Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my friend and colleague Senator Crapo, legislation to encourage further protection of our treasured lands, ranches and family farms. The American Family Farm and Ranchland Protection Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that rewards those who protect these lands through conservation easements by increasing their exemption from the estate tax. Put simply, we strongly support conservation efforts and believe we need to do more to give Americans a real incentive to protect our nation's land. It is a companion bill to similar bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives introduced by Congressman Blumenauer.

I have long made conservation of America's natural resources a core component of my public service. In my role as chair of the National Parks Subcommittee, I am continuously focused on preserving our public lands and waters, because we owe it to future generations to leave them a sustainable environment. We did not inherit the land from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children.

However, the Government can only do so much, and many of our most important landscapes are privately owned property. If we are serious about conservation, we must acknowledge the important role that private land owners play in the overall effort to preserve our natural resources for generations to come.

Estate taxes can compromise Americans' ability to conserve private property. After the death of a loved one, families are often forced to subdivide a property and sell it for development to pay the costs of estate taxes. This situation could become more common starting in 2011 when the estate tax is set to revert back to the 2001 level of 55 percent above a $1 million per spouse exemption. Nearly 15 years ago, in an effort to provide some relief and encourage conservation of family farms and ranches, Congress created an exemption from the estate tax of up to 40 percent of the value of the land, capped at $500,000, for land permanently protected by a conservation easement.

A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and the government that permanently restricts certain development and future uses of the land. It often prevents future commercialization, while still permitting historic farming and ranching operations to continue in the family. I know in Colorado, our lands are best cared for when each generation knows its stewardship will reward the next.

When Congress first created the conservation easement exemption from estate taxes in 1997, a 40 percent exemption up to a total of $500,000 made sense. Now, that exclusion is simply too small. Since 1997, average farm real estate values have more than doubled and the average farm is larger, as larger farms are more likely to be economically viable. Incidentally, larger farms are also more likely to hold resources worthy of conservation. The old cap is simply no longer much of an incentive.

My legislation is a simple solution to the inadequacy of the current exemption. It raises the exemption for land under a conservation easement to 50 percent, up to a maximum exclusion of $5 million. It also encourages more robust conservation easements: less protective easements will receive a proportionally lower exemption rate. If we can support greater conservation efforts through a simple update to our existing tax code, then to me, that sounds like a deal worth taking.

This is a small change, but it has a profound effect. Those who choose to enter into a conservation easement will leave a dramatically reduced estate tax burden on their family. This, in turn, will help keep family farms and ranches whole, preserving them for future generations.

This is just a small piece of the estate tax puzzle, but it is an important one. It is critically important for Congress to address the estate tax before the end of this year to prevent it from going back to where it was a decade ago, with an exemption of only $1 million. At that level, it would affect almost every farmer and rancher in my state and in many others, as well as many, many family businesses.

We can protect the land, respect private property, ease tax burdens, and preserve our important farming and ranching heritage with the exemption my legislation proposes. I encourage the Senate to take up and approve this common-sense bill in an expeditious manner.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my friend and colleague Senator Crapo, legislation to encourage further protection of our treasured lands, ranches and family farms. The American Family Farm and Ranchland Protection Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that rewards those who protect these lands through conservation easements by increasing their exemption from the estate tax. Put simply, we strongly support conservation efforts and believe we need to do more to give Americans a real incentive to protect our nation's land. It is a companion bill to similar bipartisan legislation in the House of Representatives introduced by Congressman Blumenauer.

I have long made conservation of America's natural resources a core component of my public service. In my role as chair of the National Parks Subcommittee, I am continuously focused on preserving our public lands and waters, because we owe it to future generations to leave them a sustainable environment. We did not inherit the land from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children.

However, the Government can only do so much, and many of our most important landscapes are privately owned property. If we are serious about conservation, we must acknowledge the important role that private land owners play in the overall effort to preserve our natural resources for generations to come.

Estate taxes can compromise Americans' ability to conserve private property. After the death of a loved one, families are often forced to subdivide a property and sell it for development to pay the costs of estate taxes. This situation could become more common starting in 2011 when the estate tax is set to revert back to the 2001 level of 55 percent above a $1 million per spouse exemption. Nearly 15 years ago, in an effort to provide some relief and encourage conservation of family farms and ranches, Congress created an exemption from the estate tax of up to 40 percent of the value of the land, capped at $500,000, for land permanently protected by a conservation easement.

A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and the government that permanently restricts certain development and future uses of the land. It often prevents future commercialization, while still permitting historic farming and ranching operations to continue in the family. I know in Colorado, our lands are best cared for when each generation knows its stewardship will reward the next.

When Congress first created the conservation easement exemption from estate taxes in 1997, a 40 percent exemption up to a total of $500,000 made sense. Now, that exclusion is simply too small. Since 1997, average farm real estate values have more than doubled and the average farm is larger, as larger farms are more likely to be economically viable. Incidentally, larger farms are also more likely to hold resources worthy of conservation. The old cap is simply no longer much of an incentive.

My legislation is a simple solution to the inadequacy of the current exemption. It raises the exemption for land under a conservation easement to 50 percent, up to a maximum exclusion of $5 million. It also encourages more robust conservation easements: less protective easements will receive a proportionally lower exemption rate. If we can support greater conservation efforts through a simple update to our existing tax code, then to me, that sounds like a deal worth taking.

This is a small change, but it has a profound effect. Those who choose to enter into a conservation easement will leave a dramatically reduced estate tax burden on their family. This, in turn, will help keep family farms and ranches whole, preserving them for future generations.

This is just a small piece of the estate tax puzzle, but it is an important one. It is critically important for Congress to address the estate tax before the end of this year to prevent it from going back to where it was a decade ago, with an exemption of only $1 million. At that level, it would affect almost every farmer and rancher in my state and in many others, as well as many, many family businesses.

We can protect the land, respect private property, ease tax burdens, and preserve our important farming and ranching heritage with the exemption my legislation proposes. I encourage the Senate to take up and approve this common-sense bill in an expeditious manner.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help the Pentagon turn energy from a source of risk to a source of advantage. The Department of Defense, DOD, Energy Security Act would decrease the Pentagon's consumption of petroleum, reduce reliance on the grid, and help plan for the future. All of this would help achieve an important goal that we all support: enhancing our national security.

I am grateful to my former colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who introduced the counterpart bill in the House of Representatives. I am also grateful to Senator Bennet for cosponsoring this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with both of them on this important legislation and on this important issue.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have focused on the intersection of defense and energy for some time.

The United States is the world's largest consumer of energy. We depend on foreign imports for nearly 60 percent of our oil. Nearly every military challenge we face is either derived from or impacted by our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources.

The Pentagon is a large microcosm of this even larger problem. The U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world-- consuming more energy per day than 85 percent of the world's countries. It is the largest electricity consumer in the federal government and the single largest buyer of fuel in the United States--using 2 percent of our total national consumption.

Energy supply security affects DOD's ability to accomplish its mission, and

efforts to secure supply lines and deliver fuel in-theater directly result in the deaths of service members charged with protecting it. But our military's reliance is not just on the battlefield. At home, defense facilities rely on a fragile national grid, leaving critical assets vulnerable. The Defense Science Board found in its 2008 report ``More Fight--Less Fuel'' that ``critical national security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid.''

The Pentagon's energy consumption has serious national security implications, but it also presents opportunities. As the Logistics Management Institute wrote, ``Aggressively developing and applying energy-saving technologies to military applications would potentially do more to solve the most pressing long-term challenges facing DOD and our national security than any other single investment area.''

That is why I am introducing this legislation. The Department of Defense Energy Security Act addresses energy supply and use by decreasing consumption by facilities and vehicles and increasing the use of renewable electricity sources to relieve the Department's reliance on external power sources. In addition, the bill sets overarching policies to implement sustainable acquisition practices, sets new DOD Energy Performance Goals, and requires DOD to develop an Energy Performance Plan and an implementation assessment for accomplishing its goal of deriving 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

Utilizing alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies can help our military increase energy reliability and reduce its dependence on oil; improve efficiency in operations, platforms, and vehicles; reduce the costs to taxpayers of military- consumed electricity and fuel; expand portable clean technology options for use in combat and logistics; act as an anchor customer for the alternative fuels and energy efficiency industries; and reduce grid vulnerabilities at our military installations.

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy is a goal we all share. Helping the Defense Department achieve this goal should be a national priority. I urge my colleagues--of both parties--to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help the Pentagon turn energy from a source of risk to a source of advantage. The Department of Defense, DOD, Energy Security Act would decrease the Pentagon's consumption of petroleum, reduce reliance on the grid, and help plan for the future. All of this would help achieve an important goal that we all support: enhancing our national security.

I am grateful to my former colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who introduced the counterpart bill in the House of Representatives. I am also grateful to Senator Bennet for cosponsoring this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with both of them on this important legislation and on this important issue.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have focused on the intersection of defense and energy for some time.

The United States is the world's largest consumer of energy. We depend on foreign imports for nearly 60 percent of our oil. Nearly every military challenge we face is either derived from or impacted by our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources.

The Pentagon is a large microcosm of this even larger problem. The U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world-- consuming more energy per day than 85 percent of the world's countries. It is the largest electricity consumer in the federal government and the single largest buyer of fuel in the United States--using 2 percent of our total national consumption.

Energy supply security affects DOD's ability to accomplish its mission, and

efforts to secure supply lines and deliver fuel in-theater directly result in the deaths of service members charged with protecting it. But our military's reliance is not just on the battlefield. At home, defense facilities rely on a fragile national grid, leaving critical assets vulnerable. The Defense Science Board found in its 2008 report ``More Fight--Less Fuel'' that ``critical national security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid.''

The Pentagon's energy consumption has serious national security implications, but it also presents opportunities. As the Logistics Management Institute wrote, ``Aggressively developing and applying energy-saving technologies to military applications would potentially do more to solve the most pressing long-term challenges facing DOD and our national security than any other single investment area.''

That is why I am introducing this legislation. The Department of Defense Energy Security Act addresses energy supply and use by decreasing consumption by facilities and vehicles and increasing the use of renewable electricity sources to relieve the Department's reliance on external power sources. In addition, the bill sets overarching policies to implement sustainable acquisition practices, sets new DOD Energy Performance Goals, and requires DOD to develop an Energy Performance Plan and an implementation assessment for accomplishing its goal of deriving 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

Utilizing alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies can help our military increase energy reliability and reduce its dependence on oil; improve efficiency in operations, platforms, and vehicles; reduce the costs to taxpayers of military- consumed electricity and fuel; expand portable clean technology options for use in combat and logistics; act as an anchor customer for the alternative fuels and energy efficiency industries; and reduce grid vulnerabilities at our military installations.

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy is a goal we all share. Helping the Defense Department achieve this goal should be a national priority. I urge my colleagues--of both parties--to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, we are working here on the floor of the Senate to encourage a strong economic recovery, but it still remains clear that too many Americans are unable to find work. We know small businesses are the real job engines in our economy, so I am particularly pleased that the Senate is right now debating a small business lending bill.

I rise today because I would like to further improve the bill through an amendment that would take a simple step to safely increase lending to small businesses. We do that mainly by getting government out of the way so that credit unions can increase their small business loan portfolios.

Today, in every single State of the United States, there are credit unions that have cash on their balance sheets, and they are ready to respond with loans for more money. There are many worthy small businesses in communities across our country, in Colorado and Illinois, that need the loans, but Federal law currently prohibits Federal credit unions from fully helping our entrepreneurs. Especially in this economy, we need to change that. We know small business expansion is what is going to pull us out of this recession.

Small businesses have always been the job engine of our economy. In the last 15 years, small businesses have generated nearly two-thirds of all new jobs created in our country, and they currently employ more than half of all Americans.

I traveled across Colorado this year and last year, as you have in your State, Mr. President. I constantly visited with scores of small business owners, and they continually ask me: Where is the lending? I thought the banks were supposed to start lending again.

I heard this. I think every Senator in the Chamber has heard this. But 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 why I am introducing this amendment to allow credit unions to ramp up their small business lending without costing taxpayers a single dime.

Back in December of last year, I was joined by Senators Snowe, Schumer, Lieberman, Boxer, Collins, Bennet of Colorado, our Majority Leader Reid of Nevada, Specter, Bill Nelson, Sanders, and Gillibrand in introducing the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act.

The bill would have increased lending for small business by lifting the arbitrary cap on credit union small business loans. Why is that a problem and why is that a cause of concern? Right now credit unions are required to limit small business lending to 12.25 percent of their total assets. But many credit unions have run up against that cap and the only thing keeping them from jump-starting their local economies is an outmoded law I acknowledged.

After introducing our bill last year, we heard from scores of banks that were concerned about the safety and soundness of allowing credit unions to increase their small business loan portfolios. I realize that dealing with banking credit unions can be like injecting yourself between the Hatfields and the McCoys, but I feel so strongly about helping small businesses and unlocking the credit markets that I am willing to take some lumps in the process.

I have gone back to the banks, listened to their concerns, and we went to the drawing board. I spoke to the Senate Banking Committee, Treasury Department, and even the credit unions' own regulator, the National Credit Union Administration, to see if there was something we could all agree on.

That work has paid off, which is why I am proud to introduce a new compromise that will safely and soundly increase small business lending by credit unions without costing Americans a dime. Best of all, this legislation could lead to large-scale job creation in my home State of Colorado and all around our great country.

If the Members would indulge me, I wish to explain what is in the compromise. In response to questions about the safety and soundness of allowing credit unions to expand their small business lending all at once, our new proposal institutes strict eligibility criteria. Under this amendment, the credit union must first be well capitalized. Second, they must have offered small business loans for at least the last 5 years; third, proof they have sound underwriting and strong historical management practices; and, fourth, it must show they have been running up against their previous loan cap. Credit unions that meet all of those strict criteria then go to the NCUA, their regulator, and apply to increase their small business lending. Then when they are approved, that cap would increase slowly from the current 12.25 percent to a maximum of 27.5 percent, and even that transition would be overseen by regulators to ensure it is done in a measured and prudent fashion.

Nobody can argue that this is irresponsible. I would challenge anybody to tell me this is not a sound and sure-fire way to grow our economy by increasing credit unions' capacity to lend to small businesses. The Credit Union National Association estimates that these sensible reforms would increase small business lending by over $10 billion a year, including--and let me talk about Colorado--an increase of $200 million in my home State of Colorado.

This new access to credit is also predicted conservatively to produce more than 100,000 new jobs nationwide. I think everybody would agree this is the sort of pro-business, pro-jobs policy we need.

The small business community, led by the National Small Business Association, the National Association of Realtors, and even chambers of commerce such as those in Texas have even gotten behind our effort and are now asking the Congress to pass this important provision.

We all know 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.

Mr. President, you been here the last 18 months and you have noted, I know, that the 22 banks that received the most funding through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, actually have cut their collective small business loan balance, and then America's community banks which, by and large, did not receive any Federal bailout funds, are still struggling to fill that Main Street credit vacuum that was created by these large financial institutions.

We need to do better. Small businesses are counting on us all across our country. I mentioned earlier we have all met business owners. One Coloradan I was particularly compelled by is Stacy Hamon. Stacy is a small business owner in Thornton, CO, who started her own business, the 1st Street Salon. Initially she went to a bank only to be turned away because credit was in short supply, not because of any problem with her credit history. So Stacy turned to make her dream come true to her local credit union, and that credit union granted her a loan through a second mortgage on her home. Since that time her salon has become even more successful. I visited her business. I was impressed. She hired more workers. She created real American jobs. Her story is a shining example of the economic expansion that awaits us if we will increase the amount of lending that credit unions can undertake.

Another Coloradan, because this is about real people who are eager to build their business, is Lisa Herman. She e-mailed me a story about a loan she secured from a credit union to expand her business, called Happy Cakes Bakeshop. It is in the Highland Square area of Denver. She has been in business since 2007. Despite a tough economy, her revenue has been up by about 25 percent since the summer of 2008. She has booked over 20 weddings a month, and her retail operation has expanded to the point that she needed to build and move into a new shop.

Her traditional bank lender could not expand her credit, but her local credit union could. She went on and expanded her business. This meant more jobs and more business for her community. That is the American way, is it not?

As I begin to close, some would have you believe that this is about banks or credit unions. I mentioned the Hatfields and the McCoys earlier. But it is about small business; not about the banks, not about the credit unions, it is about small business.

In this kind of a climate, we cannot turn away entrepreneurs such as Stacy and Lisa. I doubt there is a single Member of this Senate who wants to look a small business owner in the eye who could not get a loan because of an arbitrary government cap on small business lending. We all have an enormous responsibility to do all we can to unlock credit markets for small businesses in Colorado and across our country.

This amendment is an important part of that effort. I look forward to working with all 98 of my colleagues to move this amendment, to add it to this important small business lending package and allow our Nation's small businesses to again set our country on a path toward job growth and future prosperity.

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

Mr. President, the oilspill in the gulf looks to become one of the greatest environmental disasters in our lifetime. This accident, which has been brought on by our addiction to oil, is another tragic reminder--as if we needed one--of the sad inevitability of human error. This spill in the gulf is also a reminder of the fragile balance we must maintain between the development of resources and protecting the environment from which they spring. It puts me in mind of our generation's responsibility to our children and the challenge of fueling prosperity with newer, cleaner, and more sustainable energy sources.

As the world watches our efforts to contain this disaster, I cannot help but think about how another generation of Americans might have responded. In particular, I have one man in mind.

A few months ago--March 10, to be precise--my family mourned the loss of a great and good man who was beloved by everyone in our clan, from the eldest to the youngest among us. On that day, we lost my uncle, Stewart Udall, at the grand age of 90. Of course, our family is no different from any other American family. Death occurs every day, every hour, and every minute, and families cope with the loss, however it comes. It harkens us to cherish those all-too-brief moments we have with the people we love.

I would not take to the floor of the Senate to discuss personal loss, but I hope my colleagues will indulge me in taking a few moments to honor Stewart Udall, not because he was a member of our family and because we loved him dearly but because his contributions to America deserve our recognition. So it is not my uncle I wish to recognize; it is Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall the conservationist, Stewart Udall the civil rights activist, author, historian, and public servant I wish to honor today.

Stewart never confused power with greatness. He was quoted saying as much. He knew that the power given to him by the people of Arizona to represent them in Congress, the power President John F. Kennedy bestowed upon him as Secretary of the Interior, and the power he subsequently had in private life as a man whose words and opinions mattered in the public arena--all of these manifestations of power were, for him, fleeting and not of deep consequence, except for the opportunity it gave him to make a difference in the world. And he did make a difference, a very big difference.

Under his leadership in the Kennedy-Johnson years, the Department of Interior was a beacon of conservation, wildland preservation, and environmental stewardship. As the New York Times recently noted, ``Few corners of the Nation escaped Mr. Udall's touch.''

For the wildlife, lands, and water of this country, his touch was a Midas touch. He added 3.85 million acres to the public lands inventory, including 4 national parks, 6 national monuments, 9 national recreation areas, 20 national historic sites, 50 wildlife refuges, and 8 national seashores.

While serving as Secretary of Interior, he also found time to write the first of many books in his long career as an author. His book ``A Quiet Crisis'' is considered a landmark work. His words provided a manifesto to an emerging public movement on behalf of the environment. Before Stewart Udall's time at Interior, the term ``environmental policy'' was not even a part of the public debate. By the time Stewart left public service, no politician in the country could run for office without addressing environmental concerns and issues.

While Stewart is deeply associated with the cause of conservation, his conscience was broader than the landscapes he helped protect. He cared deeply about the environment, but he cherished human beings. That is why he said:

Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife

are, in fact, plans to protect man.

That is also why he took up the cause of Native Americans and why he was an early champion of civil rights and an unrelenting opponent of racial segregation.

Friends and colleagues noted that he had a rare reputation in political life. It has been said that he ``never advanced his own ambitions by tearing down a fellow human being.'' I know this is true of Stewart Udall because

even his fiercest political opponents respected his sense of fairness and welcomed his friendship.

Mark Twain said:

The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who

lives fully is prepared to die at any time.

Stewart Udall was a man who lived life fully. He had a zest for life and a thirst for knowledge and experience that was truly without bounds. I cannot say where this enthusiasm for experience was rooted, but it must have been nourished by the intimate and painful memories from no less than 50 missions as a tail gunner during the Second World War. I still marvel at this feat of endurance and bravery. The average life expectancy for a B-17 crew in the European theater was allegedly 14 missions. He flew 50. It was something he rarely spoke about.

I know if he were here with us today, Stewart would be in the thick of our debate about energy, the threat of climate change, and lessons to be drawn from our painful experience in the gulf. In a moving letter he drafted for his grandchildren, Stewart anticipated the challenges of our time and acknowledged the mistakes of his own. To that end, he wrote:

Operating on the assumption that energy would be both cheap

and superabundant led my generation to make misjudgments that

have come back and now haunt and perplex your generation. We

designed cities, buildings, and a national system of

transportation that were inefficient and extravagant. Now,

the paramount task of your generation will be to correct

those mistakes with an efficient infrastructure that respects

the limitations of our environment to keep up with damages we

are causing.

I cannot improve on words Stewart spoke in defense of conservation some years ago. Given the challenges we face today, I believe they still ring true, and I wish to close my tribute to his public service by recalling them now.

He said:

Over the long haul of life on this planet, it is the

ecologists, and not the bookkeepers of business, who are the

ultimate accountants.

Our progress as a society cannot be measured solely or even in part by the output of our economy, the number or complexity of our machines, or the brilliance of our technology. Our progress and success as human beings cannot be defined by gross domestic product, billions expended or invested, profit margins, trade balances, or numbers of hits on a Web page. In the end, our progress in any category of endeavor depends on our survival, and our survival is tied to the health and well-being of the planet we share. Stewart Udall illuminated this simple truth and made it the centerpiece of his public service. I am proud to have known him, I am honored that he was my uncle, and grateful, as are so many, to have been his pupil. His voice will be missed, but his wisdom endures.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I am introducing, co-sponsored by Senators Bennett, Hatch, and Bennet of Colorado, to effectuate a relatively small land exchange involving

lands in Colorado and Utah. The exchange involves a private ranch, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.

In a nutshell, the private Bear Ranch in central/west Colorado is completely bisected by a narrow strip of BLM land, mostly 1/4 to 1/2 mile wide, which is of limited public use due to its narrow configuration. The Bear Ranch would like to acquire the BLM strip in order to consolidate its ranch holdings for more efficient land, ranch and wildlife management, and to improve wildlife enhancement. There is also an issue of inadvertent trespass onto the Bear Ranch from the neighboring BLM land that would be eliminated by the Bear Ranch's acquisition of the BLM land strip.

In return for the BLM land, the Bear Ranch has purchased or optioned two magnificent tracts of land in Colorado and Utah that would be added into the National Park System. The first is a 911 acre property near the shores of the heavily used Blue Mesa Reservoir in the Curecanti National Recreation Area outside of Gunnison, CO. This property has an important sage grouse habitat, superb views of both the Blue Mesa Reservoir and the spectacular Dillon Pinnacles, and an important elk and deer winter range. A portion of it might also be utilized for a future park visitor center.

In Utah, the Bear Ranch has optioned 80 acres located inside Dinosaur National Monument. The so-called Orchid Draw property is about 1 mile west of the Monument's Quarry Visitor Center and is thought to contain rich dinosaur and vertebrate fossil resources. It is also within an area of special botanic interest, with nine sensitive plant species. The Park Service has been trying to acquire this property for a long time.

There are several other special features of our legislation which deserve special mention.

First, the Bear Ranch will place a permanent conservation status on all the land it acquires from the BLM which will limit future use of the land to ranching, wildlife conservation, open space and recreational purposes only.

Second, the BLM land will be appraised at its full market value before the conservation easement is put in place so that the U.S. taxpayers will get full value for the land they convey to the Bear Ranch.

Third, if the land Bear Ranch conveys to the Park Service appraises higher than the BLM land, the Bear Ranch will forego any cash equalization payment which might otherwise be due from the U.S., and will instead donate the excess value to the U.S.

Fourth, the Bear Ranch has committed to donate up to $250,000 for new trail, trailhead and other outdoor recreational improvements in the vicinity of the land exchange in order to improve public access and enhance recreational opportunities on nearby Forest Service and BLM lands. Exactly where, and how, those funds will be used will be determined by BLM and Forest Service planning that is currently underway.

Our legislation has received the support of the local county and town governments of jurisdiction in both Colorado and Utah, and from numerous environmental, conservation, recreation, historic and natural preservation organizations. Those include Gunnison County. CO, Uintah County, UT, the City of Gunnison, CO, City of Vernal, UT, the Nature Conservancy, National Parks & Conservation Association, Thunder Mountain Wheelers, Intermountain Natural History Association, and several others.

The bill also effectuates another small land for right of way exchange near Marble, CO, in order to facilitate a proposed small hydroelectric project and to acquire a new public trailhead to access the popular Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. That exchange is endorsed by the Aspen Valley Land Trust, Holy Cross Electric Association, a rural electric cooperative, the Town of Marble, CO and Gunnison County, CO, among others.

In summary, this legislation represents a true ``win-win'' for both the general public and numerous local communities. I thank my colleagues, Senators Bennett, Hatch, and Bennet for joining me in sponsoring the bill, and for Congressmen John Salazar, Jim Matheson and Mike Thompson for introducing an identical bill in the House. I am looking forward to the Senate's expeditious consideration and approval so that it can become law this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I am introducing, co-sponsored by Senators Bennett, Hatch, and Bennet of Colorado, to effectuate a relatively small land exchange involving

lands in Colorado and Utah. The exchange involves a private ranch, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.

In a nutshell, the private Bear Ranch in central/west Colorado is completely bisected by a narrow strip of BLM land, mostly 1/4 to 1/2 mile wide, which is of limited public use due to its narrow configuration. The Bear Ranch would like to acquire the BLM strip in order to consolidate its ranch holdings for more efficient land, ranch and wildlife management, and to improve wildlife enhancement. There is also an issue of inadvertent trespass onto the Bear Ranch from the neighboring BLM land that would be eliminated by the Bear Ranch's acquisition of the BLM land strip.

In return for the BLM land, the Bear Ranch has purchased or optioned two magnificent tracts of land in Colorado and Utah that would be added into the National Park System. The first is a 911 acre property near the shores of the heavily used Blue Mesa Reservoir in the Curecanti National Recreation Area outside of Gunnison, CO. This property has an important sage grouse habitat, superb views of both the Blue Mesa Reservoir and the spectacular Dillon Pinnacles, and an important elk and deer winter range. A portion of it might also be utilized for a future park visitor center.

In Utah, the Bear Ranch has optioned 80 acres located inside Dinosaur National Monument. The so-called Orchid Draw property is about 1 mile west of the Monument's Quarry Visitor Center and is thought to contain rich dinosaur and vertebrate fossil resources. It is also within an area of special botanic interest, with nine sensitive plant species. The Park Service has been trying to acquire this property for a long time.

There are several other special features of our legislation which deserve special mention.

First, the Bear Ranch will place a permanent conservation status on all the land it acquires from the BLM which will limit future use of the land to ranching, wildlife conservation, open space and recreational purposes only.

Second, the BLM land will be appraised at its full market value before the conservation easement is put in place so that the U.S. taxpayers will get full value for the land they convey to the Bear Ranch.

Third, if the land Bear Ranch conveys to the Park Service appraises higher than the BLM land, the Bear Ranch will forego any cash equalization payment which might otherwise be due from the U.S., and will instead donate the excess value to the U.S.

Fourth, the Bear Ranch has committed to donate up to $250,000 for new trail, trailhead and other outdoor recreational improvements in the vicinity of the land exchange in order to improve public access and enhance recreational opportunities on nearby Forest Service and BLM lands. Exactly where, and how, those funds will be used will be determined by BLM and Forest Service planning that is currently underway.

Our legislation has received the support of the local county and town governments of jurisdiction in both Colorado and Utah, and from numerous environmental, conservation, recreation, historic and natural preservation organizations. Those include Gunnison County. CO, Uintah County, UT, the City of Gunnison, CO, City of Vernal, UT, the Nature Conservancy, National Parks & Conservation Association, Thunder Mountain Wheelers, Intermountain Natural History Association, and several others.

The bill also effectuates another small land for right of way exchange near Marble, CO, in order to facilitate a proposed small hydroelectric project and to acquire a new public trailhead to access the popular Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. That exchange is endorsed by the Aspen Valley Land Trust, Holy Cross Electric Association, a rural electric cooperative, the Town of Marble, CO and Gunnison County, CO, among others.

In summary, this legislation represents a true ``win-win'' for both the general public and numerous local communities. I thank my colleagues, Senators Bennett, Hatch, and Bennet for joining me in sponsoring the bill, and for Congressmen John Salazar, Jim Matheson and Mike Thompson for introducing an identical bill in the House. I am looking forward to the Senate's expeditious consideration and approval so that it can become law this year.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Shaheen and Chairman Bingaman in introducing a bill to help prevent future disasters like the one we are seeing unfold in the Gulf of Mexico. Our bill focuses Federal oil and gas research and development funds on well safety and accident prevention. There are many lessons to be learned from this tragedy, but one of the most important is that we need more advanced technology to prevent future accidents and ensure the safety of our oil and gas workers.

This oil spill has highlighted many problems with the operation of the oil and gas industry and the threat that accidents have to our families, economy and environment. While the industry has opened up new areas to oil and gas production, developments in safety and well control technology have not always kept pace. That is unacceptable. Eleven people lost their lives during this tragedy, and we do not yet know the full extent of the economic, health and environmental damage that will be caused by the spill.

Unfortunately, out of control wells are not a unique circumstance. Over the last month, two major onshore incidents occurred as well. First, a gas well explosion in West Virginia injured seven workers and then another occurred in Pennsylvania where it appears that a blowout preventer did not work properly.

It is clear that oil is and will continue to be an important energy source for us for many years to come, especially for our transportation sector. But, while we will continue to drill for oil and gas, we cannot repeat the mistakes, negligence or recklessness that led to this disaster. We must learn from this accident and aggressively develop better technology to stop these spills from happening in the first place, both onshore and offshore.

That is why I am introducing the Safer Oil and Gas Production Research and Development Act. This bill would change an existing oil and gas research and development program within the Department of Energy, DOE, to re-focus it specifically on technologies to improve the safety of exploration and production activities, including well integrity, well control, blowout prevention, and well plugging and abandonment.

In addition, the legislation would also require DOE to publish an annual update of the program's work and outline recommendations for the implementation of its research findings. This oversight is important so that we can ensure this information is public, transparent, and readily available to entrepreneurs and others who could further develop these technologies.

I should emphasize that my bill is only one of the many steps we must take to respond to this accident. Not only do we need to work to prevent future accidents, we need to make sure we are better prepared to respond when they occur.

It is unacceptable that the spill prevention and response technology we are using today is the same as was used in the last disaster--the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, over 20 years ago. That is why I am a proud co-sponsor of Senator Shaheen's bill to create a new program at the Department of the Interior to research and develop spill response and mitigation technology. Her bill, which also is being introduced today, is a perfect complement to mine--both programs are needed to move our oil drilling technology forward.

Our two bills will take common-sense steps to improve drilling safety, prevent accidents and help ensure that if an accident does occur, we are better prepared to respond. This tragedy is a wake-up call that proves that we need to begin changing the way we generate and consume energy.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Shaheen and Chairman Bingaman in introducing a bill to help prevent future disasters like the one we are seeing unfold in the Gulf of Mexico. Our bill focuses Federal oil and gas research and development funds on well safety and accident prevention. There are many lessons to be learned from this tragedy, but one of the most important is that we need more advanced technology to prevent future accidents and ensure the safety of our oil and gas workers.

This oil spill has highlighted many problems with the operation of the oil and gas industry and the threat that accidents have to our families, economy and environment. While the industry has opened up new areas to oil and gas production, developments in safety and well control technology have not always kept pace. That is unacceptable. Eleven people lost their lives during this tragedy, and we do not yet know the full extent of the economic, health and environmental damage that will be caused by the spill.

Unfortunately, out of control wells are not a unique circumstance. Over the last month, two major onshore incidents occurred as well. First, a gas well explosion in West Virginia injured seven workers and then another occurred in Pennsylvania where it appears that a blowout preventer did not work properly.

It is clear that oil is and will continue to be an important energy source for us for many years to come, especially for our transportation sector. But, while we will continue to drill for oil and gas, we cannot repeat the mistakes, negligence or recklessness that led to this disaster. We must learn from this accident and aggressively develop better technology to stop these spills from happening in the first place, both onshore and offshore.

That is why I am introducing the Safer Oil and Gas Production Research and Development Act. This bill would change an existing oil and gas research and development program within the Department of Energy, DOE, to re-focus it specifically on technologies to improve the safety of exploration and production activities, including well integrity, well control, blowout prevention, and well plugging and abandonment.

In addition, the legislation would also require DOE to publish an annual update of the program's work and outline recommendations for the implementation of its research findings. This oversight is important so that we can ensure this information is public, transparent, and readily available to entrepreneurs and others who could further develop these technologies.

I should emphasize that my bill is only one of the many steps we must take to respond to this accident. Not only do we need to work to prevent future accidents, we need to make sure we are better prepared to respond when they occur.

It is unacceptable that the spill prevention and response technology we are using today is the same as was used in the last disaster--the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, over 20 years ago. That is why I am a proud co-sponsor of Senator Shaheen's bill to create a new program at the Department of the Interior to research and develop spill response and mitigation technology. Her bill, which also is being introduced today, is a perfect complement to mine--both programs are needed to move our oil drilling technology forward.

Our two bills will take common-sense steps to improve drilling safety, prevent accidents and help ensure that if an accident does occur, we are better prepared to respond. This tragedy is a wake-up call that proves that we need to begin changing the way we generate and consume energy.

Mr. President, I rise to highlight the celebration of Juneteenth throughout my State of Colorado.

One hundred forty-five years ago, Black slaves in Galveston, TX, heard the contents of ``General Order No. 3,'' which proclaimed their freedom from slavery. Though the announcement in Galveston in 1865 came over 2 years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, for the first time, Black slaves learned of their freedom from a shameful policy of early America that threatened the wellbeing of the entire Union. June 19, 1865, was a joyous day for these men, women and children and has since become a day of reflection and celebration as the day when Lincoln's words in the Emancipation Proclamation were finally realized. As African Americans migrated west and out of Texas, they carried with them the memories and message they had heard on that great day in June.

Communities in Colorado come together every year to continue a tradition that highlights a notable turning point in our country's history; a point at which our country's hard fought efforts to empower a segment of America's population materialized. Today, just as before, this community has continued to make powerful and positive contributions to our common quality of life. That is why it is no surprise to me that this tradition carries on. In Colorado, citizens of various backgrounds gather in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver and in the backyards of communities across our State to celebrate Juneteenth.

I am particularly proud to mention that in Pueblo, CO, they are celebrating the 30th anniversary of their first official Juneteenth celebration with the theme ``Growing the Community.'' And just as in Colorado Springs, Denver and other places across the State, it is an event that shares this history and time of reflection with the entire community.

To all my fellow Coloradans who will gather this June 19 to celebrate an important event in America's history, I wish you a safe and joyous occasion. And I am proud that you continue to instill a sense of history and community that provides rich cultural and historical knowledge of our country's fight to ensure freedom for all.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that I filed, called the Electric Consumer Right to Know Act. This bill takes a common-sense step toward broadening consumers' access to data about their electricity usage. On top of that, I am proud to say that this idea came directly from one of my Colorado constituents.

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

The bill I filed today would provide timely access to these data by establishing consumers' clear right to access data on their own electricity usage. This right is an important step toward a more effective, reliable and efficient electrical grid, and a step toward helping consumers use electricity more efficiently and save money on their electric bills.

For the past year I have been travelling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs, including hosting an Energy Jobs Summit in Denver back in February. As part of this Summit, we asked experts in energy policy and business to join us for a conversation about how we can better position Colorado and the United States to lead in the 21st century clean energy economy.

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

One consumer participant at the Summit noted that, even though he had a smart meter at his home, his power company would not let him access his electrical meter readings to learn how he was using electricity. If he could access those readings, he could better understand his energy use, learn how to be more energy efficient and save money. That is why I am introducing the Electric Consumer Right to Know Act to improve communication between the consumers and their utility, spur innovation in developing creative technologies that will save energy, and provide clarity while these programs are being developed.

This bill has several important parts. First, it establishes a framework for the right to access information, defining specifically what that right means, and giving clarity to those who will further develop and enforce that right. This bill says that if you have a smart meter, or similar electronic device that reads electric energy usage, that you ought to have access to the utility company's data on your energy use.

How that access is granted is delineated in three ways in this bill:

If your meter communicates with your utility on an hourly or shorter time interval, my bill states that your meter readings should be available within 24 hours.

Second, if your smart meter is capable of communicating energy use data directly from your meter, under this bill, you have the right to access those data and use them directly at your home or business.

Third, for consumers who have standard meters, with this bill, there are no additional requirements except that your readings shall be available electronically in a timely manner.

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

The outcome of this process will be national guidelines establishing the right of consumers to access their electricity data, including minimum national standards that utilities must meet to ensure that right of access. In developing those minimum standards, the FERC will take into consideration the ongoing and important work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in developing a smart grid roadmap, as well as the innovative state and local programs already being developed across the country to integrate smart meters into the electrical grid, including Colorado, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and others.

In Colorado, Xcel Energy has been working with the City of Boulder on a pilot program called SmartGridCity to develop a community-scale smart grid with over 20,000 residents participating. Not only are these consumers improving their understanding of their electricity use, Xcel notes that they have already avoided several blackouts due to the improved communication between consumers and the grid. Power interruptions cost the American economy roughly $80 billion per year and \2/3\ of those losses come from interruptions lasting less than five minutes. I am proud to see Coloradans and our state's utilities taking important steps together in learning how to make the grid more reliable, efficient, and help save everyone money.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that I filed, called the Electric Consumer Right to Know Act. This bill takes a common-sense step toward broadening consumers' access to data about their electricity usage. On top of that, I am proud to say that this idea came directly from one of my Colorado constituents.

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

The bill I filed today would provide timely access to these data by establishing consumers' clear right to access data on their own electricity usage. This right is an important step toward a more effective, reliable and efficient electrical grid, and a step toward helping consumers use electricity more efficiently and save money on their electric bills.

For the past year I have been travelling across Colorado as part of a work force tour to talk directly to Coloradans and hear their innovative policy ideas to create jobs, including hosting an Energy Jobs Summit in Denver back in February. As part of this Summit, we asked experts in energy policy and business to join us for a conversation about how we can better position Colorado and the United States to lead in the 21st century clean energy economy.

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

One consumer participant at the Summit noted that, even though he had a smart meter at his home, his power company would not let him access his electrical meter readings to learn how he was using electricity. If he could access those readings, he could better understand his energy use, learn how to be more energy efficient and save money. That is why I am introducing the Electric Consumer Right to Know Act to improve communication between the consumers and their utility, spur innovation in developing creative technologies that will save energy, and provide clarity while these programs are being developed.

This bill has several important parts. First, it establishes a framework for the right to access information, defining specifically what that right means, and giving clarity to those who will further develop and enforce that right. This bill says that if you have a smart meter, or similar electronic device that reads electric energy usage, that you ought to have access to the utility company's data on your energy use.

How that access is granted is delineated in three ways in this bill:

If your meter communicates with your utility on an hourly or shorter time interval, my bill states that your meter readings should be available within 24 hours.

Second, if your smart meter is capable of communicating energy use data directly from your meter, under this bill, you have the right to access those data and use them directly at your home or business.

Third, for consumers who have standard meters, with this bill, there are no additional requirements except that your readings shall be available electronically in a timely manner.

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

The outcome of this process will be national guidelines establishing the right of consumers to access their electricity data, including minimum national standards that utilities must meet to ensure that right of access. In developing those minimum standards, the FERC will take into consideration the ongoing and important work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in developing a smart grid roadmap, as well as the innovative state and local programs already being developed across the country to integrate smart meters into the electrical grid, including Colorado, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and others.

In Colorado, Xcel Energy has been working with the City of Boulder on a pilot program called SmartGridCity to develop a community-scale smart grid with over 20,000 residents participating. Not only are these consumers improving their understanding of their electricity use, Xcel notes that they have already avoided several blackouts due to the improved communication between consumers and the grid. Power interruptions cost the American economy roughly $80 billion per year and \2/3\ of those losses come from interruptions lasting less than five minutes. I am proud to see Coloradans and our state's utilities taking important steps together in learning how to make the grid more reliable, efficient, and help save everyone money.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her leadership on this crucial resolution before us.

I rise in opposition to the resolution offered by my good friend, the Senator from Alaska.

Recent events have given us pause. If there has ever been a wake-up call, then surely the images of oiled pelicans, docked charter boats, and the sickening plume of oil cascading into the blue waters of the gulf should provide it.

Time and time again, we have seen opportunities to seize our energy future passed up because of our addiction to fossil fuels, our tendency to put off difficult choices or our habit of letting partisanship get in the way. This unsustainable path has led us to a complacent sense of security, and now look at where we are--caught off guard by a tragic set of events in the Gulf of Mexico.

As the gulf disaster has made clear, our existing sources of energy come at a cost greater than just the price at the pump. They can be catastrophically damaging to our economy, our national security, and our environment. I don't have any illusions about our need for traditional energy sources, and on that I agree with the Senator from Alaska. The more quickly we transition to cleaner energy, the sooner we secure a strong and vibrant future for America.

Every year, we send nearly $800 billion overseas to buy oil from foreign countries, some of which clearly don't have our interests at heart. But I believe the resolution we are debating today would help continue this reliance.

Let's not be fooled. We are in a race against foreign competitors in the European Union and in Asia to meet the world's demand for clean energy. Advanced and entrepreneurial countries like ours should do well in such a race. Instead, over the last 5 years, as clean energy started to boom, the U.S. renewable energy and trade deficit ballooned by 1,400 percent. China, South Korea, and Europe are all pulling ahead of us in this crucial race.

I just returned from China, along with Senators Feinstein and Hagan. My impression, quite simply, is that China appears to be taking bolder actions than the United States.

For example, the largest wind farms and solar farms in the world are being built in China. Moreover, China is investing heavily in safe nuclear powerplants and clean coal technology.

Perhaps, though, most troubling is their development of clean energy is in part financed by Americans who see more stable support and a better investing climate for clean energy abroad.

I believe the resolution from the Senator from Alaska, however well intended, signals to investors that our country is not ready to fully support these investments in clean energy.

While there is a compelling economic and national security case to be made for transitioning to a clean energy portfolio, that is not the only reason. Scientists, industry, and State and local officials all agree that climate change is a challenge our society must address.

In my home State in Colorado, we are already witnessing the effects of climate change. Increased threats from drought, wildfire, and the bark beetle infestation are not theoretical, they are real. Come to my State and see those effects.

I firmly believe to fully jump-start this inevitable revolution we must put a price on carbon. Some have suggested this would lead to job loss. I disagree. Our experience in Colorado tells a different story. By setting renewable targets, we have helped create an exciting, vibrant, growing clean energy economy in Colorado that has delivered thousands of new jobs. Those jobs have remained in this economic downturn because they are real jobs, they are future jobs, they provide the energy we need.

Our financial markets and our energy markets have been waiting for years for leadership from the Congress on this issue. Despite the economic, the environmental, and the national security interests at stake, some of my colleagues seem to be dead set on throwing up barriers in front of investors. This is in part why I am opposing this resolution. It sends a message that the status quo is acceptable. It is not. We need a clear path forward, we need a price on carbon, and we need to set achievable standards for renewable energy to create a positive environment for private investment.

This resolution would block that path. No less than our safety and our security is at stake. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.