Floor Statements

Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes on Friday. The next rollcall vote will be Monday, September 19, at 5:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Community Shares of Colorado, a philanthropic organization that is celebrating 25 years of supporting Colorado's communities. In its years of service, Community Shares has demonstrated a tireless commitment to supporting Colorado's nonprofits and providing individuals with an opportunity to do the same.

Community Shares strives to connect Coloradoans of any economic background with organizations that inspire them. The organizations staff and supporters firmly believe that philanthropy should not be restricted to the most affluent, but rather should be extended to include any and all who are willing to give. Using this approach, they have brought together average gifts of $5 a week for a total of nearly $20 million in support of more than 100 nonprofits.

Furthermore, Community Shares has recently begun a program entitled ``My Colorado Project'' aimed at encouraging our kids and young Coloradans to develop the habits of philanthropy and social responsibility. This innovative program expands traditional donation to include elements of social media and creates an engaging virtual community that involves our young, emerging philanthropists in supporting their communities and causes they care about with a geographic, age-accessible online tool.

The organizations that Community Shares supports are local and dedicated to the issues that define Colorado, from protecting our abundant natural resources to improving health care and promoting community leadership.

I join the State of Colorado in thanking the staff of this organization for their hard work and dedication, and I look forward to its continued success.

Mr. President, today I recognize the 25th anniversary season of Music in the Mountains, a nonprofit classical music festival held in Durango, CO. This festival began in 1987 when Maestro Mischa Seminetsky assembled 11 musicians and offered 5 chamber music performances. Under the strong and capable leadership of executive director Susan Lander and current board president Terry Bacon, the festival has grown to more than 220 musicians, many of whom are esteemed first chairs from orchestras across the country and a number of world renowned soloists. The festival now offers nearly thirty orchestral and chamber performances as well as a number of nontraditional musical events.

In addition the festival includes a conservatory program that provides musical training and mentoring for up to 100 young musicians from around the world. In 2000 Mischa Seminetsky and then-board president Ann Flatten began the Music in the Mountains Goes to School Program to reach out to local school children for instructional sessions and miniconcerts. Since then Music in the Mountains has become a regular partner with local schools in Durango offering a variety of teaching programs and activities during the school year that impact the life of hundreds of young students.

This festival would be remarkable in any community; I take particular pride in its being held in Durango, a town of 14,000 residents in the southwest corner of Colorado. The festival is a key component of southwest Colorado's summertime economy providing important economic benefits for the region. Most of the performances are held at the Durango Mountain Ski Resort, a stunningly beautiful resort north of Durango in the San Juan Mountains and an enchanting place to listen to world class music. I congratulate Music in the Mountains and all the volunteers, musicians and community leaders who have made this festival a brilliant success over the last 25 years.

Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote on one amendment today. But I would first like to commend Chairman Leahy for his long years of work on patent reform, which culminated in final passage this evening of the America Invents Act. I proudly supported this legislation, and I am sure it's gratifying for the senior Senator from Vermont that the Senate overwhelmingly voted to send this bill to the President's desk.

But like most bills that the Senate considers, this legislation is not perfect, as I know the chairman himself has said. There is one major way that the bill we approved today could have been improved, and that is if we had retained language in the original Senate bill that guaranteed that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would be able to maintain an independent funding stream. For that reason, I commend Senator Coburn for his effort to amend the bill to revert back to that better funding mechanism. For years, we have asked the PTO to do more than its funding levels have allowed it to do well. And while the bill we passed today takes important steps towards committing more resources to

the PTO, I did prefer the independent funding stream approach.

Senator Coburn's amendment may have been the better approach, but I voted to table the amendment because it could well have permanently sunk this enormously important legislation. Sending the bill back to the House with new language that the House has rejected and says it would reject again would have, at best, substantially delayed the reform effort and, at worst, stymied the bill just when we were reaching the finish line. And this bill is important it can help our economy at a critical juncture and can even result in my state of Colorado getting a satellite PTO office, which would be a major jobs and economic driver. I also worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to include important provisions that will help small businesses. None of this would have been possible if we amended the bill at this late stage.

I remain committed to working with colleagues in the coming months and years to make sure that PTO gets the resources it needs to do the job that Congress has asked it to do.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and heroic service of SSG Lex L. Lewis. Staff Sergeant Lewis died on July 15, 2011, when his dismounted patrol received small arms fire in Farah Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Lewis was serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was 40 years old.

Staff Sergeant Lewis was assigned to B Troop, 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. Friends and family members remember Staff Sergeant Lewis as a soldier who truly loved the Army. His mother Betty said, ``He just liked being a soldier . . . this is what he wanted to do.''

After graduating from high school, Staff Sergeant Lewis joined the Navy and was first stationed in Japan. He joined the Army later, in 1999, and bravely served three combat tours--two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

Staff Sergeant Lewis's commanders and company-mates alike remember him as a soldier who exemplifies the proudest traditions of the U.S. Army. They often came to him for counsel and advice during difficult times. His decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, two Army Commendation Medals, five Army Achievement Medals, and two Army Good Conduct Medals.

Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.'' Staff Sergeant Lewis's service was in keeping with this sentiment--by selflessly putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He lived with a sense of the highest honorable purpose.

Mr. President, I stand with Colorado and people nationwide in profound gratitude for Staff Sergeant Lewis's tremendous sacrifice. He served proudly and honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan when his country needed him most. We are humbled by his service and his sacrifice. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending heartfelt sympathy and condolences to Staff Sergeant Lewis's family.

Mr. President, today, August 2, 2011, I wish to thank Joseph Conklin LaNier, II for his service to the United States of America as a member of the U.S. Navy during World War II, and for choosing to make Colorado his home. His has been a life of service for Colorado and for all Americans.

A native Southerner, Mr. LaNier was among the first African Americans to serve in the Navy with the rating of seaman, before President Truman signed the Executive order that desegregated the Armed Forces. He fought with the 23rd Special CB, ``Seabee'', unit, a part of the 3rd Marine Division, in some of the most horrific battles of the South Pacific.

I had the honor of meeting Mr. LaNier this past week during his visit to Washington, DC, with The Greatest Generations Foundation, a Colorado nonprofit organization that organizes trips for WWII veterans to return to locations where they have served.

We can all learn from Mr. LaNier. He entered the Armed Forces at the age of 17 in order to help support his family and serve his country. He served bravely from 1944 to 1946, supporting operations in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and achieved a rank not commonly held by African Americans at the time.

Upon returning home from the war and finding strict laws and practices of segregation still in place throughout the South, Mr. LaNier followed the advice of his father regarding the importance of education as the primary tool for bettering one's future, and finished high school. With the aid of the G.I. bill, he enrolled in the Pharmacy School at Xavier University in New Orleans and took heavy course loads to make sure he completed his degree in 4 years. Despite the challenges of segregation, he studied and succeeded in his career, while keeping a constructive attitude, a trait he attributes to the teachings of his father.

Mr. LaNier is a role model for the many servicemembers who reside in Colorado and the veterans who elect to make Colorado their home after serving in the Armed Forces. His story exemplifies the successful transition that many returning veterans have made from active duty to civilian life.

Although he is a native of the South, and has traveled to a number of locations in the United States, it struck me as interesting that, out of all the places he traveled while in the Navy, Mr. LaNier chose to make Denver, CO, his home. In his autobiographical essay, ``My War on Two Fronts,'' LaNier recollects that during a period of leave, he had a stopover in Denver, where in a relatively brief period of time, the State showed him its character. A White female clerk at a drugstore seemed to sense his hesitation about sitting down, and invited him to take a seat and enjoy his ice cream. Later, when visiting a local movie theatre, he was surprised and delighted to find that there was no sign directing him to sit in segregated seating in the balcony. Mr. LaNier felt so welcomed by our State that he decided to make Colorado his home after the Navy. Following his graduation from pharmacy school, he moved to Denver and worked in pharmacies and in hospitals, and eventually opened up his own drugstore. Mr. LaNier found that, in Colorado, his voice could be heard on critical issues of the day, including the fight for fair housing measures to end discrimination in housing. Today, Mr. LaNier and his wife of more than 50 years, Eula Inez Long, continue to make Colorado their home.

Mr. President and all other Members here today, please join me in honoring the life and continued work of Joseph Conklin LaNier, II. A man who, despite all the discrimination he faced, is proud to be an American. A man who, despite returning home after the war and being denied his right to vote while wearing his uniform, is proud of his distinguished service in the Navy. A man who recognizes that even in the face of adversity, one can find a way forward and help our country to become a better place, a more perfect union. For his perseverance, hope, service and patriotism, I thank and commend Joseph LaNier, a great citizen of Colorado.

Mr. President, on behalf of all Coloradans, I want to recognize the extraordinary character and lifetime achievements of Colorado native Paul Sandoval. His far-reaching accomplishments--from civil rights to community organizing to business and to his passion, education--show an unwavering commitment to making Colorado a better place, and reflect, in noblest form, the enterprising spirit of the West.

I am sad to tell my colleagues that Paul has contracted locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and the Sandoval family is going through a difficult time now. And as he struggles to beat this terrible disease-- and we need him to prevail--I cannot help but be reminded of all he has achieved in life, and all the social change he has helped bring about. To honor Paul and his many contributions, I would like to share a few moments from his life.

Paul and his wife Paula have for decades run a tamale shop in Denver--La Casita--that has served as the city's unofficial epicenter of political activity. According to Wellington Webb, the former Denver mayor whom Sandoval first met while the two worked delivering groceries, Paul could always be found ``holding court'' at his restaurant with firemen and city officials.

``I'm just a lowly tamale maker,'' Sandoval has grown accustomed to saying. But his life suggests there is

nothing ordinary about this accomplished man. A fixture in his community, Paul would make a name for himself by lifting up those around him. He cultivated enduring relationships in his community that propelled several generations of Colorado public servants. In short, Paul Sandoval has woven himself inextricably into Colorado's political fabric, and all Coloradans are the better for it.

Born in 1944 as 1 of 11 children to Jerry and Camilla Sandoval, Paul came from modest beginnings. Before he could even read newspaper headlines, Paul was selling copies of the Denver Post to help pay for his schooling at Annunciation Grade School in northeast Denver. From an early age, Paul thrived on the energy of those around him. By the time the young Sandoval finished middle school, he had helped his father win the presidency of the local meatpackers union and regularly canvassed for local candidates for office.

Paul graduated from high school in 1962, earning a scholarship to Louisiana State University. His education put him in close proximity to a fierce civil rights debate unfolding in neighboring Mississippi, where James Meredith sought to become the first African American to enroll at Ole Miss. Paul took up the cause and organized his fellow students for a bus trip. He participated firsthand in the demonstrations, receiving blows from the Oxford, MS, riot police.

Upon returning to Denver, Paul applied all he learned about the importance of equal opportunity in education to Colorado public life as well. He cofounded the Chicano Education Project, which focused on implementing bilingual curricula in schools and promoting civic engagement. During one trip to the San Luis Valley in southern Colorado, Paul met a young attorney named Ken Salazar who shared his passion for education. The two would become close allies for life.

Paul assumed his first official public role in 1974 when he successfully ran for a Colorado State Senate seat. He won the seat again in 1978. While serving in office, Paul became a leader in the educational community by personally sponsoring several Chicano doctoral students finishing their degrees. Rather than seeking a third term in the Senate, Paul pursued and won an at-large seat on the Denver school board in 1983, in which he would serve in a distinguished manner for 5 years.

After nearly 15 years serving in public office, Paul joined his wife and began serving Coloradans in a different equally satisfying way--at their tamale shop. And you can talk to anyone who has eaten there--you haven't lived until you've tried one of Paul and Paula's tamales with green chile. While I am in Washington during the week, one of the many reasons I look forward to getting back home to Denver is so that I can enjoy a meal courtesy of Paul.

A jack-of-all-trades if not master-of-all-trades, Paul has also remained a fixture in Colorado public life as a successful small business owner. He has provided invaluable advice to aspiring public servants. I cannot tell you how often I encounter people in my state who tell me how they have benefited from Paul's counsel and contagious enthusiasm. I can tell you that he helped me find my way as superintendent of Denver Public Schools. I have been truly privileged to know him, and I know I rank among many who are rooting for Paul and who stand by in support of his family.

Colorado is profoundly grateful for Paul Sandoval's public service. His efforts to advance the prospects of young Latino students and students of all backgrounds represent an enormous step forward in creating the next generation of selfless Coloradans who have been affected by Paul's unconquerable spirit. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Paul, his wife Paula, Kendra, Chris, Andrea and Amanda, his children, and his entire family.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and heroic service of a young Coloradan, SGT Nathan R. Beyers. Sergeant Beyers died on July 7, 2011, when insurgents attacked his convoy with an improvised explosive device in Baghdad, Iraq. Sergeant Beyers was serving in support of Operation New Dawn. He was 24 years old.

Sergeant Beyers loved the Army and he was proud to be serving our country. Born and raised in Littleton, CO, Sergeant Beyers graduated from ThunderRidge High School. He joined the Idaho National Guard a few years ago, and he was assigned to Bravo Company, 145th Brigade Support Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team.

He is remembered by family, friends, and servicemembers as a brave soldier, dedicated husband, and proud father. Sergeant Beyers and his wife, Vanessa Mary Beyers, recently had their first child. Vanessa said that he died ``doing something he loved.'' Hundreds gathered at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver to honor and remember Sergeant Beyers.

Sergeant Beyers' commanding officers immediately recognized his exceptional bravery and talent. He earned, among other decorations, the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and Iraq Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star.

Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.'' Sergeant Beyers's service was in keeping with this sentiment: by selflessly putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He lived with a sense of the highest honorable purpose.

Mr. President, I stand with Colorado and people nationwide in profound gratitude for Sergeant Beyers's tremendous sacrifice. He served proudly and honorably in Iraq when his country needed him most. We are humbled by his service and his sacrifice. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending heartfelt sympathy and condolences to Sergeant Beyers's family.

I thank the Senator from Alaska for allowing me to jump ahead in the queue. I will have a word to say about the issues raised by the Senators from Iowa and New York at the end, but I am rising to talk about an issue that is actually separate. I have been out on the floor week after week talking about the debt limit and debt reduction negotiations, but today I want to talk about another absurd and needless Washington-inflicted, what I can only think of as a mistake, and that is the partial shutdown of the FAA. This shutdown--while buried in the headlines--is affecting Colorado jobs and the economy across the United States. Unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, Congress's inability to resolve this impasse has caused the furloughing of thousands of workers nationwide and put at risk several very important summer construction projects at our airports in Colorado.

Earlier this year, the Senate worked together to pass a long-term FAA reauthorization bill. This important bill, which I supported, will modernize our Nation's air transportation system and reduce frustrating and costly delays. The American people would be astonished to learn how antiquated our system is right now. But the House and Senate conference committee have been unable to finalize the bill.

Last Friday, Congress failed to pass a short-term authorization measure to buy negotiators more time. Now certain FAA functions have been shut down. This shutdown makes absolutely no sense to the people in Colorado who rely on this industry for their livelihoods, their businesses, and travel.

I know the same is true in Alaska. It is more than that. Colorado has a short summer construction season--probably not as short as Alaska's, but nevertheless short--and many airports set aside the summer months to complete much-needed improvement projects, so this shutdown has come at the worst time for them.

In Loveland-Fort Collins Airport in Colorado, they are very near cancelling a planned runway improvement project. Loveland-Fort Collins is a one-runway airport. Officials had already canceled summer flights to accommodate a $7 million runway rebuilding project. Now they could be forced to shelve the project, which was bringing around 150 jobs to the area.

At Pueblo Memorial Airport--by the way, keep in mind this is about Washington's dysfunction. There are not big policy debates here. It is Washington turning its back on the rest of the country once again. At Pueblo Memorial Airport, officials have said they may be forced to delay a $12 million runway rebuilding project.

At the Durango Airport, officials are concerned that an ongoing $3 million apron rehabilitation project--which currently employs 30 Coloradans--will receive a stop-work order next week if Congress refuses to act.

At the Denver International Airport, one of the crown jewels in this country, officials are concerned that the shutdown will affect scheduled concrete and asphalt work on a runway and maintenance on passenger loading bridges.

These delays could affect the overall safety of Colorado airports and they are affecting jobs right now.

Nationwide, an estimated 3,500 FAA workers began to be furloughed this past Saturday; 27 of these workers are in Colorado. They were either sent home or forced to work without pay.

To his credit, Chairman Rockefeller recently introduced legislation that would allow the FAA to continue to pay those workers during the shutdown. I have cosponsored the legislation. I hope the Senate considers doing it today, but we need to do more than that. We have been asked to do more than the bare minimum by our constituents. We have gotten to the point around here where just keeping the lights on somehow is a success. That is a pretty low bar. It is a low bar to Heather Hilgers of Englewood, CO. She is an engineer. Airports hire her to complete construction projects so they can meet FAA safety standards. She wrote to my office:

Next week, if there is no one to reimburse the contractor,

the job has to stop. The stall is affecting engineering

contracts. The visible impact would be the construction

contractors' jobs.

Andrew Vogt of Denver, CO, is also an engineer. He wrote:

It's a frustrating experience that this whole industry has

gone through. We are hoping a long-term solution can be

achieved in short order.

As a professional engineer, certified construction manager

for airport improvement projects, there is literally no work

to do this year. . . . Put me back to work.

Jeff Campbell, also of Engelwood, CO--these are not government employees, by the way. We are talking about private-sector employees whose jobs and expectations and salaries and plans for their families are being put on hold by the games that are being played here in Washington.

Jeff Campbell, also of Engelwood, CO, is an aviation engineer who is involved with five projects that are being affected by the shutdown. One is the failing runway at Fort Collins-Loveland. He said 150 people, expecting to begin work next week, are about to be put on hold and the project will have to be rebid for the third time.

A lot of people in Congress talk about putting people back to work. They talk about fiscal responsibility. But this delay is costing thousands of jobs and an estimated $30 million a day in lost revenue. If this shutdown continues, these losses could dwarf the entire yearly budget of the EAS Program, which some claim is holding up the bill. Congress must not allow the debate over our debt limit or deficit to prevent action on a short-term FAA extension. Such inaction only proves once again to the American people how broken this place is.

It would be a terrible shame for Members of Congress to resolve this debt debate, adjourn, and board their planes home for recess without resolving this issue. What a slap in the face to people all across this country. On behalf of our constituents who make a much more forceful case than I ever could, I implore my colleagues and Members of the House to resolve this impasse and reauthorize FAA now.

The Debt Limit

With the indulgence of the Senator from Alaska, I want to take the opportunity to say a word or two about this debt limit discussion we are having right now. We face enormous challenges in our country right now. Our economy is almost producing what it was producing before we went into this terrible recession, but we have 14 million people who are unemployed. The great productive American economy has figured out how to produce what it was producing before with fewer people. But we have not figured out how to put people back to work. My own view is that we need to look hard at our Tax Code, our regulatory code, and other things to make sure we are inspiring innovation and job growth here in the United States and we are not just shipping it overseas and saying it is too bad for everybody who is here.

We are at the end of a decade when median family income has declined for the first time in our country's history. It never happened before. The cost of health care has gone up. The cost of higher education has gone up. It is harder and harder for the middle class in this country to survive. If you are a child living in poverty in the United States, your chances of getting a college education are 9 in 100 in the 21st century in the greatest country in the world.

There are countries all over this globe that sense weakness, that are trying to out-compete us, trying to out-educate us, trying to out- invest in their infrastructure while we play foolish political games. They are not waiting for permission from us to out-compete us.

One of the single greatest assets this country has had since almost its founding has been our bulletproof credit rating. It has been the fortress that is our full faith and credit of the United States. Financial transactions all over the globe, spanning decades, centuries, have been financed based on the

strength of our credit, the full faith and credit of the United States, and generation after generation of politicians has done everything they could to protect it, as any mayor in my State, as any superintendent of schools in my State, would do anything to make sure they protected the credit rating of their city or of their school district.

Now we face, for the first time in our country's history, a threat of downgrade, a threat that our interest rates would spike. That is not a political observation; that is coming from the credit rating agencies. They are not politicians. What the math tells us is that every 1- percent increase in our cost of borrowing adds $1.3 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years, making the problems we face today even harder to solve.

The President knows I have supported for a long time a comprehensive approach, one that would actually make a meaningful difference to our debt and to our deficit, and I will continue to fight for it, as will, I know, the Senator from Alaska. But it is time for Washington to move past these political games and reassure our capital markets that we are not going to be the first generation of Senators to blow up our credit rating over politics, to reduce the full faith and credit of the United States to rubble--for politics. I don't want to be somebody who, 30 years from now or 40 years from now where somebody comes and says: Hey, we detect you were once in the Senate, you were 1 of 100 people here when we compromised one of the greatest assets this country has.

I implore the leadership of both parties, both here and in the House, to work this out. Then let's get on with the tough discussion we have to have about our debt and deficit.

Mr. President, I thank again the Senator from Alaska for allowing me to speak ahead of him, and also for his leadership throughout this entire debate. He, like a number of us, has been working hard with Members across the aisle to try to get a bipartisan solution that is balanced and that makes sense heading toward the future. I thank him for his leadership.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have reached a point in this country's history that I never thought I would ever see, which is that the major credit rating agencies have all said that our credit rating is in jeopardy and that the United States may face a downgrade of its debt.

You and I both have had our issues with the credit rating agencies that failed to predict the crisis we were driven into by very poor business decisions. I can't even really call them business decisions-- horrible decisions that were made that drove our economy off a cliff, both here and in our financial markets, both in Washington among our politicians and among people who securitized debt, sold it off, and took no responsibility for it. Having said all of that, I don't think these agencies have any political incentive other than to shoot straight on this question of the condition of our debt.

One of the greatest assets we have always had as a country is the steadiness of our credit. Countries and investors all over the world use it to finance transactions that otherwise would be difficult to do because we have an AAA rating on our debt.

Now we are facing a downgrade because we cannot even have an adult conversation, a polite conversation about a path forward. People should be very clear about what this means. This is not just a Washington problem. If we blow through our credit rating and if our interest rates rise by 1 percentage point--just 1 percentage point--that is going to add $1.3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. If it goes up 2 percentage points, that is $2.6 trillion added to the debt over the next 10 years. That means we will continue to pay our borrowers interest and we will continue to underinvest in the children of this country, in our infrastructure, in our research and development--in all of what will allow us to compete in the 21st century. For what? Just to pay higher interest rates to people because we could not come to an agreement here in Washington.

I have spent the last 2\1/2\ years traveling around the great State of Colorado, a State which is complicated politically, which I enjoy, because we are one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one- third Independent. If I had to boil down the essence of what I have heard from people in my State about what they want us to be doing, it is that they want us to approach this question the same way they would approach this question. They want us to materially address the problem we have. They want a material solution to it. They know we cannot fix this overnight, a $1.5 trillion budget deficit and a $15 trillion debt, but they want us to fix it. They want to know that we are all in it together, that we all have a role to play to solve a problem that is too big for any one of us to solve or any group of us to solve. They want it to be bipartisan because they have no confidence in my State in either party's go-it-alone approach.

I would add a corollary to all that: We need to satisfy the capital markets that the paper they bought is actually worth what they paid for it and that the United States of America is going to stand behind that paper and is going to be able to stand behind the paper. This is one of the reasons I have supported an approach the Gang of 6 has brought forward--because it meets that test. It may not be perfect in all respects. I know there can be disagreement about it. But that is one of the reasons I have supported it. It is bipartisan, it is a measured approach, and I cannot say the same for the bill we are considering today.

Among other things, even if you thought this was a good idea, even the proponents of the legislation say it would take 10 years before this constitutional amendment would take effect. What we need to be doing over the next 10 years is figuring out how to get our fiscal house in order. I have other issues with it as well, but I think the point I want to make today is we need to work together in a bipartisan way to create a measured approach. You know what else. We cannot declare victory then even when we are able to say to the credit markets, you know what, we have had a disaster. This did not used to be our standard as Americans.

I know I have heard the Presiding Officer on the floor many times talk about the state of the American economy, and I agree with him and his diagnosis. If I had to pick one fact over the last 10 years from our economic life--and I see the Senator from Oklahoma is here, and I will wrap up in 1 minute. What worries me the most is that median family income has fallen the last 10 years for the first time in this country's history. It stagnated for a while before that, but it has fallen for the first 10 years. The average family income went up over that period of time. Median family income has fallen and the cost of higher education has skyrocketed, the cost of health care has skyrocketed, and it is harder and harder for the middle class to get ahead. Our economic production in this country is roughly the same as it was before we went into this recession, but we have 14 million fewer people doing the work because they are unemployed. We need to have a set of tax policies, regulatory policies, that is driving innovation in this economy and a policy to drive energy independence and make sure we are fiscally responsible.

Before I leave the floor, I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma who is here today. He and I probably don't agree on most things--we disagree about a lot of things--but I want to thank him and the other members of the Gang of 6 for the work they have done. I want to thank him and Dick Durbin, in particular--one of the more liberal members of the Senate--for voting for the deficit and debt recommendations that were made by the bipartisan commission that was appointed to the deficit and the debt committee. It took real courage for him to do that. It took real courage for Dick Durbin to do that. It is going to take real courage for the 100 Members of this body and for the Members of the other body to produce a plan to address this fiscal problem that no one would agree with every single aspect of but that we can come together and agree is worthy of the aspirations we have for our kids and our grandkids.

Time is very short. If we trip over this debt ceiling and if we fail to uphold the full faith and credit of the United States, no one is going to be asking any one of us what pledge we made about this or what pledge we made about that. They are simply going to observe when we were 1 of 100 Americans--out of over 300 million Americans--we let the unthinkable happen to this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to talk a little bit about our debt ceiling and our deficit and debt issues as well.

I wish to thank the Senator from Texas for her words of encouragement for the product that the so-called Gang of 6 read out this morning. It was a remarkable hour. To see roughly 50 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, set aside the talking points and try to come across a partisan divide to hear their colleagues who have been working for such a long time on a plan, a bipartisan plan, three Democrats and three Republicans, to really try to address in a material way our debt and our deficit was, to say the least, refreshing. I wish it weren't as unique an experience as it has been, but in the 2\1/2\ years I have been here, I can't remember as thoughtful a conversation as the one we had this morning.

I have said for months, month after month, week after week on the floor of the Senate, that I think I am pretty clear about what Colorado wants, whether it is red parts of the State or whether it is blue parts of the State.

They want a plan that materially addresses the problem we face. They know we can't solve it overnight because the hole is so deep, but they want us to move past the rhetoric and the talking points and actually start materially addressing the problem.

They want to know that we are all in it together. It took all of us to get to this point of a $1.5 trillion deficit and almost $15 trillion of debt, and it is going to take all of us to get us out of it, and the people in Colorado know that.

They want the plan to be bipartisan because they don't have any confidence in either party's go-it-alone approach on this particular set of issues and I think on many other issues as well.

The only corollary that I have added to all of that is we need to do something that satisfies our capital markets that their paper is worth what we have paid for it and that the full faith and credit of the United States is good.

We face something momentous at this moment in our country. I wanted to quote just three brief quotes from the rating agencies recently.

This is S&P, July 14:

Today's CreditWatch placement signals our view that, owing

to the dynamics of the political debate on the debt ceiling,

there is at least a one-in-two likelihood, 50 percent chance,

that we could lower the long-term rating on the United States

within the next 90 days. We have also placed our short-term

rating on the U.S. on CreditWatch negative, reflecting our

view that the current situation presents such significant

uncertainty to the U.S.'s creditworthiness.

It is important to realize this isn't just about the debt ceiling, although that is a very important piece of this.

Here is S&P continuing:

The CreditWatch action reflects our view of two separate

but related issues. The first issue is the continuing failure

to raise the U.S. government debt ceiling so as to ensure

that the government will be able to continue to make

scheduled payments. The second pertains to our current view

of the likelihood that Congress and the administration will

agree on a credible, medium-term fiscal consolidation plan.

Now, I have taken the view all along that we shouldn't make raising the debt ceiling contingent because it has been a ministerial act for most of our history; it is about debts that are already incurred, not about debts that

are coming forward. But I understand the politics in the moment and time, and the only point they are trying to make is that we have to do something material or we are going to be downgraded.

Moody's also says: The government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of Federal Government debt-to-GDP and debt-to- revenue beginning with the next few years.

They said we are at a unique inflection point.

I asked Chairman Bernanke the other day at the Banking Committee--I knew the answer, but I asked him anyway--when was the last time our credit ratings were threatened for downgrade. His answer was, not in the 20th century. And I said to him, well, we are now in the 21st century. The answer was, never. Never in our country's history, that I am aware of, has our credit rating--which is the envy of the world and one of the most important assets that we have as a country and as an economy--been threatened with a downgrade. And now we find ourselves in the position of potentially being downgraded because on the one hand we might not raise the debt ceiling--which I find unimaginable, but it is possible--and on the other hand because our politics look so dysfunctional to everybody who is watching this debate that there is real concern that we can never get to a long-term debt and deficit plan where the math actually pencils. What we know about a plan where the math actually pencils is it is going to require a comprehensive approach that involves discretionary spending cuts, both for military and nonmilitary, that requires entitlement reform and tax reform.

A number of weeks ago, Senator Johanns and I sent out a letter that said just that. We passed it around the Senate offices. There are 32 Democrats who signed it and 32 Republicans who signed it. That is a pretty big number around here, and that is a pretty bipartisan effort around here.

Then I began to despair because it didn't feel as if we were making progress toward the goal many of us wanted to get to, and then today we had this conversation with the Gang of 6, who I think have presented a plan, as the Senator from Texas said, that is not perfect, and everybody is going to have a disagreement about this piece or that piece, but does meet the three-part test by and large that I have come out to the floor and I have said time and time again that we ought to meet for the people of Colorado, which is whom I represent.

What I also know is this: At this remarkable time in the country's history, if we act in a way that leads to a downgrade of this country's credit rating; if we, the 100 people who are in the Senate at this moment, don't step up to make sure that doesn't happen, no one is ever going to care what pledge was made about this or that or where we drew the line in the sand. The only thing they are going to know about us is we allowed the full faith and credit of the United States to be compromised for all time. No generation of Americans, no matter how dysfunctional their politics was, managed to sacrifice that much of our future.

I believe the only path through this is a bipartisan one, and I believe the only path through this is a comprehensive one. I think that is what the people of Colorado want and what the American people want.

So I think today marked an important turning point in the conversation we are having around here, and I for my own part believe that if we are confident in the people who sent us here, confident enough to do the job they have asked us to do, we can make sure we don't erode the full faith and credit of the United States because undoing that is going to be the work of generations if we don't protect the work of generations that have come before us. And I feel confident that we can and that we will.

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

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

Madam President, like you, I have heard a lot of loose talk over the past months invoking the Founding Fathers--loose talk to underscore an expedient argument about what they would be doing if they were legislating today. But the way our Founders are often used is as a caricature to distort history for the benefit of partisan and narrow interests.

To hear some people talk about it, you would think the Founders were engaged in a process of dismantling a country rather than building one. That version of events is not only wrong but it also thoroughly diminishes the founding generation's extraordinary accomplishments and the lessons we should draw from them.

Our Founders met enormous challenges with great courage and sacrifice to start a country around an ideal. In the same vein, our modern history has been characterized by meeting great challenges with distinct qualities. We are hard working. We meet our challenges by refusing to allow their complexities or attendant political difficulty to lead us toward accepting failure as an option. We are inclusive. We meet our great challenges by meeting them as one, by crafting solutions that involve buy-in, participation, and sacrifice from all parts of the political landscape, and the American people.

We act with courage. We meet our great challenges when, and only when, the leaders of the day have the courage to decide they will be the ones who meet those challenges, that they will transcend the short- term incentives and political imperatives of their time to do something of greater importance.

These traits have enabled us to end a Civil War, overcome the Great Depression, and march toward civil rights. But they have also allowed us to do smaller and still very important things such as work together in the 1980s to protect and preserve Social Security.

Today, that honorable past and the sacrifice it entailed has been hijacked to protect and defend narrow interest group politics and tax loopholes.

Our tax and regulatory codes are backward, facing in a way that is straining our recession-battered middle class and failing to drive innovation in our economy. As a result, middle-class

income continues to fall, the gap between rich and poor grows wider, and all of us wait for a 20th-century economy to produce 21st-century jobs. That wait will be in vain.

It will particularly be in vain for those of our citizens unlucky enough to be born poor and who therefore stand a 9 in 100 chance of ever graduating from college in the United States of America in the year 2011. That is because year after year we have torn each other up so much on issue after issue, because of the smallness we have exhibited in the face of what our big challenges are, and now we find ourselves at a crisis point without a politics capable of even addressing the kinds of challenges we face each year, let alone a generational crisis like our deficit and debt.

I have come to the floor for months arguing for the need for a comprehensive approach to addressing our deficits and debt. What Colorado wants is nothing more than what this country has seen from past generations of leaders in past times of crisis. As I have said over and over, what people in red parts of the State and what people in blue parts of the State want is a solution that materially addresses the problem. They know we are not going to fix it overnight, but they want it materially addressed. They want a demonstration that we are all in it together, that everybody has something to contribute to solving the problem. They emphatically want it to be bipartisan because they don't believe in an either-party-going-it-alone approach when it comes to our debt and our deficit.

I add a corollary to that, which is that we need to assure our capital markets that the paper they bought is actually worth what they paid for it.

It was in the spirit of getting together on a solution like that my colleague, Senator Mike Johanns, and I wrote a letter to the President. Sixty-four Members of the Senate--evenly divided between both parties-- signed onto an approach that called for entitlement reform, tax reform, and discretionary spending cuts. The math compels this answer. The economy needs this certainty. Colorado and the country want this result. It should achieve the $4.5 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years and should have a 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases. That is what the Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended.

Our political system seems intent on thwarting an approach supported by Senators in both parties. Both parties seem willing to submit to that flawed system's perverse incentives.

While I am convinced that many in this body and the House would actually like to make this deal, these interests distort the conversation into a partisan war and rip it apart from the inside.

On one side, some advocate for no changes to the Medicare Program; on the other, for no changes to revenue. Yet these are among the two biggest drivers of our long-term debt--and everybody knows it.

Only in Washington could people pretend that significant deficit reduction could be accomplished while ignoring the two biggest fiscal challenges we face. I am a former school superintendent, and what that tells me is that Washington has a severe math problem. We are in need of remediation.

When it comes to a solution on the debt, the contrast between Washington's dysfunction and Colorado's common sense could not be clearer. Yesterday, I had a call with Colorado business leaders who spanned the ideological spectrum--both Democrats and Republicans--to talk about our deficit and debt. Despite their differing party affiliations, there was clearly a consensus that everything needed to be on the table when it comes to the debt--including both tax revenue and entitlement changes. But somehow this common sense gets lost in the current debate.

If changes to entitlements are off the table, we as leaders will fail. If changes in revenue are off the table, we as leaders will fail.

I turn to the American people watching this debate with worry or disgust and say: If challenges to our ideological beliefs or to the politics that historically define our debate are off the table, then as a generation we cannot meet the challenges we face, and we are not going to be able to support the aspirations we have for our kids and our grandkids.

This is about courage: courage on the part of Democrats who know refusing to touch Medicare is an argument we could win, but the price of winning that argument may be losing America's ability to pay its bills; courage on the part of Republicans who know revenues are unpopular but who secretly understand that we can't simply cut our way out of this budget hole. And in a moment of such crisis, this should be the least Americans can expect of us.

During the worst recession since the Great Depression, Madam President, it was my privilege to spend the last 2\1/2\ years traveling my State while we were going through this horrible economic turmoil. Americans and Coloradans have made gut-wrenching decisions in their personal lives--about where to send their children to school, how and where to live, what medicines they can afford, and what medicines they might hope to live without. Local officials have been held accountable to citizens for the decisions they have had to make. Yet Congress has struggled to reflect the ideals and aspirations of the people we represent.

This DC political culture serves special interests but it doesn't even register the needs of Coloradans. No business would sacrifice the economic interests of its shareholders, because the ones that do are gone. No mayors in Colorado would threaten their bond rating for political ideology--not one. It wouldn't occur to one of them to threaten their credit rating, because mothers, fathers, taxpayers, and everyday citizens would have their heads, and rightfully so. I think the difference is that no special interest stands between a Colorado local government official and the people he or she represents.

Having served in local government, I have to say what often seems to be an unattainable standard for a high officeholder is simply life in the real world for the rest of us. Last week, we came to Washington to cast a series of inconsequential votes. But by the end of the week, some of us were encouraged by the talk coming from the President and the Speaker.

My friend John McCain came to the floor pushing the need for a breakout strategy, referenced a Wall Street Journal editorial that called for a far more comprehensive and far-reaching plan. But now we learn a comprehensive deal feels once again out of reach. We are told we will have to settle for something small that one more time kicks the can down the road; that taxes and entitlements are just too hard for Washington politics.

I may not have spent enough time here to see through these political games. This may all be part of an elaborate strategy to get to yes. But I shudder--I shudder--when I wonder what investors, our creditors, and the American people think of this political game of chicken. Unlike Congress, they do not conduct their business with winks and nods, and they solve their problems before they become insurmountable.

All of which brings me back to our Founders and the political leadership of other generations past that made these enormous and difficult decisions. As for us, we have chosen to put them off time after time, and now we are at an inflection point where we need to get this done. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit and almost $15 trillion in debt. Revenue is at a 60-year low and spending is at over a 60-year high. And we have the path to begin to bridge this. The Simpson-Bowles commission has given us that path forward.

I am the first to say--and I should say--this debt is something we all own. I voted for things that contributed to it, as have all of my colleagues, and of all the things that comprise the debt, there is something each member of our great Nation wants or needs. We all share in the responsibility for how we arrived at this point.

So to be clear, if anybody thinks this is merely an attack on the institution, we need to understand this massive debt is something for which we are all responsible. Those who voted to fight the wars and to pass the tax cuts did so as a reflection of what they believed was a moment of truth. These decisions were not made in a vacuum. We got here because we aspire to be a society that is better than our competitors. We are all responsible. We are all responsible for the crisis that looms. But the inflection point we have reached has

led to a different mandate, a different moment of truth. The American people are asking us to lead.

This is a country of patriots, of incredibly courageous people who take on challenges little and big every day. I have tremendous respect for my colleagues and for this institution, and I am well aware that until about 6 months ago I had never even been elected dogcatcher. So I recognize how much I have to learn. But clearly--clearly--we are not living up to the standard of courage that past generations of leaders and every generation of ordinary Americans have set for us. Congress is certainly not living up to the standard the people of Colorado and of this country expect from us.

I wonder if maybe we have looked at this the wrong way. The President has put entitlement cuts on the table, and that is the right thing to do. I encourage him to do more.

As for the question of revenue, I will tell any politician that this is not the time to be wedded to the status quo. There is nothing magical about current revenue levels, about our Tax Code, or about all the loopholes and special interest perks that we account for only by borrowing more and more money.

But there is something else important to mention, which is also lost in the debate. We have waged two long and costly wars. I don't want to re-litigate today the wisdom of going to war. My colleagues in the Senate and House--many of whom are still here in the Congress--had to cast difficult votes to send our young men and women into harm's way. But regardless of your position for or against, Congress ultimately made a decision to layer those costs on top of our current budget. We did this instead of accounting for them as part of our annual expenses. That was the decision that Congress made, and it began our slide from surplus to deficit.

So for a moment let us separate the costs of these wars from the important and robust debate we are having about entitlement spending-- Medicare, Social Security, and our discretionary programs--and resolve a threshold question, or maybe two: Are we, as a generation, going to pay for these wars or are we going to continue to borrow from foreign governments and stick our kids with the bill? Are we even willing to make just a down payment on their incremental costs? Because that is what we are talking about.

The amount outlined by the Debt and Deficit Commission--$785 billion in tax reform--which, by the way, would lead to lower rates, doesn't even cover the incremental expense of the war commitments we have made. But it would be a good start. Are we willing to walk away from this moment and say we put the burden of fighting and dying in these wars on our sons and daughters, and at the same time leave the burden of paying it to our grandchildren?

And, after all, are we really willing to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States by failing to raise the debt ceiling for debts we already owe? This is not like cutting up your credit card. This is like getting your mortgage this month and saying, I'm not going to pay it because I spent my money somewhere else. Are we really willing to do that by failing to act comprehensively against our debt at a moment of global fragility in the capital markets? Would we risk all of this just for politics?

Interestingly enough, in their wisdom, the Founders understood and anticipated this very problem. They had a spirited debate about whether the Federal Government should have what they called ``a general power of taxation'' or whether we should have a system of ``internal and external taxation''--a system where the States could impose taxes but the Federal Government would be limited to collecting its revenue through duties on imports.

Ultimately, the Founders resolved the question in favor of the general power of taxation for the exact reasons that are staring us in the face today. So rather than talk about the Founders, I actually want to read what they said on this subject, in the hopes it will give us some guidance. Let me quote from Federalist No. 30. I apologize for the length, Madam President, but, as always, their words impoverish our own.

If the opinions of those who contend for the distinction

[between internal and external taxation] were to be received

as evidence of truth, one would be led to conclude that there

was some known point in the economy of national affairs at

which it would be safe to stop and say: Thus far the ends of

public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of

government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or

anxiety.

They went on to say:

Let us attend to what would be the effects of this

situation in the very first war in which we should happen to

be engaged. We will presume, for argument's sake, that the

revenue arising from the impost duties answers the purposes

of a provision for the public debt and of a peace

establishment for the Union. Thus circumstanced, a war breaks

out. What would be the probable conduct of the government in

such an emergency? Taught by experience that proper

dependence could not be placed on the success of

requisitions, unable by its own authority to lay hold of

fresh resources, and urged by considerations of national

danger, would it not be driven to the expedient of diverting

the funds already appropriated from their proper objects to

the defense of the state? It is not easy to see how a step of

this kind could be avoided; and if it should be taken, it is

evident that it would prove the destruction of public credit

at the very moment it was becoming essential to the public

safety. To imagine that such a credit crisis might be

dispensed with, would be the extreme of infatuation. In the

modern system of war, nations the most wealthy are obliged to

have recourse to large loans. A country so little opulent as

ours must feel this necessity in a much stronger degree. But

who would lend to a government that prefaced its overtures

for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance

could be placed on the steadiness of its measures for paying?

The loans it might be able to procure would be as limited in

their extent as burdensome in their conditions. They would be

made upon the same principles that usurers commonly lend to

bankrupt and fraudulent debtors, with a sparing hand and

enormous premiums.

I am going to paraphrase that in a minute. But it is almost as though Alexander Hamilton, who wrote these words in 1787, were sitting here today. And from the bottom of my heart, I wish he were. He closed the Federalist Paper No. 30 with an admonition to ideologues, writing that:

. . . [s]uch men must behold the actual situation of their

country with painful solicitude, and deprecate the evils

which ambition or revenge might, with too much facility,

inflict upon it.

As we have at other times in our history, we experienced the kind of evils that Hamilton anticipated on 9/11. We responded. And now, at this extraordinary time, it is left for us to get our house in order.

In truth, these are small decisions, when we consider them in the context of what our Founders faced. Their greatness is measured by the large task they took on and conquered. Ours is merely a junction between our own institutional impulse toward fecklessness and our individual love for our country and for our kids. When faced with similar decisions, families cut back; they sacrifice. And now we must do the same. Now, to paraphrase Hamilton, the last thing we need to do now is act in a way that jacks up our interest rates.

The 100 of us who are here in the Senate didn't create the system in which we operate. None of us decided it would be fun to have special interest groups scoring our every move or lobbyists hounding us about this or that tiny little provision or television channels reducing everything we do and say to a story line of endless minute conflict. And look, I understand what the incentives are here. It is possible we could fail and get away with blaming somebody else. It is possible cutting off our nose to spite our face could be a smart political move in this insane system. But there is a reason we venerate the Founders and Lincoln and the great legislative and executive figures of the last century. They were great not only because of what history threw at them, but because of the way they threw themselves at history.

They raised their hands. They showed real courage not only when they had to but when they didn't. They made themselves of use.

The Founders were practical people--dare I say it, Madam President, practical politicians searching for an ideal that became the United States of America, and they created in their practicality what Lincoln called the last, best hope of Earth. Think of that. Think of our actual history, not a cartoon, and imagine that we stumble, not because the Founders in their time failed to form a union but because in our time we failed to act as one.

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

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I report the passing of a brave soldier, loving son, dedicated husband, and proud father from Centennial, CO. CPL Brandon M. Kirton died on May 18, 2011, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when his dismounted patrol received small arms and mortar fire. This is one of the most strategically important areas of Afghanistan. He was 25 years old.

Family and friends remember Corporal Kirton as a warm, lighthearted young man. Robert Kirton, his father, said that his son's cheerful disposition at home provided a great contrast to the solemn commitment with which he faced his duties as a soldier. This makes perfect sense, Robert said, because Corporal Kirton had dreamed of putting on an Army uniform from an early age.

Corporal Kirton attended Englewood High School in Englewood, CO, where he was a member of the baseball and soccer teams. He enlisted in the Army shortly after his graduation in 2004, and he was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, KY. Corporal Kirton served a tour of duty in Iraq and one in Afghanistan--both with distinction.

His record as a soldier demonstrates the Army's proudest traditions of valor, commitment to duty, and strength of character. Corporal Kirton was carrying 70 pounds of gear when CPT Gary Flowers, his commander, first met him in Afghanistan in 115-degree heat. Captain Flowers offered to shoulder a bag for him, an offer which Corporal Kirton declined. He simply replied, ``Are you kidding me?''

Corporal Kirton's commanding officers immediately recognized his exceptional bravery and talent. He earned, among other decorations, the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.'' Corporal Kirton's service was in keeping with this sentiment by selflessly putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He lived with a sense of the highest honorable purpose.

Mr. President, I stand with Colorado and people nationwide in profound gratitude for Corporal Kirton's tremendous sacrifice. He followed through on his dream of becoming a soldier in the U.S. Army and served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan when his country needed him most. We are forever humbled by and indebted to the memory of his courageous actions. I ask my colleagues to join in me extending our deepest respects and condolences to Corporal Kirton's family.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate be extended until 7:30 p.m., with all of the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I wasn't going to come to the floor today, but I was in the chair and I have been hearing some of the debate that is going on about this debt ceiling and I decided that, once again, I needed to stand and remind people what this vote is about when we get to it. The Presiding Officer has heard me talk about this before.

Our failure to lift the debt ceiling is not like the United States cutting up its credit card and saying we are not spending money anymore. It is exactly like a household at home, back in Colorado, saying we overspent, we weren't careful, and we are not going to pay the cable bill this month even though we owe it or we are not going to pay our mortgage this month even though we owe it. Those are the kinds of things that in the real world lead in worst cases to bankruptcy but in a lousy case can lead to interest rates going up because the bank says we are not going to let people pay a lower interest rate for their mortgage because they are not a good credit risk. That is exactly what is going to happen to the United States of America if we renege on the full faith and credit of the United States.

That is why I was so pleased to see an editorial today in the Wall Street Journal called ``A Debt-Limit Breakout.'' The Journal observed that:

What this debate needs is a breakout strategy--to wit,

Republicans should answer Mr. Obama's tax call by accepting

his business tax increases in return for a lower corporate

tax rate.

The Journal goes on to observe directly--and by the way, I said this for 2\1/2\ years, the last 2\1/2\ years in Colorado--``. . . the U.S. corporate Tax Code provides the worst of both worlds: It makes U.S. companies less competitive'' because we have one of the highest rates, if not the highest rate, in the world, ``even as it raises much less revenue than advertised.'' Because there are so many special interest loopholes that even though we have this high rate we are projecting, we are not, as the Presiding Officer knows, collecting the revenue we need.

Finally, the Journal says:

Think about it.

Talking about these negotiations.

On the current path both sides are headed at best for a de

minimis deal that makes everyone look bad, at worst for a

major political crack-up.

I think the Journal has it exactly right, and I think both of those outcomes are unacceptable to the people of Colorado and should be unacceptable to the Members of this body. A de minimis deal that somehow gets us through this but doesn't actually address the fundamental structural issues we face is unacceptable, and a political crackup is absolutely unacceptable as well not because of the political fate of anybody in this Chamber, but because of what is going to happen to our economy if our interest resets because we have failed to deal with this debt ceiling issue.

I have spent a lot of time in the capital markets and I know that once those interest rates reset, they will be reset for the rest of my life. I am so worried the posturing and the politicking that has been going on in this Chamber is going to put us in a place where we actually run out of time to do the right thing.

I wanted to come down here today to say thank you to two Republicans who came out today. One is Senator John McCain from Arizona who came out with this Wall Street Journal editorial--and, by the way, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal article I have been referring to be printed in the Record.

Senator John McCain came out and said we might not like everything in here, but it makes a great deal of sense and we need a game changer to deal with this debt debate we are having right now. I wish to applaud him for that. When someone comes to the Senate they say a person can have two mentors, one is a Democrat and one is a Republican, but one has to ask the person if they will do it. I asked Senator McCain if he wouldn't mind being my Republican mentor and he thought about it a little bit, he came out on the floor and he said, I will take you to lunch. Even though he didn't exactly support me in my last campaign, he has given me a lot of advice over the last number of months. To see him out here today saying, you know what, we may need to think differently about this, gave me some hope that maybe we are not going to run out of time.

The other person I wish to thank is Senator Chambliss from Georgia who was speaking when I was sitting in the chair and said that everything needs to be on the table. This isn't a time to draw bright lines. It is a time to pull ourselves together, roll up our sleeves and do what is right. We have the outlines of a plan from the deficit and debt commission. I don't love everything in it--no one would love everything in it--but we have to find a way to compromise and come together for the benefit of our kids and for our grandkids, and I think importantly, in the short term, to give American business the confidence it needs to invest again in this economy.

There is $2.3 trillion of cash sitting on the balance sheets of our Nation's businesses. There may be a lot of reasons for that, but I know one is they are uncertain about our ability to straighten out the fiscal quagmire we face.

We have spent a lot of time on this, but we haven't made a lot of progress and we are running out of time. So I urge all of my colleagues to come to the floor in the spirit of people who want to work across the aisle, who are not interested in drawing these bright lines, and come to a big deal--not a small deal--one that gets to the $4.5 trillion that the deficit commission recommended or in that direction generally, and gives us the chance to feel as though we have done something useful for our kids, one that will give us the chance to feel patriotic, that we actually have honored the legacy of our parents and grandparents, and that we have passed along more opportunity to the next generation. I want the Presiding Officer to know, and I know he feels the same way, that we will work with anybody on the other side of the aisle to try to get this done.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.