Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Colorado State Veterans Home in Walsenburg. For 20 years, this home has provided exceptional care to veterans and their spouses from all over the United States.

Built in 1993, the Colorado State Veterans Home is southern Colorado's newest nursing home for veterans and the only nursing home physically connected to a community hospital. Residents in Walsenburg have access to a Special Care Unit, which provides services for residents with dementia, Alzheimer's, Huntington's and/or Parkinson's diseases, and a family outpatient clinic, all on the health center's grounds. Furthermore, following a major renovation funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2011, the veterans home now boasts expanded kitchen areas, outdoor gardens and recreational space, as well as views of nearby mountains and lakes in every resident's room. These improvements have created modern and bright living accommodations that take full advantage of Colorado's natural beauty and ensure the comfort of our veterans.

With 115 residents, everyday life at the Colorado State Veterans Home is filled with the stories from our Nation's heroes. Rich, a veteran who, with his wife, has resided at Walsenburg for 3 years, was a B-17 commander flying 34 successful sorties over Germany and France during WWII. On his 35th sortie he and his crew went down as the result of enemy fire. His story makes Rich a favorite among visiting airmen, and it is only one among many.

While we will never be able to repay our heroic servicemembers for the sacrifices they have made in the line of duty, it should be our top priority to make their lives back home as pleasant and comfortable as possible. The services, staff, and stunning location of the Colorado State Veterans Home in Walsenburg uphold our commitment to keep that promise to these individuals and their loved ones.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank the staff at Spanish Peaks Regional Health Center, the Colorado State Veterans Home, and the Federal employees at the VA for their commitment to serving our Nation's heroes, and I offer them congratulations on the occasion of the Colorado State Veterans Home's 20th anniversary.

Mr. President, I have submitted, with Senators Cornyn, Reid, Enzi, Menendez, Udall of New Mexico, and Cruz, a resolution commemorating Cinco de Mayo.

We all love Cinco de Mayo for the food and festivities that we have grown so accustomed to across our country. However, we commemorate Cinco de Mayo in order to celebrate the joint history and values that are shared by both Mexicans and Americans. Cinco de Mayo is a day that reminds us that the citizens of Mexico possess the same courage that we, as Americans, value in ourselves. For that reason, the commemoration of Cinco de Mayo has transcended from being a celebration of the victorious Battle of Puebla that Mexico won over France, to a celebration of courage and a recognition of all contributions that the Mexican-American community has had both in Colorado and in our great Nation. Celebrating Cinco de Mayo brings pride to both the Mexican- American community and all Americans.

The courage displayed by Mexican forces on May 5, 1862, parallels the courage that we as Americans have used to overcome adversity and thrive since our founding. The victory of the beleaguered force of Mexican troops at the Battle of Puebla weakened France's immense resources and limited its ability to meddle in America's Civil War. As Mexico sought to defend itself from European aggression, the Battle of Puebla reminds us that the foundation of the United States was also built through battles in which the United States often found itself as the underdog. Through courage, perseverance, and the willingness to fight and die for freedom, our Nation has become stronger. These contributions that the Mexican-American community has had in our Nation should be celebrated as part of our country's history.

While Cinco de Mayo remains a Mexican national holiday, the commemoration of this holiday has become imbedded in American culture. Both in Colorado and throughout our Nation, the contributions of the millions of Mexican-American families are seen throughout our communities. As in years past, I continue to encourage my fellow Coloradans to celebrate Cinco de Mayo by remembering and educating but also by coming together with friends and neighbors to enjoy food, music, and dancing.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize an important anniversary--the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Convention Against Torture--and would like to do so in the context of the recent publication of an important report on the U.S. policies and programs put in place following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

After 9/11, Americans came together and set aside their differences. Those terrible events unified this country in a common desire to bring to justice those responsible and to do whatever was necessary to prevent future attacks.

We have spent over a decade successfully reducing al Qaida's ranks, and--until last week--doing so without another major attack on U.S. soil. Yet there have been countless mistakes and costs incurred in the pursuit of these goals.

One of these key mistakes is the program that the Central Intelligence Agency initiated after 9/11 to detain and interrogate terrorist subjects. The details of how this program came to be and how it was conducted are outlined in the Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000-page report on the CIA's detention and interrogation program-- based on a documentary review of over 6 million pages of CIA and other records and including 35,000 footnotes. In December I voted with a majority of my colleagues on the committee to report out the study and to send it to the CIA for its review and comments.

I believe that the CIA's detention and interrogation program was severely flawed. It was mismanaged. The ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' were brutal. And perhaps most importantly, the program did not work. Nonetheless, it was portrayed to the White House, the Department of Justice, the Congress, and the media as a program that resulted in unique information that ``saved lives.''

At his confirmation hearing, I urged CIA Director John Brennan to lead in correcting the false public record about the CIA's program and in instituting the necessary reforms to restore the CIA's reputation for integrity and analytical rigor. I firmly believe that the CIA cannot be its best until its leadership faces the serious and grievous mistakes of this program.

Some say that by looking backward, we are focusing on ``archaeology'' to the exclusion of our national security interests today. I would argue that acknowledging the flaws of this program is essential for the CIA's long-term institutional integrity--as well as for the legitimacy of ongoing sensitive programs. The findings of this report directly relate to how other CIA programs are managed today.

The CIA, the White House, and other agencies continue their review of the committee's report on the CIA's detention and interrogation program, and the Senate Intelligence Committee expects to see an official response soon. But this is not a report I can talk much about or share, since it remains classified.

That is why I am thankful for the release of a report by the Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment. The task force was led by former Representative Asa Hutchison and former representative and retired Ambassador James Jones and made up of former high-ranking officials and experts from across the political spectrum. This was a 2-year effort, based on an examination of available public records as well as interviews with over 100 former detainees, military and intelligence officers, interrogators, and policymakers.

In a news article on the report, Mr. Hutchison--who served in several roles in the Bush administration, including as undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security--said that after researching this issue for nearly 2 years, ``he had no doubts about what the United States did.'' He concluded that ``it's incredibly important to have an accurate account not just of what happened but of how decisions were made.'' He added, ``The United States has a historic and unique character, and part of that character is that we do not torture.''

I couldn't agree more with his sentiments. As one of the task force's contributors, former Ambassador Thomas

Pickering, states in a Washington Post opinion piece I will ask to have printed in the Record, ``Admitting our mistakes is the only legitimate basis on which we can reassure the world that America remains committed to the rule of law and to upholding human rights and democratic values.''

I commend the report of the Constitution Project's Task Force to my colleagues. I also urge the administration to work closely with the Senate Intelligence Committee as it conducts its review of the Committee's report.

In marking the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's signing of the international Convention Against Torture, I remind my colleagues and this administration that the government has an obligation to the American people to face its mistakes transparently, help the public understand the nature of those mistakes, and correct them. Director Brennan and this administration have an important task ahead in this regard.

I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

There being no objective the material was printed in the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 16, 2013]

America Must Atone for the Torture It Inflicted

(By Thomas R. Pickering)

Thomas R. Pickering is a member of the Constitution

Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment. He was

undersecretary of state for political affairs from 1997 to

2001 and served as ambassador and representative to the

United Nations from 1989 to 1992.

It's never easy in this volatile world to advance America's

strategic aims. For more than four decades, in the service of

Democratic and Republican presidents, it was often my job to

persuade foreign governments to adhere to international law

and observe the highest standards of conduct in human

rights--including the strict prohibition of torture. A report

released Tuesday by an independent task force on detainee

treatment (to which I contributed) makes it clear that U.S.

officials could have used the same advice.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government's use of torture against

suspected terrorist, and its failure to fully acknowledge and

condemn it, has made the exercise of diplomacy far more

daunting. By authorizing and permitting torture in response

to a global terrorist threat, U.S. leaders committed a grave

error that has undermined our values, principles and moral

stature; eroded our global influence; and placed our

soldiers, diplomats and intelligence officers in even greater

jeopardy.

It's not just the Bush-Cheney administration that bears

responsibility for diminished U.S. standing, although the

worst abuses undeniably took place in the years immediately

after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Obama administration

also has failed to be as open and accountable on such

fundamental questions of law, morality and principle as a

great power that widely supports human rights needs to be.

What can be done to mitigate the damage and set this

country on a better course? First and foremost, Americans

need to confront the truth. Let's stop resorting to

euphemisms and call ``enhanced interrogation techniques''--

including but not limited to waterboarding--what they

actually are: torture. Torturing detainees flies in the face

of principles and practices established in the founding of

our republic, and it violates U.S. law and international

treaties to which we are a party. Subjecting detainees to

torture, no matter how despicable their alleged crimes, runs

counter to the values embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Too much information about the abuse of detainees remains

hidden from the American people. Specifically, the Obama

administration's ongoing concealment of the details about our

use of torture has made it impossible for the United States

to comply with its legal obligations under the U.N.

Convention Against Torture and has contributed to a

disturbing level of public support for torturing suspected

terrorists.

President Obama should direct relevant officials to

declassify as many related documents as possible as quickly

as possible--starting with the more than 6 million pages of

classified documents that were the basis for the Senate

intelligence committee's recent report on the CIA's

interrogation program, and the still-secret report itself--so

that the American people may finally learn what was done in

our name. Admitting our mistakes is the only legitimate basis

on which we can reassure the world that America remains

committed to the rule of law and to upholding human rights

and democratic values.

Second, Congress needs to work with the administration to

close the loopholes that allowed torture to occur under a

pretense of legality. In 2009, Obama signed an executive

order giving interrogators clear instructions about

permissible techniques. But future presidents could reverse

course with the stroke of a pen--and no public notice.

To ensure that cannot happen, the federal Anti-Torture

Statute should be amended to make clear that the deliberate

infliction of severe pain and suffering is torture--

regardless of the duration of the torment being inflicted.

The War Crimes Act should be amended to make clear that

cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees is a

federal crime even when it falls short of torture. Instead of

being told to rely on secret legal memos or doctors'

unethical monitoring of brutal interrogation sessions,

interrogators should be given unambiguous orders that all

detainees are to be treated in strict compliance with Common

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which is the basic

provision of international law outlawing torture. And there

should be clear, public rules ensuring prompt access to

detainees by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Third, the United States must not transfer detainees to

torture in other countries. Such transfers, known as

``renditions,'' have occurred under Presidents Bill Clinton,

George W. Bush and Obama--despite the fact that they violate

the Convention Against Torture. In part, this is because of a

policy of reliance on ``diplomatic assurances'' from other

countries that detainees would not be tortured, despite clear

evidence that these assurances were not credible. In part,

this is because the United States has refused to acknowledge

that the prohibition against transfers to torture is legally

binding outside of U.S. territory. Both must change.

Democracy and torture cannot peacefully coexist in the same

body politic. Successful human rights diplomacy and torture

can't either. Our country and its place in the world--as well

as the Americans bravely serving in military, intelligence

and diplomatic posts around the globe--deserve nothing less.

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

Mr. President, I have 3 or 4 minutes of remarks.

Mr. President, I am very grateful to my colleague from Minnesota for yielding for those 3 or 4 minutes. I thank him for his forbearance.

I rise in support of our local small businesses and retailers across Colorado and I would like to think across our great country. Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi have introduced a bipartisan bill, the Marketplace Fairness Act, of which I am a cosponsor. It would level the playing field for businesses located in Colorado by requiring out-of- State online sellers to collect and remit the same local and State sales taxes they have to pay.

It just makes common sense, which is why a similar amendment during the budget debate a few weeks ago, which I also cosponsored, passed by a bipartisan vote of 75 to 24.

The Marketplace Fairness Act is about achieving equitable treatment for all sales so businesses with a physical presence in Colorado, employing Colorado workers living in our communities, are not at a competitive disadvantage with out-of-State businesses that sell products online.

Online marketplaces have created great companies and innovative ways of doing business, but Federal law has failed to keep up with the pace of online sales. Again, we have had a lot of innovation in the online space, but Federal law has failed to keep up with the pace of online sales.

Back when trading posts and local markets were the most prevalent places for consumer goods, they did not have to worry about out-of- State sellers. Today, though, nearly 1 in 10 sales occurs online. Because of these online sales, we now have two inequitable forms of treatment in the marketplace: one where local brick-and-mortar retailers have to pay sales taxes and one where out-of-State online retailers get to take advantage of a loophole and avoid collecting any sales taxes at all. This has, unfortunately, created a disincentive to shop at and support our small local businesses.

It has been said, for at least a decade, that fixing this inequity is too difficult or it will burden certain online retailers and consumers. However, it should be noted this legislation requires States to simplify sales tax laws that apply to these out-of-State sales, in addition to providing software free of charge to sellers in order to make the task of collecting and remitting this revenue as painless as possible.

Many States have already taken this step. My State of Colorado is considering legislation this year to conform to the rules set out in this bill.

The version of the Marketplace Fairness Act we are going to consider has been negotiated by Members of both political parties, and it is a testament to what we can do when we work together to benefit our country and our economy. Not only will this legislation help level the playing field for mom-and-pop shops across our State and our country, it will help restore a lost revenue base for local governments that has slowly been eroded with the expansion of online out-of-State sales.

Most Americans know those commonsense, fair taxes support our schools, police and fire departments, and other critical local services. At the very least I think we can all agree that we do not want to penalize Main Street retailers for creating jobs in Colorado communities, which is why this bipartisan bill is so important.

I look forward to voting for the Marketplace Fairness Act, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. I want to acknowledge my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me the time.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly.) The Senator from Minnesota.

Madam President, I would call up amendment No. 239.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, wildfires threaten communities all across my part of the country, the West, but I daresay all around our great country. That is why I am proud to partner with my colleagues, Senators Barrasso, Wyden, Bennet, Merkley, and others from the West, to introduce what is a commonsense, bipartisan, and deficit- neutral amendment to the 2014 budget.

We need to reduce the Federal budget deficit. We all agree that is important. But if we don't invest in firefighting efforts and mitigation, that will levy an unacceptably steep and entirely avoidable cost upon Colorado and the entire country. So my amendment would allow for an increase of $100 million in funding available for wildfire suppression.

I yield time to my friend and colleague and cosponsor Senator Barrasso to speak on this amendment.

Mr. President, I too rise, as my colleague from Hawaii just did, to speak in support of the Department of Defense and in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania. As has been outlined, this amendment would strike funding for a very important and effective Navy program which now works with private industry along with the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture to produce alternative fuels. As we work together to overcome the harm that has been done by sequestration, it is essential we provide the military with the flexibility to

overcome current and future threats. That includes allowing the DOD to invest in energy sources and fuel technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, the Toomey amendment does the opposite. So accepting it would do real harm to our military. It would cost more money than it would save and it would damage the military's strong and necessary efforts to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

In carrying out the work of our Nation, the Department of Defense consumes approximately 330,000 barrels of oil every single day. That works out to be 120 million barrels per year. What does that cost us? Last year, the military spent over $16 billion on fuel. Because of rising global oil prices, that was about $2.5 billion more than they forecasted. Those rising costs--in dollars and in operational capability--are staggering. I think that is the only word that applies.

If we think about it, we realize that for every 25-percent increase in the price per gallon of oil, the military's fuel costs increase by $1 billion. In order to make up for that shortfall, the DOD has to pull money from operations and maintenance, which means that rising fuel costs result in less training, deferred maintenance, and reduced operational capability. That is a terrible triad if there ever was one. That means our troops, then, are also less prepared when they go into harm's way. They are less ready to fight when it matters most.

The Toomey amendment would undercut efforts to end that cycle. It would delay the development of technologies that would clearly bring lower costs, more domestic production, and more American jobs. That is why the DOD is investing in these domestic alternatives to foreign oil.

It should tell us something that in an era of reduced Department of Defense budgets our senior leaders remain fully committed to this effort. Even when we have to tighten our belts, they think this is an investment that makes sense.

What are we doing? We are investing in research and development that will develop new fuels that can be made from biologic feedstocks. These are fuels that can be grown and then refined here at home.

I want to be clear, these are not programs that are being forced on the DOD through earmarks or by environmentalists or other groups that some like to demonize. These are DOD initiatives, undertaken to protect the military from rising fuel costs and an increasingly volatile international marketplace.

So even under the threat of sequestration, investments in new energy technologies and alternative fuels remain a priority.

I would say to my friends who say we cannot afford to spend money on alternative fuels, our uniformed senior leaders tell us we cannot afford not to.

Think about it another way. We send $300 billion overseas every year for oil. If we could keep about one-twentieth of a percent of that money at home, we would pay for this program.

For about half of what we spend on military bands each year, we could be establishing a domestic energy industry.

For about one-sixth of the cost of this year's funding for the MEADS missile system--a system that the DOD has no intention of putting into operational use--we could diversify our energy portfolio and drive down costs.

We would be taking billions out of the hands of terrorists and reducing the risk, at the same time, to our military personnel.

The proponents for cutting off these investments in alternative fuels would argue that the Defense Department should not be involved in the development of new energy sources. I could not disagree more. Let me tell you why.

These biofuels could not be used as leverage against us. The refineries could not be taken over by al-Qaida-backed extremists or blockaded by Iranian gunboats.

Energy security is national security, and this is exactly the right kind of investment that our military should be making.

Just think historically: Military research and development has sustained the enormous technological advantage we maintain over our adversaries. Our willingness to invest in the future has helped keep us safe.

It has also been said that the DOD should not be spending money on energy development. If that were the case, we would not have a nuclear- powered Navy. Without military investment in emerging technologies, we would not have jet engines, microchips, microwave ovens, radar, or GPS navigation.

Ensuring our energy security ought to be a national priority. Our reliance on foreign oil is a threat to our security and our economy, and I suggest even our very way of life.

We need a whole-of-America solution to this national problem, and the Department of Defense absolutely has a critical role to play in that effort.

If you believe that the DOD has a vested interest in having reliable sources of fuel and energy, then you should agree that they have a role to play in ensuring that new fuels meet their needs.

As I mentioned, we are all concerned about the effect of sequestration on our troops, but we cannot solve our problems with the same kind of shortsighted thinking that got us here in the first place.

Killing the Navy's biofuels program--and make no mistake, that is exactly what this amendment would do--will cost more money than it saves. It will set back an industry that is poised to provide our country with enormous and important benefits. And it will make sure--it will ensure--that we keep pouring money into foreign coffers.

So I urge my colleagues to continue to support smart investments in our future, like the Navy's biofuels initiative. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Toomey amendment.

Mr. President, thank you for your attention.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the bipartisan UdallCollins flexibility plan, which is designed to help mitigate the damaging effects of the automatic spending cuts our country now faces, commonly called the sequester. If left unchanged, these indiscriminate sequester cuts will undermine services that hardworking families rely on and harm our economic growth during this fragile recovery.

So what is the sequester and how did our politics deteriorate so badly that we are left to watch as this self-inflicted wound is leveled on our country? It boils down to two problems that both Democrats and Republicans readily acknowledge deserve our attention: our national deficit and debt. In some ways it is just as the President has described it: a matter of pure math. The Federal Government is spending more than it is taking in and that picture is not projected to change in the long run--in fact, it is projected to get worse.

And this has been a long time coming. In 2010, I was part of a core group of Senators who urged the White House to establish a bipartisan fiscal commission that would help us address our debt and deficit. The administration heard our call and established a debt and deficit panel to recommend a balanced and comprehensive way to get our fiscal house in order. Their plan, as you know Mr. President, is now commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles plan. Former Republican Wyoming Senator Al Simpson and Former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles led the effort and both Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate embraced the framework that pushed for spending cuts, raising revenue and responsibly reforming our entitlements. With bipartisan support for such a balanced plan, it should have been an open-and-shut case, which is why I endorsed the idea and repeatedly encouraged my colleagues to bring it to the floor for a vote.

The problem is that it doesn't just take some bipartisanship to get anything done around here; it takes a lot of bipartisanship--60 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House of Representatives. Ideologues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers have since dug in their heels, totally unwilling to set aside differences to reach a compromise.

So that brings us back to the sequester. Because Congress cannot agree on a balanced and bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit, we are left with these automatic and blunt across-the-board cuts.

There is no doubt that we must reduce the deficit, which is why I have been saying for months that we ought to bring forward the Simpson- Bowles plan and find a way to achieve deficit reduction in a more thoughtful and strategic way. That approach would include additional revenue and shoring up our entitlements. In theory, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with this approach. But at the end of the day, there just aren't enough of them with the courage to support a balanced, deficit-reduction plan. We owe it to the American people to be honest. Let's just acknowledge that we have reached an impasse.

And until there are enough Members willing to make the difficult decisions we are left with these terrible and indiscriminate cuts to our Government. Let's get it straight: the sequester is not a solution. It is neither smart, nor strategic--it wasn't designed to be. I firmly believe that the sequester will leave our Government frayed and our economy weakened.

The sheer magnitude of the sequester cuts will not only damage our economy, but will also put our national security at a level of risk that could have been avoided had Congress exercised the courage to pass a bipartisan and balanced plan. We can do better, and the Udall-Collins plans suggests that there are more reasonable ways to find these savings than implementing blunt, thoughtless cuts.

Our plan says, ``Wait a minute, if we really have to live with these terrible cuts, shouldn't we at least be strategic about how and where we make them?''

The proposal that Senator Collins and I have put forward is not about providing flexibility to choose between cutting children's education funding in New York City versus Kansas City. Our plan simply provides the administration and Congress with the flexibility to look at where our Government's highest-value investments are so we can continue to invest in them, while cutting back in areas that do not provide mission-critical value for Americans.

While there are still difficult decisions to make and tough choices to confront, the best way forward is through a collaborative process between the administration and Congress--as the Udall-Collins plan would provide.

Last week, the Senate voted down a politically motivated flexibility proposal. Senator Collins and I are not

interested in proposing a partisan plan. Instead, we offer a plan that is both reasonable and feasible because it calls for strategic decision-making that allows for the least disruption possible for our constituents as the executive branch implements $85 billion in spending cuts over the next 7 months.

Further underscoring the need for a comprehensive flexibility plan, several members of Congress introduced this week amendments to a funding bill called a continuing resolution that propose flexibility in implementing sequestration for individual agencies or departments that were immediately hit by the effects of the automatic budget cuts. These amendments are mainly focused on providing flexibility for particular agencies, while the bipartisan Udall-Collins approach proactively provides for strategic decision-making and flexibility across all agencies in our Government.

Coloradans know we are all in this together. When the pioneers had a wagon train breakdown, they didn't quibble about who was to blame. They fixed the wheel. When bad weather rolled in while crossing the divide, they didn't argue about who put them in harm's way--they came together and supported each other in order to survive.

In that vein, we ought to continue working on a Simpson-Bowles inspired plan that raises revenue by closing tax loopholes and asks the well-off to do a little more, reforms our entitlements to shore them up over the long term, and finds areas of our budget where we can pare back Government spending. If we can finally agree on a balanced solution like this, we would--in effect--fix the wagon wheel and get us through the storm so that we can move on to the other serious challenges confronting our country, like energy and immigration reform, fighting terrorists and building an economy that is set to lead the global economic race.

At this point, we are left with very few workable options. The sequester will be damaging no matter what, but let's work together to ensure its impact is not unnecessarily debilitating to our Government, our national security, and our economy. Most importantly, let's not do unnecessary harm to hardworking, middle-class families across this Nation.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in supporting our amendment to give Congress and the White House the authority to more strategically implement the sequestration cuts. By working together, we can make the best out of a bad situation and agree on a wholesale, balanced and bipartisan plan to address our fiscal imbalances.

Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of John Brennan to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Brennan earned a bipartisan vote of 12-3 in the Senate Intelligence Committee, on which I serve. He is clearly qualified to lead the CIA and deserved that bipartisan vote in committee. And he deserves confirmation by the full Senate today.

I say that in spite of the difficulties my colleagues and I encountered in extracting information and commitments throughout the confirmation process. Our concerns were less about John Brennan himself and more about the role that the next CIA director needs to play. And we believe that the information and commitments we finally secured from him and from the White House are extraordinarily relevant to the role of any CIA director.

Alongside several of my colleagues, I fought to enhance transparency and preserve our system of checks and balances. The American people have the expectation that their government is upholding the principles of oversight and accountability.

Consistent with our national security, the presumption of transparency should be the rule, not the exception. The government should make as much information available to the American public as possible, while protecting national security.

We have seen during previous administrations the problems that can arise when even the intelligence committees are left out of the loop: warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary detention and torture. Ben Franklin put it well when he said: ``Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.''

Congressional oversight is critical to ensure that we sacrifice neither, as we pursue a smart, but tough, national security strategy, especially in this age of new forms of warfare.

This was true over the past several months, as I joined Senator Wyden and others in pushing hard for access to the legal justification used by the executive branch to lethally target Americans using drones. The fact that we had to push so hard, I am sorry to say, no doubt erodes the government's credibility with the American people. But it also gives us an opportunity--and a good reason--to maintain and strengthen our system of checks and balances.

I am glad the Administration met our requests and is giving members of the Intelligence Committee access to legal opinions on targeting American citizens. This is an important first step. But there is more to be done for Congress to understand the limits on the drone program.

Madam President, our government has an obligation to the American people to face its mistakes transparently, help the public understand the nature of those mistakes, and then correct them. In this regard, the next Director of the CIA has an important task.

The specific mistakes I am referring to are outlined in the Intelligence Committee's 6,000-page report on the CIA's deeply flawed detention and interrogation program. Acknowledging the flaws of this program is essential for the CIA's long-term institutional integrity as well as the legitimacy of ongoing sensitive programs.

I know the Presiding Officer will take a keen interest in this as she is a strong supporter of civil liberties and protecting our freedoms. That is why I will hold Mr. Brennan to the promise he made to me at his confirmation hearing; that is, to correct inaccurate information in the public record on the CIA's detention and interrogation program. That is why I will continue to urge him to ensure that the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on this flawed program is declassified and made public.

In the committee's confirmation hearing, Mr. Brennan promised to be an advocate of ensuring the committee has what it needs to do its functions. I believe Mr. Brennan is that advocate.

I look forward to working with him and the administration with my goal of protecting our national security while also safeguarding America's constitutional freedoms and determining the limits of executive branch powers in this new age of warfare.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, due to unexpected family commitments, I was unable to cast a vote relative to rollcall vote Nos. 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, and 30. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: yea on the nomination of Robert E. Bacharach to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth District, yea on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Charles T. Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, yea on the nomination of Jacob L. Lew to be Secretary of the Treasury, yea on the nomination of Katherine Failla to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, nay on Senate amendment No. 25 related to elimination of funding for the National Security Working Group, and yea on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Caitlin Joan Halligan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Court.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation recognizing one of Colorado's most historically significant regions--the San Luis Valley.

It is no exaggeration to say that the unique history and culture of the region we commonly call `the Valley' is one of the richest in our state, region, and nation, particularly as an example of early Hispano and Latino settlement. As an avid student of history--like so many of my colleagues--I find that the more I learn and experience the stories, people, and places of the Valley, the more I want to learn.

First explored by Spanish Colonial expeditions in the 17th century, Hispano families from Northern New Mexico made many attempts at permanent settlement in this region, but weren't successful until the late 1840s, after the territory became part of Mexico. With the oldest town, San Luis, and the oldest water right, the People's Ditch, in Colorado, the San Luis Valley hosts some of the most intact Mexican territorial settlements in the Southwest. Many descendants of those original settlers continue to live in the region today.

But despite this incredibly rich history, millions of people visit Colorado every year who are not familiar with the San Luis Valley. The legislation I am introducing today would create the Sangre de Cristo National Historic Park, named for the stunning mountain range that forms the eastern border of the valley. The Sangre de Cristo National Historic Park would link together a series of historically significant sites throughout the valley--protecting and preserving them for future generations to experience and learn from.

Creating this park will help to tell the story of Colorado's earliest settlers.

Telling these stories and protecting these sites is important because of their intrinsic value to our history, culture and future generations. But they are also important to the economy as our state and country are emerging from the worst economy in a generation. The Sangre de Cristo National Historic Park could serve as an anchor for a regional tourism economy that can bring jobs to the entire San Luis Valley and Southern Colorado while recognizing and celebrating the Valley's rich and important history.

Over the last several years, I have held a series of town hall meetings in San Luis, La Jara and Alamosa to learn more about the recently created Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area and to hear the views of the local communities. I heard a great deal of support for the National Historic Park concept, and today marks an important step forward in the process of creating this meaningful, if overdue, park.

I look forward to working with stakeholders, local communities and my colleagues to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation recognizing one of Colorado's most historically significant regions--the San Luis Valley.

It is no exaggeration to say that the unique history and culture of the region we commonly call `the Valley' is one of the richest in our state, region, and nation, particularly as an example of early Hispano and Latino settlement. As an avid student of history--like so many of my colleagues--I find that the more I learn and experience the stories, people, and places of the Valley, the more I want to learn.

First explored by Spanish Colonial expeditions in the 17th century, Hispano families from Northern New Mexico made many attempts at permanent settlement in this region, but weren't successful until the late 1840s, after the territory became part of Mexico. With the oldest town, San Luis, and the oldest water right, the People's Ditch, in Colorado, the San Luis Valley hosts some of the most intact Mexican territorial settlements in the Southwest. Many descendants of those original settlers continue to live in the region today.

But despite this incredibly rich history, millions of people visit Colorado every year who are not familiar with the San Luis Valley. The legislation I am introducing today would create the Sangre de Cristo National Historic Park, named for the stunning mountain range that forms the eastern border of the valley. The Sangre de Cristo National Historic Park would link together a series of historically significant sites throughout the valley--protecting and preserving them for future generations to experience and learn from.

Creating this park will help to tell the story of Colorado's earliest settlers.

Telling these stories and protecting these sites is important because of their intrinsic value to our history, culture and future generations. But they are also important to the economy as our state and country are emerging from the worst economy in a generation. The Sangre de Cristo National Historic Park could serve as an anchor for a regional tourism economy that can bring jobs to the entire San Luis Valley and Southern Colorado while recognizing and celebrating the Valley's rich and important history.

Over the last several years, I have held a series of town hall meetings in San Luis, La Jara and Alamosa to learn more about the recently created Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area and to hear the views of the local communities. I heard a great deal of support for the National Historic Park concept, and today marks an important step forward in the process of creating this meaningful, if overdue, park.

I look forward to working with stakeholders, local communities and my colleagues to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, for more than 150 years, leaders from President Abraham Lincoln to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have challenged us to keep faith with the true spirit of our Constitution. Today we continue the work of these two dynamic men who courageously led the charge--during times of national division and civil strife--in pursuing a more perfect union where all Americans are truly free and have equal access to opportunity.

As we celebrate Black History Month this year, I am honored to reflect on the historical and everyday contributions of African- Americans to the State of Colorado and to our country. Their efforts to ensure equality for all Americans are tightly woven into the fabric of our ever-evolving Nation.

Last month, millions of Americans and I watched as President Barack Obama took the oath for his second Presidential term. And for the first time in our Nation's history, there are two African-American U.S. Senators serving at the same time--Senators Tim Scott of South Carolina and Mo Cowan of Massachusetts. Following the 2012 elections, Colorado celebrated a record number of African-American lawmakers in the Colorado House of Representatives, known as the ``historic five'' who are paving the way for more diversity. I also am proud of how our State set the precedent for the country 4 years ago, when two African- American lawmakers, Rep. Terrance Carroll and Senator Peter Groff, held the top leadership roles in the Colorado General Assembly. These public servants were role models and leaders on so many important issues--one of which was pushing hard to create educational opportunities for all Coloradans.

Creating opportunity through education is critical, and as we work to close achievement and economic opportunity gaps throughout our State and country, I would like to pay homage to two of Colorado's African- American pioneers who have worked tirelessly to guarantee equal access to quality education for all Coloradans.

Omar D. Blair, a member of the Tuskegee Airmen in the 1940s, served as the first African-American president of the Denver Board of Education and went on to become the first African-American president of the Colorado Association of School Boards. During his tenure as president of the Denver Board of Education, Blair championed quality education and led the city through the controversial desegregation of its public schools.

Rachel B. Noel, known as the lion of the African-American civil rights movement in Denver, became the first African-American elected to the Denver Board of Education and was also

the first African-American woman elected to office in Colorado. On April 25, 1968, Noel spearheaded a resolution to integrate Denver's public schools. Despite the school board's decision to overturn the resolution in 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Noel's historic resolution in its 1973 decision, Keyes v. Denver Public Schools No. 1.

These exceptional Coloradans changed the way we educate our youth and supported access to opportunity for all. But while we have seen progress, there is still much work to do.

In this rapidly changing world where we increasingly rely on technology, we must provide our youth with the math and science skills they need to become leaders and keep our Nation on the cutting edge of innovation and ingenuity. That is why I stand with President Obama and Gov. Hickenlooper in supporting science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education programs to provide our youth with viable pathways to academic and professional success. With a strong investment in STEM programs, and by ensuring Colorado's students continue to have access to language and arts education, we will give our students the tools they need to be successful in the 21st century.

From Colorado's earliest days as a western territory to the present, African-American community leaders and public servants have been a driving force in transforming the works and vision of our Founding Fathers into reality. I am humbled and inspired by their commitment to pushing our country to reach its fullest potential. I will continue to do my part to honor African-Americans' legacy of triumph over challenge. I hope you will join me in doing the same.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I, along with Mr. Flake of Arizona, reintroduce the Startup Visa Act. The Startup Visa Act of 2013 allows immigrant entrepreneurs and foreign graduates of U.S. universities to appeal for a two-year visa on the condition that they secure financing from a qualified U.S. investor and can demonstrate the ability to create jobs in America.

If they are successful in developing their company and hiring American workers, they would be eligible for legal permanent residency and would be free to continue building their companies, creating more home-grown jobs

and continuing our legacy of unmatched innovation and entrepreneurship.

The United States has a proud history of providing entrepreneurs from around the world the freedom and resources to turn an idea into a successful venture. Well-known U.S. companies such as Google, Yahoo, Intel, Pfizer and eBay all began as startups that were founded by immigrants. These businesses have grown into multibillion-dollar industry leaders that provide thousands of Americans with high-paying jobs in cutting-edge fields.

The number of jobs offered by startups is dropping off. While this is partly due to the economic downturn it is also because of our Nation's broken immigration system. Many of the world's best and brightest minds are finding that our current visa restrictions discourage them from launching new companies here. This is a major competitive disadvantage, and one that runs counter to our Nation's history of fostering foreign- born innovators, such as Albert Einstein or Andrew Carnegie.

More worrisome is that while we try to work out a solution to our broken immigration laws, our foreign competitors are catching up and, in some cases, passing us by in many of the fields we once dominated. In 2009, for the first time in recent memory, foreign innovators were awarded more patents than Americans pioneers. Only a decade earlier, U.S.-based entrepreneurs were awarded almost 57 percent of all patents worldwide. We must work quickly and in a bipartisan manner to reverse this trend. The Startup Visa Act of 2013 is a strong and simple step that will reward foreign innovators, pioneers and entrepreneurs for creating jobs in America. Put simply, this legislation will help protect America's position as the global leader in innovation.

We do not have to look far for evidence that our broken immigration system is hurting our economy. We only need to look at our Canadian neighbors. The Canadian founders of Vanilla Forums, an innovative and fast-growing company, whose products are used by websites around the world to host online forum discussions, spent a summer in my home State of Colorado participating in a mentorship program with U.S.-based entrepreneurs and investors. Despite the numerous investors who were interested in funding Vanilla Forums and developing the company in Colorado, concerns about the founders' ability to obtain visas won out. As a result, Vanilla Forums is a successful company that is hiring employees at its headquarters in Montreal, Quebec.

America has tremendous untapped potential for innovation and it is our responsibility to give our Nation every opportunity to remain globally competitive. By passing the Startup Visa Act of 2013 we can create high paying jobs here in the United States, and help ensure that the next globally transformative company is based in America. This legislation is bipartisan and fiscally responsible; it will spur private investment and it will help put our economy back on track. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I, along with Mr. Flake of Arizona, reintroduce the Startup Visa Act. The Startup Visa Act of 2013 allows immigrant entrepreneurs and foreign graduates of U.S. universities to appeal for a two-year visa on the condition that they secure financing from a qualified U.S. investor and can demonstrate the ability to create jobs in America.

If they are successful in developing their company and hiring American workers, they would be eligible for legal permanent residency and would be free to continue building their companies, creating more home-grown jobs

and continuing our legacy of unmatched innovation and entrepreneurship.

The United States has a proud history of providing entrepreneurs from around the world the freedom and resources to turn an idea into a successful venture. Well-known U.S. companies such as Google, Yahoo, Intel, Pfizer and eBay all began as startups that were founded by immigrants. These businesses have grown into multibillion-dollar industry leaders that provide thousands of Americans with high-paying jobs in cutting-edge fields.

The number of jobs offered by startups is dropping off. While this is partly due to the economic downturn it is also because of our Nation's broken immigration system. Many of the world's best and brightest minds are finding that our current visa restrictions discourage them from launching new companies here. This is a major competitive disadvantage, and one that runs counter to our Nation's history of fostering foreign- born innovators, such as Albert Einstein or Andrew Carnegie.

More worrisome is that while we try to work out a solution to our broken immigration laws, our foreign competitors are catching up and, in some cases, passing us by in many of the fields we once dominated. In 2009, for the first time in recent memory, foreign innovators were awarded more patents than Americans pioneers. Only a decade earlier, U.S.-based entrepreneurs were awarded almost 57 percent of all patents worldwide. We must work quickly and in a bipartisan manner to reverse this trend. The Startup Visa Act of 2013 is a strong and simple step that will reward foreign innovators, pioneers and entrepreneurs for creating jobs in America. Put simply, this legislation will help protect America's position as the global leader in innovation.

We do not have to look far for evidence that our broken immigration system is hurting our economy. We only need to look at our Canadian neighbors. The Canadian founders of Vanilla Forums, an innovative and fast-growing company, whose products are used by websites around the world to host online forum discussions, spent a summer in my home State of Colorado participating in a mentorship program with U.S.-based entrepreneurs and investors. Despite the numerous investors who were interested in funding Vanilla Forums and developing the company in Colorado, concerns about the founders' ability to obtain visas won out. As a result, Vanilla Forums is a successful company that is hiring employees at its headquarters in Montreal, Quebec.

America has tremendous untapped potential for innovation and it is our responsibility to give our Nation every opportunity to remain globally competitive. By passing the Startup Visa Act of 2013 we can create high paying jobs here in the United States, and help ensure that the next globally transformative company is based in America. This legislation is bipartisan and fiscally responsible; it will spur private investment and it will help put our economy back on track. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.