Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorize to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cybersecurity, Terrorism, and Beyond: Addressing Evolving Threats to the Homeland.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SR-301 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2014, in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Indebted for Life: Older Americans and Student Loan Debt.''

Mr. WARNER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the important efforts made each day by our public servants. We often forget that our public servants are Federal employees who go to work every day with the sole mission to make this country a better and safer place to live. Day after day they go about their work receiving little recognition for the great work they do, and many times, unfortunately, they are actually berated rather than acclaimed for what they do during difficult times. Since 2010 I have come to the Senate floor on a regular basis to honor exemplary Federal employees, a tradition that was begun by my friend from Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman. Today I wish to take this opportunity to recognize another extraordinary public servant who has served in the U.S. Department of Treasury for 41 years. Forty-one years. That is not a typo. Mr. Richard L. Gregg has dedicated more than four decades to Federal service. He most recently served as the Fiscal Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Mr. Gregg began his Federal civilian service in 1970 at Treasury's Financial Management Service. During his 10 years at Treasury, he served as the Commissioner of Treasury's Financial Management Service and as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Public Debt. Mr. Gregg retired--for the first time--in June 2006 and was asked to return to Treasury in 2009 to serve as Fiscal Assistant Secretary. Mr. Gregg retired again this month, and in honor of his second retirement I wanted to highlight a couple of his noteworthy accomplishments. During his long tenure at Treasury, Mr. Gregg was well known for his innovative thinking, the ability to make hard decisions, and the desire to make government more efficient, more open, and, very importantly, less costly. Mr. Gregg led the Treasury into the 21st century by modernizing Federal payment operations. He moved Treasury from paper-based benefits payments toward the more sensible, secure, and reliable electronic payment system. We should have done that a lot earlier. This is a really big deal since Treasury makes more than 1 billion payments per year--think about that, more than 1 billion separate payments per year--including all Social Security benefit payments as well as others. His work will help save taxpayers $1 billion over the next decade. That is a pretty great value. Mr. Gregg also helped achieve one of the more rare feats in the Federal Government--the actual consolidation of Federal programs. Mr. Gregg recognized that operations could be improved if Treasury consolidated two complementary Treasury agencies into one. By merging Treasury's Financial Management Service, which makes government payments, with Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt, which borrows the money to fund government, taxpayers will save tens of millions over the next decade. This isn't going to clear up our $17 trillion in debt that goes up $3 billion a night, but these are the kinds of commonsense steps in the right direction we need to see more often. I am also proud that Mr. Gregg is not only an inspiring public servant, but he is also a Virginian. He resides in Springfield, VA. I thank Mr. Richard L. Gregg for his leadership at the Department of Treasury and for being a tireless advocate for the American people. His work in support of a more efficient, responsive, and accountable government will continue to make government work better for all Americans for many years to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence after quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to concur with the comments of my friend, the Senator from Maryland, on the tragedy in Israel and the Middle East. I also want to say a special thanks to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, for allowing me to jump in line for a moment. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2265

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 229, I was present and voted aye. The official record has me listed as absent. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, are we still in morning business?

Mr. WARNER. I come to the floor disappointed that the Senate did not move to full consideration of the legislation that I know the Presiding Officer and others have worked on to take on the challenge that I believe will be the next great financial crisis our country will face-- student debt. Student debt, which is $1.2 trillion, now exceeds credit card debt, and that has been a PolitiFact out there and now validated. Increasingly, this crushing amount of student debt is slowing economic growth. It is not allowing young workers to go into the marketplace and buy a house or start a business. While I am disappointed that we were not able to move to full consideration of the legislation that would provide a more comprehensive ability for students to refinance at a lower rate, I would point out that there are a number of other tools we can use. I know I am going to be joined in a few moments--our paths may not completely cross here--by Senator Rubio. There are two pieces of legislation around this issue that Senator Rubio and I are working on together, and I want to speak briefly about both of those. The first is legislation we have actually been joined by Senator Wyden on as well called the Know Before You Go Act--a relatively simple concept using data that the U.S. Department of Education already collects. It says we ought to put together in a user-friendly Web site information for every parent and young student before they go off to college--whether it is a 4-year college, a 2-year college, or a community college--so they know, if they attend that university, what their chance of graduation is, how long it will take; if they choose to major in art history, the way my daughter did, what the chances are of getting a job and what that job would actually pay, so that we can make these people--young and not so young--better informed consumers. The cost of higher education--perhaps next to the purchase of a home--is the single largest investment most families will make. This legislation I have with Senator Rubio, the Know Before You Go Act--and Senator Wyden--would say that making these families and parents more informed will add value and make a more-informed consumer. It is simple, very little cost. We already collect this data, but we don't present this data in a format that is easily obtainable by families all across America. I know Senator Rubio is going to speak about the second piece of legislation, and I think Senator Rubio and I share a common background on this issue. I believe we are both first in our generation to have graduated from college. I was able to get through college and law school--being quite a bit older than Senator Rubio--through direct aid, through work during college and law school, but also through student loans, but I came out of that with only $15,000 in student debt. My personal story is that after working a bit in politics, I decided I would become an entrepreneur and proceeded to go off and start my own business, which within 6 weeks failed miserably. I then started a second enterprise that lasted a little longer; it lasted 6 months. My third enterprise was in the very early days of cell phones, and it managed to do pretty well, going on to cofound the company that became Nextel. But as I reflect upon that period, particularly when I was literally living out of my car and sleeping on friends' couches, I am not sure I would have had the courage to try once, twice, or three times if I was looking at the kind of student debt that many--perhaps even some of these young pages here as they go on to college--might face if we don't take on this problem. It is not uncommon now for students--particularly if they complete graduate school--to see $70, $80, $100,000 in debt. The average student in Virginia comes out with about $30,000 in debt. We have to recognize that there should be a variety of tools available to them. Again, I wish we had proceeded with the full debate on the bill on having the comprehensive ability to refinance. One other piece of legislation, one other solution set--and I will be coming to the floor on a regular basis because I think there are a variety of ideas we need to lay out--a piece of legislation that Senator Rubio and I are working on together that we will be introducing is on simplifying into a single form a tool that already exists on student debt in terms of income-based repayment. Income-based repayment is a pretty simple idea. It says that if you get out of college or get out of graduate school--too many young people now are perhaps forced into careers that may not have been their initial choice, but because of the crushing amount of debt payments they have to make, they don't have the kind of freedom I had to go out, candidly, and fail a couple of times before I managed to be successful. Income-based repayment says we will graduate the amount of money you will pay back on your student debt based upon the income you make. So if at first you need to take that job that might pay a little lower because there is a chance you can pursue your dream or actually become an entrepreneur, we will allow you to tailor your repayment schedule based upon the income, and as your income goes up, your payments will go up. Rather than making income-based repayment kind of at the end of the line and very complicated to sort through, we simplify this approach, do it in a way that I believe is financially responsible, and do it in a way that gives that potential entrepreneur--the way I was--the chance to go out and take those risks, and if you are not successful at first--and can't leave out that 90 percent of entrepreneurs are not successful the first time they try a business--to make sure that you can maybe get that second shot, get that fair shot every American ought to have and not allow that student debt to be able to crush your dreams. Clearly in America in 2014, in a world that is a global economy that is based upon our knowledge skills to stay competitive, you shouldn't go broke in America if you choose to go to college or get a higher education. I believe these two pieces of legislation I am working on with Senator Rubio--the Know Before You Go Act, so you are more informed about your options going forward, and this income-based repayment--are two of the possible solutions that could be added to make sure everyone gets the same kind of fair shot that I know the Presiding Officer and my good friend the Senator from Maryland had and that we want to make sure all the future Americans have as well. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of a fellow Virginian as President Obama's nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Hannah Lauck. When confirmed, Hannah will become the first woman judge on the Federal trial bench in Richmond, VA. Hannah is exceptionally well qualified to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a Federal district judge. Hannah earned her bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, in 1986 from Wellesley College, where she was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She went on to receive her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1991. While in law school she directed the Homelessness Clinic and served on the board of the Initiative for Public Interest Law. Hannah began her legal career in the Eastern District of Virginia serving as a clerk for Judge James Spencer. Judge Spencer--a Reagan appointee to the bench--is extremely well-regarded in Richmond for his legal acumen, honest nature, and service to the community and will be taking senior status this year. Coming full circle, Hannah has now been selected to fill the seat of Judge Spencer, her mentor and for whom she clerked right out of law school. From 1994 to 2004, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia where she handled both civil defense matters as well as criminal prosecutions. Following a brief stint in the private sector, Hannah became a U.S. Magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, where she has served since 2005. As a magistrate judge, she helped begin one of the first Federal reentry courts, which is designed to reduce recidivism of individuals released from prison who have serious addictions. These reentry courts are crucial to our efforts to reduce prison overcrowding and ensure we are helping people who have made mistakes in life become productive members of society. She is also an active member of her community where she has helped train the next generation of legal experts. For many years, she has taught at the University of Richmond T.C. Williams School of Law. Hannah serves on the board of the Federal Bar Association and is an active member and former board member of the Richmond Bar Association and the Metropolitan Richmond Women's Bar Association. She comes highly recommended by the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia Bar Association, has been recognized as one of Virginia's leaders in the Law and has received the strong support of many of her legal colleagues. Hannah has an exemplary record as a prosecutor and a magistrate judge and all of her peers praise her character and integrity. I am pleased to strongly support her nomination to the Federal bench and thank all of you for joining me in supporting her nomination. This body, and our Nation, will all be well served by her presence on this court.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this week we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week to honor public servants at all levels of government for their admirable patriotism and contributions to our country. We often forget that these public servants at all levels of government go to work every day with the sole mission to make this country a better and safer place to live. Day by day, they go about their work, often receiving little recognition for the great work they do. Since 2010, I have come to the Senate floor on occasions to honor exemplary Federal employees--a tradition that was begun by my friend Senator Ted Kaufman. Amongst the list of Federal employees we have honored across the country are some who serve here on this Senate floor. Today I want to celebrate Public Service Recognition Week by taking this opportunity to recognize three federally employed Virginians who are doing exemplary work behind the scenes to make our government more effective and keep our fellow citizens safe. Normally, we would have their photos here in the Chamber, but since we have three, we are going to recognize them all with this single poster. Again, these are exemplary Federal employees. The first is Heidi King, who served as the Director of the Patient Safety Program Office at the Department of Defense and currently leads the DOD's Partnership for Patients. While at DOD, she helped develop a patient safety program which helps medical professionals eliminate preventable medical errors. Breakdowns in communication between doctors, nurses, and special care providers are historically the cause of many tragic medical events such as surgical errors, prescription mistakes, and hospital-acquired infections. To combat this, Heidi coordinated with the Department of Health and Human Services to bring together more than 100 independent experts in the medical field. These experts developed a comprehensive training program for medical professionals to learn about the factors within their control that commonly contribute to errors. In 2008, DOD implemented Heidi's program in combat support units in Iraq. As a result, communication errors decreased 65 percent, medication and transfusion errors decreased 85 percent, and the rate of bloodstream infections from catheters also dropped dramatically. Heidi should be proud of her work, which is directly responsible for the health of many brave soldiers. In an effort to spread these best practices, the safety program has established 11 training centers across the country, where more than 6,200 medical professionals have participated to become master trainers and instructors. They then return to their health care systems to lead implementation of the program. This is the kind of commonsense, cost-effective, yet also lifesaving program that does not get much recognition but is an example of a Federal employee going above and beyond the call of duty to help her fellow Americans and actually help the bottom line. I would also like to recognize two TSA employees for their heroic actions that helped save a passenger's life. While posted at Washington National Airport last month, TSA employee Chuck Bolen was told that a passenger was in need of immediate assistance. As soon as Bolen saw the passenger slumped in the chair, he knew he did not have a lot of time and was prepared to do whatever was necessary to keep the passenger alive. As the man's condition declined rapidly, Bolen sprinted to grab the nearest AED machine. With help from his colleague Brian Stout, a marine infantry sergeant who did three combat tours in Iraq and now works for TSA, they worked together to apply the AED machine. After a single attempt, the machine advised to begin CPR. Bolen initiated chest compressions and continued administering the lifesaving action, even after first responders arrived on the scene. Thankfully, their quick collaborative actions paid off. While in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, the man's heart started and stopped several times, but today he is alive and recovering from triple bypass surgery. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Heidi King, Chuck Bolen, and Brian Stout--truly great Virginians but also great civil servants--and all those who serve at the Department of Defense and the TSA for their hard work and dedication to our Nation. While today we have highlighted three, as I mentioned at the outset, over the last 5 years I have come many times and have highlighted folks from across Virginia and across the country. As I mentioned, as well, there are people serving right now on this Senate floor who have received this kind of attention for their quiet dedication to duty and making the Senate a more functioning institution. As we constantly come to the floor and debate the challenges of our budget and other issues, I think it is very important--while we may differ about which programs we support and what functions our government should take on--we never underestimate the enormous value our Federal employees contribute on a regular basis to the safety, security, and, quite honestly, the function of our national government. I hope all my colleagues will join me in recognizing the efforts of public servants across the country during Public Service Recognition Week and thank them for the very important work they do every day. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Carper substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered; the Carper amendment at the desk be agreed to; the Carper substitute, as amended, be agreed to; and the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, after the last exchange, I would point out that the Senate now has acted on a very important piece of legislation that has been 2 years in the works, that actually does reflect the ability for us to come together in a bipartisan consensus. So I rise today to discuss the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act--or DATA Act--an important bill that makes sure taxpayers and policymakers can track every dollar the Federal Government spends. It is pretty unbelievable that in this day and age, we don't have an easily accessible Web site for tracking every Federal tax dollar. Believe it or not, we do not. Instead, we have an incomplete and thoroughly confusing structure of financial reporting which most people can't understand. I have served in business. I have served as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. So I have done business accounting and State government accounting. There is nothing like Federal Government accounting and the lack of standards and transparency. Our taxpayers deserve to know where their money goes, and it is our obligation to share that information in a clear and direct way. Today, Senator Portman and I, originally, along with Senator Coburn and Senator Carper, rise--and now that the Senate has acted, we are actually taking a giant step to correct that problem and to make sure taxpayers actually get the transparency they deserve. Since the Federal Government spends more than $3.7 trillion each year, with more than $1 trillion in awards, accurately tracking these funds in a consistent way can definitely be a big job. But the data collected by the budget shops, the accountants, the procurement officers, the grant makers should be combined and reconciled and then presented in a relevant, user-friendly, and transparent way. The various systems should be able to work together based on consistent financial standards so that policymakers and the public can track the full cycle of Federal spending. In a word, the public should be able to ``Wikipedia'' where and how the Federal Government spends its money, and quite honestly, that is what the DATA Act will do. The DATA Act will make four important improvements that I want to quickly highlight. First, it creates transparency for all Federal funds. The DATA Act will expand the current site of usaspending.gov to include spending data for all Federal funds by appropriation, Federal agency, program, function, as well as maintain the current reporting for Federal awards like contracts, grants, and loans. Second--and this is a giant step forward; we are not going to get all the way there--we are starting down this path of setting government- wide financial data standards. We closely monitored the efforts to increase transparency for the Recovery Act funds a few years back, and one reason--even for folks who did not like the Recovery Act--that oversight was successful is because they had consistent standards for reporting the data. Our taxpayers were able to see where the funds and projects were located in their communities. So the DATA Act requires the Department of the Treasury to establish government-wide financial data standards for Federal agencies so that every term reported is consistent across the Federal Government. This should clearly improve the quality of data. Too often we see an item appear in one area as a grant and in another area as an expenditure. Trying to sort through what's what is virtually impossible. This part of the DATA Act will help clear that up. Third, so we do not simply layer on additional reporting requirements without greater accountability, it actually reduces recipient reporting requirements. The DATA Act requires OMB to review the established reporting requirements for contracts, grants, and loans to reduce compliance costs based on these new financial data standards. I have long been concerned--and I know many of my colleagues on both side of the aisle--about the compliance costs for recipients of Federal funds. Too often a grantee has to report not once or twice but sometimes up to a half dozen times the exact same information. We have seen this in Virginia with many of our universities, such as UVA, where they actually have to report multiple times the same information to multiple agencies. If all this redundancy were streamlined, recipients such as the University of Virginia or the University of Tennessee could actually direct more money to programs and less to administrative costs. Fourth, it improves data quality. Under the DATA Act, the inspectors general at each agency will be required to provide a report every 2 years on the quality and accuracy of the financial data provided to usaspending.gov. The GAO will create a government-wide report on data quality and accuracy. Too often the data that is reported at this point does not meet appropriate standards. We must have a reliable system in place to track Federal funds and compare spending across Federal agencies to get the best value for taxpayers and reduce duplication. In fact, in the GAO's annual report on duplication released this week, it highlighted the need for better data and specifically called out the limitations. GAO described a ``lack of reliable budget and performance information and a comprehensive list of federal programs'' as one of the biggest challenges in addressing duplication. I know many of the Members, when I started talking about data standards and better accountability, headed for the exists. I recognize this is not a topic that necessarily excites folks. But I see my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, on the floor--a former Governor, as was I. If we are going to get better value for our taxpayers, we have to start with good data, we have to start with a better ability to monitor that data and follow it. In a world where people can Google all kinds of information, we ought to be able to follow the money in terms of where our taxpayer dollars head. We ought to make sure the recipients of those taxpayer grants can report that information in a single, consistent, and clear way. Policymakers and taxpayers should be able to assess the value of the dollars we invest in these programs. This has been a long and winding path. As a relatively new Member of the Senate--and I hear some of the debates about some of the old days in the Senate--I am not sure I was here in the old days. But this is a case where, after a 2-year period, working with Members of the House-- Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings in the House--and working in the Senate with Senator Carper and Senator Coburn--Senator Coburn who is out today for health reasons--and my colleague who joined with me in pushing this bill from day one, Senator Portman--who, if time allows, will get back from a speech to add his comments as well--I would like to thank these Members. I would also like to thank all of the Senate cosponsors for their support of the DATA Act, including members of our Budget Committee, the Government Performance Task Force that I chair. I would like to thank in particular Senators Coons, Whitehouse, Ayotte, Johnson, and our Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, and my staff, Amy Edwards, and all the others who have been relentless on working this through with other committees and the administration to make sure we got this bill done. So while we may not have resolved all the issues of the day, today the Senate acted in a unanimous, bipartisan way to actually provide better value for taxpayers, more transparency, and less bureaucracy. I would say for a Thursday afternoon--with all the other discussion going on--work well done. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I originally was going to engage in a colloquy with Senator Portman on a very important piece of legislation that we, Senator Coburn, and Senator Carper, were working on for 2 years, and he will come back. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 337, S. 994.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize the 102nd birthday of an incredible Virginian, Edith Mildred Taylor. Edith was born on April Fools' Day in 1912, which could help explain her lifelong good nature and reputation for well-executed pranks, including once wrapping a live mouse as a birthday gift for her teenaged sister. Edith was born on a farm in Culpeper and has lived there for all of her 102 years. As a young widow, she raised Sarah Ellen Taylor while working at the Culpeper Baptist Nursing Home, caring for seniors and undoubtedly brightening the days of many. After many decades of service to Virginia seniors, she retired to care for her 90-year-old father, who also lived into his 100th year. Edith loves animals and plants, and is a vegetarian, although I have been told she refuses to admit it. If there is any connection between eating beans and longevity, she is living proof. She does not take any medications, and has only visited a doctor two times in more than 100 years. Edith lives at home with her daughter but even at 102, still cares for herself. Her daughter provides care for other elders less blessed with good health than her 102-year-old mother. I would like to thank Edith for her service to the Commonwealth's seniors, and wish her a very happy birthday.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would agree with the comments made by the chairman of the Finance Committee. In the repeal-and-replace proposal we have laid out ideas that again I think across the aisle there is going to be common agreement on. I know we have been joined by my good friend the Senator from Oklahoma. No one knows more about health care and has been a stronger voice on entitlement reform than the Senator from Oklahoma. We have spent an awful lot of time wrestling with how we get to that common cause. These commonsense reforms that move us closer to quality rather than quantity are a first step. Also, a first step is trying to relieve the annual or sometimes every-6-month fire drill we go through where health care providers across the country have to rush to Congress to try to get a patch in place, which at the end of the day we know we will put in place. The way we put the patch in place more often than not is simply passing more cost to the providers in an outyear. This is the kind of budget gimmickry that quite honestly we tried to address in our so-called Gang of 6 that would have had more constraints. We didn't get it done. We have another opportunity today--not to solve the whole problem, but by getting rid of SGR, by getting rid of OCO, we are moving two of the accounting and gimmickry obstacles, which would help clear the decks toward the ultimate debate we are going to have about tax reform and about retirement reform. But the value is that by repealing the SGR, we would also put in place reforms that move us toward a better quality health care system for our seniors. I know the consensus and conventional wisdom is that at moments such as these we will always punt. We will have a chance this afternoon to see whether we will punt one more time or whether we will actually--if it takes a few more days--wrestle this to the ground and come up with a common cause where we could repeal SGR, replace it with a better system, and perhaps at the end of the day get rid of not one but two gimmicks that have made our budgeting so much more difficult. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for his efforts in this endeavor. I am disappointed there was an unwillingness to at least have a vote on this important issue. I have been a very lucky individual. I have had the opportunity to have a career in business, and I have had a career as a Governor. In each of those cases, I had to learn business practices and accounting practices. Business accounting practices are different than government accounting practices. State accounting practices are somewhat different as well. But I have to tell you, what takes the cake is what passes for rational accounting and scoring practices in the Federal Government and how we maintain these fictions about what are costs, what are expenses in a way where the vast majority of Americans do not have the slightest idea what we are talking about: SGR, OCO, terms we throw around in this body that have no relationship to the bottom line but prevent us from taking action to at least start the process of getting our balance sheet right, a balance sheet that right now is $17 trillion in debt, that goes up 4 billion a night. The chairman of the Finance Committee outlined very well how this process came to be, the sustainable growth rate, where Congress 17 years ago said they saw at that point that the cost of Medicare would rise and the cost of our entitlement programs was rising. They put in place at that point what they thought was a rational solution to slowly slow the rate of growth. The challenge was Congress immediately punted. As opposed to resolving it at that point, we have maintained this legal fiction and this accounting fiction that no one under any kind of traditional standards of accounting would accept, where we built in this cost increase, and then each year we come back and so-call patch it. Each year we go through a fire drill where lobbyists across town harangue and harass Members of both parties on a universal basis and say: Oh, my gosh. We cannot allow this to happen. Hospitals and doctors who should be spending time providing health care or finding cheaper and better ways to deliver health care storm the halls of the Capitol to make sure we do not provide what would now be an unsustainable cut in their reimbursement rates. But it appears to me we are now about to go, for the 17th time, one more year on a short-term patch and will one more time kick this can down the road. What we are avoiding, if we take this vote this afternoon and simply patch over an effort that was brought over from the House, an effort in the House that I would remind my colleagues never came to a rollcall vote, we will once again avoid the opportunity to start to, in effect, clear our balance sheet, to make the size of our debt and deficit--and for those of us who have been involved in this issue, to go ahead and get rid of some of the budgetary fakery that quite honestly makes so many of our other efforts that may be legitimate seem illegitimate because we cannot even clean up our books. The chairman of the Finance Committee went through how this SGR was created in 1997 and how we have gone through annual patches. It is remarkable that the total cost of these patches actually exceeds--what we have already spent exceeds the cost of repeal. The repeal of SGR at this point is roughly $135 billion. Based upon previous budget estimates, this is the year to take this action. What has been the challenge in the past, while there has been agreement--we heard from the Senator from Alabama, and others will come and bemoan the fact that SGR is a fakery, SGR is budget gimmickry. We have this action that is taken on every year, where doctors, hospitals, others storm the Congress and say please do not do this, and then at the eleventh hour we extend. What has avoided opportunities in the past to get rid of this issue is that there has not been a solution, not been a bipartisan solution. But this year, due to the good work of the chairman, the ranking member of the Finance Committee and their equivalents in the House, there is agreement on what a replacement to the SGR would look like. We would move to a system that would actually fix the problem but also improve the quality of service covered under Medicare. We would move to a payment system which would reward doctors for focusing on providing high-quality care. Doctors would actually be rewarded for talking to each other, to make sure tests and services are not unnecessarily duplicated. Doctors would be rewarded for ensuring patients have access to care when they need it, such as same-day appointments. Doctors would be rewarded for spending more time with patients and genuinely talking about the patient's priorities and concerns rather than running off to their next appointment. These are all goals--regardless of what some of our colleagues may feel about the Affordable Care Act, these are all goals that almost all of us would agree would actually improve the quality of health care in America, and for Medicare start to help drive that cost curve back in the right direction. If we would act on this bipartisan solution, we could make a real demonstration, even in an election year, that Congress is actually working together to solve the problem. The chairman of the Finance Committee noted that in the 5 years I have had the honor of representing Virginia, there is no issue I have been more passionate about, involved with, than trying to find that common ground around our debt and deficit, sometimes to the chagrin of my own colleagues on this side of the aisle. I believe getting our fiscal house in order is absolutely the top priority that this Congress and our Nation face. I believe failure to do that will squeeze out any investment in education, infrastructure, military, whatever our other priorities are. Part of that is getting our entitlement costs under control. But if we are going to get our entitlement costs under control, we have to eliminate the budget gimmicks and fakery that now are part of the process. The primary one on the entitlement side is the SGR. We have a remarkable opportunity to get rid of this peace of budget fakery, to clear the books, to put in place a better system. I know there have been questions about the cost. I believe the chairman of the Finance Committee will soon put up a chart which will quote a periodical that does not often say good things about those of us on this side of the aisle; that is, the Wall Street Journal, which has called the SGR a ``bookkeeping gimmick which merely hides Medicare's true cost by moving future spending off the balance sheet.'' Again, we have a chance to get rid of that today. What I think the chairman of Finance Committee has offered is we could actually get a two-for. We could get rid of repealing and replacing the SGR and at the same time eliminate another budget gimmickry tool, the OCO account. I cannot understand why we would not take advantage of this opportunity to start down the path of cleaning up our balance sheet. At the end of the day, the actions we take today will not get rid of that $17 trillion in debt. It will not bring down our deficit in itself, but it will allow future actions to be dealing with an accounting system and a budget that is much truer to reality. The chairman of the Finance Committee has called this the Medicare migraine. I think it is time for this Congress, this Senate, to actually take two aspirin, pass this replace and repeal, get rid of this migraine, and at the same time show the American people we can act in a bipartisan fashion, even in an election year.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to express sincere gratitude to the students, faculty and staff of Hugh Mercer Elementary School and the entire Fredericksburg, VA region--for the way the community has rallied together to support one of their own: seven- year-old Josh Hardy. Josh is at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis recovering from a life-threatening virus following a bone marrow transplant in January. This week, I am pleased our office had an opportunity to work with Josh's family and Josh's friends and fans in Fredericksburg to get this young fighter access to an experimental medication that could save his life. Since Josh was an infant, he has battled cancer--successfully. While he was undergoing chemotherapy--in kindergarten, mind you--Josh and his two brothers worked to raise almost $5,000 to help other sick children who were being treated at St. Jude Children's Hospital. Doctors at St. Jude Children's Hospital believe the only drug that can help Josh is still in the testing phase by its manufacturer, Chimerix. And unfortunately, it appeared that policies of the FDA and Chimerix would prevent Josh from receiving the drug. Upon hearing that news, family, friends, Mercer teachers and classmates, local businesses, and nonprofit groups across the Fredericksburg region rallied together to make sure that Josh's voice was heard, here on Capitol Hill and across the country. They used social media to enlist the support of tens of thousands of people from across the country and around the world. Josh's family and friends contacted our office to see if we might be able to help. That is when we reached out both to the FDA and the drug manufacturer to try to expedite the process to allow Josh to get access to this potentially life-saving medication. We got the good news Tuesday night, directly from the CEO of Chimerix. By the following morning, Josh was undergoing treatment with this new drug. It is still too soon to know if this experimental medication will help, but we are all pulling for this remarkable boy. Today I want to salute Josh's teachers and classmates at High Mercer Elementary School for all that they have done to rally around this family. The commitment of Josh's teachers to advocate on behalf of the Hardy family is a testament to their dedication to public service and to creating stronger communities and a better Virginia. And I am grateful and proud of the Fredericksburg community, where folks truly came together in a good cause on behalf of Josh and his family. Their persistence and dedication exemplifies what we call ``the Virginia spirit.'' I also want to publicly thank the executives and employees of Chimerix, and officials at the Food and Drug Administration, for moving so quickly to look for a way to be helpful to the Hardy family. My staff is already in conversation with the FDA about ways we might streamline the process to allow families in the Hardy's situation to have easier access to potentially life-saving drugs even as these drugs are being evaluated by the FDA. We are all pulling for Josh Hardy. We are praying for his family and his medical team, and we are so grateful for the tremendous support Josh Hardy is receiving from his Hugh Mercer teachers and classmates and the entire Fredericksburg community.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, while I will cast my vote this afternoon for the legislation which would replace the cost of living adjustment, COLA, reduction for military retirees, I disagree strongly with the provision to extend the arbitrary sequester cuts included with this legislation. It is frustrating to me that Congress will fix one provision which unfairly singled out one group by singling out another. I am pleased that we can fix the COLA adjustment that would have affected the men and women who serve in the military prior to it taking effect. However, I would have preferred that we find a responsible way to offset the cost by identifying savings elsewhere. I joined Senator Shaheen and Senator Kaine in December in introducing legislation that identified a way to pay for this fix: our proposal would close a loophole that some companies use to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Our approach would generate $6.6 billion over 10 years to pay for the cost of un-doing the proposed cut in military pensions. The extension of the sequester on mandatory spending for another year, which primarily hits Medicare providers such as hospitals with a two-percent across-the-board cut in payments, is a blunt and arbitrary way to find savings in Federal health care programs. It does not reward health care value, or support health care quality, nor differentiate among different geographic areas. The across-the-board cut does nothing to reform the real long-term fiscal challenges facing our entitlement programs. Instead, it just compounds on the multitude of other cuts that hospitals and other providers are facing, creating a situation where access to care potentially will be threatened. The vote before the Senate this afternoon shows yet again how we need to have a broader conversation on how to get a better handle on our long-term fiscal challenges. By ignoring that larger conversation, we instead are reduced to playing a game of Whac-A-Mole. The provision which singled out military servicemembers and veterans was included in a bipartisan package which was the least we could do to ensure that we didn't repeat the stupidity of last fall's government shutdown. The overall package, the Bipartisan Budget Act, which I supported, did not touch the major levers available to fix our balance sheet. By common agreement, revenue and entitlement reforms were not part of the discussion. This package fixed the arbitrary sequester cuts--though only on the discretionary side, and only for 2 years. For the last 3 years, Congress--and both chambers, and both parties, bear some responsibility for this--have repeatedly taken the path of least resistance. All of us recognize that we have an enormous fiscal challenge, but there's not the collective will to make the hard decisions which will put us on a path of solvency. Instead, we punt and we play on the margins. We continually make deep cuts in the type of programs that power economic growth--programs that train our workforce, educate our children, and support those who serve and protect our nation. We choose to put off the broader discussion about reforms which would be easier now--easier because they create a glide path toward enactment--allowing individuals, families, businesses and our state and local government partners to make responsible plans for future changes. We have avoided a conversation about our complex, bloated tax code, which promotes inefficiency and too often inhibits economic growth. By putting off the hard choices, we allow these fiscal challenges to get worse. The choices do not get any easier. Decisions like the vote before us today are incredibly frustrating. These decisions ask us to support the repeal of a provision, which hurt one specific group, by replacing it with another provision which just places the burden on a separate group. I believe that we can do better for our military personnel, for our Medicare providers, the patients who rely on them, and for our country overall. While I will cast my vote for this bill, I remain committed to finding a way to reverse the sequester cuts we have just extended through 2024.