Sessions' senior defense policy adviser and Casey Howard, my military legislative assistant. On my subcommittee staff, Jonathan Epstein, deserves great credit for his work on nuclear weapons, space, and a host of other issues. Richard Fieldhouse, who advises on missile defense, and Kirk McConnell, who assists me on cyber and intelligence, also have my thanks and respect. Finally, special thanks to Lauren Gillis, the subcommittee's staff assistant, for her countless hours of preparation for our hearings, working with witnesses, and organizing our subcommittee markup.

In closing, I would like to highlight one provision of the 2014 NDAA, section 3112, which establishes an Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation in the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA. I want to be clear that the establishment of this new office was not meant to in any way alter the responsibilities and oversight of the Naval Reactors Program--a division of the NNSA that has a long track record of producing high quality projects on time and within budget. The Naval Reactors Program has traditionally been semi-independent within the NNSA, being dual hatted with fleet activities of the Navy, whose overall responsibilities are found and carried out under Executive Order No. 12344. While section 3112 speaks to the NNSA as a whole, it was not our intent to include the Naval Reactors Program under the purview of the new Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation. During the next session, I will work with my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to correct this provision and reflect that intent.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember an extraordinary journalist and Coloradan, Charlie Roos. Charlie was a journalist and editorialist for some 60 years at the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News. He was a man of exceptional character, strong opinions and great wit--in short, he was a true Westerner. His writing was fair and objective, and he sought to hold all public officials accountable, no matter their political affiliations. This made his politics difficult to pigeonhole; he favored good governance and public service over partisanship.

Charlie grew up in Hiawatha, KS, and served our country during World War II. Following the war he went to Kansas University and graduated with Phi Beta Kappa honors. In 1946, his beloved wife Liza and daughter Mary moved with him to Denver where Charlie began his journalism career with the Denver Post. After many years covering State and national politics for the Post, he moved to the Rocky Mountain News where he remained until its closing in 2009. At the Rocky, Charlie served multiple roles including as a Washington, D.C., correspondent, political editor and weekly columnist. He continued to write about local and national politics on a personal blog until his death on August 27 of this year.

He is survived by a daughter, Mary Roos Catton; sons, Billy and Bob Roos; grandchildren, Jane Johnson, Megan Feltes, Jasmine Hartman and Charlie Roos; and great grandchildren, Jordan and Mason Johnson; Samantha, Kyle and Asher Hartman; and Joe and Naomi Roos.

Charlie was a loyal and devoted husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. He was also a dedicated journalist, with a passion for reporting and telling the truth to the people of

Colorado. Charlie loved politics, and he believed in a higher standard for those who hold the public's trust. His writing was steeped in the history of Colorado and the Nation, which helped make his columns touchstones in our political dialogue. Like many in this country, he was disappointed in recent years at the vitriol and extremism that has crept into our debates. He bemoaned the decline of respectful opposition. Colorado lost a wise voice with the passing of Charlie Roos. Many, including myself, lost a mentor. But we should use his example to remind ourselves that the American people deserve the best that we can give. Our actions will always be measured against the high bar he set.

I ask that my colleagues join me in remembering Charlie Roos for his passion for reporting, his political wisdom and his dedication to Colorado. He will be missed.

Mr. President, I rise today and associate myself with the remarks of my colleague Senator Shaheen that she delivered earlier today. She is a fierce supporter of our men and women in uniform, both when they serve our Nation and when they retire or leave the military. I am an original cosponsor of her Military Retirement Restoration Act, and I am also supportive of passing a bipartisan budget deal that prevents our government from shutting down and prevents our defense budget from being slashed.

The American people have made it crystal clear that they are tired of gridlock here in Washington, they are tired of partisan bickering, they are tired of the fact that it has led us to sequestration and the kind of crisis budgeting that has prevented us from getting our fiscal house in order.

Like every one of us, I do not support every provision in the bipartisan budget agreement, but I want to give great credit to Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan for their willingness to sit down together and negotiate in good faith and come up with a deal that moves our country forward. Let me make it clear that the budget compromise is not perfect, but it is far better than the alternative. Let's be clear what the alternative is: A $20 billion sequester cut for the Department of Defense on January 15 and a much higher likelihood of a government shutdown. Our country simply cannot afford more ideological standoffs that lead nowhere. Our men and women in uniform and our national security cannot afford to see those catastrophic cuts.

Like many of my colleagues, I believe we should find an alternative to the decreases in the cost-of-living adjustments for working age military retirees. That is why I am proud to cosponsor Senator Shaheen's legislation which would do just that. I am committed to work with Senator Levin and my other colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to continue to find additional ways to protect the retirement that our retirees and their families have earned. These proposed changes do not go into effect until 2015 and that gives us some room and some time to get together to work on addressing these areas where this bipartisan budget agreement falls short.

This is an important agreement. It is important to the Defense Department and to other programs like Head Start and Meals On Wheels that affect Coloradans every day. It will mean more resources for housing and economic development programs, for roads, small airports, and transit systems, for first responders and those who fight wildfires. The list goes on. This agreement provides predictability for the individuals and organizations, cities and businesses in Colorado that need to know what to expect from the Federal Government.

It does all of this while providing for a net reduction in the deficit, something we all know must be achieved more often. For all those reasons I support the partisan budget package and urge my colleagues to join me and continue to find ways to keep faith with our military retirees and their families. If you think about what we are doing with the bipartisan budget agreement, we are creating more certainty for our economy.

Production Tax Credit

Mr. President, I want to take a few additional minutes to talk about a driving force in our economy that is creating good-paying American jobs, and that is our manufacturing sector.

The manufacturing sector right now supports about 17 million jobs in the United States. Those jobs are the backbone of a strong, thriving middle class, and they prove that it is still possible to make it in America. In Colorado, our manufacturers literally have the wind at their backs. I say that because our wind energy industry is not only a critical part of Colorado's manufacturing sector, but it is also an essential component of our made-in-America strategy for energy independence. That is why I am proud to have successfully fought to ensure that the manufacturers who power our wind energy industry have the policies they need to create jobs and thrive.

These policies support American workers, and they ensure that we are giving a leg up to all sources of American-grown energy. I have been proud to lead these efforts here in the Congress, including when I delivered 27 speeches on the Senate floor last year that culminated in the extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind.

Wind energy, which is enabled by the PTC, supports thousands of manufacturing jobs across this country, and that is because building a wind turbine takes a heck of a lot of work, involving everyone from steelworkers to electricians to computer engineers. These are good- paying middle-class jobs that help grow our economy from the middle out. These are jobs that are not only not being offshored, they cannot be offshored. They are staying here, in Colorado and across our great Nation.

To prove that point, just look at this map of wind manufacturing facilities across the United States. There are more than 550 manufacturing facilities in every region of the country, spread across 44 States involved in the wind industry.

I am making sure the Presiding Officer's state is represented and I think it is--the great State of Delaware.

Here are some of the concerns all across our country. We have ZF Wind, which is a gearbox manufacturing plant in Georgia. TPI Composites is a turbine plant in Rhode Island. We have the Molded Fiber Glass blade plant in Texas, and I have to return to Colorado, where we have Vestas in my home State. They have a tower facility, among others. This all adds up to a wind industry that supports thousands of good-paying American jobs.

This job-creating industry is taking off, and it could not have come at a better time for our manufacturing base, which, after a lot of tough years in the wake of the recession, is ready for resurgence in a big way.

A lot of other companies and sectors are outsourcing American jobs. While that has been happening, the wind industry is cutting against the grain and creating good-paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States. In fact, more than 50 new manufacturing facilities entered the wind energy market in

the last 2 years alone. That is an impressive statistic. It is an accomplishment of which we should all be proud.

The success of the wind industry is having positive ripple effects on other areas of American manufacturing, and that is because the industry is not only growing, it is doing so while also increasing its use of American-made components.

This chart clearly makes my point. In 2007, 25 percent of all wind turbines included American-made parts. In 2012, as we can see, that number increased to more than 70 percent, and it is one of the main reasons for the dramatic increase of manufacturing facilities across our country that support this wind energy industry.

This is not just about the manifestations of the wind energy world that we think about in blades and towers. It is about gears, nuts, bolts, and all the other made-in-America components that are now helping to power our renewable energy future.

There are some worrying storm clouds on the horizon because despite all of this progress and despite all of the American jobs that are supported by this innovative industry, we are truly, again, at a crossroads for wind energy. The PTC, which I have championed, and others have joined me in this Chamber, has helped keep our American manufacturing sector strong, but once again it is going to expire in 20 days. Previously, I joined many of my colleagues on both sides of aisle--including Senator Chuck Grassley, the father of the PTC--to extend this tax credit. Now, with the clock ticking, we need to step up and give this industry the long-term certainty it needs to keep creating jobs and working toward true energy independence.

In our pursuit of a balanced approach to energy security, we have supported domestic energy production across the board.

I see my good friend from Oklahoma Senator Coburn is here.

We need an ``all of the above'' approach. If we let the wind PTC expire, we will put one of the cleanest sources of American-made energy at a competitive disadvantage relative to traditional energy sources, and that is because even if the production tax credit for wind expires, tax credits will continue for traditional sources of energy, such as oil and gas.

We have a choice to make: Will we act to preserve American manufacturing jobs and support domestically produced clean energy or will we choose to do nothing and let other countries claim our manufacturing jobs and the leadership of the new energy economy?

These are not trivial questions. Allowing the wind PTC to expire will cost thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in investment. All we have to do is look at what happened to wind capacity installation over the past 15 years when the PTC has expired. Every time it expires or comes close to expiring, wind installation stalls and American jobs are lost. We see that pattern on this chart. In the year 2000 it opened, and in 2002, 2004, and now potentially again in 2013 it will expire.

In my home State, one cannot talk about manufacturing without talking about the wind industry. Wind manufacturing employs about 1,500 people in Colorado today and supports about 5,000 jobs statewide. As I alluded to earlier, we are home to several manufacturing jobs, including a tower facility, two blade plants, and a nacelle facility, which are all operated by the great Vestas company.

Last year, due to the lack of certainty about the PTC, no new orders were placed for wind turbines, and Vestas was forced to let go over 600 employees in Colorado alone. That hurt cities such as Pueblo and Brighton, whose local economies have significantly benefited from the manufacturing jobs the wind PTC supports.

After my effort and the effort of others to extend the PTC last year, orders started to flow again and Vestas is again hiring workers to meet the market demand. That is good for Colorado. These are jobs with good benefits.

What concerns me--and I know it concerns Vestas and other Colorado- based companies--is that these jobs can vanish if we don't act. That is what this is all about. These jobs can vanish if we don't act. So I am back here and renewing my call from last year. We should act now to extend the wind production tax credit or we risk losing this industry and the manufacturing jobs it creates to our competitors. Where are those competitors? They are in China, Europe, and elsewhere all over the globe. That is the last thing our economy needs.

The men and women employed in manufacturing facilities across the country are calling on us again in Congress to act. Let's heed their call. Let's act now. The PTC equals jobs. Let's pass it as soon as possible. Let's save these American jobs by extending the production tax credit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Wyden for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, to start, I would like to pay tribute to my two colleagues, Senator Casey and Senator Ayotte, for their focus on human rights and particularly the rights of women wherever those women may live.

I rise tonight to talk about the rights that are enshrined in our Bill of Rights. To that particular key concern of Americans, I wish to talk about the importance of reforming our domestic surveillance laws.

As Senator Wyden and I both enter this discussion, we have one general goal in mind; that is, to find a proper balance between keeping our Nation safe from terrorism and still protecting our cherished constitutional rights.

Senator Wyden and I are both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We have argued for years that the government's domestic surveillance authorities need to be narrowed, and we are going to keep leading this fight in the days, weeks, and months to come. As part of this ongoing effort, we recently introduced comprehensive bipartisan legislation that would end the NSA's selection of millions of innocent Americans' private phone records, shield Americans from warrantless searches of their communications, and install a constitutional advocate at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

We believe that overly intrusive domestic surveillance programs, misleading statements made by senior intelligence officials, and revelations about how secret courts have handed down secret rulings on secret law have eroded the trust and confidence of the American people. Simply put, we need to restore this trust, and the best way to do that is to carve out time and hold a vigorous and substantive debate here on the Senate floor--a debate the American people have demanded and deserve.

Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced his own comprehensive reform proposal last month with Representative Sensenbrenner. Representative Sensenbrenner is a key figure because he was the original author of the PATRIOT Act. He has had concerns. He has joined forces with Senator Leahy. This bipartisan plan, the Leahy- Sensenbrenner plan, includes many of the proposals Senator Wyden and I have long called for, and we are proud to support this effort.

Let me be clear. This issue is not going away. It will not go away because more and more Americans and more and more of our colleagues are coming to understand the true overreach of our Nation's surveillance programs and the effect on American privacy. This issue is not going to go away because we are not going to stop shining a light on the potential for future abuse that comes with our government's secret interpretation of its authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I truly believe that ultimately our efforts--the efforts of Senator Wyden, Chairman Leahy, Representative Sensenbrenner, Senator Paul, Senator Blumenthal, the Presiding Officer, myself, and a growing number of others--will lead to a majority of this Congress acting in commonsense ways to protect the privacy of Americans.

We are here today on the floor in the midst of consideration of a very critical piece of legislation for our national security and for the well-being of our men and women in uniform, the Defense Authorization Act. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have the great privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. I know as well as anyone that this is a must-pass bill. The issues we debated this week related to Guantanamo Bay and the scourge of sexual assault on our military are matters that rightfully demand significant and thoughtful time on the Senate floor. While I think Senator Wyden and I would agree that this week's debate on the National Defense Authorization Act is not the right time for a full, comprehensive debate on surveillance reform, I do believe it is the right time to begin that conversation.

Senator Wyden has introduced a smart pro-transparency, pro- accountability amendment, and that amendment is the right place to start. His amendment is based on the work we have been doing for a number of years now. That is why I am a proud cosponsor and a strong supporter.

This amendment would increase the transparency of domestic surveillance programs, and I think it should--and I

know it will--have broad support in this body. I am going to let Senator Wyden speak more extensively about our amendment, which, by the way, we have also introduced with the chair of the Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski.

Again, this is the perfect way to begin and frame what will be a more fulsome debate over the next few months. We are going to demand this debate because Coloradans, Oregonians, and Americans across our country demand that we have this debate.

With that, I turn to my friend and colleague Senator Wyden for his thoughts.

I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership and for taking the time to join me on the floor. As the Senator pointed out, we have a broad coalition across both parties and across the political spectrum.

We also acknowledge that passing the Defense Authorization Act is crucial. We have to keep our military strong in the face of limited resources and a security environment that is rapidly changing. That is why we are not offering a comprehensive bill today. But we will be back. We want to have a fulsome debate. This is a matter my constituents have demanded that we address, and we are going to work to make this happen.

I ask my colleague for any further thoughts he might have on this very important matter because the Bill of Rights is our biggest, baddest weapon. When we stand with the Bill of Rights, we can't go wrong.

Again, you cannot go wrong with transparency. Transparency is a central tenet of America. In that spirit, I wish to recognize the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut and Senator from Oregon, the Presiding Officer who has been engaged in this and I know the Senator from Arizona who is here is interested in these discussions as well.

I yield the floor.

I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, I rise, as the Senator from California did, in support of a tough, adaptable, and smart national security policy. What do I mean by that? In this case, that means we ought to support provisions that provide the Department of Defense and the President with the flexibility necessary to transfer certain detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo to face justice in other venues. In that context, I am proud to join Chairman Levin and Senator McCain and Senator Feinstein in sponsoring this important bipartisan amendment. For a number of reasons, I strongly believe its passage would strengthen our national security and is in the best interests of our country.

I am joined in that assessment by the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and many other senior national security leaders, including at least 38 retired generals and admirals who helped to prosecute the war against Islamic extremists.

This amendment does not close Guantanamo. It doesn't require the release of detainees into the United States or force the transfer of suspected terrorists to foreign countries. This amendment simply provides the administration with the flexibility to bring justice to Gitmo detainees in the most effective, efficient means possible.

The fact is that civilian courts have convicted over 400 suspected terrorists since 2001. The conviction rate for terrorist suspects in article III courts; that is, civilian courts, is nearly 90 percent. During the same period, a grand total of seven detainees at Guantanamo have been convicted by military commissions, and of those seven, two convictions were overturned.

There are circumstances in which military commissions are appropriate. I would agree with some of my colleagues that there are detainees held at Guantanamo who should face trial in a military commission. But the fact is that in many cases the civilian court system is faster, it is more efficient and more effective at bringing terrorists to justice than military commissions. So why would we handcuff ourselves and limit our options to bring accused terrorists to justice?

Our enemy already knows we are tough. We have pursued them all over the globe. We have eliminated their leaders and we have killed or captured many of their followers. But we can be tough and we can be smart at the same time. Handcuffing our military and Justice Department in their efforts to bring our enemies to justice is simply shortsighted and counterproductive. Doing so only impedes justice, erodes the image of the United States, and serves as a recruiting tool for a new generation of terrorists.

According to the Defense Department, we are spending about $450 million a year to keep Gitmo open. And the DOD is going to need hundreds of millions more for upgrades and repairs if the facility stays open. That situation is unsustainable, especially at a time of sequestration and rising budget deficits. Without action by Congress, those costs will continue to climb as detainees get older and sicker, and our moral standing will suffer the longer we hold people without trial.

Based on evidence, I have faith in our justice system to secure convictions in terrorist cases. We have a system of justice second to none and prisons that already hold some of the most dangerous criminals in the world. There is no question that these individuals who have been convicted and sentenced will be detained for the rest of their lives with no risk to our citizens.

We have proven it time and time again. As a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I receive frequent briefings and reports on our counterterrorism efforts around the world. I know this: I know this amendment will let us continue to prove it again and again in the future.

In sum, the Levin-McCain-Feinstein-Udall amendment benefits our national security and should be passed by the Senate without delay.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the four national winners of the U.S. Professors of the Year Award. Since 1981 this program has recognized outstanding undergraduate instructors throughout the country. In addition to the national winners, a State Professor of the Year was also recognized in 36 States. This year, I am very proud to say that Colorado has the exceptional distinction of being home to two of the four national winners: Ann Williams at the Metropolitan State University of Denver and Steven Pollock at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

While the prestigious Professor of the Year Awards recognizes professors from diverse institutions and fields of study, this year's honorees all share a strong commitment to the art of teaching and to their students. Recipients are proven innovators who drive their fields and their colleagues forward, through both their energy and their enthusiasm. These educators are shaping

the next generation of American leaders and should be recognized for the critical role they play in moving our country forward.

I am especially proud to celebrate the two national winners from my State of Colorado. Ann Williams is a Professor of French at Metropolitan State University and is being recognized as the Outstanding Baccalaureate College Professor of the Year. The judges noted her inspirational and innovative teaching of the French language and the cultures of French-speaking countries. She has served her campus community through leadership in her department and institution, her State through participation with a task force on academic standards, and her profession as an author and presenter on pedagogical issues, a textbook writer, a consultant to the Advanced Placement Program, and winner of an award for one of the 10 best practices courses in the country.

Steven Pollock, Professor of Physics at CU-Boulder, has been chosen as the Outstanding Doctoral and Research Universities Professor of the Year. He brings an enthusiasm to his research that stirs excitement for learning in both his undergraduate and graduate students. His innovative methods of teaching and student assessment have been widely adopted through materials he makes publically available, and he has further offered his time to help others integrate them in their courses, fields, and institutional settings. He is also the developer of the highly regarded Student Learning Assistant Program, a mentor to undergraduate physics majors, and author of two popular Learning Company video courses on physics.

Our success as a nation is in no small part due to the leadership and passion of professors like Ann Williams and Steven Pollock. These educators know that focusing on student achievement is critical to fostering the innovation and creativity necessary to make Colorado and our Nation a leader in 21st-century job creation. I wish all the winners the very best in their endeavors. Congratulations and best regards.

The four national award winners are:

Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges Professor of the Year: Ann Williams, Professor of French, Metropolitan State University of Denver

Outstanding Community Colleges Professor of the Year: Robert Chaney, Professor of Mathematics, Sinclair Community College

Outstanding Doctoral and Research Universities Professor of the Year: Steven Pollock, Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder

Outstanding Master's Universities and Colleges Professor of the Year: Gintaras Duda, Associate Professor, Creighton University

The 36 State winners are

Alabama: Laura Stultz, Professor of Chemistry, Birmingham-Southern College.

Arizona: Amber Wutich, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Arizona State University.

California: Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar, Professor of Political Science and Middle East Studies; Chair, Political Science and Economics Department, Santa Barbara City College.

Connecticut: Michelle Loris, Professor of English and Psychology, Sacred Heart University.

Delaware: Harold Bancroft White, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Delaware.

Florida: Thomas Moore, Archibald Granville Bush Professor of Natural Science and Professor of Physics, Rollins College.

Georgia: Mulatu Lemma, Chair of Department of Mathematics, Savannah State University.

Illinois: Jeffrey Boshart, Professor of Art Foundations/Sculpture, Eastern Illinois University.

Indiana: Robert Palumbo, Alfred W. Sieving Chair of Engineering and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Valparaiso University.

Iowa: Paul Kimball, Science Professor, Northeast Iowa Community College.

Kansas: Gregory Eiselein, Professor of English, Kansas State University.

Kentucky: Mark Lucas, Jobson Professor of English, Centre College.

Maryland: Gregory Wahl, Associate Professor, Department of English, Montgomery College.

Massachusetts: Susan Rodgers, Professor of Anthropology and W. Arthur Garrity Sr. Professor, College of the Holy Cross.

Michigan: Steve Wolfinbarger, Professor of Music (Trombone), Western Michigan University.

Minnesota: Brian Wisenden, Professor of Biology, Minnesota State University Moorhead.

Mississippi: William Kelleher Storey, Professor of History, Millsaps College.

Missouri: Terrence Freeman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley.

Montana: Sara Mae Glasgow, Professor of Political Science, University of Montana Western.

Nebraska: Matthew Huss, Professor of Psychology, Creighton University.

New Hampshire: Vicki May, Instructional Associate Professor of Engineering, Dartmouth College.

New Jersey: Linda Wang, Professor, Math Department, Brookdale Community College.

New York: Curt Stager, Professor of Natural Sciences, Paul Smith's College.

North Carolina: Christopher Cooper, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs, Western Carolina University.

Ohio: John Ritter, Professor of Geology and Director of Environmental Science, Wittenberg University.

Oklahoma: Mary Phillips, Associate Professor of Biology, Tulsa Community College.

Oregon: Sammy Basu, Professor of Politics, Willamette University.

Pennsylvania: David Bartholomae, Professor of English and Charles Crow Chair, University of Pittsburgh.

Rhode Island: Cheryl Foster, Professor of Philosophy, University of Rhode Island.

South Carolina: Joe Dunn, Charles A. Dana Professor and Chair, Department of History and Politics, Converse College.

South Dakota: James D. Feiszli, Professor of Humanities and Director of Music Activities, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.

Texas: Ceilidh Charleson-Jennings, Professor of Communication Studies, Collin College.

Utah: Joyce Kinkead, Professor of English, Utah State University.

Virginia: Scott Boltwood, Professor of English and Drama; Chair, English Department, Emory and Henry College.

Washington: Scott Linneman, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University.

Wisconsin: Victor Macias-Gonzalez, Professor of History and Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

Madam President, due to unexpected family commitments, I was unable to cast a vote relative to rollcall vote No. 204 on the nomination of Todd Hughes to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on his nomination.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 5 minutes.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words today in support of my fellow Coloradan, Katherine Archuleta, and her nomination to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management. I have known her for years and have tremendous respect for her. She has given much of her life to public service, and her dedication to her community, her State, and her country is a testament to her character. I am very confident that she will be a steady hand at the helm of OPM. I urge all my colleagues to support her confirmation.

Not everyone watching may be familiar with the Office of Personnel Management, but it is an important agency. Let me talk about Colorado in that context. Thousands of Federal employees are in Colorado, including those who are helping to rebuild our State in the wake of September's tragic flooding count on OPM. It is a critical part of the integrity and strength of the entire Federal workforce. It is responsible, among other duties, for employee recruitment and employee retention and for managing Federal benefit and retirement programs.

We all expect Federal agencies and departments to function effectively and efficiently for our constituents. As someone who ran a nonprofit in Colorado for 10 years, I know the importance of maintaining a talented and motivated workforce. Strong workforce management leads directly to better work, better service, and better outcomes, which is why it is so important to have someone leading OPM who is an advocate for Federal employees and also a strong manager with high expectations.

Again, that is why I stand here this morning. I believe Katherine will be this type of leader. She has years of high-level management experience. She is sharp, hard working, and she is dedicated to the goal of making government work as effectively and efficiently as possible.

She has an impressive resume, as I noted at her hearing when I had an opportunity to introduce her. She has local and State-level experience. She served senior roles in two Denver mayoral administrations as well as extensive experience here in Washington serving as the chief of staff to the former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena in the 1990s, and more recently to U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.

In between her years of public service in Denver and also in Washington, Katherine consulted with charities, nonprofits, cities, regional governments, and businesses to help them pursue community development, workplace diversity, and crisis management strategies.

If you look for a common thread throughout Katherine's career, it is her capacity and talent to work with individuals and organizations, identify priorities, and then, notably, to create the conditions for successful implementation of those priorities. That is what we need at the helm of OPM. It is what Americans expect and demand.

As we look at Katherine's career, she has demonstrated an ability to lead, to motivate, and to work constructively with a diverse range of people and personalities. She is a true westerner. She has personal integrity. She has a strong sense of right and wrong, she has obvious pride in the work she does, and that makes her a topnotch choice to lead our Federal workforce.

For all those reasons, I am honored to speak in support of Katherine Archuleta's nomination, and hopefully we will confirm her quickly. She is eminently qualified for this position, and she deserves an up-or- down vote as soon as possible.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, at 11 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Achieving the Potential.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, at 9:15 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, at 2 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Jobs Act at a Year and a Half: Assessing Progress and Unmet Opportunities.''

Madam President, for nearly 2 weeks I have watched the debate on the Senate floor as well as on the House floor, and I have become more and more frustrated. My frustration is, in part--I would say in large part--driven by the contrast to what I see going on in my home State of Colorado.

During the past several weeks, Coloradans have come together in the wake of Biblical rains and beyond devastating flooding to begin the long process of rebuilding our State better and stronger. We in the West--and I think I can say we as Americans--are rugged cooperators. Sure, we are each strong individuals--and that is a strong point of view in the West; it is the core of who we are, that we are strong as individuals--but we know we are best when we band together, despite any political or philosophical differences, to face our shared challenges. I am doing my level best to bring that spirit to Washington, DC, especially now in this time of shutdowns and ultimatums and ideology that doesn't make sense to the people I represent in Colorado. I invite all of my colleagues to come to Colorado to see the collaborations occurring in these flood-ravaged communities such as Jamestown, Lyons and Estes Park and Fort Morgan. There are no games. There is no posturing. There is no politics. There is just a doggedness to make their communities better. I surely hope the strength and the focus of Coloradans could be an inspiration to all of us as we tackle what are very pressing policy issues.

On that note, I wish to speak about one of my constituents, someone I work for--Jeff. He is a Federal employee. He demonstrates the resilience, to me, of the people of Colorado. But his situation also typifies the worst of what this shutdown and this brinkmanship is doing to the real people, the good people of my State of Colorado.

Jeff is a Federal employee. He was trapped for 3 days in last month's flood. That flood cost him almost everything. He has very few possessions

left. Once he was free, he went immediately back to his day job. He was working for an agency that is integral to the flood disaster response. What happened? The government closed. So now he rents out an apartment. His home is inaccessible, literally, due to the flooding. He doesn't have a paycheck and he is being told he is not essential and he shouldn't come in to work.

There are a lot of reactions I have to that. There are a lot of reactions anybody who is paying attention would have to that. One is that now there is one less pair of boots on the ground helping with the flood response efforts in Colorado.

To a certain extent, politics is about finding the right strategy to advocate for what a person believes is right. But what is going on right now is shameful. What is happening to Jeff is flatout shameful.

What we are seeing is one faction of one party, in one Chamber, in one branch of government, holding this Nation's health, economy, and security hostage and, in the process, causing the Federal Government to shut down and threatening a government default on our obligations. By doing so, these individuals are holding our flood recovery hostage. It makes no sense.

I guess you have to ask yourself why. Why would a small group, a faction, be doing this? It strikes me that in part they are doing it because they are obsessed with undermining a law that is providing affordable health care to Americans, some for the first time in their lives, a law that is saving seniors hundreds of dollars a year on prescription drugs and is leveling the playing field when it comes to providing health care and putting consumers back in charge of their own health care.

I want to make this clear: After having legally passed both Houses of Congress, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, and then serving as a referendum in the just concluded campaign that overwhelmingly reelected President Obama, the Affordable Care Act is settled law. Let me say that again. The Affordable Care Act is settled law.

But describing it as settled law alone I know is not enough to resolve this latest crisis. So I would like to take viewers and my colleagues back a decade when the Presiding Officer was a Member of House at that time, when President George W. Bush pushed us to pass what was an unpaid-for Medicaid prescription drug benefit.

Members of my caucus over in the House felt that this massive unpaid law was thrust upon us without due consideration and at a time when we should not be racking up further debt. Many of us on my side of the aisle were literally reeling with anger after it passed. It also passed in ways with which we disagreed, in the middle of the night, literally. The desk in the House was kept open--I think the Presiding Officer knows--for close to 4 hours to find those last votes.

I was angry. I voted against that Medicare prescription drug benefit. I am sure I was as angry as some of my colleagues were when the Affordable Care Act passed over 3 years ago.

So what did I do? I took a lot of deep breaths. I listened to the counsel of people I respect, I listened to my own counsel, and I not only decided it was settled law, but I decided to start holding townhalls and listening sessions so I could help my constituents sign up for it. I knew it was the settled law of the land, just like ObamaCare is today, and I wanted my constituents to be best served by its implementation.

So I went out and spread the word about the benefits, figured out what questions my constituents would have. I wanted them to sign up. I wanted to make it a success. I wanted them to have those benefits.

So let's fast forward to today. Far from helping people, our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have relentlessly spread uncertainty about ObamaCare, attacking its implementation at every turn, and now to close down the Federal Government over their concerns about it.

We are in the 10th day of a government shutdown. Our national security has suffered. Seventy percent of the intelligence community is furloughed. We do not have enough food inspectors on the job. Our veterans are not getting the services not only that they need but that they have earned. Our national parks are closed, hurting economies like ours in Colorado. I mentioned Estes Park. Estes Park is the gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park. If Estes Park is going to recover from these devastating floods, Rocky Mountain National Park has to be open for business.

This is not how the greatest Nation in the world can go on doing business. I have said from the very beginning--I think the Presiding Officer agrees with me--the Affordable Care Act is far from perfect. No mandate law is. As with every law, it will undoubtedly need some improvements and some constructive changes during its implementation. I am committed to doing that, just like we did after President Bush moved his prescription drug law to the finish line.

In the past few days we have seen statements indicating that some Republicans are starting to understand that this partisan focus on ObamaCare is futile. So as their next step they have seized on yet another destructive tactic, manufacturing a new crisis, an even more serious, potentially devastating crisis than shutting down the government. What have they done? They are threatening the full faith and credit of the Federal Government to push their budget demands. They have threatened to force us past the deadline, which is October 17-- that is a week from today--when the United States will no longer be able to meet its financial obligations.

Grandstanding on funding the government is bad enough. If we do not agree on a way forward to reopen the government, but we also do not agree on a way to ensure that the Treasury Department does not default on our Nation's debt obligations, we will seriously damage global confidence in the United States, make no mistake. There are some voices in this building who think that will not happen. They are wrong.

If we damage the global confidence in the United States, we are going to hamper our economic recovery, we will slow job creation, and we will make borrowing costs more expensive for government and families alike. This is no way to win the global economic race in which we find ourselves. Coloradans are telling me in every way they can that they expect a lot better than this.

Ronald Reagan used to joke in only the way he could that he was not worried about the debt; it is big enough to take care of itself. But every American should worry if Congress refuses to meet the obligations we have already made.

I know many Americans are worried about our debt and our capacity to pay the bills we have incurred. I have been worried about this for a long time. I think if you would ask anybody around here, they would tell you I would vote in a minute for a sensible grand bargain. It is true. I have worked across the aisle and built a record of efforts to reduce wasteful spending and set our budget on a more sustainable footing. It should be one of our top priorities. It has to be one of our top priorities.

I have been a longtime supporter of the line-item veto. I supported the initial structure around which the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission worked. I called for an end to earmarks. I worked with Senator Coburn from Oklahoma on ending some wasteful public subsidies, including those for the political party conventions every 4 years. It is why I was the first Democrat to champion a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution in many a year. I am not the only Member, as well, of my party who has been fighting for commonsense reforms.

This is critically important work. I would love nothing more than to bring a serious deficit reduction plan to the floor and pass it along with raising our debt limit to avoid an American default.

But let me be crystal clear: To default on our debt because a grand bargain eludes us would make our debt and deficits even worse and thrust us into an economic tailspin. It is irresponsible to even suggest forcing America into default as a legitimate negotiating position.

Let's sit down and have a grownup discussion about these important issues, but not like this. Let's fund the government, let's pay our bills, and then let's sit down and negotiate again. Negotiation is good. Compromise is good. But we cannot have this important set of discussions with one party constantly threatening to shut down

the government or throw our country into default, each of which makes our deficits and debt even worse.

We have, literally, centuries of examples of a Congress collaborating, working together. We have done that for over 200 years. We can debate, we can have contentious back-and-forth, but in the end we need to compromise and agree. We need a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plan that can pass both Chambers and be signed into law.

No party gets to threaten the American economy and shut down the government when they do not get their way. No party gets to jeopardize middle-class families' 401(k)s or senior citizens' retirement savings or set our economic recovery back just because their positions are not strong enough to prevail on their own.

That just is not the way to address our Nation's shared problems. And trust me, our debt and deficits are a shared problem. We can do better.

I want to begin to conclude by again referring to the Coloradans I am so fortunate to represent, just like the Presiding Officer, I know, is honored to represent the good people of Wisconsin. Coloradans have shown the true strength of our State in the wake of this tragic flooding that literally has wiped communities off the map and destroyed thousands of homes. If we could have done anything to prevent that natural disaster, we would have.

We now face a potential manmade disaster. We have to protect Americans from a looming manmade disaster that is emerging right here. We have to bridge the partisan divide. We have to end this government shutdown. We have to stave off an American default. We have to pay our bills. We could do this today if Speaker Boehner would just allow the House to vote on a clean funding resolution that we have already sent to the House, with the House numbers in it, by the way. So let's just see a vote in the House. The continuing resolution would pass in the House today with Republican and Democratic votes.

So let's just vote. Let's hold the vote. The Presiding Officer and I served in the House. When we were eager to go to work we would shout: Vote, vote, vote; work, work, work. It is time for the House to go to work. Let's vote to end this debt ceiling crisis and make sure our Nation pays the debts it has already incurred.

These are the basic functions of Congress. If we fail to act, history will never forgive us--any of us.

I yield the floor.