Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I recognize Kirk Klancke, an angler and true Coloradan known for his commitment to preserving our environment and making Colorado a better place to live, work and play. Kirk was recently selected as a finalist for Field and Stream Magazine's prestigious Heroes of Conservation Award. He was chosen based on his leadership and commitment to an effort he has led to preserve the Fraser River. This achievement goes to show how important his water conservation work in the West has been, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge his significant contributions to the State of Colorado. Both Kirk and I have spent time enjoying the natural beauty of our State while appreciating the value of preserving it for future generations. Kirk's longstanding dedication to these values has not only ensured that we can fully enjoy what Colorado has to offer, but that our kids will too. His work embodies what I have long held to be true--we don't inherit the Earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children and the generations that will follow. Currently serving as president of the Colorado River Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Kirk leads a team improving watersheds, restoring trout populations and keeping our rivers and streams healthy. More specifically, Kirk has been instrumental in efforts to conserve waters of the Fraser River and ensure their use for generations to come. As one example of this work, he has spearheaded the removal of highway traction sand from the water, which impedes flows and the ability of trout to spawn. Colorado has reaped many benefits from his efforts as a capable conservationist that understands this delicate work and how to overcome the challenge of building consensus around water-use solutions. Among others, he sits on the Grand County Water Information Network Board and the Colorado River Basin Roundtable. Formerly serving on the Fraser Sanitation District Board of Directors, and now as manager of the Winter Park Ranch Water and Sanitation District, Kirk's contribution to one of Colorado's most precious resources--our water--continues to be vital to the health of the Fraser Valley community and our State's water supplies. I commend Kirk for his recognition as a Field and Stream Hero of Conservation, and I wish him well in his continued efforts to keep Colorado's natural resources healthy.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today we remember John Otto and the contributions he made to one of our State's natural treasures the Colorado National Monument. One of western Colorado's most influential historical figures, a trailblazer and ever an eccentric, he was unwavering in his commitment to opening up public lands for all people and generations to enjoy. Otto, a solitary man, took up residence in the commonly known Monument Canyon in 1906. There he began building the first trails in the area, working with tenacious skill throughout the rocky spires and smooth-faced red rock canyons, which were created by millions of years of erosion. Otto was among the first to truly appreciate the full beauty of this red-hued gem spanning thousands of acres across western Colorado lands. To President Taft, Otto wrote a letter carrying a message of the unique wonders hidden just beyond the fruit orchards and small settlements of the Grand Valley. His enthusiasm took hold and spread, and President Taft established the Colorado National Monument with the issuance of a proclamation in 1911. Otto singlehandedly scaled rock faces, hauled timber, and blasted through layers of Wingate and Entrada sandstone to carve out what would be the monument's first trails, and for $1.00 a month he would be the park's first custodian, ushering in people from every corner of the State and beyond to experience its natural grandeur. This year we celebrate the monument's centennial, and it is only fitting that John Otto be a part of the occasion. With the unveiling of his statue, the last in a series of five Legends of the Grand Valley, his story and that of the monument will be preserved in the heart of downtown Grand Junction for generations to come. I am proud, and Colorado can be proud, of the stewardship and dedication Otto modeled in his journey to opening up this special place in the West.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the recent vote on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 that just passed in the Senate. The issue of currency misalignment and manipulation has brought to the surface a myriad of concerns that face our country's workers and businesses. Coloradans are concerned that American businesses and producers are unable to compete fairly in the global marketplace when foreign countries keep the value of their currency artificially low. Those who have both supported and opposed this legislation agree that the artificial undervaluation of foreign currency has had a negative impact on the competitiveness of U.S. exports and that it needs to be remedied. In the case of China, numerous economists have estimated that its currency is undervalued by anywhere from 12 to 50 percent. The International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury are also among those who have determined that the undervaluation of Chinese currency is real. The implications of this artificial undervaluation include a detrimental effect on the competiveness of U.S. products abroad, making Chinese products artificially cheaper than U.S. products. The National Association of Manufacturers has affirmed ``that the excessive valuation of the dollar [relative to foreign currencies] simply prices U.S. exports out of the market.'' They highlight that their members ``have made it clear that the number-one factor affecting their exports is the value of the dollar.'' We can agree that artificial undervaluation of currency is a serious problem that harms our economy, our worldwide competitiveness, and our American workers. And it needs to be addressed. Yet the principle challenge here has been how we should ultimately go about making sure our economic partners, such as China, are honoring shared commitments to compete on a level playing field. I understand the concerns of both sides in this debate and I know that many American businesses that have a presence in China and across our globe are concerned about the potential for retaliatory action from China. These companies, many of which also face ongoing issues of inadequate protection of intellectual property, discriminatory indigenous innovation and other industrial policies that limit access to Chinese markets, are understandably worried that China would further restrict their markets to fair competition. I have also heard the frustration of domestic producers and U.S. workers who, together, produce a whole host of products in the U.S. and have felt the direct effect of being unable to compete fairly due to the discounting effect that China's currency undervaluation has on Chinese imports. All of these concerns are valid, and despite some of my Senate colleagues' disagreement on whether to support the legislation that came before us, the common denominator in this debate has been a desire for fairness. And I believe that we will move closer to achieving fairness in the market place with a clearer commitment to a market- based exchange rate from our trade and economic partners. As sovereign nations, we all have the economic well being of our respective countries at heart, but that does not justify the use of unfair trade practices, and we cannot turn a blind eye when this happens. Nor should we allow the specter of a ``trade war'' to distract us from the fact that China is not abiding by the international rules that were put in place to help prevent trade wars in the first place. China agreed to abide by these rules of the international community-- including rules about intellectual property rights and unfair restrictions to market access, as well as rules against intentional currency misalignment--and we should not accept their adherence to certain rules but not others. They all apply. After taking a closer look at the issue of China's currency undervaluation, taking into consideration the concerns that I have heard on this issue from a range of Coloradans, and reviewing the legislative proposal that was before us, I believed that the U.S. Senate needed to send a signal to China, and others who may be intentionally undervaluing their currencies. The message is that Americans value playing by the rules and that we expect our trade partners to live up to our shared commitment to compete fairly in the global marketplace. I ultimately came to the conclusion that this bipartisan legislation, known as the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011, was an appropriate way to send a signal that we are serious about working bilaterally and/or multilaterally, in a manner consistent with World Trade Organization agreements, to develop a responsible plan so that currencies identified as fundamentally misaligned can be valued appropriately based on relevant market factors. In the event that the misaligned currency goes unresolved, the legislation also authorizes the administration to take action to protect American businesses and workers from the discounting effect that the undervaluation of the currency can have on imports from the respective country. I believe that the mechanisms built into this legislation can promote a collaborative effort to address any undervaluation of a foreign currency, while also sending the message that we cannot allow American businesses to be undercut. My choice to support this legislation aligns best with the common sense and pragmatic thinking of Coloradans. Unfortunately, China continues to characterize efforts on the part of the United States to ensure a level playing field for international trade as ``protectionist.'' Supporting fair competition, fair access to markets and fulfillment of the commitments of our shared expectations among economic and trade partners is far from protectionist. As former President Ronald Reagan once stated, ``To make the international trading system work, all must abide by the rules.'' I urge China to act in good faith and to remain committed to reaching economic stability through cooperative action that encourages fair competition. The legislation I just supported is one component to reaching that goal, and I believe it supports the American businesses and workers who are propelling our nation to continue to be the leader in the global economic race.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I honor of my friend, Ernest House, Sr. I am deeply saddened by his death and I would like to take a few minutes to speak in his honor. Mr. House was a member of the Weeminuche Band of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe. He was born and raised in Mancos Canyon, CO, in what is now the Ute Mountain Tribal Park in the Four Corners region of our State. Mr. House is the father of Michelle House, Jaque House Lopez, and Ernest House, Jr. He is the grandson of Chief Jack House, the Ute Mountain Ute's last hereditary chair. Ernest House, Sr., held a prominent role in the tribe's leadership over the course of the last three decades, serving several times as chairman and also as a tribal council member. In addition to his service with the tribe, he was also a veteran of the Colorado Army National Guard of the Special Forces Airborne Group, and he worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Park Service through the U.S. Department of the Interior. I have admired Mr. House's leadership for many years. He was renowned across Indian Country for his gentle but effective leadership. At the heart of all of his efforts was the goal of improving the lives of his people, which he accomplished on a daily basis. His tireless advocacy for tribal businesses and enterprises led to the completion of several building projects, including the creation of the National Indian Health Service's Tribal Epidemiology Center in New Mexico. His eloquent testimony before Congress on the Dolores and Animas La Plata water projects led to the creation of two water compacts that are critical to the tribe's development. During the latter part of his career, Mr. House focused much of his energy on tribal safety, helping to increase the tribal police force from two officers to more than a dozen. Mr. House had a wide circle of friends within his tribal community, but he was well respected throughout Colorado and Native American communities across our country. I can feel the sorrow of his friends and family as we collectively grieve for the loss of a truly visionary leader, a kind human being, and a wonderful friend. His legacy of working across tribal, ethnic, and party lines is something we should all take to heart as we try to rise to the challenges before us. We are all shocked by the sudden loss of someone so important to our collective community. My uncle, Stewart Udall, served as Secretary of the Interior under President Kennedy, and he was also a champion for the rights of Native peoples. He once said that we are not measured by the things we accomplish but by how we treat people. In both regards, Mr. House was an outstanding person, and while he will be dearly missed, his legacy of dedication to his people will live on. We will think of him as we continue to strive to improve the quality of life for native people everywhere.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a Colorado common-sense approach to solving a national problem facing schools because of the current No Child Left Behind, NCLB law. Today, I am introducing the Growth to Excellence Act, along with my friend and colleague Senator Bennet. In my travels across the great state of Colorado, educators from Pueblo to Grand Junction have shared with me the difficulties and cumbersome burdens placed on them by NCLB. Although well-intentioned, NCLB has continued to suffer from under-funding and poor implementation, which have in turn hurt our nation's students. A major component of the current law is the measurement of Annual Yearly Progress, or AYP for short, for a group of students. Current law requires States to compare one year's class of students to the next year's class, and it fails to measure the progress of individual students over time. This is problematic for schools because it doesn't adequately represent true educational progress, focusing instead on anonymous students' test scores. Likewise, the information is meaningless to parents and students because it does not properly measure individual students' growth over time. Unfortunately, under current law, schools are punished when such groups of students do not meet the required level of AYP, even if individual students actually displayed substantial growth over that time. Our bill would fix that. Using the nationally recognized Colorado Growth Model as its inspiration, the Growth to Excellence Act would amend current law to allow all states to move toward an accountability system that measures student growth rates together with their attainment of college and career readiness. Growth models, which track students from year to year, provide schools, parents, teachers, and students alike with the information they need to see where individual student improvements have been made and where there is still room for continued learning. This legislation, I believe, will provide a proven system of tracking actual student growth aimed at preparing our students for college and for their careers, without unnecessarily punishing schools in a one- size-fits-all approach. This will ultimately improve accountability standards for teachers, principals and school systems nationwide as it will provide us with the data we need to ensure America's students are prepared to win the global economic race in the 21st Century. As Congress continues its important work on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I urge my colleagues to join both Senator Bennet and me in supporting the Growth to Excellence Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, before the Democratic whip, the assistance majority leader, leaves the floor, I wish to acknowledge the great work he has done in standing up for consumers and protecting their interests, and it fits the purpose for which I rise today, which is to talk about protecting our public lands and the importance they hold for all of us as Americans. They are really at the heart of the way of life we hold so dear in Colorado. In addition, I would like to talk about how public lands are important to an issue that all of my colleagues care about; that is, creating jobs. I know many of my colleagues, including the Acting President pro tempore, understand the value of public lands, but I wish to take a few minutes and list some of the reasons I think they are a vital thread in the fabric of our country. First, we are a nation of explorers and risk-takers, constantly in search of the next challenge to overcome or the next mountain, literally, to climb. Public lands, especially in the West, are a reminder of this heritage. I wish to also acknowledge in the great Northeast of our country, where the Presiding Officer lives, that we have mountains and we have extensive public lands as well. I know that same spirit is infused in the people of New Hampshire. But our public lands also benefit our communities across the country through the clean air and the clean water they provide. In urban and rural areas alike, open spaces filter and clean our air and water, improve the environment for surrounding communities, while lowering stormwater management and water treatment costs. Access to the public lands and the many opportunities they provide is a key reason why many of us choose to live in the West. I know this is particularly true in Colorado, where public lands and outdoor recreation are truly in our blood. It is also one of the reasons Colorado is one of the most active and healthiest States in the country and why I have been encouraging children and families across the Nation to get outside and stay active, especially in our national parks. The public lands are also, to coin a phrase, in our wallets. When discussing public lands, we cannot forget their importance to our economy. Our public lands have long been a source of economic value, and multiple use is a key component of the management of our public lands. An example: Extractive industries, such as oil and gas development and mining, will continue to be an important part of our economy in the West. But these uses are certainly not the only economic uses of our lands. Outdoor recreation: hunting, hiking, biking--the list goes on and on--are a major use of our lands, and outdoor recreationalists not only enjoy our land, they also support a large and growing industry of supply stores, manufacturers, guides, hotels, and other important businesses. In fact, in this time of economic uncertainty, outdoor recreation and tourism are two of the bright spots in our economy. I wish to draw attention to the chart I brought to the floor for those viewing the floor of the Senate today. In 2006, the Outdoor Industry Foundation found that biking, hiking, and hunting and all the other outdoor recreational activities add $730 billion to our economy every single year. Perhaps most important, this is an area of our economy that continues to grow. It has grown by more than 6 percent in 2011 alone and has outpaced U.S. economic growth more generally. These numbers tell a powerful story of the outdoor recreation industry's contribution to our economy. We hear a lot about the problems government causes, and there are certainly areas we can reform. We can streamline government, make it more efficient. We can get government out of the way where appropriate, and we can increase oversight where necessary. But when I was traveling my home State of Colorado over the summer, as the Presiding Officer travels her State, I heard a lot about how government is working. I heard about partnerships between national, State and local governments, private businesses and local stakeholders to preserve and protect our natural resources. These efforts are improving the lives of Coloradans. They are creating jobs. They are making communities better places to live, and they are building future economic opportunities. I wish to share a couple examples in that vein. In July, I was in the town of Creede, which is in the historic San Luis Valley of Colorado. Among other stops, I met with the Willow Creek Reclamation Committee. This is a wonderful example--this committee--of citizens at the local level coming together to take on a problem to create solutions. In this committee, there are retired miners, artists, local businesspeople, ranchers, vacation homesteaders and Federal and State officials who are working together to clean up pollution in their watershed. The narrow valley that is above Creede is lined with abandoned mines. While the area boasts some of the best examples of mining structures one will find in the Western United States, pollution from these abandoned mines hurts water quality. The pollution was so bad that residents in the area feared Creede would be placed on the National Priorities List for a Superfund cleanup, a prospect that any community that has faced it understands would hurt their tourism-based economy. So, in 1999, the residents formed this committee to do something about it themselves. They worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State agencies and many others and developed a plan to clean up their watershed. The plan they came up with is truly a comprehensive approach that recognizes the full value of their watershed to their community. What struck me most--and again I know the Presiding Officer senses and experiences the same spirit in her home State of New Hampshire--nobody was talking about whether they were a Democrat or Republican. They were not trying to wage political or partisan battles. They saw a problem affecting their livelihoods. They banded together as a community, partnered with the Federal, State and local government officials and they did something about it. Now their streams are healthier, their land is healthier, and their economy is healthier. I would like to bring some of that Creede pragmatism to Washington, DC. Our public lands are an invaluable natural resource. I hope we can come together in the Congress with policies and solutions to wisely utilize and conserve them. In that spirit, let me provide some additional examples of what we could do in the spirit of the people in Creede, CO. One incredibly successful government program that has been instrumental to the growth of outdoor recreation across the country is the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the LWCF. In fact, it has been proven over and over that every $1 of LWCF funding creates an additional $4 in economic value. LWCF was developed on the belief that as we develop and exploit our oil and gas resources, we should set aside also some land for hunting, fishing, and recreation for the enjoyment of future generations. So we as a country set up a mechanism whereby royalties from oil and gas leases were to fully fund LWCF projects. I have to say, instead of that mission being fully fulfilled, every year those dollars are taken out of LWCF for other unrelated government expenditures, leaving in its wake a huge unmet need in each State across the country. While royalties flow into the government coffers, LWCF has continually been raided, and its authorized $900 million of funding every year has been fulfilled only twice since 1964. Only twice since 1964 has that full $900 million been appropriated. Not only are we robbing future generations of critical open spaces and outdoor recreation, we are underinvesting in our assets, our public lands, that would drive job creation. I serve as the chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee. I have seen how these funds have been particularly useful to our parks, and there is no better example in my State than the creation of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. This magnificent park and preserve was made possible by LWCF appropriations that were obtained with very strong local support. Great Sand Dunes protects one of our Nation's great landmarks. It is also a source of tourist dollars for the surrounding rural communities. That is why I have joined with several of my colleagues, including Senator Bingaman, Senator Burr, Senator Baucus, the Presiding Officer, and others, to fight for full funding of LWCF. The point I wish to emphasize to my colleagues is that when we talk about natural resources, we are not just talking about beautiful landscapes and future generations. There are incredibly important economic benefits to preserving and protecting these lands. In that spirit, I wish to briefly discuss another key component of our public lands system--wilderness. Lands classified as ``wilderness'' are critical to our multiple-use management strategy. Some areas should be preserved as wilderness, just as some areas are better suited to mining, oil and gas development or off-road vehicle use. Wilderness provides opportunities for backpacking, fishing, hiking, grazing, and hunting, as well as protecting these precious landscapes for future generations. Wilderness also provides opportunities for our veterans to reenter and reconnect and heal. I have a column from the Denver Post yesterday that speaks to the ways in which veterans can reconnect to their purpose in life and to reenter society. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. It is an inspiring column. It speaks to the power of wilderness and wilderness activities in the context of our veterans returning home from standing for us in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Speaking of wilderness opportunities, just this last week I introduced the San Juan Mountain Wilderness Act, along with Senator Bennet. It is similar to a bill I introduced in the last Congress. My bill would designate--we have a photograph of this wonderfully inspiring area. This bill would designate 33,000 acres in southwestern Colorado as wilderness. It would also designate about 2,000 acres as a special management area and withdraw over 6,000 acres from mineral entry lands within the Naturita Canyon area. This bill is the work of extensive input and collaboration among and across every imaginable stakeholder group. I wish to particularly note the efforts of former Congressman John Salazar and his staff, who worked with the affected Colorado county commissioners, interested citizens, and my staff in developing this legislation over the last 4 years. It is crafted to take into account the various ongoing uses of these lands, such as for water supplies and recreation, while also providing strong managerial protection for these sensitive lands. I do not have to tell you, when we see this photograph, among many, that this region of Colorado is blessed with stunning beauty. Much of the land proposed for wilderness and other protections in our legislation are additions to existing wildernesses such as the Mount Sneffels Wilderness Area and the Lizard Head Wilderness Area. The bill also establishes a new area called McKenna Peak. This peak presides over imposing sandstone cliffs which rise 2,000 feet above the surrounding area. It also provides important winter wildlife habitat for large numbers of deer and elk, which then draw many hunters from all over the country every year. Over 30,000 recreational user days are recorded annually during hunting season in this one game management unit. That is a significant number of recreational user days. The bill would also establish the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. Since helicopter skiing currently exists in this area, the legislation designates the area in a way that protects its wilderness character but still allows this use to continue. This is, in my opinion, the type of flexibility that is a key for sound wilderness protection proposals and is a shining example of how protection can coexist with responsible use. What I am saying is, the bill has been carefully tailored and crafted to apply deserving protections to these lands. This is how wilderness should and can be done. Between all the benefits--clean air and water, recreation and economic growth--one would think Congress could work together and enact commonsense public lands legislation such as my San Juan Wilderness bill. But I am frustrated. I know the Presiding Officer is frustrated this Congress has not recognized the opportunities that are before us. Instead of what I saw happening on the ground in Creede, CO, it seems as if our politics inside the beltway are getting in the way of moving our country forward. A prime example of politics getting in the way, at least in the Senate--I will come back to why I say just in the Senate-- is a bipartisan bill I have introduced called the Ski Area Recreation Opportunity Enhancement Act. I worked closely with Senator Barrasso on it. We have an additional 10 cosponsors across the country. In the House of Representatives, Representative Bishop and Representative DeGette have championed this bill. Our bill would simply clarify that the Forest Service may permit year-round recreational activities, where appropriate, on ski areas on public lands. It includes no new Federal spending. I think that is an attractive element of the legislation. It would increase the money coming into the Federal Treasury because it would likely increase permit fees. The bill would boost year-round activity in ski resorts on public lands, providing more opportunities for outdoor recreation, creating jobs in the process and aiding the rural economies that surround ski areas. The bill is so bipartisan and strongly supported that it passed the House last night by 394 to 0. No House Members voted against the bill. Despite bipartisan and bicameral support for the bill, and the fact that it would create jobs, I have not been able to get this bill to a vote on the floor of the Senate. I am tempted to ask unanimous consent that the bill pass, but I will continue to work in the regular order to move the bill to the floor of the Senate and on to passage. I had a long career--if you want to call it that--as a high-altitude mountain climber before I came to the Congress. That experience prepared me to serve in the House and in the Senate in unexpected ways. In 1992 I was on the south face of Mount McKinley, known to the people of Alaska as Denali, as well. We were 10 days into what was supposed to be a 7-day climb. We were out of food. The only way to get down was literally to go up and over the top of Mount McKinley. The lesson I learned in that successful climb was, when you are faced with 20-below temperatures and high winds, the only way home is over the top. You have to work together to accomplish the impossible. When you do work together to accomplish the impossible, you find a way to make it happen. In some ways I believe that is the choice Congress has to make as we face these challenging times. We can either work together and find a way up and over the summit--passing legislation that will create jobs, fix our budget problems, and start working on the problems Americans face every day--or we can keep fighting with each other, in effect, starving the country of the leadership I know Congress can provide and that we must provide in these challenging times. Madam President, I close my remarks today by asking my colleagues to join me in passing this straightforward, bipartisan, and commonsense ski areas bill and to support full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I also ask my colleagues to work with me to enact locally developed wilderness proposals, such as the San Juan Wilderness Act. As we tackle unemployment and how to grow the economy, let's not forget the important role our public lands can and will play in the future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a Colorado common-sense approach to solving a national problem facing schools because of the current No Child Left Behind, NCLB law. Today, I am introducing the Growth to Excellence Act, along with my friend and colleague Senator Bennet. In my travels across the great state of Colorado, educators from Pueblo to Grand Junction have shared with me the difficulties and cumbersome burdens placed on them by NCLB. Although well-intentioned, NCLB has continued to suffer from under-funding and poor implementation, which have in turn hurt our nation's students. A major component of the current law is the measurement of Annual Yearly Progress, or AYP for short, for a group of students. Current law requires States to compare one year's class of students to the next year's class, and it fails to measure the progress of individual students over time. This is problematic for schools because it doesn't adequately represent true educational progress, focusing instead on anonymous students' test scores. Likewise, the information is meaningless to parents and students because it does not properly measure individual students' growth over time. Unfortunately, under current law, schools are punished when such groups of students do not meet the required level of AYP, even if individual students actually displayed substantial growth over that time. Our bill would fix that. Using the nationally recognized Colorado Growth Model as its inspiration, the Growth to Excellence Act would amend current law to allow all states to move toward an accountability system that measures student growth rates together with their attainment of college and career readiness. Growth models, which track students from year to year, provide schools, parents, teachers, and students alike with the information they need to see where individual student improvements have been made and where there is still room for continued learning. This legislation, I believe, will provide a proven system of tracking actual student growth aimed at preparing our students for college and for their careers, without unnecessarily punishing schools in a one- size-fits-all approach. This will ultimately improve accountability standards for teachers, principals and school systems nationwide as it will provide us with the data we need to ensure America's students are prepared to win the global economic race in the 21st Century. As Congress continues its important work on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I urge my colleagues to join both Senator Bennet and me in supporting the Growth to Excellence Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to join my fellow Coloradans, my colleagues in the U.S. Congress, and others across the country to celebrate and acknowledge the many accomplishments and contributions of the Hispanic community in the United States and especially in Colorado. I have come to the floor on several occasions to highlight the long history of Latinos in Colorado. The community's presence in our State precedes its statehood and Hispanic heritage continues as a vibrant part of Colorado's cultural and social landscape every month of the year. Today, I would like to specifically highlight the contributions Colorado's Hispanic community have made and continue to make to Colorado's economy and to our current economic recovery. More than 150 years ago, a gentleman by the name of Dario Gallegos established Colorado's longest running general store in San Luis, CO. The store has served Colorado's oldest town consistently for well over a century and today continues not just as an important fixture in the San Luis Valley, but also as a part of Colorado's cultural heritage. The efforts of entrepreneurs such as Mr. Gallegos and those who followed, serve as an example of the entrepreneurial spirit that drives Colorado's Hispanic community to provide valuable services to their communities that enhance all Coloradan's quality of life. Today, Hispanic-owned businesses of all sizes and type dot the Colorado landscape in every part of our state, whether rural or urban. I am proud of the success these businesses have been able to find in Colorado and equally proud that the Latino community continues to be a vibrant part of Colorado's cultural and social landscape. Hispanic businesses are a driving force in both urban and rural economic growth. Minority-owned businesses in the United States have increased twice as fast as all other U.S. businesses, and in Colorado, the number of Hispanic-owned firms increased by 40 percent from 2002 to 2007. This increase in Hispanic-owned businesses in Colorado has continued since 2007 and has helped sustain our State economy as well as stimulate job growth across the entire State's population. Minority- owned businesses are especially important to Coloradans because they provide jobs to Coloradans as well as valuable services that meet the needs of Hispanic and non-Hispanic communities alike. I was pleased that the Minority Business Development Agency and the U.S. Department of Commerce worked to establish the Denver Minority Business Center earlier this summer. This center shows the increased commitment to support minority-owned businesses in Colorado. The new Denver Minority Business Center will further promote the growth of minority-owned businesses in Colorado by ensuring they have the technical skills to access contracting and financing opportunities they need to succeed. Despite the tremendous potential and growth among minority firms, they still face the challenges that all businesses are facing in a capital constrained market. Also troubling is that research has shown that these challenges can be heightened for minority-owned firms. For instance, minority-owned firms are less likely to receive loans than nonminority-owned firms, making it more difficult for minority-owned firms to secure the capital they need to establish themselves. This is why the Denver Minority Business Center will be a valuable asset to our entire State. To help business owners start or grow their business, I introduced a credit union lending bill that would responsibly lift the cap that limits the amount of money credit unions can lend to small businesses. By doing so, new loans can help open the doors to new businesses and thereby create more than 100,000 new jobs across the Nation in the first year. This is another example of how we can support Hispanic and non-Hispanic businesses alike to continue to prosper. I understand that there remains much to be accomplished and I am glad that Colorado's Hispanic-owned businesses and workers are willing and ready to be part of the solution. I am proud to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. As we celebrate the many contributions of Colorado's Hispanic community to our State, I hope that we can draw attention to the need to cooperate so that we can find shared solutions to create a stronger environment for all businesses to thrive.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise tonight, as I have for many weeks now, to call for a bipartisan solution to our deficits and debt, for us to bridge--to use a term we utilize in Colorado--the mountainous divide in order to avoid defaulting on our obligations. Bipartisanship is a familiar theme in my home State of Colorado, and I know Coloradans agree with me that is the only way forward. My constituents have been flooding my office with calls of frustration urging me to keep fighting for a solution to this impending debt limit crisis we face. They know the stakes are high, and they know we have to compromise to get something done. As I have traveled my State over these summer months, I have not found one single person in Colorado who has demanded more partisanship and more dysfunction. But here we are, seemingly, on a Saturday night with just that. My constituents--Coloradans--are searching for answers and solutions. Yet all we seem to have here are more questions. For the life of me, I just do not understand why, when our economy is still fragile, we are so close, it seems, to sentencing it to additional turmoil. Those who know me know I am not quick to anger or to express frustration, but I just cannot help but join Coloradans in looking at the situation we are in with disbelief. We have hard-working and well- intentioned Members from both parties who are willing to do the right thing for our country, but partisan bickering is seemingly continuing to artificially push our economy closer and closer, literally, to the brink. It is easy to chalk this up to a broken Washington, to say Congress simply is unable to agree, but that ignores the truth. That truth is that a small minority of folks is bent on throwing sand in the gears of our legislative machinery. We extend a hand in the hopes of reaching an agreement, and then over and over this group rejects the idea of governing together and instead reaches for another handful of sand. The majority of us here do not agree with that. The majority of us in both parties do not want to default on our debt obligations. It seems to me our country's economic situation is like a patient who is just literally coming off life support: We are nursing our economy back to health, and the last thing we need is a self-induced heart attack. But that will happen in 3 days. In 3 days, our Nation is set to default on its debt. That is like an American family who would decide not to pay their bills or to quit making mortgage payments. I know it is a natural inclination, perhaps, to not want to pay those bills, but Americans know there are consequences to default and that it is irresponsible to turn a blind eye on bills that come due. It is important to note that these are bills we already have incurred, that previous Congresses--in fact, this Congress, you could argue, has already voted for and therefore has incurred. We have been here before. President Reagan raised the debt limit 18 times in order to enable the Treasury to pay our debts as they came due. They were routine. They were often voice votes, and when they were recorded votes, they were overwhelmingly in support of raising the debt limit so we could meet previous obligations. President George W. Bush raised it seven times. There were no conditions put on the raising of our debt ceiling. Let me take a second and be clear. Raising the debt ceiling is not something I want to do and I am sure anybody in the Senate is not all that keen to do it, but we do have those obligations. A year ago--a year and a half ago, I should say, more accurately--I agreed with Republicans and fellow Democrats that we should take advantage of a discussion we had at the end of 2009 about raising the debt ceiling, and we should take advantage of that by putting in place real measures to reduce our debt. I held out my vote at that time to raise the debt limit as a way to compel the White House to create a fiscal commission to address our long-term deficits and debt. I was really pleased when President Obama created such a commission. He nominated two great Americans--Al Simpson, who was a Senator in this very body, and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles--to head up the effort. I think, as we knew at the time--and we know even more now--these two men are patriots. They brought people together from both parties, and they came up with a $4 trillion plan--it was commonsensical--to bring in and rein in our debt problems. We applauded their efforts. Coloradans did; Americans all over the country did. They brought a commonsense approach, just as we would in our own personal finances. So when we approached our current debt limit this year and faced the possibility of defaulting on our debt, I joined Members of both parties in urging us here in the Congress to do two things: first, to address our debt limit problem to prevent a first-ever and completely avoidable default so America could and would pay its bills and secondly, enact a comprehensive and bipartisan $4 trillion plan based on the Simpson- Bowles deficit reduction recommendations so we would get our fiscal house in order, I should say for generations of Americans to come but for those of us here today as well. Now, if you look back on this, this in some ways was unpopular. Folks on the far right and the far left began to sow seeds of division in order to prevent compromise. People in our party objected to spending cuts and entitlement reforms, while Republican purists, such as Grover Norquist, complained about increased revenues. That brings us to the events of the last several weeks. Those of us who support a commonsense middle ground and who believe our country's biggest national security threat is our growing national debt know that both sides need to compromise and that we need a long-term, comprehensive bipartisan--bipartisan--plan to truly heal the fiscal illnesses that have beset us. This is obvious just looking at the numbers, but it became even clearer when our creditors and U.S. rating agencies began to question whether America was a creditworthy nation. Can you imagine that? They began to ask: Will America pay its bills? Will we be able to pay our bills or will we go the way of an Ireland or a Greece and other financially destabilized nations? To me, the answer is clear: A broke nation is a weak nation. If America is not only going to lead the global economic race but win that race, as we know we can, as we have done throughout history, we need to implement the Bowles-Simpson recommendations. With that knowledge, a smart group of people from both parties began working out a way to do so. But there was one huge impediment: Hundreds, literally hundreds of Members of Congress signed a pledge promising not to touch the Tax Code, putting tax purity ahead of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction. Even though the United States brought in a record-low amount of revenue last year, what they insist we do would--whether intentionally or unintentionally--balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, the elderly, and the disenfranchised alone. Even though the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended a blending of 75-percent spending cuts and 25-percent revenue increases, they seemingly, this small minority here in the Capitol, cannot embrace any plan that includes additional revenue. Even though our Tax Code is littered with literally thousands of special interest tax breaks and corporate giveaways that do nothing to create jobs, they cannot embrace, it seems, tax reform. Even though a bipartisan plan would send a message to the markets that America is ready to lead, and that Congress is capable of independent thinking and problem solving, they have rejected a bipartisan way forward, a way in which we govern together. So that plan sits idly. It sits to the side. All sides have tried other efforts, but they faced the same problems. Speaker Boehner and President Obama sought to strike an alternative grand bargain as a way to address our structural deficits and debt to avoid default. That looked pretty promising. But it appears to me that when the going got tough, the Speaker did not stay at the table. And when it became apparent that the corporations and the wealthy would have to bear the responsibility for balancing the books, the House Speaker walked away. Another chapter unfolded. Things looked promising when the Vice President and the House majority leader tried to reach an agreement on a deficit reduction plan. But then, when it became clear again that revenues had to be a part of the picture if we truly wanted to do something big and good for our country, they walked away from the table. Tax purity was more important than deficit reduction. Knowing that economists, market analysts, business leaders, credit rating agencies, world leaders, and the American people were imploring us, imploring us, to find an agreement to avoid default on our debt obligations, Democrats relented. We are now debating what the Republicans said they wanted, a spending-cut-only plan. I cannot tell you the depth of my disappointment that we could not pursue a truly comprehensive approach to reducing our deficits and debt, one that would set the stage to continue growing our economy and creating jobs. But in the name of compromise, I agreed that something versus nothing is better than default and further economic turmoil. But now it appears, on a Saturday night, a few hours from midnight, that even that is not enough. After putting together a plan that includes 100 percent of the Republican- endorsed spending cuts to avoid default, we are at an impasse again. We have got a plan here on the floor of the Senate that cuts $2.47 trillion from the Federal budget, without any revenue, not a single tax loophole is closed, and yet we still cannot get our House colleagues to help us prevent a first-ever default of the Federal Government. I have learned to not question the motivations of my colleagues. But I have to ask myself what is it they want now in the House of Representatives? And they want exactly, it seems to me, what the Bank of America, Standard & Poors, JPMorgan Chase, Moody's, and other economic experts have warned us we can least afford: that is, constant turmoil and dysfunction. They literally--whether they understand this or not--want us to walk our economy, America's economy, the biggest economy in the world, right up to the cliff edge of default over and over again. The markets and business leaders have told us they want to increase investment, they want to create more jobs, they want to get our economy back on track, but what they need is certainty. But it seems as though there are those in the Capitol, in our Congress, who have decided it is in their interest--political interest--to create uncertainty, exactly the opposite of what our markets and our business communities are telling us--the same Members of Congress, the same individuals who ironically complained that our President has not done enough to create jobs or spur economic growth. Yet we are perilously close, and they are perilously close, to cutting off the economic growth we need to create jobs. In the interests of being direct, if we default, this would be an economic catastrophe of our own making. It is not something beyond our control such as a hurricane, an earthquake, a tornado, a drought. We can avoid the impending chaos and the job loss and the downgrading of our retirement savings that is coming our way. If we do not, it will be because some Members of Congress were unwilling to take yes for an answer. Some Members of Congress right now are unwilling to take yes for an answer. But let me begin to close my remarks on a little more optimistic note. I want to be very clear. There are Members in both parties who are willing to be responsible. I was pleased to hear that Senator Alexander, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, say what would be best, instead of having a Republican plan competing with a Democratic plan, would be to have Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, and Senator McConnell recommend to us a single plan. Senator Thune said yesterday: I think if you look at the basic framework, it wouldn't be that hard to figure out something we could perhaps agree upon. I listened to Senator Isakson and Senator Murkowski express similar thoughts earlier today. So I think there is a real kernel here of optimism and a way forward. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot keep our focus on job creation and the global economic race. The rest of the world is not waiting for us. They are on the march. I am an old mountain climber, in more ways than one, and I can tell you, I have learned that there are some similarities between attempting some of the world's highest peaks and working here in Washington, DC. But the difference, I found, is that when the going gets tough here on Capitol Hill, it always seems as though not only do we face the challenges the mountain presents, but there is a team of saboteurs who are trying to push and pull you off the mountain. I have to say that I believe if all of us would turn away and frankly ignore the partisan campaign machines that are out there always churning, we could get something meaningful done here. The people of Colorado, from whom I take my instructions, and to whom I listen, have let it be known to me these last few days--and I think the rest of the Nation--they do not care who wins politically. Frankly, I do not care who wins politically either. What I care about is passing legislation-- meaningful legislation, long-term legislation--that will stave off a government default and a downgrade in our Nation's credit rating. Neither of those outcomes is not acceptable. At this point, the only plan, the only comprehensive plan, the only long-term plan that gets that done is the Reid plan. So let's focus on the Reid plan. I urge my colleagues to support the vote we are going to have--the historic vote we will have later this evening. Let's get it done. Let's get our country back on track. Let's win the global economic race.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the alternating blocks of time continue until 9:50 p.m., with the majority controlling the time until 9:20 p.m., the Republican side controlling the time until 9:50 p.m., and then the majority leader or designee be recognized.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m. on Saturday, July 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to concur in the House message to accompany S. 627, the legislative vehicle for the debt limit increase, and that the time from 1:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority and the Republicans controlling alternating 30-minute blocks of time with the majority controlling the first block; further that the time from 7:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 15 minutes and the majority controlling the final 15 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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, MO. She has been an invaluable team member, and I can speak for my entire staff when I say we are both excited for her to take this next step in developing her career and I am very grateful for the guidance she has given me over the last few years. It is for the Hillary Daniels of the world, who will be leaders of our country in the next decade and the decade after that, that I think we owe an obligation to getting this job done as soon as we possibly can, assuring the markets that the full faith and credit of the United States will be preserved and protected and nurtured. Let's turn back to job one here, which is to focus on our economy and job creation. The longer we are stalled out in a political crisis of our own making, the less we are concerned and focused on putting the American people back to work. Mr. President, thank you for your interest, thank you for your attention. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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