Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will follow up on the comments of the Senator from Texas on an issue that we will be voting on this afternoon, I understand, regarding the construction of the so-called Keystone Pipeline. I have been somewhat frustrated by the debate around this issue. Unfortunately, I think we are going to be confronted again with kind of a bifurcated choice that doesn't get to the possibility of us actually putting into place a comprehensive energy policy that will remove this Nation's dependence upon foreign oil and start to look at the ability over the longer haul to bring down the price at the pump and make sure we are truly a participant in the opportunities of a glowing, multifaceted energy policy going forward. I support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I believe we need to have an energy policy that has an ``all-of-the-above'' approach. I do believe there are appropriate regulatory reviews that need to be made. I also, frankly, think any construction of the Keystone Pipeline should take into consideration the very serious environmental considerations that particularly affect the State of Nebraska, and there will need to be a route for this pipeline that would avoid that potential environmental damage. However, because of the way this process is being laid out, I will not be voting for the Keystone amendment today because by making this a straight up-or-down issue, without taking advantage of the opportunity to put together the beginnings of an energy package, we are missing a great opportunity. As I have mentioned, if we are truly serious about energy security, and if we are truly serious about reducing our dependence upon foreign oil, I believe we need an energy policy that has an ``all-of-the- above'' approach. Yes, that means more domestic oil and gas. But it means when we have an opportunity in an issue of controversy such as this regarding Keystone, we could have taken this opportunity to include a rational approach with appropriate environmental reviews to get to, I believe, a positive answer on Keystone but also link that with other energy policies that would make sense. I know the Presiding Officer has in his State a number of wind facilities and solar facilities. Unfortunately, those areas that need, as well, to be part of our energy mix--the tax treatment that allows those projects to move forward have been put in limbo because of the failure of Congress to extend the so-called tax provisions, or tax extenders, on a going-forward basis. Wind projects all across the country--in fact, I was visiting with some folks right before coming to the floor, and they have a variety of wind projects that are stopped dead in their tracks because of the uncertainty regarding whether Congress will act. The ability to get the Keystone Pipeline passed, in combination with passing, as well, the extension of these appropriate renewable energy tax credits could have built the kind of bipartisan consensus around energy policy that would be needed. I also believe the lowest hanging fruit in terms of how we save and can have a rational energy policy in this country means a much greater involvement with energy conservation. There is a very strong bipartisan energy conservation bill, the Shaheen-Portman bill, that could have been included in this package as well. I think if we are going to get serious about reducing our dependence upon foreign oil, if we are going to make sure we give the American taxpayers a vision that in the future we are going to see the ability to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil that results in higher gas prices, we actually could have put together around this Keystone proposal a true compromise, a bipartisan consensus that would have included construction of Keystone, with the appropriate environmental reviews, with making sure those key areas of Nebraska are protected, with the inclusion of the energy tax cuts and provisions that we do on an annual basis, and that we continue to allow wind, solar, and other renewable energy production to continue, and a meaningful energy conservation bill--the Shaheen-Portman bill. I believe those three policies linked together would have resulted in a vote that would have been overwhelmingly bipartisan and would have been a demonstration to the American people that we are going to get out of our respective fox holes and put the beginnings of a truly comprehensive energy policy in place. Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to have that happen. We are going to have a straight up-or-down vote on Keystone that dismisses any of the appropriate review processes and doesn't bring in the issues around the so-called energy tax extenders or the conservation bipartisan legislation that was put together by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman. Instead of getting a more comprehensive vote this afternoon, which I believe would have passed overwhelmingly, we are going to end up with one more vote that will, for the most part, break down on partisan lines. I am disappointed in that. I do believe we need construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I believe we need meaningful energy conservation legislation and meaningful tax policy that promotes renewable energy around solar, wind, and biomass. Unfortunately, we are going to miss the opportunity today to send that strong signal of a comprehensive ``all-of-the-above'' energy policy that would actually move this Nation forward. I know my friend, the Senator from Texas, is no longer here. I would have loved to have been able to support a comprehensive package that would have allowed the Keystone effort to move forward in conjunction with these other efforts. Unfortunately, that will not happen. Perhaps later in the year we will have the ability to cobble together something that includes more of an ``all-of-the-above'' energy policy and we can actually get about the business of making sure we have a national energy policy. But there is no silver bullet. We were going to need to make sure we take advantage of all of the energy resources we have in this country-- oil, gas, offshore oil, nuclear, and appropriate revenue sharing with States--such as my State of Virginia--and energy conservation and renewables as well. The sooner we get to that debate, the sooner we can build the bipartisan coalitions that will allow that kind of policy to move forward. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas and my good friend from Tennessee for initiating this effort. Again, as a relatively new Senator--in fact, I jumped the line. I apologize. As the Presiding Officer would support, it is only in the interest of family values; if I were not getting to my wife's birthday in about 30 minutes, I would be able to give more extended remarks. As a Senator who has only had the opportunity to serve in this body for 3 years, I hear my more senior colleagues talk about the old days or the days when the Senate took up in an orderly fashion the business of the people and debated it in vigorous fashion but came to conclusion on issues that confronted the country. We have done some of that in the years when I came in with the Presiding Officer. There were issues of major importance that we have debated. But too often in recent times, we have not had the favor of those kinds of debates. While we can disagree about many of the grave issues of the day, as a former businessperson, I know there is nothing more important than to give predictability to the enterprise we call the Federal Government. The way we do that is by passing spending bills--the appropriations bills--where hard choices are made about which programs to fund, which programs not to fund. Like my friend the Senator from Tennessee and both Senators from Arkansas and the Presiding Officer, I have enormous concerns about our debt and deficit. We are going to have to make hard choices. But if we are going to make those choices, we need a full and vigorous debate, a debate where amendments are offered, where procedural tactics are not used to slow that debate, and where the will of the Senate is enacted. I understand that the majority leader and the Republican leader have reached some accommodation to try to start a new way of business, and the first step of that business should be having us, in a fair and orderly process, debate appropriations bills, make those hard choices, and move on. I again thank my colleagues for their courtesy but particularly thank the Senator from Tennessee and the senior Senator from Arkansas for bringing us together on the floor to lend our voices. This might even be like a volunteer fire department where Members of the Senate can rush down on an issue of importance. I heard the call that there were Senators down here talking on this important issue, and I am glad to add my voice to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I know we have been switching back and forth. As someone who has the opportunity to preside more often than not on these kind of days, I know they are anxious to speak as well. I will only take a couple moments. I appreciate their courtesy. A little earlier today we passed a conference report that extended the payroll tax cut. While I am glad the payroll tax cut was extended, I voted against that conference report because, unfortunately, we did not pay for that tax cut. I believe we could have found ways to pay for it--a surcharge on millionaires, tying this to a means test so it could have been more coordinated. But also in that action for those parts of the legislation that we passed that we did pay for, things such as unemployment benefits, we once again targeted a group that I think for too many in Congress becomes the payer of first resort, not payer of last resort; that is, our Federal employees. Over the last year and a half or so, I have continued a tradition that was started by a colleague, Senator Ted Kaufman from Delaware, where on an occasional basis I come down and recognize the service of Federal employees who, too often, again as we have seen in recent debates, receive the brunt of lots of comments when in reality they are good folks who keep the operations of our Government working, who patrol our streets, catch the terrorists, and in some cases just recently I recognized a Federal employee who actually helps keep the Senate operating on a regular basis. As we think about how we get our debt and deficit under control and pay for the programs that we will continue to initiate, we need to make sure we have a shared burden approach, where we look both to programs that have outlived their usefulness and the revenue side. Yes, I know Federal employees will make their contribution as well, but as we have seen from their pay freeze, from the threat of repeated furloughs over the last year and a half, and now adding to their pension contribution for new Federal employees, that burden is not always shared with all. Tribute to Joseph Lawrence I am continuing the tradition of recognizing great Federal employees. Mr. President, today I am pleased to honor a recently retired great federal employee, Joseph Lawrence. He most recently served as the director of transition in the Office of Naval Research within the Department of Defense. During his time there, he oversaw a $1 billion research and development portfolio responsible for developing science and technology solutions to problems discovered during war game exercises conducted by the Marine Corps and the Navy. For example, Mr. Lawrence oversaw the development and delivery of a new type of dressing that can be applied to a battlefield wound to prevent bleeding during transportation to a hospital. This innovation is now found in every Marine's individual first aid kit, as well as products used by U.S. Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies. Other innovations include a system that protects tactical wheeled vehicles against rocket-propelled grenade and a crane that better transfers containers between ships. In December 2011, Mr. Lawrence retired after 45 year of service, which began at the U.S. Naval Research lab while he was in college. He has played an important role in the protection of our country and the well-being of our troops. Dedicated civil servants such as Mr. Lawrence are the lifeblood of the federal government. I admire their patriotism which drives them in their daily work. Too often, their service to the success of the United States does not receive the proper recognition it deserves. This has been recently exemplified in the systemic problems associated with processing necessary paperwork prior to the disbursement of retirement benefits to all federal employees. Earlier this month, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee investigated problems within the Office of Personnel Management surrounding the processing of retirement and survivor benefits. Too many of our recently retired federal employees--the current estimate is more than 62,000 people--are waiting for more than year to receive earned retirement benefits. We are not holding up our end of the bargain with people who commit to public service to their country. To make matters worse, this is not the first time the Congress and OPM recognized the current processing system is broken. I am committed to helping resolve the issue with the current OPM system. But, frankly, the current OPM system, which doesn't have very good technology--when they have invested in technology resources, they have actually come up with goose eggs--is now currently processing these retirement requests with old-fashioned paper and pencil. It makes no sense. As a matter of fact, there are a number of agencies--the Department of State and others--as they send over the retirement information on an employee to OPM, over 50 percent of the information they send over in terms of the case is not complete. So not only is this a problem at OPM, but this is a problem in terms of OPM being able to enforce the other 88 Federal agencies actually doing their job. I believe we need to tackle and fix this problem to ensure that retired Federal employees, such as Mr. Lawrence, who have faithfully served this great Nation, are able to enter retirement and receive that for which they worked so hard. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Mr. Lawrence for the excellent work he has done, and I hope they will join me in making sure that when Federal employees retire, they get their retirement benefits in a timely and efficient manner. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their courtesy.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. I will.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me rise today to speak about the conference report that it appears we will be voting on tomorrow regarding the issues of the payroll tax, unemployment benefits, and the so-called doc fix. Let me first of all acknowledge that I know that many of my colleagues have worked long hours on the payroll tax deal that was apparently reached late last night. I have been briefed on pieces of this deal and I've also seen many of the press reports that have described this deal as a new sign of bipartisanship. As a new Member of the Senate, I know, like the Presiding Officer, we believe that we do our best work here in Congress when we can have bipartisan solutions, when we can find ways to reach common ground. All of those factors make it doubly difficult for me to now rise and say I will be voting against the conference report when it comes before this body tomorrow. Now, let me acknowledge on the front end that I think there are worthy reasons in this recovering economy we have got right now, it makes some sense to maintain some form of payroll tax holiday for a limited period of time. I know the Presiding Officer feels that one of the most important issues our country confronts right now--I would say the most important issue and the one that overhangs everything else we debate here--is our inability to come to grips with our debt and deficit. I know, as we try to nurture this growing recovery, one of the ways we take on that debt and deficit is by having a growing economy. But I also believe it is terribly important that we show progress on this issue. Our national debt now exceeds $15 trillion. Every day that we fail to act, we add $4 billion to that total. None of this becomes self-correcting. It will not correct itself until and unless we act. I, for one, believe there is no action this body could take that would be more stimulative to our economy, that would be a better jobs program, that would do more to restore the trust of the business community and the public than to show bipartisan collaboration and cooperation on a long-term debt and deficit deal. So let me share with my colleagues the five reasons I will be voting against the conference report tomorrow. First and foremost, the payroll tax cut that has been proposed isn't being paid for. It will add $100 billion to the debt. Second, I think the compromise that has been put together turns some of our traditional policies on their head. By taking this action of saying tax cuts somehow don't have to be paid for, we are advancing a policy I believe will come back to haunt us later this year when the Bush tax cuts expire. As a matter of fact, while I have only been a Member of this body for 3 years, I know it has been a tradition that in moments of economic crisis, the Congress will sometimes extend unemployment benefits, particularly for those States that have been hardest hit. In those moments of crisis, the unemployment benefits sometimes go unpaid for. Well, in the compromise in this conference report, we turn that policy on its head in that there was a requirement to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits but no requirement to pay for the $100 billion of additional debt taken on by the payroll tax cut. I know in this body, as we have had debates about debt and deficits and economics, we have discussed the economic theories of a whole host of thinkers and economists--John Maynard Keynes, Frederick Von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman. I somehow feel as though this conference report we will be voting on tomorrow may reflect the thinking of a more obscure individual, but someone I recall as a child growing up, and that was Wimpy, who was a cartoon character--Popeye's hungry pal. Wimpy used to always say, ``I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.'' Well, it seems on this economic policy we are talking about today, of deferring payment for this payroll tax policy, that Wimpy once again has won out. Let me cite the third reason I will be voting against the conference report tomorrow. As I acknowledged at the beginning of my comments, I believe extension of the payroll tax holiday makes sense in this recovery, but it just needs to be paid for. So I could have very easily supported a number of the proposals put forward by my colleagues on the Democratic side, including a 1-percent increase of the taxes on those of us who make more than $1 million a year--a defined benefit for the defined pay-for. If we couldn't breach the gap on that, I could have looked at means- testing the payroll tax holiday. If we are trying to make sure these dollars get into the economy as quickly as possible over this coming year, then clearly a payroll tax holiday for folks who make less than $150,000 a year or $250,000 a year or $500,000 a year or $1 million or less a year--it didn't make sense to say that regardless of one's income. This payroll tax holiday--going to folks like me, who are doing pretty well--is not going to have a stimulative effect, I just don't think economic theory bears that out. So if we had paid for this or put some restraints on it, I would have been happy to support this conference report. The fourth reason I can't support the conference report is because I am concerned this payroll tax holiday--which goes into the Social Security trust fund, is supposed to end at the end of this year. But we have no metrics placed on it. It scares me greatly that we will approach the end of the year and there will be some other reason it needs to be extended again. I believe we should have put in place a requirement that this payroll tax holiday would start to ratchet back if we continued to see growth in the economy--perhaps ratcheted back one-third if we had seen GDP growth for the next 3 months or employment growth for the next 3 months, ratcheted back another one-third, ratcheted back another one- third--so we wouldn't have the cliff effect that is being proposed at the end of the year, again, a cliff effect that will come at the same time as the end of the Bush tax cuts, the imposition of the so-called $1.2 trillion sequester cuts, and the proverbial train wreck that is already being talked about. So while I believe this payroll tax holiday is important, the price, the fact we are not paying for it, the fact we have put no restrictions or parameters around it and the fact that there's no guarantee it will actually expire because we have no metrics of how much economic progress we need to have before it expires are reasons I will be voting no. Let me raise one other concern I have about the conference report. This is one more example of particularly our colleagues in the House saying the first place they go for any pay-for for any project seems to be our Federal workers--the same Federal workers, close to 2 million strong, who keep our streets safe, make sure we get those Social Security checks, try to take out terrorists, drug dealers, you name it. They are the same Federal workers who have had their pay frozen for the last 2 years and who have had to endure the prospects of two or three potential shutdowns over the last year and a half. To say we are going to come back to the well time after time on this group I don't think is fair or right. As someone who has looked at the Federal pay and benefits, when we get to that issue of a comprehensive tax reform, entitlement reform, big deficit deal, all these items will need to be reviewed. But the notion the first place to come back to for any pay-for is our Federal employees, to me, doesn't seem fair nor does it seem right. So for these five reasons, I will reluctantly be voting against the conference report tomorrow. I believe it was, again, in the context of the debt and deficit particularly, Will Rogers who said: When you find yourself in a hole and you want to get out, stop digging. Well, in some small way, by voting no tomorrow, I hope I will send a signal that I--and I hope others will join me--will stop digging. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Presiding Officer for taking a few moments so I can make my statement. I also thank my friend, the Senator from Illinois, for his comments.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was heartened to hear the comments the majority leader made, that we are close to an agreement to make sure we do not put the American people or the great Federal workers through another one of these eleventh-hour fire drills, where we get to the brink of the precipice of shutting down our Federal Government. It is in that spirit that I rise because, as many know, over the last year and a half or so I have come regularly to the floor of the Senate to continue a tradition that was started by Senator Kaufman from Delaware, where we recognize the contributions of great Federal employees. Today, I am pleased to honor another exceptional--exceptional-- Federal worker, Mr. John Merlino. Mr. Merlino is the Senate assistant legislative clerk, working on the legislative team of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Mr. Merlino began his Senate career in 1994 as a Senate doorkeeper. He then joined the Secretary's legislative staff and has performed many of its functions, including the constitutional task--the constitutional task--of maintaining the Senate Journal. Another of Mr. Merlino's main responsibilities is to call the roll during votes and quorum calls. More important, he is also one of those special workers on the dais who have been known at times to actually keep new Members, as they preside over the Senate, awake during long stretches in the chair. He is always ready with a good sports quip and is known as a person who goes above and beyond the call of duty. As a matter of fact, I know it was his birthday yesterday and I have been planning this speech for some time and I wanted to make sure it coincided with that important date for him. The Secretary of the Senate, Nancy Erickson, noted that in addition to his hard work and attention to detail--this is a quote--``It is his great sense of humor that helps many of us keep smiling, especially during the Senate's late [night] legislative sessions.'' A small cog in the greater legislative process, Mr. Merlino is a member of an often unrecognized but dedicated team that keeps the Senate running smoothly and one that is charged with ensuring continuity of operations no matter what the situation. In fact, Mr. Merlino recently entered the history books. During a pro forma session held at the Postal Square Building immediately following the earthquake in August, Mr. Merlino, unknowingly, became one of only two people, along with Senator Coons, to have spoken during the only official session of the Senate convened outside the Capitol Building since 1814. The last time the Senate met outside the Capitol Building for such a session was when the British troops burned the Capitol during the War of 1812. So again, Mr. Merlino took his role in the history books of this great institution. I hope my colleagues--and I know the Presiding Officer, again, by expelling me from the chair this morning to allow me to make this statement--will join me in honoring Mr. Merlino, a fellow Virginian, for the excellent work he and the legislative team do each and every day and for their commitment to public service. It is in that sense of Mr. Merlino's commitment to public service that I know the Presiding Officer joins me in this and that we get our work done today, so we can give this team--and the literally couple other million Federal workers across the country--the sense that we are not going to shut down the government, that they are going to be able to go into the holiday season with the recognition that the government will continue operating, but, more important, that so many of us recognize the great work they do to keep this country moving forward. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and again thank my good friend, Mr. Merlino, for his good work. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to ask for the attention of my colleagues on two amendments that I have filed to S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Each of these amendments relates to the Navy's proposal to build a new nuclear pier facility to support East Coast aircraft carriers. With annual recurring costs, this new project would likely cost just shy of a billion dollars. At a time when our Nation is in a severe fiscal crisis the Navy cannot pay to maintain the infrastructure it currently owns. As Admiral Mullen has said, the greatest challenge to our national security is our mounting debt. Together, these amendments would save nearly $30 million for an unnecessary Navy military construction project at Naval Station Mayport, Florida. We are awaiting completion of an independent GAO assessment of the strategic risks to our carrier fleet which include manmade and natural disasters. The study would also consider the cost and benefits of what other measures we can take to mitigate risk. This is not a small project. The Navy estimates its homeporting plan will cost nearly $600 million, but those costs could rise to up to $1 billion over the next eight years. Tack on to that more than $25 million in annual maintenance costs currently estimated for an additional homeport and we are signing the taxpayer up for a big bill, much of which is not funded. It's in the ``out years'' as they say. The justification for a new homeport is the mitigation of the risk of a terrorist attack, accident, or natural disaster occurring at the nuclear handling facility at the existing carrier homeport at Norfolk, VA. However, the current Navy plan fails to take into account the two additional East Coast carrier capabilities facilities at Newport News, VA, and the Naval Shipyard. Each of these facilities maintains separate nuclear handling sites located many miles apart. If there were damage to the existing Naval base, the Navy could simply disperse the carriers to other piers. That is a lot cheaper and more efficient than building a new, duplicative facility. Additionally, recent Navy briefings indicate there is a 50 percent greater chance of a major hurricane hitting Mayport than Norfolk. Why would we want to build a new facility at a higher risk location? The Navy has also identified unfunded priorities totaling $11.8 billion dollars. These priorities are in critical areas including shipbuilding, military construction, maintenance, and acquisition programs--programs which are critical to both our current and future readiness. We must maintain our existing infrastructure properly before pursuing a duplicative homeporting project. It is more fiscally responsible for the Navy to reduce its current unfunded requirements, which total tens of billions of dollars. We have had some recent developments that I want to highlight that cast more doubt on the wisdom of embarking on this enormous expenditure. Responding to a letter I wrote, along with other colleagues in the Virginia delegation, the Navy's new CNO, Admiral Greenert has said that it is time to take a fresh look at the costs of this project, given the current fiscal constraints. Admiral Greenert wrote the Navy will be making a ``comprehensive strategic review, examining every program element, including the funding required to homeport a CVN in Mayport.'' I agree with Admiral Greenert. With the serious fiscal issues facing our Nation, the prudent course of action is to focus on taking care of the infrastructure we already have instead of buying new infrastructure which we do not need and cannot afford.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in support of my friend, the Senator from Montana, and commend him for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to supporting him in his efforts to support our veterans.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 6. This resolution would basically roll back the FCC's compromise over what we have all been debating: net neutrality. This is a subject area I have more than a passing interest in. It is a subject I had the good fortune to be involved in during the practice of my business for over 20 years before I got involved full time in politics and public service. I, and I know the Presiding Officer and probably all of us in this body, recognize that the power of telecommunications and the power of the Internet to transform people's lives has been remarkable. Demand for Internet use is growing dramatically. Today, nearly 2 billion people use the Internet. By 2015--and that is a mere 4 years from now-- that number is expected to reach 2.7 billion. That is pretty significant: 2.7 billion people using the Internet out of a total worldwide population of 7 billion folks. We are rapidly hitting the point where nearly half the world will use the Internet in one form or another to communicate, to effect commerce, to socially interact. This is a tool. Making sure this tool, this network, this technology, this transformative field truly remains open, free, and available to all and is not unduly hindered by government regulation is something we all aspire to. Yet even as we see this tremendous growth in the Internet, we see constraints--constraints put on by spectrum resources and access to high-speed broadband. Mobile app providers seem to be multiplying exponentially day by day. There are already over 600,000 applications or ``apps'' for the iPhone. Android--a more recent entrant into the market--now has over 500,000 ``apps.'' One of the most incredible things is that the United States lays claim to inventing the Internet which was developed by government research linking a whole series of computer networks back in the late 1980s and into the early 1990s. While the United States has been at the forefront of Internet development, unfortunately due to broadband constraints and spectrum constraints, the United States, which used to be a leader, is no longer in that leadership role. For example, homes in South Korea have greater access to faster, more advanced wireless networks and broadband than we do. So the question in the resolution we are debating is: How do we make sure we continue to grow access to broadband? How do we make sure the Internet, with all its wonderful new applications, is available in the most open and technology-neutral way? The FCC has wrestled with this issue for some time, and the FCC is the appropriate place to be wrestling with this issue. Last December, the FCC came out with an order--an order that reached some level of compromise between a series of very strong competing interests. By no means do I believe the FCC December 2010 order is perfect. But it does represent a dramatic step forward in that a majority of the players, candidly, in the industry have reached some accommodation. I do not believe this order in itself is a sufficient answer. I do believe we in Congress are going to need, at some point, to come back and review the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While that offered great promise--and I was someone who was still in the private sector at that moment in time, someone who thought we were going to see true interconnection opportunities for truly local competitive access in terms of telephone services--that did not come to pass. As a matter of fact, I have a number of companies that went down the tubes that I invested in that assumed that 1996 Act would open those kinds of activities. It did not come to pass. But having Congress revisit the 1996 Telecommunications Act is not what is being debated today. What is being debated is whether we go ahead and allow the FCC's compromise proposition to move forward or whether we introduce further politics into this issue when we ought not let politics stand in the way of technology and innovation moving forward. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who feel otherwise. They think the FCC's compromise order puts too much government regulation on innovation. I must respectfully disagree. If we were talking about too much government regulation of innovation, I would be strongly standing with those colleagues saying that is not what we ought to be doing. What we are doing, as we debate this so-called net neutrality issue, is talking about the rights and responsibilities of network owners and operators to manage the Internet and, quite honestly, to allow them to run successful businesses in a free and open way. We are also talking about the rights of consumers to have access to lawful content on the Internet without any prejudice. Without having that network provider choose one content provider over another in terms of who gets first dibs, first access to their network. This issue has been debated on and off not just this year but for a number of years. In many ways, the current history on this issue goes back to 2005, when both the Federal Communications Commission and the Supreme Court determined separately that broadband services should be reclassified as information services under the 1996 Telecommunications Act instead of as telecommunications services. For those who do not live within the rather esoteric world of telecom regulations, what does this mean in plain English? Information services have always had a lighter touch of regulation than have telecommunications services. Think about the original regulation of telecommunications services going back almost to the 1934 act, when we had, in effect, one telecommunications provider. It was Ma Bell. We could pick our phone of any type, as long as it was black, and everybody paid the same access fee. When we had that kind of monopolistic situation telecommunications had to be regulated in a more appropriate way to make sure the consumers were protected. As we saw the evolution of telecom services and the breakup of Ma Bell and a move to multiple providers, telecom services still have required a slightly heavier hand of regulation than for information services. Back in 2005, the Supreme Court and the FCC said that because we have this brand new area of broadband--an area that in 2005 we did not fully realize the potential of, frankly, even in 2011, I am not sure we fully realize the potential--we are going to view this as information services and, consequently, have less regulation. That should be viewed as a good sign. Contrary to what some in this debate say, there has never been a time when the management of the Internet or the telecommunications networks--which make up, in effect, the backbone of our Internet system--has not been regulated. Again, as I mentioned earlier, networks--whether they are passing voice, data, now video or others-- all have had some form of regulation going back to the Telecommunications Act of 1934. The question we are asked here today is: What kind of rules do we want to have as a society to make sure everyone can have free and unfettered access to the Internet and to lawful content in a way that is not biased or prejudiced by the telecommunications provider in the background? To me, that means Internet service providers have the right to manage the networks as best they can. That means network providers have to have the ability to manage some level of traffic so they can generate enough revenues to continue to build out their networks, particularly so rural communities can have access to these services. I know the Acting President pro tempore knows of parts of northern New Hampshire where there are still areas that do not have full high- speed broadband Internet access. I know in my State of Virginia there are parts of Southside and southwest that do not have access to full high-speed broadband connections. While broadband connectivity does not guarantee economic success, it is a prerequisite for any community in the 21st century if they are even going to get looked at as a possible location for new jobs. So we have to make sure all communities get access to broadband. That means we have to allow the network providers at least enough of a rate of return to give them the incentive to build out their networks. But it also means that while they have to be able to manage their networks, these Internet service providers, cannot discriminate against content providers' access to networks. It does not mean a network provider ought to be able to say: I like this content more than that type of content, particularly if the network provider happens to own that content and somehow moves it to the front of the line. That goes against the grain of everything that has been about providing telecommunications in this country since the 1934 Act. If this was a simple matter, the industry, the FCC, and others would not have been wrestling with it as dramatically as they have over the last 5 or 6 years. The fact is, network management is increasingly complicated. So complicated that sometimes it is hard to tell exactly what is going on behind the scenes. As a former telecommunications executive and somebody who spent 20 years being involved in helping to try to build out at least part of the wireless network in this country--but as somebody who also is at this point falling behind on all the current technological innovations--I would like to comment I was very current circa 1999, which puts me a bit behind in 2011. While behind, I do recognize and understand that network management in 2011 is extraordinarily challenging. New technologies that allow for prioritization of network traffic, deep packet inspection, and the increasing use of metered services and usage-based pricing--all these factors, combined with an effort to make sure we are technology neutral in how we get this high-speed broadband information--whether it is wired, wireless, satellites or otherwise. This all makes these issues extraordinarily difficult for policymakers to wrestle with. It was in that vein that the FCC conducted a 2-year process to address concerns about maintaining competitively neutral access to the Internet. So in December of 2010, the FCC adopted an Open Internet Order which is expected to be implemented on November 20th of this year, 2011. As I said at the outset, the order they put forward is not perfect. There are many in the industry who have a partial bone to pick with various technical components. But the fact is I give Chairman Genachowski great credit for managing to thread the needle in way that while no one is totally happy, no one is totally unhappy. The issue of net neutrality has been dealt with by the order and we can move on to the next step of the debate. That is, we can turn to making sure we actually complete the buildout of broadband networks, particularly to the rural communities around America. What does the FCC order do? It basically sets three basic rules for how network owners, ISPs, must handle Internet traffic. First, it offers greater transparency about fixed and mobile network management practices to both consumers and content providers. This is terribly important. Without that transparency, without that knowledge, to see what we are getting as a consumer--or if you are a content provider, making sure your traffic is not being bumped out of line by some large network operator--is terribly important. Second, it prevents fixed and mobile network providers from blocking traffic generated by competitors to varying degrees. What does this mean? It means if you are a network manager, if you are a network provider--and many network providers are now starting to also own content as well--you have to make sure that competitors are treated fairly. If you are a competitor in terms of being a content provider, you want to be sure the network you may be putting your traffic on that has its own set of content is not allowing its network-owned content to get priority, to get an unfair advantage. If the networks are going to be open and accessible, neutral networks that we have all come to expect from our telecommunications networks in the past, we have to make sure there is no bias. The second part of the FCC order tries to make sure these fixed and mobile network providers aren't able to block traffic and give their own content priority. Third, it prohibits fixed broadband providers from unreasonable, discriminatory practices. Again, this is about content, but it also tries to get at that issue of how do we deal with those folks who have huge amounts of content that can clog the network. We have to make sure that we have open access, but we cannot have people overwhelm the network with their particular content without the ability to price that into the network provider's basic service offerings. I know many of my colleagues' eyes are starting to glaze. I even see some of the pages' eyes are starting to glaze as we dive into some of the intricacies of telecommunications practices. But at the end of the day, what the FCC did in 2010 will be implemented later this month-- unless the Senate rejects it and throws all the work out the window and says let's go back to square one. I think would actually do great harm to the progress made and provide even greater uncertainty to one of the fastest growing areas of our economy, telecommunications and broadband. If we reject this S.J. Res. 6, which I hope we will, and allow this compromise that the FCC worked out to move forward, I believe it will allow the kind of broadband growth, the kind of Internet growth we have all come to expect. And it will help create new jobs in this country. A couple final points. The wireless issues are a particularly challenging policy area still to be addressed. Wireless is a newer technology. The FCC decided in the Order to adopt a lighter hand of regulation rather than the more strict, full telecommunications regulation of the 1996 Act. This is because of the tremendous growth in the nascent area of mobile services. As of December 2010, 26 percent of U.S. households were wireless only, compared to about 8 percent of the households 5 years ago. The point here is a dramatic one. I think about my kids who, as they start to move into their own homes or even into college, don't even have a phone in their apartment at college. They rely entirely on wireless. We have to make sure we can continue to build out these wireless networks in the most robust way possible. I think the FCC basically got it right by not putting any more heavy- handed regulation on wireless. In closing, the real issue is how do we ensure that consumers and content providers are treated fairly. The Internet was designed as an open medium, where every service and Web site had an opportunity to gain a following and to be successful. This philosophy allows bloggers to compete with mainstream media and entrepreneurs across all sectors to compete globally. Small and medium businesses that rely heavily on Web technologies grow and export two times as much as businesses that don't, according to McKinsey. Some have argued that neither the Congress nor the FCC should do anything in this area because there isn't a widespread problem currently. It is important to remember that the reason the Internet has been so successful has been the fact that no one has been able to control it--no network provider alone, no content provider alone. I hope that never changes. I do believe the FCC Order should be allowed to be implemented. It helps set minimum rules of the road that will allow Internet growth, broadband growth, mobile growth, all areas where the United States can regain the lead and continue to create jobs and advance prosperity. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to continue an initiative that was actually started by the Presiding Officer's predecessor, Senator Kaufman, whereby on a fairly regular basis I try to come down and recognize the service of one of our incredible Federal employees. We spend a lot of time in this body talking about policy. We oftentimes spend a lot of time also talking about what government does wrong. There are things government does wrong, but too often we don't acknowledge what government does right, particularly the incredible service many of the folks who work for our Federal Government perform. Today, I am pleased to honor another great Federal employee, Ms. Ann Martin. Ms. Martin is the Senior Intelligence Research Specialist for the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN. She worked with Mexican officials to help disrupt the laundering of billions of dollars derived from illegal U.S. narcotics sales. At the age of 29--as the Presiding Officer may recall when he was that age--Ms. Martin led a team of financial experts to compile and analyze hundreds of pieces of data. Her research analysis gave unprecedented insight into how Mexican drug cartels finance their operations in both Mexico and the United States. It also provided American and Mexican law enforcement authorities with a number of leads into cross-border money laundering and transnational organized crime groups. Discussing Ms. Martin's work, James Freis, the Director of FinCEN, explained that ``no one had ever put together a picture of this kind of financial movement across our borders.'' In other words, nobody put together in an organized way the kinds of activities in which some of these drug cartels were involved. The exhaustive and comprehensive analysis Ms. Martin conducted supported the Mexican Government's decision in June 2010 to issue new regulations to restrict the amount of U.S. dollars that could be deposited into Mexican banks. As a result, more than 700 suspicious activity reports have been filed from Mexican banks. In other words, we have gotten the leads on 700 potential activities that are now being investigated due to Ms. Martin's work. While her time working for the Federal Government has been relatively brief, she has already made a major impact. Karen Fleischer, the Deputy Associate Director at FinCEN, had this to say: I've been in government for 35-plus years and Ann is the kind of person that you want to hold up as an example for others. She is extremely dedicated to the agency's mission. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Ms. Martin, a fellow Virginian, for the excellent work she has done and her commitment to public service. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today marks the start of an exciting new chapter for Fort Monroe in Hampton, VA. I welcome the President's decision to use his authority under the Antiquities Act to protect this special place by declaring it a national monument and the country's 396th National Park unit. A National Park Service presence will ensure that we can properly preserve this historic, natural and recreational resource for the benefit of present and future generations. On this important occasion, I recognize the effort that has gone towards establishing a National Park unit at Fort Monroe. I have been fortunate to work with a bipartisan, Federal, State and local group that includes Senator Jim Webb, Congressmen Scott Rigell, Bobby Scott, Rob Wittman and Randy Forbes, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his administration, the Fort Monroe Authority, the city of Hampton and Mayor Molly Ward, State and local elected officials, conservation partners such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park Conservation Association, individual advocates and citizen groups including the Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, and many others who have been committed to this effort. I thank Secretary Salazar and the National Park Service for their work and their visits to Hampton this summer to hear firsthand the overwhelming public support that exists for this new National Park Service site. Now that we have solidified a National Park Service role, it is critically important that the city, the region, and the Commonwealth continue to work together to make the most of this tremendous opportunity to showcase Fort Monroe's incredible place in our nation's history. I look forward to continued progress at Fort Monroe.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I wish to say a few words about the bill that we are currently considering and, in particular, a very worthwhile program funded by this bill that I believe is critical to moving our Nation forward. One very important agency funded by the fiscal year 2012 Commerce- Justice-Science bill that has not been getting much attention in the debate this week is NASA. Senators Nelson, Hutchison, Rockefeller, and others worked incredibly hard to get a balanced reauthorization bill passed last year, and I commend them for their hard work in getting it signed into law. One aspect of that bill that I worked particularly hard on was ensuring that we are doing what we can to advance NASA's mission while also promoting the development of the commercial space sector. In negotiations on that authorization bill, Senator Nelson and I arrived at what I believe is a fair compromise that will allow us to pursue advances in the commercial cargo and commercial crew fields and harness the innovation and cost savings that the private sector can provide. In a recently released study, in fact, NASA estimated that the Falcon 9 launch vehicle being developed by the private sector company SpaceX will cost less than half what it would cost for NASA to develop the launch vehicle itself. In the current fiscal climate, it is imperative that we partner with commercial companies to pursue the cost-effective innovation that can only be achieved through the competition that exists in the private sector. Supporting development of the commercial space industry will also help create steady, well- paying jobs and spur economic growth--not only in urban tech corridors, but also in more rural areas where launch facilities are located such as the Wallops Island facility in my home State of Virginia. By appropriating funding at the authorized level of $500 million for the commercial crew development, CCDEV, program, I believe the fiscal year 2012 Commerce-Justice-Science bill honors the commitment we made in the authorization bill to move forward in that field. I commend Senator Mikulski for her leadership in that regard, and I am excited by the opportunities to come. While NASA develops our next heavy lift vehicle and a host of other important research duties, the private sector has the capability to quickly and cost-effectively deliver vehicles for our astronauts to access the International Space Station, ISS, and minimize our dependence on Russia for those trips. Given what we will be paying Russia for those trips to the ISS, there is the potential that we can actually save money in the long run by investing in commercial space to develop a competitive vehicle, rather than continuing to pay the Russians for seats on their vehicles. Moving forward with the CCDEV program will also result in additional opportunities for development at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport. I have supported the Wallops facilities in Virginia since my time as Governor, and from my recent visits, I can attest that they are making tremendous progress in developing their launch infrastructure. Providing funding for the CCDEV program at authorized levels, as we have done in this bill, will help us drive competition in the commercial space industry and will provide opportunities for facilities such as Wallops to further develop their launch infrastructure and provide steady, high-wage employment in areas that sorely need it.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to recognize and express my support of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's, USPTO, National Trademark Expo. Trademarks are characteristics of a good or service such as a name, symbol, or sound that identify and distinguish one party's goods and services from those of others and help many of us distinguish between authentic and counterfeit merchandise. On any given day, an individual may be exposed to as many as 1,500 trademarks. Trademarks are useful tools against counterfeit goods, which cost the United States billions of dollars and many jobs each year, as well as undermine consumer confidence in brand integrity when purchasers encounter imitation goods of lesser quality. Through the USPTO's efficient approval process and registration of trademarks, the agency assists businesses in protecting their investments, promoting goods and services, and safeguarding consumers against confusion and deception in the marketplace. This year's National Trademark Expo will be held on Friday, October 14, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and Saturday, October 15, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA. The Expo will feature educational seminars, children's workshops, story time, guided tours and presentations from some of America's leading large corporations, small businesses, governmental agencies and nonprofit corporations. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the USPTO for its continued efforts to educate the public on the important role of trademarks, as well as the benefits of the National Trademark Expo.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I support all three pending free trade agreements, FTAs. They will be good for our country and good for Virginia. They will create jobs by opening markets for high quality American products. Trade with Korea was worth $379 million to Virginia in 2010. Colombia was worth $80 million and Panama was worth $30 million. The Commonwealth stands to benefit from expanded opportunities for agriculture, chemicals, information technology, services, and other key sectors. The success of FTAs for Virginia can be seen in the 13 other agreements entered into over the past decade. The 2004 U.S.-Singapore FTA enabled Singapore to become the fastest-growing market among the major buyers of Virginia's goods, rising from $300 million to over $1 billion last year, mainly in computers and electronics. All told, Virginia did $17.1 billion in exports last year, including $14 billion in manufactured goods, $1.2 billion in agriculture, and a host of other products. Nonetheless, it is very important to me that we do more as a country to make sure the benefits of trade agreements and international commerce are more evenly distributed across this country. In the past, some States have done really well under trade deals. Others have not. Most of Virginia has been lucky to be on the winning end of trade. But there are areas, like southside Virginia, that have not seen the same benefits from earlier trade deals. That is why I am a strong advocate for onshoring initiatives and greater economic engagement between foreign-owned companies and rural America. I have joined my Virginia colleague, Representative Frank Wolf, in sponsoring bipartisan legislation called America recruits, which would support new inbound investment into the United States. The United States is one of the few countries without a national policy of supporting the recruitment of new companies. As a former Governor, I can tell you that this hamstrings the States when they compete head-to-head with foreign countries that can match or exceed support for individual State recruitment efforts. Looking forward, I hope the President and the Administration will be ambitious in working to complete the nine-country Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, as soon as possible. I commend our Trade Representative for the ongoing work on TPP. It is an innovative new type of trade deal, which aims for a high-standard, broad-based regional free trade agreement with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. It is critically important that we not lose sight of the fact that many of our competitors, ranging from Canada and the European Union to China, India, and Brazil are signing market access agreements and trade deals as quickly as possible. They understand the value of securing favorable terms for their goods and services in an increasingly globalized world. We cannot sit back and do nothing when 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States. Therefore, while new trade agreements and efforts to remove market barriers are crucial, I conclude by urging Congress to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, which expired 4 years ago. TPA is often just referred to as ``fast track'' authority to pass trade agreements. But it is much more than that. TPA sets the direction of U.S. trade policy and guides the work of our trade negotiators. We need to have clear national objectives for trade and economic engagement. We need a greater focus on development and maintenance of global supply chains. We need strategies to address intellectual property issues and emerging concerns about the effects of state-owned enterprises as we focus on expanding market opportunities for U.S. goods and services. Trade is a key aspect of U.S. competitiveness. It is difficult to get completely right, but it is important to acknowledge our progress. The U.S. House of Representatives has just passed the three free trade agreements this evening. I hope the Senate will do the same in the next few hours so that we can continue to work together in support of an international economic agenda that benefits the United States to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1619, known as the China Currency bill. I voted for that bill today because China has not made the progress that the U.S. and other countries have sought on currency issues. These currency issues can lead to economic distortions that cost the American economy jobs and increase economic risks for the global economy. Ideally, we would address these problems through negotiations with China and some other countries, but that course that has not yet yielded significant results. I hope we will make better progress on these currency issues in the future, and then perhaps legislation such as this won't be necessary. This bill is not perfect; ideally it would more clearly distinguish countries with unhelpful currency policies, from those which have taken a more measured course in managing their economies and currency. I would rather not resort to sanctions or countervailing duties, but the lack of progress on currency issues has made it appropriate to consider the steps set forth in this bill. While the final version of this legislation is not precisely as I would have written it, it is appropriate for the Congress to be heard on this issue, so tonight I voted for this bill. I hope that in the near future, we can resolve all of our currency issues with China and other nations.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this past month we recognized Hunger Action Month, a time for all Americans to focus on the problem of hunger in our communities. As we begin the month of October, we must remember that this is a year-round reality for many individuals and families around the country and that our efforts to eradicate this problem must continue. Our Nation continues to face both a 9.1-percent unemployment rate, as well as a 15.1-percent poverty rate. Everyone has been touched in some way by this challenging economy. Many of our friends, neighbors and family members still might be struggling in ways that they never imagined with less money to spend and tough choices to make. Thankfully, there have been a number of community assistance organizations that have been able to step up and help out. Many of these are local food banks and soup kitchens that are challenged to find resourceful ways to do more with less in order to provide services to those in need in their communities. One such organization that is still making a significant difference is the Arlington Food Assistance Center, AFAC. For over 20 years the AFAC has partnered with local churches, schools and social service agencies to assist over 1,200 families weekly with their basic food needs. Last year the AFAC was able to distribute over 2.3 million pounds of food directly to Arlington community residents. Community support of AFAC and thousands of organizations like it across the country is integral to their ability to provide the necessary services to those most in need. We must continue to give our support. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the Arlington Food Assistance Center and the many other organizations like it, as well as the importance of our commitment to addressing the problem of hunger across the Nation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I would like to thank my friend, the Senator from Connecticut. Let me add my voice to his. There is no better friend or stronger ally. This is one of the key relationships our country has. Like the Senator from Connecticut and the Presiding Officer and others, we have a lot of things in this body we disagree with, but our firm support for Israel, particularly at a time when there is so much turmoil in that region, it is important the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, spoke on that issue. Recognizing Federal Employees I am going to take a moment today to repeat something I do on a regular basis. It is something I inherited from the former Senator from Delaware, Mr. Kaufman, when he was here. He would, on a fairly regular basis, come down and recognize the great work of individual Federal employees. We spend a lot of time in this body talking about what government does not do well and how we need to rein in and get our government in order. I know the Presiding Officer and I share those beliefs. There are an awful lot of good folks who work for our Federal Government day in and day out who do not get much recognition but provide incredibly valuable service to literally 300 million Americans. So following in Mr. Kaufman's footsteps, I come down and pick a Federal employee to recognize. I will get to this Federal employee in a moment. Let me just say we have already seen rumblings in the press of another potential political brinksmanship around the end of the fiscal year. I see my good friend, the Senator from Maryland, who, like me, a Senator from Virginia, has a disproportionate number of Federal employees in our respective States. The Presiding Officer from West Virginia probably has a disproportionate number of Federal employees as well. Every time we get to that eleventh hour, we put all these Federal employees' lives in limbo, and that is not fair. It is not right. Every time we do this, we self-inflict upon this economy another effort imposed by us that slows our economic recovery. I know the majority leader and others are trying to work in good faith to make sure we do not have another brinksmanship around the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I will now take a moment in this continuing effort to recognize examples of the kind of people who serve our government--oftentimes for not much recognition, a lot less pay and, candidly, some disdain from people on both sides of the aisle. Honoring Alfonso Batres Mr. President, I am pleased to honor Dr. Alfonso Batres, who is the chief readjustment counseling officer at the Veterans Health Administration. He has direct oversight of 300 vet centers, 50 mobile vet centers, and over 1,900 vet center staff providing readjustment service to war zone veterans and their families across the United States. He has worked extensively to ensure vet centers--which are small storefront operations located throughout the country--are accessible to as many people as possible. His efforts led to nearly 200,000 veterans and their families to visit vet centers a total of 1.2 million times in 2011 alone. Dr. Batres has also expanded the scope of coverage for vet centers and worked to improve the quality of the services offered to veterans. For example, he provided family bereavement service and the Combat Call Center, which allows veterans to talk to other combat veterans about readjustment issues they may be experiencing. Dr. Batres' dedication to providing quality veteran-centric care has led to praise throughout the health care community. According to Lawrence Deyton, a former Veterans Affairs colleague: Dr. Batres' combination of vision and personal experience . . . has translated into the Vet centers becoming the gold standard, and a model for public health programs. In an interview, Dr. Batres said: The opportunity to serve veterans and their families as a civil servant through the Vet centers program has been a dream realized and an honor. In 2009, when I first joined this body, I helped launch a comprehensive study that evaluated the quality of care and benefits we are providing to our returning combat veterans, especially women who are affected by post-traumatic stress syndrome and traumatic brain injury. I think we are very fortunate to have someone as dedicated as Dr. Batres working on these important issues. I hope my colleague will join me in honoring the doctor, as well as all of those at the Department of Veterans Affairs, for their excellent work today. I also am proud to recognize that Dr. Batres, as a Virginian and a Vietnam veteran, has dedicated 37 years to public service. As I was saying earlier, along with the Senator from Maryland, there will be issues on which we disagree with our friends on the other side of the aisle. We have to have a way to argue, debate, and decide on those disagreements, but let's make sure we do not put this country and our Federal employees in more--and, equally important, the 300 million Americans who not only depend on those services that are provided, but mostly are about trying to recover in this economy--let's not have act 3 of that kind of political brinksmanship which started in the spring and then over the debt crisis and now potentially at the end of this month, which are, in effect, self-inflicted wounds on our economy that is struggling so much to recover. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.