Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a critical issue for my State; that is, much needed wildfire relief.

I wish to be more specific. Colorado has been in dire need of emergency watershed protection funds since fires raged in my State just 6 months ago. Just 6 months ago we were in the news not only in our country but around the world because of fires in our State.

This is an important issue, one of the most important issues confronting my State because the last fire season was the worst, literally, on record. Although the fires no longer burn, the threats they pose to entire communities persist long after the final embers are extinguished. Literally, hundreds of thousands of Coloradans remain vulnerable to flooding and tainted water supplies in the aftermath of these fires.

To people not from the West, the reason why this is an emergency may not be immediately clear, so let me explain. In my State, the Hyde Park and the Waldo Canyon fires--these are two fires that were all over the news--tragically took lives, burned more than 100,000 acres, and led to catastrophic property loss. President Obama declared them national disasters, and he actually came to Colorado and joined me and the rest of the delegation to visit the scenes of destruction, where over 300 homes were destroyed in Colorado's second largest city, Colorado Springs.

But that initial impact in those initial scenes could pale in comparison to threats these communities will face in the coming days, months, and years. Why is that so? Because once a mountainside is stripped of all its trees and foliage and the soil is burned down to bedrock, there is nothing left to hold back the water and debris as it races downhill toward our communities.

Without rehabilitation and restoration, the watersheds that provide municipal and agricultural water are at risk from landslides, flooding, and erosion. In turn, that could result in serious infrastructure damage, water supply disruptions, and even loss of life.

Stabilizing and protecting these communities' watersheds is simply the right thing to do and, moreover--and this is important--taking action now is also fiscally responsible. Quite simply, if we do not do the repairs now, we will pay more later.

When Coloradans came to Senator Bennet and me to share these needs confronting our State, we immediately went to work. We delivered on the promise of providing fire relief when the Senate passed the emergency supplemental spending bill in December of last year, which also provided much needed relief funds for Hurricane Sandy victims. That was a bipartisan bill supported by Senate Republicans and Democrats alike. But the Republicans in the House regrettably gutted the bill and sent back legislation that explicitly cut out wildfire relief.

In that context, let me make one point absolutely clear. This is an emergency. Some people question the need for funding and have asked why we wouldn't limit dollars to just Hurricane Sandy areas, such as the bill does before us today. The short answer is it is a fiscally smart thing to do, the right thing to do, and the fair thing to do.

This bill is an emergency appropriations bill for all national disasters, not just Hurricane Sandy. It is our best hope of seeing wildfire relief.

I emphatically note the Colorado emergencies occurred before Hurricane Sandy, and the West should not have to continue to wait. Very few emergency supplemental bills pass Congress. This bill is passing now, and it should include aid for Colorado and other States across our country.

We, as Americans, are in this together. When deadly disasters strike, we all support each other. I know the Presiding Officer's home State of Hawaii has experienced natural disasters. We stand together when we get into these situations. That is why I am so frustrated that the House of Representatives dismissed Colorado's needs and

ruined our chances, the West's chances, of immediate wildfire relief when lawmakers there failed to include emergency watershed protection funding for Colorado in this disaster relief legislation.

This neglect is particularly disappointing, because if the House had quickly taken up the Senate-passed disaster assistance bill at the end of last year, we would not be in this desperate position today. I say this somewhat reluctantly; I served in the House for 10 years. But I have to say the House is setting a dangerous precedent of arbitrarily legislating disaster relief funds. Communities across this country, and not just those affected by Hurricane Sandy, are at risk of catastrophic flooding and contaminated drinking water.

But House Republicans are either sending a message that the West doesn't matter or saying they don't care about certain communities once the TV cameras are focused elsewhere.

What is the latest development in this ongoing fight to help wildfire victims? Yesterday, I introduced an amendment to the House-passed disaster relief legislation that would help national disaster areas repair their drinking water supplies and the systems that back up those water supplies. This amendment would not add a single cent to the bill and instead simply reverses the House's decision to exclude all States other than those affected by Hurricane Sandy.

No one questions that we need to help hurricane victims in the Northeast. But wildfire relief is not pork. I will say that again. Wildfire relief is not pork. Colorado's record-setting wildfires in 2012 displaced tens of thousands, destroyed more than 600 homes statewide and tragically resulted in deaths. Wildfires destroy communities, and their devastation persists for decades.

These restoration projects of which I speak must get started now before our spring snow melt sends tons of ash and sediment into our water supplies and buries homes and infrastructure under mudslides and floodwaters.

As I said earlier, I know these fires may seem to be old news for some, but Coloradans are living under the ongoing threats every day. I wish to remind all of my colleagues that in the past the Natural Resources Conservation Services, the NRCS, had the flexibility to provide EWP assistance for earlier disasters before moving on to the needs created by subsequent events.

As of December, 2012, an estimated $47 million was needed to mitigate damaged watersheds in the aftermath of other Presidentially declared Stafford Act disaster areas in Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin, North, South, East, and West.

Of the $180 million the House approved for Sandy-related emergency watershed protection relief, only $30 million has been requested. Yet the House bill is saying other communities cannot have access to these funds to protect their own people. It is senselessly wasteful to leave these other communities behind to suffer the effects of less-recent disasters, whether they faced wildfire, hurricane or flood.

Mr. President, I am not being an alarmist. Coloradans unfortunately have already experienced some of these effects. For example, the usually crystal-clear Poudre River has been flowing black--literally flowing black due to ash and runoff from the fires. This forced the downstream city of Fort Collins to shut off its water intake for over 100 days. Senator Bennet was on site just a week ago, and the pictures were tragic and they compel action.

Further downstream on that important water course, the Poudre, the city of Greeley shut off its water intakes for 36 days and is still only able to take a small fraction of its normal intake.

I have a photo here that shows a water main that supplies 75 percent of the backup drinking water supply for the city of Colorado Springs, our second largest city, south of Denver. This pipeline used to be buried 8 feet deep but is now exposed due to runoff. It has been exposed because of the runoff from the fire area, and, of course, it will be exposed to more runoff.

You can see the effect of what is happening after these fires. How much more of an emergency do we need, when our most basic resource-- drinking water supplies for three of Colorado's largest cities and its families and businesses--is threatened?

Let me share one more example. The flood potential in the burned areas is now 20 times higher than before the fire, which means that areas are experiencing 100-year floods from the same amount of rainfall that would have caused a 5-year flood before the wildfires.

Look at this photo. This is Highway 14, which is the major east-west artery through northern Colorado. This mudslide is one of many that occurred during one very minor rainstorm after the High Park fire. These mudslides on our major roads put people, property, and commerce at risk. Already families in the Colorado Springs vicinity, which I mentioned earlier, have received at least four flash flood warnings since the Waldo Canyon fire. Stabilizing this ground and restoring the burned areas on both Federal and private land is critical to public safety, public health, and the prevention of another disaster.

So as I begin to close, I would just say, don't get me wrong, I support the recovery of the communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy, but I want to ensure that my colleagues understand the gravity of the situation we are facing in Colorado and in other States that are confronting disaster needs. The Senate delivered when it came to providing fire relief, in part because of my colleague Senator Bennet's great work on the Agriculture Committee, but the House unwisely sent us a package that turns a blind eye to Colorado and the West. If we do not act soon, communities across this Nation will see unnecessary flood risks, contaminated water supplies, and the potential looms for tragic deaths caused by our inaction. That is simply not acceptable.

So when someone asks whether the EWP--the emergency watershed protection provisions and program--is necessary, critical, or even an emergency, the answer is an emphatic yes. For many of our communities in Colorado, this is their No. 1 priority in Congress, and I, for one, am not going to let their critical needs go unmet. Mark my words. This is not an issue I am going to let die. It is not an issue Senator Bennet will let die. We are going to keep at it until we stabilize these soils, protect our water supplies, and stand up for the people of Colorado and the people of our country.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore for his attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I speak today in honor of Mr. Steven L. Tindell, who retired on January 11, 2013, at Peterson Air Force Base, CO. Mr. Tindell served 30 years in uniform and for over 10 years in Federal civil service as the director of the Commander's Action Group and the Chief of Legislative Affairs for Air Force Space Command. He has been an enduring presence and a subject-matter expert for all congressional matters related to Air Force space and cyberspace issues and has facilitated countless congressional interactions with Headquarters Air Force Space Command and its numerous subordinate centers, wings and units.

Air Force Major Command Legislative Liaisons facilitate communication between their commands and Congress, effectively bridging our organizational cultures and promoting clear and open communication. These professionals require in depth knowledge of congressional procedures, committee structures and the legislative process. They also must have detailed understanding of the missions, challenges and organizational structures of the commands they represent. My office depends heavily on the rapport we have with our military liaisons for timely information and candid dialogue.

During his tenure as a legislative liaison, Mr. Tindell enhanced the Air Force Space Command mission by delivering space, missile and cyberspace capabilities to the U.S. armed forces and its warfighting commands. He was the architect of Space Command's legislative game plan, which coordinated vital communications concerning the command's space and cyberspace programs. He prepared countless pages of testimony and orchestrated hundreds of congressional notifications and visits, including many for me and my staff to our bases throughout the Colorado Front Range.

Mr. Tindell leaves an indelible mark on Air Force Space Command. His institutional knowledge and savvy analysis of legislative activity will be difficult to replace; however, he can take great pride, satisfaction and confidence in knowing that his legacy will endure through those he has mentored over the years. Mr. Tindell has exemplified the best of the U.S. Air Force.

On behalf of all Coloradans, I thank Mr. Steven Tindell for his many years of faithful, selfless service, and I offer warm congratulations on the occasion of his retirement. May he and his wife, Nancy, enjoy a very bright future as they begin this new chapter in their lives.

In looking at this, I do not see anything in the proposals, and I think we, in working on this together, tried to bring a discipline to it that said we want to preserve the best traditions of the Senate, we want the minority to be heard, we want the minority to have amendments, and we want them included in the process. What we don't want is the tyranny of the minority. And the Founders talked about the tyranny of the minority. They talked about the fact that if you allowed a small minority to govern and block the governing of the majority, that was the tyranny of the minority, and they feared that.

So I think that when we consider this and we talk about the filibuster and our institution today, our Senate, where many times the Republican leader has come to the floor and said that it is going to take 60 votes, everything takes 60 votes, that isn't the way the Founders designed it. The Founders actually had very strong language for what they thought of supermajorities.

Everybody remembers their history. The Founders came off the Articles of Confederation. It was a supermajority. It didn't work. It was broken. So they only put into the Constitution in five places supermajorities--things such as expelling a Member and ratifying a treaty--but otherwise it was simple majorities. And when the history is going to be written, it is hard to tell how this happened. But to have a leader of the Senate stand and say that everything takes 60 votes-- the Founders never contemplated that. When they adopted rule XXII in 1917, that wasn't what they were trying to do, and the rule has actually been turned on its head.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today marks my 28th time here on the Senate floor to talk about the Production Tax Credit for wind energy. Twenty-seven other times I stood here--oftentimes joined by like-minded colleagues from around the country--to urge Congress to extend this vital tax credit, which has helped the wind

industry create tens of thousands of jobs and spur tens of billions of dollars in investment. And Coloradans have been with me the whole way.

Well, Mr. President, 27 must be a lucky number--because today, I am thrilled to use my time to thank my colleagues for making the extension of the PTC a reality. Earlier this week, Congress came together across party lines to do the right thing to assist our fragile economic recovery.

Throughout my previous efforts here on the floor, I talked a lot about jobs. From Colorado to Kansas, Oregon and Maine and the Carolinas, my remarks always came back to one simple but true statement: the PTC equals jobs.

These are good-paying jobs for hardworking Americans. From gearboxes in Georgia to wind blades in Rhode Island to towers in Colorado, the construction of wind turbines has invigorated an entire supply chain. Factories in the Midwest have been retooled to make steel components that are shipped to places like Iowa, where cutting edge composite materials are used to make state of the art blades for turbines that ultimately create wind farms built with labor from local construction workers. That's thousands of jobs across this country.

Wind generates clean, renewable energy, which helps move our country toward a more secure energy future. This is clean, American energy that does not produce carbon dioxide pollution--and by making it here at home, it helps us become less reliant on foreign nations for our energy security.

These wind farms are also paying dividends to towns and counties across America, benefitting the families who live there and the small businesses that operate there. The tax revenues from wind turbines have allowed communities to build new schools and roads, as well as provide other basic services. These additional sources of income have been especially important during the recent economic downturn, where the budgets of many states and rural communities have been stretched thin. Quite simply, wind energy jobs have a positive ripple effect wherever they are.

I am relieved that after months of uncertainty as to whether or not the PTC would be extended, Congress has finally done the commonsense thing, making sure we did not lose this vital tax credit. Although it was my preference to have Congress act much sooner and prevent the thousands of layoffs that resulted from the uncertainty Congress created, I am pleased that we have finally acted for the good of our constituents.

With the passage of the PTC, the wind industry can get back to doing the important work of moving America toward a clean energy future, a direction that will benefit middle-class American workers and ensure America leads the world in clean energy manufacturing, even as foreign competitors like China work to surpass us.

And the final language passed by Congress will have an immediate and positive impact on the construction of new wind farms. This year, projects will be eligible to take advantage of the PTC if construction begins before the end of 2013, rather than racing to complete the project by the end of the year. This commonsense change in the law will encourage larger, longer-term projects over the course of the next few years as opposed to just in 2013, which is particularly important since Congress did not pass the extension until the very last minute.

I was not alone in this fight. Coloradans motivated me to keep up the battle the entire time. And many of my colleagues--both Republicans and Democrats--joined me. In particular, I would like to thank Senator Grassley of Iowa--the ``father of the wind PTC''--for his efforts to get this done.

Senator Baucus and Senator Bingaman have also been long-time champions of the PTC on the Finance Committee, and were an integral part of the fight to extend it. My good friend and colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet has also been a strong supporter of the PTC, joining me in speeches, letters, and legislation. Senator Moran of Kansas has been right there with us as well.

And many more members from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol supported these efforts. The broadly bipartisan and bicameral group was driven by a mutual commitment to creating jobs, simultaneously improving our economy and economic competitiveness while moving us toward a more secure energy future.

Despite the importance of the wind PTC extension, there is still much more work to do. This extension only lasts until the end of 2013. So, although we might want to take a breather, we cannot. Instead, we must begin work today on a path forward that will give the wind industry much-needed certainty over the long term. Without certainty, businesses cannot do the long-term planning that is necessary to robustly grow and add good-paying American jobs. And, this time, we cannot wait until the last minute to do it. We must work together to find a plan that allows this industry to reach maturity and thrive while also being fiscally responsible. Yes, that means a gradual phase-out of the wind PTC in the coming years--but my goal is to get Congress to also work together on comprehensive energy legislation that creates long-term certainty for all energy sources. I strongly believe that any national energy policy we develop should reflect the success Colorado has had as an all-of- the-above energy State.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues who worked alongside me to push the wind PTC extension over the finish line. This is hugely important to maintaining American jobs, manufacturing prowess, and energy security. It's a win for Colorado and it's a win for us all.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Ben Eiseman, a world-renowned surgeon, a true American and a great friend of mine. Dr. Eiseman was an accomplished man in every sense of the word and is survived by his wife of 67 years, his four children and five grandchildren.

Dr. Eiseman was an incredibly intelligent individual and an avid self-learner. He graduated from Yale University in 1939 and went on to receive his Medical Degree from Harvard University in 1943. Dr. Eiseman possessed extraordinary scientific ingenuity that led him to discover an astonishing number of medical complications and cures.

In addition to these discoveries, Dr. Eiseman also authored and coauthored over 450 scientific papers, was principal editor of seven books on general surgery and was a retired Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy Reserves--he was very proud of his service to his country. Whenever I mentioned Dr. Eiseman to other surgeons, whether they live in another State or another country, he or she would instantly know his name.

I worked with Dr. Eiseman during my time as Executive Director of the Colorado Outward Bound School. At that time he was chairman of the Board of Trustees, and he was a major influence in my life, an incredible friend, and a wise mentor. One of the reasons Dr. Eiseman and I were so close had much to do with our shared love for the great outdoors. He was one of the few people I knew who had climbed all of the mountains in Colorado over 14,000 feet.

I recall a time almost three decades ago--while I was still with Outward Bound--when Dr. Eiseman accompanied me on a winter climbing trip for advanced climbers. He was always asking us to think through each and every step. In asking the right questions and challenging us along the way, he made me a stronger leader.

One reason we all respected Dr. Eiseman was because we all admired his unassuming ruggedness. On this trip, where it was at least 10 degrees below zero, none of us were surprised as Dr. Eiseman walked around comfortably in his Converse high-tops while the rest of us muddled around, freezing in our high-tech, insulated boots. When it was time to rest for the night, most of the team rolled out their latest and greatest sleeping bags, while Dr. Eiseman pulled out the equivalent of a lawn chair cushion to curl up on for the night. Always the task master, Dr. Eiseman was the first one up in the morning to make sure that everyone, including myself, was thoroughly prepared to take on whatever was in store for us each day. It was just the way he was tough, rugged and focused.

Dr. Eiseman inspired me by the way he commanded respect from all who interacted with him. Sure, he was seen as intimidating by some, but for those who knew him, they were treated to his wonderful sense of humor. He was a dedicated community leader, outdoorsman, and patriot.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of my friend Ben Eiseman, but I know

that his work here on this Earth changed the lives of thousands and that his legacy will not be forgotten.

May his memory live on for years to come.

I yield for the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Wyden amendment. Before I share my thoughts, I wanted to express my respect and admiration for the chairwoman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. They are professional, easy to work with, and have the security of our people front and center at all times.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have learned a great deal with respect to our post-9/11 surveillance laws and how they have been implemented. In the course of my 2 years on the committee, I have determined there are reforms which need to be made to the FISA Amendments Act before we renew this important law.

Earlier this year, Senator Wyden and I opposed the bill reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee extending the expiration date of the FISA Amendments Act because we believe Congress does not have an adequate understanding of the effect this law has had on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens. In our view it is important for Members of Congress and the public to have a better understanding of the foreign intelligence surveillance conducted under the FAA so Congress can consider whether the law should be modified rather than simply extended without changes.

That is the simple purpose of the amendment Senator Wyden, other colleagues, and I have filed--to make more information available to Members of Congress and the public so they have a better understanding of the law and its imitation.

This amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence to provide information to Congress about the effects of the FISA Amendments Act on the privacy of America, which is something we all hold dear. It would require information on whether an estimation has been conducted of how many U.S. communications have been collected under the FISA Amendments Act and, if so, how many, whether any wholly domestic communications have been collected and whether officials have gone through these communications to conduct warrantless searches for the phone calls and e-mails of specific Americans.

It would not require the intelligence community to conduct any new estimates of Americans whose communications may have been collected under the statute and would give the President full discretion to redact information from the public version of the report.

I will conclude by restating my belief that the American people need a better understanding of how the FISA Amendments Act, section 702, in particular, has affected the privacy of Americans. I also believe we need new protections against potential warrantless searches for Americans' communications. I believe that without such reforms, Congress should not simply extend the law for 5 years.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would be happy to defer to the vice chairman.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes and that be under the time allotted to Senator Wyden.

Madam President, I rise, as many have today, to talk about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I wish to acknowledge the great leadership and work that both the chairwoman and the vice chairman provide for the committee. We would not be here today without their focus and their commitment to maintaining the best intelligence community, I believe, in the world. I also want to thank my colleague Senator Wyden and the others who have spoken today on the floor about the authorities under the FISA Amendments Act.

I would suggest that most Americans likely do not recognize the name of the bill, but I am certain they have heard about what this bill addresses; that is, government surveillance of communications. This is an issue that is critical to get right because if it is done wrong, it can strike at the core of our constitutional freedoms. So I wanted to thank our Senate leadership today for providing us time to discuss what is a very important issue. I might suggest that the topic at hand is important

enough to require multiple days of debate, but given the gravity and the number of other issues we must confront before the end of the year, I am grateful for this debate and the discussion we are having for most of this day.

Some observers may even question why we are taking even this limited amount of time to debate a bill we here in the Senate expect to pass easily. The truth is that even though many Senators are likely to vote for this bill, it is incomplete and it needs reforms. In fact, part of the reason this debate is so important is because I believe Congress and the public do not have an adequate understanding of the effect this law has had and could have on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens.

This is an important subject. It is an important question. That is why a number of us have taken to the floor today to spend some time highlighting the issues at hand in the hopes our colleagues will join us in striking the right balance, one that preserves foundational values and constitutional liberties while still allowing us to effectively and forcefully prosecute our war on terror.

I was a Member of the House in 2008 when the FISA Amendments Act passed Congress and was signed into law. I voted for it then, along with most of my Democratic colleagues in the House.

In March 2008 many of us in the House viewed the FISA Amendments Act--or the FAA, in shorthand--as an improvement over the status quo. Why was that so? It was because it put a legal framework around President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program and it updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--or FISA, as it is known in shorthand--to respond to changes in technology and to hold that administration accountable.

As I noted 4 years ago during that debate, the bill also included important provisions that for the first time required intelligence agencies to seek a judge's permission before monitoring the communications of Americans overseas. That meant the Federal Government could no longer monitor the e-mail or phone calls of Americans overseas without a warrant.

In my remarks, I am going to talk on a number of occasions about warrants and the check they provide on government overreach. That was an important part of that debate in 2008. Back in that year, back in 2008, it was Senator Wyden, who is here on the floor today, who was instrumental in including that particular provision in the final FISA Amendments Act legislation. From the perspective of a House Member at that time, I was pleased, glad, and appreciated that we had Senator Wyden's leadership right here in the Senate.

I now have the great privilege to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee with Senator Wyden. I have to admit that from the position I now have, I am viewing the FISA Amendments Act through a different lens. As a member of that committee, I learned a great deal more about our post-9/11 surveillance laws and how they have been implemented. In the course of my 2 years on the committee, I have determined that there are reforms that need to be made to the FISA Amendments Act before we renew it into law.

As we prepare to renew the FISA Amendments Act for the first time since 2008, it is important that we take this opportunity to address several flaws that have become apparent to me and a number of our colleagues. Fortunately, the sunset provision in the original bill effectively provides us with that opportunity so that today we can ensure that the statute still tracks with our foreign intelligence requirements and the interests of the American people. In addition, to remain an effective law, the sunset provision helps ensure that the FISA Amendments Act's authorities keep up with today's state of technology.

Let me be clear that I strongly believe that for our national security, the Federal Government needs ways in which to monitor communications to ensure that we remain a step ahead of our enemies and terrorists. I also strongly believe we need to balance the civil liberties embodied in our Constitution with our ongoing fight against terrorists.

We need only look to recent history to understand why Congress needs to keep a tight rein on these surveillance efforts. It was in the months after 9/11, just shortly after 9/11 that President Bush first authorized what we now refer to as the secret warrantless wiretapping program. Many legitimate concerns were raised about that program, and Congress wisely went back and put some limits on it in that 2008 law. But we have an opportunity to discuss today whether those limits went far enough and whether the circumstances that prompted the creation of the program in 2001 and its passage into law in 2008 still justify its existence today.

I am a member of both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, and I will be the first to say that terrorism remains a serious threat to the United States, and we must be as diligent as ever in protecting our fellow American citizens. I can also say with confidence that the FISA Amendments Act has been beneficial to the protection of our national security.

In the Senate Intelligence Committee, I receive regular briefings on our efforts to combat terrorism abroad and here at home in the United States, including the benefits and accomplishments of the FISA Amendments Act. I think the threats--I should say I not only think, I know the threats we still face today do justify the extension of these authorities. I don't question the value of the foreign intelligence the FAA provides. But my question to my colleagues and the administration is whether a 5-year straight extension of these authorities, without any changes, is the best way forward. In my view, it is not.

I recognize that even after Osama bin Laden's death, we still face numerous threats. Make no mistake about it, terrorism is a serious threat to our homeland and to American lives, and terrorism has also forced us to have a conversation about our civil liberties and the balance between our privacy and the need to confront threats to our Nation. I strongly believe our commitment to protect the American people should not force us to abandon the foundational principles that make us a beacon for the rest of the world. This is a false choice. We must, as the Federal Government and the protectors of our Constitution, protect the constitutional liberties of the American people and live up to the standard of transparency our democracy demands.

As I mentioned, I am the only Senator on our side of the aisle who serves on both the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee, and I believe I have a unique perspective when evaluating the critical balance between protecting our national security and the rights of American citizens. It is the responsibility of Congress to find that balance between the will of the many and the rights of the few, the security of the country and the freedom of its citizens. In times of war and crisis, finding this balance--and it is a delicate balance--can be even more challenging, and there are unfortunate times in our Nation's history when we have lost sight of our principles and what the United States represents as a nation.

I understand that the law requires the intelligence community to conduct oversight of FAA implementation, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court reviews the legality of the procedures, and that the congressional Intelligence Committees conduct our oversight of FISA programs. But nearly all of this oversight is conducted in secret. I know my constituents trust me to conduct this oversight, but I believe the people too have a role in keeping a watchful eye on the government.

As Senators Rockefeller and Wyden wrote in a letter to the Bush administration officials in 2008, ``secrecy comes with a cost'' which can--and I want to quote these two valued and wise Senators--``make it challenging for Members of Congress and the public to determine whether the law adequately protects both national security and the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans.''

With that general overview, I wish to talk about some of the specifics in this particular bill we are considering today. I would like to get to the core of my concerns.

As my colleagues know, section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act established a legal framework for the government to acquire foreign intelligence by targeting non-U.S. persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside

the United States under a program approved by FISA and the FISA Court, I should add. Because section 702 does not involve obtaining individual warrants, it contains language specifically intended to limit the government's ability to use these new authorities to deliberately spy on American citizens.

Earlier this year Senator Wyden and I opposed the bill reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee extending the expiration date of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 from December 2012 to June 2017. We opposed this long-term extension because we believe Congress does not have an adequate understanding of the effect this law has had on the privacy of law-abiding citizens. In our view, it is important for Members of Congress and the public to have a better understanding of the foreign intelligence surveillance conducted under the FAA so that Congress can consider whether the law should be modified rather than simply extended without changes.

This has been a longstanding quest for a number of us. In fact, while I have been outspoken on this issue, the effort to better understand the FAA's implementation precedes my time on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Wyden and others have been pressing the intelligence agencies for years to provide more information to Congress and the public about the effect of this law on Americans' privacy.

I think Senator Wyden and the others would agree with me that to his credit, the Director of National Intelligence in July 2012 agreed to declassify some facts about how the secret FISA Court has ruled on this law. So what did we learn from that declassification? Well, specifically, it is now public information that on at least one occasion, the FISA Court has ruled that some collection carried out by the government under the FISA Amendments Act violated the fourth amendment. The court has also ruled that the government has circumvented the spirit of the law.

So much about this law's impact remains secret. What do I mean by that? Well, for example, Senator Wyden, I, and others have been trying to get a rough estimate of how many Americans have had their phone calls or e-mails collected and reviewed under these authorities. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence told us in July 2011 that ``it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed'' under the FISA Amendments Act.

We are prepared to accept that it might be difficult to come up with an exact count of this number, but it is hard for us to believe that the Director of National Intelligence and the whole of the intelligence community cannot come up with at least a ballpark estimate. This is disconcerting. Our concern about numbers is this: If no one has even estimated how many Americans have had their communications collected under the FISA Amendments Act, then it is possible that this number could be quite large.

So how did we respond? Well, during a markup in our committee, we offered an amendment that would have directed the inspectors general of the intelligence community and the Department of Justice to produce a rough estimate of how many Americans have had their communications collected under section 702. Our amendment did not pass, but we will continue our efforts to obtain this information because the American people deserve to know.

There are those who are satisfied with the law's current privacy protections, and they point out that classified minimization procedures guide how government officials handle information on Americans' communications. But I don't believe those procedures are a substitute for strong privacy protections incorporated into the law itself. Do we really want accountability for those protections to be secret? Do we really want to be dependent upon the good will of future administrations to keep faith with the so-called minimization procedures?

That is why I believe the FISA Amendments Act extension should include clear rules prohibiting the government from searching through the incidental or accidental collection of these communications unless the government has obtained a warrant or emergency authorization permitting surveillance of that American. Our founding principles demand no less.

Senator Wyden and I offered an amendment during the committee's markup of this bill that would have clarified the law to prohibit such searches. Our amendment included exceptions for searches that involve a warrant or an emergency authorization, as well as for searches on phone calls or e-mails of the people who are believed to be in danger or who consent to the search, each of which is important.

Our amendment to close this backdoor search loophole did not pass in committee, but we remain concerned--I would say very concerned--that this loophole could allow the government to effectively conduct warrantless searches for Americans' communications. Especially since we do not know how many Americans may have had their phone calls and e- mails collected under this law, we believe it is particularly important to have strong rules in place to protect the privacy of our fellow Americans.

As the majority report noted when the Senate bill passed out of the committee: ``Congress recognized at the time the FISA Amendments Act was enacted that it is simply not possible to collect intelligence on the communications of a party of interest without also collecting information about the people with whom, and about whom, that party communicates, including in some cases nontargeted U.S. persons.''

Therefore, I understand that in scooping up large amounts of data, it may be impossible not to accidentally catch some Americans' communications along the way--seems logical. The language of the law-- the collection of foreign intelligence of U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States--anticipates that incidental or accidental collection of Americans' e-mails or phone calls would, in fact, occur. But under the FISA Amendments Act, as it is written, there is nothing to prohibit the intelligence community from searching through a pile of communications, which may have incidentally or accidentally been collected without a warrant, to deliberately search for the phone calls or e-mails of specific Americans.

Again, I understand--and I think I can speak for Senators Wyden and others of us who have this concern--this could happen by accident. But I don't think the government should be doing this on purpose without getting a warrant or an emergency authorization regarding the American they are looking for.

I have noted that Senator Wyden and I call this the backdoor searches loophole. Understandably, the Intelligence Committee doesn't much like that term, arguing there is no loophole. But I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the terminology. I don't believe, though, that Congress intended to authorize the searches when they voted for the FISA Amendments Act in 2008. I know I certainly didn't.

The intelligence agencies have not denied that section 702 gives the NSA the authority to conduct these searches, and it is a matter of public record the intelligence community has sought to preserve this authority. If it is not classified that intelligence agencies have this authority and it is not classified they would like to keep it, we think it is reasonable to tell the public whether and how it has ever been used. Yet when Senator Wyden and I and 11 other Senators asked whether intelligence agencies have already done this, we were told the answer was classified.

My concern is that this section 702 loophole could be used to circumvent traditional warrant protections and search for the communications of a potentially large number of American citizens. The Senate Intelligence Committee majority report argues there may be circumstances in which there is a legitimate foreign intelligence need to conduct queries on data already in its possession, including data from accidentally or incidentally collected communications of Americans. I would argue, if there is evidence that an American is a terrorist or spy or involved in a serious crime, the government should be permitted to search for the communications of that American by getting a warrant or an emergency authorization.

In that spirit, Senator Wyden and I have offered this backdoor searches

loophole amendment once again to this bill, and we intend to continue to bring attention to this issue until our colleagues grasp what could be at stake should this loophole not be closed. We have also filed a second amendment which seeks to instill some transparency to surveillance conducted under FISA Amendments Act authorities.

What is included in this amendment? It requires the Director of National Intelligence to provide information to Congress that we have requested before but that we have not yet received, including a determination of whether any government entity has produced an estimate of the number of U.S. communications collected under the FISA Amendments Act; an estimate of such number, if any exists; an assessment of whether any wholly domestic U.S. communications have been collected under the FISA Amendments Act; a determination of whether any intelligence agency has ever attempted to search through communications collected under the FISA Amendments Act to find the phone calls or e- mails of a specific American without obtaining a warrant or emergency authorization to do so; and finally, a determination of whether the NSA has collected any type of personally identifiable information on more than 1 million Americans.

The amendment states the report produced by the Director of National Intelligence shall be made available to the public, but it gives the President the authority to make any redactions he believes are necessary to protect national security.

Colleagues, I am going to conclude by restating my belief that the American people need a better understanding of how the FISA Amendments Act, section 702, in particular, has affected the privacy of our fellow Americans. I also believe we need new protections against potential warrantless searches for Americans' communications. I believe without such reforms Congress should not simply extend the law for 5 years.

We need to strike a better balance between giving our national security and law enforcement officials the tools necessary to keep us safe but not damage the very constitution we have sworn to support and defend. National security and civil liberties can coexist. We do not need to choose between them.

In Federalist 51, James Madison stated--and I would like to quote that great American:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men

over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first

enable the government to control the governed; and in the

next place oblige it to control itself.

The bill that is before us could come closer to that standard if we improve it through some of the amendments being offered by my colleagues and me, but it does not live up to that standard now. The American people deserve their privacy, they deserve to know how the intelligence community interprets and implements this law, and, frankly, they deserve better than the protections put before us today.

I urge my colleagues to consider the gravity of the issues at hand and seriously consider and contemplate the effect of another 5 years of unchanged FAA authorities.

I appreciate the attention of the Chair and the patience of my colleagues on this important matter. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of two critical issues for my state--much-needed Emergency Watershed Protection Funds in the Supplemental Appropriation for Disaster Assistance and a Udall-Tester amendment that would add $653 million for U.S. Forest Service firefighting and wildfire prevention.

Let me begin by making one point absolutely clear: this is an emergency. Some have questioned the need for this funding and have asked why we wouldn't limit dollars just to Hurricane Sandy areas. The short answer is that it is the smart thing to do, the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. I know these fires may seem like just another story on CNN for some folks, but they have had devastating impacts in my state and throughout the west. Wildfires destroy communities and their devastation persists for decades.

The country faced the third worst wildfire season in the nation's history last year, with more than 9.2 million acres burned--including the Waldo Canyon and High Park fires, the two most destructive fires in Colorado history. Next year is projected to be much worse, yet the U.S. Forest Service will enter the 2013 fire season with a projected budget shortfall for preparing for and fighting these fires. They will also have only eight large air tankers compared to 44 in 2000--which puts them at a serious disadvantage in being able to attack these blazes. The Udall-Tester amendment would address this critical issue and provide $653 million to close the budget gap between what the Forest Service has and what they absolutely need. This is nothing to sneeze at, but for perspective this amounts to only one percent of the emergency funds that would be sent to support Hurricane Sandy recovery.

These funds will enable pre-positioning of ground crews, hot shots, and air support in places where wildfire risk is very high. This is a smart investment because early attack is critical to stop fires from becoming mega-fires that devastate communities, take lives and property, and threaten water supplies. It also helps ensure that the Forest Service doesn't have to rob other accounts such as timber, watershed, and wildlife programs. Raiding other Forest Service funds is robbing Peter to pay Paul: These other funds help eliminate dead wood and other fuels in our national forests, thus reducing future fire risks.

And the risks wildfires pose persist long after the final embers are extinguished. That is why we also are seeking to fully fund the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Communities across this country--including many impacted by Hurricane Sandy--are at risk of catastrophic flooding and contaminated drinking water. This investment of $125 million in the bill before us is critical to help ensure that these communities do not face further debilitating and life-threatening impacts from these recent disasters.

In my state, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program is essential to protecting and restoring critical watersheds that are damaged by wildfires. This is especially true of the most devastating wildfires in Colorado's history last summer--which, if left unaddressed, could cause serious flooding, landslide and other risks that threaten the lives of residents in my state.

The High Park and Waldo Canyon fires tragically took lives, burned more than 100,000 acres, and led to catastrophic loss of property, including well over 300 homes in Colorado's second-largest city. But the initial impact could pale in comparison to the long-term impacts.

Without rehabilitation and restoration, the watersheds that provide municipal and agricultural water supplies are at risk from landslides, flooding and erosion, which could result in serious infrastructure damage, water supply disruptions and even loss of life. Stabilizing and protecting these communities' watersheds is not only the right thing to do, it is also fiscally responsible.

If we do not quickly address these watersheds, taxpayers could face hundreds of millions of dollars in costs from what otherwise would have been a minor storm.

We need to fix what is wrong, and give these communities the peace of mind they deserve.

And I want to remind my colleagues that Congress has historically provided Emergency Watershed Protection (or EWP) assistance for earlier disasters before moving on to confront the needs created by subsequent events. As of December 10, 2012, an estimated $47 million is needed to mitigate damaged watersheds in the aftermath of other presidentially- declared Stafford-Act disaster areas in Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin. This is in addition to the $40 million needed for communities affected by Hurricane Sandy. We cannot leave these communities behind to suffer the effects of less recent disasters--whether they faced disaster from wildfire, hurricane or flood.

Mr. President, Coloradans unfortunately have already experienced some of these effects. For example, the usually crystal-clear Poudre River has been flowing black due to ash and runoff from the fire. This forced the downstream city of Fort Collins to shut off their water intake for over 100 days. Further downstream, the city of Greeley shut off their water intakes for 36 days and are still only able to take a small fraction of their normal intake.

This photo shows a water main that supplies 75 percent of the backup drinking water supply for the City of Colorado Springs--our second largest city. This pipe used to be buried 8 feet deep but is now exposed due to runoff from the fire area.

How much more of an emergency do we need, when our most basic resource--drinking water supplies for three of Colorado's largest cities and its families and businesses--is threatened?

I'll give you one more example. The flood potential in the burned areas is now 20 times higher than before the fire, which means that areas are experiencing 100-year floods from the same amount of rainfall that would have caused a 5-year flood before the wildfires.

Look at this photo. This is Highway 14, which is the major east-west artery through northern Colorado. This mudslide is one of many that occurred during one very minor rainstorm after the High Park fire. These mudslides on our major roads put people, property, and commerce at risk. Already, families in the Colorado Springs vicinity have received at least four flash-flood warnings since the Waldo Canyon fire. The need for stabilizing this ground and restoring the burned areas on both federal and private land is critical to public safety, public health and the prevention of another disaster.

I stand to support the recovery of the communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy. But, I want to ensure that my colleagues here understand the gravity of the situation we're facing in Colorado and other states that are also confronting disaster needs. If we do not act right away, communities across this nation will see unnecessary flood

risks, contaminated water supplies, and even tragic deaths caused by our inaction.

So when someone asks whether EWP is necessary or critical, the answer emphatically is yes! For many of our communities in Colorado, this is their #1 priority in Congress and I'm not going to let their critical needs go unmet. I ask each of my colleagues to support this important funding in the bill before us today.

I thank you for your attention and request that my statement appear in the appropriate place in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor once again to urge my colleagues to act on extending the production tax credit for wind, otherwise known as the PTC.

If we let the production tax credit, the PTC, expire in the next 18 days--we literally have 18 days before it does expire--that expiration has the potential to cost our economy thousands of good-paying middle- class jobs. We just can't let that happen. Tens of thousands of Americans who work in the wind industry are depending on us to extend this important tax credit and in doing so save jobs and encourage investment in more States, such as my State of Colorado and the State of the Presiding Officer, New Mexico. If we fail to extend the PTC, we risk jeopardizing not only our economic growth but also our capacity, our potential, our ability to continue leading the world in the development and use of clean energy technology.

I have come to the floor over 25 times to speak about this issue, and each time I do, I highlight a different State and what the PTC has done to encourage economic growth. Today I am really pleased to be able to speak about the great State of New Mexico, the State of the Presiding Officer; their wind resources rank 10th in the United States. New Mexico is an impressive example of how wind can be harnessed to create good-paying jobs, support local communities, and produce American-grown power.

I wish to speak specifically about various areas in New Mexico. New Mexico has eight counties with wind projects, as my colleagues can see from the map here. The largest one is the New Mexico Wind Energy Center. It straddles Quay County and DeBaca County, which is located in the eastern central part of the State, in this area here. This is a very impressive project, as the Presiding Officer knows since it is his home State. It opened in 2003. It runs 136 turbines and produces 200 megawatts of power. Located 170 miles south of Albuquerque, it produces enough electricity to power 95,000 New Mexico homes, which is almost half of all the homes powered by wind in the State. So this is an impressive project. The Presiding Officer has probably visited the site and knows firsthand.

In terms of jobs, wind projects employ 500 New Mexicans around the State, and these are really good-paying

jobs. We have seen all across the country that investment in wind power is really an investment in the middle class and support for what makes our country great, which is building our economy from the middle out. These jobs are found across the ledger, if you will, including operations, maintenance, construction, and manufacturing, as well as the many support sectors. Of course, we know that when we have a fundamental, core business such as this, it creates a ripple effect. There are a lot of other small businesses that take root.

New Mexico--and I don't have to tell the Presiding Officer, but I will tell him anyway--has two outstanding Senators, outstanding leaders, and they are Senator Bingaman and Senator Tom Udall. Those two Senators have championed the renewable energy sector, and they understand the significance of the production tax credit.

I particularly wish to mention Senator Bingaman, who is the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has continued to press the Congress on the need to extend the PTC. I know we are going to see a package come forward that will have other clean energy tax credits in it. I am a member of the Energy Committee as well. I have that great honor. I really want to tell all of us in the country that we are going to lose a renewable energy champion when Senator Bingaman retires in just a few weeks.

Let me turn back to the potential in New Mexico for wind energy development. As I understand it, to pass this means that if we fully develop the wind resource in New Mexico, we could provide nearly 75 times New Mexico's current electricity needs. That is an enormous number. It is why we need, by the way, a grid upgrade, because when New Mexico harvests all that wind, we are going to send that energy to places such as Tucson and Phoenix, probably into Texas, and maybe all the way to the west coast.

Let me turn back again to the need to extend this tax credit. If we do not extend it--again, we have just over 2 weeks to extend it--we risk not only losing jobs but the momentum we have developed toward achieving true energy security and economic growth.

Already, because of inaction in the Congress over this last year, we have seen Americans laid off in the wind energy industry. Clean energy plays a crucial role in creating new jobs and electricity production. We cannot risk losing more good-paying American jobs. Some studies suggest that if we let the PTC expire, we are going to lose half the wind energy industry, which would fall from 75,000 jobs to something on the order of 37,000 jobs. This is not acceptable.

We cannot let the production tax credit expire. We need to pass it as soon as possible. It is simple: The PTC equals jobs. We need to pass it as soon as possible.

Think about countries such as China and Germany. They are continuing to expand their wind industries and renewable energy sectors. If we do not support our wind energy industry here and the wind manufacturing facilities, we are effectively offshoring and exporting those jobs. Our global competitors are not hesitating. They are encouraging wind power development, and they know the longer we fail to act, literally, the more wind they can steal from our sails.

So enough is enough. This is an American industry. It needs to continue to be an American industry. But we risk everything--literally everything--if we let the PTC lapse in 18 days. So let's focus on this made-in-America potential. Through it, we can obtain energy independence, we can ensure energy security, and we can keep jobs in New Mexico and Colorado and Minnesota and New York--every State in our great country. So let's not wait any longer. Let's continue to build this clean energy economy right here in the United States. Let's do it today. The PTC equals jobs. Let's pass it as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to first recognize the life of a very unique and remarkable Coloradan, and then I will speak to a cause that is near and dear to me, as it is I think to the Presiding Officer as well, and that is our wind energy industry and the threat it faces.

I wish to speak about a man by the name of Randy Atkinson whom we lost this year on October 9, 2012, at the way-too-young age of 60. He was a firefighter. He dedicated himself to serving his community and, as he put it, brothers and sisters in Colorado's fire departments.

Randy was an example to all of us because he dedicated his entire adult life to helping others. He started at the age of 19, in 1972, by joining the Denver Fire Department and Denver Firefighters Local 858. Not long after that, he took a more active role in representing his fellow firefighters as an advocate and a legislative consultant for the Colorado Professional Firefighters and Denver Local 858. He was held in high esteem not just by his fellow firefighters but by Colorado legislators on both sides of the aisle. Why was that? He was intelligent. He was caring. He had a great sense of humor. We all appreciated that when we came into contact with him, whether we were Democrats or Republicans.

He was a leader and because of that he kept rising through the ranks. In 1995, he was elected president of the Colorado Professional Firefighters. In 2007, he was elected as vice president for the International Association of Firefighters in the 9th District. When he died, he was serving in both of those positions.

I know the Presiding Officer has a phenomenal crew of firefighters in her home State. We know what they did on 9/11 and what they do every day. Randy was a man who served in that spirit. While he represented firefighters, he always was fighting for fair pay and making sure those who stand up for us in times of hazard and emergency have the best possible safety equipment to carry out their dangerous and often unsung responsibilities. While at times Randy had to be pretty hard-nosed when it came to negotiating and standing up for firefighters, he always had a positive relationship with policymakers, even when he was tangling with them. I have to say I am glad we agreed more often than we disagreed.

Randy Atkinson was truly an admired figure. As I think about him, I wish we had more people such as Randy right here in Washington, DC. We would certainly get more done and we would have stronger relationships with one another.

Late this fall more than 500 of us gathered to celebrate his life, including family members, friends, and work associates. We laughed and we cried and showed our appreciation for his life and service. I was honored that day to be a part of that celebration.

I want to extend my sincerest condolences to his family, including his son Randy, Jr., and his two daughters, Brenda and Denisa. We all loved him, as I have said. I hope the viewers all understand how much I admired him, how hard he worked, and how grateful we are to have known him. I am honored to be able to stand here on the floor of the Senate, remembering Randy smiling, to recognize his life and his accomplishments and, above all, his

enduring spirit and his strong character. I think we have to keep his spirit alive in our attitudes and in our actions.

I thank the Chair for her interest in another firefighter.

Madam President, I now wish to turn to the wind production tax credit. The Presiding Officer has been in the chair listening on a number of occasions and she has been gracious in her interest and support of what we are trying to do.

This is my 26th speech urging all of us to extend the wind production tax credit. It is known simply as the PTC in the abbreviated form. It is going to expire in 4 weeks--less than 4 weeks, actually--if we don't extend it. I am so worried about what is going to happen to this important industry.

The PTC has created good-paying middle-class jobs in the wind energy industry not only in my own State--I have a bias about my own State-- but all across the Nation. Almost every State has a stake in the wind energy industry. When we think about what the PTC has done, we realize it has also stimulated the growth of our clean energy economy as well as promoted clean energy security. The Presiding Officer serves on the Armed Services Committee so she knows the importance of energy to national security.

We have 75,000 jobs in the wind industry right now in Colorado. We are on track to produce 20 percent of our electricity through the wind, by harvesting the wind, by 2030. But if we let the PTC expire, estimates suggest we will lose half of those jobs. We would be down to 37,000 jobs. We also undermine our Nation's pursuit of true energy security.

Our inaction, although the tax credit hasn't expired, has halted further development in the wind energy industry because that set of leaders can't in good faith bring that capital to bear and make those investments if they think the wind energy credit will truly expire. We have had hundreds of layoffs in Colorado. The business has nearly ground to a halt, and we see that all over the country. Then we get a ripple effect in those communities because tax receipts go down, people aren't as upbeat about the future, and it is a downward spiral we have to end. We should be doing everything we can coming out of this tough economic recession--the great recession--to make strategic investments in our economy and in our energy portfolio.

So with that general outline of what we face, I wish to turn to the State of Maine today. The Presiding Officer and I have great respect for both of our Maine Senators. We are going to miss Senator Snowe, and Senator Collins has been a strong supporter as well.

Maine is well positioned to become a major player in the wind energy industry going forward. Maine has the potential for significant economic development and environmental benefits. In 2011, wind energy provided 2.9 percent of the Pine Tree State's power and Maine's wind farms power the equivalent of about 100,000 homes. The outlook for their wind energy industry is bright. The State has another 34 megawatts of wind power under construction and enough untapped potential to power three times the State's current electricity needs. Three times their needs will be powered by harvesting all the wind resources there. So I will say the PTC is crucial to their continued growth and the capacity they have to tap into their available wind resources.

Maine, of course, has a vast interior, but it also is on the coast. Right now Maine is New England's leading land-based wind producer, and experts predict it could become the leading offshore wind producer in the coming years. The University of Maine has a center called the Advanced Structures and Composites Center, and their research and development is paving the way for this additional offshore development.

There is also an expiring tax credit called the investment tax credit--the ITC--and that provides additional incentives. The ITC will be vital to the growth of offshore and distributed wind power development as well. It is also at risk. We need to include a discussion of the ITC as we consider the extenders package.

I have mentioned that what the wind projects do is to lift local economies. The Presiding Officer has a lot of rural economies in the north and the west of New York, a lot of agricultural-based economic activity. Wind power, when it is properly developed, is a cash crop that always comes in. As we face the consequences of this economic slowdown, wind power has helped a lot of local economies have additional revenue, economic activity, and jobs.

In that context, I wanted to talk about the Bull Hill Wind Project in Maine. It is in Hancock County, down here on the coast. I think it is called down east if one is from Maine. That project was just completed. It will generate $100,000 annually in tax revenue, and it has supported about 100 jobs during the peak of the construction. That is a significant number of jobs in a rural county in a State such as Maine.

I have to put a pitch in for Colorado. This project uses wind turbines which are made by Vestas which manufactures blades, nacelles, and towers in Colorado.

Much like in Colorado, the production tax credit creates and sustains manufacturing jobs, and it is creating growth in Maine. I know we have some job numbers in the manufacturing sector that I will share with my colleagues. There are four facilities in Maine that produce components for the wind energy industry and the installed wind projects across the State to which I have alluded. Those jobs number about 500--500 being actual jobs. Speaking of tax payments, property tax payments, about $6 million comes in from those wind projects to local governments. That money helps infrastructure improvements and other vital services for local Maine communities.

So it is obvious that the growth of our domestic wind energy industry, aided by the wind production tax credit, has helped create jobs, encouraged energy security, and grown a clean energy economy in Maine and all across our country. It is really that simple. The wind energy PTC powers good-paying middle-class jobs. However, if we do not extend it--it is a bipartisan policy, by the way, and the father of the wind PTC is our own Senator Grassley from Iowa--if we do not extend this, we are going to lose thousands of jobs. At a time when our economy is still in imbalance, that is not acceptable. It cannot happen in Maine, it cannot happen in Colorado, and it should not be happening to thousands of families across our country. So it is simple.

The PTC equals jobs. We need to pass it ASAP. Let's work together. Our inaction is stunting the growth of a 21st-century clean energy economic opportunity for us. Those jobs are not necessarily going to be lost if we do not do what we should do, but they are going to go to places such as China, Europe. The world is investing in big numbers in wind energy because of all the possibilities for economic development.

So let's, in sum, remember that the production tax credit equals jobs. The PTC equals jobs. Let's pass it as soon as possible. Time is running out. The clock is ticking.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore for her interest and for her support. New York has great wind energy potential.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.