Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak about two amendments I filed today to help protect American intellectual property from theft abroad. If we are serious about leveling the playing field with countries like China, then protecting U.S. intellectual property from theft has to be a part of it.

This summer I went up and down our State meeting with business leaders and asking them about what we need to do in Washington to help them create jobs. Though currency manipulation came up from time to time, it paled in comparison to the fear our innovative business owners had about intellectual property theft.

When foreign companies and governments steal our ideas, they are stealing more than just formulas and schematics--they are stealing jobs. These two amendments are about giving America the tools to fight back.

I introduced my first amendment with my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Kohl. It provides a Federal private right of action for victims of trade secret theft. Trade secrets are a critical form of intellectual property, particularly among manufacturers, and when they are stolen, it can result in catastrophic damage to American companies and their employees.

After the Korean company, Kolon, was found to have stolen the trade secrets behind DuPont's next generation Kevlar fiber, a jury last month found that DuPont had suffered a staggering $919 million in damages.

Trade secrets are a critical part of the American economy. Yet they are the only form of intellectual property without a Federal cause of action. Our amendment would fix that and provide U.S. victims of trade- secret theft access to the same service of process, same ability to keep sensitive documents secret, and the same uniformity of substantive law available to other intellectual property victims.

My second amendment, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Grassley, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, fixes a simple problem, but one that vexes an array of companies that I hear from regularly.

Under current law, when Customs and Border Patrol agents intercept a shipment that they suspect contains counterfeit or trademark-infringing goods, there are prevented from properly investigating the shipment because they cannot share product samples or UPC codes with the intellectual property holder.

That is ridiculous. Why are we tying the hands of our agents and preventing American businesses from sticking up for themselves? Worse, it means that shipments of counterfeit goods are being let into this country even when Customs agents have reason to believe they might be counterfeit. And it is not just toys, clothes and electronics that we are talking about; it is prescription drugs and medical technologies.

We are abetting the trade imbalance that is stifling the American economy by allowing this gaping hole to continue to exist. In come cheap counterfeit goods, and out go American jobs.

Our amendment would close this gaping hole in our economic security by allowing Customs and Border Patrol agents to share the information that they need to identify counterfeit goods, stop these illicit shipments, and protect American jobs.

The time has come to get serious about the threats posed to our health and workforce by foreign intellectual property thieves.

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

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I honor the Hockessin Fire Company and ladies auxiliary on 75 years of exceptional service to the great State of Delaware. October 15 marks an important day in the fire company's history, signifying the first official meeting of its founding members. For over seven decades, members of the Hockessin Fire Company and ladies auxiliary have given unselfishly of their time and services in order to make their community a safer place. Today I give thanks for their unyielding determination, self-sacrifice and volunteerism.

In 1936 in the small village of Hockessin, DE, five members of the community recognized a vital protective service was missing, and they decided to do something about it. Meeting in a small library room on October 15, the Hockessin Fire Company was born. With one engine, they went to work protecting and serving their community. From the very beginning, the ladies auxiliary was integral to their operations. When the fire company decided to purchase a second engine in 1938, funds raised by the ladies helped purchase a diesel model that was the first of its kind in the State. Then and now, both organizations have continued that wonderful tradition of partnership, hard work, support and service to all.

Like many volunteer fire companies across the United States the Hockessin Fire Company's value is certainly not limited to its local community, but should inspire each and every American, reminding us of the importance of volunteering and serving others. I commend the hard work of all our fire service men and women across the United States, and especially those at the Hockessin Fire Company on this special anniversary. They are examples of the generous spirit of the American people, who we should be fighting for every day.

I congratulate the Hockessin Fire Company and ladies auxiliary on 75 years of extraordinary service and support to their community and the State of Delaware. On behalf of all Delawareans, I extend my thanks to each and every member for the many sacrifices they have made during the past 75 years. Their continued efforts and countless contributions are greatly appreciated.

Mr. President, I rise simply to give honor and gratitude that this morning our opening prayer was offered by the Reverend Dr. Silvester Beaman of AME Zion on the East Side of Wilmington, a great voice for justice in my home State.

I think it is a critical and important part of our Nation's tradition that we begin every session of the Senate with prayerful reflection. I am thrilled that today he is able to be joined by his wife Renee, a registered nurse, and to be able to comment for a moment that Rev. Dr. Beaman, born in Niagara Falls, NY, who started his mission work and his service in Hamilton, Bermuda, with his wife, early on saw the challenges of HIV/AIDS and the risks and opportunities for worship and for mission that this pandemic provides to our community. He has been with us now 19 years in Delaware. The two of them have been recognized far and wide in our State and region for the beautiful Gate Outreach Ministry they have launched. I think it was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who first said most tellingly that it is the charge of ministry to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Pastor Beaman, through his leadership, his vision, his compelling sermons, and his compelling example, in partnership with his wife Renee, has provided exactly that sort of challenging and effective leadership, that great and prophetic voice for our community in Wilmington, DE.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have his prayerful reflections begin our deliberations today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following op-ed from the Wilmington News Journal be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I rise today to mark a momentous day and to stand with the millions of Americans for whom the end of don't ask, don't tell means the beginning of a real era of new equality for our Nation. It has been 60 days since Secretary Panetta, Chairman Mullen, and President Obama certified the U.S. Armed Forces were ready for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. After 18 long years, today that policy finally comes to an end.

This is an important day. It is a good day. Today is a good day because our Nation, in my view, is taking a major step forward not just in the pursuit of equal rights but in the pursuit of equal responsibility. Today is a good day because we always talk about equal rights, but with don't ask, don't tell we are talking about Americans who sought equal responsibility, Americans who wanted to serve their Nation.

Nearly 14,000 LGBT Americans wanted to serve their Nation in their military but were deemed unfit to serve not because of what they did but because of whom they loved, as if loving another man made a soldier unable to aim a rifle or unwilling to die for his country. But for as many servicemembers who were drummed out--both literally and figuratively--under don't ask, don't tell, I cannot help but wonder how many more served in silence, proud of their uniform but made to feel ashamed of the person underneath.

LTC Charles George served his country for more than 30 years, including 28 years as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. His uniform is decorated with a wide range of medals and ribbons for dedicated service. When he graduated from ROTC in 1980, Charlie's boyfriend Dennis was there, and he wrote to me recently about his experience. He said:

I sat next to his mother, keeping quiet so I wouldn't draw

attention to our relationship. During his actual pinning, my

eyes never left his for the entire process. I was so proud of

him. At one point, his eyes found me in the audience and we

smiled to each other. I still remember that moment.

That was the last of those moments they would have. In 30 years of dedicated Army service, that ROTC ceremony was the only military activity of Charlie's that Dennis would be able to be a part of. Charlie was determined to serve our Nation, and so they had to keep their relationship a secret.

Charlie steadily rose through the ranks to first lieutenant and then to captain. He was promoted to major and ultimately lieutenant colonel. These were all proud moments for Charlie,

but Dennis could not be in the room for any of them. ``The only thing harder than being a soldier is loving one,'' they would later recall hearing. I would offer the only thing harder than loving a soldier would be having to keep that love a secret from the world for a decade.

After 9/11, then-MAJ Charlie George was activated from Reserve duty, and like so many military families they discussed their now uncertain future. If Charlie had died in the service of his country, there would be no call on Dennis's phone from the Army, no knock on his door. Dennis would receive no crispily folded flag presented by a military honor guard. Dennis would never be able to be buried next to Charlie at the Arlington National Cemetery.

For 31 years they kept their relationship and their love a secret. Colonel George retired this year--a milestone he will celebrate next month in Rehoboth Beach, DE. For the first time since that ROTC ceremony more than three decades earlier, Dennis will be there proudly looking on. No more secrets, no more hiding, just the respect and dignity they both deserve--not just because of Charlie's long and dedicated service to the U.S. Army or because of Dennis's silent sacrifice but because they are both Americans.

I was proud to cosponsor the repeal of don't ask, don't tell last fall. I was even prouder to vote for it. Madam President, 3 months ago I was 1 of 13 Senators to record a video telling the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth of this country that it gets better. As Americans we tell our kids that equality for all is a founding principle of our Nation, but our actions in so many ways have in the past failed to live up to these brave words. Our video was a promise to this generation of Americans, to the generation of my children, a promise that we are working to build an America free of legal discrimination, free of discrimination in our society; that LBGT youth have a future in this country where they will be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as every other American.

Bit by bit we are going to tear down these walls of discrimination. This is how we make it better. Don't ask, don't tell was discrimination, plain and simple. But today it is no more. Today is a good day.

Thank you, Madam President.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a hero. I rise to remember the sacrifice of a man I am proud to have known. I rise to remember SGT Joe Szczerba of the New Castle County Police who was killed in the line of duty just this past Thursday night.

Sergeant Szczerba and several other officers responded to a disorderly conduct call in New Castle, DE, just before midnight. The officers arrived on the scene and set up a perimeter. Sergeant Szczerba spotted the suspect and gave chase. A seasoned officer, Sergeant Szczerba attempted to subdue the man, and in a very tough fight that ensued he was stabbed.

The suspect continued to resist arrest. Although seriously wounded, Sergeant Szczerba worked with three other officers to take the suspect into custody. Only then did he acknowledge his injury. Officers on the scene performed CPR until county paramedics arrived, but it was not enough. Sergeant Szczerba did not make it.

When I was county executive for New Castle County for 6 years, after a particularly long or difficult day, as I was heading home, I would flip on the police scanner in my car and listen to the chatter, to the calls from dispatch and the officers responding. I was always mindful in those hours that here I was heading home to my family and safety and here were our officers heading out on patrol into a dark and uncertain night.

My phone rang at 5 a.m. this past Friday morning, and it was my friend, Chief Mike McGowan, the county's police chief--his voice weighted down with grief. It was the worst news I have ever received in public life.

New Castle County had only lost one previous officer in a line-of- duty death when CPL Paul Sweeney was in a traffic accident nearly 40 years ago in 1972, but never had an officer been murdered in the line of duty. Each year, as county executive, when I attended our annual police memorial, we would quietly pray that we would never know this day.

Just roughly 2 weeks earlier, Delaware had marked the second anniversary of the killing, in the line of duty, of another brave and decorated local police officer, Patrolman Chad Spicer of Georgetown. It was just too soon for this to have happened again. We all know there is risk--grave risk--in policing, but this could not have happened again. Delaware is a State of neighbors, and as a State we are still mourning Chad's death, and we could not possibly have lost another brave police officer. But we did. This Friday he will be laid to rest.

My State is grieving. In the days that have passed, I have grappled with two questions. I have asked myself over and over: How is it that people continue to do these terrible and dangerous things? How is it that senseless violence continues to claim the lives of the innocent?

As I spoke at the graduation ceremony this past Friday for the Delaware State Police and the Municipal Police Academy and looked at the young men and women who were right in front of me about to take their oath and put on their badge and take on, willingly, this most dangerous and honored profession, another question emerged to me: Why is it that we continue to have men and women who volunteer, who step forward, and who take on this most important and difficult task of preserving the peace, of protecting our communities? What more can we do to support them, to protect them, and to honor them?

These are the questions I challenge all of us to consider.

SGT Joe Szczerba was on the New Castle County police force for 18 years. He was greatly respected by his colleagues on the force and in the community he served. His wife Kathy; his brothers Ed, Gerald, and Stephen; his sisters Nancy and Karen and a host of nieces and nephews survive him.

Today, Heaven is a safer place because Joe Szczerba is on patrol. He was a good man and a great cop, and he died a hero. He died doing what he was called to do, and he died doing what he loved to do. For that, all of Delaware is grateful. We will treasure his memory and honor his sacrifice.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Dr. Gerard J. Mangone's life of service to this country and my home State of Delaware. Dr. Mangone passed away on Wednesday, July 27 at his home in Newark, DE. He was 92.

Born in the Bronx in 1918, Dr. Mangone's career as an international legal scholar spanned close to six decades, including almost 40 years as professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware. Dr. Mangone received his bachelor's degree from the College of the City of New York in 1938. Following 4 years of active military service, he earned his master's degree and doctoral degree in international law from Harvard University in 1947 and 1949 respectively. His dissertation won the Charles Sumner Award for the most distinguished contribution to international peace.

Before joining the University of Delaware, Dr. Mangone held faculty and administrative positions at institutions including Wesleyan University, Swarthmore College, and Syracuse University, where he served as associate and acting dean of the Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, as well as Temple University, where he served as dean for the College of Liberal Arts, vice president for academic affairs, and provost.

Dr. Mangone was appointed soon thereafter as executive director of the President's Commission on the United Nations during the creation of its Convention on the Law of the Sea and was the first senior fellow at the new Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. Dr. Mangone also served as a consultant to the White House, U.S. Department of State, the United Nations, Japan, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Dr. Mangone joined the University of Delaware in 1972 as professor of marine studies and political science. In 1973, he created the Center for the Study of Marine Policy--the first research center at an American university to study the legal, political, and economic issues facing the ocean, seabed, and coastal zone--and served as its director for the next 16 years. In 2003, the center was renamed in his honor as the Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy.

Dr. Mangone initiated the International Straits of the World book series in 1978 with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. For this series, he contracted with authors from around the globe to provide detailed information on some of the world's most critical navigation passages, much of which is still used today.

Dr. Mangone earned numerous accolades throughout his career. He was a visiting professor at Yale University, Mt. Holyoke College, Trinity College, Princeton University, and Johns Hopkins University as well as a visiting lecturer at the University of Bologna, Peking University, the University of Natal, Capetown University, and the University of Western Australia. At Calcutta University in India, he was honored as the Tagore Law Professor, and at the University of Delaware, he received the most distinguished faculty award as Francis Alison Professor. In 2010, UD awarded Dr. Mangone an honorary doctor of science degree.

The Young Scholars Award, which recognizes promising and accomplished faculty at the University of Delaware, was named in his honor. In celebration of his 90th birthday in 2008, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers established the Gerard J. Mangone Prize to be awarded annually to the author of the best contribution published in the International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, of which Dr. Mangone was editor-in-chief.

With his remarkable energy and constant dedication to academic excellence, Dr. Mangone was an exemplary mentor, having advised 45 University of Delaware students in achieving graduate degrees. He wrote more than 20 books and edited 25 others, and he authored scores of scholarly papers.

Dr. Mangone's vision, passion, and dedication forever changed the way we view and manage our ocean resources. His contributions to marine and coastal policy will continue to have a lasting effect on our country and our world for generations. Dr. Mangone made a significant impact in his field and his legacy will live on in his students, his ideas, and his influence on our laws and international agreements.

I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Dr. Gerard J. Mangone.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I speak today on behalf of J. Paul Oetken's nomination to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Oetken and I knew each other while we were law students at Yale, and I have followed his career with great interest since then. Mr. Oetken is, in my view, a strikingly intelligent man. His varied career--in private practice, with Jenner & Block and Debevoise & Plimpton; in the public sector with a number of admirable clerkships, culminating with a Supreme Court clerkship for Justice Blackmun; with the Office of Legal Counsel and the White House Counsel's Office; and, now, in the business world, where he is vice president and associate general counsel for Cablevision--demonstrates a searching intellect and great capability.

Mr. Oetken possesses a unique combination of perspectives and an exceptional series of qualifications. Given Mr. Oetken's obvious talent and broad experience, I am confident he will make a great Federal judge. In my view, it is an added and important bonus that, as the first openly gay man confirmed to the Federal bench, his service will also move us closer to full equality in our Nation. His confirmation will inspire future judges, lawyers and litigants with the knowledge that, for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans, it does get better in our Nation's long journey to inclusion and justice.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, as have so many other Senators, because I am concerned about what I have been hearing about the threat of default that is now just over 3 weeks away--what I have heard both here in Washington and in Delaware.

This looming default crisis is one of the most grave and predictable threats to our economy and our country I have ever seen. It is no longer floating at a distance just over the horizon, or something we can debate academically, the impact of which we may yet avert. It is here now. We are on the edge. Given the difficulties this body can have in moving something through in a matter of days, we are very close to the absolute last day when we can consider options and a path forward. Default is right before us and it must be dealt with.

I rise not to add to the political rhetoric--there has been plenty of that--nor do I rise to try and elicit panic or fear in the broader public.

I rise because the folks of Delaware--the people from whom I have been hearing--just don't know what to believe. They know our deficit spending and our national debt are out of control, and they are deeply concerned. That is good. I share that concern. I share that commitment to making certain we reduce our spending and we deal with our deficit because deficit and debt at the size we have today can harm our economy fundamentally. They are a basic challenge to our national security, to our success, and to our growth going forward. But I also rise because there is no faster way to ensure that our economy will never get back on track, that our country will never reach its full potential than to let our Nation default on its financial obligations.

We need to deal with this default crisis in a responsible and pragmatic way to create a real and lasting solution. We must restore certainty to our markets to help get our economy going again. And what do we hear from business, businessmen large and small all over the country? Certainty. We need predictability and certainty in the markets. Well, nothing is creating uncertainty more than this grinding lack of resolution to the vote to raise our Nation's debt ceiling.

I wish to take a few moments, if I could, to talk about the reality of this impending crisis, and I would like to look at a few of the myths I hear at home that need to be cleared up.

First, some Members of this body and the other House of Congress, some folks running for President, and some people in the press have suggested that a default will cause only minor economic disruption, if any at all. Economist after economist, think tank after think tank, study after study has shown in the last few weeks that nothing could be further from the truth.

There are predictable consequences of default that will affect every American--Americans in every State, at every income level. More than any, I worry about the working families or those currently out of work who are already struggling through the greatest recession we have known in my lifetime. One report suggests 640,000 people will lose their jobs in the months after default. Economists confirm that the cost of home mortgages, car loans, and interest rates will go up for everything. The cost of food, gas, and everyday items for families all over this country will go up in real and concrete ways.

More importantly, if we default on America's mortgage, the impact in terms of the increased cost of borrowing for our whole country and for all of our families won't just be brief, it will be lasting because it will hang with us on our credit score as a nation for years. To the folks watching, if you think it is difficult to find a job or to help grow a business to help deal with the daily cost of living now, just wait until we default on America's mortgage and the cost of borrowing funds to do anything--to create new jobs or to help pay your bills as a family--goes up.

Default will have real and lasting economic consequences that will haunt this economy and haunt the working families of this Nation for years.

The second myth is that we can just stop spending money without real consequences. Some in this very Chamber have suggested that when we get to August, there will still be plenty of money coming in to service the debt, so there is no real threat of default, and that what we need to do is a relatively simple exercise of just deciding which things we will stop paying.

This second myth goes that the Treasury Department will just start picking winners and losers: They will pay Social Security but forgo Medicare; they will pay our troops but pink-slip our Federal civilians; they will fund the Pentagon but forget the Department of Education-- never mind the ethical quandaries, the long-term disservice such action would have on our economy and our country. Frankly, the truth is that it is not even clear they have the legal authority to do so in the Treasury Department, to pick these winners and losers on a week-by-week basis.

Let's just choose one example of the studies done on this myth that we can simply pay the debt service and a few big things and the consequences of the rest would be fine. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, beginning in August, if we continue to make payments, obviously on interest on the debt but also on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all defense contractors, and unemployment insurance--so the really important things--and we just stop paying the rest, our troops on Active Duty; all of our veterans programs; all of law enforcement, including, for example, the FBI; the whole Federal court system; the FAA, which monitors air traffic; the FDA, which inspects food quality and safety; and a host of dozens of other Federal programs would come to a halt within days.

The consequences to the safety of our families, to the strength of our economy, to the confidence of our country, and to our role at home and abroad would, in my view, be tragic--almost catastrophic. So even if we could avoid technically defaulting for a few days or weeks by continuing to service our debt, the costs and consequences of these other ``easy choices'' would be dramatic, difficult, and lasting.

According to Steve McMillin, who was the former Deputy Director of OMB under President Bush--he was recently quoted on this topic:

I would say the options Treasury has if the debt limit is

not raised are all very ugly.

Let me give a third myth. As I was talking with some small business owners in Delaware over the past week, some suggested they really felt we needed to go ahead and take the tough medicine of defaulting and cut up the President's credit card, stop the President from spending.

While I share their concerns about the very real and very significant threat posed by our deep deficits and share the view that we must cut spending--as all of us who are Democrats on the Budget Committee have said now publicly, we are committed to a balanced approach that significantly cuts Federal spending--the metaphor of cutting up the credit cards is wrong. It is not just wrong, it is desperately wrong and misleading. Our Nation defaulting on its debt is not like cutting up a credit card and stopping the future spending; it is much more like defaulting on a mortgage; it hurts our credit rating and hinders our ability to borrow. As we have been told before, every 1 percent increase in interest rates will cause our national debt to go up $1.3 trillion over 10 years. According to some economists, increased interest rates could last for a decade or more.

No, the obligations that come due August 2 are the obligations that have already been undertaken. As Senator Harkin said before me, it is Republicans, both President and Congress, and Democrats, both President and Congress, over the last decade who have moved us into a bigger house as a

country. It is the cost of two wars, the cost of an expanded Medicare Part D, the cost of expanding investment in our country--the cost of this bigger house that is now coming due. For us to stop paying that mortgage would have the same consequences for our country as it would for any family because when you default on your mortgage, it is not like cutting up a credit card, it affects your credit rating, and it affects your ability to borrow and your ability to do anything more for your family for years to come. So, too, would the consequences be for this country, and we cannot afford to let our country become a bad investment.

Lastly, some have suggested that August 2 is not a serious deadline, that somehow Secretary Geithner must have some other rabbit in the hat or some escape hatch.

Back in January, Secretary Geithner sent a letter to all in Congress suggesting that we would, in fact, run out of money on May 16, and the government--the Treasury Department--would then have to start taking extraordinary measures to avoid default. In fact, he detailed in six pages all the extraordinary measures that would be required. And he was right almost literally to the day about when that transition occurred and when those extraordinary measures needed to be deployed.

The time runs out August 2, but if for some reason you don't believe the deadline presented to us by our very own Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasury Department, look at what the three bond rating agencies are already saying about the impending default. Moody's, S&P, and Fitch have all threatened to downgrade America's rating from AAA-- the most secure, most stable in the world. S&P suggested last week a downgrade to D, to junk bond status. I suggest America is not a junk bond nation. It puts us at risk as a nation, as a people, and as an economy when we are mentioned in the same sentences as Ireland, as Greece, as Italy--countries currently wrestling with fundamental failures to meet their obligations as a country. We are better than that.

All of us in this Chamber--all of us--are challenged to come together to put our economy and our country back on solid footing, to restore certainty to the markets, and to give confidence to retirees, to families, to parents raising children, and to small businesses by getting serious about putting a plan on this floor next week and passing it because, frankly, if we allow this country to default on its sovereign debts, to fail to meet its moral commitments, both financial and to the people of the United States, the consequences will be desperate and lasting.

I suggested a few weeks ago that we should consider seriously the Bipartisan Policy Center's proposal--the so-called SAVEGO--which would pick up where the pay-as-you-go discipline of the 1990s started and modernize it for our current situation. If we cannot get a comprehensive $4 trillion balanced deal together on this floor and passed, let's at least get a downpayment and enforce a budget mechanism that would ensure that a comprehensive deal is accomplished over the next decade. SAVEGO, which I recommend to everyone in this body, would lock in savings over the next decade, force both parties to stay at the table, and urge us to meet the targets we all know we need to meet: to reduce our deficits, to stabilize our debts, to strengthen our country, and to move past this tragic narrow debate over August 2 and our Nation's mortgage.

We need to focus not on the next election cycle, not on the partisan back-and-forth that might win an advantage for one party over another or one person over another in this Chamber for 2012, but we need instead to focus on the next generation, on the future.

The only way forward, in my view, is to honor our moral commitments as a nation to the men and women who rely on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, on the safety of our troops, and on the investments we make in the future, and to continue to honor our obligations as a nation. To do anything less is to dishonor the sacrifice of those who have served us in the past and to ignore the very real needs of the working families all over this country who look to us for leadership and sacrifice to put us on a sustainable path forward.

Mr. President, with that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to follow the comments of my colleague from Colorado, and I appreciate the forbearance of my colleagues from Florida and New Hampshire.

I simply want to follow on the comments of the Senator from Colorado in emphasizing the sense of urgency, the sense of frustration and of deep concern I know many of us feel in the Senate of the United States.

On the Fourth of July, as I went up and down the State of Delaware to different parades and picnics and gatherings, I had the opportunity to meet with and talk to thousands of Delawareans. Over and over, I would go up to men who were wearing hats that showed they served, whether in the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Second World War, and I thanked them for their service. Repeatedly, I would hear the same thing back: We have done our job. We hope you will do yours.

When I was elected in 2010 to serve in the Senate, I heard the same message from the folks across Delaware that I just heard Senator Udall reflect from the people of Colorado: Help the private sector create good jobs, deal with the deficit and debt, and do it in a bipartisan and responsible way.

I am gravely concerned we are on the verge of the most predictable financial crisis in modern American history as we slowly grind toward the predicted default on America's mortgage on August 2.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has warned us since the beginning of this year with a letter he sent to us on January 6, with repeated testimony in front of various committees of the Senate. We have gone well past the May 16 deadline, and the Department of the Treasury is now using extraordinary measures to prevent us from defaulting on America's commitments.

I have heard other analogies used, but they are mistaken. This is not about cutting up the credit cards or ending the blank check for our current President. This is about whether we will continue to meet the commitments America has already made, whether we will continue to make the payments that were already committed to for our troops in the field, for contractors who are providing military supplies and equipment, for our Federal workforce, and for all the different programs and benefits the Senator who spoke before me mentioned: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and others.

We cannot afford the consequences of default. One study says we would lose 640,000 jobs--more than a half a million additional Americans needlessly thrown out of work because of a foolish game of chicken. The cost to home mortgages, to car loans, the daily cost of living, including for food and gas, would go up needlessly if we simply fail to uphold the tradition of meeting our commitments as a nation.

I am here to say today that we cannot afford to have America become a bad investment. The best thing we can do going forward is to restore certainty to our markets, to put some confidence back in the American economy, to make certain the international community continues to regard us as the safest and best investment in the world. The way to do that is to come together in a bipartisan way around a big deal, around $4 trillion in savings, at least.

The Senator from Colorado went into some detail as to the bipartisan Debt and Deficit Commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the Democratic former Chief of Staff and the Republican former Senator from Wyoming, with the 11 members of that commission, including Members of this body, currently serving Senators, Republican and Democrat, who came together around a plan that would make $4 trillion in savings over the next decade.

I think we should do no less than that. I think the plan we should be working on in detail now should include all four major areas where we have to have savings: reductions in discretionary domestic spending, reform to our entitlement programs, reductions in Pentagon spending, and increases in Federal revenue through tax reform. All four of these have to be on the table. In my view, our values ask no less than that.

As we work through a recovery, we need to continue to invest in education, in infrastructure, in innovation. But we also need to responsibly put together a bipartisan path that will take on the sacred cows of this institution and of America's Tax Code.

Three weeks ago, we had more than 70 Senators cast votes to end the $6 billion in needless annual ethanol subsidies. I hope that was an opening door toward a recognition that on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of this Congress we need to be willing to make the tough votes even though they will upset treasured constituencies, even though they will end up causing us potential political harm, to reduce reckless Federal spending, whether through the Tax Code or through unsustainable Federal programs.

In the end, I simply wanted to come to the floor today and add my voice to that of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are expressing our grave concern. As the clock ticks away and as the hours left to August 2 shrink, we need to come together.

What Americans have done for generations is sacrificed. What legislators need to do now is compromise. There are in front of us reasonable, solid, bipartisan proposals that have been available to us since March and that this body and our leadership need to be willing to make responsible compromises to make happen.

With that, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse.) The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, the two Senators from Colorado have inspired me to come to the floor and join them in a colloquy about the challenges facing our country. I say to the Senators

from Colorado, I am pleased and impressed with their leadership and have greatly enjoyed serving with them to date.

I agree that the vote on one of our tax expenditures on the ethanol subsidy was an encouraging and inspiring moment because we saw both Democrats and Republicans from all over the country casting a vote to end a tax expenditure or subsidy that, many would argue, has outlived its usefulness in the current marketplace.

In my home State, we recently saw the bankruptcy of our second largest poultry company, and they have communicated to me their grave concern about the ethanol subsidy. There are lots of folks on both sides of that particular debate. I think the larger point that is important for us to get to is certainty in the markets. I spent a number of years in the private sector in business before running for and being elected to office, and I know the mantra Senator Bennet is well familiar with, Senator Udall is well familiar with, both parties are well familiar with, is certainty is what the markets look for. Certainty is also what our people look for. We have alarmed them, concerned them by not being able to reach a broad, bipartisan, responsible plan that lays out a framework for how it is we are going to address both the Nation's record deficits and record debt. Our debt today, as we know, is roughly $14 trillion. Our deficit has hit an alltime record, and we are working on borrowed time. I have heard some suggest we need to better understand the situation we are in. The situation we are in, I believe, is that we are about to risk defaulting on America's mortgage. We have made commitments as a nation. We have expended ourselves at home and abroad in a lot of different ways, and I am worried we are on the verge of failing to meet our commitments. Just as America's households hesitate before ever defaulting on their mortgage, I think we, as a nation, as a people, have to hesitate, have to think deeply about the consequences of it.

I asked the folks who work with me on economic policy to quantify it. They looked at a number of different studies around the country and gave me chilling numbers. Should we fail to meet the August 2 deadline that Secretary Geithner has repeatedly, since January, in writing and testimony, suggested to us is the absolute last date by which we can reach a bipartisan compromise and a path forward, we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. One study said 640,000 jobs. The markets may lose as much as 10 percent of their value, which would mean a loss of almost $1 trillion of market equity value. That means pension funds, personal savings, 401(k)s would take an enormous hit. The average homeowner would see an increase in costs, whether it is their credit cards or mortgages or car loans. It is easy to think this is an abstract argument. But in reality, I think the problem we are causing, the lack of confidence in the markets, could have a sudden, sharp, grinding effect on our economic world, and that is because investors act more like animals than they do like machines. When spooked, they act the way herds do and they run off in a certain direction. My concern is, as a country, we are so used to having a AAA bond rating, to being the world's reserve currency, to being the gold standard in security. I am gravely concerned that intransigence, an unwillingness to come to a reasonable compromise is putting us at real risk of spooking the markets, of harming the average American homeowner, and putting our rating at risk as a country.

At the end of the day, so far in my short 6 months here, I have observed some things about how Washington works that worry me. If I could offer a metaphor, it seems to me there are a lot of sacred cows here. It seems to me the trillions of dollars we spend in our Tax Code through tax loopholes and special tax provisions and the trillions we spend through direct spending are broken up into these sacred cows, and I feel as if I have gone into dairy. I feel as if I am surrounded by a whole herd of sacred cows, and what we need is a deliberate and clear bipartisan effort to thin the herd, to make some tough choices.

As I know Senator Bennet said previously, I wish to commend the hard work of the Gang of 6, the so-called Gang of 6, the bipartisan group who came up with processes and a path forward. The Bowles-Simpson commission presented to those of us on the Budget Committee, presented to this body in writing, a proposal. There are paths forward. There are ways to make these tough choices. I hope before the time runs out, this body will embrace these proposals, make the tough choices and the sacrifices we need to come to the center and lay out a path. I, frankly, don't think we have until August 2. If we are going to put at risk the markets by injecting uncertainty, frankly, the timeline may be more like the middle of July. It is my hope the Senators from Colorado will be joined by Senators from both sides of this body and both sides of this Capitol in crafting a responsible bipartisan solution.

Mr. President, I would like to express my gratitude to the Senators from Colorado to allow me to join them and look forward to continuing this conversation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the proceedings that just occurred in this body with regard to ethanol and to talk about how I see them from the perspective of my home State of Delaware.

Today, the Senate agreed on a path forward to end Federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol. As Senators, we are often asked to make tough choices, and the bipartisan votes on today's amendments were largely a reflection of where we are from.

For Delaware, agriculture is the single largest part of our economy. We grow a lot of corn, we grow a lot of soybeans, we have companies investing in advanced biofuels, and we have a major poultry industry. Today, I voted for Delaware's poultry growers and for our consumers. Lots of folks across this country in the last few years have lost their jobs, lost their homes, and lost their livelihoods. It is very important to me that the people of Delaware know, on the record, that the vote I cast today to end Federal subsidies for ethanol was about making sure we are supporting our home State poultry industry.

My main concerns are that one of the most important economic engines--not just in Delaware but in the whole Delmarva Peninsula--is the poultry industry. That industry has its back against the wall and is struggling to survive. At a time when many other agricultural industries are seeing record prices--and that is a positive, a boon for them--for the poultry industry, the rising cost of feed is forcing decades-old companies to rethink their business models or, sadly, as in one case just last week for one of the most important and vital poultry companies in Delaware, to shut their doors and go into bankruptcy.

We need to move away from corn-based ethanol and toward homegrown advanced biofuels if we are going to accomplish three goals at the same time. One is to reduce our deficit, to end unwise and unnecessary Federal spending; second is to support and advance and defend our poultry industry, whether in Delmarva or throughout the rest of the country; and third is to continue to make progress toward the future of clean, promising biofuels that are not from grain.

The amendment I just voted for closes the door on corn-based ethanol, but that should not prevent us from finding a path forward to advanced biofuels, those not from grain, whether cellulosic ethanol or drop-in biofuels from algae or otherwise.

Today, I also filed an amendment with Senator Carper, the senior Senator from Delaware, that makes it clear that as we close the door on corn-based ethanol, we need to do two other things going forward: first, use those billions of dollars in savings to reduce the deficit and, second, redirect funds, formerly committed to VEETC, to support an important but just beginning, a nascent advanced biofuels industry.

Ultimately, the policies we pursue should lead to American consumers, producers, and farmers using less petroleum and, more importantly, using less oil from overseas sources. If we are going to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and especially on those we import from overseas, we are going to need to continue to pursue a range of cleaner and more secure sources of energy. Advanced biofuels are central to this effort. Now that we have taken the important first step by adopting the Feinstein-Coburn amendment and signaling the intent of this body to end Federal subsidies to corn-based ethanol, I hope we will also responsibly pay down our Federal deficit and continue a strong path forward toward the advanced biofuels that Delawareans are making a significant contribution toward making a reality.

As my colleague from California has noted, corn-based ethanol has historically been supported by three policies: the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, known as VEETC, which provides a 45 cent per gallon tax credit to gasoline suppliers who blend ethanol with gasoline; a tariff of 54 cents per gallon on imported ethanol, which is largely targeted at sugarcane ethanol from Brazil; and a requirement that mandates the use of ethanol in gasoline by set amounts every year, increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

VEETC and the import tariff may have been needed in the past to stand up the nascent corn-based ethanol industry, but experts agree that the industry has matured, and these two supports are no longer needed.

At a time when our federal government is facing a massive deficit and spiraling debt, we need to take a hard look at how we spend our taxpayer dollars. These subsidies are expensive, and studies have shown them to have dramatic impacts on our federal budget as well as on the cost of corn feed used by chicken farmers, including those in Delaware. This year alone, VEETC will cost taxpayers $6 billion. We just can't afford to maintain this duplicative and wasteful subsidy.

Delaware's chicken farmers can't afford it either. Most economists and market analysts agree that the steady growth in ethanol demand has had a dramatic effect on the price of corn. This cost has trickled down to related agricultural markets, including food, feed, fuel, and land. The average annual price of corn has jumped 225 percent just in the past 5 years. Last week, corn futures reached nearly $8 a bushel, which is 140 percent over last year.

The No. 1 cost for chicken farmers is feed, and farmers in Delaware are feeling the pinch. One major poultry company declared bankruptcy last week, and it cited the high cost of corn feed as a major factor. Couple this with rising energy costs, trade barriers, and low chicken prices, and you can see why many poultry companies are nearing a breaking point.

Something must be done. The VEETC credit and the tariff are no longer worth the investment. It is past time that we repeal these subsidies, and I was proud to vote for the Feinstein-Coburn amendment to do so.

At the same time, let me be clear: the Feinstein-Coburn approach is only part of a larger effort. In addition to ending VEETC and the tariff, we must also do much more to promote investment in the research, development, and deployment of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic and drop-in biofuels. These will help us reduce our dependence on petroleum and encourage further innovation. We need to provide greater certainty to help launch a next-generation biofuels industry through the extension of tax credits and other federal programs for certain targeted advanced biofuels.

Many concerns are raised because corn ethanol dominates the U.S. biofuels market. But what is our ultimate goal? Shouldn't it be about greater fuel efficiency and product diversity in our domestic transportation sector? First, that can be achieved through increased fuel economy standards. Second, it can also come from technological alternatives like electrification, natural gas and hydrogen fueled vehicles. Third--and most important for what we are debating here today--it will come from developing commercially viable, advanced biofuels.

There are legitimate concerns about corn ethanol's economic and environmental impacts, but we should also not be cutting off our nose to spite our face. For this reason, I have filed an amendment that makes it clear that we should be redirecting the repeal of the VEETC to deficit reduction and the extension of advanced biofuels for 5 years to provide a long-term signal to this small but emerging industry.

I want to be part of a solution that provides a strong, long-term future for our Nation's alternative fuels industry. I want to see domestically produced, next-generation feedstocks grow. This would be from cellulosic, biodiesel, and drop-in fuels like methanol and butanol. They could come from different feedstocks, such as recycled grease, wood, corn stover, switch grass, municipal waste, algae, and livestock manure. Right now there is little to no commercial production, but we need to support those efforts with new incentives for these fuels and bio-refineries. Most importantly, we need to work on bringing down the costs and expanding their markets.

In Delaware, inventive companies are already hard at work researching cutting-edge biofuel systems, including ones that produce energy from soybeans and algae. One such company is Elcriton in Newark, which is producing drop-in fuels from duckweed, an aquatic plant that can be used to produce fuel. Another company headquartered in Delaware-- DuPont--working with partners around the country on both cellulosic and biobutanol technologies. None of these fuels compete with the price of livestock feed. I am proud of the biofuel innovation taking place in my State, and I want to replicate this model across the country.

In addition, this growth of advanced biofuel innovation has the potential to lead to new economic opportunities not only for energy companies and consumers but also for Delaware chicken farmers. Today, of great concern to them is the price of corn on the input end of farm operations, but--hopefully, not too far down the road--a significant factor on their balance-books may soon be earnings from waste that can be sold for biofuels.

Ultimately, the policies we pursue should lead to American consumers, producers, and farmers using less petroleum. If we are going to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly those imported from overseas, we are going to need to pursue a range of cleaner and more secure sources of energy. Advanced biofuels are central to this effort, and, now that we have taken the first step by adopting the Feinstein- Coburn amendment, I hope the Senate will take the next step as well.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana.

I was an original cosponsor of Senator Tester's bill, which forms the basis for this amendment, because I am concerned about consumers, credit unions, and the financial sector in Delaware. The Federal Reserve's proposed rule on interchange regulation does not guarantee consumers will benefit from reduced rates, and inadvertently creates a mechanism that could destabilize some of our small, community banking institutions. Because of these unintended consequences, I believe the Fed should go back to the drawing board and rethink the way it is going about setting interchange fees.

I know my friend, the Senator from Illinois, worked hard last Congress, bearing in mind the interests of all parties involved, to authorize the Fed to make such a rule on regulating these fees. The Durbin amendment included a well-intentioned provision to protect small banks by creating a carve-out exemption from certain interchange fee caps.

Unfortunately, I believe the Fed issued its proposed rule in haste, and it is becoming clear that this carve-out exemption threatens the competitiveness of smaller banks, community banks, and credit unions. A belief in the viability of this exemption was crucial in securing the votes necessary to include Senator Durbin's amendment in the Dodd-Frank reform package.

When the Senator from Illinois wrote his amendment last year, I know he had the best of intentions when he directed the Fed to establish a debit rate that is ``reasonable and proportional'' to the ``incremental'' cost of an individual transaction. These criteria, however, have tied the Fed's hands and, essentially, prohibit the Fed from considering all costs associated with debit operations when regulating debit interchange fees.

Additionally, the two-tiered interchange system proposed by Durbin's small bank exemption may be considered unworkable in practice and subject to market forces. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, admitted as much when he appeared before the Senate Banking Committee in February. He noted that ``there is a possibility . . . that, either because merchants wouldn't accept the more expensive cards or because networks would not be willing to have a two-tier pricing system, it's possible that in practice they would not be exempt from a lower interchange fee.''

I have met in recent months with a broad range of large and small banks, credit unions, card networks, retailers, merchants, and other concerned parties from Delaware and other States about the Fed's proposed rule. With their helpful input, and with our continued economic recovery foremost in mind, I have joined with a bipartisan group of Senators in support of this amendment, which would direct the Fed to study this issue further and come up with a rule that does not risk harming the small banks and credit unions that play such an important role in our communities.

At a time when large banks have been reluctant to lend capital, more and more new businesses and ventures are being started through loans from smaller community banks and credit unions. We cannot afford to undercut their lending ability through the losses they are likely to incur if the Fed's proposed rule becomes final. The effect that would have on our recovery could be harmful.

At a hearing held by the Banking Committee on May 12, Chairman Bernanke was asked what the effect of the small bank exemption would be if the proposed rule were implemented. He answered: ``It's going to affect the revenues of the small issuers, and it could result in some smaller banks being less profitable, or even failing.''

Furthermore, at the same hearing, Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, stated: ``I do think this is going to reduce revenues at a number of smaller banks, and they will have to pass that on to customers in terms of higher fees.''

Above all, we must not do harm to consumers--especially when so many have had to tighten their belts during the recession and are just starting to get back on their feet. The same goes for proprietors of small businesses. Delaware is home to so many hard-working small business owners, merchants who rely on the acceptance of debit card payments for daily transactions. I believe the Fed needs to create a rule that strikes a balance between supporting robust commercial activity for small businesses and their consumers and safeguarding the viability of small banks and credit unions.

Senator Tester's amendment does just that. It calls on the Fed, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the National Credit Union Administration to make a determination whether a proposed rule does not include all fixed and incremental costs, whether it might adversely affect debit card consumers, or whether the small bank carve-out would be impractical.

This issue requires a closer and more careful look. Chairman Bair stated at the hearing in February that ``it was done very quickly,'' and ``who's paying for what, who's going to pay more, and who's getting to pay less under this is something that maybe wasn't dealt with as thoroughly as it might have been.''

This is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Tester's amendment and why I will continue to work for interchange rules that are fair and do not harm a vital sector of our economy during these difficult economic times. We must continue to be relentless in our focus on economic recovery and job growth, and the Tester amendment does just that.