Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support legislation I am introducing today to name the Veterans Telehealth Clinic in Craig, Colorado, after Medal of Honor recipient Major William E. Adams. I am pleased that Senator Bennet will join with me in introducing this bill.

Our bill isn't the first effort to honor Major Adams. My good friend Congressman John Salazar introduced this legislation last year in the House of Representatives with the support of the entire Colorado delegation. I would like to see this bill through to passage in this Congress in part to honor John and his efforts to commemorate the heroism of Major Adams and to get the VA clinic established in northwest Colorado.

I'd also like to honor Larry Neu, a local business owner and Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4265 quartermaster, who has been the architect of efforts to commemorate Major Adams. With Larry's leadership and the help of other Craig residents, the Colorado state legislature passed a resolution renaming part of Colorado Highway 13 the ``Maj. William Adams Medal of Honor Highway.'' I know he worked closely with Congressman Salazar in the last Congress to develop the legislation I am introducing today.

Above all, this bill is intended to honor Major William Adams himself and his ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.''

A resident of Craig, Major Adams served and lost his life in the Vietnam War. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, after distinguishing himself while serving as an Army helicopter pilot. In May 1971, he volunteered to fly a lightly armed helicopter in an attempt to evacuate three seriously wounded soldiers from a small base that was under attack. He made the decision with full knowledge that numerous antiaircraft weapons were positioned around the base and that the clear weather would make him visible to enemy gunners. As he approached the base, the enemy gunners opened fire, but he continued his approach, directing the attacks of supporting gunships while maintaining control of the helicopter he was flying. He picked up the wounded soldiers, but his aircraft was then struck and damaged by enemy anti-aircraft fire and crashed.

I was pleased to learn that many of his family members attended the ceremony in November dedicating part of Colorado Highway 13 to Major Adams. I want to pay tribute today to his wife Sandra and his daughter Jean, both Colorado residents, and his son, Col. John Adams, an intelligence officer in the Marine Corps, recently back from Afghanistan. I hope this bill serves to reinforce what they already know--that Major Adams is a real hero to this county, to Colorado and to Craig. He is part of a special class of American heroes who will forever be remembered for their service and sacrifice. His story will continue inspiring generations to come, while reminding us all about the contributions and sacrifices of America's greatest.

I have introduced this legislation not only to recognize the sacrifice of Major Adams, but also to recognize the service of our Vietnam veterans and especially all veterans in Northwest Colorado. The Telehealth Clinic in Craig is on track to have nearly 1700 visits from area veterans this year, and I will always fight to make sure our veterans get the health care they earned and deserve.

As Larry Neu said about Major Adams, ``The man made the ultimate sacrifice for his country--he should not be forgotten.'' Passage of this bill will help us remember Major Adams and so many other brave veterans who have sacrificed their lives for our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to continue to support our dedicated men and women in uniform.

Mr. President, fighting fires is very serious business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire, near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over 6,000 acres.

We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who serve them.

One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire District owns the land under two of its three fire stations.

The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training. The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns, an undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire threats.

The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service.

However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation.

To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress.

Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District.

The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly.

This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it deserves to be recognized and protected.

This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.

In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.

Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale.

In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork.

Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on the Senate floor.

Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more success in passing this legislation in this Congress.

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

Mr. President, fighting fires is very serious business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire, near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over 6,000 acres.

We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who serve them.

One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire District owns the land under two of its three fire stations.

The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training. The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns, an undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire threats.

The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service.

However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation.

To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress.

Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District.

The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly.

This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it deserves to be recognized and protected.

This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.

In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.

Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale.

In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork.

Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on the Senate floor.

Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more success in passing this legislation in this Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise in celebration of Black History Month and to acknowledge the unique contributions of Colorado's African-American communities to my home State and our Nation.

The history of Colorado's African-American communities is long, rich and diverse; it spans from our earliest days as a territory to modern times. I think it safe to say that all Coloradans have benefited tremendously from African-American communities' hard work and dedication to continuously making Colorado a better place to live.

Last year in my remarks on Black History Month, I made special note of the diversity of settlers who moved west during the expansion of the United States. Like other settlers, African Americans moved west in search of new opportunity--some to be free, others to become entrepreneurs, traders, and leaders, but all played an active role in the formation of Colorado as a territory and then a State.

A watercolor painting hangs in my Senate office to remind me of the early

presence of African-American westerners. The painting ``One of the First'' by noted African-American artist and Coloradan James Wider depicts a Buffalo soldier during a snowstorm, reminiscent of a time of great hardship in our State's early history. For me, this image portrays the struggles and determination of all the people who shaped the West we know today. I am appreciative to the artist, as well as Dr. Anthony Young, the vice chairman of the Black American West Museum & Heritage Center, for allowing me the privilege to temporarily hang the painting in my office.

While this painting highlights the early presence of African- Americans in the West, it also reminds me of the countless individuals in Colorado's Black community who have served and continue to serve their communities, our State and our Nation in more contemporary times. I would like to highlight two Coloradans who reflect this influence: Dr. Evie Dennis and Rev. Milton Proby.

Dr. Evie Dennis rose in her career as a teacher to become the superintendent of Denver public schools from 1990 to 1994, when she worked to improve the education of all of Denver's schoolchildren. In 2008, Dr. Dennis was inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame, and she continues to work in support of communities across the State.

Rev. Milton Proby was a prominent figure during his 47 years in southern Colorado, where he proudly faced adversity in championing against inequality and injustice. The reverend served under three Colorado Governors and helped to establish Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, among many other notable achievements and awards.

People like Dr. Dennis and Reverend Proby have overcome struggle to serve--and lead--our State. Their contributions remind us of how vital African-American communities have been to our State's history, and I have no doubt that the same communities will continue to be a driving force toward a better future.

Mr. President, Black History Month is a time for all Coloradans and Americans to reflect on the contributions of African Americans to our State and throughout our great Nation. I encourage my fellow Coloradans to celebrate these contributions not only during this month but throughout the entire year.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in introducing legislation today that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

The idea of requiring a balanced Federal budget seems like common sense to most American families, who have to balance their own checkbooks. And in these hard times, they wonder why the Federal Government doesn't have to do the same. In fact, the United States has only balanced its budget 5 times in the last 50 years. We heard the Senator from Alabama point out the Federal budget balanced only twice in our history.

The budgets of nations are not the same as family budgets. Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we have known that national emergencies sometimes require deficit spending. But we are fast approaching a tipping point where our debt threatens this economic orthodoxy. We are approaching a tipping point where an unprecedented level of debt--and our institutional failure to address it--risks our national security. We need to take action now to turn around our fiscal situation.

By restoring responsible spending through a reasonable balanced budget amendment, we can begin climbing out of our economic hole, and, perhaps just as important, this amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. That is a signal I believe we need to send now.

Before going further, I want to recognize the obvious--that there is a wide range of strong opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Tinkering with the Constitution is not something any of us takes lightly, and this amendment is certainly no exception.

I myself have had doubts in the past about similar legislation. During the

Clinton years, our government ran a surplus, and there was no pressing need for such a requirement. When we started running deficits again, part of me hoped we could use other tools at our disposal to get our Nation back on a financially sound path.

Additionally, Members of my party raised--and continue to raise-- credible arguments about why a balanced budget amendment could actually hurt our economy in some circumstances. Some of them believe it is nothing more than a rhetorical tool designed only to make a political statement and move us inevitably toward smaller government.

The recent history of the balanced budget amendment is a partisan one. Of the five proposals that were introduced last Congress, none had a Democratic cosponsor--largely because of, in my opinion, extraneous provisions that manipulated the budget in one way or another to protect favored tax breaks or certain spending.

However, if you take a longer view into the past, it was actually progressive Democratic Senator Paul Simon--along with Senator Hatch of Utah--who led the balanced budget amendment effort that came closest to passage in 1995. They knew that if we balanced our Federal budget, we would be better able to make more intelligent choices about spending, rather than spending billions on debt service, and we would actually see family incomes rise.

Today, the dilemma we face as a result of our debt is even more extreme. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation.

Our government debt, as Senator Shelby pointed out, is now over $14 trillion. That is $45,300 for every person in this country. If we don't put limits on how we spend money, the question we face isn't whether we can make intelligent choices; it is whether we will be able to afford any of the programs that we value at all--programs we need to help propel the middle class and small business over the longer term.

What is at stake isn't just family income; it is our Nation's ability to continue to lead in the global economic race. The cochairman of President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the debt called our debt a ``cancer'' that is eating away at our economic health. That is a point I wish President Obama had made in his State of the Union Address last week when he spoke about some of the investments America needs to make to spur innovation and economic growth--education, clean energy, and infrastructure, to name a few.

He is right that without targeted investments to help hard-working Americans and businesses, the United States will be relegated to second-class status. We won't be able to compete with countries around the world or to grow jobs in America. We won't be able to unleash our innovative spirit and give our children and grandchildren their shot at the American dream.

I have also come to the conclusion that unless we put constraints on spending, Congress simply lacks the political will to make the extremely difficult decisions that will lead us out of the dire fiscal situation in which we find our Nation.

I have been fighting for many years for smart budgeting tools--the Presiding Officer has as well--including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal spending. I am also working with a group of bipartisan Senators trying to make sure the recommendations by the President's fiscal commission can get an up-or-down vote in Congress. A balanced budget amendment is one more important tool we need.

Let me say a few words about the legislation itself. Senator Shelby, to his credit, first introduced this legislation--I think I can say that it was when he was a Democrat, some 25 years ago, and he continues to reintroduce it every Congress since he became a Republican. I thank him and acknowledge his leadership.

The Shelby-Udall balanced budget amendment would create a requirement that Federal spending cannot exceed revenue and that total expenditures of the government cannot exceed 20 percent of the previous year's gross domestic product.

As Senator Shelby pointed out, this requirement wouldn't apply when the United States is at war, and it can be suspended by a supermajority, or three-fifths, vote of each House of Congress in the event certain spending is necessary to address a national emergency.

To my friends who worry that this balanced budget amendment puts our economy into an inflexible straitjacket, I say it is not true. It allows commonsense safety valves to be used for exceptional circumstances--to give the flexibility that is sometimes needed in situations that can't be predicted or planned for.

All in all, I am confident our proposed amendment provides a responsible approach to putting us on a path toward a balanced budget.

We talked a lot last week during and after the State of the Union Address about the need to work together to address our biggest challenges, not just sitting together. Today, I hope I am putting my money where my mouth is by joining my good friend from Alabama. I hope our partnership will send a signal that collaboration can help us address our most pressing national issues. The American people are demanding that of us. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. It is time for us to catch up.

I ask my colleagues of both parties in both Chambers to work with Senator Shelby and me on this idea. We may not have it perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. But it is a good start. Let's at least have an honest and spirited dialog about this legislation and ways to dig ourselves out of our economic hole. Our children's future depends on it.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in introducing legislation today that would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

The idea of requiring a balanced Federal budget seems like common sense to most American families, who have to balance their own checkbooks. And in these hard times, they wonder why the Federal Government doesn't have to do the same. In fact, the United States has only balanced its budget 5 times in the last 50 years. We heard the Senator from Alabama point out the Federal budget balanced only twice in our history.

The budgets of nations are not the same as family budgets. Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we have known that national emergencies sometimes require deficit spending. But we are fast approaching a tipping point where our debt threatens this economic orthodoxy. We are approaching a tipping point where an unprecedented level of debt--and our institutional failure to address it--risks our national security. We need to take action now to turn around our fiscal situation.

By restoring responsible spending through a reasonable balanced budget amendment, we can begin climbing out of our economic hole, and, perhaps just as important, this amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, U.S. businesses, and the American people that we are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. That is a signal I believe we need to send now.

Before going further, I want to recognize the obvious--that there is a wide range of strong opinions about the wisdom of adding a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Tinkering with the Constitution is not something any of us takes lightly, and this amendment is certainly no exception.

I myself have had doubts in the past about similar legislation. During the

Clinton years, our government ran a surplus, and there was no pressing need for such a requirement. When we started running deficits again, part of me hoped we could use other tools at our disposal to get our Nation back on a financially sound path.

Additionally, Members of my party raised--and continue to raise-- credible arguments about why a balanced budget amendment could actually hurt our economy in some circumstances. Some of them believe it is nothing more than a rhetorical tool designed only to make a political statement and move us inevitably toward smaller government.

The recent history of the balanced budget amendment is a partisan one. Of the five proposals that were introduced last Congress, none had a Democratic cosponsor--largely because of, in my opinion, extraneous provisions that manipulated the budget in one way or another to protect favored tax breaks or certain spending.

However, if you take a longer view into the past, it was actually progressive Democratic Senator Paul Simon--along with Senator Hatch of Utah--who led the balanced budget amendment effort that came closest to passage in 1995. They knew that if we balanced our Federal budget, we would be better able to make more intelligent choices about spending, rather than spending billions on debt service, and we would actually see family incomes rise.

Today, the dilemma we face as a result of our debt is even more extreme. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation.

Our government debt, as Senator Shelby pointed out, is now over $14 trillion. That is $45,300 for every person in this country. If we don't put limits on how we spend money, the question we face isn't whether we can make intelligent choices; it is whether we will be able to afford any of the programs that we value at all--programs we need to help propel the middle class and small business over the longer term.

What is at stake isn't just family income; it is our Nation's ability to continue to lead in the global economic race. The cochairman of President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the debt called our debt a ``cancer'' that is eating away at our economic health. That is a point I wish President Obama had made in his State of the Union Address last week when he spoke about some of the investments America needs to make to spur innovation and economic growth--education, clean energy, and infrastructure, to name a few.

He is right that without targeted investments to help hard-working Americans and businesses, the United States will be relegated to second-class status. We won't be able to compete with countries around the world or to grow jobs in America. We won't be able to unleash our innovative spirit and give our children and grandchildren their shot at the American dream.

I have also come to the conclusion that unless we put constraints on spending, Congress simply lacks the political will to make the extremely difficult decisions that will lead us out of the dire fiscal situation in which we find our Nation.

I have been fighting for many years for smart budgeting tools--the Presiding Officer has as well--including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal spending. I am also working with a group of bipartisan Senators trying to make sure the recommendations by the President's fiscal commission can get an up-or-down vote in Congress. A balanced budget amendment is one more important tool we need.

Let me say a few words about the legislation itself. Senator Shelby, to his credit, first introduced this legislation--I think I can say that it was when he was a Democrat, some 25 years ago, and he continues to reintroduce it every Congress since he became a Republican. I thank him and acknowledge his leadership.

The Shelby-Udall balanced budget amendment would create a requirement that Federal spending cannot exceed revenue and that total expenditures of the government cannot exceed 20 percent of the previous year's gross domestic product.

As Senator Shelby pointed out, this requirement wouldn't apply when the United States is at war, and it can be suspended by a supermajority, or three-fifths, vote of each House of Congress in the event certain spending is necessary to address a national emergency.

To my friends who worry that this balanced budget amendment puts our economy into an inflexible straitjacket, I say it is not true. It allows commonsense safety valves to be used for exceptional circumstances--to give the flexibility that is sometimes needed in situations that can't be predicted or planned for.

All in all, I am confident our proposed amendment provides a responsible approach to putting us on a path toward a balanced budget.

We talked a lot last week during and after the State of the Union Address about the need to work together to address our biggest challenges, not just sitting together. Today, I hope I am putting my money where my mouth is by joining my good friend from Alabama. I hope our partnership will send a signal that collaboration can help us address our most pressing national issues. The American people are demanding that of us. As usual, they are a few steps ahead of us. It is time for us to catch up.

I ask my colleagues of both parties in both Chambers to work with Senator Shelby and me on this idea. We may not have it perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. But it is a good start. Let's at least have an honest and spirited dialog about this legislation and ways to dig ourselves out of our economic hole. Our children's future depends on it.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a particular proposal we will consider later today, but I wish to associate myself with the Senator from Oregon, who has been tireless in pushing for commonsense reforms in the way the Senate operates.

The majority whip made the comment in his remarks before the Senator from Oregon spoke that we want to make these changes so the Senate can respond to the changing nature of the world around us and in particular focus on our economy and getting Americans back to work. If the Senate is tied in knots, we are not going to put the policies in place that these stalwart, committed Senators, including the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, so compellingly presented to us.

I know there are others who wish to speak, so I will briefly speak to the proposal I have submitted that would bring us a step closer to fixing some of the redundancy in the rules that slow down our progress here and I think ultimately make not just our constituents in our individual States frustrated but Americans all across our country. Put simply, this proposal would encourage Senators to file their amendments 72 hours in advance of a vote to ensure we all have a chance to review that amendment. But then it would also discourage the practice of delaying a final vote by calling for an out-loud reading of the amendment. I have heard concerns from Members of both parties about this particular practice. We all want to have an opportunity to read the provisions in amendments and broader bills, but it has become increasingly obvious to me that we need to make changes in our rules, as I said, to ensure the process works smoothly.

My proposal would encourage Senators to file amendments 72 hours in advance, and it would prevent any Senators from creating a logjam on the Senate floor by forcing the text of that amendment to be read aloud if it is made available in advance.

Mr. President, you and I have been around long enough to know that in the days before copy machines and the Internet, if one was serving in the Senate, it was probably helpful to sit here and hear the text of each amendment read out loud. That practice is outdated, and it is not the way the Senate operates today. Instead, our technology allows us instant access to the text of amendments, and therefore there is no crucial need to hear them read aloud at the last minute. Most of the time, in fact, we just waive the reading and move to the final vote. When a full reading, however, has been forced, it largely brings this place to a halt, as Senator Durbin pointed out earlier. The effect has been to tie the Senate in knots, and it creates a spectacle when the hard-working clerks, who are actually the people who make this Senate run, have to stand here and read amendments, sometimes for hours, to an empty Chamber. That said, there have been cases in which one party believes the text of a rather large amendment has been withheld from them in order to deny them adequate time to review it. I do not want to take that power away from the minority to reasonably voice their opinions on the floor to get the information they need, which is why my proposal is a balanced way of fixing the Senate rules.

This resolution is designed to help us find common ground and prevent needless delays by allowing us to prevent the live reading of an amendment when the text has been available long enough for everyone to have studied it in advance. Instead of allowing an individual Senator to put the Senate on hold literally for hours by forcing an amendment to be read, a simple majority of Senators would be able to collectively vote to dispense with the reading, provided that it was filed on time. This is a commonsense approach. It seeks to address the concerns of those

who want more time to read amendments and those who see the forced reading of amendments as needlessly obstructive. It is a simple approach, and I believe later today the Senate will approve such a rules change.

In ending my remarks, I wish to acknowledge the work of Chairman Schumer and Senator Alexander. There is an agreement, as I understand it, and we will vote on it later today. I applaud their work and offer my very sincere thanks.

I also acknowledge Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for helping bring this package to the floor today and for reaching their own agreement on how to improve the way the Senate works.

Finally, as I did in my beginning remarks, I wish to acknowledge Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Tom Udall, and Senator Jeff Merkley for bringing true attention to a concern so many Americans have had on this particular issue. Senator Merkley and Senator Durbin spoke to the fact that this may seem an obscure topic to many constituents. This is historic progress we are going to make today that ultimately will make the Senate function together. I know that is the mission of these three outstanding Senators.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley be listed as a cosponsor of the resolution I am offering today.

Madam President, I close on this note: I urge my colleagues to vote for the simple commonsense reform of the Senate rules.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the resolution before us, which I introduced, would encourage Senators to file their amendments 72 hours in advance of a vote to ensure that Members have time to review it, but it would also delay the practice of calling for an outloud reading of the amendment in front of us.

It addresses a concern I think we all have about the amendment process. When a full reading of the amendment has been called for, it ties our Senate into knots. It is a spectacle, with the clerks standing here reading amendments for hours to an empty Chamber. My amendment would prevent needless delays by waiving the live reading of an amendment when the text has been available long enough for all of us to look it over. It would have to be submitted 72 hours in advance.

So I ask for the yeas and nays, and I hope for an overwhelmingly bipartisan approval of this important change to the Senate rules.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, on Tuesday we made history in a small but significant way here in Congress. When we filed into the House Chamber for the President's annual State of the Union Address, many of us cast aside a long-held custom and crossed the aisle-- literally--and sat together rather than divided by party. In some cases, as with my colleagues from my home State of Colorado, we sat by State delegation, Republicans and Democrats together.

I advocated for that change as a symbolic gesture. It was something I have done since I served in the Colorado State House.

In the days leading up to Tuesday's speech, folks here, and in the media, had a lot of fun comparing our plans to finding a date to a high school dance. They started speculating on what was next--trust falls? A ropes course? I am an old mountaineer--I have been joking that the aisle has become a mountain to climb.

And while those jokes have been entertaining for us inside the beltway, I think the media's interest in the drama highlights part of the problem that led me to call for a change in the way we sit during the State of the Union.

My staff did quite a bit of research on the history of the State of the Union Address, and they couldn't find any historical reason for divided seating. It seems to have developed along with the evolution of broadcast journalism.

So it appears that the media's hunger for drama--and our own need to use the media to project fierce party unity to the audience at home-- has made the State of the Union like a pep rally--or a kind of sideshow to the main event. We've lost our focus on the content of the speech in an effort to get a moment of air time or a good headline.

I will be the first to admit that Tuesday's new seating arrangements aren't going to suddenly change the atmosphere here in Congress. But I hope it was the start of a new tradition. It certainly was a step in the right direction. Coloradans and Americans overwhelmingly supported the idea. It is something Americans are hungering for--I was just the messenger. There is no question it got us talking to people outside our comfort zones. I think the result was a more respectful--and less divided--State of the Union Address.

And I bring this up today--2 days after the State of the Union-- because I don't want this to be an anomaly--a brief moment of half- hearted kumbaya before we slip back into our old habits. There was an even more serious reason for bringing us all together. We are not just divided during the President's State of the Union Address--it is nearly every day--in Washington and on the campaign trail.

If you go out and talk to citizens--as I do when I am in Colorado-- the vast majority of people say they are frustrated with the bickering in Washington, and they believe it is hurting our Nation. The words used by politicians and commentators on the right and the left have become over the top--even violent.

After the horrific events of January 9, it is only natural that we ask whether there is a connection between the fact that Congresswoman Giffords was the subject of violent gun metaphors on the campaign trail and the attack by a disturbed gunman only a few months later.

I, personally, think it would be simplistic to believe that one was the sole--or even a part--cause of the other. But it is incontrovertible that the level of violence and vitriol in our political language has been escalating year after year to a point where the space between rhetoric and reality has grown from a gap into a chasm.

To quote Jon Stewart of the ``Daily Show'' during his rally to restore sanity in politics: ``We live now in hard times, not end times.'' Yet you wouldn't know it by listening to the 24-hour media spin cycle.

I know Gabby well. She represents the district my father represented for 30 years. I grew up in Tucson, and a piece of me will always be rooted in its sandy soil. It is a border district, full of independent westerners whose ancestors made a good living there, despite harsh conditions and punishing temperatures. Its people include moderates as well as staunch liberals and strong-minded conservatives. In order to represent the area well, you really have to be outside politics, willing to hear everyone's point of view and to bring them together regardless of party. That is Gabby in a nutshell.

It would be a huge disservice to Gabby, Judge Roll, Christina Greene, and all of the other victims of the Tucson shooting if we didn't seize this moment to reflect on how to rein in the rhetoric--to become more civil to each other--and--as our President said eloquently--live up to their ideals for our democracy.

So sitting together was only a small step. I hope we can follow it up with more efforts to work together--perhaps bipartisan retreats--or, as was suggested by a few of my colleagues--doing away with the aisle altogether.

I want to thank my co-leaders in this effort--Senator Murkowski of Alaska, and Representatives Heath Shuler and Paul Gosar. I look forward to working with them and any others in ways that will eventually help us solve the big challenges that confront us--because if we cannot sit together, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can win the global economic race, pay down our debt, develop a 21st century energy policy, fix our broken immigration system--or address any of the myriad other problems facing our country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be recognized after me for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, before I speak on the matter today, which the group of Senators today so eloquently and powerfully outlined for all of us, I want to acknowledge that the 111th Congress was one of the most productive in history. Legislation we passed will make real changes for American families who are struggling through a tough economy, as the Presiding Officer knows, and with rising health care costs. What we did also will make our military and Nation safe and stronger. We should be proud of the work we accomplished in the previous Congress.

But I have to also say that the last 2 years was a time of unprecedented obstruction and partisanship. If you do

not want to take my word for it, you do not have to go very far to listen to many impartial observers of the Congress who will tell you that it was exactly the case.

I rise today to add my voice to the growing number of Coloradans and Members of the Senate who are deeply concerned about the gridlock that at times has paralyzed our Chamber and prevented meaningful debate.

Many of us read with dismay an article by George Packer in the New Yorker magazine several months ago, which detailed examples of Senate dysfunction.

Americans from both political parties--and Independents as well--have asked whether the rules of the Senate are working to help solve these problems that face us. Some of my colleagues have understandably sought to change or eliminate the filibuster to make it easier to pass important legislation supported by a majority of Senators.

I come to this debate from a somewhat different perspective than my colleagues. I come to this debate with this guiding principle; that is, any attempt to limit the power of the minority by eliminating or weakening the ability to filibuster will simply lead to a further breakdown in what is already a fractured partisan relationship.

While I share much of the frustration expressed by many of our colleagues, I believe we must be thoughtful about how we approach changes to the Senate rules.

Several years ago, Minister Robert Fulghum had everyone using the phrase, ``everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten.'' His essays made the point that the simple rules we teach children about getting along, about being kind to one another, about cleaning up after ourselves apply throughout life.

On one level, you could boil down the debate we are engaging in this week and say what we need are rules that will help us get along better in the Senate's sandbox, and we need to talk with each other more and we need to listen even more than we talk. Why? Because the consequences, if we cannot find a way to work together, are extremely serious.

No problem we face is more troubling or urgent than our economic future. Our unemployment rate is still above 9 percent, and it is much higher in some regions of the country. Home foreclosures are still expected to rise. Even more troubling is this fact: Americans are less optimistic about their economic prospects than they were during the Great Depression. That is a very serious situation.

On top of those grim statistics, we face a massive budget deficit and a crippling debt that not only threaten our long-term economic stability but darken the horizon in a way that discourages investment and innovation that we need to spur American job creation today.

Moreover, our apparent inability to squarely address the problem in a partisan way is a signal to the American people--as if they need further proof--that their institutions of government are not working. And that, in my opinion, is as dangerous as any attack on our country.

Many have remarked that it is past time to have a serious discussion about how to turn our economic situation around. I have faith we can do that, but only if we are able to set aside the ideological differences that have sidetracked our politics, and frankly our policymaking, up to now.

We can't reach the level of bipartisan cooperation we need in this body if we prevent substantive debate and cut off the rights of the minority. But neither can we make necessary progress if Members of the Senate continue to be able to use technical loopholes and procedural gymnastics to hijack the Senate--literally--for days and, in some cases weeks at a time.

That is why today's debate--so ably led by colleagues from across the country--is more than just an esoteric debate about the Senate's rules. It is a critical turning point, and it is why today I am again introducing a resolution which I believe can help reduce the opportunity for gridlock while also encouraging both sides to work together on the most important issues we face in our Nation.

I developed this proposal after listening to and talking with experts on Senate procedure from both sides of the aisle, including the noted congressional scholar Norm Ornstein of the Conservative American Enterprise Institute.

In a nutshell, I propose that by eliminating unnecessary opportunities for delay--without making changes that would jam through legislation at the expense of the minority party--we can improve the way the Senate works and make it more effective and fairer for the American people.

If I might, I want to make a couple of comments on some of the specifics of what I am proposing, similar to what the Senators from Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, and others have put on the table.

I would first level the playing fields between the majority and the minority on cloture votes and require Senators actually vote in opposition to the bill they are filibustering. Currently, cloture is invoked when three-fifths of the Chamber votes yes, so staying home is the same as voting no, and Members can simply threaten to filibuster and skip town with no recourse.

My proposal would require that Senators show up, debate, and actually vote against a bill if they are conducting a filibuster, by changing the rules to invoke cloture not on three-fifths of the Chamber but invoking cloture when three-fifths of those voting to end debate create an incentive to actually have a meaningful discussion. If Members don't show, the threshold is lowered accordingly--three-fifths of 90 is 54 votes to end debate, three-fifths of 80 is 48 votes to cut off a filibuster, and so on.

Second, I would reduce the number of votes required in debate on a single bill. The Senate rules now allow for a filibuster on a motion to proceed to a bill, a substitute amendment to a bill, final passage after we have already overcome a filibuster on the exact same text--and the list continues. There are three separate opportunities to filibuster before sending a bill to a conference committee. My proposal would eliminate all these opportunities to filibuster except for final passage.

Third, I would shorten the timeframe required to invoke cloture. I would propose we vote 24 hours after cloture is filed, instead of waiting 2 days, as is required today. I would also allow the 30 hours of postcloture debate to be split between the parties, to avoid needless delays. In total, we could shorten the time required for cloture by nearly 40 hours for a single cloture motion.

Fourth, I would end the requirement that amendments be read in their entirety if they have been made available on line at least 24 hours in advance.

Fifth, I would end the requirement that Senate committees seek consent to meet.

Sixth, after I propose that we change the rules to move more quickly on judicial nominations--allowing a final vote immediately after cloture is invoked on a nomination.

Finally, I would provide a way to call up an amendment when a majority leader has filled the amendment tree.

The Senate is famous for great debates and a free amendment process. But in recent years the process of presenting amendments has frequently been shut off by the majority party. So my proposal would, on a limited basis, give Senators the opportunity to present their amendments when they are otherwise being blocked from doing so.

The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. But what happens if we don't deliberate? I am afraid we risk turning the Senate into an extension of the 24-hour political spin cycle, which seeks to separate us rather than allowing us to work out solutions to the problems we face.

Every day, proud Americans come to our Capitol hoping to watch debates such as those of years past. Many are increasingly dismayed to see a small number of Senators, such as those here today, debating among themselves in an empty Chamber. We don't even require Senators to attend their own filibusters--no ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' no actual debate.

I want the Senate to work the way Americans envision it does--where Members discuss their differences, cooperate, vote on amendments, and improve legislation for the good of the country.

With that in mind, I hope our colleagues will join me to seize the opportunity we have before us. Let's work

together to improve the way the Senate operates. I want to extend my hand to the Republicans to ask for ideas in how we can improve the way the Senate operates. I want to work with anybody, as I think all my colleagues do, to solve these problems in front of us. We have a responsibility to work together to bring about the cooperation and the problem solving Americans expect and deserve.

Mr. President, I appreciate your attention, I appreciate the important work all my colleagues have undertaken, and I look forward to working with the 99 other Members of the Senate to make the Senate a Senate we know and love and believe is the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 636, H.R. 2476; that the Udall of Colorado substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the Udall of Colorado title amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if I might, I know Senator Durbin has a pressing unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that when he has concluded his request, Senator Barrasso and I could engage in a colloquy on the very bill that has been objected to.

Mr. President, if I might, I would like to yield to Senator Barrasso from Wyoming to discuss the important bill that was just objected to.

Mr. President, I thank both Senators from Wyoming for their support. I know we will go back to work in the next Congress because, as the Senator pointed out, this bipartisan bill would provide clear authority for the Forest Service to allow additional summertime use of ski areas which would help create jobs and grow sustainable economies in ski country. It is no cost. It is common sense, as the Senator pointed out. That is why it not only has support from the two Wyoming Senators but also Senators Risch, Ensign, Bennett, and Gregg. It was favorably reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in September. The CBO projects it will actually generate revenue for the Federal budget and will help improve the economy in a lot of hard-hit mountain communities.

Mr. President, we passed a number of other bills out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that, unfortunately, will not receive votes in this Congress. I want to touch on a couple of them.

I begin with the National Forest Insect Disease Emergency Act. I have been working on this concern for the entire time I have served in the Congress, whether in the Senate or the House. We have an enormous bark beetle epidemic in our Western forests. Those who study our forests say that because of climate change and drought and human activity, these epidemics will become more and more common. What the bill would have done is provide the tools and resources to the Forest Service to help address this serious natural disaster. It is slow moving but nonetheless a natural disaster. That disaster is the deaths of millions and millions of acres of trees due to insect infestations.

Senators Crapo and Risch were cosponsors. It is a very significant disappointment that we didn't move to consider this bill. I know it would have passed the Senate.

Another bill is the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Act, commonsense legislation that would directly benefit a community in Colorado and, indeed, the entire Arkansas River Valley, one of the significant watersheds in the State of Colorado. This mine drainage tunnel near Leadville, in 2008, was backed up with a large volume of contaminated water which then created a safety hazard to the community, but it was unclear whether the Bureau of Reclamation or the Environmental Protect Agency was responsible for addressing it.

My bill would clarify that the Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to treat this backed-up water and is responsible for maintaining the tunnel so that in the future these kinds of threats will not arise and, if they do, it is clear who is responsible to mitigate them. It is a straightforward bill. It doesn't cost anything. It would give the people of Leadville the certainty they have needed for years.

Finally, I wish to mention the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act. This would help protect public safety. It facilitates a fair exchange of lands on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest near Boulder between the Forest Service and the Sugar Loaf Fire District. The fire district is seeking this exchange so they can upgrade and maintain fire stations which serve this community which has been subjected to wildland/urban fires. We

want to protect the homes and the built structures and people who live in those areas. The exchange would reduce costs related to forest boundary maintenance as well as provide better service to the residents of the fire district, neighbors of the district, and individuals who travel through.

I appreciate the patience of my colleagues. The point I wish to make is, we had tens and tens of bills in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that this body should have considered. It would have been important to give these commonsense bills an up-or-down vote. Almost all of them were bipartisan in nature. It is a disappointment to me that we have not done the will of the people in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I begin the focus of my remarks and the reason I came to the floor, I wish to commend the Senator from Tennessee for his thoughtful remarks and what I think is a thoughtful and important position he is taking on the START treaty. I listened with great interest, and I learned additional information about the importance of putting this treaty in effect. I also acknowledge the Senator's concerns about missile defense, about tactical nuclear weapons, and the other concerns that have been raised in this very important and obviously historic debate on the floor of the Senate. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership.

Tributes to Retiring Senators

Arlen Specter

I also wanted to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Bennet, the Senator from Colorado, in regard to Senator Specter's farewell address to the Senate. In particular, I think Senator Specter laid out a thoughtful and comprehensive way we can change the Senate rules in the upcoming 112th Congress in ways that respect the rights of the minority but also provide the Senate with some additional ways to do the people's business.

I know the Presiding Officer spent significant time on finding a way forward for the Senate. I look forward to the debate that will begin when we convene in just a couple of weeks for the 112th Congress.

Nomination of William Martinez

Let me turn to the reason I came to the floor initially, and that is to urge my colleagues to support an outstanding nominee to the Federal bench, Mr. William Martinez. Bill's story is an inspirational one, and I will share that with you in a moment, but I wanted to first talk about why there is such an urgency to confirm this fine nominee.

The situation in our Colorado District Court is dire, and I don't use that word lightly. There are currently five judges on the court and two vacancies, both of which are rated as judicial emergencies by the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts. These five judges have been handling the work of seven judges for nearly 2 years. It has

been over 3 years since our court had a full roster of judges.

I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with the need for a fully stocked Federal bench as a former attorney general.

There is even more to the story. In 2008, based on the significant caseload in Colorado, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended the creation of an eighth judgeship on the Colorado District Court.

This is a pressing situation, but I know it is not unique just to Colorado. Of the 100 current judicial vacancies, 46 are considered judicial emergencies--almost half of those vacancies. I understand the Senate has confirmed just 53 Federal circuit and district court nominees since President Obama was elected, including the judges over the last weekend. This is half as many as were confirmed in the first 2 years of the Bush administration and represents a historic low, which, no matter who is to blame, is very detrimental to our system of justice.

Bill Martinez was nominated in February of this year, had a hearing in March, and was referred favorably by the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate in April. So today his nomination has been sitting on the Senate's Executive Calendar for over 8 months.

I am not going to complain about partisan delays, although I know this continues to plague the Senate. Instead, in hope that we might improve the nomination process, I want my colleagues to hear the real effect of imposing these delays on nominees.

The people of Colorado deserve well-qualified justices, but what the Senate put Bill Martinez through should make each of us question where our priorities are--and I say that because, unlike other judicial nominees before the Senate, Bill Martinez' life has been turned upside down because of this delay in his confirmation. While many other nominees--and I don't begrudge them this--continued their judicial careers because they were sitting on the bench, he has essentially had to dismantle his law practice to avoid Federal conflicts and even limit taking clients to ensure they continue to receive representation once he is confirmed. Both his life and his livelihood have been put on hold just because he was willing to become a dedicated public servant. If we continue this record or this habit of needlessly delaying judicial nominations, we risk chasing off qualified nominees such as Bill Martinez.

His long and winding road began last year when Senator Bennet and I convened a bipartisan advisory committee, chaired by prominent legal experts in Colorado, to help us identify the most qualified candidates for the Federal bench. The committee interviewed many impressive individuals, and then, based on his life experience, his record of legal service, and his impressive abilities, both Republicans and Democrats on this panel together recommended Bill Martinez for a Federal judgeship. The President agreed and then subsequently nominated Bill for the vacant judgeship I mentioned.

There is no doubt that being nominated for a Federal judgeship is a prestigious honor, but since being nominated, Senate delays have not only affected Bill and his family, but those delays have sent a discouraging message to future nominees. Despite these disruptions the process has caused for Bill and the dangerous precedent his delay may have set, I am relieved that the Senate is finally giving this qualified candidate the confirmation vote he deserves today.

I have spoken about his impressive intellect and experience on the floor before, but in advance of my vote, I would like my colleagues to hear one more time why Bill Martinez was selected by the bipartisan advisory committee for this judgeship.

In addition to being an accomplished attorney and a true role model in our community in Colorado, he has a personal story that captures what is great about America and highlights what can be accomplished with focus, discipline, and extraordinary hard work.

Bill was born in Mexico City, and he immigrated lawfully to the United States as a child. He worked his way through school and college and toward a career in law, becoming the first member of his family to attend college. He received undergraduate degrees in environmental engineering and political science from the University of Illinois and earned his law degree from the University of Chicago.

As a lawyer, Bill has become an expert in employment and civil rights law. He first began his legal career in Illinois, where he practiced with the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, litigating several law reform and class action cases on behalf of indigent and working-class clients. For the last 14 years, he has been in private practice and previously served as a regional attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Denver.

As you can imagine, over the years Bill has been a very active member of the Denver legal community. During the 1990s, he was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver College of Law and has been a mentor to minority law students. He is currently vice chair of the Committee on Conduct for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and he has been a board member and officer of the faculty of Federal Advocates.

Bill also sits on the board of directors of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, where he serves as the chair of the bar association's Ethics Committee. More recently, he was appointed by the Colorado Bar Association to the board of directors of Colorado Legal Services and by the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Board.

Like all of us, I believe in a strong, well-balanced court system that serves the needs of our citizens. Bill Martinez will bring that sense of balance because of his broad legal background, professionalism, and his outstanding intellect. I am proud to have recommended Bill, and I am certain that once confirmed he will make an outstanding judge.

Before I conclude, I did want to give special acknowledgment to my general counsel, Alex Harman, who has worked night and day on this nomination. Alex has worked tirelessly to see that Bill Martinez receives the vote he deserves, and I want to acknowledge him here on the floor of the Senate.

I ask my colleagues to give their full support to this extraordinary candidate and vote to confirm his nomination to the Colorado District Court as a new Federal judge.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in response to Senator Sessions' comments about a nominee we are going to consider shortly, Bill Martinez.

Senator Sessions just spoke about the ACLU for 30 minutes, trying to define Bill Martinez--a district court nominee, not the appeals court as Sessions noted--as an ACLU-like nominee and then criticizing his hearing responses on the death penalty and the

empathy standard. I wanted to clarify for the record three points of misinformation.

Bill Martinez did not work for the ACLU. He served on an advisory board regarding cases in Denver. Several Bush nominees were members of the Federalist Society and contributors to other conservative litigation centers and were confirmed just a few years ago. Bill Martinez is not the ACLU, and we ought to be careful to avoid setting false standards.

From the Martinez Hearing:

Senator Sessions: Have you ever acted as counsel in a

matter on behalf of the ACLU? If so, please provide the

Committee with a citation for each case, a description of the

matter, and a description of your participation in that

matter.

Martinez Response: No.

Senator Sessions claimed he was dissatisfied with Bill Martinez's response regarding the death penalty, stating that he was not clear in his beliefs. This is misleading and the record states otherwise.

From the Martinez Hearing:

Senator Sessions: Please answer whether you personally

believe that the death penalty violates the Constitution.

Martinez Response: It is clear under current Supreme Court

jurisprudence that, with very limited exceptions, the death

penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Roper v.

Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 129 S.Ct.

1 (2008). Consistent with this precedent, I do not believe

the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Senator Sessions also claimed that Bill Martinez stated empathy can be taken into consideration with legal decisions. This is misleading and the record states otherwise.

From the Martinez Hearing:

Senator Sessions: Do you think that it's ever proper for

judges to indulge their own subjective sense of empathy in

determining what the law means?

Martinez Response: No.

Let me end on this note. Bill Martinez is a man of high character, he is a good man, and he will make an excellent Federal judge. Let us vote to confirm Bill Martinez to the Colorado U.S. District Court.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I rise to support the nomination of Bill Martinez. Senator Leahy made the case for his nomination and for him to be confirmed. I have great affection for my friend from Alabama, but I want to set the record clear that Bill Martinez did not work for the ACLU, he advised the ACLU. If we are going to raise that standard and change the rules, then we ought to remember that the Bush nominations often included Federalist Society members and contributors.

We ought to be careful about setting false standards. Bill Martinez was recommended by a bipartisan nominating commission that Senator Bennet and I created. He is a good man. His story is a quintessential American story. He will be an excellent judge. I urge us all to vote for his confirmation today.

I yield the floor.

In legislative session, I wish to make a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2919, the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that a Udall of Colorado substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if I might, for the record, I will talk briefly about the legislation I referred to. This is a bipartisan bill. I filed it----

Mr. President, the reason I have offered this consent agreement today is that this would help literally hundreds of small businesses to create hundreds of thousands of jobs at no cost to the American taxpayer.

I did want to, in the spirit of bipartisanship, mention the cosponsors of the bill: Majority Leader Reid from Nevada, and Senators Snowe, Collins, Schumer, Boxer, Brown, Gillibrand, Inouye, Lieberman, Nelson of Florida, Bennet of Colorado, Sanders, and Wyden.

The bill addresses a problem that everybody in the Chamber agrees needs to be addressed, and that is the trouble small businesses are having accessing capital so they can grow and create jobs.

We saw that our unemployment rate inched up to 9.8 percent in November. That is indicative of the fact that our economy is having trouble gaining traction. We all know that if small businesses expand and grow, our economy will be getting back on track.

If I might, let me tell you how this bill would help small businesses. Under current law, credit unions are doing what they can to help business interests and meet the demands of particularly family businesses. But they are constrained by an arbitrary cap on the size and amount of the loans they can issue. In every State, there are credit unions that would like to lend more, responsibly. But the Federal Government gets in the way.

This legislation would get the Federal Government out of the way and allow credit unions help jumpstart the economy. Under current statute, credit unions are constrained to dedicating no more than 12.25 percent of their total assets to small business lending. Many credit unions have run up against that cap. What this legislation would do is take the most experienced and well-run credit unions and allow them to meet the rising demand for small business loans.

The National Credit Union Administration, the Federal regulator, would have the authority to allow the small business lending cap to slowly increase from the current 12.25 percent limit to a maximum of 27.5 percent of total assets.

Lest you think this has been pulled out of thin air, the proposal has the backing of the Banking Committee, the Treasury Department, and National Credit Union Association. It also has the support of the National Small Business Association, the National Association of Realtors, and even the Conservative Americans for Tax Reform thinks this is a good idea.

The Credit Union National Association projects that these reforms are sensible reforms and would increase small business lending by $10 billion within the first year, with an increase of nearly $200 million in my State, and I am sure it would be similar in all States. It is expected to also increase 100,000 jobs nationwide.

This is disappointing. It is a shame we can't move this legislation forward. We should be helping our economy, but we are embroiled in other things here. I will continue to fight for this, and I hope other Senators here today will join me in helping unleash the power of credit unions and get Americans back to work.