Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at 10:15 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Management of Air Traffic Controller Training Contacts.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on department of defense counterterrorism operations.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the Report of the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing titled ``Examinng Conference and Travel Spending Across the Federal Government.''

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my growing concern about the effects of our actions--or in this case inaction--in Washington on our military families and veterans in Virginia. As we all know, the Senate and House passed the Bipartisan Budget Act last month, which hopefully will be a first step toward getting us back on the right track toward a functioning Congress. But I was disappointed--and I know many of my colleagues were disappointed--that in that legislation was included a reduction in military pension cost-of-living adjustments for retired and medically retired servicemembers. Our service men and women deserve much better than seeing their pensions arbitrarily cut by lawmakers in Washington. What was particularly disappointing was that this action singled out our military families and veterans disproportionately. Yesterday evening, the appropriations committees released their 2014 budget. I was pleased their omnibus budget proposal repeals the COLA cuts for a portion of those military families--for those disabled military retirees who are medically retired and for survivors of military retirees who elected to pay survivor benefit annuities to take care of their families after their deaths. This is progress. But I hope we can finish the job and pass an amendment I have been working on with Senators Shaheen and McCain and a series of other proposals to make sure we fully roll back this unfair cut to our military families and veterans. We know over the last two decades our military has fought two wars. Their families have made unprecedented sacrifices. Unfortunately, this sacrifice was again brought home last week when a Navy MH-53E helicopter crashed off the coast of Virginia Beach. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the missing and fallen: LT Sean Christopher Snyder, LT Wesley Van Dorn, and Navy Aircrewman Brian Andrew Collins. Virginia is home to one of the Nation's largest concentrations of Active-Duty and retired military personnel. I consider it an honor and a privilege to represent them in Congress. So while we are shutting down government and signing short-term CRs, the pensions of our service men and women are being unfairly singled out. This isn't right, this isn't fair, and my hope is that today and over the next few days we will fully correct the mistake we made in the Budget Act last month. In my time in the Senate, working for our military families and veterans has been one of my top priorities. I am proud I have relentlessly worked across the aisle on this issue. I would like to point out one particular action where we have made dramatic progress. I have worked with the Puller Clinic at William & Mary Law School in Hampton Roads to develop a model for veterans legal clinics to help solve the Nation's backlog of veterans' benefits claims. To my mind it is an embarrassment that our veterans sometimes have to wait for over 1 year to get their claims processed to receive the benefits they have already earned. Working with the William & Mary Puller Law Clinic, we got the VA to accept this model and to be certified by the VA to become the first law school in the country to be able to complete fully developed claims. Now 19 universities in Virginia are committed to serving veterans and more than 15 law schools across the country have adopted the William & Mary model. The incredible thing about this project--and we often use the term ``win-win-win''--is this truly is a win-win-win. It is a win for the taxpayers because there are no taxpayer funds involved, it is a win for our veterans who are able to get their claims processed in a more rapid and expeditious manner, and it is a win for the law students who gain valuable experience in both dealing with a large Federal agency--the VA--but, more importantly, being able to help one-on-one veterans who deserve to get their benefits. I have also worked with my friends and former Virginia colleague Jim Webb to draft legislation for a complete comprehensive look at military compensation and retirement. We have worked with Chairman Levin as well, and this Commission will be reporting later this year. I look forward to the results because we do have to recognize our overall compensation and benefits packages need an overall review. I believe this Commission will make strong recommendations on how we can both modernize and achieve fiscal stability for our military. I am proud of the work I have done on veterans' issues in terms of the Puller Clinic, in terms of the overall look at the military compensation package as part of an effort to make sure we honor our commitment to our military. But as we honor that commitment to our military, we have to recognize as well that threats to our Nation are not just those posed by outside forces but also the continuing threat of our increasing debt and deficit. I often like to cite former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, who said the single largest threat to our Nation was not the threat of terrorists but the threat of that $17 trillion debt and deficit, which goes up by over $4 billion a night--a debt burden that may weigh down our ability to compete in the future. I continue to come to the floor--not always successfully--to suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we cannot continue to punt on this issue; that, ultimately, both political parties are going to have to give. We are going to have to find ways to generate additional revenues through a comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. We are going to have to find a way to make sure that not only the promise of military pensions and benefits but also the promise of Social Security and Medicare will be here for future generations. That means both political parties will have to be willing to give on their sacred cows. We have to make sure as well, if we put together this comprehensive approach on debt and deficit, that it will provide the kind of financial stability to our military families, making sure those pensions, benefits, and other kinds of compensation packages will be there for themselves and for future people who serve. But that is for a future battle. Right now we have to finish the work the Appropriations Committee started on getting rid of this unfair attack on the military COLAs that was included in the Budget Act. I hope my colleagues will join my friends, Senator Kaine and Senator Shaheen and others, to replace the cuts to the military COLAs. The approach we have taken would do this by closing a tax loophole that allows some corporations to actually avoid paying their fair share of taxes. There may be other alternatives as well. I will look at any that are fair and reasonable and make sure our military families don't get singled out. Virginians have served with honor in our military for generations, and I want to assure our service men and women there is ample time to undo these changes before they take effect. I would remind those who are listening this decrease in the COLA doesn't actually take place until next year, so we still have time to rectify this. I promise to continue using every tool I can to fight these unfair pension cuts and to make sure the promises we have made to our military families and these retirees gets honored. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to call attention to a provision within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I would like to thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman McKeon, and Ranking Member Smith, for including in this year's National Defense Authorization Act my amendment, with Senators Collins, Kaine, and Grassley, to expand whistleblower and enhance protections for servicemembers who alert authorities to misconduct that includes sexual assaults and other sexual misconduct. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Collins, Kaine and Grassley, for their partnership in winning this breakthrough in newly-strengthened free speech rights for our troops when they defend accountability in the military services. It is important to be clear about a cornerstone of our amendment, which is the guaranteed right to an administrative due process hearing in all whistleblower retaliation cases. New subsection f(3)(B) provides that if the Secretary does not make a finding of illegal retaliation and order corrective action, the case shall be forwarded to the appropriate Board for Corrections of Military Records to receive a mandatory administrative due process hearing, ``when appropriate.'' There should not be any confusion. It is always appropriate to forward the case for hearing if jurisdiction exists for whistleblower retaliation alleged in the servicemember's complaint. It is only inappropriate if another provision of law provides the relevant rights, procedures and remedies to resolve the complaint, such as when the alleged misconduct is sexual harassment per se as opposed to whistleblower retaliation for disclosing sexual harassment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Marilyn Jones, who has served as a valued member of my staff and the staff of my friend and predecessor, Senator John Warner. Though she was born in North Carolina, Marilyn has a long history of service to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. She is a remarkably compassionate woman who often worked tirelessly with our most vulnerable populations--our senior citizens and veterans. There are many extraordinary stories about constituents whose lives she has touched. One in particular stands out to me: Last year, we were contacted by the wife of a veteran whose husband was hospitalized at a private hospital because of an emergency. Unfortunately, he passed away the next day and the Department of Veterans Affairs refused to pay for his care. Marilyn successfully worked with the private hospital to make sure that the veteran's care in his final hours would not become a financial burden to his widow. Marilyn joined Senator John Warner in 1981 as a correspondence management specialist and rose to the position of caseworker. When Senator John Warner retired, Marilyn joined my staff to continue helping the people of Virginia. Because of her diligent work, she was promoted first to constituent services representative and then constituent services director. Marilyn has also been a dedicated member of her community in Richmond. She attended Virginia Union University and is an active member of her church, New Jerusalem International Christian Ministries, where she has been known to knit items for fellow church members. She has one beloved daughter, Shannan Hester. After over 30 years of working for the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Marilyn Jones is retiring. Marilyn, thank you for dedicating your career to public service and best of luck in the future.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all I want to commend my friend, the Senator from Tennessee. There is no one in this body who is more thoughtful, works harder on issues, and has shown more willingness to find common ground on a host of issues. I also want to compliment the earlier speaker, the Senator from Missouri, who laid out a series of items that should be components of any kind of health care reform. As somebody who is a former Governor, as is the Senator from Tennessee, I have managed a Medicaid program. As somebody who has been a private sector employer and managed private health insurance plans, I know this is a conundrum that has to be solved. What I don't hear sometimes is folks recognizing the status quo was leading this country down a path that was unsustainable, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Missouri and others to see how we can go about fixing the challenges in ObamaCare. I remember when I voted for what I called a very imperfect piece of legislation, but recognized the status quo was not a place that could be maintained. There are a couple of points I want to make, although I am here to talk about the budget. When we talk about the very attractive components of not discriminating against folks with preexisting conditions--and I say that as somebody who has a daughter with a major preexisting condition--and when we talk about preventive care and other items that are the ``nice to have'' or ``we like'' components, those of us who have wrestled with health care--and I started the Virginia Health Care Foundation 20 years ago--realize that when you push on one end of health care it pops out someplace else. It would be great to be able to do this in segmented parts, but I believe to get the kind of reform that was necessary you have to make a more extensive program. As someone who stands here speaking from an IT standpoint, let us acknowledge the unprecedented disaster of the rollout of the Web site. But what I don't hear from my colleagues is that beneath all these challenges there are positive points. Look at the rise of health care costs on a macro basis, back 3 years past, when Simpson-Bowles and those of us involved in the budget--which is what I am here to talk about--were engaged in this issue. You look at the decrease in the amount of health care cost increase. If you look at the slope's decline, it is hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in the projected CBO cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Look at one of the areas that was of enormous concern, one of the broken parts of our health care system--hospital readmission rates. Those rates have dropped dramatically. I hear the stories of folks who are upset with the implementation of ObamaCare, but I also hear the stories of folks who have never had health care and who are finding it now at rates that are more affordable than in the past or in the past they didn't even have an option of getting health care. This is going to require fixes. Let me comment on one of the areas most talked about--this notion of the President saying if you want to keep your health care policy, you can keep it. What this Senator has tried to do, as we move past the rhetoric into how we actually try to fix this, I have worked with our State insurance commissioner to take advantage of the opportunity for plans within the Commonwealth of Virginia to extend their coverage for at least 1 additional year, and we are starting to see some progress-- not as much as I would like but some progress. Today, with a group of my colleagues, we have written the administration to suggest that so there is not a gap in coverage, particularly for those folks above the age of 30, because of the transition, who may find themselves faced with higher costs, let's present at least a catastrophic plan under the hardship exemption and view that in a broad way. Again, this is so that folks can find, during this transition period, health care that is affordable. As someone who believes we need to ensure the commitment of the President and others--I have stated it as well--that you can keep your health care plan, I have joined with Senator Landrieu for a legislative fix, if these other items don't go far enough. As other Senators have said, there will be other issues coming up. When you are going through the reform of 17 to 18 percent of our whole economy that is connected to health care, it is going to take the willingness and good faith of people on both sides of the aisle to actually not simply relitigate the direction but to recognize how we move on from here, and I would welcome any colleagues who are willing to engage in that kind of productive dialogue, discussion, and laying out of ideas. But this afternoon, we actually are going to be doing something that, in an otherwise fairly bleak year of accomplishments and in a Congress that may set record lows in terms of legislation passed and approval ratings, will actually end the year with something we should at least recognize as a step forward. I remind my colleagues it was just 2 months ago we were in the midst of an unprecedented government shutdown, where millions of Americans were furloughed; where America had furloughed three Nobel prize-winning physicists who work at NASA and who were somehow deemed nonessential; where private sector folks in the tourism industry--whether in New Mexico or Virginia--were seeing a dramatic fall-off in tourism because of national parks being closed; where we were inflicting upon this economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion to $40 billion of unpredicted economic loss simply because we couldn't get a budget. But this afternoon it is my hope we will at last close that chapter. My hope is this afternoon we will vote on a budget agreement for 2 years. While it is not as grand or as comprehensive as I would have liked, it will perhaps demonstrate to the American people that although we have had to crawl before we could walk, walk before we could run, we have put forward a bipartisan compromise. A great deal of the credit goes to Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan. This agreement says for at least the balance of this fiscal year and for the next, we will take off the table the threat of another shutdown, of unprecedented furloughs. It says we will not relax our focus on deficit reduction, and we will not add to the debt, but we will actually do a little more--about $20 billion more in deficit reduction--and we will demonstrate this institution can actually put the country ahead of partisan interests. In this compromise not everyone got what they wanted. I would have argued strongly that the big enchilada remains. How do we really take on, in a major way, that $17 trillion debt that clicks up about $4 billion a night? That would mean both political parties have to give on their sacred cows. It means we have to generate additional revenues through meaningful reform of a completely disastrous Tax Code, and yes, it means for folks on my side, we have to make sure the promise of Medicare and Social Security and other entitlement programs are here not just for this generation but for 20 and 30 years from now. Some of those challenges will have to be put off for another day, and there are many in this body on both sides of the aisle who may have a chance to surprise some folks next year in laying out some specific ideas on how we can move to that bigger bargain. But we should not underestimate what we do today. I have spent a longer time in business than I have in elective office, and what this country is yearning for, what consumers are yearning for, what business leaders are yearning for is just a little bit of predictability. We have seen growth rates go up higher than estimated. We have seen job growth coming quicker--as monthly revisions are made--and going up even higher than we thought. The single best thing we can do is to make sure we remove the cloud of further disruption caused by Washington. So what we do today with this small step--but a step we shouldn't underestimate--is to get rid of that threat for the next 2 years. So I look forward to supporting this bipartisan agreement. As I mentioned, it rolls back the most draconian parts of sequestration. Sequestration was set up to be the most stupid option so that no rational group of people would ever agree to it. I call it stupidity on steroids. So this budget agreement gets rid of the worst brunt of that sequestration and then gives this body and our colleagues in the House the ability to actually fashion a budget for 2 years that will also allow them to allocate within these still historically lower numbers. So I will vote for this compromise, but as with any compromise, there are particular provisions of this compromise I would not have agreed to and that I do not support. One of those provisions is a component that unfairly singles out our military families. Our military families over the last decades-plus have fought two wars. They have made unprecedented sacrifices. Often they have been the only Americans making sacrifices through many of the years in the last decades. Virginia is home to the Nation's largest concentration of Active-Duty and retired military personnel, and I consider it an honor to represent them here in Congress. The component of the budget compromise that singles out these military retirees for a decrease in their cost-of- living increase was not an appropriate component. But rather than saying let's flush the whole deal down, I will vote for this deal, with the idea in mind--similar to my approach to the health care bill--that we will attack this problem and fix it, and I have a fix I will propose to replace this component going forward. I have been joined in this effort by my friend from Virginia, Senator Kaine, and former Governor Senator Shaheen, to introduce legislation which would eliminate this close to $6 billion hit on our military retirees. Our legislation doesn't add to the debt or deficit but would replace this unfair hit to our military retirees by closing certain corporate tax loopholes, which would generate sufficient revenue to make sure our military families would not be unfairly affected. I know in a grander bargain all things may be on the table, but in this smaller deal we should not be singling out our military families and those retirees for this undue burden. I believe and I hope other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as we get this budget compromise passed, will join in this effort to substitute out this $6 billion provision for what I believe would be a much more readily acceptable $6 billion provision in terms of change in the corporate tax law. I know the chairman of the Budget Committee from our side of the aisle would welcome this kind of substitution. Her job was to get a deal and she did that job, she got a deal, and I look forward to supporting her. I will close with these comments. Virginians have served with honor in our military for generations. I assure our service men and women that because of this provision--which doesn't take effect until 2016-- we have ample time to make this substitution. We are being joined on the floor by Senator Shaheen, the original sponsor of this legislation, and I remain committed to working with Senator Shaheen, Senator McCain, and any Member of this body from either party, to work on this deficit reduction package, this substitution, which would relieve this burden. I hope later this afternoon we can build on the overwhelming support this compromise budget measure received in the House, and believe a strong bipartisan vote today--actually, yesterday, when we cleared cloture--is an indication it will hopefully get the same kind of vote today. Regardless, I believe we will pass this budget compromise and we will show this body can work, and American families can go into the holiday season without the potential threat of another government shutdown hitting them mid-January. I again thank the chairman of our Budget Committee for the enormous amount of time she put into this effort. She had lots of folks pushing and pulling her from every direction. As someone who still aspires to be part of a grander bargain and a bigger deal, our day will come again; but in the meantime, later this afternoon we will do the people's work and make sure we do our most essential requirement, which is to present a budget which is fiscally responsible, takes down our deficit, and allows our government to move forward and our economy to grow. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, hundreds of people in Virginia were sickened and 2 died from an outbreak of fungal meningitis last year that was traced to a single compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts. Hundreds more in several States became sick, and dozens perished. This public health crisis highlighted the critical need for better oversight of pharmacies that are producing compounded drugs. The Compounding Quality Act and Drug Supply Chain Security Act, which the Senate will consider for final passage today, includes important provisions that ensures that patients and providers have access to safe compounded drugs. This legislation also includes important provisions that deal with how to better monitor and track the drug distribution supply chain. It improves on patient safety by developing a workable pathway that will ultimately result in tracing for the entire country. Additionally, it strengthens licensure requirements for wholesale distributions and third-party logistics providers, and establishes nationwide drug serial numbers. Finally, this legislation works to address the growing problem of pharmaceutical theft, counterfeiting and diversion. The Compounding Quality Act and Drug Supply Chain Security Act is the most significant piece of legislation on drug distribution supply chain in 25 years. I am appreciative of Senators Harkin, Alexander, and all members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension committees for their tireless work on putting together these smart, bipartisan provisions which will help improve the lives of countless Virginians and Americans. I offer my strong support to the Compounding Quality Act and Drug Supply Chain Security Act, and encourage its swift passage.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a topic not debated nearly enough here on the Senate floor--making the Federal Government more accountable and transparent. Today, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Coburn, passed important legislation that will expand Federal financial transparency and accountability in many important ways. I sponsored this legislation--the Digital Accountability and Transparency, or DATA, Act--because it will significantly reform the way agencies report Federal spending, and for the first time provide checkbook-type spending data from across the Federal Government. The Federal Government spends more than $3.7 trillion each year, with more than $1 trillion being distributed as awards. However, the public cannot clearly track where this money goes. We currently have a Web site--USASpending.gov--that is supposed to show taxpayers and policymakers where the money goes, but it is not accurate. Most States already have an online portal so that taxpayers can track where their dollars are spent, and it is long past time for the Federal Government to move into the 21st century and adopt a similar system. At a recent hearing of the Budget Committee Task Force on Government Performance that I chair, it was reported that over $900 billion of direct assistance data on USASpending.gov was misreported in 2011 alone. No wonder the public has such little confidence in government--we can't even tell them where their tax money goes. It seems to me that the data collected by the budget shops, the accountants, the procurement offices, and grant makers all needs to be combined, reconciled, and then presented in a relevant and transparent way. These various systems should be able to work together based on financial standards so that policymakers and the public can track the full cycle of Federal spending clearly. The DATA Act will help us move in that direction by making four specific improvements that I want to highlight today. First, it creates transparency for all Federal funds. DATA will expand USAspending.gov to include spending data for all Federal funds by appropriation, Federal agency, program, function, and maintain the current reporting for Federal awards like contracts, grants, and loans. This is important because there is currently no place online to find and compare all government spending. This expansion of USASpending.gov will allow policymakers and taxpayers to track Federal funds more clearly and to more easily link spending to budget priorities. Second, the DATA Act sets government-wide financial data standards. Currently there are no consistent standards for reporting financial data to USAspending.gov, and it makes much of the data confusing and unreliable--especially if you want to compile and compare spending from multiple Federal agencies. DATA tasks the Department of Treasury with establishing consistent financial data standards for the Federal agencies to support the USAspending.gov website. Third, the DATA Act will actually reduce recipient reporting requirements. I have long been concerned about the compliance costs for the recipients of Federal funds. It appears that all the overlapping systems are frustrating and also create additional waste--especially for State and local governments. For example, many universities file similar financial reports, multiple times, to multiple agencies on an annual, quarterly and monthly basis. If all this reporting redundancy were streamlined, we could direct more money to programs and less to administrative costs. This legislation requires the Office of Management and Budget to review the existing Federal award recipient financial reporting to reduce compliance costs based on the new financial data standards. Finally, the DATA Act will improve data quality. The inspectors general at each agency will be required to provide reports on the quality and accuracy of the financial data provided to USASpending.gov. Then GAO will then create a government-wide assessment on data quality and accuracy based on the inspectors generals' findings. Being able to follow the money is critically important to running our government in a more efficient way and getting the best value for the taxpayer. The DATA Act will help us take steps in that direction, and that is why passing it is so important. I want to close today by saying thanks again to my colleagues for passing the DATA Act out of committee. I am also pleased to be working with my friend, Republican Rob Portman of Ohio, as my Senate cosponsor of the DATA Act. We will continue working to make sure this important bipartisan legislation becomes law this year.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Ms. Millett served seven former Solicitors General from all ends of the political spectrum. In the letter I just referred to, her nomination is supported by Democrats such as Walter Dellinger as well as Republicans such as Ted Olson and Ken Starr. She has also been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America, and has received the endorsement of the American Bar Association. As mentioned by the Senator from California already, she has a remarkable personal story as well. She is active in our community in Virginia, she is a resident, and actually attends church in my home city of Alexandria. We saw earlier the picture of her and her husband, and as was mentioned before a picture is worth a thousand words. Her husband was deployed a number of times as a naval reservist in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and earlier this month the Military Spouse J.D. Network recognized Ms. Millett for her professional service and for her service as a spouse of an Active-Duty participant. So this incredible lawyer, this incredible community servant, this individual who has the support of both Republicans and Democrats, should not be denied her appointment to the DC Circuit. Again, I have not been here when we were in the minority, but as has been mentioned time and again, when John Roberts--who is now, obviously, our Supreme Court Chief Justice--was nominated for the DC Circuit, he was confirmed unanimously. Even though many Democrats did not share his judicial views, they viewed his qualifications as impeccable. I heard constantly the same from my colleagues on the other side, that this is not a question of Ms. Millett's qualifications. Why should this individual be denied her appropriate representation on the DC Court of Appeals? So I hope, my colleagues, that we can avoid further threats and counterthreats. Let's vote this individual based upon her qualifications. On any indication of qualifications, Patricia Millett is ably qualified, uniquely qualified to serve on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and I urge my colleagues to vote for her confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I also to want speak to the judicial nomination, but I want to first respond as well to the Senator from Arizona. Let me first of all say there are few people in this body I have more respect for, and there are few people in this body who have time and again shown the political courage he has to put country ahead of party. I share a lot of his views. It is odd, but I feel sometimes that I work in the only place in America where being a gang member is considered a good thing. I have not served here during these times when my party was in the minority, and intellectually I understand Senator McCain's point, but I guess what I can't understand and what I can't explain to the folks all across Virginia when they ask me: Why can't you guys get anything done, is that on any historical basis, looking at the number of times these procedures have been used in the past--and clearly they have been used by both parties--it seems at some point, while the rights of the minority need to be protected, there has to be some level of common agreement for not exercising these tools to the extent they have been so that this institution becomes so dysfunctional we allow ourselves to do something that in my tenure both in public and private life was never as stupid as what we did during the first 3 weeks of October. So I do appreciate the Senator's comments. And although I now want to speak to the extraordinary qualifications of Patricia Millett, someone from Virginia, I wanted to state that I believe in the Senator's good faith and I also hope we can avoid the kind of further breakdown that would further disappoint the American people. I thank him for his comments. I do want to take a couple of moments to talk about something other Senators have come out to speak on, and that is the nomination the President has made of a fellow Virginian, Patricia Millett, to be part of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I have had the opportunity as Governor to appoint people to the bench, and I took that responsibility very seriously in terms of reviewing the qualifications of the candidates. I had the opportunity as a Senator to recommend individuals to the courts for the President's consideration, and I can't think of a candidate who brings more qualifications, more evidence of bipartisan support, more deserving of appointment, than Patricia Millett. We all know the DC Circuit plays an incredibly important role in our judicial system. We also know the court currently has 3 of its 11 seats vacant. I recognize that in the past this court has been the focus of some debate and discussion, but the idea that we are going to somehow change the rules midstream seems inappropriate. If there is a legislative reason why we should change the DC Circuit Court from 11 to some fewer number of judges, that ought to be fully debated, but we should not hold up the confirmation of an individual whose credentials I believe are impeccable. Ms. Millett currently chairs the Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump. She went to the University of Illinois and Harvard Law School. She clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and she worked on the appellate staff of the civil division of the U.S. Department of Justice. She has spent over a decade in the U.S. Solicitor General's office, serving both Democratic and Republican administrations. During her time there she was awarded the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award, and as has been mentioned by my other colleagues, during her career she has argued 32 times before the Supreme Court, which until recently was the highest number of cases argued by any woman in our history. What is also remarkable--and the Senator from Arizona mentioned we need to move past some of these partisan divisions--is that this is an individual who is supported by both Democrats and Republicans. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter indicating that support.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I agree with the Senator from Maryland. I was in the private sector longer than the public sector, and I have run companies. I have never seen a management style which would say to the workforce, ``We are going to ask you to do more with less money'' and then treat them as poorly as they have been treated repeatedly by some of the attacks the Senator from Maryland has laid out. I wish to take a moment, as a number of my colleagues have, to state that it looks as if this self-inflicted political crisis may be finally coming to an end. To paraphrase Charles Dickens, in a way, it may be the best of times and the worst of times. In a certain sense, it may be the best of times because over the last couple of days we have seen the leaders of the Senate, Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, basically say: Let's put away some of the disputes and end this crisis. So I compliment their work and all the bipartisan efforts that have been going on to put this to an end. So in a certain sense perhaps it is the best of times. Yes, we are about to finally do our job. We are about to actually reopen the government and put our workforce back to work, and by a whisker we are avoiding default and the financial calamity which would ensue if we continued down that path. But it is also the worst of times in that once again we took this conversation to the eleventh hour. We have inflicted damage on our economy and our reputation. And due not to a Republican or Democratic skirmish but really due to a small group of ``our way or the highway'' crowd, we have violated the first principle of governing or medicine, which says: First, do no harm. Unfortunately, the actions of this self-inflicted crisis have done harm even if we reopen the government and avoid default. Economist Mark Zandi has estimated that the cost to our economy is at least $20 billion. Reopening the government and avoiding default isn't going to erase the $20 billion hit to an economy that has been struggling. I wish those who advocated for this shutdown, who advocated for this brinkmanship would be willing to come down and explain to folks in my State or, for that matter, in their States--if you happen to be a government contractor and if some of your workforce was deemed essential, they may actually get paid, but for the portion of your workforce deemed nonessential, chances are they won't be paid. One company in Virginia with 5,500 people--30 percent of its workforce was deemed nonessential. The company has tried to pay those people through this period. Some will be paid, some will not. Those individuals, those families will not recover. I would like to have somebody come down and explain what all this was for in terms of the hurt in their personal lives. I would like for some of the folks who advocated these tactics to come and explain to a restaurant owner in Hampton, VA--where the workforce at NASA Langley, which was 3,500 strong, was reduced through this furlough to 7 people--with the lost receipts for the restaurant over the last 2 weeks, how their tactics somehow improved the fortunes of that private sector business. I would like for those who advocated that it was smart politics to shut down the government and take us to the verge of default to explain to the motel owner on Skyline Drive in Virginia who lost a couple of weekends of the peak fall foliage season and won't see any of those dollars come back, how it was in their best interest to shut down. It is not just in Virginia. It is Yosemite in California and national parks in Texas. I would be anxious for some of those who advocated these tactics to explain to those private sector business owners who won't see those dollars come back. They are not going to get recouped. I would like those who come to this floor and talk about trying to get rid of our debt and deficit and the burdens on the taxpayer to explain how these tactics of shutting down the government and bringing our Nation to the verge of default helps the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer comes out a giant loser from these tactics. The Federal Government workforce rightfully is going to be repaid, so there is no savings there. As a matter of fact, the cost of starting and stopping any enterprise is enormous. Anyone who has run any kind of business understands that. So I hope those who have advocated these tactics will come down and explain to the American taxpayers how this created a bigger deficit and explain why this made sense. I would like for those who advocated these tactics to come down and not just talk to the American people but talk to the world and say how this helped America's national reputation. America has been ranked by the credit agencies as the most secure credit in the world. That is why, when there are crises around the world, investors buy dollars. It gets into sophisticated finance, but it means everything we do in America is a little bit cheaper because we are viewed--to paraphrase a company term--like the rock. We have gone through two of these self-inflicted crises. The last two or three of these crises brought us close to the fiscal cliff or close to default, and the last time cost us a downgrade from one of the rating agencies. We saw yesterday the second rating agency, Fitch, put us on negative outlook. As a former Governor of the State of Virginia, where we kept our triple-A bond rating, you don't get back your reputation overnight by saying: Oops. Never mind. We will be paying the price for these kinds of tactics for months or maybe years to come. I would like those who advocated these tactics to come down and answer the kinds of headlines we saw in the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal where countries that may or may not be that friendly to us--China and Russia and others around the world--were saying: We need to move away from an American-centered economy around the world, a dollar-centered economy around the world--how this hit to our reputation was somehow in the best interest of our country. I am glad Leader Reid and Leader McConnell worked out what appears to be at least a short-term solution. I am glad many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle tried to find common ground. It appears we will reopen the government. It appears we will avoid defaulting and going into uncharted territory where we, candidly, don't really know how bad it could have been. But before we celebrate too much, let's recognize that the reports are true as far as what the avoidance of this catastrophe will mean. It means we have 90 days before the government runs out of money again. We have 113 days until the debt ceiling might have to be raised again. So my first hope as we move forward is that those who practiced the tactics of shutdown and threatening default will say: Never again will we put the full faith and credit of the United States of America at risk. Never again will we shut down our government, hurt our Federal workforce, hurt taxpayers, and hurt private businesses simply because we didn't get what we wanted in a political dispute. I hope as well in the coming weeks we will recognize that the people who work for the United States of America, our Federal workers, deserve better; that when we come on the floor of this Senate or the other body and have our policy debates, we don't criticize the workforce the way it was repeatedly criticized; that we recognize that when we want to take a pound of flesh out of some program, we don't start with the Federal workforce because in the tight budget times we will face for the foreseeable future, we are going to have to ask that workforce to do more with less resources. Again, as somebody who has been in business longer than I have been in government, management 101 says that if you want your workforce to do better and do more with less, you start by acknowledging their challenges and rewarding them, not simply bashing them, not simply leaving this overhang of future furloughs or the kind of uncertainty that still seems to be around this place. The second thing I hope we will go forward on is recognizing that sequestration was set up to be so stupid that no rational group of people would ever let it happen. Well, we have let it happen now for about 8 months so far. As challenging as it has been over the last 8 months, in this next fiscal year, which started on October 1, it is going to get exponentially worse. I understand the concerns of my colleagues on the other side and my concern as well that we have to find a way to cut back on some of our spending. But there are smarter ways to do it than sequestration. So in this ensuing period, I hope we are able to work through that. I do believe we need to take these next 90 days--or an even shorter period if we need a report back from the Budget Committee by mid- December--and recognize that this constant--every 3 months, every 6 months--manufactured budget crisis does our country no good. If both sides will enter this next phase of negotiations with a little more sobriety, a little less willingness to call out each other by name, and actually recognize that we do have to get our balance sheet in order--if we want to avoid a repeat in January and February of these last couple of weeks--we have seen the damage we have done to our country--we are going to have to roll up our sleeves and recognize that we are going to have to deal with our entitlements. That means folks on my side of the aisle are going to have to think about how we preserve Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid in a way that is affordable over the long haul. My friends on the other side of the aisle will have to realize what kind of government we want and what kind of government we are going to be willing to pay for. As somebody who has spent the last 4 years combing through these numbers repeatedly, I don't think we can pay for the level of government the American people have expected with our existing Tax Code, so we are going to have to find ways to close down some of these loopholes, make our Tax Code more progrowth, but at the same time generate more revenue than we currently have. It is never over until it is over, as I have found in the Senate, but my hope and prayer is that we will not do any more damage; that we will put a halt to this hemorrhaging of the $20 billion we have already inflicted on our economy; that we will say to that motel owner that we are not going to be willing to shut down a national park again come January; that we will say to that restaurant worker outside the Federal facility: You are going to be able to predict that the Federal Government isn't going to be laid off willy-nilly; that we will say to our Federal workforce we are going to ask you to do more with less, but we are going to support you in a way we have not done to date; that we will say to the American taxpayer we are not going to deepen the deficit by taking irrational actions by shutting down government; and we will say to the world that once again you can count on the United States of America to pay its bills in an orderly and regular fashion, and never again will we put the full faith and credit of America in jeopardy. I hope and pray we will use this period to actually put a fix in place. The incremental amount of additional revenues needed to be changed or the incremental amount of changes that need to be made to our entitlement programs are relatively small and can be phased in over a period of a decade or more. I agree with the Senator from Maryland that we also have to invest. But I cannot help but think the best jobs program we can have for an economy that is anxious and ready to recover is to make sure that we in Washington do not create and manufacture another political crisis that puts that recovery in jeopardy. It is the best of times and the worst of times. I hope we celebrate that we have done our job and avoided this calamity, but let's make sure we never do this again. Let's make sure we take the 90 days before the next CR expires and the 113 days before the debt ceiling comes and really get our fiscal House in order and make sure we give the American public the confidence they need to move forward. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his voice throughout this debate. He and I and a number of other colleagues realized early on this self-inflicted crisis of putting our workforce in jeopardy was bad policy, bad politics, and bad for our country. I am very glad that the resolution it looks like we are approaching is going to make sure our Federal workforce gets back to work and to the job of helping America, and they are going to get compensated for it. But I would add that it is not going to make everybody whole.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I first of all want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Vermont, for his comments and his relentless voicing of the concerns of folks who are not often heard in the halls of this institution. I thank him for his work and for letting everyone know who continues to be hurt by this absurd government shutdown. I really think we are almost in a kind of era of the theater of the absurd at this point. We have a government shutdown for 11-plus days and are 4 days, 5 days from a default. What I keep wondering is--we hear about some of the least fortunate who are being hurt--how much of our economy is being hurt all across the board. I received a call 2 nights ago from the chairman of a company from Northern Virginia with 5,500 employees. This company has been built by this first generation of Americans. He is extraordinarily proud of what he has done for his company, for his employees. His company serves our government as a so-called government contractor. A lot of these companies are not only in Virginia, in Maryland, but across this region and across this country. When the shutdown started, 30 percent of his 5,500 employees were told they are not essential. So the company has been trying to make ends meet keeping these folks furloughed but not firing them, trying to pay them a little something during this period. The remarkable thing is that 70 percent of the employees that were deemed essential are not getting paid either--even though the government says they are going to pay them--because the folks who process the checks are furloughed. Anybody who operates a business on a cashflow basis knows that when the money runs out, even if you have a potential IOU, if you can't go to the bank and borrow money, you shut down. This company, 25 years in the building, this CEO, this chairman, said if this goes on 1 or 2 more weeks, his life's work and--more importantly than his life's work, he said--the 5,500 people who depend upon this company's existence may very well disappear. That is just part of the government shutdown. Today we are going to vote on an issue that I never thought in my time in the public sector or the private sector we would be seriously considering; that is, the default of the United States of America. I have spent more time in the private sector than I have in the public sector, but I never thought I would see the headline I saw this week in the Financial Times, an international financial newspaper, where the headline was that Japan and China and Russia Say: America, pay your bills. America, pay your bills. America, the largest economy in the world, the country that, because of our exemplary behavior for decades, has been granted the status of the reserve currency. What does reserve currency mean? It means that every American business does a little bit better than every other business around the world because the dollar is the currency everybody else goes to when times are tough. There are countries--not all of them friendly to us--that are saying that maybe the dollar shouldn't be the reserve currency anymore, and if we lose that status, it doesn't come back overnight. It is not where the tea party crowd can say: Maybe we made a mistake; we want to roll that back. Once it is gone, it could take literally decades to get it back. Since the beginning of the 21st century, there has only been one industrialized country in the world that has defaulted since the year 2000--Argentina. America is not Argentina, but back in December 2001 Argentina defaulted. Prior to that time, Argentina--per capita income-- was the richest country in South America, way ahead of Chile, Brazil, and other nations in that region. Once Argentina defaulted, the value of its currency fell by 75 percent, inflation hit over 100 percent a year, and every Argentinean family lost over half of their net worth. Today, 12 years after Argentina defaulted, on an annual average income basis, it falls way below most of the countries of South America. America is not Argentina. It may not be that catastrophic, but why would anyone take the chance? Why would anyone decide in this unchartered area to potentially threaten default? That is like playing Russian roulette with one bullet and only two chambers. No responsible nation would do that. We have heard from some on the other side: Here is what we ought to do. Maybe we will kind of default, but we will pay our bonds and we will pay Social Security, pay our military, and then everything else will be put on hold. That, to me, shows a remarkable, fundamental lack of understanding of how government or economics works. No government has ever tried that. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that somehow that ``prioritization'' scheme might stave off America defaulting for 1 or 2 weeks. Here is the other half of the story they don't acknowledge. Even if America pays its debt, on that list of prioritization does not appear Medicaid, education, transportation, law enforcement, and those dollars don't stay spent at the Federal level, they are spent at the State government level and the local government level. I had the great honor of being Governor of Virginia before I came to the Senate. We worked really hard to keep a triple-A bond rating. The Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, Louisiana--every one of these States, at least one-third of their State budgets are dollars that pass from the Federal Government down to the State level. We could see within a week or maybe even less every State government and every local government in America either have a budget crisis or default. What is happening in Detroit could happen across every community in America--not because of mistakes made at the local level or the State level but because of the irresponsibility of a group of folks up here who don't understand the economics that you don't mess with the full faith and credit of America. What other costs are we playing with? Many of the folks who have been most adamant about keeping the government shut--which, by the way, will cost the taxpayers more and will not save us a dime. Federal employees will be paid, but starting and stopping all these government contracts will hurt the economy, decrease tax revenues, and actually cost taxpayers more. But what may be even more jeopardizing than those actions with this kind of irresponsible testing of the markets or brinkmanship is that we could see interest rates rise. Every 1 point of increased interest payment on our debt accounts for $110 billion of additional Federal Government payments every year. A 1-percent interest in the debt increase over a 10-year basis is an extra $1 trillion of government spending that has a priority over any other aspect of Federal Government spending. Talk about a tax hike that gets America nothing from a group who says: We don't want to increase taxes at any cost-- well, playing with the debt ceiling, 1 percent interest, a $110 billion tax hike on every American family and every American business, and again, you can't say a few days later ``oops'' and the market would then take back down our interest rates. I know other colleagues are here and want to speak as well. In my business life, in my time as Governor, in my time as Senator, I have never seen an action nearly as irresponsible as the actions taken--and I don't think this is the majority of the colleagues on the other side--by a small cohort of ideologues who are willing to do whatever, including burn down the house, to try to achieve their goals. We will have a chance here in the Senate in about 20 minutes to decide whether we will take off the threat of America defaulting. The Asian markets open within 40 hours. The world is going to see whether America is going to maintain its position as reserve currency, the world's largest economy, and the most stable financial basis. I hope we will take a step today to at least remove the threat of default, to encourage our friends on the House side to do that as well as reopen this government, and then, yes, let's get our fiscal house in order. But putting America's fiscal reputation and putting companies in jeopardy with the shutdown is not the kind of governance America needs at this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on the remarks of my colleagues and the Senators who have spoken before me. It seems as though we have accepted this new normal, that shutting down the operations of the largest enterprise in America is acceptable. I concur with my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, about the real stories and real pain that is taking place because of this government shutdown. I commend some of my colleagues for their comments. When we read these tragic stories, whether it concerns NIH or it concerns our veterans or concerns our National Park Service, they say: Oh, but that part of the government we want to reopen. Does that mean that every other aspect of government remains closed until we can find that story? I point out stories to my colleagues that were in both The Washington Post and The New York Times today--stories we should be celebrating about--three American Nobel Prize winners. Does that mean we should now reopen the NSF, because if the National Science Foundation isn't funded, there may not be a next generation of American Nobel Prize winners? Do we have to bring in a story about some child being hurt because their food or their meat or their fish wasn't inspected correctly? I have to tell my colleagues, I spent a lot longer in business than I have in politics, and I have been involved in a lot of business negotiations. But I have never been involved in a negotiation that says during the negotiation we have to shut down the operations of our business and inflict pain not only upon our employees but upon the general economy across the board. That is not the way to govern. We have talked about stories about Federal workers. But I agree with the Senator from Alaska. It also hurts the hotel owners along the Skyline Drive in our State of Virginia and the government contractors who start and stop because they don't understand how government is going to operate. I heard a story this morning about a small business outside a government facility in St. Louis that is hurting as well. This piecemeal approach to reopening government makes no sense. What might be better--as we hear from some folks who want to have this piecemeal effect--is to ask: What parts of the government should stay closed. This is not the way to operate. We ought to reopen this government, put our people back to work, get this economy going again, and continue the very real conversations we have to have about getting our fiscal house in order. What makes this different to me, in the 4\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, than previous discussions and debates is that we have this--the first in my tenure in the Senate--government shutdown which disproportionately is hurting Virginia and Maryland. But it is literally hurting every community across America. But we have this tragedy, this catastrophe merging now into a deadline that is going to hit us next week where there are certain Members of Congress who say: It is OK if America defaults. I find that stunning. When we look back, we find there has never been a major industrial country in modern history that has defaulted. As a matter of fact, the last major country to default was Argentina, back in December of 2001. In the aftermath of that default, they had over 100 percent per annum inflation. Every family in Argentina saw literally 60 percent of their net worth disappear within a few weeks. America is not Argentina, but why would we even get close to that kind of potential economic catastrophe? It has been mentioned already that America holds a record as the reserve currency for the world. When crises happen, as have happened around the world recently in many countries, people and capital flow into the dollar. That is because the dollar and the full faith and credit of the United States has never been suspect. There has never been a question of whether we are going to honor our commitments. Next week, or very shortly after, that history is going to be put potentially in jeopardy. I have heard those who say we can prioritize payments. There is no business group in America or no economist that I know of, from left to right, who believes that somehow America can partially default and prioritize payments. Are we going to pay interest? Are we going to pay our troops? Those of us who served at State levels realize that sometimes our budgets are close to 50 percent passthroughs from the Federal Government. The Presiding Officer was the governor of the great State of West Virginia. How long before West Virginia defaults if America starts prioritizing its payments? How many other Detroits will there be all across America if we were to take this type of irresponsible action? Even if there were some possibility that there might be some chance of some logic behind this partial payment scheme, it has never been tried before. No industrial country has ever gotten this close to a default. Why would we take the chance? Why would we play Russian roulette with only one bullet in two chambers? It is something that at this moment, for our national economy and the world economy, can be devastating. I know we seem to all be repeating ourselves on both sides, but to me it seems very easy in a negotiation; we have differences. I would say to my colleagues I probably make folks on my side more angry than almost anyone else on these issues around getting our country's balance sheet in order. I am anxious to continue those discussions about tax reform, about entitlement reform, about bringing our debt-to-GDP ratio down. But that kind of negotiation hasn't happened while we have this government shutdown and the full faith and credit of the United States potentially in jeopardy. So let's open the government, not just because we hear some tragic story about one component of the government, not just because we need to make the case about food inspectors, about the National Science Foundation, about NASA Langley where we do aeronautics research--3,500 people and 7 people were at work last week. China, India, other nations around the world are not stopping their research, not stopping their investments because we can't get our act together. Open this government. Take off the table the idea that America will default. Then I am anxious to join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get our country's balance sheet in order. But to continue to hold this economy and these stories of these Americans lives in this limbo is irresponsible beyond words. So I hope we will go ahead and--agreeing with my colleagues who have spoken already, let's get this government open. Let's take and make sure we are going to honor and pay our debts, and let's get to the very real, important questions of how we get our Nation's balance sheet right. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

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 October 8, 2013, at 3 p.m., to hold an African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Security And Governance In Somalia: Consolidating Gains, Confronting Challenges, And Charting The Path Forward.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 8, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend the period of morning business for debate only until 7 p.m., and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Illinois for his comments on this issue. I will comment as well, but I also want to thank the chair of the Budget Committee for asking one more time and saying: Let's negotiate this. I think it is important to note, as the Senator from Illinois mentioned, some of the folks who say this is not just about the 800,000 Federal workers who are going on without pay, it is about national security. Seventy-two percent of the folks who work in the intelligence community, who are civilians, are furloughed today. It means our troops in harm's way are in greater danger. Our embassies are in greater danger, and our country is in greater danger. I also have heard some remarkable comments from some of our colleagues on the other side about the free enterprise system. I have to say I have spent longer in the free enterprise system than I have in elective office. I can never imagine two businesses that were negotiating saying: We are going to shut down our business rather than negotiate. I mean this really has entered into a new realm of the theater of the absurd. We think about why so many of those Congressmen from Virginia have stepped up, and it is because this is not just about the Federal workforce. I point out that today, at NASA Langley, one of our premier research institutions in America, where there are normally 3,500 employees, there are only six working today. But this doesn't just affect NASA Langley. It affects the gas station nearby, where the folks who go to work at NASA Langley buy gas. It affects the shops and restaurants around there, where people go to eat. I wonder what the folks who talk about the free enterprise system will say to that motel owner along Skyline Drive in Virginia or outside Yosemite who has a cancellation this weekend. That is not a government worker. That is part of the free enterprise system. No business leader in America, regardless of political stripe, thinks shutting down the Federal Government makes good business sense. Earlier today, along with my colleagues from Maryland--Senator King couldn't be there, but he was very supportive--we brought in some--not faceless budgets but real folks who were directly affected by this shutdown. We had a woman who had worked for the National Science Foundation for close to 40 years, saying she had gone through a $2,500 hit from furloughs already and was unsure. She hadn't bought a car last week because this was hanging over her head. She felt she was going to be fine in some way, but she wondered what young scientist would come work in public service today. Again, in a free enterprise system--this is a competitive world--the rest of the world is not going to stop their science, their innovation, their creativity because America can't get its act together and keep its government operating. I have been occasionally called by some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle too reflexively bipartisan. There is always both sides of an argument. But on this argument, with these facts, there is no lack of clarity in my mind that holding not just our Federal workforce but the economy of America hostage, and saying that until we get our way we are not going to reopen the largest enterprise in the world--the Federal Government of the United States--is more irresponsible than anything I have seen, not only in my political life but in my business life. I have had some of the same conversations my colleagues have had, and I know there is a great deal of uneasiness on the other side. I actually don't believe this is Democrats versus Republicans. We have our bill over on the House side, and I believe, candidly, we will see the majority of the House Republicans join in reopening the government. Then let's have this kind of very real debate about health care, about tax reform, about getting our country's balance sheet right. The notion that we are basically going to affect the lives of 800,000 folks who are furloughed, and countless millions of others who depend on those services, or countless millions others in the free enterprise system who depend upon our workforce as their customers, is stunningly irresponsible. All of us here say we want our economy to recover. Well, let's get our balance sheet right. But in the meantime, let's open the government. Let these folks get back to their job, and let's have this conference that has been called for 18 different times. I will close, and I know other folks have mentioned this. No matter what happens going forward, we are going to ask our Federal workforce to do more with less resources. Again, I have spent more time in the private sector than in the public sector. I have built companies. The last thing you do to your workforce, when you are asking them to do more with less, is disrespect them continuously the way we have done to the Federal workforce over the last 3 years--3 years without a pay increase, furloughs, being told that somehow they are riding in the wagon not driving the wagon. Let me say, as somebody who got here because of a good public school, because of a student loan program, because I had a free enterprise system that allowed me to fail, but then succeed because there was a support system put forward by a Federal Government, I think those folks are pulling that wagon every bit as much as every other American. I hope we will be able to get not only those folks in the House but others to be willing to say it is time to get this government bill, it is time to have a long overdue conversation about our balance sheet. I appeal to all of my colleagues, let's get this behind us. Please, don't bring somebody down here and say that under the free enterprise system somehow it is rational, logical, or makes good business sense to keep this government shuttered. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his comments. Let me say no Senator has served with more distinction, both here in the Senate and prior to that in the House, in being a constant advocate for Federal employees and being willing to step up to protect them and rebut what we too often hear from some of our colleagues who, across the board, without distinction, demean and denigrate the extraordinary good work that so many countless unnamed Federal employees do. I thank the Senator from Maryland for that work. I thank him for his continued willingness in conversations with me and others to talk about: Hey, we all have to stretch a little way to get things done. I know he is hearing the same thing in Maryland. People are not distinguishing red shirt, blue shirt. They want us to get this done. I thank the Senator for his good work and I look forward to working with him and folks on both sides of the aisle on this issue.

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