Floor Statements

Mr. President, as a reminder to all Senators, the majority leader filed cloture on the motion to concur on the House message with a Reid amendment this evening.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I think many of my colleagues have, to speak to the topic at hand, which is the debt ceiling debate we are having in the Congress of the United States.

I have to say, I think Americans across the country are looking at us with disbelief, anxiety, and--I think rightly--anger. They awoke this morning hoping to find that cooler heads had prevailed and that all of us were working together on a plan that keeps our country from default and our economy from looming collapse. Instead, the headlines read that the Speaker of the House was again refusing to negotiate and that he is, in fact, delaying action in the House because of Republican upheaval against his own plan.

I have to say, even if the House of Representatives passed a bill preventing default this evening, within hours, we would still be pushing our country right up to the edge of an economic catastrophe. In other words, what I am saying is, even though economists, market analysts, business leaders, credit rating agencies, world leaders, and the American people are begging us to find an agreement to avoid default on our debt obligations, we are no further along today than we have been in the many weeks we have been debating this issue.

As the Presiding Officer knows, as a former Member of the House, I take no pleasure in criticizing the people's House. But it does take two to tango, and when it comes to courting the House of Representatives, it feels as though they have one shoe nailed to the dance floor. I can't figure out for the life of me what it is going to take to reach an agreement on behalf of the American people. The House of Representatives just can't take yes for an answer.

The real problem, at least in my estimation, seems to be that a small group of people are set on running up the political score rather than doing the

right thing for our country. If that is the case, now is the time to finally come to the table.

Here is the truth: Many of us here are trying to prevent our economy from driving off a cliff, but others seem to be busy cutting the brake lines. On that point, I was proud of the Senate and the Democrats and Republicans who came together on the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission and came up with a plan on reducing the deficit. They were willing to be a part of the solution.

The Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended taking important but difficult steps to reduce our debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. That plan is the right one for the country, and despite the significant political risks attached to taking those positions, Senators in both parties were willing to support it. The House Members, on the other hand, when the fiscal commission offered them the bipartisan deficit reduction plan, walked away, both Democrats and Republicans, to be fair.

Unfortunately, this has become a pattern. When Vice President Joe Biden and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor were close to finally reaching an agreement on a deficit reduction plan, it was the House Republicans who walked away. When President Obama and Speaker Boehner sought to strike a ``grand bargain,'' to do something great for the country, the House walked away. President Obama likened this to being left at the altar, but I cannot think of any description that is more apt than ``irresponsible.''

For my friends and my colleagues who know me, I am not quick to anger. But I have to say, time is not our friend here and we cannot delay action any longer. I was pleased to see Senator Alexander, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, say last night:

What would be best, instead of having a Republican plan

competing with a Democratic plan, would be to have the

Speaker, Senator Reid, and Senator McConnell recommend to us

a single plan.

I understand the Senate leaders are speaking frequently, and I have all the faith in the world that the Senate could work this problem out. But that is only half the problem. We need statesmen, we need patriots, we need problem solvers over in the House to emerge. Campaign politics and partisan talking points do not take courage. Now is the time for courage and leadership.

Instead of going back to the drawing board on the Boehner plan, we need to refocus our efforts on a plan that meets three tests. Such a plan has to, No. 1, raise the debt limit to avoid a first ever Federal Government default; No. 2, provide enough certainty to investors that America will pay its bills to stave off a downgrade in our credit rating; and, No. 3, reduce the deficit enough that we can begin the hard work to get our fiscal house in order.

The Reid plan, in my estimation, achieves each of those goals. While I am disappointed we could not all come together on a larger $4 to $5 trillion deficit reduction package that would be both bipartisan and comprehensive, the Reid plan adequately addresses the most pressing issues that confront us, which are preventing a default and staving off a downgrade in our credit rating.

The Boehner plan, on the other hand, is only a short-term fix, and a host of economic forecasters and business leaders have said it would almost certainly lead to a downgrade in our, in America's, credit rating, which would raise interest rates, could sabotage seniors' retirement savings, and increase consumer costs on almost every American.

Bank of America, Standard & Poor's, JPMorgan Chase, and other major players have all warned us that future economic instability and short- term political solutions will almost certainly lead to a downgrade in our credit rating. That is some serious business.

What is sad about all of this is that the unstable political climate--which one observer called ``amateur hour on Capitol Hill''-- itself may lead to a downgrade.

I respect the Speaker's desire to go back to the drawing board to try to secure more Republican votes, but the fact is we do not have time. The Reid plan is ready to go, and it meets the three-part test I laid out. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the Reid plan reduces the deficit by twice as much as the House Republican plan. As reported this morning ``in the battle of budget scores, the Senate Democrats deficit reduction bill is the clear winner thus far.''

Our economy has been in critical condition, and I think we are feeling recently that it is beginning to come back to life, that we have been nursing it back to health. The last result we need is a self- inflicted heart attack caused by an overdose of partisanship. People wonder why we cannot get it done.

I know the Presiding Officer is a mountain climber, as am I, and we are both, I guess, old mountain climbers in more ways than one. I can tell you that there are some similarities between attempting to climb the world's highest peaks and our work here in Washington. But the difference seems to be, especially when the going gets tough here on Capitol Hill, that not only are you trying to conquer mountainous and challenging and difficult terrain, you seem to have a team of saboteurs here who are trying to push the rest of us off the mountain as we are trying to climb it. The Scots have a saying: It is not the falling off that hurts. It is the sudden stop at the bottom. I can tell you, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, that is going to involve a sudden stop at the bottom for all of us.

The people of Colorado have told me--and I suspect the rest of the Nation feels this way--they do not care who wins politically. Frankly, I do not care who wins politically either. What I care about is passing legislation that will stave off government default and a downgrade in our Nation's credit rating. At this point, the Reid plan is the only option that meets that criteria. Let's get it done. Let's get it done.

Tribute To Hillary Daniels

Mr. President, as I close, I want to change the tone of my remarks a little bit because there are wonderful people who work here on Capitol Hill and make a difference day in and day out, and I want to recognize Hillary Daniels, who has been one of my budget and appropriations legislative assistants, who joined my team when I first came to the Senate 3 years ago.

She is a native of Colorado's western slope, the great county of Mesa and the town of Grand Junction. She is going to be leaving my office next month to go to law school at Washington University in St. Louis,

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

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I wished to come to the floor this evening to join a number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are concerned about the Federal budget and our ever- increasing deficits and debt.

But today I am also speaking on behalf of the 4.5 million Coloradans who are worried we will not have the discipline to do anything about it. They know our great Nation will not win the global economic race unless we take some responsible action on the floor of the Senate and soon.

I have to say, I do not think the debate we have been having offers them a whole lot of solace. I say that because instead of getting to work on the bipartisan Gang of 6 deficit reduction plan, which draws from the President's bipartisan fiscal commission, headed by--I have to say this--two true American patriots, former Senator Alan

Simpson and North Carolinian Erskine Bowles, instead of getting onto that plan and the substantive proposal it makes, we are debating what looks to be a bumper sticker campaign gimmick called cut, cap, and balance. I have a hard time even saying it.

But I have to say, I have spent a good deal of time analyzing budget tools. After all, I was one of the first--and one of currently only a few--Democratic Senators who signed on to a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution this Congress.

I have also been fighting for many years for other smart budgeting tools, including pay-as-you-go budgeting, a line-item veto, and a ban on earmarks, which would help reduce waste and rein in Federal spending.

But let me be clear that cut, cap, and balance is not about balancing the Federal budget because when we read the bill, it becomes clear it is simply about ideology. While the name of the bill seems reasonable enough--it is conveniently designed literally to fit on a bumper sticker--the language of the bill does not represent a balanced approach to deficit and debt reduction, and for that reason alone I cannot support it.

As I said, I have supported the idea of a balanced budget amendment, even though a number--maybe I should say most--of our caucus has opposed the idea. However, the balanced budget amendment contained in cut, cap, and balance is not about balance. It is about locking in--if we look at it--special interest tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, which would then force Draconian program cuts that would harm our Nation's middle class, not to mention the most vulnerable in our communities all across our country.

I have to say, this is not a balanced way to pursue deficit reduction. It makes a balanced budget nearly impossible to achieve when we get into the guts of this idea because it ties literally one hand behind our back by preventing the Congress from closing wasteful special interest tax breaks.

In addition, the bill in front of us holds the increase in the debt limit hostage. The debt limit needs to be raised by August 2 to avoid a first ever government default on our debt obligations. Cut, cap, and balance dictates that the debt limit cannot be increased until Congress approves a constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Even if one is the most optimistic person in the world, a scenario for passage, ratification, and implementation of a balanced budget amendment shows it is unlikely to take effect for at least 10 years--10 years--not 10 days, 10 years.

I have always maintained that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--which, again, I wish to mention I support--should be a backstop put in place only after we have made the tough decisions about reducing our spiraling deficits in the here and now.

If we were to tie our Nation's obligations to pay its bills to the passage of a one-sided and partisan balanced budget amendment, that would be bad enough as it is. But cut, cap, and balance would also lead to severe--severe--cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and it would actually lock in billions of dollars in tax breaks currently in our Tax Code which benefit the wealthiest citizens as well as Big Oil and corporations that have spent decades shipping jobs overseas.

This is such an egregious proposal that I have a sneaking suspicion it was not actually designed to pass the Senate. I believe it was designed to be a campaign gimmick because it certainly does nothing to address the problems we face right here and now, which is the looming default of our government, the U.S. Government.

Let me be clear--and I think the public has begun to understand this--raising our debt limit is not about future spending or paying for more government; it is about paying our previous bills. Business leaders, economists, rating agencies, and especially Treasury Secretary Geithner have told us our credit rating, were we to default, would take years to rebuild and that our country would never be the same if we were to default on our debt.

You know this, Mr. President. You are a businessman. We cannot ask for a do-over, a mulligan, if we default on our debt. We cannot say: Oh, we were just kidding. This is truly the real deal.

I wish to share some ways we would be directly affected by a government default. Paychecks for soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and at bases around the world conceivably would not go out. FAA towers could shut down. Border crossings could close. Operations at the FBI and the CIA would be put at risk. Safety inspections of the food we eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt.

The resulting spike in interest rates would ironically make our debt even harder to tackle because each 1-percent rise in interest rates alone would result in $130 billion in increased interest payments on our national debt each year.

Perhaps most important, hard-working American families would also feel the crunch. A spike in interest rates would effectively force a tax on all Americans and American businesses due to increased consumer costs. As important, failure to raise the debt limit would lock up credit markets because the United States would no longer be seen as a reliable credit risk.

Coincidentally, yesterday, an important consumer protection law, which Senator Lugar and I introduced and passed--and the Presiding Officer helped us with on the floor last year--went into effect. It provides Americans with free access to their credit scores, which is so important to understanding their own credit risk.

FICO--this is some good news in a day that has a few dark clouds hanging over it--FICO has estimated as many as 500 million credit scores will be given to Americans for free each year because of this important bipartisan law.

In working on this legislation, I learned a lot about credit scores: what they mean, how they are calculated, and how critical they are to economic success. But--and I am tying this back to our discussion today--it got me wondering, what would America's credit score look like if we defaulted on our debt? Nearly two-thirds of a credit score is based on an individual's total debt and payment history.

So here is how I think our great Nation would score if we do not raise the debt limit by August 2. We all know our debt is spiraling out of control. That is demerit No. 1. But if we now also are unwilling to pay our debts--demerit No. 2--we will be left with the credit score of a deadbeat.

I do not think that is the way we see ourselves or want to see ourselves in the 21st century's global economic race. We want to be at the head of the pack. We want to win that race. But to see ourselves as a deadbeat, that is not what America represents to me. It certainly is not the way Coloradans see us.

The people see this very clearly. They are ahead of us. They understand the risks we face. I wish to share a couple letters that Coloradans got into my hands just this last week.

Sarah Jane wrote me last week, and she was to the point. She said:

Dear Senator, I am furious about the games being played

with the debt ceiling. This is really abusive to this

country.

Another Coloradan, Nicholas, sent me an e-mail that said:

Dear Senator Udall, Republicans are calling for big cuts to

vital programs and refusing to increase revenue. This is

lunacy. As a native Coloradan, I and most others here work

for a living. We don't own yachts, planes, or mansions. The

thought of Republicans gutting the social safety net in order

to prevent millionaires and billionaires from paying a little

extra tax makes me wonder what we really value in this

country.

I could not agree more. We have some tough choices to make, but some Members of Congress are so lost in their ideological rhetoric that finding an agreement on our deficits and debt seems out of reach. It feels to me--I truly do not want to say this, but it feels to me as if some of our colleagues would be perfectly fine with shutting down the Federal Government out of the belief it has grown too large. They believe a catastrophic shock to the system is the only remedy.

But I have to say, our fiscal imbalances are not caused by the things they keep saying they want to cut. Foreign aid, Federal salaries, and other programs are a tiny percentage of overall spending. In fact, Appropriations Chairman Inouye, the dean of the Senate, the President pro tempore of the Senate, noted last week that ``in constant dollars, adjusted for population growth, non-defense discretionary

spending is at the same level in Fiscal Year 2011 as it was in Fiscal Year 2001, when the Federal Government ran a $128 billion surplus.''

The fact is, our fiscal imbalances are caused by three historical irregularities: record low revenues, an increasingly aging population, and heightened security needs in the wake of September 11. They each demand thoughtful and balanced solutions, and only a bipartisan deal will get us those balanced solutions.

I have to say, no matter how much bloated rhetoric we hear, there is one simple fact; that is, we are all in this together. But it seems to me often--and unfortunately--we are in the same canoe paddling furiously upstream away from the waterfall behind us off our stern, but half our crew has thrown their paddles overboard in protest.

I do not get it. I do not understand it. What is so agonizing is that we have a bipartisan solution right in front of us. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I was thrilled to see the Gang of 6 this week report a responsible, balanced, and very bipartisan agreement. I do not agree with every aspect of it. I do believe, however, that the plan would responsibly reduce our debt and protect our middle class, while also allowing our economy--not only allowing but incenting our economy to grow.

This plan has already received bipartisan support--not just here but across the country. It is my feeling rather than arguing we ought to be acting on those recommendations. Many of us just want to get to work. It is hot here. We have taken our jackets off and can roll up our sleeves. I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who share that sentiment even if others here are demanding they remain quiet about it.

There is no question that the fiscal challenges in front of us demand a bipartisan solution, but the clock is running, the sand is rapidly running out of the hour glass, and we have to get to work on making the necessary changes to get our fiscal house and its foundation in order.

Frankly, some issues should rise above partisanship, politics and campaigns--our country's economic and national security. By the way, the two are linked. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen--the Presiding Officer and I serve on the Armed Services Committee--made it very clear that they see one of our biggest threats as the country's fiscal situation. A broke country is going to be a weak country. So our economy and national security fall in the category that ought to be above politics and partisanship.

Cut, cap, and balance is wrong for our country. It represents more divisiveness, way too much gamesmanship, and more politics. Let's listen to our constituents. I shared letters from two of them from my State of Colorado who are pleading with us to get to work and focus our attention on the sensible, bipartisan Gang of 6 plan.

Let's combine it with a debt limit increase to ward off default and work together and pass it into our laws before our national credit rating is downgraded and it damages our chances of winning the global economic race.

That is what Coloradans are expecting of me, and that is what I expect of the 100 of us who are so fortunate enough to serve in the Senate. I am not being dramatic. I am not a particularly dramatic individual. But I have to tell the Presiding Officer and my colleagues that I think nothing less than the fate of the U.S. economy hangs in the balance.

I am willing to stay here day and night, weekends, holidays, to help put a long-term balanced and bipartisan plan in motion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a few days ago, I came to the Senate floor to honor one of Colorado's great educators and community leaders, David Getches, who passed away on Tuesday, July 5, 2011, at the too-young age of 68. Today, I would like to add further to my earlier remarks so that I may provide an even fuller picture of David's life.

This is more than a poignant moment for me. I originally had planned to come to the floor to discuss David's career and character because he was stepping down after 8 very productive years as the dean of the University of Colorado Law School.

We all have had this terrible experience in our lives when somebody whom we love and respect suddenly finds they have a cancer that is aggressive--beyond aggressive. Literally a month ago, David was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In the 4 weeks since that time, that cancer stole him from us. But he was always upbeat. He was always someone who we looked to for enthusiasm and inspiration. I will be inspired in my remarks by what he did. I will attempt not to dwell on his loss.

As I said, David served as dean of the Colorado Law School for the last 8 years. With him at the helm, CU Law became one of the most forward-looking institutions of legal training in the country. I want to share a few examples of his vision and leadership. I could not cover all of them if I had a full hour. I want to share some of them with the Senate and with his friends and admirers in Colorado.

He steered the law school through the construction of the new LEED Gold Certified Wolf Law Building, which put CU and its law school at the cutting edge of environmental sustainability and energy efficiency--two ideas that were connected to the values that David was committed to fostering throughout his career. David previously served as executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and as an adviser to the Interior Secretary in the Clinton administration. He had an extensive background in water, environmental, and public lands law. Through his work, David impressed upon all Coloradans the importance of good stewardship of our State's precious natural resources.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know David's efforts to teach and share the legal framework that protects our resources could not have been more critical to preserving our Western way of life.

David left a lasting impression on the demographic composition of CU Law School. He was committed to a student body composed of people from many different backgrounds and cultures, and that commitment made an indelible impact on the school and on Colorado's legal community. In 2008, the Hispanic Bar Association awarded him their Community Service Award for increasing Hispanic enrollment, and he also assembled one of the most diverse administrative teams of any law school in the country. He didn't stop there, however. He then created a commission to produce a groundbreaking report on diversity in the legal profession and how to increase diversity in law firm recruitment. The highly skilled and diverse alumni of the CU Law School reflect his efforts and successes.

Moreover, David built a legacy of access to legal education for all. He worked to expand scholarships and financial aid awarded by the law school to worthy students regardless of their financial background, increasing scholarship awards from $600,000 in 2004 to a hefty $2.1 million in 3 short years by 2007. This came during a period of time where David expanded alumni giving and oversaw a 110-percent increase in the law school's endowment. And all the while, he continued to recruit and retain top-notch faculty to guide students in their legal education and produce world-class scholarship.

In 2008, David worked with the Colorado State Legislature to pass a law allowing public universities to offer loan repayment assistance grants to graduates practicing public interest law and more recently founded an endowment to award grants to CU Law School graduates in the public sector. These actions reflected David's strong belief in training and inspiring future leaders to give back to their communities.

What David did by reducing the cost of law school was make public service a viable alternative to private practice for bright, idealistic graduates of the law school. Without question, those students, CU Law School, the State of Colorado, and I would venture to say the country will reap the benefits in the future from David's foresight and thoughtful investments.

David's contributions went beyond his tenure as dean, and he had more than an academic interest in the critical issues of our time, especially environmental protection, civil rights, and social justice. He put his social and conservation ethics to work every day, using the law to foster a fair and livable world. As a very young attorney with California Indian Legal Services, David represented tribal members in the State of Washington who were being arrested for exercising their centuries-old treaty rights to fish. David, alongside his clients, devised a strategy to breathe life into the legal promises made to tribes, and the results he achieved changed the face of fisheries and water management in the Northwest. His legal work helped create modern Indian law and will have an everlasting imprint on natural resources management in the Northwest. He later became the founding executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, the leading nonprofit organization dedicated to tribal sovereignty, economic self- determination, and defense of treaty rights.

David was passionate about protection of the environment, especially the spectacular landscapes, wild country, and treasured wildlife of the West. As a water law expert, David was visionary with respect to the changing needs of the West. He had a particular devotion to the Colorado River Basin and strove to find ways to meet human demands for the river's waters while conserving its fish and wildlife and other environmental values. He expressed his love for the West through service on the boards of directors of the Grand Canyon Trust, the Wilderness Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. He was the founding board chair of the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, now called Western Resource Advocates, and helped grow that fledgling organization into an important regional voice for clean energy and wise stewardship of the region's lands and waters. He gave his time, energy, and thoughtful creativity to each organization and all have expressed gratitude for his wise counsel.

It is also worth noting that even the vast expanse of the Western United States could not contain David. He even taught himself Spanish and published papers and books in that language, influencing water and natural resources legal developments in Central and South America.

I cannot help but feel that David was the living expression of the best of our ideals, a man of character and kindness, a modest but tireless achiever who preferred to be measured by his work, not by the accolades awarded by others. We were honored by his friendship and blessed by his many gifts.

At the heart of why I wanted to come to the floor today is that I think we know we can all learn from David's passion for giving back to whatever community in which he found himself. He led a life of service, and he also compiled an impressive academic record as well as serving as the dean of CU Law School. David cared about justice for disenfranchised communities just as strongly as he cared about the long-term health and sustainability of our natural resources. To David, these matters were intertwined. He was, at his core, committed to the future of his children, our children, our grandchildren, and his grandchildren, and he had a deep love for the Rocky Mountain Western way of life. He was an avid outdoorsman, he was fit, and he faced any and all physical challenges just like he faced intellectual and emotional challenges. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, he was a mentor to all of us, and he always had his eye on the future. I know, as painful as it is for all of us who knew him to lose him so suddenly, he would want us to be focused on the future.

David did this and much more for Colorado and our country, and I just want to close with this. We have lost a unique man and a towering Colorado figure.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of Colorado's great educators and community leaders, David Getches, who passed away on Tuesday, July 5, 2011, at the too-young age of 68.

This is more than a poignant moment for me. I had planned to come to the floor to discuss David Getches' career and character because he was stepping down after 8 very productive years as the dean of the University of Colorado Law School.

We all have had this terrible experience in our lives when somebody whom we love and respect suddenly finds they have a cancer that is aggressive--beyond aggressive. Literally a month ago, David was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In the 4 weeks since that time, that cancer stole him from us. But he was always upbeat. He was always someone who we looked to for enthusiasm and inspiration. I will be inspired in my remarks today by what he did. I will attempt not to dwell on his loss.

As I said, Dean Getches served as dean of the Colorado Law School for the last 8 years. With him at the helm, CU Law became one of the most forward-looking institutions of legal training in the country. I want to share a few examples of his vision and leadership. I could not cover all of them if I had a full hour. I want to share some of them with the Senate and with his friends and admirers in Colorado.

He steered this school through the construction of the new LEED Certified Wolf Law Building, which put CU and its law school at the cutting edge of environmental sustainability and energy efficiency--two ideas that were connected to the values that Getches was committed to fostering throughout his career. Getches previously served as executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and as an adviser to the Interior Secretary in the Clinton administration. He had an extensive background in water, environmental, and public lands law. Through his work, Getches impressed upon all Coloradans the importance of good stewardship of our State's precious natural resources.

Mr. President, I am not a lawyer, but I do know Dean Getches' efforts to

teach and share the legal framework that protects our resources could not have been more critical to preserving our Western way of life.

David Getches left a lasting impression on the demographic composition of CU Law School. He was committed to a student body composed of people from many different backgrounds and cultures, and that commitment made an indelible impact on the school and on Colorado's legal community. In 2008, the Hispanic Bar Association awarded him their Community Service Award for increasing Hispanic enrollment, and he also assembled one of the most diverse administrative teams of any law school in the country. He didn't stop there, however. He then created a commission to produce a groundbreaking report on diversity in the legal profession and how to increase diversity in law firm recruitment. The highly skilled and diverse alumni of the CU Law School reflects his efforts and successes.

David Getches also built a legacy of legal access to legal education for all. He worked to expand scholarships and financial aid awarded by the law school to worthy students regardless of their financial background, increasing scholarship awards from $600,000 in 2004 to a hefty $2.1 million in 3 short years by 2007.

In 2008, he worked with the Colorado State Legislature to pass a law allowing public universities to offer loan repayment assistance grants to graduates practicing public interest law and more recently founded an endowment to award grants to CU Law School graduates in the public sector.

What Dean Getches did by reducing the cost of law school was make public service a viable alternative to private practice for bright, idealistic graduates of the law school. Without question, those students, CU Law School, the State of Colorado, and I would venture to say the country will reap the benefits in the future from David Getches' foresight and thoughtful investments.

At the heart of why I wanted to come to the floor today was that I think we know we can all learn from Dean David Getches' passion for giving back to whatever community in which he found himself. He led a life of service, and he also compiled an impressive academic record as well as serving as the dean of CU Law School. He was, at his core, committed to the future of his children, our children, our grandchildren, and his grandchildren, and he had a deep love for the Rocky Mountain Western way of life. He was an avid outdoorsman, he was fit, and he faced any and all physical challenges just like he faced intellectual and emotional challenges. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, he was a mentor to all of us, and he always had his eye on the future. I know, as painful as it is for all of us who knew him to lose him so suddenly, he would want us to be focused on the future.

Dean Getches did this and much more for Colorado and our country, and I just want to close with this, Mr. President. We have lost a unique man and a towering Colorado figure.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are debating a specific resolution. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize NASA's STS-135 mission. As the Presiding Officer knows, at approximately 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, Space Shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to lift off from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida with a crew of four on board. The 12-day mission will deliver supplies, logistics, and spare parts to the International Space Station. This will be the final mission of the space shuttle era that began just over 30 years ago.

A Senator from Colorado may not seem like the most likely person to come to the floor today to speak about the space shuttle, but NASA and space exploration actually have quite a bit to do with Colorado, and it is something I care deeply about.

Colorado has one of the three top aerospace economies in the country, with a hand in every aspect of space--government, commercial and academic, civil and military. We helped develop the space shuttle and many of the missions that flew on it, and we are playing a major role in the development of the shuttle's successors.

NASA has been a source of pride for all Americans from its very beginnings. We have cheered their triumphs and suffered with them during their tragedies. All the while, we have been inspired by their mission of exploration.

The shuttle era is no exception. Ever since the first launch in April of 1981, the names of the space shuttles--the Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour--have become familiar to even casual observers. This is a testament to the vehicle itself and those behind it.

I would like to acknowledge all of those who have flown on the shuttle, the thousands of unseen heroes at NASA who support them, and the contractors at too many companies to name who make it all possible. Flying the shuttle is a true team effort. Everyone who has been a part of that team should be proud of what they have accomplished.

I see my colleague from Florida across the Chamber, and I know he is also very aware that this has been a team effort across the board.

I know I would be remiss at this point if I didn't mention those who paid the ultimate price for their service. We will never forget the images of the horrible tragedies that befell the shuttle, one occurring merely seconds after leaving the pull of Earth's gravity, the other just minutes away from being home again. We will always remember the crews of the Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia.

This milestone in the history of space flight forces us to reflect on what we have learned and where we are going. America is now in the unenviable position of having no U.S.-derived means of sending humans into space, including to vital assets like the International Space Station. For the near future, we will have to rely on our international partners, namely Russia. But that position will change. It must change, I would add. NASA is developing a successor to the shuttle based on important work done during the Constellation Program, and the burgeoning commercial sector is literally changing the way we access space as we speak. These complementary development tracks will build a more robust space exploration enterprise.

As the Presiding Officer knows, I have an interest in climbing mountains, as does he, and I have had the great good fortune to stand on the top of some of the world's highest mountains. I believe it is in our nature as humans to explore and understand the world around us, to keep stretching to achieve goals just beyond our grasp.

The shuttle has allowed us to reach farther than many ever dreamed possible. But the end of the shuttle era is by no means the end of exploration. At its heart, NASA is not about parts, it is about people. Even after the shuttle assumes its rightful place in history, legions of engineers, scientists, pilots, and other adventurers will carry its mission forward into the next phase of exploration. Keeping that spirit intact will be a fitting tribute to the space shuttle.

I wish the crew of STS-135 a smooth and productive journey and, above all, a safe return.

Before I yield the floor, I wish to add an additional note. In Colorado, of course, we have 54 mountains that are over 14,000 feet. We have countless peaks below that lofty elevation. But among the 100 highest peaks in Colorado, we have Columbia Point, which is named to commemorate the astronauts and the mission that ended tragically. We also have Challenger Point. Both peaks are in the top 100, both peaks are linked by a high ridge, and in the middle of that high ridge is Kit Carson Peak which is a 14,000-foot mountain. I have had the good fortune to stand on the summit of both of those peaks, most recently Columbia Peak in April, and the view is one that is worthy of us as Americans. As we go forward, let's remember the great successes of the shuttle program and build on them as we move forward as Americans exploring the world and exploring the universe.

I know my colleague from Florida shares those sentiments. I don't know that he is on the floor to speak on this particular topic, but I look forward to working with him, given the importance of the space industry and the space mission in the great State of Florida.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President.

I ask unanimous consent that the time of the debate of the previous order be extended until 7 p.m., with all the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business and that Senator Coons be allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Madam President, I believe we may be in a situation where we are exchanging speeches one side and the other. May I withdraw my unanimous consent request for Senator Coons?

Madam President, I came to the floor to deliver a speech on the debt ceiling and all the activity surrounding the need to increase our debt ceiling, but I took the time to listen to Senator McCain while I was here, and I have to say I agree with Senator McCain. We need a breakout strategy. We need cooler heads to prevail, and I think many, if not all, of us can agree our tax system is overly complex. It ought to be simplified. We ought to lower rates. We ought to end the loopholes and the subsidies and the deductions and let the free market reign. I look forward to working with the Senator from Arizona as we, hopefully--and hope sometimes is a strategy--but we get a broad agreement, we go big. We deal with our debt, we strengthen our entitlement programs, we reduce spending, and find ways to generate more revenues.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments.

I rise, as I just implied, because I think the fiscal challenges that confront us demand a bipartisan solution. Both parties approach the issues before us from very different points of view, but time is truly running out on our Nation's structural deficits and our long-term debt and the need for us to address those. I want leaders in both parties to show genuine commitment to action. How about if we set aside our talking points so we can get some work done. If any other Members believe the solution to our deficit and debt demands comprehensive and bipartisan solution such as the fiscal commission or the Gang of 6, I would invite them to come down to the floor and let our colleagues know we are clearly racing toward a crisis that seems like we can't let go of the partisanship and the political posturing that creates gridlock in the Capital City of Washington. It sure strikes me as childish. I think it strikes many Americans and Coloradans as that way as well.

We are more broadly having this debate because the time is upon us to decide the economic future of our country. Yes, we have to raise the national debt, but this is about our economic future, and this is the country we inherited by our children and grandchildren. Quite simply, we are not going to win the global economic race of this 21st century unless we start taking action now to improve our economy, grow American jobs, and get our debt under control. With these challenges, as large as they are facing us, this is the time to set aside our political differences and challenge ourselves to put our country first.

A few basic facts focus the attention. Our national debt is $14 trillion and it is growing. Today, each citizen's share of that debt is over $46,000 per individual. If we remain on this path, which is irresponsible, there is no question about that. The Government Accountability Office projects that by 2050, our Nation could owe more interest on our debt than the Federal Government raises in taxes in a given year, and our sky-rocketing debt is not only spooking international markets, but it is a serious threat to our national security. Listen to Secretary of Defense Gates or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, they will make that point in a compelling fashion. Look, we got here in ways that are not simple. But unquestionably two unpaid-for wars, two rounds of massive tax cuts, unpaid-for prescription drug benefits, and drastic rescue measures needed to address the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression have all contributed to the current situation.

The solutions are even more difficult. While we may disagree about the path forward, I think we all know in our hearts that we cannot get to a solution unless we all agree to come to the negotiating table willing to compromise to ensure that our country, the United States-- the largest economy in the world--can honor our bills and begin to pay down our debts. That is the challenge, that is the problem, that is the opportunity, as I see it, that brings us to the Senate floor today.

We began this year with serious and, I believe, earnest conversations about this in not one but two groups of lawmakers in the House and Senate. Yet, despite all the talk and a lot of hard work, rather than nearing an agreement, we seem to be coming to an impasse. In the last few weeks, the state of negotiations seems to have fallen apart, with key players choosing to walk away rather than compromise. We hit the same roadblock that always inhibits action when things get tough: Politics get in the way.

In fact, it seems as if everybody in the world except the Congress seems to know time is running out. Think back to April. Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. ratings outlook to ``negative'' due to the uncertainty over budget deficits and the debt ceiling. This month, Moody's piled on, warning that it too may downgrade the U.S. ratings outlook to ``negative'' as early as July--it is July 6--because of concern over gridlock in Washington.

I have to say the American people are running out of patience as well. Back home in Colorado, people are wondering what in the world we are doing in Washington. I was not up for reelection in 2010, but I was listening to what the voters were saying. They clearly said to us they want us focused on jobs, the economy, and the debt. And they want us to work together.

Consider the direction I got recently from Curt, who is a constituent in Arvada, CO. He wrote:

I am counting on you to put the interests of everyday

Americans above party politics and join your legislative

colleagues on both sides of the aisle in finding sensible

solutions to our long-term national debt problem.

Many more Coloradans have sent me similar messages. I got one from a Boy Scout, David, in Evergreen, CO, whose words were stronger than mine. He said:

I think the United States government should stop spending

unnecessary money. We should first focus on what is

necessary. . . . It is amazing how much money our country

owes. It is constantly going up! I just looked at information

about the United States debt clock, and I think this debt is

way too high. People in the federal government in Washington

D.C., are spending money as if they had all the money in the

world.

David, if you are listening, I agree.

No question, Americans want quality roads, a safety net for the sick and elderly, and strong investments in education and research that will spur innovation and good-paying jobs. But we need to commit to ensuring we have the financial stability to pay for them.

For too long, the American people have collectively been told by us here in Washington that they can have more of everything they want without us fully paying for it. But to preserve a promising future for our children--for Curt's children, for David--we are going to need to face up to some hard truths.

Fifty years ago, my father, former Arizona Congressman Mo Udall, supported what should only seem natural: tying spending directly to revenues. Let me give you a couple examples. If we want to give oil companies $1 billion in tax subsidies, then let's raise taxes by $1 billion to pay for them. The same thing, though, goes for overseas conflicts, agricultural subsidies, infrastructure, and, yes, even entitlements.

Coloradans from across my home State have told me they want to see their leaders try using some common sense--the kind of common sense Americans use when they are faced with the hard job of balancing their own budgets when money is tight.

As a Senator, I have successfully led the fight to end wasteful earmark spending, proposed measures to cut redundant government programs, demanded line-item veto authority for the President, and, yes, pushed--and I see my colleagues from the other side of the aisle here--for a very sensible balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. But these measures only serve as tools to get Washington to clean up its act, and that is not enough. We need to suck up our courage and actually make the tough budgeting decisions.

If we are going to get anywhere, we have to realize we all have skin in the game and we have to check ultimatums at the door--especially on issues such as Social Security and taxes. The challenge facing us is so great we cannot afford to let partisanship or electioneering get in the way--and both parties are guilty.

For example, we cannot seriously address debt reduction without looking at Social Security. If we do nothing, by 2036, Social Security benefits will have to be cut by 20 percent. Congress will undoubtedly be under enormous pressure to fill in that hole in lieu of telling seniors their benefit checks would be reduced. To say Social Security-- when you look at it that way--must be divorced from deficit reduction, as many Democrats do, is to ignore the problem.

In a similar vein, it is unrealistic to maintain, as my Republican colleagues do, that raising revenues cannot be a part of the deficit and debt reduction equation. We should all be honest enough to admit a simple fact: No amount of spending cuts alone will reduce our deficits without unreasonably harming Social Security and Medicare. For some to say that revenues should not be part of the deficit reduction picture is either a sign that they are not serious about getting our debt situation under control or they are being disingenuous about the dangerous implications spending cuts alone would have on our hard- working constituents who rely on these important programs.

What is so agonizing about the last 6 months is that we have a bipartisan solution in front of us, one that I know--I don't just believe but I know--would responsibly reduce our debt while also allowing the economy to grow and protect our middle class.

In December 2009, I know the Presiding Officer and I, along with a number of other Senators, pushed for the creation of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which was then chaired by Erskine Bowles, a North Carolinian, and Alan Simpson, a Wyoming resident. They did an exhaustive study of what it would take to get our debt under control, and last year they delivered a report on how to reduce the debt by over $4 trillion in the next decade and bend the curve back to a much more sustainable Federal budget situation. They comprehensively addressed all of the issues that must be on the table; namely, spending cuts, reasonable entitlement reform, and some new revenues. The plan has already received bipartisan support, including from Senators of each party who were members of the commission. Rather than arguing, we could be acting on these recommendations. And, look, if we do not want to follow those exact recommendations, let's all at least agree that everything must be on the table in these ongoing debt discussions.

Many of us here simply want to roll up our sleeves and get to work. I see some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I know they share that sentiment, even if our leaderships in both parties are demanding that we be quiet. But I think we can all focus our attention on a sensible, bipartisan plan, work together, and pass it into law before our national credit rating is downgraded and we damage our chances of winning the global economic race.

The Presiding Officer knows, my colleagues know, I am not a particularly dramatic person. But I have to tell you, I believe that nothing less than the fate of the U.S. economy hangs in the balance, and I am certainly willing to stay here day and night, weekends and holidays, in Washington, DC, to help put a plan in motion.

Madam President, thank you for your attention.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from Colorado, particularly underlining the salient points he made during his remarks. I think most important to note about Colorado is it is a third Republican, a third Democratic, and a third Independent in our political and electoral makeup. I think it drives us to find bipartisan solutions and bipartisan ground. That is why we came to the floor this afternoon. It was in the hope that our colleagues from both sides of the aisle would join us in the discussion about how we move forward, not just on lifting the debt ceiling, for the reasons Senator Bennet outlined, but for the reasons that we think are as follows:

We will lay a new foundation for our 21st century economy, we will send a message to the markets and the business community that we are serious about dealing with our annual deficits and our long-term debt. In effect, in doing such we will inject a healthy dose of confidence into our country, into our markets, and into our business community. Taking those steps will be a way of moving forward, as the Senator said.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague Senator Bennet.

My colleague and I hosted the Colorado Capital Conference a few weeks ago. We had Coloradans from all sections of the State, all walks of life. We had the three main political points of view represented: Democrats, Independents, Republicans. They remarked to Senator Bennet and to me, as well as hearing from a broad range of our colleagues who were gracious enough to take time to speak to our constituents and answer questions, that we all had identified the problem and we all had identified the solution, which was a comprehensive plan that we implemented together. We are here again on the floor this afternoon to call on all of our colleagues to join us in working together, finding that common ground, because there is a lot at stake but there is enormous opportunity. My colleague was a successful businessman in one of his previous lives, but he may want to comment on the capital conference as well.

If the Senator would yield, I would comment on two elements my colleague just alluded to. Let's talk about Social Security. There are those in our party who have said keep your hands off Social Security. I know what a strong and important program Social Security has been. It has allowed me and my wife to raise our children. My parents were treated with dignity in their latter years. They also had the assurances of Medicare. If we think because Social Security on paper is solvent, we ought to think again because there is $3 trillion owed to the Social Security trust fund by the Federal Government, and, yes, Social Security isn't responsible for that shortfall because we have taken those dollars and put them in the general fund, but that $3 trillion is going to have to come from somewhere. There are some commonsense fixes we can put in place that will protect and serve and strengthen Social Security.

On the other hand, we hear in the Chamber tax revenues, I should say more appropriately, are off the table. Every economist and every observer points out we cannot get there from here, there being a balanced Federal budget, without additional revenues. Why can't we start, as the Bowles-Simpson commission proposed, eliminating many of the subsidies and loopholes and special deals in our Tax Code that total something over $1 trillion. That is a great place to start. If we follow that with tax reforms, lowering rates for corporations and businesses, that is an even bigger step we can take. There is a broad agreement in the Chamber--certainly in our conversations with people across the country who represent their States here--those are commonsense steps forward.

I was proud of the Senate when five of the six Senators on the Commission voted for the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, not without some concerns, not without an interest in working to fill in and flesh out the plan, but five of the six Senators from across the political spectrum said this is a very good starting point.

Mr. President, Senator Coons would like to share his thoughts.

Mr. President, the Senator, in effect, is saying that rather than this being a problem, although it is, this is an enormous opportunity for the country to chart a new course. If we agree to do it first and foremost as Americans----

We thank the Chair for that notification. We look forward to next week continuing this conversation.

I wish to thank my colleague for joining me and Senator Bennet in this discussion this afternoon.

Mr. President, I will support the nomination of GEN David Petraeus to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Over the many years that he has served our country, he has proven himself time and again as a man of integrity, who will act in the best interests of the nation and--in this new position--the men and women of the CIA.

As one of the finest military leaders of our time, General Petraeus has been instrumental in the fight against Islamic extremism, playing key roles as Commanding General in Iraq and Afghanistan and as the Commander of U.S. Central Command. He has developed great expertise and deep knowledge of the threats we still face in South Asia and the Middle East. He will now take that expertise and knowledge to the CIA, where he will use different tools to face those and many other national security challenges around the world.

Despite my support for the general, I would be remiss if I did not add that I am concerned about a statement he made in answer to a question I asked during his Senate Intelligence Committee nomination hearing on June 23, 2011. General Petraeus has been on the record time and again explaining that torture does not fit with American values, that it creates new enemies, and perhaps most importantly, that it isn't effective. Yet he did not give a simple answer at the hearing when I asked him whether he sees torture any differently in a CIA context than in a military context.

Instead, he suggested that there might be a ``special case'' in which enhanced interrogation techniques might be an acceptable last resort option, for example, in the ``nuclear football'' scenario, where the government has in custody an individual who has placed a nuclear device under the Empire State Building, and only he has the codes to turn it off.

I understand the general's point that such a scenario--in which there is specific knowledge of imminent devastation--would be the exception, not the rule, and that it is a hypothetical one that might never occur in reality. He is certainly not the first to raise the ticking timebomb question in this context, nor is he the first to suggest that policymakers consider addressing this question in statute.

Perhaps it is time for Congress to weigh in definitively on the CIA's interrogation techniques. Today, only President Obama's executive order--not a law--prohibits the CIA's use of coercive interrogation, so it's possible that a new administration might decide to move this policy in a different direction. As I told General Petraeus at last week's hearing, I look forward to a debate and discussion with him about this important issue.

And as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I look forward to working with CIA Director Petraeus on our country's many intelligence and national security challenges.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act with the support of Senators Risch, Tester, and Bennet. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort.

This bill would provide funding flexibility to the states to help construct and maintain needed public shooting ranges, designated areas where people can sharpen their marksmanship skills and safely enjoy recreational shooting.

For a variety of reasons, the number of places where people can safely engage in recreational shooting and target practicing has steadily dwindled. This includes areas on our public lands. In an effort to establish, maintain and promote safe and established areas for such activities, this legislation would allow States to allocate a greater proportion of their Federal wildlife funds for these purposes.

Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This act established an excise tax on sporting equipment and ammunition that is used to fund many state activities, including wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety programs. Pittman-Robertson funds can also be used for the development and maintenance of shooting ranges. However, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act contains certain restrictions on the use of Pittman-Robertson funds that limit their effectiveness for establishing and maintaining shooting ranges.

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to adjust certain funding limitations so that States have greater flexibility over the use of funds available for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges.

To be clear, the bill would not allocate any new funding to the construction of shooting ranges, it would not raise any fees or taxes, nor would it require states to apply their allocated Pittman-Robertson funds to shooting ranges. Instead, by reducing the amount of other funds states would have to raise and allowing states to ``bank'' Pittman-Robertson funds for 5 years for shooting ranges, the bill gives States greater flexibility to use their existing Pittman-Robertson funds as they think best. Also as a result of this bill, States will be able to extend their existing license fee revenue and other State- generated funds on other important programs, such as wildlife habitat conservation.

Hunting and recreational shooting are an integral part of the Colorado way of life, activities that also are appropriate where not prohibited on our public lands. This bill is designed to improve the quality of the recreational shooting experience by promoting safe, designated places to shoot. In addition to the improvements this bill contains, it is my hope that the public land management agencies will continue to work with the States, sportsmen and women, the recreational shooting interests, local communities, and others so that these opportunities are safe and available.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act with the support of Senators Risch, Tester, and Bennet. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort.

This bill would provide funding flexibility to the states to help construct and maintain needed public shooting ranges, designated areas where people can sharpen their marksmanship skills and safely enjoy recreational shooting.

For a variety of reasons, the number of places where people can safely engage in recreational shooting and target practicing has steadily dwindled. This includes areas on our public lands. In an effort to establish, maintain and promote safe and established areas for such activities, this legislation would allow States to allocate a greater proportion of their Federal wildlife funds for these purposes.

Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This act established an excise tax on sporting equipment and ammunition that is used to fund many state activities, including wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety programs. Pittman-Robertson funds can also be used for the development and maintenance of shooting ranges. However, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act contains certain restrictions on the use of Pittman-Robertson funds that limit their effectiveness for establishing and maintaining shooting ranges.

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to adjust certain funding limitations so that States have greater flexibility over the use of funds available for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges.

To be clear, the bill would not allocate any new funding to the construction of shooting ranges, it would not raise any fees or taxes, nor would it require states to apply their allocated Pittman-Robertson funds to shooting ranges. Instead, by reducing the amount of other funds states would have to raise and allowing states to ``bank'' Pittman-Robertson funds for 5 years for shooting ranges, the bill gives States greater flexibility to use their existing Pittman-Robertson funds as they think best. Also as a result of this bill, States will be able to extend their existing license fee revenue and other State- generated funds on other important programs, such as wildlife habitat conservation.

Hunting and recreational shooting are an integral part of the Colorado way of life, activities that also are appropriate where not prohibited on our public lands. This bill is designed to improve the quality of the recreational shooting experience by promoting safe, designated places to shoot. In addition to the improvements this bill contains, it is my hope that the public land management agencies will continue to work with the States, sportsmen and women, the recreational shooting interests, local communities, and others so that these opportunities are safe and available.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Department of Defense Energy Security Act of 2011 or DODESA, that I am introducing today.

This bill takes a number of important steps toward addressing some of our most critical national energy security challenges. It authorizes increased development of alternative fuels and increased usage of hybrid drive systems and electric vehicles. The bill streamlines communication between agencies responsible for energy programs across the DOD, and authorizes DOD to examine where the greatest potential exists for renewable energy programs. And it authorizes DOD to determine how best to incorporate smart grid technology and to work with local communities to develop contingency plans in the event of a power outage caused by cyber attacks or natural disasters.

Simply put, this bill addresses the military's single largest vulnerability: Its dependence on fossil fuel. When you talk about that dependency in theater--you're talking about putting service members' lives at risk. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service men and women have been injured and killed each year in attacks on fuel convoys. Osama bin Laden reportedly called those convoys our military's ``umbilical cord.'' In the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen: ``Saving energy saves lives.'' He said: ``Energy needs to be the first thing we think about before we deploy another soldier, before we build another ship or plane.''

That dependence on oil also costs taxpayers a staggering amount of money. But our military's reliance on vulnerable energy resources is not just on the battlefield. At home, defense facilities rely on a fragile national grid, leaving critical assets vulnerable. The Defense Science Board found in its 2008 report, ``More Fight--Less Fuel'' that, ``critical national security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid.''

All told, the military spends $20 billion on energy each year, consuming a whopping 135 million barrels of oil and 30 million megawatt-hours of electricity. It consumes more fuel and electricity each year than most countries.

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

That is why we have introduced this legislation. I say ``we'' because this bill is the product of a joint effort with Congresswoman Giffords' office. Gabby is a great friend, and we introduced this bill together last Congress. This year, my staff has worked closely with hers on this updated version. This is an issue that is near and dear to Gabby's heart, and I know that she is eager to continue her work on it in the House.

I am very proud of this legislation for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, DODESA will help the Department of Defense cut fuel consumption and long-term costs.

Secondly, it provides authorization that will expand existing renewable energy studies and pilot programs through a Joint Contingency Base Resource Security Project. This project will help the service branches share lessons learned as they study the best ways to incorporate renewable energy sources and fuel reduction initiatives, such as the Marine Corps' outstanding Experimental Forward Operating Base, and the Army's Net Zero Installations.

Third, Colorado is leading the way in this commonsense area of energy security. In particular, I would like to highlight the leadership of Fort Carson, in my home state, which has been chosen as one of two bases to participate in the Army's ``Triple Net Zero'' pilot program. They are truly pioneers in this important work, and I appreciate all of their efforts.

In sum, our legislation will make America more secure, will save taxpayer dollars, and it will save lives. There is no single solution to our energy security challenges. DODESA is not a silver bullet that will solve all of our problems. However, it's part of a silver buckshot solution that will require multiple changes in the way that we do business.

We owe it to our service members and the American people to find ways to use energy smarter and more efficiently, and I believe this bill takes a number of important steps in the right direction.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Department of Defense Energy Security Act of 2011 or DODESA, that I am introducing today.

This bill takes a number of important steps toward addressing some of our most critical national energy security challenges. It authorizes increased development of alternative fuels and increased usage of hybrid drive systems and electric vehicles. The bill streamlines communication between agencies responsible for energy programs across the DOD, and authorizes DOD to examine where the greatest potential exists for renewable energy programs. And it authorizes DOD to determine how best to incorporate smart grid technology and to work with local communities to develop contingency plans in the event of a power outage caused by cyber attacks or natural disasters.

Simply put, this bill addresses the military's single largest vulnerability: Its dependence on fossil fuel. When you talk about that dependency in theater--you're talking about putting service members' lives at risk. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service men and women have been injured and killed each year in attacks on fuel convoys. Osama bin Laden reportedly called those convoys our military's ``umbilical cord.'' In the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen: ``Saving energy saves lives.'' He said: ``Energy needs to be the first thing we think about before we deploy another soldier, before we build another ship or plane.''

That dependence on oil also costs taxpayers a staggering amount of money. But our military's reliance on vulnerable energy resources is not just on the battlefield. At home, defense facilities rely on a fragile national grid, leaving critical assets vulnerable. The Defense Science Board found in its 2008 report, ``More Fight--Less Fuel'' that, ``critical national security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid.''

All told, the military spends $20 billion on energy each year, consuming a whopping 135 million barrels of oil and 30 million megawatt-hours of electricity. It consumes more fuel and electricity each year than most countries.

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

That is why we have introduced this legislation. I say ``we'' because this bill is the product of a joint effort with Congresswoman Giffords' office. Gabby is a great friend, and we introduced this bill together last Congress. This year, my staff has worked closely with hers on this updated version. This is an issue that is near and dear to Gabby's heart, and I know that she is eager to continue her work on it in the House.

I am very proud of this legislation for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, DODESA will help the Department of Defense cut fuel consumption and long-term costs.

Secondly, it provides authorization that will expand existing renewable energy studies and pilot programs through a Joint Contingency Base Resource Security Project. This project will help the service branches share lessons learned as they study the best ways to incorporate renewable energy sources and fuel reduction initiatives, such as the Marine Corps' outstanding Experimental Forward Operating Base, and the Army's Net Zero Installations.

Third, Colorado is leading the way in this commonsense area of energy security. In particular, I would like to highlight the leadership of Fort Carson, in my home state, which has been chosen as one of two bases to participate in the Army's ``Triple Net Zero'' pilot program. They are truly pioneers in this important work, and I appreciate all of their efforts.

In sum, our legislation will make America more secure, will save taxpayer dollars, and it will save lives. There is no single solution to our energy security challenges. DODESA is not a silver bullet that will solve all of our problems. However, it's part of a silver buckshot solution that will require multiple changes in the way that we do business.

We owe it to our service members and the American people to find ways to use energy smarter and more efficiently, and I believe this bill takes a number of important steps in the right direction.

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