Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to say to the Senator from Oklahoma that standing and going through the list of things that offer opportunities for saving is very important. I have a list as well. For example, on my list, we know of well over $1 trillion of money owed to the United States of America by people who have not paid it. If we even got a portion of that over a 10-year period--that is over a 10-year period--we could do that. I look forward to working with the Senator on that.

But tonight we are not facing a 3-week timeframe as my colleague perhaps suggested, we are just facing down a 5-day timeframe and we are facing a manmade crisis and, by that, I have to say a Republican-made crisis on raising the debt ceiling.

We have never in the history of this country faced a situation such as this. Why do I say this? Because the debt ceiling has been raised 89 times--89 times--and I can tell you because I voted for it a number of times and voted no four times.

Yes, on occasion you vote no on it and send a message, but you don't bring it down. I have never seen anything like this. We are going down a dangerous path. When I say we have raised the debt ceiling 89 times, that is in the Record--55 times under Republican Presidents, 34 times under Democratic Presidents. The debt limit was raised the most times during Ronald Reagan's Presidency. During his 8 years, the debt limit was increased by 200 percent. And this is what President Ronald Reagan said when it was time to raise the debt ceiling, which, again, under his Presidency was raised 18 times:

The full consequences of a default--or even the serious

prospect of default--by the United States are impossible and

awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and

credit of the United States would have a substantial effect

on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the

dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to

allow such a result.

That was in a letter written to Senator Howard Baker in 1983.

The debt limit was raised seven times during the Presidency of George W. Bush. During his 8 years, the debt limit was increased by 90 percent. Honest to goodness, I don't remember one Republican colleague--and I could be wrong on this--who suggested that we don't raise the debt ceiling when George W. Bush was President.

I will tell you something. We all know that when you raise the debt ceiling, it is for debts already incurred.

George W. Bush took a surplus of over $200 billion a year and he turned it into a deficit. The reason we have to raise the debt ceiling, mostly, is because of George W. Bush. I never heard one Republican in those years say: Let's bring this down; let's not raise the debt ceiling. They went on a binge. They put two wars on the credit card. They never paid for those wars. They put a tax cut for the richest people in America on that credit card. They didn't care. They put a prescription drug benefit which tied the hands of Medicare and said: You can't negotiate for lower drug prices, and instead of being affordable for the government, it became a budget buster--they put that on the credit card. I never heard them say: Let's not raise the debt ceiling, even though, under their policies, they took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. They took us off a path where we were about to finish up with our debt, frankly, and added debt as far as the eye could see.

The hypocrisy, honestly--and I am being cautious in the way I express myself--doesn't even begin to describe what is going on here. It is disingenuous, it is just plain wrong to play politics with this.

We know politics is at play here. I have run for election many times in my career--I think 11 or 12 times--and I know you have to pay attention to politics when you are running. We all understand that. We are not naive about it. We are tough on the trail. We know. But there is a time to govern. There is a time to set aside the politics and govern. If ever there were a moment in history, it is now.

I have to say that my friend Senator Coburn said people are anxious in the country, but they are not anxious--he basically said specifically that their anxiety has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. I disagree respectfully. Anybody who has a 401(k) and has seen the stock market down 400 points is worried. Anyone who gets a Social Security check is worried. Anyone who fears we could default is worried. Anyone on Medicare is worried. Anyone on veterans disability is worried. Every Federal employee is worried. Every Federal private contractor in business is worried. Every worker who works for those people is worried, too, because they know very well that if we don't come together in a fair compromise, we will not be able to pay all of our bills. Again, raising the debt ceiling is something you have to do because you have already incurred all of the debt.

I would like to talk a little bit about how we got into this unnecessary crisis and how we need to get out of it. We got into it because Republicans said they would not vote for a clean increase in the debt ceiling, as has been done 89 times before. They wanted to extract a pound of flesh and say: We demand that you cut spending now, tie it to this debt ceiling, and that is what we want. We said: OK, we are ready to talk.

As a matter of fact, the Democrats on the Budget Committee put out an excellent plan. It cut not $850 billion, as John Boehner's plan does, but $4 trillion, and it protects Social Security, Medicare, and it basically said: We have a problem, and we are going to solve it with $2 trillion in cuts and $2 trillion in revenues--50-50, which is kind of a fair way to approach it--and we are going to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

Frankly, that plan is the ideal plan. It is a fair plan; it gets us on safe, good, solid fiscal ground; and it says we will have cuts and we will have revenue, and we will move forward and look at Medicare and Social Security to make them stronger--not to cut benefits. If I were acting like the Republicans over in the House, I would stand here and say: That is the only plan I will ever consider. I love that plan. It speaks to my values. It speaks to my State's values. But I understand that in a negotiation, in a situation such as this, no side gets everything they want.

Now President Obama says: Let's all come together and work on a plan. Let's do something big, something real. First, Eric Cantor, the Republican whip, marched out of there with his teddy bear and his blanket, and then a few weeks later Boehner walks out.

I have to say that I watched Speaker Pelosi sit at the White House many times. She sat across from George W. Bush. She did not agree with him. She felt that he had added to the debt, that he had added to the deficit. She disagreed with him on protecting millionaires and billionaires. She disagreed with him on the environment and on the war in Iraq. Nancy Pelosi never stalked out of a meeting. I find it, frankly, appalling that that is what happened.

But the President keeps reaching out because he will take the personal hits because this country gave him everything, and he is not going to allow it to fall and to default and become a deadbeat nation.

Speaker Boehner said: I am going to put together my own plan. So he puts together his own plan. Frankly, it hardly has any cuts. He comes back very short--$850 billion in cuts--and doesn't get past this problem we are facing. He only says it is for 4, 5, or 6 months, and then we are going to be back in the soup, in this mess, in this chaos, and back into the market selloffs, back into the uncertainty, back in the time when people can't even sleep well at night because Speaker Boehner and his people over there

want to keep this thing boiling over. They think somehow it is good for them. I say it is not good for them.

But you know what, I don't care if it is good or bad for them or whether it is good or bad for us. What I care about, what you care about, what we care about is this Nation that is everything to us. We have to stand up for this Nation. That means we have to leave the political labels at the door and set aside our favorite plan, as I have set aside my favorite plan, and support a real compromise.

Let me tell you the real compromise we have before us. It is the Reid approach. It is a real compromise because what does compromise mean? Nobody gets everything they want, but everybody gets something they want. What do the Republicans say they want? They wanted cuts and no revenues. They got that in the Reid plan. Our leader, Majority Leader Reid, has heard them. Not only does he have cuts, he has twice as many cuts as the Boehner plan--cuts that hurt a lot of the things that many of us don't want to hurt, but we understand we have to give something. So they get that. What do we get? We get certainty. We believe it is very important that we take this issue of the debt ceiling and get it past the election, past January or February of 2013, and get back to the business of job creation and all of the things we need to do--we get that.

We also talked about a committee that would look at the long-range problems of this deficit and debt and the need to do reforms and the need to look at what revenues make sense. There is a committee in that bill. This is a true compromise. I agree that the other things the Democrats got are no cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

But if you really, truly look at this, the Reid plan gives the Republicans more than even he gives the Democrats. But it is worth it to us to get certainty in the markets, protect Social Security and Medicare, avoid the chaos of the Boehner plan, and avoid the danger we face if our bonds are downgraded.

The Boehner plan risks catastrophic default, and we are concerned that if it were to pass, we would again see this economy being held captive; we would again be facing deep cuts in Medicare and Social Security; we would again be facing all kinds of hostage-taking to protect the millionaires and the billionaires.

I believe that no one who loves this country, regardless of political label, should take any action to result in America becoming a deadbeat nation.

I am a first-generation American on my mother's side. My mother never even went to high school because during her time in high school her father got very ill and she had to go to work. Because I was born in this country, even though we had barely anything, I was able to get an education. I was able to go toe-to-toe with my colleagues who went to fancy schools. I remember when I went to Brooklyn College in New York, they raised the tuition from $9 a semester to $14 a semester. My dad said, ``Honey, you are getting awfully expensive.'' But I got a college education in this country. I got to the Senate in this country.

But I have to say, if we are going into a circumstance where everything we do to fight for the middle class is held hostage to protect the richest among us--the billionaires, the millionaires, the multinational corporations--if that is the pattern we are getting into here, I fear for this country. We can't let it happen, and that is why we have been very clear that the Boehner plan just continues this hostage taking. So the Reid alternative is the true compromise. It gives us substantial cuts in deficits, it gives us a process for more deficit and debt reduction, and it gives us certainty in the marketplace.

In closing, I would say this: When each of us has won our election, we go up there to the place where the Presiding Officer is sitting and we put our hand on the Bible and we swear to uphold the Constitution. I had the honor of serving with Senator Robert Byrd--and most of us here have--and he always carried around this Constitution in his pocket. Today, I took a look at section 4 of the 14th amendment, and it says: The validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.

I held up my hand and I swore to uphold this Constitution. It says the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned. So I am not going to play games with this, and I am not going to allow the public debt to become a political football.

Before I leave the floor, let me show a couple more charts. This is what Speaker Boehner said on July 22 of this year. He said:

I'm not really interested in a short-term increase in the

debt limit.

And on May 9 he said:

Our economy won't grow as long as we continue to trip it up

with short-term gimmicks from Washington.

That is what Speaker Boehner said. So what does he give us? A short- term extension of the debt limit. A few months. We can't do that. In his own words he says that would hurt the economy.

Eric Cantor said to Politico:

If we can't make the tough decisions now, why would we be

making those tough decisions later? It is my preference we do

this thing one time. Putting off tough decisions is not what

people want in this town.

Yet what do they do? They send us--and we don't know if they will get the votes to send us, but they are planning to send us--a short-term deal which leaves this great Nation in chaos.

You talk to every businessman and they will tell you the thing they worry about the most is uncertainty. And that is the path of uncertainty. Eric Cantor said it, Boehner said it: No short-term deal. But they are sending us a short-term deal.

I will close with this from the New York Times. The headline reads: ``The Mother of All No-Brainers.''

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see

that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans

were not. If responsible Republicans don't take control,

independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused

this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit

to govern. And they will be right.

I appeal to our Republican colleagues in this Senate Chamber who have shown, working with Senator Durbin, working with Senator Warner, working with others on our side--Senator Conrad--they are willing to come forward and do something meaningful and put the politics aside. I hope they will do just that. They will find in Leader Reid someone who understands the art of compromise, who understands we have to put aside our party labels and do what is right for this Nation.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to thank Leader Harry Reid for stepping into the breach in this situation and offering us a way out of this what I consider to be a Republican-made crisis. Why do I say that? The debt limit has been increased 89 times since 1939, 55 times under Republican Presidents and 34 times under Democratic Presidents.

Never has either party brought us to this brink of default. Never. Never. Never in the history of America. It is a manmade crisis. It is a Republican-made crisis. It has never happened before. The real challenge we face is clearly with our deficit and our debt. The good news is that we had this crisis before, this challenge before, and we stepped up to the plate. We passed a budget when Bill Clinton was President that not only balanced the budget--and we did not need a amendment to the Constitution to do it, we did it by working it out, by cutting out the waste and the fraud and abuse in government, by choosing to invest in important areas such as education, high-tech-- biotech at that time, which created jobs, which created so many jobs in this country--23 million jobs. That was the absolute result of this very good budget.

A budget expresses the hopes and dreams of the people, the priorities of the people. That challenge was met before, so we know how to do it. You sit down, you figure out what is a waste of spending, what is important spending, and you pursue policies that create jobs. We did it before, we can do it again. It is a challenge, but we can do it because we did it.

Others will say in order to do it you have to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Well, the facts do not back that up. In order to get a balanced budget, you simply have to balance the budget. You simply have to do the hard work to get it done.

This manmade crisis, this Republican-made crisis, is totally unnecessary. I never heard one of these folks who says, let's go into default--I never heard them speak out during the George W. Bush years when we raised the debt ceiling seven times, and some of them were around during the Reagan years, and 18 times the debt ceiling was raised. Under George W. Bush, my Republican friends raised the debt ceiling by 90 percent. President Obama is asking for an increase of about 18 percent. So, America, figure it out. All of a sudden, after putting two wars on the credit card, tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires on the credit card as my Republican friends did, a prescription drug policy which was not paid for--none of it was paid for--they put it on the credit card. And now they say: Oh, woe is me. We have a debt.

Well, they should have discovered that before. In 8 years George W. Bush turned a $236 billion surplus into a $1.3 trillion deficit, and that is what President Obama inherited. We have a moment of opportunity here, and I think what Senator Reid has done is given us a way out of this mess. We put into place $2.7 trillion of cuts, and we give a sense of certainty to the marketplace for 18 months that this debt ceiling is taken care of.

Let's get back to business around here of taking care of this long- term deficit and debt challenge, and creating jobs for our people and protecting Medicare and Social Security and all of the rest that we have to do.

We have to build infrastructure. I am the chairman of the committee that is in charge of the highway bill. We have good bipartisan cooperation, but we need to get this resolved.

The Boehner plan is so short term it sends a chill through the marketplace. I used to be a stockbroker many years ago. When the President got a cold, the stock market went down. It is very sensitive to these things. The Boehner plan, according to some commentators, will cause a downgrade of our securities.

I don't think we should be in the business of downgrading America. We should be in the business of lifting America, of letting the people know we are taking care of their business.

The Republicans' interest is going after the middle class, the working poor, to protect the millionaires and the billionaires. Here is where we are with that policy: The 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the first 50 percent of the American people. Imagine, the richest 10 percent of all Americans controls two-thirds of America's net worth. The average CEO receives 180 times more in compensation than the average production worker. In 1965, CEOs made 24 times more in compensation. Now it is 185 times.

What we hear when we suggest millionaires and billionaires pay just a little bit more to help America get out of this challenge we face is an almost out-of-control defense from the Republicans about why we should not even consider asking them to pay even 2 cents more. They say: Don't tax the job creators. I said to my staff: Let's take a look at who are the job creators and what they earn.

As everybody knows, the small businesses are the biggest job creators. I wish to make it clear that only 1.4 percent of taxpayers with any business income make over $500,000 per year. What I am saying is, they say don't tax the job creators, and we are looking at taxing people over $500,000 a person. That is only 1.4 percent of the job creators. We are not touching 98 percent of the job creators. So don't get up there and say we want to tax job creators--not true. We do want to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

On July 21, 200 millionaires signed a letter asking congressional Republicans to consider sealing the budget gap with increased revenue-- higher taxes on them. They say:

Despite our willingness to provide additional support to

the country financially to assure its continued well-being,

despite the overwhelming support of the idea among the

American people, despite the reality that millionaires like

us are paying lower taxes now than at any other time in the

last 60 years, and despite the fact that the Bush tax cuts

are the single largest cause of the deficit, you have

repeatedly refused to consider reasonable steps to address

our country's fiscal challenges.

They say they are reiterating their demand that we look to the millionaires and billionaires. Look, our challenges of deficit and debt can, in fact, be met. We know the road. The road is clear. The road was built by President Bill Clinton and the Democrats at that time and eventually a lot of Republicans came on with us--eventually. In the beginning, they predicted gloom and doom from the Clinton budget.

I have a bunch of quotes from Members who are still here on the Republican side who said the Clinton budget is going to lead to a recession, it is going to lead to unemployment, and it is going to lead to deficits. But we went into a great period of prosperity, with 23 million jobs, a budget in balance, and a debt about to be extinguished down the road. That all got upended by the Republican plan to lower the taxes on the richest Americans and put it on the credit card, to go into two wars and put it on the credit card, pass a prescription drug benefit and protect Big Pharma by saying Medicare cannot negotiate for lower prices. They put that on the credit card.

It is no wonder we face this problem. When President Obama got in, we were bleeding jobs at 800,000 a month--almost 1 million a month. President Obama and all of us knew there was a frozen banking system. We had to make sure that credit system was working. We had to make sure we created some jobs. We passed the stimulus bill. Despite all the talk about how it didn't work, experts say it stopped a depression. So, yes, we had to add those things as well.

Now it is time to pull together as Americans. This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. The people of this country agree that millionaires and billionaires should pay more. Right now, what Senator Reid has said is let's set that aside, get on with our work and get out of this mess and, for 18 months, give a sense of certainty to the marketplace and let's address the issues.

John Boehner, who spoke to the Nation last night, is presenting a patchwork quilt that expires in a few months, and we will be back to this nightmare. We face downgrades of our creditworthiness. Let's get behind the Reid proposal and work together and get this country back on its feet. Uncertainty is the worst option.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Nelson, in recognizing an extraordinary Californian who has done so much, not just to save lives in his community but to advance the practice of medicine in order to save lives around the world.

Recognized as one of the fathers of critical care medicine, 50 years ago Dr. Weil cofounded the Weil Institute of Critical Care Medicine, an international center for clinical education and research in Rancho Mirage, CA.

The institute is renowned for conducting groundbreaking research into finding new ways of monitoring and dealing with life-threatening circulatory shock, heart failure, acute lung failure and infections.

In addition to this impressive record, Dr. Weil led the institute's work in training members of the community in CPR, giving thousands of Californians the basic training they need to help save lives.

I know that I join thousands of Californians and patients who have benefitted from Dr. Weil's work many of them without even knowing it in thanking him for his dedication and his service to our Nation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments and call up amendment No. 577.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Madam President, the Department of Defense runs schools that serve over 86,000 children across America, Europe, and in the Pacific region. That is why I was able to get together with Senator Graham and Senator Inhofe to work on a way we could get those schools fixed because they are crumbling. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I will show this picture from one of the schools.

We can see the tiles on the roof crumbling. We have had that in our public schools, before we woke up. Literally, these tiles fall down, and it is just by the grace of God that a child or a teacher doesn't get hit and very hurt. Clearly, we need to do something about it.

What I would like to say is, we started off with an amendment that actually required the DOD to fix these schools. Now we are asking for a report that they do it because we have to avoid some parliamentary procedure problems of legislating on approps. So we believe we have done this.

I think everyone should be read last month's Newsweek. They published an investigation by the Standard for Public Integrity, which documented the conditions of DOD-run schools with serious problems, leaks, corrosion, mold and overcrowding and relying on temporary facilities.

My amendment has the strong support of the National Military Families Association. They sent me a statement and I will close with this.

DOD schools, especially at U.S. installations overseas, are

a community focal point and a key element in the support

network for our military families stressed by a decade of

war. Poorly repaired or out-of-date buildings can also create

the perception among military families that their children's

education is not a priority for our Nation.

I urge support for this bipartisan amendment, and I would yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Boxer amendment No. 577 be modified with the changes that are already at the desk.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to honor the memory of one of our Nations' great leaders, former First Lady Betty Ford. Mrs. Ford passed away on July 8, 2011, at the age of 93. She leaves behind a legacy of candor, service, equal rights for all and a strong record of bipartisanship.

Elizabeth Ann Bloomer was born in Chicago, IL, on April 8, 1918, to William Stephenson Bloomer and Hortense Neahr. She had two older brothers, William and Robert Bloomer. When she was young, the family moved to Grand Rapids, MI, where she spent her childhood.

Dance was a passion of hers from a young age. While performing in Grand Rapids, she met Martha Graham, who

became a lifelong friend, and was invited to perform with her dance company in New York City. To offset the cost of her own lessons, Mrs. Ford began teaching dance to children. She took on students with disabilities, even learning sign language so she could better help those who were hearing impaired.

In 1947 a friend introduced her to Gerald Ford, a lawyer who had been a Navy lieutenant during World War II. They became engaged in February 1948 but waited to announce their plans to marry until June, when Ford had won the Republican primary for the local U.S. congressional seat. The couple was married in October 1948 in Grand Rapids, just 2 weeks before he was elected to his first of 13 congressional terms. They spent their honeymoon attending a campaign rally and a University of Michigan football game.

Betty Ford served as the First Lady of the United States from 1974- 1977, during her husband's Presidency. Mrs. Ford broke new ground as an activist First Lady who was an outspoken champion for the causes that she cared about passionately. She advocated programs that supported the arts and provided services for the disabled. She was a champion for women's rights and an ardent proponent of the equal rights amendment.

She became a prominent leader in the women's rights movement and led marches and rallies for the ERA. The National Organization for Women appointed her as the cochair of the ERA Countdown Campaign. Even after she left the White House, she continued to lobby for women's equality and remained an active voice for the feminist movement.

Mrs. Ford never shied away from an opportunity to speak her mind, even when her opinions were opposite her husband's. She is known as one of the most candid First Ladies in history, who took a strong, public stance on those issues she found to be most important: reproductive rights, fair pay, and gun control. Mrs. Ford was known for speaking plainly about these issues, as well as those that affected her personal life.

In 1982, after her recovery from an addiction to alcohol and prescription drugs, she founded the Betty Ford Center for chemical dependency. Her willingness to openly discuss her personal struggles raised awareness of alcoholism and drug addiction. Similarly, she became a pioneer in the fight against breast cancer when she announced she had been diagnosed with a malignant breast tumor and underwent a mastectomy. Seeing her recovery helped to remove the stigma about cancer and inspired many more women to seek treatment. She helped to get the Susan G. Komen Foundation off the ground when the organization was first started in 1982. In 1987 the first Betty Ford Breast Care Services Center was opened in Grand Rapids, MI, to provide state-of- the-art diagnostics, education, and testing for breast health. Since then, six more centers have opened in the Grand Rapids area.

In 1991 she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1999 Mrs. Ford, along with President Ford, received the Congressional Gold Medal.

In addition to her public service, Mrs. Ford was a devoted wife and mother, and was actively involved in her family's life. She volunteered to help with her children's Cub Scout activities, football, baseball, and of course, her daughter's dance recitals. She also served as a Sunday school teacher at the family's church, and on the PTA.

Betty Ford was a highly respected and beloved leader. She will be missed by all who knew her. She inspired future generations of leaders and helped us make huge leaps toward gaining equal opportunities for women. She is survived by her three sons: Michael Gerald Ford, John Gardner Ford, and Steven Ford; her daughter Susan Ford; and her grandchildren Sarah, Rebekah, Hannah, Christian, Johnathan, Tyne, and Heather.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Afterschool for America's Children Act, which I am introducing today with Senators Murkowski and Murray.

Across the country, afterschool programs help keep children safe and help them learn through hands-on academic enrichment activities that are disappearing from the regular school day.

Numerous studies have shown that quality afterschool programs give students the academic, social and professional skills they need to succeed. Students who regularly attend have better grades and behavior in school, and lower incidences of drug use, violence and unintended pregnancy.

Over the past 10 years, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, CCLC, program has helped support afterschool programs for millions of children from low-income backgrounds, including over 1.6 million children last year.

Unfortunately, the demand for affordable, quality afterschool experiences far exceeds the number of programs available. The 2009 report, America After 3PM, found that while afterschool programs are serving more kids than ever, the number of unsupervised children in the United States has increased. More than 18 million children have parents who would like to enroll their child in an afterschool program but can't find one available.

For over 10 years, federally funded afterschool programs have played an important role in the lives of so many children and families. The Afterschool for America's Children Act, AACA, would strengthen the 21st CCLC program, leaving in place what works and

using what we have learned about what makes afterschool successful to improve the program.

The AACA would modernize the 21st CCLC program to improve States' ability to effectively support quality afterschool programs, run more effective grant competitions and improve struggling programs. In addition, this legislation helps improve local programs by fostering better communication between local schools and programs, encouraging parental engagement in student learning, and improving the tracking of student progress.

Afterschool programs have such a diverse group of supporters, from law enforcement to the business community, because these vital programs help keep the children of working parents safe while enriching their learning experience and preparing them for the real world.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Murkowski and Murray in supporting the Afterschool for America's Children Act to ensure that 21st CCLC dollars are invested most efficiently in successful afterschool programs that keep children safe and help them learn.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Afterschool for America's Children Act, which I am introducing today with Senators Murkowski and Murray.

Across the country, afterschool programs help keep children safe and help them learn through hands-on academic enrichment activities that are disappearing from the regular school day.

Numerous studies have shown that quality afterschool programs give students the academic, social and professional skills they need to succeed. Students who regularly attend have better grades and behavior in school, and lower incidences of drug use, violence and unintended pregnancy.

Over the past 10 years, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, CCLC, program has helped support afterschool programs for millions of children from low-income backgrounds, including over 1.6 million children last year.

Unfortunately, the demand for affordable, quality afterschool experiences far exceeds the number of programs available. The 2009 report, America After 3PM, found that while afterschool programs are serving more kids than ever, the number of unsupervised children in the United States has increased. More than 18 million children have parents who would like to enroll their child in an afterschool program but can't find one available.

For over 10 years, federally funded afterschool programs have played an important role in the lives of so many children and families. The Afterschool for America's Children Act, AACA, would strengthen the 21st CCLC program, leaving in place what works and

using what we have learned about what makes afterschool successful to improve the program.

The AACA would modernize the 21st CCLC program to improve States' ability to effectively support quality afterschool programs, run more effective grant competitions and improve struggling programs. In addition, this legislation helps improve local programs by fostering better communication between local schools and programs, encouraging parental engagement in student learning, and improving the tracking of student progress.

Afterschool programs have such a diverse group of supporters, from law enforcement to the business community, because these vital programs help keep the children of working parents safe while enriching their learning experience and preparing them for the real world.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Murkowski and Murray in supporting the Afterschool for America's Children Act to ensure that 21st CCLC dollars are invested most efficiently in successful afterschool programs that keep children safe and help them learn.

Mr. President, I want to make note of the fact that this is the first time since the Watergate scandal the Senate has canceled its Fourth of July recess, and the reason is so that we can continue working on this issue of reducing our deficit and our debt, and--from my point of view, and I know I speak for many--doing it in a way that doesn't savage our senior citizens, our children, our families, our environment, and our economic growth, but doing it in a way that is fair, doing it in a way that is fair so that we don't wind up with people such as Warren Buffett or Donald Trump paying less of an effective tax rate than their secretaries or a nurse or a firefighter. That is why we are here. That is why I am here.

I want to apologize to my constituents in California. I had to cancel several events that were scheduled, but we will do those things certainly at another time. It is critical to end the current standoff, and that, it seems to me, means sticking to three principles: First, we must agree great nations do not default on their debt. Both sides need to compromise so that doesn't happen. Nobody gets everything they want in a compromise. I speak as a Senator, a former House Member, a former county supervisor, a mother, a grandmother, and a daughter. The fact is you don't get everything you want if

you truly are negotiating and compromising. You don't take your marbles and go home, and you don't take your little teddy bear and leave. You stick with it and understand that in true compromise everyone gives just a little bit.

Now, let's look at the government as it is today--as the people wanted it. The people decided they wanted a Democratic President, and we have one in President Obama. They decided they wanted a Republican House of Representatives, and they have that. They decided they wanted a Democratic Senate, and they have that. So we have the three arms, and two-thirds of them are controlled by Democrats and one by Republicans.

If I then said, because of this, I want two-thirds of what Democrats want, I might have a leg to stand on. But I am not even saying that. I am saying let's meet each other halfway. That is fair. That is very fair. And I think most Americans of independent mind would think so.

This is not a parliamentary system. In the parliamentary systems we see around the world, the ruling party gets everything they want and the others get to talk and maybe somehow work themselves into the equation. So first and foremost, we need to compromise.

Second, we need to take a lesson from history and follow what worked the last time we balanced the budget in the mid-1990s--the early to mid-1990s. Believe me, we did it. With President Clinton, we did it. We passed a budget that some of my friends on the Republican side said would be a disaster; that it would never balance. It did. As a matter of fact, it produced surpluses. We passed a budget without one Republican vote, and it laid out the plan that some of my Republican friends said would put us into a depression. We went into the longest period of sustained economic growth and 23 to 24 million jobs were created.

So we know how to do this because, guess what. We did it before. We had a plan that cut unnecessary spending, and it asked the upper income people--the very wealthiest among us--to pay a fair share, and it created all those jobs and we had surpluses.

Our friends on the other side say: Don't talk to us about that. We don't want to talk about it. But we have to talk about it because otherwise we are going to do what the Republicans did to the seniors in their House budget, which is to end Medicare as we know it and to put the burden of all this on their backs and on the backs of the middle class.

So, first, we need to compromise; second, we need to do what works-- cut the things you don't need, invest in the things that will create the jobs, and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share.

Third, we have to put our country ahead of politics. Let me read from a couple of very interesting recent editorial comments. Actually, they were yesterday. This is from USA Today.

GOP rigidity on taxes threatens debt deal.

Let me repeat that:

GOP rigidity on taxes threatens debt deal. . . . if the GOP

walkout is anything more than a negotiating tactic, it is

breathtakingly irresponsible, considering the risks of

default. . . . the Nation has used trillions of dollars in

borrowed money to finance two wars, Medicare's prescription

drug program and President George W. Bush's broad tax cuts--

all initiated with the GOP controlling both the White House

and the Congress. Now Republicans have belatedly decided that

borrowing is bad, too, but they dogmatically resist even the

most sensible and painless tax hikes.

This says it all. This, again, is from USA Today.

Then there is a David Brooks article--a leading Republican columnist--which says:

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see

that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans

were not. If responsible Republicans don't take control,

independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused

this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit

to govern. And they will be right.

Again, this is written by a leading Republican--well, actually, I would call him a leading intellect in the Republican Party.

So we see that people on the outside are noticing what is happening. You cannot take your marbles and go home when the full faith and credit of the United States of America is at stake.

A lot of people think raising the debt ceiling is so we can do more spending in the future. No, no. Raising the debt ceiling is to take care of the debts that were incurred in the past--two wars, unpaid for; a huge tax cut to the millionaires and billionaires, unpaid for; a prescription drug benefit, unpaid for. While my Republican friends said, no; Medicare could not negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. So the cost of it is just going through the roof.

So if we don't put revenues on the table, if we don't talk about closing those tax loopholes that benefit millionaires and billionaires, all the cuts go to the middle class. All we have to do is look at the Ryan budget that passed the House to understand what is going to happen if we don't do this.

Now, the Republicans had this budget, and they gave it a name over in the House: ``The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise.'' Well, I took some liberty and wrote my own title. I think their budget is ``The Path to Poverty: Breaking America's Promise'' because that is what that budget does.

The Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it. A 65-year-old who becomes eligible for Medicare would pay more than $12,000 in health care costs the first year the plan goes into effect--twice as much as what they pay under current law. Imagine a senior citizen--a grandma or great-grandma--who maybe lives off Social Security, who is paying $6,000 for health care, is suddenly paying $12,000. We might as well tell her to forget it. She is going to have to get down on her knees and pray she doesn't get sick.

But that wasn't enough to pay for the tax cuts for their rich friends, so their budget cuts Medicaid by 49 percent by 2030. By the way, a lot of that is paying for nursing homes for the poorest of the poor.

The Republican budget would cut education grant awards by one-half, so that 1.4 million students would lose access to financial aid. That is what this country has been about--giving hope to our young people, and hope means an education. So Pell grants, cut in half.

They say over and over: Washington doesn't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. Well, let's take a look at that. If we look at nondefense discretionary over the years, what we find when we add in inflation is that it hasn't grown at all, while the military spending has gone up 74 percent. So, clearly, we have a roadmap just in terms of fairness that shows we can get to where we have to get.

Let's not keep cutting what we have already cut. Let's cut the waste, let's cut the fraud, let's cut the abuse, and let's cut these tax expenditures.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes, and then I will yield to my friend.

I thank the Chair.

So defense spending, they may look at it, but they are not happy about it even though it has gone up 74 percent over the last 10 years.

Now, again, we should look at Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett made the point that he paid only a 17.7 percent tax on his $46 million in earnings while his receptionist paid 30 percent on her wages. Imagine, in 2008, the 400 richest income-tax filers paid an effective rate of about 18 percent.

Take ExxonMobil: They paid an effective rate of 18 percent on $7 billion, whereas the average family making a combined $100,000 had a higher effective rate. Let's give tax breaks to the middle class, not to the wealthiest who have everything and more and whose children's children's children's children will be fine. This is America. This isn't prerevolutionary France, where the King had everything. If there was a family supported by two teachers, and they made $106,000, they had a higher tax rate than ExxonMobil. But, still, if we look around the country at Republican legislators and governors, they are going after the teachers--who are so wealthy--while the people who are making the millions and the billions they give more and more to. I don't understand it. It is trickle down, I guess. Somehow somebody will spend something at the very top, and it will trickle down. That is all fine, but they have enough to trickle down already, so we don't have to add to it.

A family supported by a truckdriver and a dental hygienist who made a combined income of $107,000 had a higher tax rate than ExxonMobil.

The tax break for corporate jets is $3 billion over 10 years. Subsidies to the biggest five oil companies are costing us $21 billion over 10 years.

So what I am saying is, we don't have to balance the budget on the backs of the senior citizens who need their Medicare or on the students who need their Pell grants. We don't need to do that.

I am the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The House budget, which I say breaks America's promise, is so bad on transportation, it cuts 36 percent across the board. Thousands and thousands of construction workers, whether they are in Utah or California or Maryland--or you name your town, your city--will be cut. This is an area where there has been so much unemployment because of the housing crisis that we could fill 20 Super Bowl stadiums with unemployed construction workers--2 million. That is how many there are.

So look at what President Clinton did. He increased taxes on the wealthiest and created tax incentives for small businesses. He invested in education, retirement savings, research and development, and the Republicans fought us tooth and nail. As a matter of fact, Senator Grassley said at the time:

I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know

this will cost jobs.

That is what he said created 24 million jobs--23 million on the low side--and surpluses of $236 billion.

Let me conclude by saying this is a tough time in our history. We are at the precipice for the first time in my lifetime of hearing threats of defaulting on the full faith and credit of America. When we lift the debt ceiling, we do it in order to pay for the debts that were incurred. Sadly for us, after having a surplus under Bill Clinton, the policies of George W. Bush caused us to go into deep holes and deficit and debt. We were on the way to a great place, but never forget when George W. Bush came out and said these surpluses we are running belong to the American people. What he meant was the rich people because that is who got the lion's share of that. So we can keep the tax rates low for the middle class, we can make sure the wealthy pay their fair share, we can come to the table and negotiate with an open heart and an open mind and knowing well that we will not get everything each of us wants.

I will close by reading a quote from Ronald Reagan. President Reagan wrote the following:

The full consequences of a default--or even the serious

prospect of default--are impossible to predict and awesome to

contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the

United States would have substantial effects on the domestic

financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange

markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result.

President Reagan was right. It is time to stop playing politics with this, the greatest country that gave us everything we have ever hoped for.

I say to Americans, call the Senate. Ask for a fair budget plan, with the parties meeting each other halfway.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 39 service members from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since December 7, 2010. This brings to 276 the number of service members either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This represents 17 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan.

CPL Kenneth E. Necochea Jr., 21, of San Diego, CA, died December 12 in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Corporal Necochea was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, Fort Campbell, KY.

CPL Derek T. Simonetta, 21, of Redwood City, CA, died December 12 in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Corporal Simonetta was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, Fort Campbell, KY.

SSgt Justin E. Schmalstieg, 28, of Pittsburgh, PA, died December 15 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Schmalstieg was assigned to the 1st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company, 7th Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Jose L. Maldonado, 21, of Mathis, TX, died December 17 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Maldonado was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Eric M. Torbert Jr., 25, of Lancaster, PA, died December 18 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Torbert was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

PFC Conrado D. Javier Diaz Jr., 19, of Marina, CA, died December 20 in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Private First Class Javier Diaz was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, Vilseck, Germany.

LCpl Kenneth A. Corzine, 23, of Bethalto, IL, died December 24 of wounds received December 5 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Corzine was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Tevan L. Nguyen, 21, of Hutto, TX, died December 28 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Nguyen was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

MAJ Evan J. Mooldyk, 47, of Ranch Murieto, CA, died January 12 in Khowst Province, Afghanistan, in a noncombat-related incident. Major Mooldyk was assigned to the 19th Sustainment Command, 377th Theater Sustainment Command, Belle Chasse, LA.

PO2 Class Dominique Cruz, 26, of Panama City, FL, was found during search and rescue operations January 19 in the Gulf of Oman after being reported missing January 18. Petty Officer 2nd Class Cruz was assigned as an operations specialist to the USS Halsey homeported in San Diego,

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Peter Falk, the iconic actor who entertained generations of Americans throughout an illustrious 50-year acting career. Mr. Falk passed away on June 23, 2011, at his home in Beverly Hills, CA. He was 83 years old.

Peter Falk was born in New York City on September 16, 1927. Despite the loss of his right eye from a surgery to remove a malignant tumor at the age of 3, he became a standout 3-letter athlete, a debate team member and senior class president in high school. It was in high school that he developed a love for acting when he first appeared on stage in a musical.

After graduating from high school, Mr. Falk fulfilled a 1-year commitment as a cook in the Merchant Marines. In 1953, he earned a master's in public administration from Syracuse University and landed a job with the Connecticut State Budget Bureau in Hartford.

While in Hartford, he pursued his love for acting by joining the Mark Twain Maskers, a community theatre group, and learned under the tutelage of actress Eva Le Gallienne at White Barn Theatre. At the age of 28, he quit his job and moved to New York City to become a professional actor.

Mr. Falk first gained acclaim for his portrayal of a bartender in the 1956 Off-Broadway production of ``The Iceman

Cometh.'' Over the next half century, he embarked on a career that included Broadway, television, and movies. He received two Academy Award nominations for best supporting actor for roles in ``Murder, Inc.'' and ``Pocketful of Miracles.'' In 1962, he won the first of five Emmys for a role in ``The Dick Powell Show.''

Mr. Falk became a household name in 1971 for his title role in the detective series, ``Columbo.'' His portrayal of the iconoclastic Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective made the character one of the most memorable and beloved in television history. Columbo placed 7th in TV Guide's 1999 ranking of ``TV's Fifty Greatest Characters Ever.''

Mr. Falk's legendary career and his many successes on stage, the small screen and the silver screen highlighted his talents as an actor. A consummate professional, his love for performance and acting brought joy to generations of fans across the world. He will be missed.

I send my deepest sympathies to his family, especially to his wife Shera, and daughters Catherine and Jackie.

Mr. President, I was absent for the rollcall vote on the nomination of GEN David Petraeus to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, I have been listening very carefully to the remarks of my friend about what we have to do, what is in front of us. Of course, he is speaking for the Republican Party for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Let me say this: I want a balanced budget. That is what I want. I don't need an amendment to the Constitution to get me to vote for a balanced budget. What I want is for all sides to come together--that is what I want--and write a balanced budget. I want us to do it in a way that is responsible and do it in a way that is fair and do it in a way that protects our middle class, protects our kids, and stimulates economic growth by making smart investments and cutting out spending in areas we don't need it.

So all this yak about a balanced budget amendment--and I call it that, and I apologize if it sounds as though it is a derogatory term-- it is just so much talk. Let's get to it.

I think we ought to go back to the people and the party that was the only party and the only people to balance the budget in 40 years. I hate to break it to my Republican friends, but that is the Democratic Party. We are the ones who did it. We did it when Bill Clinton came into office. We did it after hard work. We did it after painful cuts. We did it with smart investments. We did it with everybody paying their fair share, and we didn't need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to do it. It is a gimmick. We need a balanced budget, not a balanced budget amendment.

Let's look at what we did the last time this country ever had a balanced budget. Lucky for us, it wasn't that long ago. Lucky for us, a lot of us are still here who made that fateful vote. We didn't have one Republican voting for that budget, and when they came to the floor--I have all the quotes, chapter and verse--they said: This is horrible. It will never balance the budget. This is going to lead to a depression. This is the worst thing. But we know what happened. We not only balanced the budget, but we had a surplus. We not only had a surplus, but the debt

was going down so fast we thought we would never have to have Treasury bonds again. On top of that, we created 23 million jobs.

So I hope the public understands, when they hear Republican colleague after Republican colleague come to the floor saying we need to stay in all through July--fine with me. I will stay here through August. I will spend the night in the cloakroom, I don't care. Let's not talk about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Let's talk about doing the hard work of balancing the budget. The way we do it, again, is to follow the lead of the plan that was laid out by President Clinton and which worked in the most amazing way beyond our greatest expectations.

What did we do? We looked at this deficit and we said: This is unacceptable. We went after programs that made no sense and we cut them. We either eliminated them or we cut them back. Then we asked: What are some investments we could make that would actually stimulate the growth of the private sector? I thought my friend, Senator Blunt, was right. That is what we need to do. We need to stimulate growth in the private sector. At that time, the investments were on the high-tech side--high tech, biotech. Today, clearly, it is clean energy. That is what the whole world wants. That is where we ought to be leading. That is what our President knows. So we cut out programs that don't make sense. We invest where it makes sense to create jobs and then guess what we do. We make sure we have enough revenues coming in to pay for the priorities.

I have news for my Republican friends. It is not that hard. Go after the billionaires. They can't get themselves to do it, can they? Go after the billionaires and the millionaires, the people who aren't paying what they should be paying. But when the House had its chance, what did it do? It allowed the biggest tax breaks ever to continue for the billionaires and the millionaires and they killed Medicare. Medicare is gone. It is becoming some kind of a voucher program, where we can imagine some 90-year-old woman who is suffering from disease has to now go out and try to find out where she can buy an insurance plan. Tell me who is going to cover her, A; and, B, tell me if she has the strength to do that; and, C, her Medicare benefit no longer goes to her. Who does it go to? It goes to the insurance company. That is the plan the Republicans passed in the House, and they cut everything that is near and dear to the hearts of the American people. In addition to Medicare, they cut education. They cut funding for clean air, clean water. Highways they cut by a third, and here they talk about jobs on the other side, private sector jobs. The highway bill creates thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs in the private sector. They cut that bill by 36 percent.

So when I hear my Republican friends talk about the importance of balancing the budget and they are talking about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--why don't they show us their balanced budget? Because the one they showed us from the House was such a disaster that they lost a congressional seat they held for eternity. It is easy to talk about a balanced budget amendment. It is harder to balance the budget the fair way, and that is what we have to do.

My friend, Senator Blunt, also talked about the importance of jobs. He is so right. I just ran for reelection. Jobs, jobs, jobs, the top three issues. Guess what. My Republican friends have filibustered every single jobs bill we brought to the floor. The last jobs bill is one I am very familiar with because it is a bill that came out of my committee. The whole committee voted, with one dissenting vote, for the Economic Development Administration to give seed money to areas in the country that need job creation and attract $7 of funds for every $1 of Federal money. It would have created 1 million jobs over 5 years. They filibustered it. They added amendments about the prairie chicken. They added amendments about things that had nothing to do with it, just to bring it down. They didn't even have--what is the word I am looking for? They didn't even speak against it when they voted against it at the end of the day. They didn't even come to the floor because they had nothing to say because it is a jobs bill, because it has passed every Congress since the 1960s. The last time it passed, it passed without a dissenting vote in the Senate in 2004 because the last President who signed it was George W. Bush. It is a jobs bill. They said no. Why? I go back to what their leader said. His top priority? Beating President Barack Obama. So we have to figure they are bringing every jobs bill down so this economy gets worse.

Let me tell my colleagues, it is not going to go down easy at home. It is not going to go down easy at home.

They killed a bill that Mary Landrieu brought out of her committee unanimously, a small business bill. It would have created thousands of small businesses. They voted it down. That bill was written by Warren Rudman, a Republican Senator. They voted it down. They filibustered it and voted it down. Why? They say jobs are their top priority. Why would they vote down a bill that was written by a Republican, that is passed without objection year after year after year? Why would they vote down another bill that was last signed by George W. Bush without a dissenting vote in the Senate? Why? Two jobs bills. Why? We have to ask ourselves why. Maybe they are willing to sacrifice jobs for political reasons. That is all I can come up with. I put that together with what Mitch McConnell said.

Now their big push is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--a lot of talk. Balance the budget, folks. We know how to do it. End the wars. That is $1 trillion over 10 years. Go after the millionaires and the billionaires who don't pay their fair share. That is another $1 trillion over 10 years. That is $2 trillion, right there. Go after the people who never pay their taxes. Go after the oil companies that are ripping us off at the pump and taking the highest profits ever. It is not hard to do. Yes, we are willing to cut some things that don't make sense. We could have a $4 trillion package pretty easily if we are willing to look at it in a fair way.

I heard our President today speaking to the Nation through a press conference, and he was very sweet about this issue. I was saying to Senator Durbin, as I watched him, he is explaining it to the people. Everybody has to give up something. If we want bipartisanship, that doesn't mean we all get what we want and somebody gets nothing. It means I give up some of the things I want and they give up some of the things they want. But we have declarations by the Republicans: We will never ever agree to any new revenues. Why? They just voted to eliminate the ethanol subsidy. That brings revenues. So why would they not take that to the table? How can they believe it is fair that billionaires sometimes pay less in terms of the effective tax rate than a secretary or a teacher or a nurse?

Come on. Come to the table. Don't come to the table with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That doesn't do anything to balance the budget. It is a lot of talk. Balance the budget. Put a little faith in the people who know how to do it who did it before.

I was proud to vote to balance the budget. I was proud to vote for a fair budget. I was proud to be here when we saw 23 million jobs come. That didn't happen because we just said: Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. End Medicare as we know it. It came because we were willing to look at what was working, what wasn't working, where to make the investments, where to make the cuts. We have to come to the table with everything on it. We have to say we are willing to listen to the other side. We need a fair plan. We have that as Democrats. We are not going to end Medicare. We are not going to hurt working people. We are going to do this in a fair way.

I hope the American people will put this together and connect all the dots. We have a Republican leader who has said on more than one occasion the most important thing is to defeat Barack Obama. We have a Republican Party that says it is for jobs and filibusters every single jobs bill that in the past they have broadly supported. We have Republicans walking out on the Vice President, taking their little teddy bear and their blankies and walking out of the negotiations because they didn't like the way the discussions were going. They walked out. Then, my friends on the other side--

and I thought Senator Blunt was very eloquent on the point. He said we need two things. We need to work on job creation in the private sector--and I just showed that despite the language, they voted everything down--and then we have to take uncertainty out of the equation. That was his big point. He is so right. How do we take uncertainty out of the equation? Do not play politics with the debt ceiling. Do not play politics with it. Because I have read what economists say, that if we do not do this right, and we do not agree, and the debt ceiling becomes a victim of this partisanship, Treasury bonds of the United States of America will be junk bonds--will be junk bonds.

So you want to play games? Go home, go on the corner, and I will play you a game. But do not bring it in here. It is too serious. This is the greatest country there ever was.

My parents, one of whom was born outside of this country, told me that I should kiss the ground of America. And how proud I am that I am here. But I will tell you, if I see people who are willing to turn U.S. Treasury bonds into junk bonds, I am going to do everything I can in my life to make sure those who have done this will not be nameless or faceless. It is too important.

The fact that we are even playing these games is ridiculous. The fact that we cannot come together and shake hands and say this budget deficit is terrible, we are going to deal with it, we are going to deal with the debt, we are going to do what we did under Bill Clinton, we are going to balance the budget, we are going to create a surplus--we can do this. You shake hands on it. You have the parameters of the deal. You pass a debt ceiling that is clean. You send a message to the market.

I used to be a stockbroker. When the President would sneeze, the market would go down 200 points. That is how the market responds to these things. We do not have to be playing with the stock market, with the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

It is pretty simple if everything is on the table. If all you want to do is destroy Social Security and Medicare, it is not simple. But if you are willing to talk to us, to have a fair taxation system, where the Warren Buffetts of the world are at least paying as much in an effective tax rate as a nurse, there is something to talk about here. But do not go walking out of discussions and going home because you did not get 100 percent of what you want. Life does not work that way.

I speak as a mother, a grandmother, a Senator from the largest State in the Union when I say this: You do not get everything you want in a negotiation. The Republicans control the House. The Democrats control the Senate. The Democrats control the White House. Correct me if I am wrong: two-thirds Democratic. In a fair world, we would get two-thirds of what we want. But we are going to give up more. It ought to be a 50- 50 deal. That is how you negotiate.

This is a tough time. If the other side thinks a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution balances the budget, it does not. You have to do the hard work of balancing the budget. You have to sit down in this tough time, in a tough, fragile economic recovery.

Remember when President Obama took over, we were bleeding 800,000 jobs a month. He had to handle two wars, unpaid for by George W. and his friends; a tax cut, unpaid for, to the richest people in America. He had to deal with a banking system that was frozen solid. He had to deal with an automobile industry that was going out of business. We had to work, and a few brave souls from the other side of the aisle worked with us, thank God, or who knows where we would be today.

And now, when we are finally moving out of this nightmarish economy-- not quickly enough--we have Republicans filibustering jobs bill, then coming down here and saying how important jobs are, and saying how important it is there is certainty, when they are playing games with the debt ceiling.

I am an optimist. That is why I stay in this world I am in, and I thank the people of California for giving me the chance so many times. But there is a saying back home: Are you on the level? Are you on the level when you are in negotiations? Do you want to have a deal? Do you want to fix it? Do you want to work with us? I do not know when I see them filibustering jobs bills, when I see them walking out on the Vice President, when I see them saying: Oh, that is off the table, and this is off the table, and that is off the table, when they do not run this country. They run the House. I wonder: Where are we going?

When I hear people saying: What is the big deal if we do not pay our bills, if we do not lift the debt ceiling and we cannot pay our bills, what people have to understand is, lifting up the debt ceiling is not about the future payments, it is about payments due.

I said we had a balanced budget under Bill Clinton--and a surplus. We went into deficit mode when George Bush took over and did the tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and did not pay for it, and did a prescription drug benefit and never paid for it, did two wars and never paid for them, and we got into big trouble.

What is the solution of my friends on the other side? We are walking out of the negotiations because we cannot talk about taxing billionaires or taking away corporate welfare from oil companies. God forbid. It makes me wonder, really, who is on the level.

We can do this. We did it before. It is not that hard. We just need people of good will. I will say to my friends on the other side: Forget the reelection of Barack Obama. Forget the next Presidential race. You will have your candidate and we will have ours, and that is for another day. Right now we are in this Chamber. We are talking about how to have a credible plan to get this deficit down, to get this debt down, to strengthen our economy, to strengthen job creation, to keep the middle class vibrant.

I hear some Republicans now on the Presidential trail talking about doing away with the minimum wage. Can you imagine going back to the days when the minimum wage was $4 an hour? I remember when it was 50 cents an hour. It dates me a bit. That is what we hear from the other side. Their vision is not a good vision for the young people of this country who are looking forward to a life at least as good as that of their parents.

In conclusion, this is not a time to play games or reach for a political advantage. This is not a time to hold the future of this country hostage to some ideological agenda or some pledge that somebody signed to some political person outside of this Chamber. Pledges signed--it is not about that. It is about putting America first. It is about putting our families first. It is not about amending the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. It is about balancing the budget in a fair way.

The Republican plan that passed the House that started with Paul Ryan did not balance the budget for 40 years. That is not a plan. We have to do better. But when you are willing, as they are, to say to millionaires and billionaires and trillionaires: You do not have pay your fair share, the revenues do not come in. What happens as a result, they have to kill Medicare--which they did in the House budget--they have to hurt education, make the Environmental Protection Agency a shadow of its former self.

I go out and look at polls. Eighty percent of the people want the EPA to stay out there and clean up the air and make sure we have safe drinking water. They want food inspections. They want air traffic controllers on the job. They want a next-generation air system.

This is the greatest country in the world. We do not have to walk away from our dreams. We just have to have everybody paying their fair share. If that happens, we can do this. And we need to end those wars that are so costly in so many ways. If we do those two things, we are on our way to a balanced budget. We are on our way to surpluses.

We can do this. The only thing standing in our way is politics. That is what it seems to me. If people think that more important than fixing this budget crisis is bringing down a President politically, we have a problem.

We take the oath of office, and we raise our right hand, we put our hand on the Bible, to be loyal to this country, to do right by this country. That is what we should be doing now.

If people want to stay in July, August, September, October, through Christmas, that is fine with me. But we have to have a plan that is fair. If we have a plan that is fair, we balance the

budget. We do it over time. We do it wisely. We create jobs. Interest rates remain low. We can do it because we did it before. The only people who have ever balanced the budget in the last 40 years have been the Democrats. That is a fact in evidence.

We have the path lights showing the way. It is fairness on spending; cut the things that do not work; fairness on taxation; make sure billionaires pay their fair share. We follow that path. We bring home our troops. We are golden. I think that is a pathway I would like to support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Lieutenant Vincent ``Vince'' Perez, and Firefighter and Paramedic Anthony ``Tony'' Valerio. Both of these heroes were long time veterans of the San Francisco Fire Department who were tragically killed in the line of duty fighting a fire on June 2, 2011.

During their many years of service to the city of San Francisco, both Vincent and Anthony earned the respect and admiration of those with whom they worked by consistently going above and beyond the call of duty. Both men led by example, and were considered shining stars among San Francisco's courageous and dedicated firefighters.

Vincent was a San Francisco native, growing up in San Francisco's Mission District and Bernal Heights neighborhoods. He attended St. Charles Elementary School, and graduated from Archbishop Riordan High School in 1981. After high school, Vincent attended City College of San Francisco, and then served his country in the U.S. Marine Corps and later as a deputy sheriff in Alameda County.

In 1990, Vincent joined the San Francisco Fire Department, ultimately rising to the position of lieutenant, where he supervised the crew of Engine Company 26, located in San Francisco's Diamond Heights neighborhood.

Vincent is survived by his mother Irene; siblings Lucio, Maryleen, and Alexander; many other family members and loved ones; and was preceded in death by his father Vincent and brother David.

Anthony was born in Fort Monmouth, NJ, and later moved to the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1975, he graduated from El Camino High School in South San Francisco and then went on to earn an associate's degree from San Francisco State University.

He embarked on his career in public service in 1980, starting as an EMT at Acme Western in the city of Oakland and later as a paramedic for 13 years with the San Francisco Department of Public Health. In 1997, Anthony began serving the City as both a firefighter and paramedic who was assigned to numerous fire stations in the city, including his last assignment with Engine Company 26.

Anthony is survived by his parents Lorraine and Frank; siblings Jacqueline, Donna, Marina, Laura, Mark, and Kevin; and many other family members and loved ones.

Lieutenant Vincent Perez and Firefighter and Paramedic Anthony Valerio dedicated their lives to their family, community, and Nation, and they will long be remembered for their courage and dedication. Their service and bravery inspired others and both

will be deeply missed by all who knew them. I extend my deepest sympathies to both men's families, colleagues, and friends.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the centennial of Devils Postpile National Monument in the Eastern Sierra of California.

When Devils Postpile was first surveyed in the early 20th century, it became apparent to geologists that its distinctive formation and features of the surrounding landscape provided a special window into the volcanic and glacial processes that shaped the Sierra Nevada as a whole.

The cliff of columnar basalt that constitutes the Devils Postpile, so named because it looks like tall posts piled together, is one of the wonders of the geological world. The columns can reach heights towering more than 60 feet. Those on the west front are high, straight and clean-cut; those at its southern end stand out for their curvature.

Shortly after the initial survey, U.S. Forest Service Engineer Walter Huber learned of a plan to blast portions of the Devils Postpile to create a dam that would flood the middle fork of the San Joaquin River and provide power to nearby mining operations. Mr. Huber considered the idea as a ``wanton destruction of scenery'' and began the effort to establish a monument to protect Devils Postpile along with the nearby Rainbow Falls, a spectacular

101-foot waterfall named for the rainbow that often forms in its mist.

Support for monument designation was substantial, including a letter of support from the Sierra Club signed by the renowned preservationist John Muir. On July 6, 1911, using the authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906, President William Howard Taft signed the proclamation creating Devils Postpile National Monument.

With the growth of the interstate highway system in the 1950s, a proposal for an eight-lane trans-Sierra highway connecting Fresno to Mammoth Lakes came forward that would have resulted in destruction to the landscape and the character of the monument. The effort to stop the highway was long and at times difficult. But, with strong opposition from a group of committed local residents, businessowners and packers, the proposal to build the trans-Sierra highway was abandoned in 1972.

The expansion of existing wilderness areas and the designation of the Ansel Adams Wilderness in 1984 brought further protection of Devils Postpile and the surrounding peaks and valley that constitute the breathtaking landscape of the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin Valley. I am pleased that in 2009 President Obama signed legislation I authored providing additional wilderness protection to public lands in the immediate area.

Today, Devils Postpile National Monument represents the special qualities highlighted in the Presidential Proclamation that led to its creation a century ago as a place of ``scientific interest'' and ``public enjoyment.'' Every year, tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world travel to the Eastern Sierra to marvel at its natural beauty and rich history.

The story of the Devils Postpile National Monument's first 100 years is a testament to the value of preservation, scientific research, and recreation. I applaud the partnership between the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service which has resulted in high quality visitor services and the preservation of the beauty of the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River.

As the friends and staff of the Devils Postpile National Monument gather to celebrate this auspicious occasion, I congratulate them on their centennial anniversary and wish everyone a memorable experience.

Mr. President, is it in order for me to ask some questions of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at this time?

I want to say to my chairman, whom I sit next to on the Foreign Relations Committee, how much I admire his work in the arena of foreign policy, and everything he has given to become one of the most informed human beings on the planet in terms of the challenges this country faces.

I want to thank him so much for his hard work on a resolution regarding Libya. I also want to make sure today, by asking him a couple of questions, that the clear intent of this resolution, S. J. Res. 20 regarding our engagement in Libya, is that it does not authorize whatsoever, any troops on the ground, any boots on the ground, any ground forces of America in Libya. So I am going to ask him a couple of questions, and assuming those questions are answered the way I hope they will be, I will be much at peace with this resolution.

My understanding from reading this resolution is that while it does not explicitly prohibit the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya, it also does nothing to authorize the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya. Is that correct?

I thank the Senator. I also wish to ask this: Although there is no authorization in this resolution for the use of ground forces in Libya, for which I am pleased, are there any circumstances where ground forces could be deployed?

I have two more questions. If the President decides to change the mission and order the use of U.S. ground forces for reasons other

than the circumstances previously mentioned, does the chairman agree that nothing in this resolution would authorize him to take that step?

It is my understanding that the authorization provided for under this resolution would expire 1 year after its enactment; is that correct?

I want to say thank you very much to Chairman John Kerry for his work on this. I also want to thank the others who helped work on it. I know other Senators did, in addition to Senator McCain. On our side, I know Senator Durbin, Senator Cardin, and others had a lot to say. This is important. I so appreciate the Senator's willingness and his staff's willingness to work with us, because words matter, intent matters, and I think we have cleared it up. I am feeling a lot better about this resolution.

I yield back my time to Senator Kerry.