Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the very real effects sequestration is having. I want to speak about the people of Virginia, but I am sure it is equally true of folks in New Mexico and for that matter folks all across the country. I remind folks, sequestration was set up so it would be so stupid, so draconian, so outside the realm of possibility that no rational people would ever let it happen. We are actually seeing now that we did not pass that bar. Sequestration is happening. It is actually stupidity on steroids. Earlier this week a group of us heard from Dr. Francis Collins, the head of NIH. NIH, as we all know, is America's premier health research institution. Dr. Collins told us of the real world impacts of sequester cuts. He gave heartbreaking examples of lifesaving medical research that is being disrupted, perhaps irrevocably, due to budget cuts and employee furloughs. Two days ago I had the opportunity to chair a Budget Committee hearing about the impact of sequestration on our Nation's security. We heard policymakers talk about what sequestration was doing to military readiness. But what drove home the point to me was Virginia business owner Mark Klett who had actually been named as the Small Businessman of the Year back in 2011, who said this start-and-stop environment, where you did not have any predictability of whether your funding was coming through, was completely wrecking his business model and it already had caused him to bench over a third of his 60 employees. In the last 2 weeks alone, since sequestration has started, I have received over 500 letters, e-mails, phone calls from Virginians who are bearing the very real brunt of our failure to do our job, with real consequences on real people with potentially devastating impacts on a dedicated, experienced Federal workforce. This is no way to run a business. It is no way to run an enterprise as large as the Federal Government. One letter is from Virginia Beach. Hampton Roads and Virginia Beach are our most concentrated area of naval installations and Air Force and Army installations. This woman is from Virginia beach. Her husband is a retired Navy officer who is now furloughed once a week for the next 11 weeks. She writes that her husband came home with a letter about the furlough, that he felt his moral character and the oath he had taken to protect his Nation would not allow him to write, so she said she was going to write. She says: It pains me to see what he has worked so hard to defend, you're working so hard to tear down. This country is deserving of good leadership and right now Congress is not providing it. Another Navy employee from the Fredericksburg area writes: Three years of pay freezes followed by a furlough seriously makes me question if this is where I want to spend the rest of my career. Think about the hours and dollars that we as a public have invested in getting these individuals trained to provide these services. They are now saying they are not sure this is where they want to work. A woman down at the Portsmouth Naval Hospital writes: Both my husband and I are DOD employees and will be taking a 20 percent pay cut for 11 weeks. She points out they may be able to get by but a lot of her coworkers do not know how they are going to make ends meet. A Federal employee from Woodbridge, VA, down the road in Prince William County, says: I want all my elected officials to know how disappointed I am that we have been abandoned and let down by our representatives in Congress. I have three children in college, and I am paying for college loans of two children who have graduated. Eleven furlough days don't sound like much, but over the year a loss of over $4,000 in income is crucial. If I ran my own budget like this, I would have to fire myself. This employee I do not think is going to get a sequestration discount on repaying those student loans. A West Point graduate and Iraq war veteran says: The failure of Congress is having a tangible and real negative impact on people's lives and livelihood. I do not see leadership, I do not see accountability, and I do not see selfless service that rises above partisan politics. Finally, a former Army officer who lives in Springfield, VA, says: The morale in our agency is so poor that most workers who used to work 10 or 11 hours a day are planning to work their exact 8 hours [only]. So the 20 percent cut 1 day a week is actually cutting productivity in a much greater percentage. I could stand here the rest of the afternoon and go through letter after letter that has the same theme. What strikes me about these letters--I am sure, again, the Presiding Officer is hearing from New Mexicans what we are hearing from Virginians--is that none of these letters talk about the red team or the blue team. None of these letters say this is all the Democrats' fault or Republicans' fault. None of these letters say this is a House problem; the Senate has the solution. They are saying, regardless of party, regardless of whether you are in the House or the Senate, your job is to get this fixed. It is appropriately targeted at the entire Congress and, while our dismal performance recently may be great fodder for late night comedians, I think having a 90-percent-plus disapproval rating candidly undermines Americans' basic faith in our democratic institutions. Let me try to respond. Here is what I have done and will continue to do. I will keep fighting for the significant Federal workforce that lives in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the 4\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, I have come down to the floor on a regular basis to celebrate the great work of individual Federal employees. I will continue to come down to the floor and appeal to my colleagues and provide real examples of the real impacts that this funny name-- sequestration--is actually having on people's livelihoods. On a personal basis I am giving up 20 percent of my salary through the end of this budget year. I am donating it to the Federal Employee Education & Assistance Fund, which provides emergency loans as well as childcare assistance, scholarships, and other financial help for the families of Federal and postal workers. I will continue to work with any colleague, Democrat, Republican, Independent, libertarian, vegetarian--it doesn't matter--who is willing to try to, yes, replace sequestration in a more rational way and get our debt and deficit under control. I am proud of the fact that the 3\1/2\ years--I guess 4\1/2\ years I have been here, there is no issue on which I have tried to work harder. I am proud of the fact I was one of the founders of the so-called Gang of 6 that built on the very good work of the Simpson-Bowles plan. And I remind my colleagues, anyone who thinks there is any solution that is not going to involve raising additional revenues and starting to reform our entitlement programs either can't read a balance sheet or has not grasped the magnitude of this issue. I will continue to advocate for a balanced bipartisan blueprint that will work on these issues: Raise the revenues, not to grow the size of government but to pay our bills, make sure the promise of Medicare and a Medicaid and Social Security are here, not just for today's generation but for future generations, in a way that is responsible. We are soon coming up on another series of important fiscal and budgetary deadlines. I know many of my colleagues and the American public probably got to budget fatigue after the end of the fiscal cliffs and supercommittees and debt ceilings and thought maybe we were past a little bit of that. Well, the economy is recovering and the size of the deficit is decreasing but our challenge is still in front of us. We are soon set to come to the end of this fiscal year which will present these issues again at the end of September. The debt ceiling will be not far after that. I have heard there are only slightly more than 20 legislative days left before the new fiscal year starts. It is incumbent upon us to recognize, to reflect the voices of these Virginians who, again, don't call out red team, blue team or House or Senate, but say to us in Congress, implore us to do our jobs. We have been joined by my colleague, the Senator from Maryland. I think we could debate whether Maryland or Virginia is more ground zero for the negative impacts of sequestration. But whether it is NIH workers in Bethesda or civilian Navy employees in Woodbridge, the stories are the same. This is not fair. It is not right. None of these folks are getting a 20-percent discount on daycare, rent or, as the one person said, repayment on their student loans. It is incumbent upon us to get this problem fixed and that is going to require the kind of hard work on revenues and entitlement reform so many of us have tried to avoid; otherwise we will not see an America that will stay as competitive as it needs to be and we will disrespect the literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of workers who work directly or indirectly to protect our Nation and are trying to provide the services that are so essential to our people. Let's not do any more harm. Let's not waste any more time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Budget Conference I just want to point out the fact that we are now starting to see furloughs in the Federal workforce. There is no State in our Nation that is more ground zero, that is getting hit harder than the Commonwealth of Virginia with sequestration. There are real people who are being hurt. We have talked about some of the numbers, whether it is in Head Start or NIH grants, but let me share some of the things I have heard in the last 2 weeks from Virginians. Pat Hickman, who works at the Department of Defense in northern Virginia, says: ``I'm tired of hearing, `It's only one day,' and `it's only 20 percent.' '' Pat is now starting to decide, because of these 11 days of furlough, whether she is going to have to start to curtail her contributions to her Thrift Savings Plan. Her retirement would be in jeopardy. Another employee whose name didn't come forward said that if you have kids in school, during the summertime they are in daycare. This Federal employee spends $2,000 a month for daycare, and they are not getting a discount on these expenses that are built into their family budget. How could they have planned 1 year out that they were going to get furloughed 11 weeks in a row? Craig Granville, who works down at the shipyard in Portsmouth, says that furloughing for the next 12 weeks will hit their expenses hard. He has a wife who is currently going for treatment for an illness and the insurance company only pays half. They have to decide do they cut back on the wife's treatment or do they go into their savings. I have letters and comments from Virginian after Virginian urging us--begging us--to take off our Democratic and Republican hats and put the interests of our country first and foremost. I know we have lots of differences on how we want to approach and bridge this gap. We are never going to get to bridge the gap in our differences on the debt and deficit and on the budget unless we can get to conference and try to work it out. I say in strong support of our Budget chairman, I thank her for the great work she has done in getting a budget in a fair way, where our Republican colleagues had a chance to raise their objections. I hope and pray we will get to that conference so we can get this issue resolved. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from New Mexico. As a former chief executive myself, it is remarkable to me that regardless of who is the President of the United States, he or she ought to be able to get their team in place, with appropriate oversight and review. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be the case in this body. Many of the other debates we have had are important, but in my 4-plus years that I have been here, this supersedes everything else that if we could reach some resolution on, I think might go further than any other action in both lowering some of the rhetoric and lancing some of the boil of partisanship in the Senate, as well as doing more for the kind of job growth that is still so desperately needed. That is getting our fiscal house in order, getting our balance sheet in order. We have seen some good news as the economy recovers. We have seen our annual deficit numbers go down, although I have to look with somewhat jaundiced eyes when the press is saying: Hallelujah, this year our deficit may only be $746 billion. That is still not good enough, and the solution set we are looking for is not that far away. I am going to make a couple comments and then ask my colleague, the chair of our Budget Committee, to once again make an offer to proceed with regular order, something that is in the backstop of this debate about rules, something our colleagues on the other side of the aisle-- perhaps appropriately--beat us over the head for 3 years about the fact that we ought to have regular order around the budget. It has now been 110 days since the Senate approved a budget, after a marathon session that went to 5 in the morning--a session that I think even our colleagues on the other side who didn't vote for the budget would agree was open and appropriate to rules and everybody got the chance to have their say and offer their ideas. Now, for the 16th time, we are going to come and ask our colleagues: Let's abide by regular order and go to a budget conference. Let's do the hard work that is necessary to make sure we finish the job of getting the kind of deficit reduction, getting our balance sheet in order, that will allow this economy to move forward and, quite honestly, allow us to get back to regular order on issues such as appropriations bills and a host of other things. I can't speak for everyone, but people in Virginia and I imagine people in Washington State--and I see colleagues from New Mexico and Florida--and elsewhere are saying: What are you doing? Why can't you get something done? Every day that we remain in this paralyzed state, while it may be great late-night fodder for comedians about Congress's inability to act, at some point this dysfunction erodes the underlying confidence the American people have in our institutions. That is not good for American democracy, and it is not good as well for the ability of our economy to recover. One of the things we have seen in press reports and what is starting to seep into consciousness is the actions that were set up in sequestration; that they don't seem to be as bad as people think. But let's remind ourselves that sequestration was set up to be the stupidest option possible, an option so stupid that no rational group of people would ever let it come to pass. I have cut budgets as Governor. I have cut budgets in business. There is a smart way and a stupid way to cut a budget. We set up a process that was so stupid that no rational group would ever let it happen. One of the reasons why I think our approval rating hovers around 8 percent is we didn't come together, we didn't let this budget process take place, and we allowed this sequestration to move forward.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent for a 5-minute extension.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be here today with my friend the Senator from Tennessee to talk about legislation that we and eight--actually now nine of our colleagues--bipartisan legislation that has been recently introduced to reform our housing finance system. I came into office a couple of years later than the Senator from Tennessee, but I got here in January of 2009 when the entire future of our financial system was uncertain. We members of the Banking Committee rolled up our sleeves and tried to work together to prevent future crises. Well, history will determine whether we accomplished that goal. The Senator from Tennessee and I worked strongly together on a couple of titles of what has subsequently become known as the Dodd-Frank legislation. While there are problems in that legislation, while there are problems still within our financial system, I think no independent observer would not say that our financial system today, in 2013, is stronger than it was after the crisis. But one area that did not receive very much attention was the question of housing finance. We also know that in many ways our housing finance system, both from lack of underwriting, the process that then ended up allowing a lot of mortgages to get packaged off, securitized, with the assumption that there would never be a decline in housing prices or a significant decline in housing prices and that these securities would never be in jeopardy, in many ways led to part of that financial crisis. At the end of the day, those institutions--Fannie and Freddie--that had been the core of our housing finance system ended up acquiring $188 billion of taxpayer support to shore up those institutions so that the whole housing system would not collapse. Well, it is now 5 years later, and we believe it is time to transform the failed model of Fannie and Freddie into a smarter, sustainable system with more private capital. We believe we can better protect the taxpayer and maintain broad access to affordable mortgage credit. But we need to act soon to prevent this issue from falling victim to election-year politics. And everyone--from the administration, to many of us here on the floor of this Senate, to many housing experts--knows the status quo is not sustainable. So we have two important questions before we get into some of these principles about which I will engage my colleague the Senator from Tennessee: 1. Why do we need to take action now, and the second question is, why does Congress need to act? I will take the first question. Why is the time now? Well, over the last 5 years since the housing and the overall financial crisis, we have seen--slowly, albeit--the housing market come back to life. Obviously this has been supported by a low interest rate environment that has permitted more refinancing and loan modifications. Rising home values have brought many home owners out from underwater mortgages. Housing prices have been a significant factor in Fannie's and Freddie's recent record profits. But now those very profits have somehow been wrapped into at least some of our colleagues' discussions about our debt ceiling debate. I speak for this Senator and I think the Senator from Tennessee and, candidly, I think many Senators are not even engaged with us on this debate right now. The last thing we want is for Fannie and Freddie to virtually serve as a piggy bank for the pet projects of either side of the aisle. If we are not careful, that could happen. Fannie and Freddie have been in conservatorship for 5 years. Before we become even more dependent upon this broken system, it is time for us to move forward. So I would like to ask my colleague the Senator from Tennessee, if now is the time, if he might share with us some of the ideas he feels and we feel about why it is important that Congress be involved in this process and not simply allow this conservatorship to go on ad infinitum into the future.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to return the same compliments to the Senator from Tennessee. He brought a greater breadth of background in housing finance and the public finance sector than I did. But together, working with our other colleagues, I think we have all built a series of critical points. Again, echoing what the Senator from Tennessee said, there are always ways to improve on legislation, but the first and foremost point was that we need to make sure there is taxpayer protection. We need to make sure the taxpayers are fully repaid that $188 billion. We need to make sure as well--and we spend a great deal of time working with industry and others--that there continues to be broad access to market credit. I think one of the challenges we both felt with Fannie and Freddie was there was not only a combination of a private sector gain, public sector loss with this kind of hybrid model, but layered on top of that was a social purpose. I, for one, believe very strongly that we have to make sure there is affordable housing, that there is good access to market credit. But when you layer that on a quasi-private entity, as we did for years with Fannie and Freddie, you end up where you are not sure whether those entities are performing that necessary securitization and financing purpose to maintain the overall housing financing sector or whether they are allowing certain loans that maybe shouldn't have gone into this process because of the social purpose. So we have said: Well, we have to make sure there is the appropriate private sector taxpayer protection: 10 percent capital--very important. We also said: Let's go ahead and split off that public sector role, clearly identify it, make sure that for those loans that get securitized, a small transaction fee--not a tax, a small transaction fee--is charged. Those funds are then set aside to promote rental housing, access to credit, low-income housing. Have that audited, stand alone, perform that important function. As we said as well, doing this, as the Senator from Tennessee has mentioned--he has been quite strong on this--we are going to make sure the government role is clearly defined but much more limited. There are some who say we can do this totally on the private sector side. Well, we hope there can still continue to be the 30-year fixed-mortgage product that I think the American public has come to expect. We can privatize more, but not having the ability to have the government backstop would remove that very essential component of our current housing financing system. So a more limited government role but still the ability for our American consumer to have the kind of access to the financial products they have come to expect. Again, it has been mentioned--making sure that we expand private sector capital and make sure that they take care of that underwriting and credit assessment that, quite honestly, the old model did not really provide. I would like to ask the Senator from Tennessee this because this is one on which we went around and around. I again thank him and his staff and my staff and the staff of our now nine cosponsors of this legislation. One thing that was quite important to us was that if you are going to create this new model, how do we make sure that--while we want more competition, private sector competition, while we want institutions to be able to go ahead and provide this important issuance and securitization function, how do we make sure that those small banks--that community-based bank or that credit union, that small bank in Knoxville or that small bank in Martinsville, VA--still gets access to the same kind of ability to issue mortgages, have those mortgages securitized, and not be at a disadvantage of some of the mega- institutions? So I would ask my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee Mr. Corker, why doesn't the Senator speak to that issue because it did take us a lot of work to try to get this right, and there may be even further refinement. But I think this is an area--again, with the reaction we have seen from the credit unions, the community-based banks--where I think we have made a great first step.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know our time is about up, but I want to close and then I will turn it back over to the final comments of my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee. I want to say to my colleagues and their staff and those interested in this issue that this was the one piece of unfinished business in our financial system reform. While there are some today who say: Well, things have gotten better, we should allow the status quo to continue-- well, I don't think, from the administration on down, there is anyone who thinks the status quo simply continuing--with private sector gain and public sector losses--is the right model. We ought to take the lessons we have learned over the last 5 years-- some of the very good work in terms of the standardization that is being done at the FHA right now--and set up a new model. As the Senator from Tennessee said, make sure we get that taxpayer protection. I would simply add that housing is a critically important part of our overall economy, and on any piece of legislation--and let me not say all these groups have endorsed this legislation but they have all been generally supportive, they all have had areas they wanted to see improvement in--when you have realtors and homebuilders and mortgage bankers and large and small banks and community organizations and groups who are concerned about low-income housing and rental housing all saying we are in the ballpark in an area that is so important to our economy and so complex, I think we have taken a great first step. So I would urge colleagues to join with us. The Senator and I will be happy to come and make presentations. We have found, as we have sat down with many Members and walked them through all the processes and all of the kinds of protections we have built into this legislation, that the presentations have been one of the reasons we have had such success with nine members of the Banking Committee--almost half of the Banking Committee, without all of them even having had a full presentation--pledging their support. I again thank my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, for his great work and leadership. He has been the lead sponsor. I am proud to be his wing man on this as we continue to work through it. My sense, though, is this is the time. It is my hope the Banking Committee will take up this piece of legislation and make their improvements on it. It would be a huge mistake, with interest rates at this kind of record low, with this housing market coming back, and with us putting in place a 5-year appropriate transition time, not to act now. If not now, then when would be the right time to do the kind of meaningful housing finance reform that I think so many experts across the ideological spectrum have all called for? I look forward to working with my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, and I thank him for his good work, and I am happy for him to close out our comments today.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy and speak as in morning business.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak at this time, followed by the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from New York.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senator from Iowa didn't accept the proposal of the majority leader and let us continue making improvements to this bill. But I have watched this debate and I wish to add my voice to those who came out and complimented the good work, the bipartisan work the Gang of 8 has performed in their efforts to forge a bipartisan compromise on an issue that is of remarkable importance to this nation--to our economic growth, to our security and, quite honestly, to who we are as a country. I look forward to voting in favor of this legislation. I will not recap all of the components and the path of how we got here. Suffice it to say this piece of legislation includes protections for American workers, improves border enforcement, puts in a place a more effective identity verification process, improves our entry exit system, as well provides a reasonable earned pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants who already live and work in America. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that immigration reform will also help decrease the deficit. As well, it includes key priorities I have championed in the Senate, including sensible and necessary reforms to our high skill and employment based visa programs. It makes sure that as we continue to train and educate the world's best and brightest--STEM and PhDs from Brazil or the Czech Republic or India--they can stay here in America. Unfortunately, because what happens now is that when they get their degree, we send them home to compete against us. Canada, the U.K., and Australia have changed their laws, so now these high skill individuals don't go home, they simply move across the border to Canada and take those high-paying jobs and support jobs with them. This legislation will also makes important strides to ensure DREAMers--those young people who were brought to this country at a young age, through no fault or choice of her own, who are caught in this limbo at this point, where many jurisdictions, including unfortunately, my State, sometimes don't allow them to finish their education--have the opportunity to contribute to the only country they know. As a matter of fact, during this year's State of the Union Address I was proud to invite Ambar Pinto. Ambar is a 19-year-old incredible young woman who was born in Bolivia, has grown up most of her life here in Virginia, and I was proud to invite her to be my guest at the State of the Union Address. I know Ambar will be able to contribute to her community, to Virginia, and to the United States, and this legislation will make sure she gets the same kind of fair shot in this country that I had and other Americans have had. Let me also say--I know there are other Senators who wish to speak-- this legislation is about the character of our country. Senator Alexander from Tennessee said something the other day I have quoted him on a number of times. In this immigration debate, we discuss the character of our country. If I move to China tomorrow, I will never be Chinese. If I move to India tomorrow, I will never be Indian. If I move to France, I will never become French. It is only in America that someone from anywhere around the world, if they play by the rules, accept our democratic principles and our free enterprise system, can come here and get the fair shot and not only can they become Americans, but their children will be Americans for generations to come. Our country is at its best when it welcomes hardworking immigrants into the national fold. That American tradition is reflected in the tenants of this legislation. This path has been circuitous. We are long overdue. The last immigration reform was more than 20 years ago. Our current system is fundamentally flawed and broken. It is time to pass this legislation with an overwhelming majority, get it to the other body, get it out, and get this bill to the desk of the President for his signature. I am proud of the work that has been done by Members from both parties on this important legislation. I look forward to its successful conclusion, I hope, tomorrow, and I look forward to the fact that the Ambar Pintos and so many others who have lived in the shadows for so long, will be able to pursue the American dream. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was not able to vote on final passage of the farm bill today due to an urgent personal matter, but I want the record to reflect my strong support for the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act. Last year I voted in favor of the farm bill and would have once again supported this bipartisan legislation. S. 954 gives Virginia's farmers the certainty they need, supports the economies of our rural communities and also improves current farm programs. I am proud that the bill contains two of my priorities: ensuring farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed get a fair share of conservation funding and reforming broadband financing programs to provide greater accountability and transparency. I would like to thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their tireless efforts, and wish I could have been there to cast my vote for this important, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. Res. 65, a resolution which sends Israel, Iran, and the region a clear message: We stand with our friends in Israel as they face the looming threat of a nuclear-capable Iran. I thank Senators Graham and Menendez for submitting this critical resolution, which comes as we face a dangerous crossroads in the Middle East. Iran's quest for a nuclear weapons capability is moving closer and closer to fruition. Talks with Iran have yet to achieve the progress necessary to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions and to compel Iran to comply with the standards and norms expected of members of the world community. And while sanctions are having a significant impact on Iran's economy, they have not yet caused Iran's leaders to alter their course. Just yesterday, Iran's leaders again showed their uncompromising and hard-line stance by excluding viable opposition candidates from their upcoming Presidential election. There has been a special bond of friendship and cooperation between the U.S. and the State of Israel for over 60 years, which continues to retain broad bipartisan support. We should continue to support and expand the close military, intelligence, and security cooperation between our two countries. In this context, S. Res. 65 makes three vital points. First, it reiterates that it is U.S. policy to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. Second, it calls for the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urges the President to continue and strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation, including closing loopholes that allow the regime to skirt sanctions. And third, it makes clear the U.S. should stand in support of Israel in case Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, in accordance with U.S. law and Congress's constitutional responsibility to authorize the use of force. Now is not the time for America to project any ambiguity concerning Iran's nuclear program. While we hope that sanctions will ultimately prove successful in persuading the regime to halt its nuclear ambitions, we must at the same time make clear to Tehran that we will stand with Israel. Any other message will simply encourage the mullahs to believe that Iran can pursue its nuclear ambitions with impunity--and may facilitate precisely the sort of crisis that we all hope to avoid. I urge my colleagues to stand with Israel by voting in favor of S. Res. 65.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I believe I was listed in the queue a bit earlier than that, but I only have a 3- or 4-minute statement. I do not mind trading off, but I, similar to others, was told the time was right after the vote that I would be recognized.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. But reserving the right to object, is that before or after the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and wish him good travels. I rise briefly today to point out one more time some of the ramifications of the policy I have repeatedly called stupidity on steroids, which is our sequestration policy. Word came out earlier this week from the Department of Defense that the Secretary, to meet his sequestration numbers, is going to have to furlough teachers in Department of Defense schools for 5 days and education support personnel for 11 days. Many of us on the floor of the Senate stand and praise our men and women who serve in the military, who defend our freedoms. I cannot think of anything that is more of an antithesis to those words we say, that we would praise their service, if we say: Yes, you go off and defend our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan; meanwhile, your families and your children cannot go to school. What makes this particularly difficult to stomach at this point is just today, Blue Star Families--one of our Nation's best veterans organizations, veterans support group organizations--came out and said in a list of priorities for military families, No. 1, the impact of deployments, repeated deployments on military families and particularly children; and, No. 2, military children education. In my State and many other States, military families, particularly on base, have a military DOD school. Those schools provide a valuable service to those military families oftentimes who have their parents deployed. In my mind, how can we stand on the floor of this Senate and commend those men and women who serve and at the same time say we support that service: We want to support you at home, but not enough to not have your kids have to miss 5 days of school because their teachers are furloughed or providers of other support services for educational personnel are furloughed for 11 days. I am going to write Secretary Hagel, and I ask that all of my colleagues join with me in this matter in urging that the furloughs of these educators who educate the children of our military families be exempted from the process of sequestration. While it begs the large question that the Nation confronts a $16 trillion debt, I think most of us in this Chamber know that the only way we are going to get to a solution is if those of us on this side of the aisle find a way to make smart and sensible reforms to our entitlement programs. Our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are going to have to work with us to find ways to generate additional revenues; otherwise, we are going to keep coming back to the kinds of cuts we have seen in sequestration and in domestic discretionary. We are on a current path that would take domestic discretionary spending from 16 percent of our Federal spending down to 4 percent. As a business investor, I would never invest in a business that spent less than 5 percent of its resources on its workforce and infrastructure. So today I rise on the issue of making sure we actually honor those military families of whom we speak so often and make sure their kids get to go to school next year and don't have to lose valuable educational time because their teachers are furloughed. I hope my colleagues will join me on the letter to Secretary Hagel. With that, I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Texas for his courtesy.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Oklahoma, recognizing that he has other accommodations he has to deal with. I ask unanimous consent I be granted up to 4 minutes to speak after the Senator from Oklahoma completes his comments.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, commend the Senator from Utah for his comments. We all know the Senator from Utah, like myself, has a real interest in making sure our government is more efficient and more effective in its operations, and know, as well, that the Senator from Utah has not always been necessarily supportive of health care reform, the Affordable Care Act. But I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Utah about Marilyn Tavenner. I have known Marilyn Tavenner for 25 years. I think while we may disagree about the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act, we do know one thing: We want CMS to be the most efficient, effective organization possible. I commend the Senator from Utah for his strong endorsement of Marilyn Tavenner. I think he spoke eloquently about her background. I am going to try to add a few comments, but I did not want to let him get away without my thanking him for his comments. I rise today to join this bipartisan show of support for the President's nominee to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Marilyn Tavenner. She comes to the floor this afternoon on a fairly unusual circumstance, considering some of the nominees we are considering. She came actually with a unanimous voice vote from the Senate Finance Committee. She is supported by a number of health care organizations, including the American Hospital Association, the SEIU, the American Nurses Association, just to name a few. As I mentioned already, I have known Marilyn Tavenner for 25 years. She is the real deal. She will be a phenomenal choice to continue to lead CMS. Marilyn grew up in a small town in southside Virginia and worked her way through school. She began her health care career not as a hospital administrator or an executive, but she began on the front lines as an emergency room nurse. Then through her ability, and her ability to relate to people and care, she rose to become CEO of a hospital and then a senior executive of a leading health care company. I know as Governor I called upon Marilyn on a repeated basis on health care issues that affected Virginia. Marilyn has always been committed to people and public service. She took that private sector knowledge and experience into the public sector even before her tenure with this administration when she joined my good friend, the junior Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine when he became Governor and served with his administration as the Virginia Secretary of Health. Today, Marilyn has already served at the highest levels of CMS, where she has shown her ability to manage and operate one of the largest and most complex agencies in our whole government. By spending most of her career in the private sector, she knows the impact that regulations and rules have on the real world and understands the importance of not just achieving a policy goal but ensuring that it works in practice. As we all know, passing a law like the ACA is a complicated process, particularly a law like this that has generated as much controversy. That means the role of the Administrator of CMS to be evenhanded, fact- based, effective, and efficient in implementing the dramatic transformation of the health care market that the ACA is going to provide will require a first class Administrator, somebody who understands how to get things done and somebody who is well-respected by both sides of the aisle. Marilyn Tavenner clearly fits that bill. She is held in extraordinarily high esteem. We, again, heard the ranking member on the Finance Committee already speak in her support. She received unanimous support from the Finance Committee, but she is also held in extraordinarily high esteem by her peers. In fact, in February all of the previous living Senate-confirmed Administrators of the CMS--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, all of them who have run the agency in the past--sent a letter urging her confirmation, noting that it was ``hard to imagine a candidate more worthy of bipartisan support.'' I look forward to voting with what I hope will be an overwhelming majority of my colleagues to confirm Marilyn for this very important role a little bit later this afternoon. I know I am about to give up my time and yield to the great new Senator from Massachusetts. I know she is going to be speaking about another nominee, someone with whom I have had the opportunity to visit a couple of times, for a role that may be almost as controversial as being head of CMS, being Administrator of EPA. I want to say that in my conversations with Gina McCarthy she seems to bring a breadth of background of work at the State level, working under both Democratic and Republican administrations. I know the Senator from Massachusetts is going to speak to her qualifications, but as long as I am here I want to add my voice as well that I think Ms. McCarthy will be a great head of the EPA, and I look forward to joining my friend and colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, in supporting her. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise to make a few brief remarks. I will leave most of those remarks until after I make another request for unanimous consent. I think I know where this unanimous consent request is headed. I am disappointed. I think we are on, I believe, day 51 at this point as to the request that many of us have made in this Chamber to go back to regular order. Part of that regular order is after a budget has passed for budget conferees to be appointed so we can resolve what I believe is the most important issue facing our Nation, the question of our debt and deficit, so we can try to take the actions needed to get this economy jump-started again. I will reserve most of my time for the remarks afterward. In the meantime, let me make this request: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, simply as someone who has spent an awful lot of time on this issue, both sides need to be willing to comprise. We need to deal with both the revenue side of this challenge as well as the entitlement reforms that are needed to make sure we can get our close-to-$17-trillion debt back under control. Recognizing the Senator's request would take part of the opportunity to reach that common ground off the table, I object.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I simply want to again take a moment here, 52 days after we spent until 5 o'clock in the morning debating a budget--the budget that had over 100 amendments offered, a budget that had amendments from both sides offered and rejected but also accepted. Amendments from both sides were accepted into this budget. It passed with a majority. I know there are some of my colleagues on the other side who say we should go into the next step of this debate with certain things taken off the table. I do not understand how we are ever going to get to the point which every economist from left to right has all agreed upon, that we have to put this issue of lurching from one budget crisis to another behind us. The fact is there is an awful lot of consensus about what we need to do. Starting back with the Simpson-Bowles report, then followed up by the Gang of Six and the Domenici-Rivlin report, everyone agrees we need to do at least $4 trillion over the next 10 years. We don't have to solve the whole problem, we just have to take a good step forward. The remarkable thing is even lurching from crisis to crisis we are over half the way there. Depending on how you want to count, we have done between $2.2 and $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction. That means we need about $2 trillion more to be done for us to again not only provide the boost to the American economy, not only to no longer make Congress the object of more than late-night jokes about our inability to get things done, not only to be able to ensure we have driven our debt-to- GDP ratio back down, headed in the right direction, but, perhaps most important, demonstrate to the American people that when we have an issue of this importance we can actually find that common ground. To do that is going to require, candidly, everyone in this body and our friends down the hall in the House to be willing to give a little bit. That means we are going to have to find ways to generate additional revenues. I believe, for one--I know sometimes many on my side disagree with me--we are going to have to find ways to reform our entitlement programs so the promise of Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, some of the best initiatives ever put forward, are going to be here 30 years from now. But if we are going to reach that kind of compromise, it means the regular order has to proceed. It means we have to have these two very different budgets, one passed by the House, one passed by the Senate, resolved through the regular order of a conference committee. If we do not do this--if we do not do this--my fear is we are going to continue to do the kind of actions we have been on over the last number of months where we continue to cut back on that relatively small piece of Federal spending which is discretionary spending. We are already seeing, in States such as Massachusetts and Minnesota and Virginia, the effects of sequestration where we have put forward a policy that was viewed by everyone when it was originally thought up as so stupid, so beyond the pale, that no rational group of folks would ever allow it to come to pass. We are now 3 or 4 months into allowing that to come to pass. While we have taken action on certain items such as relieving the challenge of our air traffic controllers, we have not taken action on making sure the funds have been replaced for the 70,000 to 80,000-plus kids who have lost their Head Start funding. We have not taken action to ensure the NIH cancer grants that are being cut, where we have done multigrant years--where the preceding years of research are now going to be flushed because we cannot do the final year of the grant, we cannot take action on that. We have not taken action on the fact that now, as announced by the Secretary of Defense, while we have made some progress, where no longer are there 22 days of furloughs, we are now seeing 11 days of furloughs to our defense civilian employees. This is at a time that makes enormous challenges to their budgets but beyond that to the readiness of the men and women who defend our Nation. We can continue this path on sequestration, frankly, retarding our ability to keep our military ready, holding back our ability to have the kind of economic recovery we would all like to see or we can allow the regular order, a regular order that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle called for, for the last couple of years, for us in this Senate to pass the budget. We passed that budget. Now we need to take the next step in the process and appoint conferees and let us try to find that common ground between the House and Senate budget so we can address this issue of debt and deficit, so we can demonstrate to the American people that we can do our most basic responsibility, which is to make sure we pay our bills and operate the basic functions of government, and that we can do our job to restore the faith that this institution can work in a way the Founders set up. Unfortunately, we are not going to take that step today because now, for the fifty-second day in a row, our Republican colleagues have objected to the next step in regular order. I am greatly disappointed, but I know I and other colleagues will come down on a regular basis and continue to make this request. My hope is that at some point in the not too distant future we can let the process continue, and we can get to the hard work of resolving the differences of the House and Senate so we can put this issue of lurching from budget crisis to budget crisis in the rearview mirror. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks and to make a motion. Everyone in this body knows one of the issues, the issue I believe is most holding back our economic recovery and most holding back our ability to sort through so many issues our country faces, is the issue of our debt and deficit. We are like $17 trillion in debt. The debt goes up over $4 billion every night when we go to sleep. This problem is structural in nature. Time alone will not solve this issue. In the last 4 years, my time in the Senate, there has been no issue on which I have spent more time, spent more effort trying to reach out. I understand many of my colleagues actually try to avoid me in the hallways now because they fear they are going to get a Mark Warner harangue on the debt and deficit. I also know the only way we are going to get this issue resolved is if both sides are willing to meet each other in the middle. This is a problem that cannot be solved by continuing to cut back on discretionary spending. It will require, yes, more revenues, and it will require entitlement reform. Those are issues where, unfortunately, in many ways our parties have not found agreement. We have all agreed as well at least that, while we do not have to solve this problem overnight, we need at least $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years. The good thing is, while we have been lurching from budget crisis to budget crisis, we have gotten halfway to our goal. The good news as well is that this year both the Senate and the House adopted budget resolutions. As I said on the floor in March, I believe the Senate budget was a solid first chapter toward producing a balanced fiscal plan for our country. My vote for the Senate budget-- and it was not a budget on which I would agree with every component part--was a vote for progress, a vote for regular order, regular order that so many of my distinguished colleagues who served here much longer than I say is the glue that holds this institution together. It has now been 46 days since the Senate passed its budget. Unfortunately, there are certain colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to block our ability to go to conference. In a few minutes--just 2 minutes--I will ask my colleagues to agree to authorize the Chair to name a conference to the Budget Committee. Unfortunately, I expect that request to be objected to. I find that extremely disappointing. I can only speak at this point for folks from Virginia, but no single other issue is as overriding, as I travel across Virginia and I imagine for most of my colleagues as they travel across their States. At the end of the day, Americans, Virginians, want us to work together and get this issue solved. We have seen, over the last 2\1/2\ years, as we have lurched from manufactured budget crisis to budget crisis, the effects on the stock market, on job creation, and our overall recovery. We have a chance to put this behind us. We need to find the kind of common ground between the House budget proposal and the Senate budget proposal on which so many have called upon us to work. Again, I am going to make this motion in a moment. I want to add one last point. I appreciate some of the calls we have had from colleagues on the Republican side over the last couple of years for the Senate to pass a budget. I believed we needed to pass that budget. Mr. President, 46 days ago, after 100 amendments and a session that went until 5 o'clock in the morning, we passed such a document. I think it is time now that we allow the Senate to announce its conferees to meet with the House, to get a budget resolved for the United States of America so we have a framework to make sure we get this issue of debt and deficit behind us; that we allow the economy to recover in a way that it needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, and H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, while it is not unexpected, I am disappointed. The nub of this issue, as commentators from left to right, Democrat and Republican, pointed out, is if we are going to avoid the path we are on, the path of sequestration, which was set up to be literally the worst possible option--which right now is seeing cuts made in the most unsophisticated, unplanned, and inefficient way possible, plans that, if we continue on the path we are on, would so dramatically cut back this country's investments in education, infrastructure, research and development, that I don't believe, as a former business person, that America will be able to compete with the kind of economic growth we need to maintain our economy. If we are going to avoid those kinds of Draconian cuts, if we are going to have a rational business plan for our country, I think most of us, or at least an overwhelming majority of the Senate, would recognize we have to generate both some additional revenues and--while there may be some on my side who disagree--we have to find ways to reform entitlement programs to make sure Medicare and Social Security are going to be there 30 years from now. The only way to get that done is to take the House product, which focuses particularly on entitlement reform, combine it with the Senate product that makes reasonable increases in revenues and starts us on a path on changes in some of our entitlement programs but also puts in place a more reasonable and balanced approach on cuts. The only way we are going to get to that finish line, particularly for those who have advocated for regular order, is to have a conference. It is with great distress that we heard opposition raised to regular order, an appeal for regular order, an appeal that was made consistently for the past 2\1/2\ years. I don't understand why my colleagues on the other side will not take yes for an answer. They asked for us to pass a budget. We passed that budget. I think it is a good first step in the process and I hope in the coming days there will be a change of heart, that the regular order will be allowed to proceed, conferees will be named for both the House and Senate, and that we can reach agreement on this issue that I think is important, not only to the future of our economy but quite honestly now has taken on the metaphor for whether institutions can actually function in the 21st century. I see my good friend, the Senator from Virginia, who may want to add some comments to this discussion.