Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take the time to honor the memory of Ms. Joy Rushmore Hilliard, a supporter of the environment, outdoor enthusiast, and a friend of Colorado. Joy passed away peacefully this past August at the age of 86.

As an avid outdoorswoman, Joy was well known as a great angler and lover of nature. She climbed all 54 of the 14-ers in Colorado well before it became a popular pursuit. Barbara Mandrell might even say Joy was a climber, outdoorswoman, and environmentalist before it became ``cool.'' In fact, when I look back and think of her heart and passion for life, she reminds me of what being an authentic Coloradan is all about.

Joy even reminds me a lot of my own mother. Of the same generation and cut from the same cloth, Joy not only enjoyed hiking, climbing, skiing and fly-fishing, but managed to balance that love with raising a family. She also was a world traveler and was part of the 1963 expedition that trekked from Katmandu to the base camp on Mount Everest. In addition to her love of the outdoors and traveling, Joy was also a passionate philanthropist who donated her entire life to bettering her community and the world around her.

Not only was she actively involved with many environmental organizations, Joy also was the chairwoman of Colorado Outward Bound, a nonprofit organization that teaches hands-on life lessons using the environment. As you may know, I was a former educator and mountain guide for Outward Bound. Its programs have greatly helped struggling teens and groups with health, educational, or social needs to not only experience the outdoors, but to also learn about the potential embodied in themselves. As the chairwoman, Joy led Outward Bound to new heights and was the inspiration for many participants as well as staff.

In addition to her chairwomanship of Outward Bound, Joy was also president of the Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, and an avid participant in other organizations such as Trout Unlimited, Silver Trout Foundation, and Colorado Open Lands. Her involvement in all of these civic groups reflects not only her respect and love for the environment and Colorado, but also her passion for life.

For her many sacrifices and hard work, Joy received several recognitions, including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the George E. Cranmer Award from Colorado Open Lands, and the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. Joy's other philanthropic actions include helping to establish the conservation wing of the Denver Public Library and a 10th Mountain Division Hut in memory of her late husband Ed, who was a partner of the Redfield Gun Sight Company.

Joy's service to her community, to Colorado and to the environment will always live on in our hearts; she was truly an inspiration for all of us.

Mr. President, I start by noting it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Chairman Levin, Senator Gillibrand, and others in the effort to repeal this outmoded law.

I have spoken many times about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and how it improves our national security, but I would like to make a few additional short points today before we take this important vote at 10:30.

First, repealing this law is not about scoring political points or catering to a special interest group. Rather, it is about doing the right thing for our national security, especially during a time of two wars. Instead of turning away qualified interpreters, mechanics, infantrymen, and others, we need every able-bodied man and woman who is willing to fight for their country.

An exhaustive study by the Pentagon recently revealed what numerous reports have shown, that don't ask, don't tell can be repealed without harmful effects. In fact, what it shows is our national security will be enhanced by this repeal. That is one of the reasons our Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, have strongly urged us to repeal the law this year, before we adjourn this week.

Second, the United States lags--sadly lags--behind the world's other top militaries which allow open service by gays and lesbians. Our troops fight next to servicemembers from many of these countries every single day. There is no evidence showing that our military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq are negatively affected by allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly alongside U.S. servicemembers.

Third, the vast majority of Americans support repealing this harmful law. As the Pentagon study showed, our servicemembers are complete professionals. They will comply with the repeal, and they will not allow open service to negatively affect the jobs they do.

Finally, if the Senate does not act to give the Department of Defense and the President the authority to end this policy, then we are leaving the issue in

the hands of the courts. Secretary Gates has said it makes far more sense to bring certainty to don't ask, don't tell through legislation rather than through lawsuits.

Let me end with the words of a Marine captain who wrote a courageous opinion piece this week that was in the Washington Post. He said:

It is time for ``don't ask, don't tell'' to join our other

mistakes in the dog-eared chapters of history textbooks. We

all bleed red, we all love our country, we are all Marines.

In the end, that is all that matters.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to reiterate what I have long believed to be the right step to take in addressing a longstanding issue that affects young people in my State of Colorado and across this country. That step is to pass legislation known as the DREAM Act that will ensure that upstanding young adults who were brought into this country illegally by no fault of their own have the opportunity to attend college and contribute to our economy or join the military and serve our country.

Just over 3 years ago there was a large bipartisan group of Senators that understood that children who were brought to this country by no fault of their own should not be blamed for the sins of their parents. It is mind-boggling to me that we now have to struggle to get those same Members who are still in the Senate today to support that commonsense notion, which underlies the DREAM Act. I respect the decisions of my colleagues and I want to give my colleagues who have had a change of heart the benefit of the doubt, but my guess is that partisanship is what has prevailed here. I believe this because the bipartisan-approved legislation that the House of Representatives has sent us is more stringent than previous versions of this legislation that was once sponsored and supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

When you run down the list of fees, restrictions, requirements, waiting periods, and other criteria for eligibility in the DREAM Act, you begin to see that this is a robust plan to give high-achieving young people an opportunity to contribute positively to our country. Not only will individuals who were brought to this country before the age of 16 have to prove they have been in the United States for at least 5 years before applying, they will also have to show that they are in good health, pass a background check, provide biometric data, and pay fees and taxes. Only then will they be allowed to enter a ``conditional non-immigrant'' status that would allow them to pursue their education or enter the military.

During the 10 years of their conditional status, they would be ineligible for entitlement programs such as welfare, Federal education grants and would be unable to sponsor family members for immigration purposes. They would also have to remain in good standing with the law and prove that they have command of the English language and American civics. If they meet those and other requirements after 10 years, they will then have to get in at the back of the line to wait their turn for a minimum of 3 more years--for an opportunity to naturalize as U.S. citizens. That seems more than fair to me.

The DREAM Act provides a robust and fair-minded plan to help America attract bright and talented individuals to contribute to our economy and strengthen our military. As military leaders who have served under Presidents of both parties have said, this bill will strengthen our readiness by giving these young men and women the chance to join our armed services. Furthermore, studies have shown that students who can realize their full earning potential can ultimately help pump billions of dollars back into our economy. These individuals are future businessmen, scientists, and innovators that could help our economy grow. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this legislation would even help to reduce our deficit.

The DREAM Act has been debated for several years. It is finally time for us to do what is right in this situation, put aside partisanship and support this legislation.

Madam President, let me start by thanking my good friend from Indiana, not only for yielding the floor to me but for his strong leadership on this crucial treaty before us here in the Senate.

I rise in strong support of the New START treaty. I want to start by reminding my colleagues that arms control treaties are an integral part of this country's modern history, premised on a shared belief that a world with fewer nuclear weapons is a safer world. Even as the Cold War raged, it was Ronald Reagan who committed America to the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the Earth.

Those are his very words. This goal has animated numerous arms control agreements since then and it underpins the New START treaty, an agreement I believe we cannot fail to ratify. The dangers of nuclear proliferation have grown. As the Senator from Indiana knows well, because this has been a part of his life's work, the threat of global nuclear war has receded but the risk of nuclear attack has increased, enabled by the spread of nuclear technology and the danger of materials falling into the wrong hands.

I believe we cannot be seen as a credible leader of a nation strongly committed to meeting our nonproliferation obligations unless we pursue further nuclear arms reductions ourselves. The United States and Russia have over 90 percent of the world's nuclear arms between us. Thus, we have an obligation to verifiably decrease our nuclear stockpiles and reduce this primary threat to global and national security. That is why the New START treaty matters. It establishes limits for U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons to levels lower than the 1991 START Treaty and the 2002 Moscow treaty.

These limits have been validated by our defense planners and ensure that we have the flexibility to meet our security needs.

The treaty also includes a strong verification regime, which Secretary Gates called the ``key contribution'' of the agreement.

As we debate this agreement today, we should not only consider the consequences of ratification but also the consequences of failure. Because START expired over a year ago, we currently have no treaty and, therefore no constraints on Russia's stockpile or verification of their weapons.

The choice facing U.S. Presidents through the decades has been whether we are better off signing arms agreement with the Russians or pursuing an arms race. Historically, Presidents from both parties and bipartisan majorities in the U.S. Senate have agreed that we are better served by agreements.

Today is no different. As U.S. Strategic Command's General Chilton testified, without a treaty, Russia is not constrained in its development of force structure, and we have no insight into its nuclear program, making this ``the worst of both possible worlds.''

Failure to ratify this treaty would make the broad ``resetting'' of U.S.-Russian relations harder. The distrust it would engender would also reduce or even eliminate the possibility of further bilateral strategic weapons reductions. As former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft--I think we would all agree he is one of the wisest Americans about foreign policy--testified earlier this year, ``the principal result of non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos.''

But we need to remember that this treaty is not just about Washington and Moscow, it is also about the world community and our global relationships. Failure to ratify this treaty would signal to the world that America is not willing to constrain its own weapons arsenal, even as we ask other countries to restrict theirs or avoid joining the ``nuclear club'' altogether.

It would discourage multilateral cooperation on nonproliferation goals and hinder our ability to lead by example. It would make global cooperation on dealing with rogue states like Iran and North Korea more challenging, tying our hands at a time when the threat from those two countries is increasing.

Treaty opponents have tried to make the case that the dangers of ratifying the agreement outweigh the advantages of ratification. They are simply wrong.

They argue that the treaty limits our ability to develop missile defense capabilities. The head of the Missile Defense Agency argued, that the treaty actually reduces constraints on missile defense. And countless military and civilian leaders, including the former Secretaries of State for the last five Republican Presidents, have publicly stated that New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses.

Treaty opponents argue it inhibits our ability to maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal. It is true that this administration inherited an underfunded and undervalued nuclear weapons complex. But the President understands that the nuclear experts and infrastructure that maintain our arsenal also help secure loose nuclear materials, verify weapons reductions and develop technologies that underpin our nuclear deterrent.

That is why the President's budget request provides $7 billion for these programs this year, a 10-percent increase over last year. New START would in no way limit these investments. And as treaty opponents know well, the President has offered an even more robust investment in modernization and refurbishment of our nuclear infrastructure over the next 10 years, totaling $84 billion.

The importance of ratifying this treaty goes beyond politics. We know that a lack of demonstrated bipartisan support could poison relations with Russia and our allies. And we cannot risk the loss of American leadership in the world that would ensue if we are perceived as too entangled in our own internal politics to ratify a strategic arms treaty that is clearly beneficial to our own security.

I know that some of my colleagues hope to amend this treaty and, in so doing, kill it, since any changes will require the administration to start from scratch and reopen negotiations with the Russians. I urge them to reconsider and to think about what is at stake.

And I urge them and all my colleagues to listen to our military leadership when they tell us that this treaty is essential to our national security. As Senator Lugar pointed out yesterday in his eloquent statement, ``Rejecting an unequivocal military opinion on a treaty involving nuclear deterrence would be an extraordinary position for the Senate to take.''

Let us not allow this to be the first time in history that the Senate denies ratification to a treaty with overwhelming bipartisan support and the endorsement of the full breadth of our military and civilian leaders. I urge my colleagues to support this treaty and to support a safer world.

Mr. President, I rise to explain my votes in relation to the impeachment of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. I take my role in the rare process of impeachment seriously, and welcome the opportunity to explain my reasoning for voting guilty on all four Articles of Impeachment and to clarify for the record the limited precedential value that I believe the conviction on Article IV should provide.

When considering the evidence presented by the House and Judge Porteous, I first had to establish what standard of proof I would use to determine his guilt or innocence on each Article of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate has never adopted a standard of proof like `beyond a reasonable doubt' from the criminal context or `a preponderance of the evidence' from a civil dispute context; rather, the Senate has allowed individual Senators to decide for themselves what standard is most appropriate. I ultimately settled on the standard suggested by the House Manager, that I be convinced of the truthfulness of the allegations and that they rise to a level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mr. President, our founders granted Congress the power of impeachment to protect the institutions of government from those judged to be unfit to hold positions of trust. In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote of the jurisdiction to impeach an official: ``There are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' This captures the standard I applied to reach a determination of guilt on each Article of Impeachment. I was convinced that Judge Porteous, through each action and through his pattern of behavior, undermined the public's faith in him as a government official and in the institution that he represented--the United States Federal Court.

With respect to Articles I, II and III, I am confident that the evidence of specific acts and the pattern of behavior displayed by Judge Porteous justifies my determination that he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Article IV, however, gives me pause. While I believe that the guilty vote on Article IV was correct, I have reservations about the precedent that scholars and future Senators might find in this impeachment. The questionnaire the judicial nominees fill out for the Senate

Judiciary Committee provides an opportunity for those nominated to answer questions about their past activities and involvement in and with the law. From these questionnaires, we are able to learn of a nominee's legal experience, find information about past statements and generally assess the fitness of the nominee for the federal bench.

On his questionnaire, Judge Porteous was asked whether any unfavorable information existed that could affect his nomination, and he answered that he did not know of any. I believe that Judge Porteous engaged in a pattern of behavior prior to, during and after his nomination to the federal district court that undermined the public's faith in him as a government official, and that this pattern of behavior rose to the level of an impeachable offense that met the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. Having said that, I do not believe that future nominees should be subject to impeachment simply for a failure to answer a subjective, open-ended question on the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire.

Judge Porteous abused the questionnaire process, misrepresented his background and misled the Senate in an egregious manner that was unique to this specific situation. However, I can imagine a scenario whereby a nominee could falsely affirm that no negative information affecting his nomination existed, yet I might not find that false answer to be an impeachable offense. I do not wish to see the nomination process become even more difficult for qualified men and women of good character, solely because of an onerous application process. Many of us have things in our backgrounds that we might miss when asked open ended questions, and the Senate should not hang the cloud of impeachment over every nominee's head because of such oversights alone--otherwise, we will find ourselves without any nominees.

As a Senator who is not a lawyer, I would like to thank my colleagues who took on the historic task of preparing and presenting this impeachment trial. Specifically, Senator Claire McCaskill and Senator Orrin Hatch who shared the role of chair of the Special Impeachment Trial Committee. I came away from this experience with a renewed respect for the Senate as an institution. When given the opportunity, Senators can work in a productive and civil manner, and I am sure that if he were able to see the dignity and respect with which the Senate treated this impeachment, Alexander Hamilton would be very proud.

Madam President, I am pleased and proud to follow my colleague from Idaho. What we are hearing about is all the challenges that face our Nation, and there are many of them right now. This massive set of budget deficits and overall debt we face--it is a crippling debt--requires probably the most serious and difficult effort we are facing right now as a people.

A strong country--I heard Senator Wyden say this, in effect--is a solvent country. Conversely, a broke country is a weak country.

I can't help but remember Erskine Bowles, the Cochairman of the Commission we are talking about today. He was asked: Why are interest rates still low? Why are our bonds still desirable? He said: Don't let's fool ourselves. Senator Chambliss would appreciate this

because he used a Southern turn of phrase. He said: Look, we are still the best looking horse in the glue factory. That is the only reason that our interest rates and our bonds are still strong.

What do we do about that? There is a way forward. The bipartisan commission has put in front of us a plan. None of us agree with every single item. It is a way forward. It is important to note of the 11 votes, 5 of those votes were Senators from our body. Five of the six Senators who represented us on this Commission voted to move forward.

That is the way forward--for us to join together, Democrats and Republicans alike. Despite our differences of opinion on many other issues, I think we can agree on one thing; that is, developing fundamental tax reform and addressing, in the process, our long-term debt problems.

Like Senator Wyden, I am going to vote no tonight. I think this is a misguided effort, and we will add $900 billion to our debt load. But I respect my colleagues who see it otherwise. I am going to vote no, and I am going to come right back to work tomorrow with all of us in the Chamber. We are going to meet this challenge head on. The stakes are too high if we do not.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the bill in front of us today, and I wish to start out by saying that, in addition to all the many challenges facing our Nation, a massive budget deficit and a crippling debt may prove to be the most difficult challenge we face as a country.

A deep structural defect, such as the one our government has accumulated because of these debt levels, not only threatens our long- term economic stability, it darkens the horizon in a way that discourages the innovation investment we need to spur American jobs today.

Moreover, our apparent inability to squarely address the problem in a bipartisan way is a signal to the American people--as if they needed more proof--that our democracy is not working, and that is as dangerous as any attack on our country. It is a timebomb in our midst, the ticking of which we cannot ignore unless we are comfortable knowing it will eventually and inevitably blow up on our children.

Just last week, a bipartisan group appointed by the President confirmed the seriousness of a threat with a different metaphor but one equally apt. The President's fiscal commission called our national debt a cancer that is threatening our country from within. Whether a timebomb or a cancer, the threat is real, and the Commission confirmed it in the starkest possible terms.

The chairman's recommendations on how to respond were sobering. But in a way, they were also like a strong cup of coffee after a serious drinking binge. Americans sat up and listened, and for a few days between the release of the Commission's report and the vote of the full Commission the following Friday, it looked like we might be able to set aside the ideological differences that have poisoned our politics and address this problem. It looked like we might be able to follow the old adage when you are in a hole, stop digging.

However, the next week, the President announced a plan that he negotiated with Republican leaders to extend the Bush tax cuts across the board--a plan that would add $900 billion to our national debt over the next 2 years. What is staggering to me is, it took just 4 days to switch the conversation from reducing the debt to adding to it. Just 4 days after the most substantive conversation we have had about addressing the debt, we start arguing about the wisdom of extending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that alone will cost $700 billion over the next decade. That is $700 billion in additional debt the people of the United States will owe to China and our other creditors around the world. To paraphrase one of my colleagues, I feel like we are operating in some kind of a parallel universe.

Now, as the debate over the last several days has exhibited, Senators in this body--and the American people themselves--have a diverse set of views on tax policy and how to get our economy back on track.

Central to these questions about tax policy is how to find mechanisms that will get our skyrocketing national deficit and total debt under control. Despite disagreements--our disagreements here and in the other body--I believe we owe it to the American people and to one another to be pragmatic and truthful about the fiscal challenges confronting us. It's the way that Coloradans like to operate, and I believe it's the way that most Americans want their elected official to behave. So I respect and even applaud the President's efforts to reach a compromise based on political pragmatism. But what I respectfully disagree with is the notion this compromise is based on anything approaching fiscal reality or truth in accounting, which is the point I believe the chairmen of the President's fiscal commission--Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson--were making.

If I might, I would remind my colleagues of the history of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Those tax cuts were passed after we experienced one of the strongest economic environments in our history. Those who supported tax cuts for the wealthy believed that because we had begun to reduce our long-term debt, we could afford them. They believed those tax cuts would stimulate our economy further and create millions of new jobs. In the words of then-Vice President Cheney, it was a time when ``deficits don't matter.''

I did not support the tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 or 2003, for much the same reason I don't support them today. I voted against them as a Member of the House of Representatives. In fact, I'll remind this body that the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2003 was only possible because Republicans pushed them through on a reconciliation vote, which requires only a simple majority. It took Vice President Cheney to break the tie vote. I sincerely wish those tax cuts had effectively spurred sustained job growth. I do. But unfortunately, the next decade saw a decline in our economy such as we haven't seen since the Great Depression--banks failed, foreclosures reached a crisis point, we were forced to bail out financial institutions, an insurance giant, and the auto companies to keep the economy from crashing further. During that time, real income for average households decreased and the unemployment rate nearly doubled, as millions of workers were laid off.

If tax cuts for the wealthy among us were an efficient way to spur innovation and investment, I have to believe economists would be telling us to continue them. But here is what they are actually saying: Economists of all stripes are telling us extending tax cuts for the wealthy is one of the least effective ways to create jobs and build the economy. Even some of America's most successful businessmen, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, among those who stand to gain dramatically from the bill before us, have urged us to prioritize seniors, long-term economic growth, and job creation instead. They know what recent history has shown--that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not help our economy, and it certainly doesn't help our national debt.

Just over 1 week ago I stood here with all of my colleagues and voted to support a proposal that would have followed the advice of economists, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett and extended relief to middle-class families. Most importantly, that plan would have heeded the overwhelming wishes of Coloradans--and Americans across our country, who do not believe it makes common sense to extend tax cuts for the rich. Americans understand, maybe better than many of us in Washington, DC, that middle-class tax relief is the way to spur our economy. To a family making $50,000 a year, an $800 tax cut could make the difference between paying for daycare or health insurance or a second car so both parents could work.

As more and more Americans become the first in their families to stand in an unemployment line, I find it hard to explain or justify last week's filibuster preventing middle-class tax relief so millionaires and billionaires can get an extra six-figure check from the Federal Government.

We have heard all kinds of arguments for extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we have been told this bill represents the best deal we could get in order to bring further tax relief to middle- class Americans. But, again, those arguments are based on political pragmatism not a truthful or objectively measured analysis of the actual impact on our budget deficit. That is why the cochair of the President's deficit commission, Erskine Bowles, a university president who knows the impact our budget crisis has had on our States, on education, and on families, has spoken out against this irresponsible tax deal for wealthy Americans. He said:

I'm deeply disappointed that we have this short-term deal

and it's not linked to long-term fiscal restraint.

I think that hits the nail on the head.

I take no pleasure in opposing most of my colleagues today. I have long held the view that by working together, we can bridge divides and find solutions that are both pragmatic, collaborative and factually sound.

I regret that the bill before us speaks more to our failure as an institution than it does as an example of effective compromise. This deal is about politics and a President backed into a terrible corner by a looming deadline when this Congress must adjourn and a new one will take its place.

The bill we are considering today is where the negotiations should have started--not where they ended. We should be voting on a plan that would allow us to extend tax relief for working families and put the $700 billion we would save over a decade toward our deficit, unemployment insurance, tax credits for low-income Americans, and other ways to get our economy growing.

We should be voting on a plan--a compromise negotiated in good faith and based on the realities of our economy and not a date on the calendar--whose economic and fiscal impacts can be verified.

That is what I wish had been negotiated. And I would prefer to stay here in Washington, through the holidays if necessary, to work out a better deal for the Coloradans I represent, and for the American people.

Mr. President, I sincerely fear that the bad choices made in the last decade will haunt us through the next decade. For these reasons, the legislation before us today is a step too far, and that is why I oppose it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have again witnessed gridlock at its worst on the heels of the vote that just concluded. When the Senate was given a chance to lead on critical issues crucial to our national security, to our troops and to our leadership in the 21st century, the Senate let politics obstruct progress that we should make.

This is the second time this year we have prevented ourselves, if you will, from debating critical national security issues. Like so many other debates that we wanted to have this year, this one was derailed by obstruction before it even began.

The last time the minority party blocked debate of a national defense authorization act, they argued that the DREAM Act should not be considered as an amendment to the bill and that we needed to wait on the report of the Pentagon study group on how to repeal don't ask, don't tell before we can vote on the broader bill.

This time we did consider the DREAM Act in a separate vote and this time, after voting today, we voted after the Pentagon's task force on don't ask, don't tell has weighed in with the most comprehensive review of a personnel policy that DOD has ever conducted on any policy being proposed. But the obstruction continues. There are new excuses this time. Opponents now say we need to extend tax breaks before we can consider legislation necessary to ensure our national security. It doesn't seem to matter to those who voted no today that the Pentagon study group looking at repeal confirmed what many of us have been saying for years, that don't ask, don't tell can be overturned without disrupting our Nation's military readiness. It doesn't seem to matter to these opponents that Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and a host of other military and civilian leaders believe that repeal by a Federal judge would be far more disruptive and damaging to readiness and morale than repeal through legislation that has been thoughtfully and comprehensively drafted by the Congress. This wide-ranging and highly respected group of military and civilian leaders has strongly urged us, the Senate, to act on this Defense authorization bill this month.

Unlike what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, the repeal language in this legislation respects the Pentagon's timeline and it gives our military leaders the flexibility they say they need to implement repeal in a way that tracks with military standards and guidelines. The best way to change the policy is for elected representatives--that is us--to pass the

legislation before us now and to do it this year.

But the vote we just had means we will have no debate on don't ask, don't tell. And just as importantly--and I know the Presiding Officer serves on the Foreign Relations Committee--it thwarts a serious discussion about pressing national security issues. Imagine that. We are prevented from debating fundamental national security concerns at a time of two wars. People in my State of Colorado do not understand such obstruction, and I do not think Americans all across the country do.

This is further illuminated because every year for nearly a half century, Congress has taken up and passed a bill renewing our defense policies for the Nation for the coming year. That is 48 years consecutively. And this Defense authorization bill, like all those that came before it, is as critically important as the 48 that have preceded it. It provides funding for our military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq. It supports our servicemembers and keeps Americans safe through needed resources and policies, including fair and competitive pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform.

The bill also includes many important provisions directed at the health and needs of our servicemembers' families. Specifically, if I might, I want to mention a provision I authored with help from other of my colleagues which would extend health insurance for military families, enabling children of active-duty servicemembers and retirees to stay on their parents' policies until they turn age 26. It is similar to what we did in the Affordable Care Act last year and this year more broadly for Americans.

Also importantly, this legislation provides improved care for our wounded servicemembers and their families--not just the physical wounds of war but also the mental wounds of war.

As I conclude, I have to tell you I remain hopeful that somehow this Congress can find a way, even in the midst of this partisan rancor, to pass this Defense authorization bill for the 49th consecutive year. I am willing to stay until Christmas, even through Christmas, and the week after, to get this done.

I will tell you, if we cannot get don't ask, don't tell repeal as part of the Defense authorization bill, I am willing to stay through the holidays to debate it on the floor as a stand-alone measure, and I will urge my colleagues to join me in that debate.

So despite the vote today, I have to say I am optimistic about our future, and I am committed, as I know the Presiding Officer is, to a new kind of politics where we can find consensus among our disagreement. I know the people of our States and Americans at large want us to tackle tough decisions. It is why they sent us here: to resolve the tough problems. But I think opportunities that are inherent in those problems led us to want to serve in the Nation's capital.

Let's reach out to each other. Let's find common ground. Let's call on each other to work together to accomplish our shared priorities and demonstrate support for our Armed Forces. After all, they are standing up for us. We can stand up for them. Americans sent us here to do no less.

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

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

Madam President, like many Americans, I am frustrated with the gridlock in the Senate, and I am very concerned by our dysfunctionality, witnessed once again here today. When we were asked to lead on critical issues facing our men and women in uniform, our troops--also tied to our national security and our international leadership in the 21st century--the Senate has once again taken a pass, has once again let politics obstruct our progress.

Coloradans sent me here to lead, like they sent the Presiding Officer here from her great State of North Carolina, and to find solutions to problems however vexing. I, for one, am increasingly tired of the partisan wrangling that besets each and every issue.

This debate, like so many others we have attempted to have, was derailed by obstructionism before it even began. Now, I realize some will say they scuttled this critical Defense bill in part because the majority leader announced he expected to have a vote on the DREAM Act, which, by the way, would allow young, undocumented immigrants a chance to attend college and serve in our military. They were brought here to this country through no decision they made as very young people.

But I have to tell you, I think it was about more than just that. In my humble opinion, the issues mattered far less than the politics. There has been a concerted effort to prevent or stall debate on nearly every major bill this year, and, sadly, a bill dealing with our troops is not free from the same tactics.

There is no reason we should not have a debate on any issue, let alone a vote, and the DREAM Act is no exception. I know the Presiding Officer and I joined the Senate at the same time. We heard about how the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. If you do not deliberate, what does that make us?

I also know that repeal of don't ask, don't tell is a contentious subject, and it has also been used as an excuse to sink this very important bill. But, I have to tell you, I think this is an outdated, discriminatory policy that undermines the strength of our military and the basic fairness upon which our great Nation was built. At a time when we are fighting two wars, we need every skilled servicemember we have: airmen, mechanics, translators, and all the many other specialties our military serve in.

Unlike what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, the language in this bill repealing don't ask, don't tell respects the Pentagon's timeline and gives our military leaders flexibility to implement repeal in a way that tracks with military standards and guidelines. As Admiral Mullen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee--the Presiding Officer remembers what a powerful day that was--he said repealing don't ask, don't tell is the ``right thing to do.''

Unfortunately, political debate and disagreement has prevented us from having this important discussion on how best to support our troops, plus thwarted a serious discussion about numerous pressing national security issues. I am disappointed in the partisanship, but I have to tell you, I am even more disappointed in the disservice to the men and women in uniform that today's inaction has caused.

Our American citizens, our constituents, our friends and neighbors face difficult decisions in their lives every day, but many here in Washington bristle at the notion that they face hard choices. They say taking votes on certain issues will be too difficult, that the politics are too tough, or that they cannot stomach the thought of losing. But Americans have not run away from hard decisions in the past. What about us? This place is a forum--or it should be a forum--where we can work together.

But, today, with the Senate blocking this bill, I fear our national security and our troops will suffer. Every year for nearly a half century--I think accurately put, 49 years consecutively--Congress has taken up and passed a bill that renews, in some cases reforms, and in other cases replaces our defense policies.

This Defense authorization bill, like all those that came before it-- the previous 49 Defense authorization bills--is critically important. It provides funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It supports our servicemembers who keep America safe by including fair pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform.

Preventing this debate keeps us from pushing forward with this bill's provisions to enhance our military's readiness, improve our servicemembers' training, and upgrade equipment and resources to succeed in combat. We are also leaving behind provisions in the bill to strengthen our nonproliferation programs and enable the reduction of our nuclear weapons stockpile while ensuring the stockpile has continued reliability.

We are foregoing the crucial opportunity--I know the Presiding Officer has believed this is very important as well--to increase the Pentagon's use of alternative energy technologies and

fuels to improve the Department's efficiency and energy security.

The bill also includes so many important provisions for the health and resiliency--both mental and physical--of our servicemembers and their families. Specifically, it includes a provision I authored extending health insurance for military families, enabling the children of Active-Duty servicemembers and retirees to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26--similar to what we did in the Health Care Reform Act for the civilian sector. Importantly, the bill provides improved care for our wounded servicemembers and their families.

As part of a longer term effort to treat both the physical and the unseen mental wounds of war, I have been reviewing the Army's report on Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention, which was published earlier this summer. One passage particularly struck me:

In just six years, Soldiers experience the equivalent of a

lifetime when compared to their civilian counterparts.

In other words, at the age of 24, the average soldier has moved multiple times, been deployed around the world, married and had children, seen death, had financial and relationship problems, is responsible for dozens of soldiers, and gets paid less than $40,000 a year.

The lives of average soldiers bear no resemblance whatsoever to ours. Their sacrifices are far beyond what many of us can imagine, and we have demanded so much of them for so long. That is why I have continued to focus my efforts on how we can help our brave service men and women suffering from mental wounds when they come home. Fort Carson in Colorado has had its share of difficulties addressing the needs of our soldiers, but we are seeing real progress. I am particularly proud of what Fort Carson has been doing in the way of providing behavioral health care to soldiers not just when they get back home but also while they are still on the battlefield.

That is the essence of Fort Carson's Mobile Behavioral Health Teams, which embed credentialed behavioral health providers within a brigade combat team, both during deployment and in garrison. Language I authored in this bill encourages the Army to replicate this successful program to help facilitate early identification and treatment of behavioral health problems.

The bad news, again, is that this provision--and so many important provisions in this bill--will not be debated today. It appears election year partisanship has prevailed over the responsibility and the need to provide for our men and women in uniform as they fight two wars.

Having said that, I do remain optimistic about our future, and I am committed to working toward a new kind of politics, where we find consensus amidst disagreement. I know Americans want their leaders to tackle challenging problems and resolve the tough issues. That is what America does. That is what Americans do. That is what we were hired to do. So in that spirit, I will continue to reach out to all my colleagues who wish to find common ground and call on others to let this debate move forward in the coming weeks so support for our troops is not held back any longer. Americans sent us here to do no less.

Madam President, I thank you for your attention. I thank you for your service on the Armed Services Committee alongside me. With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, due to ongoing efforts to address the impacts of one of the most destructive Colorado fires in decades, I was unable to cast a vote for rollcall No. 230, the nomination of Jane Branstetter Stranch to be United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm the nominee.

Madam President, I rise on an important matter that affects all of us, Senators and citizens of our States alike, and that is the shortfall in the process of confirming nominations to the Federal bench. In particular, I wish to talk about one outstanding nominee from my home State of Colorado, William Martinez. Bill has an inspirational story. I will tell you more about it in a minute, but first I wish to explain why there is such an urgency to confirm this fine nominee.

The situation in the Colorado District Court is dire--and I do not use that word easily or casually. There are currently five judges on our court and two vacancies, both of which are rated as judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. These five judges have been handling the work of seven judges for nearly 2 years, and it has been over 3 years since our court had a full roster of judges.

But there is more to the story. In 2008, based on the significant caseload in Colorado, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended that an eighth judgeship be created. So you could argue we are actually three judges down from what we should have.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Chief Judge Wiley Daniel to Leaders Reid and McConnell, explaining the profound impact this vacancy is having on the courts of the District of Colorado.

Judicial understaffing in Colorado and in the home State of the Presiding Officer and all the Senators has a real effect on residents and businesses. As the caseload increases for each judge, more and more time must be devoted to criminal cases. That is because the Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. But as time and energy shifts to the criminal docket, the civil docket in turn suffers. It continues to become increasingly difficult to schedule a trial as these backups grow longer and longer.

This increased caseload I am referencing also has a huge impact on our rural and tribal communities around the State as well. Our Federal District judges are all located in Denver, but they often have to travel to other parts of the State for hearings or trials. The geography in Colorado makes travel a little more complicated than in some other States. We have a big State with the Rocky Mountains running right through the middle of our State, and I can tell you from my own experience getting around the mountainous areas of Colorado during the snowy winter months is not easy. As a result, all over the State, residents on the Western Slope and down in the valleys, my tribal constituents, they have a more difficult time accessing the Federal judicial system--as plaintiffs, defendants, even as witnesses.

As pressing as this situation is in Colorado, I know it is not unique. Of the nearly 100 current judicial vacancies, 42 are considered judicial emergencies--almost half. I understand our Senate has confirmed only 24 nominees so far this year and 36 total since President Obama was elected. That is a historic low.

I don't wish to turn my comments on these nominations to a partisan affair, but the Senate has not kept up with the pace of past Presidents' judicial nominees.

In fact, last year the Senate confirmed the fewest judges in 50 years--50 years.

Bill Martinez, the man whom I spoke of when I began my remarks, was nominated in February of this year, had a hearing in March, and was referred favorably by the Judiciary Committee in April. Today, his nomination has been sitting on the Senate Executive Calendar--on that calendar--for 105 days. Here is the question: Can we set aside our partisanship and support the people who need our system of justice and those who work in our system of justice? The people of Colorado want us to vote on Bill Martinez and help us reduce the workload on the Federal District Court of Colorado.

Senator Bennet has joined me, and I know he is going to speak in a few minutes.

Last year, we convened a bipartisan advisory committee so that we could have the best candidates put forward. It was ably chaired by Denver lawyer Hal Haddon, a well-known figure, and former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Kourlis. The committee interviewed numerous candidates, and based on his life experience, his record of legal service, and his impressive abilities, we both recommended, on the advice of the committee, Bill Martinez for a Federal judgeship.

I know I was very impressed with Bill. In addition to being an accomplished attorney and a true role model in his community, Bill has a personal story which captures what is great about America and highlights what can be accomplished when you have focus, discipline, and you work hard.

Bill was born in Mexico City and lawfully immigrated to the United States as a child. He worked his way through school and college and toward a career in the law. He received undergraduate degrees in environmental engineering and political science from the University of Illinois and earned a law degree from the University of Chicago. As a lawyer, he is an expert in employment and civil rights law. He currently practices in those areas. He previously served as the regional attorney for the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission in Denver.

I believe--as we all do, I think--in strong, well-balanced courts that serve the needs of our citizens. Bill Martinez brings that sense of balance because of his broad legal background, professionalism, and outstanding intellect. I am pleased to have been able to recommend Bill, and I am certain that once he is confirmed, he will make an outstanding judge.

I was going to ask for unanimous consent that we move to consider Mr.

Martinez's nomination. I am going to hold back on that request for the time being, but I want those who watch the Chamber to know that a group of us who are going to speak to this backlog are going to ask, at the appropriate time, for that to be considered.

Whatever happens today in these unanimous consent requests--and I would hope they would be granted--I am not going to give up. I am going to continue to work with people on both sides of the aisle, as well as any Senator who might have reason to block Bill Martinez's nomination, to find a reasonable solution so we can fully stock our courts and we can deliver justice and services to our citizens, who deserve courts that are up and running fully.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe over the last hour and a half the Senate has heard from almost one-tenth of the body. Nine Senators have come to the floor to talk about a litany of great nominees for district court positions all over our country. The viewers have heard and our colleagues have heard the importance of passing these nominees through the process so we can deliver justice to our

citizens in all the ways that our courts operate. In that spirit, therefore, I have a series of unanimous consent requests that I wish to make at this time.

Unanimous-Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 813, William Martinez, to be a U.S. district court judge for the district of Colorado; that the nomination be debated for up to 3 hours with time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, it is disappointing that we can't get unanimous consent for an up-or-down vote on the Martinez vote. I wish to make clear to all the Coloradans who watched the proceedings today that I attempted to bring up this nomination for a vote, along with my colleague, Senator Bennet, but the minority party, as you have heard, has objected. It is a shame. I will not give up. I will continue to work in every way possible with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to confirm this important and impressive list of nominees.

I shared Bill Martinez's story earlier with the full Senate. It is a quintessential American story, and Bill Martinez deserves to serve on our district court in Colorado.

Mr. President, let me move to this unanimous consent request: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 656, Albert Diaz, U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit, and No. 657, James Wynn, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that upon confirmation, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislation.

Before the Chair rules, let me indicate that the Diaz nomination was reported on a 19-to-0 vote. The Wynn nomination was reported with a vote of 18 to 1.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar:

No. 696, Louis Butler, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin; No. 697, Edward Chen, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California; No. 703, Benita Pearson, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; No. 948, John J. McConnell, to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island; that the nominations be debated concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I will continue to ask my friend from Alabama to consider joining with me in approving these unanimous consent requests.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar:

No. 883, Michelle Childs, to be a U.S. District Judge, South Carolina; No. 884, Richard Gergel, to be a U.S. District Judge, South Carolina; No. 885, Catherine Eagles, to be a U.S. District Judge, Middle District of North Carolina; No. 886, Kimberly Mueller, Eastern District of California; No. 893, Leonard Stark, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Delaware; No. 917, John Gibney, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia; No. 935, James Bredar, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Maryland; No. 936, Ellen Hollander, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Maryland; No. 937, Susan Nelson, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Before the Chair entertains the request, let me indicate that all of the above nominees were reported unanimously or on a voice vote in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened intently to my friend from Alabama. I have had the opportunity when I have presided to listen to him share his point of view with the Senate. As always, he is articulate and passionate.

Before I make two unanimous consent requests, I wish to make some brief remarks. I see a number of colleagues on the Senate floor.

I heard the comments about the time in which the Judiciary Committee is considering these nominees. And there are numbers and there are numbers, but the number that stands out to me, as I mentioned earlier, is we have 100 judicial vacancies, which the Senator from Alabama acknowledged. Forty-two of those are considered judicial emergencies by the bodies that oversee and monitor the judiciary. The Senate has confirmed 24 nominees so far this year and 36 total since President Obama was elected. Those are historic lows. That is the fewest number of judges confirmed in 50 years. We may have accelerated the process by which nominees are considered, but we have not accelerated the process by which they are confirmed so they can serve on a circuit court or a district court.

The Senator talked about a nominee who was in limbo for 8 years, and I heard the passion with which he thinks that was a wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. We need to get our courts fully staffed with jurists who want to serve.

I heard piety mentioned. The eight of my colleagues who came to talk about filling the district and circuit courts--I did not hear a lot of piety; I heard a need and a desire to fill the courts so citizens' rights can be maintained and justice can be delivered, whether it is in criminal or civil settings.

Finally, with all due respect to my friend from Alabama, I will wait until we hopefully have a debate on the floor about Bill Martinez to tell all the 99 Senators what a marvelous candidate he is and what a strong member of the bench he would be. We will set that debate aside until I hope, I say to Senator Sessions, we actually can discuss the Bill Martinez confirmation on the floor.

Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 891, Goodwin Liu, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit; and No. 933, Robert Chatigny, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit. I ask unanimous consent that those nominations be debated concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nominations in the order listed; that upon confirmation, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

The concerns of the Senator from Alabama are his, and they are most likely shared by others. The point I am trying to make is, let's bring nominees to the floor, have that debate, fully consider their records, and then have an up-or-down vote.

Mr. President, moving to my last unanimous consent request, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 892, Raymond Lohier, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit of New York; and No. 934, Scott Matheson, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit; that the nominations be debated concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed; that upon confirmation, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Vermont to move all of these worthy nominations to the floor. I appreciate the conversation we have had.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I will speak to the bill we are considering.

I rise today because I know we need to throw a lifeline to small businesses by increasing their access to credit. They have bills to pay, payroll checks to issue, and accounts payable mounting as they try to drive economic development. I supported the $30 billion lending increase this past week--I think the Presiding Officer did as well-- because we know we have to do all we can to get small business cranked up in our country. I supported it with the understanding that if we were going to finance $30 billion from the banking sector, the very least we could do as well would be to increase lending without costing taxpayers a dime.

I wish to speak specifically to a piece of legislation I introduced, and I introduced it in amendment format as well, with bipartisan support. This amendment would get government out of the way so that credit unions could increase their small business loan portfolios. Right now, credit unions are making small business loans, but there is an arbitrary cap on the size and how many loans they can actually issue. In every single State--in Illinois, Colorado, California, and North Carolina--there are credit unions that have money and are ready to responsibly lend more money, but the Federal Government is standing in the way. I, for one, am not ready to say to all businesses that they have to close their doors because of a Federal cap on loans. In an economy such as the one we now face, we have to change that situation. We all know that when small businesses expand and grow, that will be critical to pulling us out of this recession. In the last 15 years, small businesses have generated two-thirds of all the new jobs created in the United States, and they currently employ more than half of all Americans in the workforce.

As I travel across Colorado--as I know the Senator from Illinois travels across Illinois--and I visit with small businesspeople, they continually ask me: Where is the lending? I thought the banks were supposed to start lending again.

Despite remaining profitable, small businesses have been unable to secure the loans they need to make investments in inventory, expand, and ultimately hire new workers. That is, again, why I introduced this bipartisan amendment to allow credit unions to ramp up small business lending without costing taxpayers a dime. I wish to say that again. We are not costing taxpayers a dime to put these changes into current law.

Let me speak to current law. Under current statute, credit unions are required to limit their small business lending to 12.25 percent of their credit union's total assets. But credit unions have run up against that cap, and the only thing keeping them from jump-starting our economy is an outmoded, antigrowth law which I have referenced.

After we introduced our bill last year, we heard from inside-the- beltway banking representatives who said increasing credit union loans to small businesses wasn't going to be safe or sound. Now, I suspect they were more concerned about others making loans than they were about safety and soundness. We all know in this Chamber that banks and credit unions regularly snipe at each other. It is almost like the Hatfields and the McCoys. But in the end, this isn't a bank or credit union issue; this is a small business issue.

So in coming to this updated, bipartisan compromise, I have spoken to the Senate Banking Committee, the Treasury Department, and even the credit

unions' own regulator, the National Credit Union Administration. They have all agreed to support our compromise that will safely and soundly increase small business lending by the credit union sector without costing Americans a dime. Best of all, most important of all, this legislation could lead to large-scale job creation in my home State of Colorado and around our country.

The amendment takes the most well capitalized, the most experienced, and best run credit unions that have run up against this lending cap I have mentioned and allows them to meet the rising demand for small business loans. When they meet those conditions, their regulator will then allow that small business lending cap to slowly increase from the current 12.25 percent to a maximum of 27.5 percent of total assets. We know these credit unions are the most prudent financial institutions around, and nobody can argue that allowing them to throw a lifeline to small business is irresponsible. So this amendment is a sound, surefire way to grow our economy by increasing credit unions' ability to lend to small businesses. Again, I wish to remind my colleagues that this is at no cost to the taxpayers--no cost to our taxpayers.

The National Credit Union Association estimates that these sensible reforms would increase credit union lending to small businesses by $10 billion within the first year of enactment, with an increase of nearly $200 million in my home State of Colorado. This is just an example. This new access to credit is estimated to create over 100,000 new jobs nationwide. It sounds to me like a probusiness, projobs policy that we all can agree we need. The National Small Business Association and even the National Association of Realtors have gotten behind our efforts, and they are urging us to pass this important provision.

Everybody here--I look around the Chamber, and I see my friend from Oklahoma--knows what shape our economy is in today. Small businesses continue to struggle to access credit as large banks have significantly cut back on Main Street lending. We have all met business owners who have experienced this credit squeeze. If we are going to finance $30 billion to increase lending, which I do support, we should at least take this small step and help small businesses at no cost to taxpayers.

So as I close, I wish to urge my colleagues to avoid the infighting that would have us believe this is about banks or credit unions because it is truly about our small business sector. We can't turn away entrepreneurs in this economic climate. We want to create jobs and begin new businesses, especially because of our politics here in Washington. I know there is not a single Senator who wants to look a small business owner in the eye who hasn't been able to get a loan because of an arbitrary government cap on small business lending. So let's unlock credit markets in Colorado and throughout the country. This amendment could be an important part of that effort. I wish to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to quickly pass this amendment and allow our Nation's small businesses to again set our country on a path toward job growth and prosperity in the future.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2010, at 10 a.m.

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 July 28, 2010.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 28, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 28, 2010, 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 Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2010, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Filibuster: Legislative Proposals to Change Senate Procedures.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2010, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Flood Preparedness and Mitigation: Map Modernization, Levee Inspection, and Levee Repairs.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to urge us here in the Senate to seize an opportunity that is critically important to our Nation's economic recovery and our long-term energy future by establishing a National Renewable Electricity Standard which is known in the industry as

an RES. We will without a doubt spur a new clean energy economy.

Many of my colleagues here in the Senate agree with me. My colleague from Kansas has been a leader on the need for a renewable electricity standard, and this week he has made a call to all of us to join him in promoting one.

Let me also specifically thank Senator Dorgan from North Dakota and Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico for joining me to urge adoption of the strong Federal RES. Establishing energy security, perhaps above any other issue, will assure our Nation's future success. Quite simply, a 21st century clean energy policy is essential to our Nation's economic growth, it is essential to creating jobs now and into the future, and it is clearly the linchpin for our national security. The philosopher Santayana famously wrote, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

If I can turn that saying on its head a little bit, I wish to review what happened in Colorado in the hopes that we can repeat it across our great country. Back in 2004, Colorado took a big step forward and embraced the emerging clean energy economy.

In that year, I led a bipartisan ballot issue with Republican former Speaker of the Colorado House Lola Spradley in a campaign to convince the voters of Colorado to approve a State-based RES that would harness renewable resources such as the Sun, the wind, the heat that comes out of the Earth called geothermal.

We barnstormed the State over and over again, the two of us, a Republican and a Democrat. We spoke to anybody who would listen to us. There was a lot of industry opposition to an RES, and there were dire predictions that it would cost consumers money and it would damage Colorado's economy. They were familiar arguments. I had heard them before, and I had witnessed defeat on this issue before. The Colorado legislature had voted against an RES four different times, including my bill back in 1997, to establish an RES when I was a member of the Colorado house.

We could not convince elected officials to vote for an RES at the State house, and in our State senate. But Colorado voters understood the value and the promise of renewable energy. In the end, in that campaign in 2004, they approved what we called Amendment 347, and it established a target that 10 percent of Colorado's electricity would come from renewable energy resources by 2015.

In so doing, we became the first State to create an RES by a voter- passed initiative. This clearly defined goal, this clean energy goal, inspired us Coloradans to rise to the challenge. In 3 years, we had given ourselves over 10 years to meet this challenge. We were on pace to meet that 10-percent RES goal. We were well ahead of schedule. Our legislatures saw this rapid success, and they decided to take the bull by the horns. They approved an increase to 20 percent by 2020, which was another aggressive but a reachable goal. By that time, Xcel Energy--I know the Presiding Officer and I talked earlier today about utilities and the important role they play in our States--Xcel Energy, which is a major Colorado utility that opposed the RES in 2004, fully supported this increase to 20 percent by 2020, because they saw that renewable energy sources can provide clean, cost-effective energy to their customers.

By the way, it turned out it was good for business. Xcel is now the Nation's No. 1 provider of wind energy, and a leading proponent of a strong RES. But we were not done. Earlier this year the Colorado legislature approved and our Governor Bill Ritter signed a bill to increase the RES even further, 30 percent by 2020.

That makes our standard, our RES, the second most aggressive one in the Nation, just behind California. I put up a chart here to show the viewers how many States have renewable electricity standards. I see the Presiding Officer's home State right there, down in the lower left corner. Over two-thirds of the States have an RES or renewable energy goal.

I know if we here in Congress can act and start by thinking boldly and then act, and learn from the success of our State and all of the other States on this map, our Nation can position itself to take the lead in the new global clean energy economy.

I know some still want to look backward instead of forward and continue to offer dire predictions that an RES would cost consumers, be too expensive, or kill jobs. But I have to tell you, in Colorado those predictions turned out simply to be false. In fact, the opposite was proven true. With an RES in place, our economy, our clean energy economy, sparked to life. We have had clean energy companies sprouting up all across our State, creating sustainable American jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced.

I want to share a couple of the examples with the Senate. SMA Solar, which is one of the world's lead producers of solar inverters, established manufacturing facilities in Colorado. Abound Solar, which is a successful thin-film solar company, spun out of Colorado State University, our land grant university, opened a manufacturing facility in Longmont, CO, creating hundreds of jobs in that community. This month, they announced they are going to expand their facility.

Vestas, the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, has also taken root in our great State and has created over 1,000 highly skilled manufacturing jobs at its three Colorado factories since 2007. They recently announced a major hiring initiative to employ hundreds of additional workers at their three Colorado factories in the next 12 to 18 months.

The good news as well is that the presence of a company such as Vestas, which is manufacturing, is that you then attract supply chain businesses. An example of such a business is Hexcel Corporation. They have established a manufacturing facility in Windsor, a nice Colorado town up in the northeastern part of our State. They produce carbon fiber and other components for Vestas right in our back yard.

So as you can tell, these are clear examples of how an RES can create jobs and growth in our economy. In fact, if you look at the numbers in Colorado, we have created nearly 20,000 new jobs in my State since 2004 tied to this RES.

Estimates about the solar energy requirement--that is a subset of amendment 37--have brought in nearly 1,500 jobs. So we are aggressively installing solar panels and producing electricity on the roofs of peoples' homes and businesses. These stories abound all over Colorado.

In my mind, the question then becomes--it is an obvious one--how can we replicate the success that Colorado has had on our national level? It obviously helps to be blessed with the natural resources that we have in our State. All of our States are created differently with different resources.

I know this particularly lands in front of my colleagues. My colleagues from the South are tracking this issue very closely for that reason. They have concerns that their States do not have enough renewable energy resources to meet a national RES without electricity prices increasing.

I wanted to share with my colleagues a report released this week by the Nicholas Institute at Duke University, which found that the South has more renewable resources than expected, and could reasonably receive 15 percent of its electricity from wind, biomass, and solar energy by 2020, and without an increase in electricity costs.

I know this is one study. But as we have seen in Colorado, renewable resources are only one part of the equation. Once there is a market in place, and our utilities become familiar with renewable energy, meeting an RES becomes increasingly achievable. In fact, recent analysis indicates that wind, geothermal, and biomass are already cost competitive with traditional electricity production.

The result, in many situations, is the costs across the country then are leveled. It affects each and every one of our utilities and therefore consumer rates. We can change how we generate and approach energy use to take full advantage of renewable energy resources in each of our States, and then we create new markets and business opportunities out of this clean energy focus, and that truly is a clean energy future.

This is an enormous economic opportunity for us in the 21st century. The global demand for clean energy is growing by $1 trillion. That is almost a number I cannot get in my head, $1 trillion every year. The lesson to be

learned from Colorado is that an effective RES, a real RES, can unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit.

I believe it is our job in the Senate to pursue these sorts of forward-looking policies that will help America seize and lead this growing market. Again, I want to urge my colleagues to support the strongest possible RES in any energy legislation that is brought to the floor this year.

I have alluded to the hesitation that some of my colleagues have felt about a robust RES. I saw that in Colorado firsthand for many years. It is tempting to dip your toe in the water when it comes to renewable energy. But make no mistake, we are in a race against foreign competitors, and we are being left behind. The Presiding Officer and I recently returned from China where we discussed clean energy issues with American businesses located there. And China, we found out, will soon be the owners of the largest wind and solar-powered facilities. They are pursuing renewable energy and clean energy technology so ambitiously, not because they necessarily want to save the planet, but because it makes good business and economic sense.

This week, we heard that China's energy use has surpassed ours for the very first time. But I have to tell you, in my opinion from what I read and hear, they are taking more bold action to address their growing demand than we are. Then they also announced last week that they are considering plans to invest $738 billion over the next 10 years in clean energy development. That is nearly the entire size of our Recovery Act that we put in place last year in the United States. Just imagine, their economy is using a comparable amount of energy, but they take clean energy so seriously that they plan to invest a stimulus-size amount of money solely in renewables. I saw it firsthand. And to use a well-worn term, they are about ready to eat our lunch when it comes to clean energy.

I do not want to miss this historic opportunity to implement a strong RES, so let me take a few more minutes to explain what standard I believe we must meet. I want to put a chart up here to show what different levels of percentages would mean for job creation. When you set a standard, you want to set it at a level you can be proud of and one that would spur innovation and the creativity to achieve it.

Senator Tom Udall and I filed a bill last year in the Senate which had previously passed in the House, where we served, mandating an RES of 25 percent of renewable electricity by 2025. That is this side of the chart here. Senator Dorgan has recommended a similarly aggressive standard.

Why is it important to aim for these ambitious levels? Well, looking again at the chart, if we were to invest wisely in a robust RES, a recent Navigant report estimates that the U.S. economy could add nearly 275,000 jobs. These are excellent paying jobs. They cannot be outsourced, and they support this concept of energy independence.

I cannot think of a better deal than this for Americans. Make no mistake about it, our country must have an all-of-the-above energy policy. Conservation and energy efficiency efforts are the quickest way to reduce energy demand today. Nuclear energy and natural gas can and should fill a larger share of our energy portfolio as they both are cleaner fuels.

In addition, we all know that America is going to be dependent on fossil fuels for years to come, so all of those have to be in our energy mix. We have to acknowledge those facts in order to embrace 21st century solutions. But when you look at the future demands for clean energy and economic opportunities ahead of us, renewable energy holds the greatest promise.

The more homegrown renewable energy we can produce, the less money we need to spend buying oil from foreign nations that wish to do us harm or do not agree with our principles or values. I do not think anyone--I hope--I do think not anyone in this Chamber can argue with the proposition that we should be moving aggressively toward energy independence.

As I begin to close, it is time we make a concerted national effort to reclaim our position at the front of the pack. Many of the technologies that the Chinese are utilizing, the Europeans are utilizing, and other nations around the world, we developed in the 1970s and 1980s. But we have got to get back to the front of the parade, where we harness the wind and the Sun and other renewable resources here in America and we put Americans to work developing, building, and leading the clean energy revolution.

I urge and ask my colleagues to work with Senator Dorgan, Senator Udall of New Mexico, and me and the many others who have joined us in this effort to have a strong renewable electricity standard. With all humility, let's follow Colorado's successful example, and let's adopt a clean energy policy that drives innovation, inspires entrepreneurs, and delivers commonsense American solutions to meet our 21st century energy challenges.

I want to close on a final note. I wanted to acknowledge that a wonderful young man, my energy fellow, Kelly Knutsen, who is in the Chamber right now, is leaving my office to join the office of Senator Reed of Rhode Island as a legislative assistant. I wish to thank him for his work in my office, especially for his help on several bills I introduced this year, including my SUN Act and my E-Know bill. Although we will miss him, I know Kelly will be a very strong asset for Senator Reed and Senator Reed's focus on energy policy as well.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Michael Bennet, Mark Begich, Bob Casey, and Jeanne Shaheen, legislation to support elementary school principals and help prepare America's children for a successful education. Our bill would provide grant funds to train elementary school principals on how best to bridge the gap between early childhood development programs and elementary school learning.

Oftentimes for elementary school principals, the competing demands of running a school, without the proper training or experience, can crowd out successful partnerships with early childhood learning programs. This can lead to an assortment of educational approaches and, on a practical level, disjointed efforts to ensure students receive a continuum of learning.

The aim of my bill is to provide elementary school principals with the ability to take research-based, early childhood development practices and incorporate those skills into their schools in order to better prepare our Nation's youth for success. As part of this effort, our House colleagues, Congressmen Altmire and Himes, will be introducing a companion version to this legislation in their chamber.

As we all know, a child's education does not begin on that first day of kindergarten; rather, it begins much earlier in life as an infant's brain develops and cognitive skills are acquired through daily interaction with parents, grandparents, siblings, and other caregivers. As a parent, I remember firsthand the interactions I had with my two children during their infant years. When the time came, my wife and I knew that our children were prepared for pre-school, where they would acquire additional skills to further prepare them for their K-3 years. We wanted them to be ready to learn on day one.

My story is similar to the stories of millions of American parents who do what they can to ensure their children are fully prepared for that first day of kindergarten. While there are many different early learning settings, whether through the Head Start or other programs, we can all agree that ensuring our children are school-ready is an admirable goal.

As the research suggests, children who participate in early learning programs often perform better upon entering elementary school than their peers who do not. In order to build on that success and do right by our children by giving them the best chance to succeed when they begin kindergarten, our bill will help train principals on how to establish relationships with early childhood learning providers and collaborate to ensure they are on the same page when it comes to a child's development.

Building this pathway and ensuring a close connection between these two critical educational settings, especially for principals early in their careers, is a common-sense way to build better learning environments for our children. Our legislation has the support of the National Association of Elementary School Principals and a host of early learning advocacy organizations. I urge my colleagues to support this important effort.