Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak on actually two topics; one on extending the unemployment benefit program that is so essential to the people of Maryland and to other fellow Americans and also to comment on the National Security Agency surveillance programs, the need for reform of the program but the need not to reject the mission of the agency and cast a disparaging light on the men and women who work there.

Let me start first though talking about unemployment benefits. I come with a great sense of urgency and passion that we need to extend these unemployment benefits that expired January 1. This is one of the coldest spells we have had in decades in the Northeast-Midwest area. I find it unfathomable, when it is so cold, that the big chill in Washington is that we are not going to extend the unemployment benefits, extending a warm helping hand to Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own and have been unemployed for more than 6 months.

Where are our national priorities? If we cannot help one another, be a bridge to get to a job, then what is our government all about? We spend billions overseas--and I support that. We spend billions on tax breaks to send jobs overseas. I do not support that. I want to make sure that for the men and women who do not have a job today but are looking for one every day, that we help them out.

Senator Coons, the Senator from Delaware, just spoke and said today it could be your neighbor, tomorrow it could be you. I think we are going to be unemployed unless we start focusing on how to help the middle class. The middle class is shrinking and unemployment is staggering. We have to lower the unemployment rate, although I want to make sure that during this time while we look at how to create jobs, we continue to provide a social insurance program that helps people when they are laid off through no fault of their own.

My own home State of Maryland is right this very minute affected by 23,000 people--that is 23,000 families--who have now lost a modest benefit which averages out to about $313 per week. That enables people, while they are looking for work, to be able to pay for their housing, pay for their food, and pay for their heat.

There are those who are implying that if we provide unemployment compensation or assistance we are going to encourage sloth, laziness, laggardness; that they are going to kind of lounge around not looking for work.

Let me tell the story about Western Maryland. This is not Barbara Mikulski; this is reported in the Baltimore Sun and in the Washington Post. We have a community called Washington County. The unemployment rate is 7.3 percent. Just a few years ago they had a Good Humor plant. They made ice cream. I visited that ice cream plant. Everybody was happy, and they were busy producing Good Humor, which was sold all over this country. Well, 2 years ago it closed, and 400 good-paying jobs left Hagerstown. That is the bad news.

The good news is a co-op dairy farmer came in, purchased it, and is now producing milk and ice cream but in smaller amounts. Guess what. They received 1,600 job applications for 36 job openings. They had 36 job openings, and 1,600 people in that small rural county applied for those jobs. There were 44 people for every job available.

Hagerstown has a great sense of patriotism. They sent many men and women to fight and die in the two wars we just fought. They have a great work ethic. They need an opportunity to have jobs. Don't tell those people in Hagerstown or in Salisbury or in Baltimore or throughout my State that they are too lazy. Maybe we are lazy; maybe we don't get the job done.

One of the quickest ways to jump-start the economy, if we want to, is to pay unemployment compensation. All the data shows that unemployment insurance adds about $1.60 back into the economy.

I want to create a sense of urgency. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Over a decade ago, you had a man run for the President of the United States who won. His name is George W. Bush. He campaigned on something that I thought was so interesting. I looked forward to actually hearing more about something he called a compassionate conservative. We understand that people are conservative. We understand that people are fiscally conservative, but the message was that we can be compassionate conservatives.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Remember the compassionate conservative message from

a decade ago, and remember that man's father said we need the points of light to light up America. I say, let's be a point of light here. Let's add a beacon of hope to the unemployed so we can help them. Don't be critical of those who can't find work.

Let's look at how we can have a job strategy. Let's get our infrastructure back so we can create jobs in the construction industry. Let's eliminate the tax breaks that send jobs overseas and bring the jobs back home. Let's do the tax extenders so we can get people working again. Let's put people back to work.

Pass unemployment compensation. Let's pass some job creation bills. Let's get America working again, and in order to do that, we need to get to work and pass the unemployment compensation bill.

National Security Agency

I want to also comment on something else, and that is the NSA, the National Security Agency, which I am very familiar with as a member of the Intelligence Committee, and it is also located in my State. I know the men and women who work there, and I know the mission they provide. I also know that a few months ago a man by the name of Edward Snowden lit up the airwaves with his illegal barrage of revelations about the role of surveillance that the National Security Agency played. Mr. Snowden provided a titillating, mesmerizing inside view of the United States. Whether he was a whistleblower or a traitor, I will leave that for another discussion.

Right now we know about NSA surveillance, and it sparked a lot of debate. I think that is good. I think that is healthy.

I come to the floor today, first of all, to thank President Obama for establishing a commission to look at this and make recommendations. My view is that we ought to review the recommendations of the Presidential commission. We need to make reform where reform is necessary, but let's not reject the mission of the National Security Agency that has protected us for decades and decades. Let us not reject the men and women who work there every single day, standing sentry to protect us against attacks, whether it is a terrorist attack or a cyber security attack.

Yes, we need to protect the civil liberties of the United States of America and honor our Constitution. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, and as part of my principles, I have always said: Before we ask NSA agents--or any member of any intelligence agency--to do anything, we should ask: Is it constitutional? Is it legal? Is it authorized? Is it necessary? Remember the criteria. I recommend that this be the grid of the prism we look at: Constitutional, absolutely; legal, a necessity; and authorize. NSA doesn't do it on its own. The authorization comes from the President and his intelligence apparatus. And last but not at all least, is it necessary to protect people?

I think we need to really work on this. President Obama established a review commission. I think it is great, and I think Congress should review it. I know appropriate hearings are already looking into that.

At the same time, we should practice reform. I am absolutely on the side of reform. I have joined with my colleagues in supporting reform for these programs. For years I led the fight on the accountability of leadership. Back in 2007, I wanted the head of the National Security Agency confirmed by the Senate. I was stiff-armed by the Congress. I was held back by the Armed Services Committee. We had to deal with the turf wars at the Pentagon: Don't meddle with our generals. Well, I wasn't meddling with the generals. I just think the head of the National Security Agency should be there. So let's get off of the turf wars and fight terrorist wars. Let's restore confidence in the National Security Agency and have its head confirmed by the Senate. I am a great admirer of General Alexander.

The committee also recommends that the next head of NSA be a civilian. I think we ought to look at that. I think we ought to examine that and see what is in the best interests of the mission of the agency and what we need to be able to do. But whoever is the head of the National Security Agency, be they civilian or military, I think they ought to be confirmed by the Senate.

I also joined across the aisle with my great colleague Senator Coats of Indiana to ask that the NSA inspector general also be confirmed by the Senate to make sure that we have a confirmable position so there is a bona fide whistleblower route with a confirmable inspector general to make sure that NSA is doing the right thing and whistleblowers have an avenue to do it.

I also supported transparency to make sure that those NSA programs are accountable and as transparent as they can be. That doesn't mean we reveal the secrets of the United States. Joining with Senators Wyden, Udall, and Heinrich, I have introduced an amendment to make the secret FISA court opinions were publicly available under certain circumstances.

I also worked with Senators King, Warner, and Collins to bring greater transparency to the FISA court through amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to assist in the consideration of novel interpretations of the law. There are those who say, in the President's report, that there should be a civil liberties council and a red team that can go in there. Let's talk about that. Let's debate it. Let's make sure there is more than one opinion before the court on its legality. I support those suggestions.

Let's look at the constitutionality. One judge recently said the NSA surveillance program, particularly under something called section 215, was shocking, and he said it was not constitutional, but 36 other FISA court opinions by 15 judges said it was constitutional.

I am a social worker. I am not a constitutional lawyer. Do you know who decides on what is constitutional? The Supreme Court of the United States. I think that Congress ought to call for--or the executive branch and the President--an expedited review of these programs. I would like to settle, once and for all, whether the programs and laws passed by the Congress in the area of surveillance--I would like to know if they are constitutional. If they are, then we know that. If they are not, then that ends the program. We will follow the law, and we will obey the Constitution of the United States.

Let's get to work here. Let's go to work here. Let's make sure that we are bringing about reform.

I want to talk about the mission of the agency. The National Security Agency is not a puzzle palace, and it is not some sneaky surveillance agency with people in tan raincoats and fedoras, hiding behind doors and spying on people. In fact, remember what they think they do--they think what they do is constitutional, legal, authorized, and necessary.

We need the National Security Agency. There is only one thing the 215 program does: It protects us against counterterrorism. They are there to protect us against counterespionage. They are there to protect us and make sure that weapons of mass destruction are contained. They are advocates for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in cooperation with the CIA and NRO.

They also protect us in the area of cyber security. Those 80 million people who recently had their credit cards stolen at Target--we don't know if that was a job that was done in the United States of America. For all we know, it was organized cyber crime coming out of Albania or another Eastern European country with shoddy rules and regulations. We don't know. However, we do know the FBI and the NSA are working on it, as well as others. NSA's job is to look at what is over there. Some of our biggest bank heists in organized cyber crime are coming from over there. Did you know that one of the biggest thefts out of the Medicare Program was done by a cyber heist by organized crime out of Albania? Can you believe that? It was caught. In working with the inspector general at CMS, the FBI, and the NSA, we caught them, got our money back, and now we are back on track. So they do a good job, and we are kind of losing sight as far as these concerns about surveillance.

There is no doubt that we protect the civil liberties of the United States of America. We do believe in privacy. I am not going to describe the program or go into it, but I will tell you what really bothers me. What really bothers me is that somehow or another, through the media, and even conversations in this body, we are painting NSA

as if it were a bad, villainous, duplicitous, surreptitious agency. That could not be further from the truth. Somehow or another, the men and women who work there every single day, standing sentry on behalf of the United States of America on signals intelligence, are somehow or another to feel that something is wrong. The morale at that Agency is terrible. The morale at that Agency is falling. The morale at that Agency is not in a healthy situation.

We have to do something about that by showing respect for the men and women who work there. Most of them are civilians. They are some of the brightest people in the world. Did my colleagues know that the NSA is the largest employer of mathematicians in the world because of the code breakers, the cryptologists? They break codes. Who uses codes? It is not Mother Teresa.

Respect. Let's have respect because they are hard at work. While the rest of us were home for Christmas enjoying turkey or home for Thanksgiving, they were out there working. They were making sure there wasn't another Underwear Bomber. When our defenses appear to be lowest--when people are traveling on airplanes, when people are in the holiday spirit--they are working. They are working right now to make sure our Olympic athletes are safe, working with appropriate international law enforcement. They are at it every single day. Can't we give them respect while we sort out constitutionality and legality? Let's sort it out, but let's stop the finger-pointing.

I must tell my colleagues that I was taken aback today when I got my National Journal Daily and read where it says ``Obama Invites NSA Top Congressional Critics To Meet.'' I think it is always great when the President speaks with Congress, but he invited the critics of the program to the White House. I think that is good. I would prefer, though, to read--instead of ``inviting the critics,'' the phrase would have said ``reformers.'' Put me in the ``reformer'' category. If there are abuses, I am one of the first to criticize them. I have been part of reform. I intend to be part of reform, but I don't intend to be a part of rejecting the mission, and I don't intend to be a part of any effort that downgrades or downplays the contribution of the men and women who work there. So call the people reformers.

I hope the White House and this Congress will signal to the men and women at the National Security Agency that they are respected, that they are valued; as we pursue reform, we will always do our duty to ensure that what they do is constitutional, legal, authorized, and necessary. But don't blame them for the job we asked them to do. I think if we proceed with a spirit of reform rather than blame, we will be able to accomplish a great deal.

This is a big day in the Senate. Let's pass unemployment compensation. Let's do the reforms we need, and let's do a good job, as we are supposed to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to call, as so many others have done, for justice. The scourge of sexual assault still pervades in our military. Our outrage is palpable, but change is possible.

I recently read a heart wrenching story in the Baltimore Sun about Brian Lewis. Thirteen years ago, after 3 years of service in the Navy, Brian was assaulted by a higher ranking shipmate. His attacker went unpunished, while Brian bore shame, depression, and even accusations from his fellow shipmates.

Brian is not alone. He joins thousands of men and women who have suffered silently at the hands of a fellow soldier, sailor, or marine. This is a compelling national problem. When you join the military and you face the enemy, you shouldn't have to fear the enemy within.

Victims of sexual assault have long been redlined and sidelined at the hands of a justice system that fails to be objective or effective. It is time to put a stop to this now.

Despite lasting trauma, prejudice, and overwhelming obstacles, these men and women have endured. Their courage in the face of suffering is admirable, but it should not be necessary.

That is why I support the new Defense bill for fiscal year 2014. It includes over 30 provisions to address sexual assault. It strengthens the justice system. It provides counsel and support for victims. Most importantly, it provides a serious deterrent for those who dare take advantage of our most patriotic Americans.

For 25 years, I have fought to resolve this issue. I thank those who have stood beside me, including, most recently a bipartisan alliance of women Senators. We have made some progress, but we still have far to go.

There are 26,000 reasons why we rise today. Twenty six thousand sexual assaults have occurred in our U.S. military this year. Many of these acts of violence are unreported, unprosecuted, and unpunished. We cannot let this continue, not on our watch.

It is our moral duty to speak for the voiceless, to vouch for the powerless, to fight for the helpless. The men and women of our military may know how to wage war, but they should have to battle through redtape when it comes to their pursuit of justice.

Mr. President, Senator Hatch and I join together today to recognize the contributions of Vincent A. Forlenza, chairman, CEO and president of BD, in establishing and leading AdvaMedDx, an important new voice for the role of medical diagnostic tests in patient care.

BD, the leading global medical technology company, has a strong presence in both Maryland and Utah as do other companies in the medical device and diagnostics sectors. We understand firsthand the growing importance of diagnostics to power medical discoveries and transform patient care.

The impact of diagnostics, however, is not always well understood by patients, policymakers and, sometimes, even physicians. In 2010, Mr. Forlenza played an instrumental role in bringing together a group of leading diagnostics manufacturers to form a new trade association, AdvaMedDx, whose core mission is to create an understanding of the role diagnostics play in the health care system and help foster patient access to innovative, safe, and effective tests. Soon after the founding of the AdvaMedDx, Mr. Forlenza assumed the role of chairman of the board of directors, a position he has held for the last 3 years.

As part of its contribution to the policy dialogue, AdvaMedDx has organized Capitol Hill briefings at which leaders in the field of diagnostics have shared insights and current developments on topics including women's health, cancer diagnostics, antibiotic resistance, and infectious diseases. Just a few weeks ago, AdvaMedDx and the American Association for Cancer Research held a daylong symposium on personalized medicine and companion diagnostics, keynoted by the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and the Director of the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. Forlenza has been a tireless champion for the power of diagnostics to promote wellness, improve patient outcomes and advance public health. The success of AdvaMedDx in a few short years is in large measure due to this vision that he brought to the organization.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business for approximately 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan budget agreement.

I congratulate our colleagues, especially Budget Committee chairwoman Murray for her outstanding leadership in forging this bipartisan agreement with her House counterpart, Mr. Ryan. They reached this agreement in a way that is indeed a compromise--not everyone's desired outcome but a fair and necessary one. I urge my colleagues to support it. I think it is fantastic that they actually got a budget done. This is the first time in several years we are actually going to vote on a bipartisan budget conference agreement, and I think it bodes well for future activity where we return to the due order of passing legislation, one in each House, having a conference committee to hammer out the disagreements, and then it coming back to us for final agreement.

What I like about this agreement is it creates certainty by avoiding sequester for 2 years, giving the top-line funding to us on the Appropriations Committee for 2014 and 2015. Many people do not realize that we on the Appropriations Committee who actually put money in the Federal checkbook to be spent have a cap put on our spending by the Budget Committee. That is called the 302(a) or the top line. We have not been able to do our Appropriations Committee work because we have not had a top line. This enables us to have one for 2014. We are under a mandate to bring it back to the Senate and to the House by January 14. We will meet that deadline. It is going to be tough. It is going to be stringent. But we are going to get the job done. It also gives us certainty for 2015 so we can return to a regular order of actually knowing where we stand with our cap, holding our hearings, and bringing bills to the committee.

The other facet I like about this bipartisan budget agreement is it prevents harm. It protects seniors and families. It preserves the social safety net, such as Medicare and Social Security.

Finally, the agreement ends gridlock. The American people are tired of shutdown, slowdown, slam-down politics. This agreement ends the lurching from crisis to crisis and shows we can compromise and we can govern.

First of all, and foremost, this budget agreement creates certainty for America's businesses and families. By avoiding sequester for 2 years, it prevents further across-the-board cuts--not that we do not need strategic cuts, and we will come up with them in the Appropriations Committee--but across-the-board cuts where we do not know if a program works or if a program is dysfunctional. This way, we can actually look at those programs that we do need to cut--those that are dated, those that are duplicative, those that are dysfunctional. Sure, let's cut those.

But at the same time let's keep the good programs and make sure that they are adequately funded. I believe that avoiding the sequester and the meat-ax approach to cuts really helps us to have better governance. We will have a more frugal government, and we will have a more sensible way of spending.

It also gives us this top line funding for 2014 and 2015 for the Appropriations Committee. It means that we can write an omnibus bill. What does an omnibus bill mean? We on the Appropriations Committee have 12 subcommittees. We would like to have brought these subcommittees up one by one and have the House exercise their due diligence in looking at the bills to see what they want to add, subtract or change.

We could not do it because we failed to have this budget agreement to give us the top line. What we will now be able to do is for 2014 we will be able to bring them all up at one time in a bill called the omnibus. I hope it is a bus that really moves. It will enable us to make smart choices about our investments in America instead of government on autopilot through a continuing funding resolution.

This agreement saves America from lurching from one continuing funding resolution to another. It is a fair compromise. For 2014 it is $45 billion above the House-proposed budget, but it is $45 billion below the Senate-proposed budget. Our budget leadership met in the middle and really thought that would be an adequate compromise. I would have preferred the 1.058 level, but it is adequate.

The bipartisan agreement also, as I said, prevents harm to the middle class. What America is looking for, though, is not only numbers and programs and so on, they want us to get our act together. They want us to really do our job, and do it in a way that is sensible and civil.

I believe that is what was done in that budget committee. They want us to work together across the aisle and across the dome. This bipartisan agreement shows what can be done when we do meet in the middle to make progress for the middle class and for those people who are neither right or left but want to take the middle of the road.

This compromise is not perfect. Compromises never are. For me, some of the pay-fors were not exactly what I was happy about. For example, they require new Federal employees to pay more for their retirement and working-age military retirees to receive smaller COLAs. I would have preferred an agreement that closed tax loopholes or canceled some of those out-of-date farm subsidies left over from the 1930s.

However, by avoiding the sequester, we also will be able to avoid furloughs. If you talk to the civilian employees at Defense, and you talk to Federal employees in the domestic agencies about this whole idea of furloughs and sequester, some of them had to have a double furlough, such as at the FBI. We were facing furloughs in the FBI. We did not have gas for the FBI cars. That is not right.

We want to make sure we continue to fund our government and meet our responsibilities. I cannot stress enough how important this bipartisan agreement is. If we continued the path that we left and the sequester was left in place, it is would cost our economy 800,000 jobs in 1 year--800,000 jobs.

Maryland already lost 21,000 jobs because of the sequester. We have important Federal agencies. We have over 250,000 contractors, both in defense and civilian agencies, and the ripple effect through my State had an impact on institutions like Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland and on major flagship companies like Lockheed Martin, and it was really significant.

By passing this, we have a certainty that enables us to keep those jobs. The Appropriations Committee is ready to write a funding bill that will create jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Jobs today and important investments in infrastructure, education, research and development, and jobs tomorrow.

Let's take this bipartisan agreement, and we will produce a bill. We on the

Appropriations Committee will produce a bill that meets our national security needs, our compelling human needs, and at the same time lay the groundwork for a more prosperous America.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and end gridlock and deadlock. Let's get on with making sure that we have certainty and reliability in funding the government of the United States of America.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to honor Maggie McIntosh on the occasion of her retirement as director of Federal Relations at Johns Hopkins University.

Maggie has a long career in public service. She has served in the Maryland House of Delegates since 1992, when she was first elected to represent the 42nd District. Since 2002, Maggie has represented the people of northern Baltimore City as the Delegate for the 43rd District of Maryland.

She is also an active member of the Maryland Democratic Party. She previously served for 8 years as a member of the Democratic Central Committee from Baltimore City.

Maggie is a woman of many firsts. She was the first female majority leader in the Maryland House of Delegates. She was also the first woman to serve as chair of the Environmental Matters Committee.

Maggie is also a fighter. One of her many passions is education. She was a Baltimore City public school teacher, and an adjunct professor at Catonsville Community College and the University of Baltimore.

Maggie is also passionate about environmental issues, Maryland economic development, equal rights, and the effort to elect more women in Maryland. She has an extraordinary record as a legislature, and she is only now getting started.

Additionally, Maggie is a trusted friend. I have known her for many years. Maggie previously served as my State director and campaign manager--I call her ``Boss Maggie.''

Today, I wish to recognize her for her years of service to Johns Hopkins University. Maggie joined Johns Hopkins in 1992, and is currently the director of

Federal Relations. She is retiring from her position after 20 years at Johns Hopkins.

I wish her the best as she continues to serve the people of Maryland and fights the good fight for the issues she believes in.

Mr. President, today, I wish to honor my long-time staff member, Denise Nooe, on the occasion of her retirement.

Denise has been a part of my team for 30 years. She began working for me in 1983 as a constituent services representative when I was representing Maryland's Third District in the U.S. House of Representatives, and she was a key part of my team when I transitioned from the House to the Senate. Denise has been the outstanding director of my Annapolis office since 1987.

Denise and I have similar backgrounds. We both believe in the power of community organizing to make a difference. We believe the best ideas come from the people. We both have master's degrees in social work, and believe in the importance of helping individuals and serving our communities. We believe that the people have a right to know, to be heard and to be represented.

Throughout her career, Denise has strived to make a difference in people's lives. She has utilized her social work skills every day in understanding how she can best serve the people of Maryland, and help them to the best of her ability. As a caseworker, she has helped thousands of veterans and military personnel negotiate the labyrinth of the Federal bureaucracy. She has brought solace to families when their loved one has died in the line of duty. She has made sure that the brave soldier who died for his Nation could be buried at Arlington. She was vigilant in getting the widow and children the benefits that the servicemember earned for them.

Our wounded warriors could always come to her with a problem and be confident that it would be managed for them. She has represented me on hundreds of occasions on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and any day that veterans and our brave military needed me. She has also been the link to my Veterans Advisory Board and the Governor's Commission on Veterans.

Denise also represents me throughout Maryland, most especially in Anne Arundel County. She was instrumental in the creation of the BWI partnership and the Fort Meade Alliance. State and local officials in Anne Arundel County know she is my catcher's mitt. Actually they think she is the Senator, because we are both short in height. But Denise is also tall in stature among her colleagues, for certainly she has no peer.

Denise has recently been in a key advocacy role assisting me in my efforts to reduce the horrific backlog of Veteran's disability claims in Baltimore. She has been my boots on the ground in Baltimore and played an important role in rallying and assisting the Veterans Service Organizations during this difficult time.

Throughout these wonderful 30 years, Denise has been an invaluable member of my staff. Not only has she helped me immensely in my work as a U.S. Senator, but she has also stood sentry with me and served the people of Maryland with distinction for three decades. Today I want to recognize her for all of the important work she has done, tell the world that I hold her in the highest regard and wish her the very best on her retirement.

Mr. President, today we, of course, are beginning the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act. Throughout the next hour, and throughout the rest of the day, you will see the women of the Senate take the floor, one, in support of our military but also to express their concern and their ideas on how to deal with sexual violence in the military. You will see in the next hour our ideas--the fact that we have excellent ideas in the bill--and then we will have a robust debate on how to even further enhance this process.

This is a compelling national problem. When you join the military and you face the enemy, you should not have to fear the enemy within. No woman should be a victim of rape by a fellow soldier or seaman or corpsman. No man should face the same sexual attack and call it hazing. There is no place in the U.S. military for violence against one member of the military by another.

I am pretty fed up. I am fed up with lip service and empty promises and zero tolerance policies and task force after task force after task force. I am an old-timer in this institution. I have been here for 25 years, and I have worked on this issue every year. Ever since I first came here there has been some repugnant occurrence--from when I was a brandnew Senator and I had to deal with a situation at the Naval Academy where a female midshipman was chained to a urinal at the Naval Academy and taunted for 3 hours by fellow midshipmen, until she was freed by a visiting Air Force cadet, getting her out of handcuffs at her own Naval Academy. Then there was Tailhook. Then there were other kinds of incidents.

Statistics after statistics. There are 26,000 reasons why we are on the floor today. Mr. President, 26,000 sexual assaults have occurred in our U.S. military this past year.

Then we look at the service academies training the future leaders--15 attacks at the Naval Academy, 15 attacks at West Point, and over 50 attacks at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Now is the time to do something, to do something bold, to do something strong and something unequivocal, something victims can have confidence in, where the accused can feel the process will be fair and we restore the confidence in the U.S. military to stop this and to deal with their own.

I am proud of the leadership taken by the women in the Senate and the women on the Armed Services Committee. There are now seven women on the Armed Services Committee--five Democrats and two Republicans. Wow, do they work on a bipartisan basis with the leadership of the committee. We appreciate the work of the fine men who have supported us in dealing with this issue. We particularly thank Chairman Levin for his leadership, and we acknowledge the role of Senator Inhofe. By the way, all of the women of the Senate wish to express our sincere condolences to Senator Inhofe on the loss of his beloved son, Dr. Perry Inhofe.

This is not just a women-only fight. This is a fight to make sure our military continues to be the best in the world and that when you serve, there is an enemy outside that we will always face, but there is an enemy within that we need to now end.

We, the women of the Senate--all of us--agree on the goals. We want to be able to provide prosecutorial tools for punishment, we want to ensure fairness in the process, and we want to make sure we get help to the victims.

The National Defense Authorization Act has more than 30 reforms in it to accomplish that. Thirteen relate to prosecutorial reforms, 10 are reforms to improve victims' services, 2 reforms

are to improve training of first responders, and 5 also deal with various kinds of reporting.

I am so pleased that the bill works to prevent retaliation against someone who reports a crime. So if you feel you have been a victim of sexual assault you are not retaliated against by stepping forward, where you are then doubly victimized, both by the attack and then by those who want to squelch the fact that you want to bring the attack to the surface and to follow some kind of redress and to also get help.

It also eliminates the statute of limitations on courts-martial for sexual crimes. It requires a review of decisions by commanders not to prosecute and requires dishonorable discharge for anyone convicted of a sexual assault.

The bill ensures that every victim gets access to legal counsel and support. This is very important. It is important not only to me and the other women, but it is important to the person who would be injured. First responders must have training in sexual assault. There are others that could be elaborated on.

Sexual assault in the military continues to rise. It is a problem, as I said. I am worried about the men and women every day, to be sure that they are well trained and well protected.

Unfortunately, many of these acts of violence are unreported, unprosecuted, and unpunished. DOD's own annual report gives us a picture of why victims do not report these crimes. Fifty percent do not think anything will be done, 43 percent believe they will not be believed, and 47 percent are afraid of retaliation.

The reforms in this bill deal with those fears and their concerns. We are ready to reform, revise, and standardize how the military deals with these problems. These reforms will change the way the military thinks and how they act.

During the course of this whole process, we have met with victims and heard their stories, we have met with experts and advocates, we have met with the military themselves. Now we are ready to give all concerned in this a voice by using the Defense bill for a vehicle for serious and significant reform. We have been able to do this because we have worked together on both sides of the aisle, working with the leadership of the committee--30 reforms that people can count on for fairness in the process for the accused but also help to those who feel they have been victimized but to be sure they are not victimized by the very system they count on.

I eagerly look forward to hearing from my senior Republican colleague Senator Collins.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are seeing something pretty historic, with over half of the women of the Senate speaking on this issue. I know the press isn't covering this, but I hope with C-SPAN they are.

This is a bipartisan effort, with 30 reforms we have agreed to, and it is very impressive that we are all here, speaking up with one voice, and an occasional difference in goals. I hope America is watching because this has never happened before.

I now turn to the Senator from Wisconsin for her remarks, then to the Senator from Missouri, and then to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, how much time do we have under this morning business agreement?

We have two more speakers, Senators from Massachusetts and Washington State. I ask unanimous consent morning business be extended for these two for approximately 10 minutes.

I yield to the Senator from Washington State and the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, with the outgoing statement by the Senator from Massachusetts, we have now concluded the time that the women of the Senate have taken, on a bipartisan basis, to speak out against sexual assault in the military and to speak for the 30 reforms we have all agreed upon, on a bipartisan basis, that will enable prosecutorial reform, help to the victims, guarantee that there is fairness with the process, and make sure that if a victim comes forward, that victim will not be retaliated against or ignored, and for anyone who is accused, that person will get a fair process.

I am very proud of the way the seven women on the Armed Services Committee took the lead on this issue and were then joined not only by the rest of us but also social workers, advocates, former Attorneys General. We could not have done it without the very good men on the committee, particularly the chairmanship of Senator Levin and the help of Senator Inhofe.

I note the Senator from Rhode Island Mr. Reed is on the floor. We want to thank Senator Reed for his strong advocacy and advancement for women in the military and also these important reforms.

I would also like to add, as the dean of the women, that what we did this morning was pretty historical. We have 10 women from the Senate across the aisle speaking out on 30 reforms that were agreed to in the underlying bill. This is what the American people wanted--Members of the Senate working together with the chairman of the committee, listening to victims, listening to experts, and listening to the military.

Do you know what was disappointing. There was only one person in the press gallery. If we had been in conflict--and there will be disagreements later on where there are differences in some policies, and that is OK with me. But we don't make press when we have actually worked together, and worked with such incredible diligence and expertise among ourselves, to solve these egregious and historically intransigent problems.

I say to the press, you know you like conflict, you know you like controversy, and you particularly want to see it among the women. We have a precedent where we have disagreed before on goals. When I led the fight with Lilly Ledbetter, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison took me on with nine

amendments. We had a good debate and a good bill at the end of it.

Senator Murkowski, from the State of Alaska, has also disagreed with me on what should be the best approach on preventive health. We had debates without personal conflict, and we then came up with some good ideas.

I say today, when I listen to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--who again have great backgrounds--this is pretty historic.

If you are watching on C-SPAN, you saw history being made. There were 10 of us--and there will be more later today--who actually agreed. We are trying to govern the way we were elected to govern. I am proud with what we are going to do with the reforms that are involved. I am proud of the way we have gone about it, and if we disagree on some matters here and there, that is what debate, intellectual rigor, and civility will be all about.

I will conclude this debate for now. Other women will be coming throughout the day to speak, and we know we will be debating some other important policies as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the Drug Quality and Security Act. This legislation does two things. First, it improves the regulation of compounding pharmacies, and second, it strengthens the security of our drug supply chain. This legislation has been in the works for quite a while and I am so pleased that the HELP Committee came together on a bipartisan basis and put together legislation that will truly save lives--across the country and in my home State of Maryland.

This bill has been through regular order. We had multiple hearings in the HELP committee, we had working groups, of which I was a member, and we held a bipartisan markup. Our counterparts in the House did the same. And here we are today. This bill has passed the House and it is my hope that it will pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President.

Let me first talk about the Compounding Quality Title of the bill and why it is so important. Last year, our Nation was devastated by a meningitis outbreak that sickened 751 people and killed 64 people. In Maryland, 26 people fell ill and 3 people died. As the HELP Committee looked into this outbreak, we quickly learned two things. First, these illnesses and deaths were caused by contaminated compounded drugs from the New England Compounding Center, NECC, located in Massachusetts. And second, these illnesses and deaths were entirely preventable.

Hospitals, doctors, and patients are increasingly relying upon compounded drugs, which are supposed to be made on an individual basis to respond to a patient's unique health needs. For instance, if a patient is allergic to a certain ingredient in a drug, a compounding pharmacy can make the drug without that ingredient. Or if a child needs a smaller dosage strength, a compounding pharmacy can do that. Today, 1 to 3 percent of the U.S. prescription drug market is made up of compounded drugs.

But the problem we have is twofold. The first problem is that where there is need, there is greed. Compounded drugs are supposed to be made on an individual basis for an individual patient and provided only with a prescription from a doctor. What the HELP Committee learned was that certain compounding facilities were blatantly and flagrantly violating these rules. Not only was NECC mass producing drugs and dispensing them across State lines without prescriptions, NECC also knowingly disregarded sterility tests and prepared drugs in unsanitary conditions. And why? To make a profit.

The second problem is that our existing regulatory framework is insufficient. NECC made drugs in unsanitary conditions, mass produced drugs, and provided medicines without prescriptions. And our regulatory framework was ill-designed to catch problems and prevent the outbreak.

We cannot undo the tragedy caused by NECC's actions, but we can and must find a way to prevent this from happening again, and that is where this legislation comes into play. The bill before us makes two major changes, which will help prevent another NECC-like tragedy. First, it gives the FDA the authority to regulate large-scale compounding pharmacies. Compounders who wish to make large volumes of these drugs will be regulated by FDA, will be required to register with FDA, will be required to report adverse events to FDA, and will be subject to risk-based inspections by FDA. Smaller traditional compounding pharmacies will continue to be regulated by State boards of pharmacy.

Second, this legislation will ensure that patients and providers have better information about compounded drugs. The FDA will post online a list of compounding facilities they regulate, detailed labeling will be required on compounded drugs, and false and misleading advertising will be prohibited.

Let me now talk about the Drug Supply Chain Security Title of the bill. This deals with all drugs, not just compounded drugs. Today, we have a patchwork of 50 different State laws that govern drug distribution in our 50 different States. What this means is that if we become aware of a contaminated drug in our supply chain, there is no uniform way to track that drug back to its source and get it off the market quickly.

This bill will improve patient safety by replacing today's patchwork of product tracing laws with a strong, uniform standard that will ultimately lead to an electronic, interoperable product tracing system for the entire country. This is commonsense legislation that has been long in the making.

These issues are particularly important to me, not only because ensuring the safety of our Nation's drug supply is of the utmost importance but also because I have the distinct honor of representing Maryland, which is home to the FDA.

The FDA is our Federal agency tasked with ensuring the safety of our

Nation's drugs, through the more than 14,000 dedicated, talented, hardworking employees who work there. Fifty-five percent of FDA's employees were furloughed during the recent government shutdown. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues why the work that the FDA does is so important. If we want our drugs to be safe, if we want our food to be safe, if we want our medical devices to be safe, we cannot furlough our FDA staff and we cannot pursue cuts to FDA in coming years.

This bill was done the right way. We had hearings, markups, and working groups in both the House and Senate and we had input from both Republicans and Democrats. I want to thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander for all of their work to get us here. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will improve drug safety and save lives.

Mr. President, today the Senate is voting on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--a bill that I am proud to cosponsor. Americans believe that hard-working people should be rewarded for their efforts and commended for their skills. Yet all throughout our Nation individuals are being held back at work or even fired--not because they are incompetent but because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I firmly believe people should be judged based on their individual skills, competence, and unique talents and nothing else. Sexual orientation does

not affect job performance, so it should not be a consideration, and the vast majority of Americans agree. In fact, an overwhelming 73 percent of Marylanders support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would close a significant gap in our civil rights laws. It would ensure that people are judged on the quality of their work, not on sexual orientation or gender identity. Job discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion has long been prohibited; however, it is still legal to hire and fire a person based on their sexual orientation. This is an outrageous practice for a country that prides itself on equal rights for all.

Today, when I look back at the civil rights movement of the 1960s, I am shocked by how modest the demands of the African American community actually were. If we can pass this piece of legislation, in the future we will look back and think what a modest, obvious step it was and wonder why it took so long. This bill does not bestow special rights; it simply offers gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans the same protection against unfair discrimination in the workplace as other groups--no more, no less.

Currently, 21 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws that prohibit job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, hundreds of companies have implemented nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation.

Gay Americans are part of the American mosaic and are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as every other American citizen. Change in civil rights comes slowly, but we are long overdue in making sure they have protection against unfair discrimination in the workplace. My hope is that someday we will look back on this and wonder what took us so long. We all deserve to live in an environment where people are treated fairly and with the dignity they deserve, and today I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about how we can avoid another shutdown of our government and also, even more important, avoid another shutdown or slowdown of our economy. That is how we in the Congress, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the dome, need to work to arrive at a budget agreement and then an appropriations agreement for the rest of the fiscal year.

Earlier today on the floor we heard from the distinguished chair of the Budget Committee, the Senator from Washington State, Patty Murray, who talked about the budget and what was going on. I come here today to support her efforts and the work of the budget conferees as they work to reach an agreement on the funding levels that will invest in America's future--creating jobs, repairing infrastructure, keeping us safe in our communities and making sure our children are well educated for the 21st century.

The budget conference is absolutely important to America's future because it is about how much we should invest in America's future: What should we do in terms of revenue? How do we close corporate loopholes and corporate welfare and also have them step up to their patriotic responsibility? Also, what is the best way to approach the funding for this government?

There is no doubt we need to reduce public debt, but austerity alone is not the answer. We have seen it in Europe where, yes, they have reduced their public debt, but they have not been progrowth. The agenda I stand for--and I know the chair of the Budget Committee does and many of us on both sides of the aisle do--is we not only want to reduce public debt, we also want to reduce unemployment, and we also want to reduce statistics such as crime rates.

We need to be able to work together. My goals for the conference committee that is meeting are simple and straightforward. I would like to see the Budget Committee come up with not only a 1-year framework but a 2-year framework, giving a top-line funding level for 2014 and 2015 and replacing the sequester policy for at least 2 years and do that with increased revenues and strategic cuts--a balanced approach.

Let me say why this is important, because many people do not understand the difference between the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee. The Budget Committee looks at the entire budget of the government of the United States of America, money out and money in. It looks at money out in two categories. Discretionary spending, that is the Appropriations Committee; mandatory spending, that is Social Security, that is Medicare, that is veterans benefits. Then the other is revenue in, either through trust fund contributions or through fees or through taxes.

The so-called top line is what discretionary spending is, what they allow for discretionary spending. In the budget it is under an act called section 302(a) of the budget. In order to do my job as the chair of the Appropriations Committee, I need the Budget Committee, with the concurrence of the Congress, to give my counterparts in the House-- Congressman Rogers and Nita Lowey--and myself and Senator Shelby, my vice chairman on the other side of the aisle, the so-called top line. Then we work through our 12 subcommittees. This is absolutely crucial because we cannot do discretionary spending for fiscal year 2014 until we hear from the Budget Committee.

We do not want another CR. We do not want another shutdown. We do not want another slowdown. We are ready to go to work. We have already done our due diligence. We have already worked our way through the 12 subcommittees, looking at what public investments should be made and, by the

way, how we can be more frugal, how do we get rid of what is dated, what is duplicative, and what is dysfunctional.

As the chair of the subcommittee, again with Senator Shelby, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, my vice chairman, we asked the committee to look at what is it we need to spend and what is it we can get rid of. We have done a great job this year. I am very proud of them. By August 1 all of my subcommittees were marked up, but we need to have this agreement. So we say we need to have this agreement and we need to have it sooner rather than later.

In the deal, the Budget Committee is to report out to the Congress, and therefore to the Appropriations Committee, by December 15. My committee and my counterparts in the House are to produce an appropriations omnibus by January 15. I do not want to get lost in words and the weeds. But essentially as it stands now, Congress will only be in session 8 days from December 15 to January 15 because of the holiday. Eight days--it is an awful lot to ask Barbara Mikulski and Richard Shelby and Harold Rogers and Nita Lowey and our wonderful subcommittees to produce a bill. We will do it if we have to. But we would prefer sooner rather than later.

We believe so strongly about it that my House counterpart, Congressman Hal Rogers, a distinguished gentleman from Kentucky--and I say gentleman in the true sense of the word: civil, candid, straightforward, courteous. We have talked about issues, the differences in fiscal approach and so on. But we know how to get the job done. Where we differ we know how to resolve the conflicts and we are ready to go.

We have sent a letter to the chair of the Budget Committee on both sides, to Senator Murray and to Paul Ryan, asking that they report to the Congress before the Thanksgiving recess--before the Thanksgiving recess. This was unprecedented. We didn't talk about dollars--that is the Budget Committee. We will take our pot of discretionary money, called the top line, and get it done.

What both the House chairman and I are very worried about is that if we do not act, sequester kicks in January 15. What an awful way to do business in our government. You heard me say our subcommittee chairmen have worked to get rid of what is dated, what is duplicative, and what is dysfunctional. That is not just meant to be an alliterative, clever throwaway line. That was a governing policy, both sides of the aisle, scrutinizing.

I am worried. When I look at defense, funding for defense would be $54 billion lower than the Senate's version in both defense and military construction. According to the military chiefs, the readiness of our force has been degraded under existing sequesters. Eighty-five percent of Army brigade combat teams will not be fully trained to deploy. The Navy and our Marine Corps will only have one carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group. They are always going to be semper fi, but we have to be semper fi too and always faithful to getting the job done. The Air Force will have to cut aircraft and possibly an entire fleet.

This is a dangerous time in the world with numerous threats to our security. We cannot operate our military on the cheap.

Just to give a sense of what furlough meant, over 650,000 national security employees were initially furloughed in defense and intelligence and in other security positions in key government agencies. This is unacceptable. We cannot protect the country and run the government like that.

I chair the commerce, justice subcommittee. That is the committee that funds Federal law enforcement, FBI, drug enforcement, U.S. Marshals, the U.S. attorneys who actually move this, the bureau of alcohol and firearms that keeps us safe from terrorism, catches child predators, prosecutes drug dealers, and gangs.

Think of how the FBI went after the Boston Marathon killers. The CJS bill adds $2.3 billion above sequester levels to allow Federal law enforcement to do their jobs. U.S. Marshals track down violent fugitives and sex offenders. DEA goes after not only drug dealers but international drug cartels, so it doesn't make it to the playground or to the school room.

The new FBI Director recently announced that if sequester continued, the FBI will have to furlough people up to 10 days over the next year. This is not good. In the long term CR at the sequester level, a continuing resolution will fund--they will keep a hiring freeze of over 3,000 positions. We cannot have the kind of law enforcement we need at those levels.

We have a big job to do. We have to do it sooner rather than later. I ask the support of the Congress for the Budget Committee for them to be able to bring a budget to the floor. Let's try to do it before the Thanksgiving break. Let's look at how we can look at a balanced approach between strategic cuts--and we on the Appropriations Committee are ready to keep on doing the job we started almost 7 years ago under Senator Byrd, our wonderful, most beloved leader of West Virginia, and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. We need to keep on doing that, but we need the Budget Committee to do their job.

The impact on national security is significant. The impact on our domestic economy is significant. We need to step to the plate and not only avoid a crisis such as a shutdown, we also have to avoid the crisis of confidence that is occurring in our government: Can they govern? Can they get the job done? Are there significant pragmatists who will look at what is the must-do list we have around spending, of which I think security for our country is at the top of the list. I believe we can do it.

I know the Presiding Officer was part of a bipartisan group during the shutdown to try to find a compromise. That group, I salute them. They changed the tone, showed civility, showed bipartisanship, and I think their initial effort was enough to stimulate and encourage coming to the final resolution that we did. That is the kind of spirit we need in this body.

I would say to my colleagues, let's have the Budget Committee act sooner rather than later. Let's support them in a balanced approach to not only look at austerity but also growth, and that also means closing corporate loopholes.

I welcome the Presiding Officer to the Chair. I think that concludes what I wanted to say today. As we get ready to approach the holidays, I want the American people to have confidence in their government. I want the American people to have confidence in those of us who have been elected.

This is a big election day all over America. I recall this time last year--the reelection of President Obama and the election of the Senator from Massachusetts who is now the Presiding Officer. It was a big day. It was a big deal. Twenty women came to the Senate--a new Democratic woman and the distinguished Senator from the State of Nebraska. When they came, they were filled with excitement and passion to serve the Nation, represent the views of the people of their State, and to get something done, not only to do it with the lowest common denominator but also to be able to work together for the common good and worry about the next generation, not the next election. That is what we did. Let's recall how we felt this time last year. Let's get our act together and press on.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I was so excited talking about my topic, I forgot to note the absence of a quorum, so I hereby note the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I consume.

I come to the floor today with both a great deal of energy and a sense of relief--relief that it appears we have reached a bipartisan agreement to reopen the government, pay America's bills, and give us a path forward to deal with the ability to negotiate on some of our long-term fiscal challenges.

I come with a sense of energy because I think it shows that when there is a will, we find a way. This needs to be a sensible approach. I have a sense of optimism that this spirit of compromise that produced this new agreement will continue in the Senate as we work together.

I am so relieved we are going to extend the debt limit, at least to February 7, 2014. During this entire debate over the last several days, I was so apprehensive that America would become a deadbeat nation.

I was appalled, like so many Americans, that the families of four of our soldiers who had fallen in the line of duty were not going to get their death benefit. The wonderful Fisher family, who has been so kind and so generous to our veterans, paid that. This is the United States of America. We have a duty to our military. We have a duty to our military families. We were not going to be able to do that. That is just one example.

I was concerned about our T-bills, our famous Treasury bills, that have been not only part of the fiscal underpinning of the global economy, but also have given confidence to modest and conservative investors: Well, I will invest in T-bills because nothing will ever happen to our government.

I was concerned that our T-bills would go the way of junk bonds. So now, because we have extended the debt limit, we have agreed to pay the bills on debt we have already incurred. This is an excellent way of moving forward.

I also am pleased we are going to have, as part of this agreement, the reopening of the entire government. This means our government will be on a continuing funding resolution until January 15, 2014. This will enable us to set the framework for what our funding will be for the rest of the fiscal year.

Why are we in a shutdown of our Federal Government? The Presiding Officer is a member of the Appropriations Committee. I chair that committee. That is the committee that actually puts money in the Federal checkbook for the entire fiscal year. However, we are not wild spenders. We have a cap placed on us. That comes from the Budget Committee.

The Budget Committee sets the budget for the entire Federal Government. It sets what the cap should be on discretionary spending, which is the Appropriations Committee, on mandatory spending, which are programs that must be funded, whether it is Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, and others that no matter what, they are to be funded. Then they also set what revenue we should have and where we should get it. The Budget Committee is absolutely crucial for us to do our work.

I am pleased there has been a commitment from the leaders to appoint conferees on the budget resolution so the Budget Committee can do its work and give back to we appropriators no later than December 16 what our cap is for spending for the entire fiscal year. If we can do that, we appropriators can do our job. I will say more about what appropriations are.

This is going to be a very tight schedule. The Budget Committee has been unable to meet because six Senators used their parliamentary tools to block the Budget Committee meeting, even though the Senate passed a budget with over 70 votes on March 23. We have wasted 6 months and we don't want to waste the next 6 weeks.

I am pleased there appears to be the ability for the Budget Committee to meet in conference with the House of Representatives. That means the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Patty Murray, and the ranking member or vice chairman, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, will meet with Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman in the House Budget Committee, and Chris Van Hollen, another Marylander and a very able ranking member.

I wish them well because we need to know how much discretionary spending we are going to have, we need to be able to look at mandatory spending, and we need to look at revenues. If we can pass this agreement reached by our leadership on both sides of the aisle, Democratic leader Senator Reid, and Republican leader Senator McConnell,

we can, within hours, reopen our government and pay our bills.

These are our constitutional responsibilities. The American people deserve a government that works as hard as they do. We need to put our Federal Government and our Federal employees back to work. This agreement does that. It says to the American taxpayer and to the entire world, America is not a deadbeat nation. We can work together to enact bipartisan, fiscally responsible legislation to keep our government going. There is no doubt that we have significant fiscal challenges ahead of us.

As we prepare to vote, I would encourage all of us to take stock of what has happened in the Senate the past several days. It is time we take stock of where we are and what it means. The crisis we have just lived through might be very good for TV ratings, but it is lousy for credit ratings. It is good for TV ratings because the Nation was gripped by what they saw. They couldn't believe it. I was in the Senate working, and I couldn't believe it either; that we could not in a straightforward way come to grips with the fact that we needed to reopen government, but we were being held back by those who wanted to defund ObamaCare.

This crisis of the U.S. Government and the fear that the U.S. Government might not pay its bills has created a crisis of confidence. As we work on implementing the deal we are promoting, we also have to work to ensure that we rebuild the confidence of the American people and those who depend on and look to the U.S. Government, those that are treasured allies and emerging nations to whom we would say be a democracy and be like us. We have to use our time not only to get our fiscal act together, but we have to restore the confidence in our ability to govern.

America is a middle-of-the-road nation. We need an environment where the middle speaks, where the middle class now speaks and says: Please represent me, meet our national security needs, make public investments in physical infrastructure and in human infrastructure such as education and access to higher education. Please make public investments in research and development that will create new ideas for the new jobs in the new economy of the 21st century. This is what they want us to be able to do.

For those of us in this great institution called the Senate and the other side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives, we have to be middle-of-the-roaders. It is the middle, maybe a little to the center left or to the center right, but we have to be in the middle. Middle- of-the-roaders are the ones who helped bring us to this deal.

I wish to thank those who put forth some other ideas during this debate, Senator Collins, Senator Klobuchar, and the so-called group of 12. They had some very interesting ideas. As we go forward on implementing the deal, we ought to consider some of them. They helped create a climate and a tone where people showed they wanted to be pragmatic and also wanted to be patriotic, which is to make sure that the esteem of the U.S. Government continues to take hold both among our own people and around the world.

I wish to be sure we all work together. I fear the middle-of-the-road legislator could be an endangered species. I hope not. I hope the middle-of-the-roaders don't become roadkill. We can show now it is not only the deal that has been made, but we must vote on the bill, pass the bill, and then we need to implement it.

America and its government cannot go from one crisis to another. We cannot govern by crisis. We cannot govern by one party or the other extorting it from the other--my way or I will shut it down. We have to show that we are a deliberative body. We have to show we are a nation of laws and rules, not of people, personalities, and pundits. We need to demonstrate that.

I compliment those who have been voices of moderation and voices for creating the climate to bring us to this point.

I also wish to thank our leadership for being willing to step to the plate and be leaders. I would also like to thank Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for the leadership and statesmanship they possess.

We are on the brink of brinkmanship. We had enough of gamesmanship, and they stepped forward to show us what statesmanship is. I wish to thank them for what they did.

I chair the Appropriations Committee. I am not a solo act. I have 12 wonderful subcommittee chairmen who are eager and itching to go to work. I have an outstanding Republican conservative as my vice chairman, Senator Shelby of Alabama. We want to work. We want to work together and we want to work with civility, mutual respect, and get the job done.

I say to my friends on the other side of the dome, we want to govern. We want to govern wisely. We want to govern efficiently, and we want to govern respectfully.

I say to my colleagues on my side who have elected me the chair of this committee, they may count on me to do my best.

I say to those on the other side of the aisle, they may count on me to continue to run an inclusive committee of discussion, open debate, amendments, so we can move our process forward. Everybody feels included. Everybody has their say. Everybody has their day. At the end of the day though, we will vote.

To my colleagues on the other side of the dome, let us work together. We have shown in the past we know how to talk to each other, we know how to listen to each other, and we can get the job done. I believe America wants us to get on with the job. Americans want to be able to have a government they can count on. Americans want to be able to have a government that works as hard as they do. They want to have a Congress that acts in the interests of the Nation, of the next generation, and not of the next election.

I am ready to vote for the agreement reached by our leadership, go to work, and do everything I can to make sure we follow the middle of the road--that sensible center--and to make sure the American middle class has their day and their say.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

What is the pending status of the Senate floor?

I rise to speak for approximately 10 minutes.

We are 33 hours away from the possible default of the United States of America on its debt obligations. We are 33 hours away from the possibility of the United States of America becoming a deadbeat nation, not paying its bills to its own people and other creditors.

We are 33 hours away from our T-bills becoming a junk bond. It is unacceptable that our T-bills, our Treasury bills, should move to a junk-bond status. We have to get rid of that and we have to get rid of the junk talk that is going on around here.

The Congress of the United States must have a sense of urgency and come together on a program that ensures the United States of America pays its bills and opens its government to serve its own people and to serve the role we play around the world.

I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us pass the framework that was originally suggested yesterday by the Democratic leader Senator Reid and by Senator McConnell, our Republican leader. Maybe it is not something all of us would have written, but it is something we could all do. It means the President would sign it, the government would reopen, we could extend the debt ceiling, and we could be working on both our budget and our Senate appropriations.

I say, as the chair of the Appropriations Committee, I am eager to go to work. I am eager to fashion that bipartisan compromise within the Senate in terms of what our spending should be, how we could make sure it is affordable, frugal, makes good investments in the American framework, makes sure we have national security physical infrastructure, meets compelling human need, and conducts research and development.

We can do this. I spoke with my House counterparts. We are eager to go to work, but in order to negotiate we must have this agreement.

I am very adamant that before we can get to appropriations and our budget, we have to raise the debt ceiling. If we fail or falter to address the crisis, the United States of America will irrevocably be affected. This is a manufactured crisis. It is a manufactured crisis because it is a self-inflicted crisis. This is not what our global competitors are doing to us. This is not what Russia is doing to us. This is not what China is doing to us. This is what the House of Representatives is doing to us.

I thought we had an agreement arrived at by two mature leaders willing to do statesmanship rather than brinkmanship. That became the mantra of the day, statesmanship over gamesmanship. We felt very good about it last night when we went home. It was going to take give. Certainly, it was going to take give from we appropriators, but that is OK. That is the American way.

Now we are on the verge of being a deadbeat nation. How humiliating is this, that the Federal Government, already shut down for 2 weeks, could be heading for default. The full faith and credit of the United States has always been the international standard for investment in the world and now it is a question mark.

There is a lot of confusion about debt ceiling and what it means. Debt ceiling doesn't mean permission to acquire new spending, it means to acquire funds to pay bills we have acquired in the past. The debt ceiling determines how much the government can borrow to pay for the programs it has already enacted. I wish to repeat it allows the United States to pay the bills it has already incurred.

Opponents of raising the debt ceiling say that by blocking an increase, it is going to save the United States money. That is simply not true. We don't save money by not paying our bills. Do you know what happens when someone doesn't pay their bills? They get a lousy credit rating. When someone gets a lousy credit rating, he or she has to pay more for what they want to buy if they have a terrible credit rating. It is as if we are moving into payday loans.

This is the United States of America. We don't just erase the debt by not paying our bills. In fact, we end up owing more money, as I said, because our interest rates go up. The consequences of a default are significant and severe. For the House of Representatives to say no, to want to give up and say no to what we are working on in the Senate is the height of dangerous behavior.

The Treasury Department warns that default could create a worse economic crisis than 2008 and could cause more damage that might last over more than a generation. A generation is 20 years. I don't want children who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old to grow up in a country that is viewed as an international deadbeat. I don't want to derail our economic recovery. Economists predict we could lose over 600,000 jobs and 401(k)s would be hit hard.

The President would also have to decide who gets limited government money. We will operate only over existing limited government revenue. Should we pay our troops, continue Social Security checks? What should we do?

This isn't only about let's squeeze government programs. This is going to put the squeeze on Medicare and Social Security. I went through this in the 1995 government shutdown. The consequences are very severe to Social Security. Each month Social Security

pays about $70 billion in benefits to 63 million Americans. Most benefits are made to retirees and people with disabilities. October 16, tomorrow, we have a bill due of $13 billion. On October 23, the next round of Social Security checks go out, which is $13 billion. November 1 is another $27 billion with another $4 billion in SSI benefits.

If we have default, we might have to delay benefits. They could be delayed until there is enough revenue in the Treasury to cover the payments due that day. Let me paint the picture. Within the next 4 weeks, we have $70 billion worth of benefits due in Social Security. Jack Lew, the Secretary of the Treasury, says that on October 17 it will be $30 billion. In Social Security alone, we have a $40 billion decline and a gap. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that not raising the debt ceiling could delay the November 1 payment by 2 weeks. We are talking about delaying Social Security. That is an earned benefit.

I would like to say what it also means to Medicare. On Medicare, if the government fails to pay, Medicare payments would be delayed. Medicare pays providers and also covers the prescription drug benefit. Let us go to the prescription drug benefit, which means a lot to many people. If someone needs prescription drugs to control blood pressure, to control blood sugar, to take an anticoagulant to prevent heart attack or stroke, he or she needs Medicare. About $5.2 billion worth of Medicare payments to private insurance companies for the drug coverage is due on November 1.

On November 1, the U.S. Government is supposed to pay its share to private insurance companies to cover the prescription drug benefit. If it doesn't do that, what is a private insurance company going to do? They are supposed to help administer this Medicare Part D benefit. Will the insurance companies continue to provide prescription drugs if they don't get paid by us?

What happens to the seniors? I don't know.

Let us go to providers. Medicare pays doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients. Under the law, they are supposed to be paid within 14 days. Every day, 5 million claims worth about $1 billion are paid to either hospitals or doctors. If we don't have money to pay that hospital or to repay that doctor for services rendered, will they continue to treat Medicare patients? Will hospitals continue to admit them? I am sure they would do it in an emergency, but the whole idea of being able to see your doctor is to avoid an emergency. Doctors are already hesitant about Medicare because of the Spartan reimbursement, but now we are talking about maybe no reimbursement at all for weeks at a time. Why? Not because of a natural disaster but because of politics, politics, politics, politics.

The other side, particularly the other side of the dome in the House, might not like ObamaCare. There are those on the other side of the aisle who don't like ObamaCare. I think everybody likes Medicare. No matter what one thinks about ObamaCare--and I do believe President Obama does care and that is a good thing to call that health care program--but I do believe everyone likes Medicare. I know no Senator, no Member of the House of Representatives, who would like to end the Medicare Program.

If we default, we could be ending Medicare as we know it. We will shake the very confidence in the provider system. We will shake the very confidence that we have in a partnership between Medicare, private insurance, and the people who need health care. What is it that we are doing? Again, this is a self-inflicted manufactured crisis.

I say to the House of Representatives, listen to the framework of the Senate bill. Let's not add a lot of other issues the House might like to bring up. Let us pass the framework that was discussed by Senators Reid and McConnell yesterday.

There was a lot of give-and-take, that we would reopen government. By December 15, the Budget Committee will have met. By January 15 we would have produced our spending bill for 2014, and we would lift the debt ceiling until February 7. I think that would be a good way to go.

One might say shouldn't the Budget Committee meet anyway? You betcha. Senator Murray passed her budget bill on May 23 by almost 70 votes in the Senate, but she could not go negotiate with Paul Ryan because six Senators on the other side of the aisle objected. Now we have to pass legislation mandating following the law.

We are now passing a law to tell them to follow the law. I am willing to pass a law to tell them to follow the law, because in order for me as the chair of the committee, working with my vice chairman Senator Shelby, a really rock-ribbed fiscal conservative--we have a lot of negotiating back and forth, but we have an atmosphere of civility, candor, and an interest in the good of the country. We can get it done. We know we have to give and take. I know as a Democrat I have to, and I am willing to do it. I called him this morning and reaffirmed my commitment to work in the spirit of compromise.

So let's get on with it. Thirty-three hours to go--now it is 32 hours and 45 minutes to go. The clock is ticking on the United States of America and its standing in the world. I urge us to come together, that the Senate be able to move the framework discussed by our leadership; that the House take it up, pass it, and we get on to doing the governance we were elected to do.

I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield and have the Senator from Delaware continue. He is the newest member of the Appropriations Committee. He has really articulated something everybody needs to understand. I am happy to wait my turn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have permission to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, there is a misguided myth out there--not all myths are misguided, but this myth is--by those who believe that the government shutdown is actually saving us money. I am not going to go into all those details about why that is not true, but I can tell everybody one area where government shutdown is absolutely being negatively impacted in

protecting the taxpayer dollar and fulfilling the mission of the agency--particularly in Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, and some others.

The Presiding Officer was the attorney general and the U.S. attorney of the Ocean State, Rhode Island, so he knows about scammers and schemers and that where there is need, there is greed. Where there are large government programs, they are open to waste and particularly to fraud.

I have been an adamant opponent of fraud, and often that is dismissed with comments such as: Oh, everybody says you are against fraud. But what are we doing about it?

Let me say this: As the chairperson of the Appropriations Committee, I was insistent that at every one of my hearings there be an inspector general testifying. I have an inspector general who advises us appropriators, who actually put money in the Federal checkbook, about how we can stop fraud in our own government. I am the first chairman of that committee ever to institute that process where we take the watchdogs of our Federal spending very seriously.

The watchdogs who protect taxpayers' funds are known as inspectors general. They are independently appointed, independently confirmed, and independently do their job. Look at the inspector general for the IRS who brought a national scandal to our attention.

But guess what. In this shutdown the ability of inspectors general to root out fraud and abuse has been severely compromised. We are not catching criminals who are trying to get a quick buck off the back of taxpayers.

I will give an example: The Social Security administration has furloughed 250 investigators and auditors in the Office of the Inspector General. This is crippling the inspector general's ability to investigate allegations of fraud and to detect improper payments in Social Security.

Just recently headlines have made the news about fraud in West Virginia field offices in Social Security where judges and others who were administering the program--administrative judges--were taking kickbacks. Thanks to law enforcement, and the inspector general, we grabbed that.

There were actually people in Federal prisons who used the Internet and created phony identities to get both taxpayer refunds and also Social Security checks. Thanks to inspectors general being on the job, we were able to nip that in the bud.

Each year the Social Security inspector general receives 135,000 allegations of fraud and abuse. Last year the inspector general at the Social Security Administration saved the program $500 million--a half billion dollars was saved in fraud at the Social Security Administration. But instead of pinning medals on people, we have furloughed them. They are sitting at home waiting and itching to be back on the job because they are so proud of what they do.

They believe that Social Security is a sacred trust, and anybody who tries to scheme or scam the system, they are going to come after.

During the normal operations, the Social Security inspector general saves $9 for every $1 spent in oversight.

Let's look at some of the other agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture. Every minute of this shutdown taxpayer dollars are being lost to fraud. When we look at the Department of Agriculture, we see that last year their inspector general investigated 331 possible frauds. They conducted 76 audits. Guess what it resulted in: 800 indictments resulting from people trying to scam various aspects of the Department of Agriculture, including food stamp fraud. Of the 800 indictments, they got 538 convictions. Guess what. They saved our Federal Government $1.5 billion. I said $1.5 billion, 800 indictments, and 540 convictions.

The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Agriculture is on furlough. A minimum number of investigators are on the job. All of the Department of Agriculture inspector general audit staff is furloughed. That is not a wise use of the taxpayer dollars.

Let's go to the VA. The VA Inspector General's Office has furloughed 70 percent of its staff. The VA operates the largest integrated hospital system in the country, including 152 hospitals and 1,000 clinics. It also operates a mortgage program and an educational voucher program. It operates a disability claims and survivor benefit program. Their inspector general routinely audits this complex system. What do they look for? Possible criminal activity. They look for fraud. They make sure there is no misconduct by senior VA officials, and they are doing their job, but they have been furloughed.

We also have the General Services Administration, which is essentially the real estate arm of the Federal Government. It plays a crucial role. Guess what. Last year they handled 450 cases. They got 3,000 hotline complaints about possible fraud. Their staff is on furlough. So they are not looking out for fraud in real estate, automobile leasing, technology, gaming the system, and furniture. Their cases range from bribery to embezzlement, to kickback schemes. Most--99 percent--of our GSA employees are honest. So are our contractors. But guess what. In just 6 months alone, from October 2012 to March of 2013, they were able to crack down and recover over $100 million in schemes and scams.

Look at what I have outlined already: a couple billion dollars, including Social Security, Agriculture, GSA. They are on the job.

I could go to agency after agency. Guess what. The very agency that involves us and advises us is the Government Accountability Office. That is Congress's watchdog. That is where we ask for studies on how we can do a better job and where they identify programs that are dated, duplicative or dysfunctional--dated, duplicative or dysfunctional. If they are dated, goodbye to them. If they are dysfunctional, reform or goodbye. Dysfunctional--dated, dysfunctional, and duplicative, that is our mantra on the Appropriations Committee. We are the guardians of the purse, but we need our tool. The Government Accountability Office, which we rely on, has furloughed 98 percent of its staff.

I could elaborate on agency after agency, but what I wish to show is just this: The consequences of shutdown are affecting people. If they are not on the job, they are not doing the job.

The job of our inspectors general offices--they are independent. They are supposed to come with incredible fiscal background. They are investigators. They are auditors. They are people who have to know how to find a problem, see if it is criminal or civil, whether we can get our money back, so we can make sure it doesn't happen again. Those people want to work. They love their job. It is a calling to them, and we need to call them and say: You are back to work.

So let's reopen government. Let's find a way. Let's fund government at a level that makes sure it can function the way it should. Let's also pay our debts. I do not want our T-bills to become junk bonds. I do not want our T-bills to be so shaky in terms of our ability to pay them back that they arrive at junk bond status. So let's get rid of junk politics and junk talking points. Let's get those clunkers off the road. Let's get America rolling again, pay our bills, honor our T- bills. Let's get government working and let America be America again.

I yield the floor.