Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank the chairman of the committee for her great work in putting together what is this first step toward getting this issue that has plagued this body and plagued this country behind us.

This budget, as I have said to her and others, wouldn't have been the exact one I would have drafted. However, it reflects the varying concerns of the Democratic caucus. It is a budget that is credible, that is real, that moves us forward, and that has as part of its core all of the critical ingredients.

Anyone who has looked at this problem--I know the chairman of the committee has, I know the ranking member has; many of us have wrestled with this; all of the bipartisan groups have wrestled with this issue-- have all said we have to do three or four things. No. 1, we have to have additional revenues. No. 2, we have to do entitlement reform. No. 3, we do need, yes, smart, targeted cuts on both the discretionary side and the defense side.

The Democratic budget, compared to what has now been as I understand in the last hour passed by the House, is the only document, the only budget that has all four of the component parts of any solution that will get this problem of the $16.5 trillion debt that our Nation faces, and a debt that goes up by $3 billion a day, to start putting a realistic, real plan in place to attack this problem in a real way.

I wish my colleagues from North and South Dakota were still here, because I, as was my good friend and colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, was a Governor as well and, yes, we had to balance our budgets. I and my colleague, my great friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, was a Governor as well. I have to tell my colleagues, I will match our record of fiscal responsibility in Virginia and progrowth policies in Virginia with any State in the Nation. Independent rankings have named Virginia the best managed State in the country, the best State for business, the best State for educational opportunity. Those are not my words, not the words of the Senator from Virginia, but independent validation.

How did we get there? Well, the remarkable thing was what we had in Virginia because of actions of prior administrations. When I came in and when the Senator from Virginia was my lieutenant governor, we had a structural budget deficit. How did we have that structural budget deficit? One, because we had spent too much, yes, but also what we put in place was a tax code and a revenue stream that would never meet the needs of basic operations of government.

That analogy is actually what we face now in the United States of America. Yes, we do need to find ways to limit our spending. But what I find curious from all of my colleagues who talk about this issue is their constant focus on the spend side with virtually no mention of what we in this Nation have done on the revenue side.

Anybody who can read a balance sheet--and I take great pride in the fact that I was a businessman long before I was a politician--realizes we have a revenue side and spending side. If we take a moment and look at what previous Congresses have done on the revenue side, back in early 2002, 2003, we put in place a tax cut that cut $4.5 trillion out of the revenue stream over 10 years. We had an expectation we would see budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. Well, I think there is not an economist anywhere or, for that matter, virtually any elected official, who would at least acknowledge privately that in retrospect that was a tax cut of unsustainable proportions. What is particularly remarkable when we talk about growth is that some of the period of our Nation's highest economic growth took place during the 1990s under President Clinton when we had a Tax Code that generated that additional $4.5 trillion of revenue over a 10-year period.

What is remarkable about all of the debates and all of the groups that have looked at this, all of which have included new revenue back into the revenue stream along with targeted cuts, along with entitlement reform, is that every one of those independent reviews of our problem has said the only way we get a balanced approach to get this debt and deficit under control is yes, cuts, yes, entitlement reform, but, yes, additional revenue as well.

The plan that is most often cited on this floor is the Simpson-Bowles report. Simpson-Bowles, on a 10-year basis, based upon the baselines they used in 2010, would have generated $2.2 trillion of net new revenue--$2.2 trillion of net new revenue. Again, thinking about that in the context of what we cut, that is less than half of the amount of taxes we cut back in 2003. So even the most ambitious proposal has said we do not need to go back to the Clinton tax rates when our country was prospering at unparalleled rates. We do not need to put back all of that revenue. We do not even need to put 50 percent of that revenue back in. But we do need to put somewhere between one-third and 40 percent of the revenue back into the revenue stream to make sure we correct the structural deficit on both the spending side and the revenue side.

What does this budget do? Well, we put $600 billion back in on New Year's Eve in a deal where many of us maybe had to hold our nose or our breath on, but it was back in the revenue stream. We put on top of that now another $1 trillion back in--$975 billion back into the revenue stream. That puts us at $1.575 trillion of net new revenue back in-- $1.575 trillion--literally only one-third of the revenue that was taken out with the $4.5 trillion tax cut in the so-called Bush tax cuts.

So I find it a little strange for those who are saying: Let's look at the country's balance sheet--and, yes, we have to cut spending--not to reflect back upon the incredible growth we had back in the 1990s and recognize we have both a structural problem on the spending side but also a structural problem on the revenue side.

I have to tell you, from any kind of reasonable standpoint, putting one-third of the revenues we took away back into the revenue stream seems to me to be a reasonable, balanced, thoughtful, and, candidly, on any kind of operational basis, business basis, fiscally conservative approach.

I have colleagues here, and I want to engage in a conversation about sequester, but I also have to make one other point that particularly bothers me about what the House, which just passed their budget, did and I assume that many of my Republican colleagues, I guess, are endorsing.

I 100 percent agree with my colleagues that we have to have a growth agenda in America. You cannot, no matter how much you cut, cut your way to prosperity. And you cannot--and I know our Republican colleagues agree--you cannot spend your way and tax your way to prosperity. You have to have a growth agenda.

Well, for 20 years before I got into politics, my business was investing in businesses that were growth businesses. I was a venture capitalist. I was proud to cofound Nextel, close to 70 other technology-related companies. Anybody who was an investor in businesses--whether you were me or whether you were Mitt Romney at Bain Capital--looked at a couple of key components of any business in which you would invest. There were generally three items you would look at on any business plan. One was, did that business invest in its workforce, because in a global economy there is a global competition for talent, and the most important criteria you can look at, if a business is going to be successful, is, are the workers going to be trained and are they going to be able to compete and do the job?

The second thing you would look at--of any business I would look at-- is, does that business have a plan to invest in its plant and equipment? Whether you are creating software or making widgets, are you going to stay current in a very competitive marketplace with how you make things?

The third issue is, no matter how successful your business is today, are you going to stay competitive in this global economy and how do you stay ahead of the competition, because no matter how good you are today, somebody tomorrow is going to come up with a new idea.

I would invest in businesses that met those three criteria. I would say that former Governor Romney had a very successful record at Bain in many cases. I bet he looked at those same three criteria.

Countries, in a very similar way, have their own business plans, and budgets kind of reflect those business plans. We may call it different items, but we have those same three criteria: workforce, plant and equipment, staying ahead of the competition. We just call it different items. We call it our investment in education and workforce training. In terms of plant and equipment, we call it our investment in infrastructure because how well your economy, how well your country is going to do is how well your roads, your rail, your ports, and your broadband are, how well you can move goods and equipment in an efficient and effective manner. The third item is, how do you stay ahead of your competition? Well, in the global economy, staying ahead of your competition means, what is going to be your value added? That is going to be your intellectual capital and your ideas. That means research and development.

Well, under the growth agenda criteria, under the business plan criteria, under the investment criteria, the House budget that just passed--and I hope I find my Republican colleagues will contradict me and say: No, no, we do not want to do this, but the House budget that just passed takes Federal domestic discretionary spending, which is currently only 16 cents on every tax dollar that we spend in America-- and for those viewers, in English, non-Washingtonese, domestic discretionary spending is, yes, money we spend on the environment and energy and law enforcement and early childhood, but it is also the money we spend in the Federal Government on education, infrastructure, and research and development. It takes that 16 cents--not a very high number right now even--and takes it over about a 20-year period to less than 5 cents.

I have to tell you, I would never invest in a business that spent less than 5 percent of its revenues on its workforce, its plant and equipment, and staying ahead of the competition. I would never invest as a nation in a nation that is spending less than 5 percent of its revenues on the education of its people, the infrastructure of its nation, and the research and development to stay ahead of the competition.

I tell you, I have spent a lot of time as somebody who looks at what some of our competitive countries are doing. China is spending, just on infrastructure, four times the percentage of their GDP what we are; India, significantly more as a percentage of their GDP on education; even Europe, with all its challenges, significantly more than what this House budget would spend on America's business plan, on America's growth agenda.

I have to tell you, I would never invest in it. I have to tell you, I would really question if Governor Romney, whom I have great respect for with his business acumen--I do not think Bain Capital would ever invest in a business plan for America that spent less than 5 percent of its revenue on its growth agenda and its ability to stay ahead of the rest of the world.

So I hope over this coming debate we can talk about growth agendas, we can talk about revenues, we can talk about balance, we can talk about looking at our plan from any historic perspective. But what I want to turn to now--and I apologize to my colleagues who are on the floor--is the question of sequester.

Back in August of 2011, when we got close to the budget ceiling debacle--not exactly a high point for this institution or Congress, and we could debate about who had the idea or where it came from originally, but what was curious about that was we set up a process that said: We are going to figure this out in a way where we will never get to sequester.

I use the analogy for sequester--some of us are old enough--my good friend, the Senator from Maine, may recall the movie ``Blazing Saddles.'' In that movie, ``Blazing Saddles,'' the sheriff comes out and puts a gun to his head, and all the townspeople come up and say: Oh my gosh, the sheriff may pull the trigger.

We in Congress set up that circumstance with the sequester, and unfortunately 2 weeks ago we allowed that trigger to be pulled. Because I believe, as somebody who cut spending as the Governor of Virginia-- and I know my colleague, the new Senator from Virginia, cut spending as well--we know how to make cuts. But there are smart cuts and smart ways to cut, and there are stupid ways to cut, and there could not be created a more stupid way to cut than sequester.

There are 975 separate line items in the Navy budget. Those 975 separate line items in the Navy budget are not of equal value to the taxpayer, nor are they of equal value to the defense of this Nation. But within the framework of sequester, we do not have any ability to pick and prioritize the way any reasonable business leader or any reasonable Governor would. We had to cut them all of an equal amount. The remarkable thing that is happening--and, again, my friend, the Senator from Virginia, will talk to this more--is that there is example after example, under the name of sequester, that supposedly we are cutting spending where we are actually going to cost the taxpayer more than any perceived savings. I will just cite two examples before I turn to my friend from Virginia.

For those viewers, the American government actually does get certain things right. We have even gotten a law that if we do any bulk purchases, we have to get at least a 10-percent discount. If we buy 10 tanks instead of 1 tank, we get a discount. If we buy more than one Virginia class submarine, we get them at $2 billion apiece. If we buy them individually, they cost $2.5 billion apiece.

Under the name of sequester, if this is allowed to continue, we will have times where we will have to violate those contracts and not only pay a penalty cost but then not receive the government discount because of volume purchasing. It does not mean we are not going to still have to buy the same amount; it just means it is going to cost the taxpayer more money.

In the case of research, the National Institutes of Health does some remarkable work, but anybody who follows medical research knows you cannot normally finish a research project in a single year. So it may take 4 or 5 years to do a cancer research project. If we allow sequester to continue, you may have 4 years of a cancer research project done, but because you cannot discriminate between projects, you cannot let that fifth year of the contract, so the first 4 years of that research is flushed down the toilet.

My colleagues, there has to be a better way to deal with this. Our budget, which replaces sequester with half revenues and half more targeted spending cuts, I believe moves us in that right direction. We in Virginia, in many ways, are ground zero of the effects of sequester. Many States have not begun to feel it. They will at some point.

I would like to turn to my colleague, my good friend, the new Senator from Virginia, somebody who serves now on the Armed Services Committee and has

made hard choices as Governor as well, who knows what it takes to have a balanced approach to continue to grow the economy. He has continued the kinds of accolades that Virginia has received. I would like to ask the Senator from Virginia if he would be willing to explain in a little bit more detail some of the challenges we face at ground zero in Virginia around sequester and why the approach we have taken in our Senate budget is better than the status quo approach we are now having to deal with.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I would ask the Senator, I know he has seen and is very familiar with these installations and their families because of his tenure as Governor. You may also want to make the point: in an area such as Hampton Roads where you put these folks on furlough with literally 88,000, 98,000 immediately affected, will the Senator speak about the point of the ripple effect this has for literally thousands of others who provide the support services--restaurants, gas stations, auto repair, you name it--which rely on those folks having jobs as well?

I thank the Senator from Virginia.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with my friend, the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Hawaii, and the Senator from New Hampshire as well.

To briefly respond--I don't want to keep returning to the ``Blazing Saddles'' analogy, other than the fact these cuts were set up to be the stupidest way possible. No rational group of folks would allow them to come to pass.

The only other point I wish to make is with regard to the Senator's point about the ROTC individuals. I think at times this may not have been part of debate--although there may have been a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have argued strongly against sequester and pointed this out as well. We are not just talking about the immediate short-term effect on that furloughed employee or the ship which may not get repaired. As these cuts were set up to be so ridiculously put forward, the effects of these cuts will actually, in many cases, cost us more money than the savings.

If that ROTC member who has taken 3 years of ROTC decides to quit and not become an officer, the money we have invested in his or her training up to that point is flushed down the toilet.

If we do not make the ship repairs that are part of our industrial base and if the workers at those ship repair businesses in Hampton Roads and in Hawaii and in New Hampshire and in California and in Alabama and in Mississippi leave those careers and those welders go elsewhere, the cost of replacing that workforce and retraining them because we have said, oops, we made a mistake and we come back and fix it 2 years from now, will end up costing the taxpayer more than the dollars we have saved.

If we continue to defer the maintenance and the training of our Armed Forces so we don't have divisions ready to go into action, the cost to get them

back up to military readiness will be exponentially higher the longer we wait than doing these cuts in a smarter, more tailored and more phased-in fashion.

I think the military and everybody I have seen realizes they are going to have to make the kind of cuts to make sure that everything-- domestic discretionary, defense, entitlement reform, and revenues--all have to be part of the mix.

Our military does a remarkable job for us, and we owe them not only the kind of platitudes we sometimes say on this floor, but we owe them an ability to manage a budget that is reasonable, that is thoughtful, that does not have this kind of arbitrary, across-the-board-regardless- of-performance cut. We owe that young man or woman who is in the ROTC the commitment that our Nation will stand by their obligations to their training and support of them so they can continue to serve and protect our Nation.

I now want to ask our friend, another new Senator, the Senator from Hawaii, for her comments. Hawaii is a State that has enormous military assets as well as other assets on the frontline of our Nation's shift in focus on Asia. She may want to add as well any particular stories about her views on sequester and how our budget takes a more reasoned and balanced approach.

The Senator from Hawaii.

I wish to thank the Senator from Hawaii for the real stories of how these sequester cuts are affecting folks in her State of Hawaii, and, obviously, my friend, the Senator from Virginia, has expressed those challenges as well.

Let me be clear. It is not that our budget proposal doesn't make significant cuts in defense. We still add roughly $250 billion of cuts in defense over a 10-year period, but we do it in a smarter, targeted, phased-in way.

The last point I wish to make, before I ask my friend, the Senator from Virginia, to close out, is I want to agree with so many of my Republican colleagues who have come and pointed out this is a responsibility we owe to our children and our grandchildren. We, candidly, owe it to ourselves. This $16.5 trillion in debt goes up $3 billion a day, and it is unsustainable. As Erskine Bowles once said: It is the most predictable crisis in our lifetimes if we don't grapple with it. And so we need a growth agenda.

Two comments I would simply make in closing: If we look back at recent American history for the period of the highest economic growth, the period that we added the most jobs, the area where America continued to lead in innovation, it was during the 1990s. We had a Tax Code at that point that generated sufficient revenue to meet our needs without dramatic expansion of government. I think, in retrospect, most of us would acknowledge we probably made a mistake when we took $4.5 trillion out of the revenue stream in some of those cuts that were made earlier.

We have a spending issue, but we also have a revenue issue. What this Democratic plan puts forward doesn't say we have to put all those revenues back. It doesn't say we have to put half those revenues back. What the Democratic plan says, to get us back on this path to balance, to get us back on this path to growth, we have to, roughly, return about one-third of that $4.5 trillion. With what we did on New Year's Eve and what this budget does, it replaces $1.575 trillion into the revenue stream. It doesn't bring us back to the 1990s rate, but I would love the chance to debate my colleagues on how that is not a reasonable assumption.

If we have a structural deficit problem on the spending side, we also have a structural deficit problem on the revenue side, and I believe this approach is reasonable and both fiscally prudent and responsible.

I would simply close as well with saying that we can't tax and cut our way out of this problem. We have to have a growth agenda. Any good company--any good country--has a business plan. Any business plan for any good company--any good country--that is going to compete in the 21st century has to do at least three things: They have to invest in their workforce, invest in their infrastructure, and they have to stay ahead of their competition, which means research and development.

I tell my colleagues, there is no way a plan that says America will invest less than 5 percent of its public revenues in its education, infrastructure, and R&D will keep America the leading economic power in the 21st century. If we want to honor our commitment to our children, we have to leave them not only a nation that is not riddled with debt and deficit but also a nation that continues to be the economic leader in the world. I believe our plan makes and protects those investments in those key components of growth.

I hope, over the coming hours, we will go through this debate--I know we will have a spirited period of a lot of amendments--that this budget will pass, and it will then find agreement with our colleagues in the House.

I want to again commend both the chair and the ranking member in that at the end of the day, we have to find common agreement to get this done. This issue that hovers over all of our other debates has in many ways become a metaphor of whether our institutions can function in the 21st century. So just as the chair and the ranking member found agreement through a markup process where both sides were heard and amendments were offered and debated in a fair and open process, I want to thank both the chair and the ranking member for their commitment. They have different ideas about how we get there, but at the end of the day we do have to get there in common agreement.

Mr. President, I want to give the Senator from Virginia the last word on this issue. So I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I rise very briefly to commend my friend of 33 years for his maiden speech and thoughtful exposition of the challenges which face our country. I have had the opportunity to know and work with Tim Kaine since we were in law school together. There is no one who is brighter; there is no one who brings more relentless optimism to any challenge. He is going to be a great addition to the Senate.

I know so many colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come to admire his intellect, his fairness, and his willingness to always do the right thing. I just wanted to rise briefly to commend my good friend. I know it is his first speech, but it will not be his last.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we get started on this next Congress-- and I wish to congratulate the Presiding Officer for joining this Chamber. As someone who has had the opportunity to preside during my first 2 years in the Senate, I commend the Presiding Officer for those actions and look forward to working with you on a variety of projects.

What I want to do today is continue a tradition that I actually inherited from one of our former colleagues, Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware. Senator Kaufman, who had been a long-time employee of the Senate, came to this floor on a fairly regular basis during his time here to basically celebrate and acknowledge--in most cases--the tireless, unsung work of so many of our Federal employees. As we debate budgets, debt, and deficit, we oftentimes

recognize we have to make extraordinary and difficult choices in cuts. In many instances, behind all of those cuts are Federal employees who do remarkable work in keeping us safe, providing services, and helping our country grow.

Ted Kaufman used to come down here on a regular basis and celebrate some of those unsung heroes. I was proud to continue his tradition during the last Congress and look forward to carrying it on through another session.

I start this next Congress actually celebrating two great Federal employees, I might add, who both happen to be Virginians who serve as excellent role models. They represent the thousands of professionals who work quietly every day across our intelligence community to keep our Nation safe.

Very often these professionals work in anonymity and many risk their lives in troubled spots far away from the limelight, and that is how it should be. Recently we have seen certain incidents abroad, and sometimes they pay with the highest sign of sacrifice in terms of their lives.

For their service, their late nights and early mornings away from their families, the risks they take, and the sacrifices they make every day--and because they do not hear this nearly enough--allow me to say thank you to those members of the intelligence community.

Jeanne Vertefeuille

Today I wish to briefly tell the remarkable stories of two extraordinary women who built their careers at the Central Intelligence Agency. Jeanne Vertefeuille, who is pictured here, passed away on December 29 at the age of 80 after a brief illness.

In announcing her death to the CIA family, Acting Director Michael Morell appropriately described Ms. Vertefeuille as an icon within the agency. If her story were not true, it would read like a spy novel.

Jeanne joined the CIA when she graduated from college in 1954. It was the year I was born and a year Dick Durbin was also young. This was a time when the American intelligence community could be best described as an old boys' club. She was hired at the CIA as a GS-4 typist. This is a woman coming out of college in 1954 hired as a typist.

Over her career, which stretched over nearly a half century, Jeanne Vertefeuille blazed a trail for women in the national clandestine service. She methodically worked her way up to leadership positions. There were overseas postings in Ethiopia, Finland, and The Hague. She became an expert in Soviet intelligence and spycraft. She retired as a member of the Senior Intelligence Service in 1992.

Even after her retirement, she continued her work for the agency as a contractor, making still more valuable contributions and working without a day's break in service until she became ill last summer. As her obituary reads:

She remained a quiet agency soldier . . . purposefully

nondescript and selflessly dedicated.

She lived alone and walked to work.

But if she was a great figure at the agency, Ms.

Vertefeuille was also a tenacious and effective one, and in

October of 1986 was asked to lead a task force to investigate

the disappearance of Russians whom the CIA had hired to spy

against their own country.

Together, with colleagues at the CIA she invested years in the methodical and painstaking hunt for a mole. It was through her efforts, and the good work of many others, that we ultimately unmasked the notorious traitor Aldrich Ames in 1984. Remember, this is a woman who joined the CIA in 1954 as a typist.

Aldrich Ames turned out to be one of the most dangerous traitors in the Nation's history. Thanks in large measure to Ms. Vertefeuille, he was convicted of espionage and is now serving a life term without parole.

Sandy Grimes

Jeanne Vertefeuille's story does not end there. The Washington Post recently described how one of her colleagues, Sandy Grimes--another Virginian who worked with her on the Ames task force--stepped up over the past year to care for Jeanne as she was battling cancer.

Sandy Grimes, a career CIA employee whose parents worked on the Manhattan Project, ultimately served as Jeanne's primary caregiver. She sat with her each day during the final 3 months of her remarkable life. She monitored Jeanne's care and tried to make sure she remained comfortable. She often brought personal messages of support and appreciation from their former colleagues. Ms. Grimes said:

I felt an obligation to be there with her. I can't imagine

not doing it. I was the one Jeanne would accept. I owed it to

her as a friend.

By all accounts Jeanne Vertefeuille was an intensely private woman, and she doubtless would recoil at the attention she is now receiving. One cannot help but be inspired by this true-life story of service, patriotism, and friendship demonstrated by these two great employees, Sandy Grimes and the late Jeanne Vertefeuille. Their service reflects well on the thousands of other intelligence professionals whose names can never be revealed. Both of them deserve our recognition and thanks.

During the last Congress I joined 14 Senators in a Joint Resolution to mark the U.S. Intelligence Professionals Day. At some point during this Congress, I hope we can gather more supporters so we can have a day designated on a more formalized basis to recognize the enormous contributions made by intelligence professionals. Again, this is an effort to bring respectful attention to these quiet professionals who literally--as a member of the intelligence committee, I can testify to this--keep our Nation safe every day without any thought of recognition.

Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues so we can introduce this resolution in the next Congress.

As I conclude my remarks, I see my friend the distinguished majority whip. We have spent a lot of time over the last 2\1/2\ years grappling with the challenges around the debt and deficit and trying to make some of the very hard choices we are going to need to make as a Nation.

While it appears that we may be avoiding some of the immediate consequences of the so-called debt ceiling debate, which I am glad to see, never should the full faith and credit of the United States be used as a political hostage. Again, I want to compliment my friend the Senator from Illinois who has been as stalwart as anyone in this Chamber at stepping up and who has been willing to speak truth to even those who are the most supportive about some of the challenges and choices we have to make.

We are going to have to proceed at a level of spending that is less than what we have had in the past. As we think about cutting back budgets, I think it is important to remember that behind many of these budgets, there are not just numbers but there are incredible professionals who give their life's service to making this a stronger Nation. So with this tribute to Jeanne and Sandy, I commend these two great Federal employees.

I will be back on a regular basis to celebrate Federal employees throughout this Congress because too often in today's day and life, government service is disparaged. But for Jeanne Vertefeuille and Sandy Grimes we might not have as safe a Nation as we do today.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak about a subject which I know I and the Presiding Officer and a number of our colleagues have spent an enormous amount of time on; that is, the challenges of our fiscal circumstances. Before I start, I wish to join with so many of my other colleagues who have come to the floor in the last few days to celebrate the legacy of our departed colleague Senator Inouye. I didn't know him as long as many of our colleagues did, but in the 4 years I have served in this body, he was truly someone who was always a gentleman and represented the best of what I think the Senate is all about.

The Fiscal Cliff

I wish to, as I mentioned, spend this time to speak about the need in our country to have a balanced deal on the debt and deficit and to avoid the fiscal cliff. We have witnessed these conversations going back and forth between the President and the Speaker, hoping--I think speaking for many--they would reach some deal. I am very disappointed by the recent actions of the Speaker and his so-called Plan B--a plan that would do nothing to make a significant dent in our fiscal challenges. I think many of us on our side, and I imagine many on the Republican side, realize it is not an approach that will get us where we need to go.

There have been many of us in this body who have been working on this issue for a number of years. I think the American public is probably growing fairly tired of hearing about the fiscal cliff and why this has all come about and why all of a sudden we are only now focusing on this issue.

The fact is our Nation has been on an unsustainable fiscal path for some time. We are currently $16 trillion in debt. Every day we do nothing, we add $3 billion to that total--debt that will at some point have to be paid by our children and, because it has gotten larger, by our grandchildren. The reality is this is debt we are going to have to deal with, those of us who serve in this body now, and we have got to start paying for it.

The remarkable thing as we look at this debt is there is nothing about it that is self-correcting. Time alone will not solve this problem. What I hear from around Virginia, and I am sure the Presiding Officer hears around Missouri, is: How did we get to be in such a dramatic, difficult position in the last 12 years, when 12 years ago our country was looking at surpluses? I think as a former business guy, looking at what our Nation has done--and mechanically both parties have been responsible for this--it is not too hard to understand why we are in such a deep hole.

Over the last 12 years, we have done a series of things that have put us in an unsustainable position. On the revenue side, we cut taxes by $4.5 trillion over 10 years, the largest tax cuts in American history. If we had simply cut taxes $4.5 trillion over 10 years and done nothing else on the spending side, we might have been able to sustain that. But at the very time we took this dramatic decrease in our revenues, we did five things on the spending side--again, things that for the most part were bipartisanly supported--that would ultimately make our financial situation unsustainable.

First, in the aftermath of 9/11, we doubled our defense spending. Second, also in the aftermath of the challenges we faced in a very dangerous world after 9/11, we created a whole new category of government spending called homeland security; again, much of it necessary. Third, we did something

that in American history was unprecedented. Our Nation went to war not once but twice without asking Americans for any level of sacrifice beyond our military and their families, and the cost of those wars didn't even go through the normal appropriations process; they simply went on the credit card.

The fourth thing we did was we recognized in our country that our parents and grandparents were having increasing burdens with the high cost of prescription drugs, so we created a brand new entitlement program, bipartisanly supported, called Medicare Part D; but, again, we didn't pay a dime for it. On top of all that--and this is one of the biggest challenges we have and this is actually a blessing--we are all living a lot longer than anyone would have anticipated. The guy who originally set 65 as a retirement age was Bismarck, when he was Premier of Germany in the 1870s, and he set it there because average life expectancy was mid-fifties. In this country, we are blessed to live to an average age of 80. A healthy woman in America has a life expectancy of 100. That is a blessing, but it means the math that goes into our entitlement programs no longer makes sense.

What does this fiscal cliff mean? It means the gap between our revenues and our spending is clearly unsustainable. We need to find a solution before our unsustainable debt swallows our economy.

Some folks argue we don't need a solution now; we have time and space, and we should stimulate the economy with more deficit spending. I think an appropriate measure of additional stimulus activity makes some sense, so I do support investing in our infrastructure, in research and development, and workforce investments. As a former business guy, those are characteristics any strong business would invest in and any strong country should invest in if we are going to continue to grow. But that alone is not enough, and our problems, which only continue to accrue and grow over the long term, must be dealt with. The U.S. Government, similar to any large enterprise, takes time to turn. The sooner we start that turn the better. As this crisis evolves and as we get into the final days before Christmas, we need a real deal now--one that addresses these problems in the long run and starts by phasing in improvements that will start to address our problems on the spending side, revenue side, and, yes, entitlement side, over the course of the next 10, 15, and 20 years.

Some people look to Europe and say austerity there is not working, and I agree. An austerity program that is too quick can only make our problems worse. But I also see parts of Europe that have said by simply kicking the can down the road they can ignore their problems, and the only thing worse than austerity is the bond markets forcing a crisis upon the economy--forcing a crisis that would require a spike in interest rates and make this divide between spending and revenues even more unsustainable. So if we wait 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, 12 years from now, we will be unable to safely deal with these problems. That is why we need a balanced and responsible deal now.

After the election, many of my colleagues, particularly those on the Republican side, have somewhat publicly acknowledged that we need new revenue and it has to be a part of the solution. Candidly, I believe that even some of the numbers the President has put forward dealing with revenue goals are too modest in terms of what is needed to be put back into the revenue stream--not to grow the size of government, but to simply pay our bills. It is critically important this new revenue is quantifiable, scorable, and maintains the progressive nature of our Tax Code.

I, as do many on my side, appreciate those on the Republican side for their willingness to accept this reality. At the same time, we must acknowledge that every serious, bipartisan group that has looked at the issue of our fiscal circumstances understands that if we are going to put our fiscal house in order, in addition to achieving additional revenue, we are going to have to find additional places to cut government spending and take on the question of entitlement reform.

I understand many of our entitlement programs are a critical lifeline for our seniors and those who are the most vulnerable among us, but we need to ensure these programs are able to continue not just for the current beneficiaries but for our kids and grandkids alike. We must realize entitlement reform has to be part of any long-term response to our fiscal challenges.

Members come to the floor all the time and throw out lots of facts about the challenges around entitlements. I wish to cite just two which show that while, for example, Medicare and Social Security have been remarkably successful and must be preserved, the current math around both of these programs doesn't work. In Medicare, for example, an average couple, over their lifetime, would pay in about $113,000 in payroll taxes. As they hit retirement and go on Medicare, they would receive back $380,000 in benefits over their lifetime. Obviously, this gap can't be maintained.

How were we able to do it for so long?

Well, for a long time in our country there were a lot more folks paying in than there were folks paying out. When I was a child, there were 16 people working for every one individual on Medicare or Social Security. Today that ratio has gone down to three folks working for every one retiree. In about 10 to 12 years, that ratio will go down to two people working for every one person on Medicare or Social Security.

Think: again, paying in an average of $113,000 in payroll taxes; taking out $380,000 in health care expenses. Folks, the math just does not work. So we must have a real, balanced, and responsible approach to deal not only with this fiscal cliff but to make sure the promise of Medicare, the promise of Social Security, is maintained.

But this is where we run into problems, and I fear we may not get to the solution we need. Knowing that we need both new revenue, that we have to find places to cut spending, and reform our entitlement programs to bring them back into sustainability, we have to have a solution that looks at both sides of our balance sheet, and Members of both parties must come together to support it.

It is remarkable that in this body there are still Members who believe there is going to be a Republican-only solution to this problem. We sometimes see those activities coming out of the House. But, just as there is not going to be a Republican-only solution, there is not going to be a Democratic-only solution as well. And one of the most remarkable things I have found in my 4 years of service in this Senate--and I think again about the Presiding Officer, who has taken on so many challenges--for those of us who have tried time and again to work across the aisle, there is very little reinforcement effort in this town for Members to do the right thing. In fact, in many cases, opposite forces dominate.

On both sides--both the left and the right--a number of stakeholders use scare tactics to preserve their own portion of the status quo. They dress up and use misinformation to scare the American people and run ads against politicians who would dare to break with their orthodoxy, in order to drive Americans apart.

In the last week or 10 days, we have started to take a look at some of the ads that have started to run in all of the Hill press and periodicals. Every day I get groups that come in--as I am sure the Presiding Officer does--and they all say: Senator, thanks for trying to work on this fiscal cliff problem. Thanks for trying to work in a bipartisan way. Try to get it done, just don't touch mine.

Let me give you a little bit of a sampling:

One ad we have seen recently has to do with the mortgage interest deduction. It is terribly important. Anybody who says tax reform has to take place, says it is going to generate more revenues; unfortunately, however, mortgage interest is one of the biggest tax expenditures in our Tax Code.

I like this one--Congress: Let's fight fraud first.

Well, who has not heard and said that the solution to all of our problems is if we can get rid of the waste and fraud? That may be part of the solution set, but that is not going to solve $16 trillion in debt.

Next we hear: Who cares if Medicare and Medicaid are cut?

Well, this is from the hospitals. I know what great job hospitals across

Virginia, across Missouri, and across America do. But if we wall off these, where are we going to find the additional resources?

Next we see this: Graduate medical education.

It is very important, something I have fought for as Governor, something I want to preserve. In this debate, as we look to try to expand health care in America, we have to train more doctors to make sure those who have been uninsured can receive the health care they need. But, again, one more program: Do not touch mine.

We could go all day with additional posters.

But here again: Let's make sure airlines do not pay any more; let's make sure we avoid sequester; let's make sure we do not touch charitable donations; let's make sure defense is not touched.

Well, everyone wants to solve the problem. Everyone says: Atta-boy. But they then turn around to say: Atta-boy, but do not touch mine. That is not how the real world works. That is not what the Founders set up when they created this unique experiment in democracy.

One of the most remarkable things about the American government was they set up an institution that was slightly dysfunctional on purpose-- an independent House, an independent Senate, an independent Presidency. The only way things got done was if all groups worked together.

For the past 2 months, there has been--not just the past 2 months, but for many, many months--there has been lots of talk about the forces of division and reflexive ideology. I think we all are tired of those groups that go around and ask politicians: Sign this pledge, not a dime of new revenue. It is one I find one of the most repulsive.

And we have seen, and I believe, that additional revenues are needed. Let me assure you, frankly, if there is any deal, they will be part of the deal. And while we are not there yet, the President and the Speaker have come to an agreement that additional revenue must be part of the deal.

But that is not the end of the story. If we--those of us on the Democratic side--say we have an extra trillion dollars of revenue, that we can then walk away from this problem now and say we were victorious, well, if we do that, all we are doing is simply kicking the can. The truth is--and this is from economists from left to right--if we do not have a deal that is at least a minimum of $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years--and that is at the low end--then we will not start to drive our debt-to-GDP ratio back into a sustainable position. The only way we are going to get there is, yes, counting the cuts we have already made, yes, looking for additional revenue, but also finding additional spending cuts and entitlement reform.

The President gets this, and he knows we cannot kick the can down the road. What I think has been remarkable is, as the President has laid out his plan and his vision, he has acknowledged that he has been willing to be open to hard choices, including reforms to our entitlement programs. One of which he has said he would be open to, with the appropriate protections, the so-called chained CPI. But once this was even mentioned, some groups, progressive groups that I have been proud to have the support of, have said that any change--any change--to Social Security or Medicare or anything that is as sinister as chained CPI cannot be a part of any deal. For these groups, they say any single dollar of what they consider to be a benefit cut in these entitlement programs is unacceptable, even if it helps ensure the sustainability of Social Security or Medicare.

This is not a path to a successful deal. This is not the path, the kind of compromise and balance that will make sure we actually do preserve Medicare and Social Security for the long term.

I have to say, it is surprising to me, when I hear some in my own party who come down and rightfully call out those on the other side who deny the science around climate change, that those very same folks sometimes then deny the math around entitlement reform.

I wish to take a moment to talk about this so-called chained CPI. Chained CPI, as certified by our official scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, is an alternative measure of inflation that takes into account how people change the mix of products and services they buy or substitute as prices change.

What does that mean in English? It means in the old days, the way we used to measure how much inflation was taking place was if the price of bananas went up, well, you would not buy bananas. This says, in a more realistic estimation, if the price of bananas goes up, well, you might, instead of buying bananas, buy apples.

What does that affect? It means the chained CPI ``. . . provides an unbiased estimate of changes in the cost of living from one month to the next.'' Is it a perfect formula? Absolutely not. But there is no perfect formula to measure inflation.

What is remarkable about this debate--and this is just one small piece of any kind of comprehensive reform--is that experts on the left and right agree that this new measurement formula is more accurate and more appropriate. And it does mean that the rate of inflation will be measured as slightly less. It actually says that it will cut the rate of increase by roughly three-tenths of one percent.

I have heard Members come out here and say this will account for changes and dramatic cuts of 10, 15, 20 percent. This is cuts of three- tenths of one percent.

Who supports this so-called chained CPI? It must be only those forces on the right. And, yes, groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute have come together and said this is a more accurate measure. What has not been emphasized is that groups that have bona fides on the Democratic side that are unquestioned--the Center for American Progress, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Washington Post editorial board, the President's fiscal commission, the Bipartisan Policy Center--have all said this ought to be one of the tools we use as we look at trying to make sure Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are reformed and made sustainable.

Now why do economists support chained CPI? Because it honors the commitment to maintain the purchasing power of spending and revenue policies. It provides savings across the budget, not just in entitlement programs but across other areas. It also raises revenues, and it contributes meaningfully to the long-term fiscal sustainability of the programs we want to protect. Because across the government we have indexed things to inflation. The Tax Code, the entitlement programs, all are indexed. They rise and decrease based upon inflation.

So again, this tool, while not perfect, all these groups have said needs to be part of any reform. This is not a new idea--I know, perhaps, it is on this floor--but this is an idea that has been discussed, debated, and endorsed by these groups from left to right for over the last 10 years. It does, as I mentioned, both increase revenues and lower spending. Because, again, it is a more accurate measure of policy adjustments that Congress has already decided to make.

There are some who say: Well, what will this do to Social Security? That is an important part of this conversation. I for one believe Social Security needs to be reformed, and I believe Social Security reform ought to take a separate path from debt and deficit reform. I understand for many seniors, Social Security is a lifeline and it is without question the greatest social program in the history of our country. We as legislators need to protect that program.

But what we do not hear from those who come out and advocate for Social Security is the recognition that Social Security is on a path toward insolvency. If we do nothing about this wonderful program, under current law it will basically run out of money, which will mean a 25- percent across-the-board cut in benefits as early as 2033. And that number--as we continue to grow older, the actuaries keep coming up each year and making it earlier and earlier.

Now 2033 sounds like a long time away. What it means is, for some of our folks who work here, if you are 46 years old today, that would mean at age 67 you would see your benefits cut by more than a quarter-- again, unless we act. This is not a self-correcting problem.

There are other things we need to do around Social Security, such as raising the cap on the amount of income that is taxed. But those who say we should put off questions about Social Security or Medicare to some other day refuse to also recognize the reality that none of this self-corrects, and the sooner we start down the path of reform, the sooner we can make sure the promise of these programs will last.

But, again, instead of worrying about the potential of a 25-percent cut in Social Security benefits for folks who today are 46 years old, they talk about the fact that, yes, there may be some slight cutback in immediate benefits--not, though, 20 percent, not 3 percent, not 1 percent, but a decrease of three-tenths of 1 percent in the amount of increase each year.

There are ways that if we use this tool, to make it more fair and balanced. Because we must make sure that we protect the most vulnerable in our society.

I was part of a group the Presiding Officer, I believe, supported, the so-called Gang of 6, which built on the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, that said if we are going to do something like chained CPI, we also need to make sure we ensure protections for the most vulnerable. Which basically included things such as raising the minimum benefit for that bottom 20 percent of folks on Social Security; for making sure, as we add our aging population, that those individuals who outlive their pensions--the fastest growing group of Americans are folks above the age of 85--that they would receive an additional bump up as well.

We must also recognize, if we are looking at something like chained CPI, that we have special obligations to protect our veterans and the least fortunate among us. So any use of this tool ought to have special rules and include exclusions for veterans and SSI beneficiaries.

As I mentioned before, I personally believe raising the cap on the payroll tax is another part of the tools that we ought to use. But too many of the groups that are attacking this or any other effort to look at a balanced approach of, yes, additional revenue; yes, additional cuts; and, yes, reforms to our entitlements, do not mention that there are ways to mitigate some of these challenges.

It is also important to mention, with these ideas, at least from my position, every dime of impact that chained CPI would have on Social Security, those savings would have to remain in Social Security to make the program more solvent.

But this discussion about chained CPI is just the current flashpoint. The bigger issue is how we are going to get to that question of what I believe is, at minimum, a $4 trillion deal. Any budget deal between the Speaker and President, I believe, will probably contain enough things that everyone will look at it and find a lot to dislike. If not, they probably have not done their job. To single out any one thing and to be absolutely opposed to a deal, regardless of the other parts of the package, to me, would be the height of irresponsibility.

Again, I know there are others who say this whole debate about the fiscal cliff is imaginary and simply created by politicians. Well, I have to acknowledge, as somebody who spent 20 years in business and a number of years now in elective office, I do not know for sure what the effect would be if we go over the cliff and see taxes go up on all Americans, to see these across-the-board cuts take place.

But I do know this: If the chance is only 5 or 10 or 15 percent that going over the cliff would throw this economy back into a deep recession, there would be nothing that would rob more Americans, and hurt our most vulnerable citizens more, than having their house go back underwater because of a rise in interest rates, or the potential that a job disappears because an employer decides to end up--no longer to play, or unemployment benefits not get extended because we chose to punt rather than to deal with this issue.

Again, if we go over a cliff, and if the chances are only 10 percent that it throws us back into a deep recession, unlike in the past, unlike the fiscal crisis in 2008, we do not have extraordinary measures of stimulus or the Fed being able to dramatically lower interest rates.

So I believe we do need this balanced, responsible--at least a $4 trillion deal; a deal, again, that I believe counts the cuts we have already made, that adds additional real revenue.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, I think the President has started too low in terms of the amount of revenue we need. We took $4\1/2\ trillion out of the revenue stream over the last 10 years. I think to say that putting back at least one-third or 40 percent of that would be much more appropriate than what is being discussed right now.

It does mean that all of us need to make some hard choices about spending, and make sure the entitlement programs which have been so successful are sustained.

In closing, let me make a few final comments. I believe any final deal must ask those of us who have done well--and I have been blessed in this country to do very well--to pay their fair share. Beyond that, we have to look at a tax reform package that will actually make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and generate more revenue than even what has been suggested in the current conversation.

It means, though, recognizing that we cannot solve this problem with budget cuts alone, it means Medicare and other entitlement reform must be serious and part of the conversation; that we honor our commitment not only to those beneficiaries who receive these important benefits now, but to make sure that 20-year-old, 40-year-old, and 50-year-old is going to have those benefits as well.

No matter what we do, we cannot only cut and tax our way out of this problem. It must include a growth agenda. Finally, as I know the Presiding Officer has made points time and again, it must contain real protections for the most vulnerable amongst us.

The President and Speaker are still working. I am hopeful they will get a deal. We, as Americans, and as legislators, owe them the space to make a deal, the opportunity to combine things people on each side might not like, in isolation, with policies that address these greater concerns. But now is not the time to be against things without knowing the critical details about how and where they will work.

It is not time to confuse the true facts or the actual math involved, regardless of which side to which you belong. I have spent the last 2\1/2\ years in this body trying to work with folks on both sides to get us to a deal. I believe there is nothing that will do more to generate job growth and economic activity than making sure we have a real deal that does not kick the can and actually passes muster.

I have to acknowledge at times I, like I know many of my colleagues, grow very frustrated with the back and forth. Clearly, what is going on in the House right now is not a serious effort to address this problem.

I see the new chair of the Appropriations Committee here. I will wrap up. I want to commend the Senator from Maryland, my good friend, for her new position. I believe she will lead us back to a path where we have regular order to make sure we appropriately look at how we spend the resources we receive. But we must no longer punt on this issue.

At moments of greatest frustration--and there are many for me as I know there are for many Americans, as they get tired of hearing about the back-and-forth and the Kabuki dance going on right now. It is in moments of greatest frustration, that I always fall back on that wonderful Winston Churchill quote:

You can always count on the Americans to do the right

thing, after they have tried everything else.

Well, it seems to me, in this debate we have tried everything else. We have accused back and forth. We have been unwilling to recognize the reality for the need for revenues or the recognition that we have to make sure our entitlement programs are sustainable. I hope and pray as we move closer to this Christmas season that our leaders, and then all of us from both sides, can come together and make sure that we address this issue; which I believe that until we address it, we will not be able to address the host of issues which confront our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 20, 2012.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 20, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 20, 2012, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Benghazi: The Attacks and the Lessons Learned.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on December 20, 2012, in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 20, 2012, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Recovering From Superstorm Sandy: Rebuilding Our Infrastructure.''

Mr. President, I will take a couple of brief moments. First, let me thank my friend, the Senator from Illinois. No one has spent more time and also, candidly, taken a more courageous position in these discussions around avoiding this fiscal cliff.

For some, for political or other reasons, these are challenging discussions. But no one more than the Senator from Illinois has been willing to put more on the line, has been willing to take more heat and has more represented this whole notion of putting country first on an issue that I think is the defining moment of our time.

I thank my friend, the Senator from Illinois. I appreciate all he has done. I think history will actually show in many ways that the original framework of the so-called Gang of 6--I think it is only in Washington where when people try to work together they are immediately designated as gang members--but particularly the low-income protections the Senator of Illinois made sure we had in our bipartisan agreement that reduced the deficit by more than $4 trillion will stand as the high water mark. I commend him for his work.

I want to say as a relatively new Senator and one who is still trying to learn the rules and procedures, I also always thought that if someone filibustered a bill they had to stay on the floor and make that case. As someone who was never a legislator before I came to this position, I look forward to working with him and reasonable Members from both sides of the aisle to make sure we have rules reforms so the Senate can get back to doing the people's business and not be involved in procedural matters.

With that, I wish to speak very briefly about the issue before us. It is hunting season in Virginia--I am sure it is in Delaware as well--so it is timely that this current bill is before us. I wish to take a moment to voice my support for the Sportsmen's Act of 2012, a bill I am proud to cosponsor. I applaud the hard work my good friend from Montana, Senator Tester, has done in moving this bill forward through a number of challenges. He has put so much time and effort into pulling various pieces together, building support, and balancing different interests. I am confident that, with his leadership, we have put together a very strong piece of legislation.

The Sportsmen's Act of 2012 is a compilation of nearly 20 different bipartisan bills that are important to sportsmen and conservation communities across America. It focuses on the conservation of wildlife habitat and improved access for recreational hunting and fishing.

Sportsmen cite the loss of access as the No. 1 reason why they have given up on hunting or fishing. Currently, 35 million acres of public land are either restricted or provide no access. This bill allows the acquisition of more easements and rights of way to improve access to public land for hunting and fishing. The Sportsmen's Act of 2012 increases access to public lands for millions of Americans and Virginians who participate in hunting and fishing and other outdoor recreation, while also supporting the very important conservation of wildlife habitat.

This legislation promotes our recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting heritage. It also continues a number of key initiatives and public-private partnerships to support conservation of fish and wildlife populations.

This bipartisan bill is consistent with my long-term personal and policy commitment to provide more opportunities for outdoor recreation, to restore critical landscapes, and to support a robust outdoor economy.

It is also important to note that in the midst of our important debate about getting our fiscal house in order, this bill does not add one cent to the deficit. This CBO has concluded that it actually saves $5 million over 10 years.

Finally, and perhaps more telling than anything else, is the amount of support this bill has garnered from outside groups. Over 50 national conservation and wildlife groups support the bill. The National Wildlife Federation supports it, the NRA supports it, and President Obama supports it. That shows the breadth of support this legislation has. With such a broad spectrum of support, passing this bill should be a no-brainer.

I urge my colleagues to join me in another strong show of support for our sportsmen by voting yes on final passage.

Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague and friend, the Senator from Delaware, Chris Coons, in introducing legislation that would make voting faster and more accessible to all voters. Here we are, barely a week after a historic election in 2012. I can't speak about North Carolina, but in Virginia it is remarkable that in 2012 people had to wait for hours in line to vote. In Prince William County, folks waited for up to 3 hours. In Chesapeake, VA, folks waited for up to 4 hours. It was remarkable that it was 5 days after the fact before we even knew the results in Florida. In the 21st century, in the greatest democracy in the world, voting should not be this much of a burden.

In many ways, when you have those kinds of extraordinary lines, particularly when you are working, what we have in effect created is a 21st-century poll tax. Those of us in the South have a history where poll taxes were used to restrict voters. What you in effect have by having these extensive lines is when, if you work on an hourly basis or can only get off a bit of time, you cannot afford to wait 3, 4, or 5 hours in line to vote.

This legislation, the Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely Voting Act of 2012--the so-called FAST Act--creates a competitive grant program to encourage States to aggressively pursue election reforms. It would provide incentives for States such as Virginia to invest in practices and technology designed to expedite voting at the polls and simplify voter registration.

The FAST Voting Act addresses this issue in a responsible way. It doesn't add new mandates; it authorizes simply additional resources for those States which step up with commonsense reforms to make voting faster and more accessible to voters. This is a relatively very small program, but a few dollars spent to both improve the access and increase the number of voting machines at those polling places which are so restricted would, I believe, remove some of the embarrassment Virginia and so many other States saw last week when people had to wait so long.

I encourage Virginia's elected leaders to embrace this opportunity to improve access for Virginia voters, who should not have to wait in line for hours to exercise their most basic constitutional right--the right to vote.

As I mentioned, this bill authorizes a Federal program that would award grants based on how well applicant States--again, States will be the decisionmakers on whether they would want to apply for this program--are able to improve access to the polls in at least nine specific ways. Let me mention three of those.

No. 1, provide absentee voting, including no-excuse absentee voting. We in Virginia still have restrictions on absentee voting.

No. 2, provide assistance to voters who do not speak English as a primary language. Virginia and North Carolina and other States are becoming more diverse, and we need to accommodate those voters.

No. 3, audit and reduce waiting time in polling stations. No one in the 21st century should have to wait 4 or 5 or, as in some reported cases in Florida, up to 7 or 8 hours to vote.

This voluntary grant program also requires the establishment of performance measures and reporting requirements to ensure a State's progress in eliminating statutory, regulatory, procedural, and other barriers to expedited voting and accessible voter registration.

This is a relatively small bill. I commend my colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, for taking the lead. I join him as a cosponsor. Regardless of which side of the aisle you stand on in 2012-- and surely before 2016--we ought not to have a repeat of this 21st- century poll tax that is imposed on folks all across America by not being able to exercise their vote, having to pay too high a price, or having the kind of embarrassment where it takes us literally days and days for the public to get the results.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague and friend, the Senator from Delaware, Chris Coons, in introducing legislation that would make voting faster and more accessible to all voters. Here we are, barely a week after a historic election in 2012. I can't speak about North Carolina, but in Virginia it is remarkable that in 2012 people had to wait for hours in line to vote. In Prince William County, folks waited for up to 3 hours. In Chesapeake, VA, folks waited for up to 4 hours. It was remarkable that it was 5 days after the fact before we even knew the results in Florida. In the 21st century, in the greatest democracy in the world, voting should not be this much of a burden.

In many ways, when you have those kinds of extraordinary lines, particularly when you are working, what we have in effect created is a 21st-century poll tax. Those of us in the South have a history where poll taxes were used to restrict voters. What you in effect have by having these extensive lines is when, if you work on an hourly basis or can only get off a bit of time, you cannot afford to wait 3, 4, or 5 hours in line to vote.

This legislation, the Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely Voting Act of 2012--the so-called FAST Act--creates a competitive grant program to encourage States to aggressively pursue election reforms. It would provide incentives for States such as Virginia to invest in practices and technology designed to expedite voting at the polls and simplify voter registration.

The FAST Voting Act addresses this issue in a responsible way. It doesn't add new mandates; it authorizes simply additional resources for those States which step up with commonsense reforms to make voting faster and more accessible to voters. This is a relatively very small program, but a few dollars spent to both improve the access and increase the number of voting machines at those polling places which are so restricted would, I believe, remove some of the embarrassment Virginia and so many other States saw last week when people had to wait so long.

I encourage Virginia's elected leaders to embrace this opportunity to improve access for Virginia voters, who should not have to wait in line for hours to exercise their most basic constitutional right--the right to vote.

As I mentioned, this bill authorizes a Federal program that would award grants based on how well applicant States--again, States will be the decisionmakers on whether they would want to apply for this program--are able to improve access to the polls in at least nine specific ways. Let me mention three of those.

No. 1, provide absentee voting, including no-excuse absentee voting. We in Virginia still have restrictions on absentee voting.

No. 2, provide assistance to voters who do not speak English as a primary language. Virginia and North Carolina and other States are becoming more diverse, and we need to accommodate those voters.

No. 3, audit and reduce waiting time in polling stations. No one in the 21st century should have to wait 4 or 5 or, as in some reported cases in Florida, up to 7 or 8 hours to vote.

This voluntary grant program also requires the establishment of performance measures and reporting requirements to ensure a State's progress in eliminating statutory, regulatory, procedural, and other barriers to expedited voting and accessible voter registration.

This is a relatively small bill. I commend my colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, for taking the lead. I join him as a cosponsor. Regardless of which side of the aisle you stand on in 2012-- and surely before 2016--we ought not to have a repeat of this 21st- century poll tax that is imposed on folks all across America by not being able to exercise their vote, having to pay too high a price, or having the kind of embarrassment where it takes us literally days and days for the public to get the results.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, a military career is one of the most honorable professions that our young men and women can pursue, and each of us is indebted to our veterans for their service.

In this challenging economic time, it is more important than ever that we do what we can to connect well qualified veterans not just with jobs, but with careers. Our veterans demonstrate the skills, knowledge, leadership and professionalism that allow them to excel in almost any career field if they are given the right opportunities.

How we treat this generation of military veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan will influence the next generation of young men and women who might consider a career in our military. Unfortunately, we sometimes fall short when it comes to connecting veterans with jobs, and some veterans struggle to find careers that allow them to achieve their full potential.

That is why I have been involved for several months now in a unique partnership of U.S. utility industry leaders to actively recruit and employ returning veterans. Troops to Energy helps our veterans successfully transition from military service into civilian careers in the utility and engineering industries.

Some reports show that a staggering 29 percent of veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 who served in Iraq or Afghanistan were unemployed last year. That is more than three times the national unemployment level and unacceptably high.

We must do better.

That is why I support the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012, which will create additional opportunities for veterans to transition into career fields in which their military skills are readily transferrable.

I am not able to vote on this important legislation today because I am attending the funeral services for a dear friend, but I want the record to reflect my strong support for this legislation and for our military men and women, their families, and our veterans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes on two subjects.

Mr. President, first of all, I rise today to address the important legislation pending before this body, S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I followed this debate, and I want to particularly compliment Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein, and folks such as Senator Kyl and Senator Whitehouse who have been trying to find some common ground in this area. I hope at some point in the next day or so we will be able to proceed to this bill and have it fully debated.

Many Senators bring different levels of expertise to this issue. As someone who spent 20 years in the technology field and in telecom in particular before entering government service, and has had the honor to serve for the last 3\1/2\ years on the Intelligence Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Banking Committee, three of the committees that all immediately intersect with the challenges around cyber, I can add a bit of my perspective to this debate.

Let me start with concerns that have been raised by some of the opponents to this legislation. In the area around cyber, we need to make sure we have appropriate information sharing. How do we set some standards? Who should enforce those standards? I think most all of us, and anyone who has looked into this area, would recognize it is not a question of when we are going to have a major cyber attack or if we are going to have a cyber attack, it is only a question of when. We have already--as has been reported in the press in a number of fashions-- been attacked on a daily basis by foreign agents, criminal elements, hackers who are constantly probing our country's cyber defenses on the public and private side. One of the reasons I think it is so important to move on this legislation soon is I have great fears that when we have a major cyber element or cyber attack, Congress may, as they have done so many times in the past, overreact because we didn't take action on something we knew was imminent.

I do think this piece of legislation--and, candidly, I could have supported an even stronger piece of legislation--is a great first step in this area. I am going to come back in a moment to some amendments I hope to offer to this legislation to deal with some of the concerns other Members and folks have raised on this issue.

Let's talk about why we need cyber legislation and why we need it now. Inaction is not a solution. Every national security expert--not just from the current administration but previous administrations, and most Members of Congress--agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Over a 5-month period between October of 2011 and February of 2012, there were 50,000 cyber attacks

on private and government networks. We are told between 2009 and 2011 attacks on U.S. infrastructure increased by a factor of 17.

As more and more nations and rogue actors get more sophisticated with computer and technological knowledge, these numbers are going to grow exponentially. As the FBI has said, cyber espionage, computer crime, attacks on critical infrastructure will surpass terrorism as the No. 1 threat facing the United States. Think how many things we have done appropriately in the previous administration and this administration in terms of homeland security to protect our Nation against the threat of terrorists. We now have the Director of the FBI saying the cyber threat will soon surpass terrorism in terms of a threat to our Nation.

I know as a former businessman that we are already seeing manifestations of this threat in other areas. Intellectual property theft is one of the most insidious threats we face right now. A former FBI agent who specialized in counterintelligence and computer intrusion has said that in most cases companies don't realize they have been burned until years later when a foreign competitor puts out the very same product, only making it 30 percent cheaper. We have lost our manufacturing base in many ways. By not putting appropriate cyber protections in place, are we really prepared to lose our R&D base as well?

Some say cyber is different. Cyber is different in certain ways, but in many ways it is similar. Just as we would never have a nuclear facility without guards and a wall and a fence or--I see my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana--we would never have power facilities or levees without appropriate protections, how is it we would not have some level of standards and information sharing of threats that are coming in amongst not only our public sector entities but our private sector entities as well?

As a matter of fact, as a former businessman, I have been surprised at some of the resistance from some business organizations that are saying this requirement of both information sharing and some minimum standards would actually be a burden on us. In many ways I actually think somewhat the opposite because there are a number of businesses right now that have taken the responsible step and put in place significant cyber protections while competitors in their industry, because they are not putting those same protections in place, are actually free riders on the system. Yet, not if but when we have a major cyber event, if one of those companies that has not put appropriate protections in place ends up causing dramatic harm to our economy or to that industry sector, all the industries and all the businesses in that sector will in one way or another end up paying the price. Again, this is one of the reasons why we need both this information sharing and some level of standards.

I know to try to move forward in terms of actual or mandatory standards, we are not going to have them at this point. We have set up a measure--and again, I commend Senator Kyl and Senator Whitehouse for working through what I think is a pretty darn good compromise where there would be an industry group that would develop, in effect, best practices. It is hard with the government and bureaucracy moving so slowly to keep up with something like technology that would allow an industry group to come up with, in effect, best practices. Those companies that adhere to those best practices would actually receive legal and other protections so we could encourage folks to make sure we have in place the kind of protections that all industries and our country need.

To make clear that we don't have mandatory standards, we have put in place--I have been working with Senator Snowe on a couple of amendments. I believe there are other Members who will join us on at least one of these amendments. The first amendment is very important and hopefully will go some distance in terms of clarifying one of the issues that seems to be a major subject of debate in this legislation, and that is to modify--again working with the chairs of the committee, we may even move beyond this modification to elimination--a key section of the bill, section 103. It will make clear that the standards set by this bill, the protection of infrastructure, are indeed voluntary. This amendment makes it clear that this bill does not in any way alter the authority of any Federal agency to regulate the security of critical infrastructure. Again, there were some concerns that there might have been a mistake in the earlier draft. This amendment makes clear that the standards that are developed by industry working groups will be voluntary and that nothing in this legislation will allow any Federal agency to regulate the security of critical infrastructure.

I believe this amendment should alleviate the concerns of some that the bill might put in place mandatory standards for infrastructure protection--again, despite the very clear language that already exists in the bill that standards are voluntary. It is my understanding this amendment will be considered as part of a broader set of solutions negotiated by Senator Lieberman, and whether our amendment comes forward or whether it is broadened into a managers' package, I hope it will clarify this portion of the debate about mandatory versus voluntary.

Voluntary is a good first step. The fact that this will be developed by industry working groups, the fact that this will not be subject to the lagging time of government bureaucracy or rulemaking, hopefully, will move us in the right direction.

A second amendment, again, one I have been working on with Senator Snowe, is a bit more technical, and particularly as to my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, I hope we will be able to gain some support from them. This amendment seeks to ensure that the authority provided to DHS to sole-source highly specialized products will result in the procurement of interoperable, standards-based products and services whenever possible.

What does that mean in English? It means when government goes out, and particularly during sole-sourcing of a solution set, too often--and I have seen this in my old industry of telecom years in and years out-- people will develop a particular product or solution that works for that company's only set of standards, and when the government subsequently or other private sector entities go on and buy or replace or expand whatever particular system it is, if it is not interoperable with the rest of the telecommunications system or the rest of the network, then we are really not getting value for our dollar.

Again, this is a small issue in the context of cyber security, but both Senator Snowe and I believe it is important for the purpose of competition, and it should lower the overall cost of key technologies and services for the taxpayer.

So as I close on my first comments, I hope we will be able to move forward before the break on the question of cyber security. I think great progress has been made in the negotiations. I know there are a lot of issues that remain to be resolved, but I would reinforce what so many other colleagues have already said. It is not a question of if we are hit by a cyber attack, it is only a question of when in terms of a major incident. Let's get ahead of the game.

Tribute To Federal Employees

Diane Braunstein

Let me take two more moments and rise on one other issue. As many of my colleagues and the floor staff know, I come down on a fairly regular basis to honor great Federal employees. With all of the challenges we face with the fiscal cliff--I see my good friend and partner here, the Senator from Oklahoma, and both he and I are always trying to look for ways we can get better value for the taxpayer. One of the things we need to do is find ways to reward and recognize the good work of so many Federal employees who share that goal of getting better value for the taxpayer. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has particularly worked with the GAO on a number of occasions to find and root out duplication and other issues of where we can save dollars.

I come down on a regular basis to recognize Federal employees-- because so many times they are under assault--when they do good things. Today I do that one more time, with recognition of another great Federal employee, in this case Diane Braunstein, who is the Associate Commissioner for the Office of International Programs for the Social Security Administration. She has

overseen the creation of the Compassionate Allowance Program, which has allowed thousands of seriously ill Americans to gain quick approval for much needed Social Security benefits in a matter of days or weeks rather than months or years; although in this area of Social Security disability we need to make sure only the appropriate beneficiaries are receiving those funds.

For years, the Social Security Disability Insurance Program has faced backlogs and delays in processing claims. In 2011 there were on average 700,000 pending cases. We need to do a better job of evaluating and weeding out some of those cases. Couple this with what used to be a lack of caseworker knowledge on rare illnesses, and the result was a number of applications with rare illnesses being incorrectly denied Federal benefits. They then had to face an appeals process which took years to complete.

Beginning in 2008, Ms. Braunstein partnered with patient advocacy groups and NIH to come up with a list of 25 cancers and 25 rare diseases that would automatically qualify an applicant to receive benefits. To further improve the speed and efficiency and cost effectiveness of this process, an easy-to-use reference guide and training program was put together to aid caseworkers.

According to Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, when Ms. Braunstein began work on the compassionate allowances, some Americans were waiting 2 to 4 years for a decision. Now those with the most devastating disabilities get approved for benefits in a matter of days. In 2010, the program was able to assist an estimated 45,000 people, and 65,000 people in 2011.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Ms. Braunstein for her innovation and excellent work she has done as well as her commitment to public service.

Again, we have some hard choices to make beyond the question of cyber security, but as we approach this fiscal cliff there will be more asked of all Americans and there will be more asked of our Federal employees. We will have to continue to find ways to ratchet out those programs that are duplicative, those areas where we are not getting value for our dollar.

Again, I know this is an issue of concern to the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Oklahoma. But when we find initiatives that work, and we find Federal employees who are helping us provide value, particularly for those in need at a good price, they deserve this recognition.

With that, I yield the floor.

The town of Big Lick was first established in 1852 and eventually became the city of Roanoke in 1884. Since its early days as a railroad hub, Roanoke has been an economic and cultural focal point for the western part of Virginia. Today, the New York Times recognized Ed Walker for his efforts in revitalizing Roanoke. For more than 10 years, Ed has worked to improve Roanoke by investing in historic structures and renovating them for residence, dining, and entertainment. Ed's work led to the creation of cultural programs, founded an innovative music center for young adults, and revitalized a once derelict downtown street.

Ed's investment in the community paid off. The hundredfold increase in downtown residents supported the opening of dozens of new businesses and increased demand for cultural attractions. By bringing residents and businesses closer together, Ed's projects have helped spur the Roanoke economy and brought new energy to the city.

Thanks to Ed's work, Roanoke serves as a model to similar communities across the Commonwealth. Roanoke was recognized recently as one of ``America's Most Livable Communities'' by the nonprofit Partners for Livable Communities. Ed created the CityWorks (X)po to bring together entrepreneurs, advocates, and developers from across the country to share ideas about renewing and improving cities such as Roanoke.

I would like to congratulate Ed Walker on his achievements and thank him for making the city of Roanoke a better place to work and live. I would ask unanimous consent that today's New York Times article be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, this year marks the 150 anniversary of the Morrill Act of 1862, which led to the creation of our Nation's land- grant universities. In 1862, there were only six engineering or agricultural colleges in the entire United States. By 1880, there were 85, and by 1917 the total number had grown to 126. Two outstanding universities from Virginia are the beneficiaries of this legislation and carry on important traditions as land-grant universities: Virginia Tech and Virginia State University.

Founded in 1872 as an agricultural and mechanical land-grant college, Virginia Tech is the oldest land-grant college in the Commonwealth. Today, the school has the largest full-time student population in Virginia and the largest number of degree offerings of any Virginia university. As a leading research institution, Virginia Tech prepares its students to make an impact in the fields of technology and agriculture, among many others. Virginia Tech graduates have a positive impact everyday on the Commonwealth and on our country.

Virginia State University, founded in 1882, is the country's first fully State-supported 4-year historically black college and also a Virginia land-grant institution. Throughout the school's history, it has enriched the lives of its students and faculty as well as its surrounding community and indeed the entire Commonwealth. Virginia State University's leadership in providing an expansive academic program, a variety of student organizations, and a devotion to community service makes the school a model for historically black colleges across the nation.

Both of these superb academic institutions demonstrate exceptional leadership in the agricultural and mechanical arts in line with the original intent of the Morrill Act. As we remember the creation of this landmark legislation, Virginia Tech and Virginia State University stand as shining examples of its continued legacy. I am pleased to join my colleagues in celebrating the sesquicentennial of the Morrill Act.

Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2457 and ask the clerk to report.

I further ask the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, this is a broad, bipartisan amendment-- Warner-Crapo-Kirk-Shaheen-Bennet-Webb. It basically does three things in the broadband area. It accelerates access to those areas that are underserved. As a matter of fact, we have a 2009 USDA IG report which showed that less than 3 percent of loans provided by RUS went toward unserved communities. This will move forward in that area.

Second, it creates greater access and transparency and accountability standards for RUS and applicants. These are items that were brought forward from the GAO and the IG of the USDA and CRS. It also allows greater levels of accountability in ensuring that those States that collect data by address--that that information is related to RUS, so we don't have counties where certain parts are served and other parts are left unserved, never able to get access. It has the broad support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Taxpayers Union, the League of Rural Voters.

I ask bipartisan support of this amendment.

Mr. LEAHY, Mr. President, I have long believed that Congress must work to enact policies that promote the deployment of broadband in rural America. There is no doubt that rural areas lag behind the rest of the country when it comes to access to affordable, quality, high- speed Internet. As the Internet rapidly evolves beyond what the slow speeds offered by dial up service can handle, broadband service is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. Today, I voted against an amendment that, while well intentioned, may have the unintended consequence of making it harder for the Rural Utilities Service to incentivize broadband expansion and competition in rural areas like Vermont.

I support the provisions in the underlying farm bill that seek to provide additional forms of assistance to broadband projects in rural areas, and I had hoped that the Senate would not significantly alter these provisions. It is important to ensure that the Rural Utilities Service has the flexibility it needs to provide assistance to rural areas--both those that have no service at all and those that have inadequate service.

Senator Warner's amendment does contain elements that I support, including provisions that will help to improve transparency and accountability within the Rural Utilities Service Program. Unfortunately, it may go too far in refocusing the scope of the program at the expense of rural communities in Vermont.

I look forward to continuing my work in the Senate to expand broadband service and competition in rural America.