Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up three Warner amendments en bloc: amendments Nos. 991, 636, and 638.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, was my amendment No. 991 reported in that bloc as well?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to speak to these amendments for a couple of moments. The first amendment, No. 991, targets improper payments and fraud in our largest entitlement programs. It is remarkable--every elected official I have ever met at any level of government often rallies against waste and fraud in government, and that means it so unusual that this budget we have before us leaves out critical funding to fight fraud and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and disability programs. The amendment I am offering today would restore all program integrity funding to the Republican budget to the levels allowed in the Budget Control Act. Program integrity activities have a proven track record of saving money. When we invest in programs that track and eliminate overpayments and fraudulent claims, we end up reducing costs and lowering budget deficits. For example, according to the Social Security actuaries, program integrity efforts to conduct ``continuing disability reviews''-- specifically to weed out beneficiaries who have recovered and are no longer defined as ``disabled''--saves taxpayers $10 for every $1 spent on program integrity efforts. I am introducing this amendment because this is a good use of taxpayer dollars and a critical way to ensure that the money we invest in important programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security disability goes directly to the beneficiaries who rely on them. Any elected official who has ever said that we ought to root out waste and fraud in entitlement programs should obviously be supporting restoring these critical funds. The second amendment I wish to raise is a bipartisan measure, No. 636, filed along with Senators Crapo and King, dealing with consumer data security. Recently, we have seen major data breaches that have affected hundreds of millions of American consumers, those who have shopped at Target and Home Depot, have accounts at JPMorgan Chase, or have received health care from Anthem. In the aftermath of the Target breach, working with Senator Kirk, we recommended that various industry groups in the private sector cooperate on information sharing to ward off data thieves. With continuous advances in technology, it is vitally important that we continue to strengthen our efforts to protect consumers from cyber crime by enacting smart, targeted protections. Our bipartisan amendment simply recognizes that we need to provide reasonable notification to consumers when their personal information is compromised and encourage greater cooperation and enhanced data security programs in the private sector to safeguard that data. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. Finally, I would like to introduce a third amendment, No. 638, along with my colleague Senator Ayotte, that mirrors language included in the chairman's mark of our last budget resolution. This amendment encourages Congress to act on the recommendations from GAO to improve Federal Government efficiency by reducing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. The Senate has a bipartisan history of working on these issues, and I think it is important that our budget resolution this year include our continuing commitment to this work. In 2010, Congress passed the bipartisan Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, or GPRA, which required Federal agencies to report how their money was being spent, as well as top priorities and possible avenues of consolidation within the agency. Last year, we passed the DATA Act, which works in concert with GPRA to further track how agencies are spending money. It is important that the savings from these actions go toward reducing our deficit. That is why the Warner-Ayotte amendment is actually a deficit-reduction reserve fund. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I yield to my good friend, the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to continue a tradition that was begun by my esteemed former colleague, the former Senator from Delaware, Ted Kaufman. Senator Kaufman would come to this floor from time to time to celebrate members of the Federal workforce who exemplify excellence in public service. In that tradition I want to honor a great Federal employee: CAPT Anthony Regalbuto. Captain Regalbuto is a constituent of mine from Burke, VA. He currently serves as the Chief of the U.S. Coast Guard's Office of International and Domestic Port Security. But, in fact, Captain Regalbuto has spent his entire adult life in service to the Coast Guard, with 31 years on active duty and more than 12 years as a civilian--a total of 43 years of service. In this role he has been responsible for addressing the security weaknesses facing our Nation's ports. He has also assisted other countries with improving the safety of their own ports. More than 90 percent of the imported goods of the United States go through our ports. The security risks facing the ports are many, and workers such as Captain Regalbuto help ensure they remain safe and secure from threats. For our Nation's ports to remain safe, we must ensure our foreign shipping partners follow established international port security requirements. So part of Captain Regalbuto's job is to make sure foreign countries that want to conduct business using U.S. ports adhere to these requirements. Captain Regalbuto has developed a solution--a model code that countries could use as a guide to strengthen their own laws to improve the security of their ports. He also oversaw the creation of the Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model. It helps the Coast Guard analyze and address major port security weaknesses by measuring a variety of factors. This risk analysis model has helped the Coast Guard evaluate more than 30,000 potential targets and 100,000 attack scenarios across the country. Furthermore, this data has helped to efficiently allocate more than $2.7 billion in grants where they can best help improve port security and get the best bang for the taxpayer dollars. CAPT Anthony Regalbuto is just one of many Federal employees. He also happens to be a Federal employee who would potentially be affected by Department of Homeland Security funding, which is the current issue on the floor of the Senate. One of the challenges, even as we move past this particular debate, is to make sure in these tight budget times--going back to the comments of the Senator from Indiana--that we husband our resources. We are going to have to do more with less. One of the things that is terribly important--as someone who has spent more time in business than I have in politics--if you want your workforce to do more, you find ways both psychically, monetarily, and through appropriate review to reward them. Too often Members come to this floor and sometimes tend to demonize our Federal workforce. Too often over the past few years the Federal workforce is the first to receive the cuts in funding. If we are going to make sure our country remains strong, we want to make sure folks such as Captain Regalbuto keep our ports and keep our homeland safe. We need to recognize their service and, by all means, make sure we don't put in particular the DHS through another ill-fated, politically driven government shutdown. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the subject of our debate today is that it is wholly inappropriate that at this moment in time some in Congress are deciding that they are going to hold hostage Homeland Security funding unless they get 100 percent of what they want. I think immigration reform is a terribly important issue. I was proud to join in one of the broadest, bipartisan votes in the past few years to pass bipartisan immigration reform. I was disappointed when our friends in the House didn't take up that legislation and pass it. Subsequent to that failure to act on the part of the House, the President has acted--and I believe there are even folks here watching these proceedings now who are beneficiaries of those Executive actions, some of the DREAMers. Now if this body wants to redebate immigration, that is a fair topic, a fair subject. And I, for one, would welcome that full-throated debate again. But it should not--it should not--be tied to a critical part of national homeland security funding. The remarkable thing is this is actually an area where both parties came to agreement on the size of the budget and the program prioritization. There was an agreement. But instead, extraneous items were added that now some are saying if we don't get these items we are willing to roll the dice or potentially shut down the most essential parts of our government at a time of enormous international and potentially domestic challenge. All of us, obviously, can come and speak about the unspeakable tragedies we saw reported coming out of the Middle East. We see as well challenges that ISIL presents potentially--not just in that region but to the homeland and in terms of trying to encourage homegrown terrorists. The notion there would be Members of this body or any body who would say it is okay to cut off funding to DHS at this moment in time is remarkable. The American people--as someone who just went through a refreshing reminder of what they are looking for through my last election process--do not want us to legislate in this way. They want us to get things done. They want us to actually find common ground. And on homeland security we have made the hard choices on where the dollars ought to come from and where they ought to be prioritized. But if the loudest voices get their way and hold this funding hostage, not only would it make our country more vulnerable to terrorist threats but a DHS shutdown would jeopardize our national security by disrupting other important programs, such as grants to train local law enforcement and to protect our communities. And as many as 240,000 people responsible for frontline security--more than 80 percent of DHS employees--will still have to show up to work--they just won't get paid for it. Many of them in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This is a threat to the homeland, it is a threat to our law enforcement, it is a threat in terms of our ability to respond to crises with FEMA, and there is threat even without those potential tragedies of the normal course of an American citizen as they pass through airports and other venues. Ultimately, for an agency that has been under some strain, these 240,000 people who are working hard to protect our homeland have to provide for their families. This is not the way this body should operate. I want to commend the majority for trying to say we will bring back an open process. But the notion that we will have a repeat of what we saw when we self-inflicted damage upon this whole economy when we shut down the government a few years ago because of an unwillingness of a few to compromise--if that is repeated now around homeland security, it would be a dreadful mistake.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. First, Mr. President, I commend my good friend, the Senator from Indiana, for his good work on laying out, with the Senator from Oregon, one approach on reforming the Tax Code and his willingness to look at this issue of our national debt. Let me echo, at $18 trillion--he cited some statistics--interest rates go up 1 percent. That is more than $120 billion a year off the top. That is more than we spend each year on the issues I am going to speak to--the Department of Homeland Security. The only issue I would raise with my friend is that we do need that grand bargain. But no one who has looked at this problem hasn't said: You are not going to solve it without revenues being part of the mix. You have to do entitlement reform. But even with the so-called revenues from the fiscal cliff, let me just point out that we brought the country to the brink of unforeseen financial areas. To raise $600 billion, well, in the past few years we have had unprecedented one-time revenues from the Federal Reserve north of $400 billion, $200 billion-plus that CBO counts as revenue from paybacks of Fannie and Freddie. We do not have the revenue streams. If we can get back to revenue streams from the late 1990s, revenue as a percent of our GDP, when the economy was booming and jobs were being created and there was bipartisan collaboration, I think that, combined with entitlement reform--to make sure Social Security and Medicare are truly sustainable for the next 50 years--there is a path there and I thank the Senator for his work.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for his comments. We might agree or disagree on the role the President has played, but that still doesn't beg the fact that we need to continue our efforts in this body and in the body down the hall.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Maine, and I would urge a voice vote as well.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Virginia Organizing, a group committed to challenging injustice by empowering people in local communities across the Commonwealth to address the issues affecting the quality of their lives. Virginia Organizing has been on the forefront of the debate on local, statewide, and national issues such as economic security for families, education, environment, health care, equality, poverty, and other social justice issues. Virginia Organizing and I share a common goal--one that I have spoken about many times--that all Virginians and all Americans should have a fair shot at success. We share the belief that all people should be treated fairly and with dignity in all aspects of life, regardless of race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, ability or country of origin. Both as Governor and now as Senator, I am proud to have served alongside a group who embraces and celebrates diversity. This year, during their 20th anniversary, I would like to recognize and thank the leaders, members, and staff of Virginia Organizing, who continue to work tirelessly to provide children, low-income residents, immigrants, veterans, retirees, people with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups with the resources that they need to have a fair shot. I appreciate their work for the people of the Commonwealth and wish them all the best as they embark on their next 20 years.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know a number of my colleagues are going to want to talk about our friend Mark Begich. When we came to the Senate--I see a number of folks here--we came in 2008. I see a lot of other Members who are newer Members as well. I think when you come in with a class, you get kind of confused about what is going on and you form a bond. I remember my first--our first--Senator Franken wasn't here yet, but Senator Merkley, Senator Hagan, Senator Bennet, and a number of others. And we were in Senator Durbin's office. There was still a question about what was going to happen in the election because there were thousands of votes out. So being giddy new Members, we got on the phone to call Senator Begich to say we wish him well and we are counting on him. He said: Hey, Jacob and I are leaving on vacation because I already know where the votes are coming from. I am going to be there. He knew his State that well. As someone who is a former chief executive and as some others here who are former chief executives, I remember him coming here, and many of us new Members were kind of scratching our heads about the notion of how this institution would work or didn't work sometimes. But, as Senator Begich mentioned and as Senator Murray mentioned at our dinner the other night, there are a lot of people in this body who are chronic optimists. I am blessed to have an optimist in my colleague Senator Kaine. I don't always fit in that category. But Senator Begich, week in and week out, would always try to remind us that it is not quite as bleak as it might seem at the moment, that there was good news and there was progress being made. I think, looking back, I am not sure some of us fully realized, particularly that first year and a half or two when so many things happened--controversial things and things that are still being relitigated in many ways but that have allowed this country to make progress, and Senator Begich was an incredibly important part of that. He was also, as one of the newer Members, liaison to management. So whenever anything didn't happen right with leadership, it was always the fault of Senator Begich. But I just want to say--and I know Senator Hagan was here a little bit earlier--I fear at times that our elections are almost becoming like parliamentary elections in the other countries where people are voting for or against a leader not based upon what a leader has done individually--such as Senator Landrieu and all the things she has done for Louisiana, Lord knows--but, as Senator Begich just mentioned, there was not a bill or an issue where he didn't find an Alaska connection and where he didn't make a difference for the people of his great State. So I know I am just the first of many who want to say to my colleague, to my friend, to a great Senator, Godspeed.

Mr. WARNER. He was also a lieutenant governor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to follow the comments of my friend, the Senator from Indiana, although I do think the Record should be corrected. I would say to my colleague I have also dealt with the Senator from Louisiana a number of times on a number of issues, and I have thought of lots of words to describe her style, but ``gentle'' would not be one to come to mind. I know this is a day to pay tribute, so I wish to echo some of the comments of the Senator from Indiana. I first met part of the Landrieu family when I had a chance to meet Mary's dad when he was serving as the Secretary of HUD and I was a young staff person. Mary talks a lot about her family. Her family was kind enough to host me a variety of times when I was in Louisiana. She has a great family, a great tradition. So many folks have spoken about specific issues regarding Mary's service in the Senate. I am not going to talk about her focus on issues and the relentlessness she brings, but I wish to acknowledge her generosity and heart and spirit. She and Frank would always open their home for whatever cause. Again, I heard the comments about her enormous heart and commitment for adoption. I think about so many events that we go to, but those Angels of Adoption events at her house touched all of us in a way that is not often the case. I also can acknowledge now that she has a great love for the Commonwealth of Virginia and has spent some time there due to her love of horses and her daughter's riding and her own riding. As has been mentioned by so many--and I know from our own conversations--this is not somebody who wants to look backward but is clearly already looking forward. I know life holds for you and Frank a number of extraordinarily exciting additional chapters. I hope I have the opportunity to be a part of those chapters and to be subject to that gentle persuasion on whatever issue comes to mind as you go forward. I know I speak for so many of our colleagues when I say we all have a lot of unique characteristics, but with Mary Landrieu they broke the mold. I yield the floor to my good friend the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wanted to rise very briefly because I know Senator Chambliss is about to give his farewell speech. I commend my dear good friend the Senator from Georgia for his service. I am going to stay through his speech, but I know there will be others who will probably rise afterwards to give accolades, and I wanted to be first in line to salute him for his service, his friendship to so many of us in this body, and my personal good wishes for his future. I know there will be others later; I thought for a change I would get a word in first. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his comments and I will be happy to take the Senator and his whole family out to the bay again. I thank the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Alaska for working together. That is the way this is supposed to work. There are duck hunters in Virginia as well and they firmly support this legislation. I appreciate also the special considerations that need to be addressed in terms of the State of Alaska. I ask unanimous consent that the EPW Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1000, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration and the consideration of H.R. 5069, which is at the desk, en bloc.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, in a moment I am going to be asking a unanimous consent request on some legislation that combines some work I have been doing and work the ranking member of the EPW Committee, my friend, the Senator from Alaska, has been doing. I want to make a brief statement first and then I am going to turn the floor over to the Senator from Louisiana. I start by thanking Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for working with me on this important legislation. I also thank the bipartisan Virginia delegation on both sides of the Capitol, especially my friend Congressman Rob Wittman. He and I have worked on this initiative now for more than 4 years. As we all know, the Chesapeake Bay, while located around Virginia and Maryland and Delaware, is actually a national treasure. It is the centerpiece of the culture and economy of many coastal communities in Virginia and in several neighboring States. Restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay must be a national priority. Virginia and five other States, the District of Columbia, 10 Federal agencies, and more than 1,000 local governments have spent decades on this shared priority. We have joined together over the years in a shared commitment to the Bay. We have worked across jurisdictional lines, across the political aisle, across every level of government in partnership with the private sector and with nonprofit groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. This important bipartisan legislation that we are going to be moving on shortly ensures that we maintain a Federal commitment to the partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It also makes sure that during these challenging fiscal times every dollar spent on improving the health of the Bay produces real results. The Chesapeake Bay accountability bill requires the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget. That means we will actually track where and how Federal and State restoration dollars are being spent throughout the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This will allow us to track costs and match them to results. It means more accountability and it means more transparency to our combined efforts to restore this national treasure. This bipartisan legislation is an important step forward in ensuring that the Chesapeake Bay restoration and preservation efforts remain effective, accountable, responsible, and transparent. In a moment I am going to urge all my colleagues to join us in approving it. At this moment, I yield the floor to the ranking member, the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. WARNER. I further ask unanimous consent that the Warner substitute amendment to S. 1000, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed en bloc; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in any quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Ms. Patrice Walker Powell, a remarkable Virginian who is retiring after 23 years at the National Endowment for the Arts, NEA. During her more than two decades of service, Ms. Powell has worked to broaden and deepen the engagement of diverse communities with the NEA and with arts stakeholders in urban and rural venues across America. Ms. Powell's contributions to the NEA are too many to enumerate, but her leadership reflects a commitment to fiscally responsible management, sound stewardship through challenging times, and prolonged outreach to underrepresented communities. In response to leaner operational budgets, Ms. Powell was elevated to lead a department of several consolidated program areas, and was responsible for developing innovative approaches to advancing the agency's mission. Ms. Powell embraced public-private partnerships, innovative grant programs, and arts support programs to strengthen a diverse cultural infrastructure for the Nation. As the agency began to acclimate to a reduced funding environment, NEA research showed that there were 20 States receiving 5 or fewer direct grants per year. Ms. Powell devised a comprehensive pilot strategy that collaborated with State arts agencies to hold staff-led seminars on NEA funding opportunities and identify potential applicants. Over the course of the 3-year commitment to this pilot program, the number of NEA-supported projects in these States increased by 350 percent. Under her leadership, the NEA undertook a massive modernization project focused on access and outreach. As a result, every publication produced by the NEA has been digitized and is now available electronically to students and to the general public. This achievement has been praised as a significant contribution toward ensuring that the record of the agency's history is maintained for the future. Ms. Powell's dedication to the NEA would ultimately result in her being called upon to serve as Acting Chair. She has proudly represented her country in the international arts arena, including on delegations to South Africa, Germany, Senegal, and Austria. Although these accomplishments are but some of the highlights of Ms. Powell's career, they exemplify her proven record of public service and advocacy for the arts and our Nation. I thank her for her service and wish her a long and happy retirement.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the passage of the Government Reports Elimination Act--a bill that will eliminate or modify 53 Congressionally mandated reports. In 2010, we passed the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, which added several new reporting requirements for Federal agencies. Too often, we add these new reporting requirements without looking back to see if there are any outdated reports that could be eliminated. So we asked Federal agencies to identify any duplicative or outdated reports that we could cut. In response, the administration published its first list of more than 300 reports from about 30 agencies and we turned this list into the Government Reports Elimination Act. Senator Ayotte and I introduced this bill in the Senate and Congressmen Darrell Issa and Gerry Connolly introduced the companion in the House. The final bill will eliminate or modify 53. In doing so, we are removing real barriers to productivity across the government. This represents a real step, albeit a modest one, toward making our government work better. If these reports are not being used--and are simply collecting dust on a shelf--then they are wasteful, and we cannot afford that kind of waste Eliminating a handful of reports won't solve our budget challenges--but every hour and dollar saved helps. This bill helps free up time for our Federal employees to focus on priorities. The passage of the Government Reports Elimination Act makes a small down payment on the broader problem, which is why I'm also working on another bill to make further reductions in Congressionally mandated reports. In June, the administration sent over the second list of outdated reports for elimination and our new bill will include their recommendations and reflects my ongoing commitment to eliminating these outdated reports. I wish to thank Senator Ayotte for being my partner on this work. It has been an honor to work with her on our Budget Committee Government Performance Task Force. I also want to thank Senators Carper and Coburn for their leadership on this issue and advancing this bill through their Committee. Additionally, I would like to thank our other cosponsors, Senators Feinstein and McCaskill for their support.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a group of incredible individuals who are part of the Yellow Ribbon Fund Family Caregiver Program. The Yellow Ribbon Fund Family Caregiver Program is an outstanding organization that supports both wounded service members and veterans, and the extraordinary people who care for them. I would like to recognize the hard work, passion, and dedication of the following caregivers: Brian Vines, Sharon Roberts, Autumn Bailey, Margaret Jones, Stacey Kelley, Heather Miller, Dawna Barber, Helen Gooding, Kellene Cole, Alicia Lee, Joey Caswell, Vicki Boswell, Elizabeth Martin, Rose Haley and Jessica Allen. The Yellow Ribbon Fund was founded in 2005, when several Washington- area business owners came together to help a mother struggling to take care of her son, a wounded Marine being treated in a hospital far from home. These individuals have sacrificed much in order to care for their wounded loved ones, and their hard work often goes unnoticed and under- appreciated. The Yellow Ribbon Fund Family Caregiver Program recognizes the challenges faced and sacrifices made by caregivers, and offers support programs, family-oriented activities, and retreats for caregivers and their families. Our military men and women and their families serve and sacrifice for our country. I would like to thank the Yellow Ribbon Fund for the services they provide to our wounded veterans as well as the invaluable support they offer to caregivers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Irrigation Projects in Indian Country.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Freight Rail Service: Improving the Performance of America's Rail System.''

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I come to speak today on a question of enormous importance. Before I do so, I wish to take a moment, as I was just with the majority leader and the deputy leader and a number of our colleagues where we held a ceremony in commemoration of a Congressional Medal of Honor that was issued in remembrance of those who gave their lives on September 11, 13 years ago. Neither the Presiding Officer nor I were Members of the Senate at that time, but I think all of us remember where we were that early Tuesday morning, and the ceremony we just came from was an appropriate tribute. Student Loan Debt Madam President, during the most recent recess in August, I crisscrossed Virginia in a variety of efforts. One that was particularly meaningful to me was where I did a statewide student debt tour, where literally I spoke with hundreds of students and graduates from families of nine Virginia colleges and universities about student debt and what this crushing amount of student debt is doing to their opportunities to get the same kind of fair shot the Presiding Officer and I both had. The schools I visited ranged from big 4-year public universities, small, private liberal arts colleges, to one of our historically Black colleges, as well as a 2-year community college. The student debt figure right now is at $1.2 trillion, exceeding credit card debt. Student debt has exceeded the aggregate of auto loan debt, credit card debt, and home equity debt balances, becoming, next to mortgages, the second largest debt of U.S. households. That means that for far too many young people, and not so young people, they are forced to put off their decisions about starting a family, launching a startup business, or buying a home because of the burdens of student debt. Many young people find themselves working in jobs they didn't want or necessarily train for just to pay off their student debts. At Old Dominion University I spoke to Carina. She is a bright and ambitious young woman who told me that in her sophomore year, she worked three jobs, at one point four jobs, to ensure that she met tuition. She mentioned that she was the first of all her family members to step foot on a college campus. She said: ``College is a foreign field in my family.'' She said: ``I am a pioneer.'' She is not alone. The challenges she faces are repeated time and time again. At Virginia State University, one of our historically Black colleges, I met with Tobias, who mentioned that a lot of his peers had to drop out of school because they could not afford to take out any more loans or debt. He told me: Senator Warner, I have made the decision to stay in school. It is the key to my future, but I do so knowing that I will have to spend a lot of years paying off student loans. At one of our finer public institutions in Virginia, the College of William & Mary, I had a great conversation with Jacob, a junior originally from the far southwest part of our State, in Lebanon, VA. He is graduating from college in 3 years instead of 4 because of dual enrollment he took while he was in high school, at Southwest Virginia Community College. He told me that despite his ambition, it is financially impossible for him to go on to immediately get a graduate degree or buy a home or buy a car or start a business, because even with shortening college from 4 years to 3 years, he still has a tremendous amount of student debt. I have to tell my colleagues, across Virginia I have heard over the last year more about this issue than virtually any other issue, from young people, from families, from parents. I remember somebody in Virginia Beach not too long ago, a young man, 31 years old, who actually served in elective office. He had graduated from the University of Michigan Law School, had worked as a lawyer, had been laid off, and was moving back in with his parents at the age of 31. I could almost see his ambitions being crushed because his student debt payments amounted to $2,000 a month. Where does he get the same kind of fair shot that many of us had? I am the first member of my family to graduate from college. I got out of college and law school and worked for a while, started businesses, failed miserably twice. The third time I managed to do well in a startup industry called cell phones. But I came out of that experience with a total of $15,000 worth of debt. I am not sure I would have taken the first shot or second shot or, Lord knows a third shot, if I had come out with $50,000 $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, or $100,000 of debt that many people come out of school with now. We have to get on this issue. This issue is having an effect on our economic recovery. I meet with homebuilders on a regular basis and with realtors on a regular basis. They are saying, The real estate market is recovering for everybody except people buying starter homes. Why are they not buying starter homes? Time and again because of crushing amounts of student debt. I hope during this shortened period we will get a chance to have a conversation about a broadbased proposal to refinance student debt at lower rates. I am not sure we are going to be successful in that proposal, but I think it is a conversation and debate we ought to have. I look forward to supporting that effort. But if we are not able to get that effort across the finish line right now, we can't walk away from this issue. I have worked on a series of bipartisan, targeted reforms that would reduce costs, increase transparency, and allow students to better manage their amounts of debt. Any one of these proposals isn't going to completely solve this problem, but this should not go into the bucket of issues we continue to kick down the road. The issue of student debt, the affordability of college, are issues of enormous economic proportion and, frankly, one that shouldn't be viewed as a Democrat or Republican issue. Let me speak briefly about a couple of my proposals. First is a proposal I partnered with Senator Wyden and Senator Rubio on that in any rational place should be a complete no-brainer. It is a bill called Know Before You Go. The idea is quite simple. Let's do with higher education what we have done in real estate with the Zillow Web site or what we have done with the travel pricing, with Travelocity and a series of other Web sites, and try to take every 4-year institution, 2- year institution, career and technical education program, graduate program, and make them totally transparent on a single user-friendly Web site, where before you go, you know what your chances of graduating are, how much debt you might want to take on, if you major in art history, the way my daughter did, what your chances of getting a job are and how much it is going to pay, so that we can actually make people better informed consumers before they choose higher education. Probably next to buying a house, higher education is the most expensive investment you will make in a lifetime. Maybe students will find out that if they go to UVA and drop out after 3 years and come out with a lot of debt, they will not have much with which to get into the job market, whereas if they went to Piedmont Community College and actually came out with a 2-year degree in medical tech fields, they will have a 90- percent placement opportunity. This Know Before You Go Act--we have collected most of this data already, so it should not be that big a stretch to put this in a user- friendly fashion. What if Tobias's friends at Virginia State had a better idea before enrolling in college how much they would be expected to pay, how this would actually break down grants versus loans, a recognition of the actual graduation rate and their job prospects upon graduation? Maybe some of them might choose a different path. Better informed consumers of higher education would be one no-brainer step. A second opportunity--and I do not know where it falls on the ideological spectrum, but on the commonsense spectrum it makes an awful lot of sense. Why does college have to be 4 years anymore? Why can't we have more students--particularly first-generation students--getting a jump-start on college with dual enrollment in high school? The key on this is to make sure the credits they get in their dual enrollment at community college actually count toward their degree requirement, which requires what are called articulation agreements between the 4-year institutions and the 2-year institutions. It does not do much good if you come into college with a lot of course credit but it does not count toward your degree requirements. Let's try to make sure more students can knock off a semester or a year of college in high school. That would save families $10,00, $20,000, $30,000, in effect, if we could make that happen. If you are a low-income student and you qualify for a Pell grant, why not be able to use part of those Pell grant proceeds in high school if the credits you receive in high school in dual enrollment actually count toward your degree requirements? Again, that is a jump-start on college. It would make sure that a student such as Jacob at William & Mary, rather than being the exception, would become more the rule. Let me talk about another proposal. Again, I am working with my colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, on this legislation. Senator Rubio has a story similar to mine. He is the first generation in his family to graduate from college and law school. He tells stories as well of years of repaying student debt. In our student debt processes, we already have a series of payment proposals. Unfortunately, most of them are confusing. Many of them end up like the student I know or the young person I know in Virginia Beach who is on a fixed payment proposal. This individual, as I mentioned-- $2,000 a month, completely crushing his abilities to take any chances at all. So what Senator Rubio and I have done is we put together a proposal that would say the first option--it would still be the young person's option to opt out of, but the first option would be an income-based repayment proposal that would cap your student debt repayment at 10 percent of your income. What would this do? Ten percent of your income would allow you to take that chance on that startup business. Ten percent of your income, capped, would maybe give you the ability to say: Oh gosh, if I hit a rough spot, I will not get crushed. I will not have to move back in with my family. This better structured, financially sustainable, income-based repayment proposal would allow young people to better manage their debt and avoid the impact of default. Part of our proposal includes loan forgiveness programs that will provide borrowers such as Jacob in southwest Virginia the kind of relief they want. Even if we cannot agree on a grand refinancing proposal, this income- based capping at 10 percent--which has been greeted by left and right alike as a dramatic step forward--ought to be part of our discussion. Then I come to another proposal--one that, quite honestly, even this body with all of its dysfunction ought to be able to get done. I partnered with my colleagues Senator Thune and Senator Ayotte on a very business-friendly proposal that would be an option for an employer and employee. Right now, if an employee wants to continue with their education, an employer can take up to $5,000 of that employee's salary and apply it to their tuition, tax free, on continuing education. Well, if we are allowing an employer to do that for an employee to continue their education, to increase their skills, why not provide that same kind of option for an employer to apply that same amount--up to $5,000 of a person's salary--directly against an employee's student debt pretax and tax free as well? It does not cost the employer another dime. This is purely at the option of the employee. It would be a great retention tool for a company to say: Hey, keep working with us. We are going to give you this benefit. That young or not-so-young person will get this money pretax going against their student debt. It is common sense, bipartisan, and something on which--even with all of our bitter battles back and forth--we ought to be able to find common ground. As I mentioned at the outset, like many Virginians, like many probably in this body, as the first in my family to have graduated from college--I could not have gotten to college; my family did not have the resources. I had to work. I got grants. But I also had to take out student debt. The student debt that I had at $15,000 pales in comparison to the average amount of debt with which people come out of even public universities in Virginia right now--more than $25,000. I had $15,000 of debt after college and law school. Look at people who come out of graduate school. On average those numbers more than double. This is an issue whose time has come for us to address. In America in the 21st century, you should not go broke if you decide to go to college. We all encourage our young people to get that education that will allow them to prosper in a knowledge-based economy, but we hold out a false hope when we say: Go get that education, but we are going to put you into such debt that for the next 20 years you are not going to be able to exercise that education in the way you wanted to because you are going to be scrambling to repay the obligations it took you to get those skills. I say this as a former Governor. This is the case. I was proud of the amount of the investment we made in higher education when I was Governor. Quite honestly, if we look across the board at every State in our Nation as a whole, over the last 20 years Federal and State direct aid to higher education has been virtually a straight line down. The cost of a higher education has been a straight line up. How have we filled that gap? We have filled that gap with basically an unfair deal to a whole generation. We have said: Do not worry about the cost; just take out more debt. For a while, when the economy was good and you could get a job pretty much guaranteed coming out of college or graduate school, this did not present a crisis. In the last 4 or 5 years, as we have seen college graduates, law school graduates, graduate school graduates coming out without job opportunities, we have seen this house of cards collapse. I again remind my colleagues that there is $1.2 trillion of student debt--greater than credit card debt. The cost of a higher education is continuing to escalate at a rate even higher than health care costs. For those of us who are lucky enough to serve in this body, we all got our fair shot. If we are really going to honor our commitment to this next generation--and, quite honestly, the parents who are also helping to pay off this next generation--we have to deal with this crushing issue of student debt. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we address this problem in a reasonable, responsible, and timely manner. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The Senator from Texas.

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