Floor Statements

Madam President, this new year represents an opportunity for us to refocus and plan for our year ahead. Unfortunately, for millions of Americans their focus will be on trying to stay afloat over the next year while they search for work. All of us here know there is no more important issue for middle-class families across America right now than jobs and the economy. This is what they want their elected officials to be focused on, and it is exactly what I think we ought to be working on every day.

By reaching a bipartisan agreement last month, we did a number of things to work toward that goal. First of all and importantly, we showed the American people that Members of Congress can work together, that we can listen to each other, and that we can get into a room and talk frankly without trying to hurt each other politically. Second, by breaking through that partisanship, we finally ended that seemingly never-ending cycle of lurching from crisis to crisis. Third, we showed that ``compromise'' isn't a dirty word and that there is a big coalition that is ready to make some sacrifices politically to get things done. Finally and importantly, for our efforts to continue to grow our economy, we gave American families and businesses the certainty they need to grow.

Of course, there is much more to do. As much as we are heartened by the headlines that predict a strong economy this year, we understand just how fragile our recovery still is, with millions of Americans still out of work.

Now is the time to redouble our efforts, not shrink from the challenges we face, because the truth is that all the economic predictions in the world mean nothing if we don't continue to support policies that help our middle class. That work absolutely starts with extending unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have been losing their benefits since December 28.

Because unemployment assistance goes right back into the economies of communities large and small, nonpartisan economists have found it is one of the most effective ways to build a recovery that lasts. Those same economists have said that failure to continue these benefits will cost us over 200,000 jobs. And renewing these benefits is simply the right thing to do at a time when millions of American families continue to teeter on the brink in States where unemployment remains stubbornly high.

I have come to the Senate floor today with the hope that we can continue with the bipartisan momentum we saw with today's cloture vote and that we have seen over the last few weeks and take a final vote to provide a lifeline for millions of Americans. This should be an easy issue. It would be simply wrong to cut off the support while our economy continues to struggle and so many workers are really having difficulty finding work. Right now, in fact, there are three unemployed workers for every single job opening. If every opening were filled tomorrow, we would still have more than 7 million American workers across the country without a job to even apply for. More

than one-third of all unemployed workers have been out of a job for 6 months or longer--above historic averages and higher than in past recoveries.

Millions of Americans are unemployed today not because they do not want to work, not because they do not have valuable skills, but simply because they found themselves in an economy that isn't creating jobs as quickly as needed. These unemployed workers are desperate to get back on the job, and unemployment benefits make all the difference for them and their families while they scour the want ads, pound the pavement, and send out resume after resume.

I have received story after story from workers and families across my home State of Washington about what unemployment benefits have meant to them and what losing them would mean for their future. These men and women can't afford to have the rug pulled out from under them and are now struggling with each day that passes.

One of these stories came from a woman named Carol from Puyallup in my home State. She is a nurse. She was laid off from her job. She decided that in order to make ends meet she would start her own legal nurse consulting business, so she enrolled in classes to help her hone her entrepreneurial skills. While taking those classes, Carol relied on her unemployment benefits to get by. Then, not only were her benefits slashed significantly due to sequestration, but Carol just found out she was one of the 25,000 people in Washington State whose benefits were completely cut off on December 28.

As a leader in the classroom, Carol has spoken to many other soon-to- be business owners who are suffering. In the face of unexpected job loss, they now feel as if they are being punished for deciding to chart a new course in their lives. They are creating work for themselves and potentially others but now have to decide whether they can continue following that dream without the critical support unemployment benefits provide them.

Carol is not alone. I heard from a woman who was laid off from her job at a plant in Keyport, WA, early last year. She told me:

Living in Kitsap County, we are geographically isolated,

and finding work with so many qualified applicants right now

is much more difficult. This year, I have applied for over

200 jobs and in spite of a stellar resume, have only gotten

four phone interviews. I have lowered my standards throughout

the year and applied for jobs far below my pay grade to no

avail . . . my husband and I have had to claim bankruptcy . .

. and I truly worry about losing my home and displacing my

children.

Madam President, that is what people are facing today.

Finally, there is Traci, a woman from Everett. She is a former executive assistant with 20 years of experience. After taking time off from work to care for her dying mother and a daughter who was suffering from bipolar disorder and drug addiction, Traci found herself without a job. Shortly after her mother passed, Traci fell ill, making it difficult for her to look for work.

While Traci was receiving unemployment benefits, they were barely enough to cover the care her daughter required. Traci told me that she now can't afford food and has lost over 50 pounds. She even asked that I send her a video of the speech I am making right here as she won't be able to tune in today because she had to get rid of her television in the process of finding savings. Like so many others, Traci is searching high and low for that one break, and she told me, ``I just need time for someone to give me a chance.''

For Traci, unemployment benefits are not the solution. A job is what she wants. But they provide her with some critical support while she takes care of her family and tries to find that work.

Those are just a few of the stories I have heard, but there are a lot like them. Millions of people across America, including an almost additional 28,000 in my State, stand to lose the benefits they count on if Congress doesn't act soon. These workers are not looking for a handout. They do not want to be a burden. But they need support while they work to get back on their feet and back on the job.

In this struggling economy, renewing these benefits is truly crucial. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that renewing unemployment benefits is one of the most effective policy tools we have to boost the economy and get money in the pockets of consumers. So I am really hopeful the Senate will act quickly, without political games, because failure to do so wouldn't just be devastating for the families who count on this, it would also hurt many small businesses and communities to have the billions of dollars pulled away from consumers who spend it every month on food and rent and clothing.

Last month's budget deal provided us with a glimmer of bipartisan hope coming into this new year. However, we have to continue working together to focus on improving the economy for middle-class Americans. We cannot afford to allow this lifeline to be cut off.

The stories I shared today, like so many others, are heartbreaking, but they also show the fierce determination exhibited by so many who are out of work in the struggle to get back on their feet. They are the stories of people who are applying for work far below their own qualifications, going back to school to earn the skills needed to change careers or waking up every day to scour for jobs in their communities that all too often lack opportunity. I believe it is Congress that needs to match their determination and grit. We took an important first step today, and I know unemployed workers I have heard from are watching. Today's vote is a glimmer of hope for them. We can't let it fade. We need to move on and pass this extension quickly, and the House needs to follow suit.

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

Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, to discuss section 114(c) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to replace sequestration.

Before I turn to Senator Portman for his questions, I would like to note that the Senate has relied on reserve funds for nearly 30 years to help it carry out its priorities as part of the annual budget process. In fact, during debate on the 2014 budget resolution, the Senate considered or filed over 300 reserve funds. These included multiple amendments from Members of both parties to create new reserve funds. This particular reserve fund, section 114(c), was included and voted on as part of both the Senate Budget Committee-reported resolution and the Senate-passed budget resolution.

I would now like to turn to my colleague for his questions.

Yes, the bipartisan budget agreement reached between the House and Senate replaces some of the sequester cuts that otherwise would occur in 2014 and 2015. By avoiding sequestration and reaching agreement on bipartisan funding levels for 2014 and 2015, this agreement will provide relief to our families, servicemembers, and the economy. Sequestration, however, continues to remain in place, unmodified, for fiscal years 2016 through 2021. Assuming legislation met the necessary requirements specified in section 114(c), this reserve fund would be available to further address the harmful effects of sequestration.

I thank the Senator for his question. No, that concern is not accurate. While a useful tool to help the Senate carry out its priorities under the budget process, a reserve fund is limited in what it allows me to do, in my capacity as chairman of the Budget Committee. In general, for legislation that meets the required criteria, reserve funds allow me to revise the levels adopted in a budget resolution and enforced in the Senate, such as committee allocations and the budgetary aggregates.

A reserve fund, however, does not have any impact on the standing rules of the Senate, including the cloture process and the need for 60 votes to end debate. Nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change that process.

A reserve fund also does not waive budget points of order. I can use a reserve fund to revise the committee allocations and budgetary aggregates, such that legislation that meets the criteria of the reserve fund, including deficit neutrality, can be brought into compliance with the allocations and aggregates. But, it does not allow me to waive budget points of order that still may lie against the legislation following the reserve fund adjustment. Budget points of order generally can only be waived by unanimous consent or with 60 votes. Nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change that.

Further, the Senator from Ohio proposed the specific hypothetical example of legislation that would increase the statutory limits on discretionary spending and offset some or all of those costs with new revenue. Recognizing this is a hypothetical scenario, I believe in that situation the legislation would be subject to a 60-vote point of order for violating section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, which creates a point of order against legislation dealing with matters within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee that has not been reported out of the Budget Committee. Ultimately, the Parliamentarian of the Senate determines whether points of order under section 306 lie against legislation, but legislation to alter the statutory limits in discretionary spending has historically been within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. A reserve fund would have no impact on a section 306 point of order and nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change that.

In addition, legislation increasing the statutory caps on discretionary spending above the existing levels, as the Senator from Ohio outlines in his question, would also violate section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation that would exceed any of the statutory limits on discretionary spending. The reserve fund in 114(c), like other reserve funds, deals only with Senate enforcement and would have no impact on that point of order. Again, nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change that.

Finally, I would suggest to my colleague that legislation originating in the Senate rather than in the House of Representatives that raises revenue would likely be subject to a ``blue slip'' and returned back to the Senate by the House of Representatives. Again, nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change that process.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is correct. The Simpson-Bowles Commission, in their report, asked for an elimination of the entire COLA, as the Senator outlined in his opening remarks today. The budget bill before us took a different approach, and I appreciate the Senator reminding all of us that is out there.

Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is entirely correct. There is no other legislation that can be brought before us at this time to prevent a government shutdown. As we know, the House of Representatives has gone home for the year. We know without the bipartisan agreement before us, the impacts across the country would be untenable. We have kind of been there. On top of that, if we do not have this budget agreement, the military itself will take another $20 billion hit, so those very military personnel whom all of us passionately care about would be facing layoffs, would be facing uncertainty, would be facing furloughs, would be facing tremendous hardship to themselves and to their families. So, yes, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely correct.

Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is correct. I have heard from every single branch of our military services that the impact in 2014, a few weeks from now, would be devastating if the current sequester continues to take place. I would add to the Senator from Arizona, coming from a State where we have a number of military bases, I have heard from the families of those soldiers and airmen and sailors that they are deeply worried about their loved ones and their lives if we do not replace the sequester.

I want to personally thank the Senator for his hard work and his support behind the scenes to help us get to where we are today, because without the Senator's voice in this, it would have been extremely difficult. I carry his voice and many voices into that conference room to take some very tough choices forward so those families, all the way up to those top generals, do not have to enact the further cuts of sequestration.

Madam President, I would agree with the Senator from Arizona. In fact, the often-touted and quoted Simpson-Bowles Commission report even in this debate over the last day is much more egregious in what they are seeking.

Secondly, I agree with everything he said except for one thing. The Senator from Arizona mentioned that we have 1 year to look at the commission report. It is actually 2 years before this goes into effect. Congress will have time to act. The Senate Armed Services Committee will be looking at the commission report. We will have an opportunity to look at this in its entirety before it is implemented. I truly want to thank the Senator for speaking up for our military, because I know more than any one of us on this floor that when the Senator speaks for the military, he understands the consequences of not enacting legislation today.

Madam President, I again want to thank the Senator from Arizona for his remarks. I appreciate his help and support.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from Georgia, who join me on the floor today.

Madam President, I come today to address an unintended inclusion in the compromise deal that was worked out by the bipartisan budget conference and that was overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives earlier last week.

As a long-time champion myself of our Nation's veterans and military families, I want to make absolutely sure today that they know a provision included in this deal which mistakenly included disabled retirees and survivors for changes in pension growth will be addressed in short order following passage of this bill. In fact, I am going to be joining with the Senators from Georgia and others after passage of this bill to make that technical correction in a stand-alone bill.

I think all of us know our disabled veterans have made tremendous sacrifices for our Nation and deserve the peace of mind that their benefits will not be adjusted under this compromise legislation. They deserve to know also that government shutdowns and the constant crises that have unfortunately impacted wait times for our veterans' benefits, further growth in the disability backlog, and even jeopardizing their monthly checks should be a thing of the past. That is what is at the heart of this bill.

We are working to ensure the uncertainty and fear these veterans and military families faced last October is taken off the table for at least 2 years. We are working to ensure the government they fought for functions in a way that delivers on the promise we owe all of them.

In furtherance of that effort, this technical error certainly can, should, and will be addressed, and I join with the Senators from Georgia in ensuring our disabled veterans that it absolutely will be.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 20 minutes before the cloture vote be equally divided, and that I control the final 10 minutes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to first note that every one of the reserve funds included in this bipartisan bill was also included and voted on as part of the Senate- passed 2014 budget resolution. None of this material is new. My colleagues have seen and voted on every one of those reserve funds.

In the 9 months since the Senate passed the budget, I cannot recall, frankly, a single time that a Member came up to me and raised an issue regarding one of those reserve funds.

I similarly would like to point out that reserve funds are not new. The Senate has actually relied on reserve funds to help it carry out its priorities under the annual budget process for nearly 30 years. The authority to include them is specifically authorized in law by section 301(b)(7) of the Congressional Budget Act.

In fact, reserve funds are so common and accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike that Senators actually filed more than 300 of them during the debate on the 2014 budget resolution.

Let me repeat that for everyone. Senators filed more than 300 reserve funds this year, including, by the way, a few from my friend, the Senator from Alabama.

So if there is anything that should be noncontroversial, it should be including some of these reserve funds that were debated and agreed to last spring.

More fundamentally, the bipartisan agreement now before the Senate will ensure that the Senate once again has a budget. That is a good thing. Having a budget and the discipline of enforceable spending levels will strengthen enforcement, not weaken it. If you do not have a budget, you do not have a spending level you can enforce, you lose discipline and the ability to raise certain points of order. We fix that actually in this agreement.

I object.

Does the Senator need additional time?

How much additional time?

It is gone.

Mr. President, I believe the unanimous consent that was previously entered allowed me the last 10 minutes, and the Senator from Alabama the prior 10 minutes, so most of that time has been used.

I am not sure--I do not object to the President pro tempore's request for 1 minute.

Maybe I can help us all out here. The Senator from Alabama has been speaking for about 25 minutes. I am pleased to give the Senator from Alabama 4 minutes, the President pro tempore 1 minute, and I will take the final minutes.

The American people are sick and tired of the constant crises that we have seen in Washington, DC, over the past few years. They want us to work together, they want us to solve problems, and they want us to focus on jobs, families, and broad-based economic growth. That is why I am so pleased we are now headed to a final vote on the budget agreement that Chairman Ryan and I reached that breaks through this partisanship and gridlock and shows that Congress can function when Democrats and Republicans work together to make some compromises for the good of the country.

The Bipartisan Budget Act puts jobs and economic growth first by rolling back those automatic and harmful cuts to education, medical research, infrastructure investments, and defense jobs for the next 2 years. If we didn't get a deal, we would have faced another continuing resolution that would have locked in those damaging automatic cuts or, worse, a potential government shutdown in only a few short weeks.

This bill we are about to vote on replaces almost two-thirds of the cuts for this year to the domestic discretionary investments and, importantly, it prevents the next round of defense cuts that is scheduled to hit in January.

It is not going to solve every problem the automatic cuts have caused, but it is a step in the right direction and a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

This bill builds on the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we have done since 2011 with an additional $23 billion in responsible savings across the Federal budget.

Crucially, we protected the fragile economic recovery by spreading the savings out responsibly over the next 10 years and maintained the key precedent that sequestration cannot be replaced with spending cuts alone.

This bill isn't exactly what I would have written on my own--and I am pretty sure it is not what Chairman Ryan would have written on his own--but it is what the American people have called for, a compromise. That means neither side got everything they wanted and both sides had to give a bit.

I am hopeful this deal can be a foundation for continued bipartisan work, because we do have a lot of big challenges ahead of us for our families and communities that we all represent.

As we wind this down and go to a vote in a minute, I especially wish to thank my colleague across the aisle, Chairman Ryan, for his work with me over the past 2 months. He stood with courage, an honest broker, and a tough negotiator, but in the end we were able to come to an agreement and I wish to commend him for that.

I thank ranking member Chris Van Hollen, who worked steadfastly with us.

I thank Leader Reid and all of our leadership for their support throughout this budget process as we worked to negotiate this deal and move it through the Senate.

I also particularly thank the members of the Senate Budget Committee who worked so hard to pass a budget, start a conference, and reach this bipartisan deal--Senators Ron Wyden, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Jeff Merkley, Chris Coons, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine, and Angus King. They were great members of our Budget Committee, and I thank them for their diligent work this year, as well as all of the Republicans on our committee who worked so hard with us.

Finally, I thank all of our staffs who have spent so many hours on putting this together.

From my office, Budget Committee staff director Evan Schatz; our deputy staff director John Righter; Budget Committee communications director Eli Zupnick; my chief of staff Mike Spahn; and all of our staff members, too numerous to mention right now, but I want each and every one of them to know how much I appreciate the intense work they put into all of this. I will insert all of their names in the Record.

I also thank Chairman Ryan's office: Budget Committee staff director Austin Smythe; policy director Jonathan Burks; and many more who helped us be successful.

I also thank David Krone from Leader Reid's office and Kris Sarri from the Office of Management and Budget.

I thank Director Doug Elmendorf, Bob Sunshine, Pete Fontaine, and all of the staff at the Congressional Budget Office for their innumerable hard work and support.

We are at the end of the time. I urge all of our colleagues now to support this Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. We are about to put jobs and economic growth first and, most importantly, we are going to give the American people back some certainty that they do deserve.

Has all postcloture time expired in the motion to concur with respect to H.J. Res. 59?

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``What Information Do Data Brokers Have On Consumers, and How Do They Use It?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, at 2 p.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a roundtable entitled ``SBIR/STTR: Measuring the Effectiveness of the Reauthorization Act and Maximizing Research Dollars to America's Small Businesses.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., to hold an East Asia and Pacific subcommittee hearing entitled ``Rebalance to Asia IV: Economic Engagement in the Asia-Pacific Region.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of Social Security, Defined Benefits, and Private Retirement Accounts in the face of the Retirement Crisis.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``the Future of Long-Term Care Policy: Continuing the Conversation.''

The Committee will meet in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2:15 pm.

Mr. President, before the Senator speaks--I have the last 10 minutes before the vote--so I ask unanimous consent the Senator get 2 minutes and then I be recognized.

Mr. President, through the past few years in Congress we have lurched from one budget crisis to another, from one fiscal cliff to the next. When one countdown clock stopped, it wasn't too long before the next one got started.

The uncertainty was devastating to our very fragile economic recovery. The constant crisis cost us billions of dollars in lost growth and jobs, and the continued across-the-board cuts from sequestration were hurting our families and our communities and cutting off critical investments in economic growth and national security programs.

After the completely unnecessary government shutdown and debt limit crisis just 2 months ago, the American people were more disgusted than ever at the gridlock and the dysfunction. They were sick of partisanship, sick of showboating and saber rattling. They were tired of turning on their televisions at night and seeing elected officials saying: It is my way or the highway, and they had no more patience for politicians holding the economy and the Federal Government hostage to extract concessions or score political points.

So when the government was finally reopened and the debt limit crisis averted, people across the country were hoping Democrats and Republicans could finally get in a room, make some compromises, and take a step away from the constant crises. That is why I was so glad that part of that crisis-ending deal was creating the budget conference that many of us on both sides of the aisle had been trying to start since the Senate and House passed our budgets 7 months earlier.

The budget conference began at a time when distress between Democrats and Republicans could not have been higher. We had just 2 months to get a deal to avoid lurching toward another crisis, and most people assumed there was no way the divide could be bridged. But Chairman Ryan and I got together and we started talking and we decided that instead of trying to solve everything at once, the most important thing we could do for the families we represented was to end the uncertainty and start rebuilding some trust. We weren't going to spend the next 8 weeks sniping at each other from our partisan corners, we were not going to use what was said in the room to launch political attacks on the other, and we weren't going to try to tackle the larger challenges we both know are critical but aren't going to be solved right now. So we focused on what was attainable. We worked together to find common ground, and we looked for ways we could compromise and take some steps toward the other. We both thought the least we should be able to do is to find a way to replace some of the across-the-board cuts from sequestration and agree on a spending level for the short term so we could avoid another crisis.

I know some of our colleagues want to keep the sequester caps. But Democrats and many Republicans believe it makes sense to replace these meat-ax cuts with smarter and more balanced savings.

We spent 7 weeks working on this. I worked very closely with the House Budget Committee's ranking member Chris Van Hollen as well as my colleagues in the Senate on and off the Budget Committee, and I am very proud that last week Chairman Ryan and I reached an agreement on the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

This bill passed the House of Representatives Thursday on a vote of 332 to 94, with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans. I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to support this bill in the Senate and send it to the President so it can be signed into law.

The bipartisan Budget Act puts jobs and economic growth first by rolling back sequestration's harmful cuts to education, medical research, infrastructure investments, and defense jobs for the next 2 years. If we didn't get a deal, we would have faced another continuing resolution that would have locked in the automatic cuts or, worse, a potential government shutdown in just a few short weeks.

Over the past year, I have heard from so many people across my home State of Washington who have told me sequestration has hurt their families, businesses, and communities--from the parents of children whose Head Start Programs were shut down and seniors wondering whether Meals On Wheels would continue, the scientists and doctors whose investments in cutting-edge research and medical cures were cut off or threatened, the construction workers who lost their jobs when projects were put on hold, small business owners whose revenues were declining due to the cuts and uncertainty, and so many more. For them, the cuts from sequestration were senseless. They were real, they were hurting, and they were only going to get worse. So I am very proud that our bill replaces almost two-thirds of this year's sequester cuts to domestic discretionary investments.

This will not solve every problem sequestration has caused, but it is a step in the right direction and a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

Over the past year I have talked to workers at Joint Base Lewis- McChord and Fairchild Air Force Base and elsewhere who have been very much impacted by the sequestration and very worried about how another round of cuts would affect their jobs and families. I have heard from military leaders who told me sequestration would impact our national security if it continued and from companies that do business with the Defense Department that the uncertainty and the cuts were hurting their ability to hire workers and invest in future growth. So I am very glad this bill will prevent the upcoming round of defense sequestration and provide some certainty to the Pentagon for the upcoming years.

Secretary of Defense Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey have both expressed support for this bill, as have a number of colleagues in Congress who have spent the last few years highlighting the impact of continued sequestration on national security and defense workers.

The increased investments we get from rolling back sequestration over the next 2 years are fully replaced with a smarter, balanced mix of new revenue and more responsible spending cuts. Experts and economists have said the responsible thing to do is increase investments now while our economic recovery remains fragile and workers are still fighting to get back on the job, while tackling our deficit and debt over the long run. This bill moves us in the direction of exactly that.

We have cut our deficit in half over the past few years, and this bill adds to the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction done since 2011 with an additional $23 billion in savings over the next 10 years.

This bill is not exactly what I would have written on my own. I am pretty sure it is not what Chairman Ryan would have written on his own.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

This bill is a compromise, and that means neither side got everything they wanted and both of us had to give a bit.

I was very disappointed we were not able to close a single wasteful tax loophole that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. I had hoped to extend critical support for workers who are fighting to get back on the job. I was very disappointed that Republicans refused to allow that to be part of this deal. I certainly would have liked to have replaced more of sequestration. I know it was difficult for many Republicans to accept any increases in the BCA caps at all.

I know many Republicans had hoped this would be an opportunity to make the kind of Medicare and Social Security benefit cuts they have advocated in the past, but I fought hard to keep them out.

This deal is a compromise. It doesn't tackle every one of the challenges we face as a nation, but that was never our goal. This bipartisan bill takes the first steps toward rebuilding our broken budget process and hopefully toward rebuilding our broken Congress.

We have spent far too long here scrambling to fix artificial crises instead of working together to solve the big problems we all know we need to address. We have budget deficits that have improved but have not disappeared, and we have deficits in education, innovation, and infrastructure that continue to widen. There is so much more we need to do to create jobs, boost our economy, replace the remaining years of sequestration, and tackle our long-term fiscal challenges fairly and responsibly.

I am hopeful that this deal can be just the first of many bipartisan deals, that it can rebuild some of the trust, bring Democrats and Republicans together, and demonstrate that government can work for the people we all represent.

I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

I thank Chairman Ryan for his work with me over the last several months. I thank a number of Members who have worked very closely with us, including Ranking Member Van Hollen and every Member of our Budget Committee here in the Senate who worked hard to pass a budget, start a conference, and get a bipartisan deal.

When we come back next year, I will be ready to get to work with Chairman Ryan or anyone else from either side of this aisle who wants to build on this bipartisan foundation to continue addressing our Nation's challenges fairly and responsibly. It is not going to be easy, but the American people are expecting nothing less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture motion relative to H.J. Res. 59.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings and that the time during the recess count postcloture on the motion to concur in the House message to accompany H.J. Res. 59.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Pennsylvania so I may respond.

The Senator from Florida is correct. That is absolutely our intention. There is nothing in law that prevents the continued public release of the Death Master File while the Commerce Department sets up the certification program. This act simply exempts the Social Security Administration's death records from freedom of information requests under section 552 of title 5 of the United States Code, subsection (b).

Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. We intended for Commerce to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in the establishment of the certification program.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, first, as many of my colleagues here know, I have dedicated much of my career to fighting for our Nation's veterans and our military families. I am the daughter of a World War II veteran. I am the first woman ever to chair the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have worked tirelessly time and again to safeguard the health care and the benefits and services that those in our uniforms have sacrificed for. So obviously any provision that impacts them or the benefits our servicemembers have earned is of great concern to me.

As is true with any very difficult compromise, there are certain policy changes in this bill I would never have made on my own. Thankfully, though, we wrote this bill in a way that will allow 2 years before this change is implemented--2 years--so that Democrats and Republicans can keep working together to improve this provision or find smarter savings elsewhere. In that time I know there is an armed services-mandated military retirement commission due to report their findings, which would give both Chambers time to legislate a solution before any COLA change is ever implemented.

I also know the senior Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has indicated he is going to move forward with efforts to review this change before it takes effect, and I support that effort. I am quite sure other Members of the Senate will look for ways to replace these savings in a different way. In other words, we can and we will look at other hopefully better ways to change this policy going forward.

But opening this bill to changes today, after the vast majority of Congress has voiced their support for a deal that ends the repeated crises we have faced in this Nation, is not the solution. In fact, jeopardizing this deal right now only threatens our national security, and it will force layoffs of those very servicemembers and civilian military personnel so many Members have come out here to speak on behalf of.

As with any bill, the oversight process in Congress will move forward the moment we pass it, and there is no doubt that improvements will be made where they are needed. But this motion, I say to my colleagues, is an effort to bring down this bill, to stop us from moving forward, and for that reason alone it should be voted down. Therefore, Madam President, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I would suggest that the Senator ask that question to Chairman Ryan. But I would say again, as many of us have talked about here today, this is not the deal Democrats would have written on our own. It is not the deal Republicans would have written on their own. Nobody got everything they wanted, and we each had to give up some things to get to where we are today, again, to bring us back to a time of certainty because without a budget moving forward today, we would be facing a time in a few short weeks where there would be dramatic changes and cuts to, in particular, our Department of Defense, meaning furloughs and layoffs and a threat to our national security, as so many Members of the military have told us.

So I hope we can move forward. I know we are going to go through some parliamentary inquiries and a motion here in a minute. But I hope our Members would take the time to say, ``What is the end process here.'' and vote with us to not change this at this point and to allow us to go forward and bring certainty to so many families across this country at this holiday season time.

Madam President, I would just state to all of our colleagues that this motion is an effort to bring this bill down----

Mr. President, Section 401 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 creates a new category of employee called a further revised annuity employee and would require further revised annuity employees to contribute additional amounts into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. It is the intent of Congress for the Office of Personnel Management to create a new normal cost for the further revised annuity employees, and to ensure that the retirement plan not be underfunded.

Additionally, it is the intent that for the new further revised annuity employee plan that the only determinant of whether an individual is a Federal Employee Retirement System, FERS, employee or Member, as opposed to a FERS revised annuity employee or FERS further revised annuity employee, is through application of the FERS revised annuity employee test. And that the new further revised annuity employee test only differentiates between FERS revised annuity employee coverage and new FERS further revised annuity employee coverage.

Transboundary Agreements

I thank the Senator for his question, and I appreciate his leadership as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I understand his concerns and can assure him that the language in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 was not intended to alter or negate the Foreign Relation Committee's jurisdiction.

I thank the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is quite clear by the extensive work the committee has done on the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement that the committee has an expertise in international agreements and should play an integral role in the oversight of future transboundary hydrocarbon agreements. The language in the Bipartisan Budget Act was not intended to undermine the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's jurisdiction with respect to any matter that would be properly before it.

Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont is correct. It is my intent that existing contracts to use the services of not-for- profit servicers are not terminated by this bill and that they will be permitted to compete with the Department of Education's title IV servicers for additional accounts. I know several of my colleagues also feel strongly about this issue. I would like to recognize the following Senators to also join in on the colloquy: Senators Leahy, Harkin, Alexander, Hatch, Shaheen, Begich, Grassley, King, Baucus, Tester, and Murkowski.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the exception of Senator Grassley for up to 20 minutes; further, that the time count postcloture.

Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to an exemplary leader, an accomplished Soldier, and an extraordinary American, as she retires from Active Duty with the U.S. Army. LTC Kelly Marie Laurel has dedicated nearly 25 years of service to our great Nation and has set the very standard of leadership, strategic thinking, and selfless service that we expect of our finest Army officers. Culminating her career as the hand-picked Deputy Chief of the Secretary of the Army's Strategic Initiatives Group,

Lieutenant Colonel Laurel has served and excelled at every level of our Army, and she exemplifies the patriotism, fidelity, and commitment to which every citizen should strive.

From her early enlisted career as an airman in the Wyoming National Guard to her Active-Duty service in key positions ranging from medical platoon leader and company commander to personally advising the Army surgeon general and the Secretary of the Army, Kelly has been exceptional in every respect. Examples of her ever-increasing responsibilities include medical platoon leader, 61st Area Support Medical Company at Fort Hood, TX, company commander, Headquarters, 52d Medical Evacuation Battalion; and later the chief of the Management Division, 18th Medical Command in Korea; and the chief financial officer for the widely dispersed Heidelberg Hospital and its nine outlying clinics in Germany. Her work and potential was so great that then-Major Laurel was soon personally selected to serve the Army's surgeon general as the senior budget analyst, the chief of the Financial Health Policy Division, and finally as the senior congressional affairs coordinating officer.

Fortunately for me and so many Members of Congress, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller soon recognized her outstanding abilities and selected Kelly to serve as the Army's senior budget legislative liaison. I and my colleagues in both Chambers have personally benefited from Kelly's extraordinary intellect, keen analysis, and unmatched determination. During her tenure in this position, Kelly routinely worked the most sensitive, complex, and critical Army actions involving the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Her wisdom and unmatched expertise led the Army to extraordinary success in obtaining vital funding for the most critical medical, environmental, and behavioral health programs and ensured that our soldiers and their families had the necessary support they needed during these years of war. Moreover, she was instrumental in obtaining vital funding for the restructuring and expansion of the Army National Cemeteries Program. Most recently, recognizing her leadership and exceptional intellect, the Secretary of the Army selected Kelly to be his deputy chief of strategic initiatives. In this capacity, Kelly advised the Secretary and other Army senior leaders on the development and implementation of critical service-wide policies and programs that will benefit the Army for many years to come.

Kelly's superb career and character is also a true testament to the exceptional support and example provided by her family. As the daughter of first-generation Americans, Kelly was taught early the value of hard work, commitment, and selfless service by her parents Jose and Dolores Montemayor. Moreover, as a child of a career military family, Kelly learned to embody the values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage before she even knew there was an Army. As she has repeatedly demonstrated, to Kelly, these are not ideals but character traits; not platitudes, but requirements and expectations of every citizen. Clearly, her character, work ethic, and patriotism are examples to us all. We owe the highest praise and tribute to this great American and her family.

Accordingly, on behalf of a very grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending LTC Kelly Marie Laurel for nearly 25 years of service to this country. Although, to the Army, Kelly is irreplaceable, I am certain this exceptional citizen will continue to make great contributions to the United States as she embarks on the next chapter of her life.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Maine for helping to bring so many of us to the floor today to talk about an issue that cuts across partisan lines and has plagued our Nation's military and has gone unaddressed for far too long. Military sexual assault is an epidemic and it has rightly been identified as such by the Pentagon. It is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember, the person you rely on to have your back and to be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. It is simply appalling that they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform, but what is worse and what has made change an absolute necessity is the prevalence of these crimes. Recent estimates tell us that 26,000 servicemembers are sexually assaulted each year and just over 3,000 of those assaults are reported. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, about one in five female veterans treated by VA has suffered from military sexual assault; one in five. That is certainly not the act of a comrade. It is not in keeping with the ethos of any of the services, and it can no longer be tolerated. That is why the women of the Senate have been united in calling for action.

There has been made much of the fact that there are now 20 women in the Senate, a historic number that I think we all agree can still grow. But it is important to remember that the number alone should not be what is historic. Instead, it is what we do with our newfound strength to address the issues that are impacting women across the country.

With this bill, the first Defense authorization of this Congress, we are doing exactly that. We are taking historic action to help servicemembers access the resources they need to seek justice without fear. One way this bill will do just that, help protect our servicemembers and assist victims and punish criminals, is through the inclusion of a bill I introduced across party lines with Senator Ayotte. Our bill, which is included in the base bill, creates a new category of legal advocates called special victims' counsels. They would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. These special victims' counsels would advise the victim on the range of legal issues they may face.

For example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by threatening her with unrelated legal charges such as underage drinking, this new legal advocate would be there to protect her and tell her the truth. Since January, the Air Force has provided these advocates to over 500 victims through an innovative new pilot program. Ten months later, the results are speaking for themselves. Ninety-two percent of victims are extremely satisfied with the advice and support their SVC lent them through the military judicial process, 98 percent would recommend other victims request these advocates, and 93 percent believed these advocates effectively fought on their behalf.

In describing their experience with an advocate, one victim shared that:

Going through this was the hardest thing I ever had to do

in my life. Having a Special Victim Counsel helped

tremendously. . . . No words could describe how much I

appreciate having one of these advocates.

Through our bipartisan effort, the Defense authorization bill will also enhance the responsibility and authority of DOD's sexual assault prevention and response office, known as the SAPRO. This improvement will help provide better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across the Armed Forces. SAPRO would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rates and the number of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of the individual services.

Some of the stat collection is already being done so this requirement is not going to be too burdensome, but it will give the office authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem.

I believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear that uniform. It is the courage of these Americans who volunteer to serve our country that are the Pentagon's greatest asset. I know it is said a lot but take a moment to think about that. Our servicemembers volunteered to face danger, put their lives on the line, and protect our country and all its people. When we think of those dangers, we think of IEDs and battles with insurgents.

We should not have to focus on the threats they encounter from their own fellow servicemembers, and we should never allow for a culture in which the fear of reporting a crime allows a problem such as this to fester year after year. These are dangers that can never be accepted and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to face them.

Earlier this year I asked Navy Secretary Ray Mabus about the sexual assault epidemic, and I was glad he told me that ``concern'' was not a strong enough word to describe how he feels about this problem. He said he is angry about it. I know many of us in the Senate are angry as well, particularly our female colleagues who have dedicated so much time to this issue and share this feeling and want to put an end to this epidemic.

I am hopeful we can work quickly to do right by our Nation's heroes. When our best and brightest put on a uniform and join the U.S. Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding that they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. But that sacrifice should never have to come in the form of abuse from their fellow servicemembers.

I am proud the women in this Senate have taken this issue head on, and what should never be lost in the effort to enact the many changes that have been proposed is that for too long this was an issue that was simply swept under the rug. That is no longer the case thanks to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken.

We are poised to make a difference on an issue that women everywhere have brought out of the shadows, and I am proud of the women who have worked so hard on this issue.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the issue that got me into politics many years ago in the first place-- early childhood education.

I thank my friend and colleague Chairman Harkin, whose leadership on this critical issue is unparalleled. I am delighted he is on the floor today as well. I also thank Senators Casey and Hirono for their strong support of early childhood education. They are great partners in this work as well.

Of the 535 Members of Congress, I have to say each one of us comes to Washington, DC, with our own unique background. We are a collection of military veterans, farmers, business owners, and a lot more.

As for me, I come to Congress as a mother and preschool teacher. When my kids were much younger, I found that their wonderful preschool program was being closed down by my State because of budget cuts. When my children were very young, I put them in my car and traveled to Olympia, our State capital, which is 100 miles away, to explain to these legislators, whom I did not know, why they could not cut this important program. When I got there, legislators told me there was nothing someone like me could do to save that preschool program. One legislator in particular told me I was just a mom in tennis shoes and had no chance of changing anything. He said I could not make a difference.

Well, that made me slightly mad. I drove home, picked up my phone, started calling other moms and dads, and they called moms and dads from around our State. Over time--about 3 months--we organized thousands of families in our State. We wrote letters, held rallies, and when all was said and done the legislature listened to us and reinstated that preschool program. I went on to teach in that program as a preschool teacher and then to serve on my local school board.

When I eventually did come to Washington, DC, as a U.S. Senator, I knew firsthand that if we want to strengthen our economy and give our kids a brighter future, we could not wait until they were teenagers or adults to invest in them. I had seen in my own classrooms that when young children get the attention they need, they are miles ahead of their peers on the path to success. I saw that my own students who knew how to raise their hands or ask questions or stand in line to go to recess were the ones who were then able to go on and tackle a full curriculum in school.

That is why this week I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce legislation that will give every American child access to high-quality early education. The bill, the Strong Start for America's Children Act, aims to significantly increase access to and quality of early learning programs that start when a child is born and last until their first day of kindergarten. This legislation authorizes a Federal program that supports our individual States' efforts to educate their youngest citizens. It ensures that early learning programs everywhere have quality teachers and meet high standards, but it also provides States, school districts, and preschool programs the flexibility they need to meet their local children's needs.

Although I approach this issue today as a grandmother and mother and a former preschool teacher, many of my colleagues have their own reasons to support early education. Former law enforcement officers and lawyers and sheriffs whom I work with know that when we invest in our children at a young age, they are more likely to stay out of trouble and out of jail. Business leaders and economists know that when we spend $1 on a child's education in the first few years of their life, we save as much as $17 throughout their life. Our military leaders tell me that 75 percent of our Nation's 17- to 24-year-olds are ineligible to serve their country often because they are not able to pass the necessary math and reading.

It is not only teachers who are fighting for pre-K, it is generals, sheriffs, and CEOs. Fifty years of research backs this up. We know that 80 percent of a person's brain development occurs before the age of 5. While China is aiming to provide 70 percent of their children with 3 years of preschool by 2020 and India is doing the same, we do not

have a national strategy to get the youngest Americans ready to learn. Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, an advocate for early learning, says ``skill begets skill.''

This summer I traveled throughout my home State of Washington visiting early learning programs. I heard from a kindergarten teacher who told me that while some of her students in kindergarten are practicing writing their names on their work, others are learning how to hold a pencil. Those children, even at an early age, are already playing catchup. So when a child who has benefited from early education knows how to open a book and turn a page, someone can teach them to read. But in classrooms across our country, some children are falling behind. The gap between children who start school ready to succeed and those who don't has serious implications for our country's future.

Although historically we have invested in education to build a path to the middle class, we are now falling behind. We now rank 28th globally in the proportion of 4-year-olds enrolled in pre-K and 25th globally in public funding for early learning. That cannot continue.

In the coming weeks and months, I will be working with my chairman Senator Harkin, who is here today, and with many others to work toward making some smart investments in our educational system so we can move this legislation forward. Our country in very large part is the product of decisions that were made decades ago. The decision to make public education a priority now will have an extraordinary impact on the next generation. Every day we are choosing between being a country that is struggling to catch up or being a country that has the knowledge and power to continue to lead.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal and Senator Boxer, who will be joining me in this conversation in a few minutes.

I think that now more than ever, after we have emerged from this very damaging and completely unnecessary government shutdown, the American people want us to focus on jobs and the economy. That is what every poll says, that is what all of our constituents say, and that is absolutely what is needed at a time when families continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Instead of working with us across the aisle on jobs and economic growth, it seems as if some Republicans are now focused on something else entirely--politics. In fact, in a short while, the senior Senator from South Carolina is going to be introducing a bill that is blatantly political, a bill that not only undermines a woman's access to her doctor but also restricts an array of reproductive health services.

Today we wish to make it abundantly clear; that is, that this extreme, unconstitutional abortion ban is an absolute nonstarter. It is going nowhere in the Senate and those Republicans know it.

I want to think that over the last 40 years, since the historic decision of Roe v. Wade, we have moved on from debating this issue. I wish to think that after four decades many of those who want to make women's health care decisions for them have come to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is settled law. After all, the many signs of progress are all around us.

This year a record 20 women are serving in this body. One year ago yesterday women's power and voice at the ballot box was heard loudly and clearly. In fact, last year when Republican candidates running for office thought that rape was a political talking point, that idea and their candidacies were swiftly rejected, thanks in large part to the voices of women. Only this week we saw women in Virginia resoundingly reject the Republican candidate for Governor and his misguided and outdated agenda for women's health.

Sometimes it is tempting to think that times have indeed changed, that maybe politicians have realized that getting between a woman and her doctor is not their job, that it is possible that rightwing legislators have a new-found respect for women's health care.

The truth is that the drumbeat of politically driven extremist and unconstitutional laws continues to get louder. Apparently some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to make some noise about this so that their adoring audience of rightwing radio hosts, columnists, and activists is satisfied.

In fact, here is an example of how blatantly political this restrictive ban is. One of the actual participants in the press conference to introduce their bill today had this to say to Politico about the strategy behind doing this. She said: ``It's a much better thing to be campaigning on rape and incest these days.''

That is an insult to women everywhere, and it is most certainly not what the Senator from South Carolina has called ``a debate worthy of a great democracy.''

This is a debate we have had. A woman's access to her own doctor is settled law. We are not going to let attacks on Roe v. Wade such as this one change that.

I wish to remind all of those who are even considering supporting this bill that real women's lives and the most difficult health care decisions they could ever possibly make are at stake.

I wish for us to consider the story that Judy Nicastro from my home State shared so bravely with the New York Times last summer. In an op- ed she wrote only days after the House passed a bill that was virtually identical to the one that is being introduced today, Judy talked about being

faced with every pregnant woman's worst nightmare. In describing the news that one of the twins she was carrying was facing a condition where only one lung chamber had formed and that it was only 20 percent complete, Judy captured the anguish that countless women in similar positions have faced. She wrote:

My world stopped. I loved being pregnant with twins and

trying to figure out which one was where in my uterus.

Sometimes it felt like a party in there with eight limbs

moving. The thought of losing one child was unbearable.

She went on to say:

The M.R.I., at Seattle Children's Hospital, confirmed our

fears: the organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not

developing properly. We were in the 22nd week.

Under the bill that is being introduced, the decision Judy ultimately made through painful conversations with her family and consultation with her doctors would be illegal.

The decision to make sure, as she put it, ``our son was not born only to suffer'' would be taken from her and given to politicians.

I am here to provide a simple reality check. We are not going back. We are not going back on settled law. We are not going to take away a woman's ability to make her own decisions about her own health care and her own body. Women are not going back to a time when laws forced them into back alleys and made them subject to primitive and unsanitary care. Senators such as me, Senator Boxer, Senator Blumenthal, and others who join me in opposing this effort are not going to go anywhere.

Advocates and doctors who treat women every day and know that their health care must be protected are not going to go anywhere. Women who continue to believe that their health care decisions are theirs alone are not going anywhere.

By the way, the Constitution is not going anywhere. Therefore, this bill is not going anywhere. This bill, as attacks on Roe v. Wade before it, will eventually be lost to history. But millions of American women will not forget. I welcome our colleagues on the floor to this debate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there is no shortage of reasons why I am proud to represent my home State of Washington. Our State is an economic leader. We are home to the American aerospace industry and a thriving agricultural sector. Dozens of companies create new products and new jobs with cutting-edge technology. We are a leader in protecting the environment and educating our children. Washington State is a place tens of thousands of servicemembers and veterans call home. I am here today because I wish to speak about another way Washington State has set an example for the entire country; that is, our State's proud history of protecting the rights of all of our citizens, including members of the LGBT community.

In 2006 Washington State passed one of our country's strongest antidiscrimination laws--one that serves as a model for the Federal legislation we are considering here today. In 2007 and 2008 we passed additional legislation to further protect the rights of same-sex couples, and 1 year ago today our State voted proudly to uphold landmark marriage-equality legislation. What we have to show for it is really two results. First, we have a thriving LGBT community made up of individuals and families who can feel safe and respected and valued as does anyone else. Second, we have a growing economy that is anchored by businesses that respect their employees and judge them by only that which matters: their hard work and ability.

I rise today to simply ask my colleagues who don't yet support this legislation to take a look at my home State of Washington because in places such as Seattle and Spokane, we are proving every day that protecting the rights of our LGBT friends and neighbors isn't just the right thing to do; it works and it makes our country stronger.

Some of my colleagues have said that extending employment protections for our LGBT friends and family members is too hard. Some of them said it will create problems for businesses and communities. Well, I invite them to come to Seattle and ask businesses there whether it has been problematic to respect their employees' rights. I would invite them to visit Amazon or Starbucks or Nordstrom or Microsoft--just a few of our State's successful businesses that have taken the lead in protecting the rights of their LGBT employees. We know in Washington State that it is wrong to discriminate against people. We know that a person's race or religion or gender has nothing to do with their ability in the workplace, and we know that sexual orientation and gender identity don't either.

Most all of our constituents--four out of five Americans--falsely believe LGBT Americans already have the protections included in this bill, and most people believe that because denying Americans their rights doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that some men and women can be fired from their jobs just because of who they are or whom they love. We know it is not fair in my home State of Washington, but people in every State--from Virginia and Mississippi to Arizona and Idaho--know the same.

Many of my colleagues have cited these statistics, but they are worth repeating. Two-thirds of all Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe in protecting LGBT citizens from employment discrimination. Despite that, more than half our country lives in States in which their rights are not protected. I am proud my State does protect those rights, but we can't stop working until the same is true in all 50 States. So for any of my colleagues who still aren't convinced that LGBT Americans deserve the same rights as all of us, my invitation to visit Washington State stands because it is not enough that my constituents are free from discrimination, their constituents deserve the same.

Thank you, Madam President.

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

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

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

Mr. President, earlier this year, a man named William, who is from Gig Harbor, WA, wrote to me to express his frustration with what he saw happening here in Congress. William served in the Navy. He now works for a tech company that supports Navy communications in the Pacific Northwest.

Like so many Americans in recent years, he has witnessed hiring freezes and cutbacks and furloughs and layoffs. He said a couple of years ago he was hoping for a promotion, but now he considers himself just lucky to have a job. He is not even sure how long he can count on that.

Well, William is not alone. The partisanship and the gridlock here in Washington, DC, have been devastating for families such as his in my home State of Washington and across the country.

The government shutdown and the debt limit brinkmanship last month were just the latest examples. But Congress has been lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis for years and it has got to end. So today I am going to share a few stories from families who have been paying the price for the dysfunction here in Congress. I have worked very hard to make sure that voices such as theirs are heard loudly and clearly in the budget process. I am going to keep fighting to make sure their interests are represented every day as we work now toward a balanced and bipartisan budget agreement.

Seven months ago the House and the Senate each passed their budget. The Senate budget that we passed here was built on three principles. First of all, our highest priority was investing in jobs and economic growth and prosperity that is built from the middle out, not from the top down.

Secondly, the deficit has been now cut in half and we built on the $2\1/2\ trillion in deficit reduction we have passed now since 2011 to continue to tackle this challenge fairly and responsibly.

Third, our budget keeps the promises that we have made to our seniors and our families and our communities.

The budget that passed the House reflects different values and priorities. But it was our job to get in a room, make some compromises with them, and find a way to bring those two budgets together. Although I had hoped we could start this bipartisan budget negotiation far sooner and avoided last month's crisis, the budget conference has now begun--started last week--and offers us now the opportunity to break this cycle of gridlock and dysfunction and start moving our country back in the right direction. We have a chance now to turn our attention back to where it belongs, strengthening our economy and creating jobs, continue making responsible spending cuts while closing wasteful tax loopholes that are used by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, and to finally show the American people that Congress can work together. We can compromise and alleviate the uncertainty and the pain that families across the country are facing.

The effect of these years of gridlock is clear in places such as the Denise Louie Education Center in Seattle. I visited that Head Start Program earlier this year where pre-K students from low-income families can learn their ABCs and take part in story time and benefit from health and nutrition programs. Even before the major cuts to Head Start that took effect last month, that center had a waiting list. Now the director of the school has had to drop kids from that program because of these tight budget constraints.

They are far from alone. Another Head Start in Everett, WA, a program that has served needy kids since the 1970s, had to completely shut its doors this summer because Congress could not work together. That one facility alone was helping 40 kids prepare for kindergarten. Nationwide, these cuts have forced tens of thousands of children out of Head Start as well.

That is not all. The senseless cuts for sequestration have impacted education programs all across the country. Researchers and scientists who are working on cures for cancer and other diseases have lost their jobs. Programs such as Meals on Wheels that deliver food to seniors have been cut.

There is so much more. The ripples from the so-called sequester have been felt in our homes and in our businesses and across our fragile economy.

The across-the-board cuts have also had, of course, serious impact on defense programs and workers. Earlier this year I heard from one of my constituents whose family was impacted by this very directly. His name is Bob. He is from Bremerton, WA, and is an engineer at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. He told me every day highly skilled employees come into his office, often in tears, and tell him they do not know how they are going to manage to make ends meet if they are furloughed or laid off. They are worried now. They have felt the pain for months. They know it could get worse. Because if these automatic cuts are not replaced in a bipartisan deal, another $20 billion

is scheduled to be cut from defense spending in January, just a few short months from now. That would make more furloughs and layoffs much more likely. It would mean continued and deeper cuts to combat training.

It does not have to be this way, because something both Democrats and Republicans agree on is that the very least this budget conference should be able to accomplish, at an absolute minimum, is finding a path to replace these terrible sequester cuts and set a budget level for at least the short term.

Republican Congressman Hal Rogers, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, said, ``Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.''

Even House Speaker John Boehner said the cuts would ``hollow out'' our military.

Just recently the House Armed Service Committee Republicans sent me and Chairman Ryan a letter urging us to replace the sequester, saying it was ``never intended to be policy.''

That is exactly right. Sequester was intended to be so bad it would drive both sides to the table to be willing to make some compromises, to replace it with smarter savings. I am very glad that more and more of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle are stepping up to try and find a solution. So the question now is not whether we should replace the across-the-board sequester cuts, but how we do it.

The House and the Senate budgets both deal with sequester, just in different ways. The House budget fully replaces the defense cuts and lifts the BCA cap. It pays for that by cutting even more deeply into key domestic investments. Our Senate budget, on the other hand, replaces all of the automatic cuts and pays for it with an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and revenue that we raise by closing wasteful tax loopholes.

Finding a bipartisan solution will not be easy. We all know that. It will require compromise from both sides. As I mentioned at our first budget committee conference last week, I am going into this process ready to offer some tough spending cuts that, unlike the sequester caps that disappear in 2022, would be permanently locked into law. I know there are many Republicans who would be very interested in swapping some of the inefficient and damaging cuts in the sequester with structural changes to programs that would save many multiples of the cuts to be replaced in the coming decades.

In short, I am willing to compromise. I am ready to listen to Republican ideas, as long as their proposals are fair for seniors and families. I am prepared to make some tough concessions to get this deal done. But I cannot negotiate by myself. Compromise has to run both ways. That means in addition to the responsible spending cuts, Republicans need to work with us to close wasteful tax loopholes and special-interest subsidies, because it would be unfair and unacceptable to put the entire burden of deficit reduction on the backs of our seniors and our families. It should not be difficult for Republicans to agree to put just a few of the most egregious, wasteful loopholes and special-interest carveouts on the table to get a balanced and bipartisan deal.

If the choice is between closing a wasteful loophole and lurching to another crisis, I hope every one of my colleagues will put their constituents before special interests. Over the last few years people across the country have lost a great deal of confidence in Congress's ability to work together for the good of our Nation, people such as Naani King, who, as the New York Times recently reported, serves as a registered nurse at Madigan Army Medical Center in my home State of Washington. During the shutdown last month, she worked without pay. Without a paycheck, she had to dip into her retirement account to make her monthly mortgage payment. Now, even though the shutdown is over, her family cannot take any chances. She told the Times, ``We just have too much to lose.''

We here in Congress owe it to her family and to families all over this country to work to find a path forward. So let's put an end to this gridlock. Let's put an end to these crises. Let's show the American people we are listening to them. In fact, let's show them that their stories are more important than sticking to party lines or staying in ideological corners.

We have got to rebuild some trust and we can do that. We need to find a path to compromise. We need to work together to strengthen our economy and create jobs. I am ready to do that in this budget conference. I am hopeful that over the coming weeks every one of my colleagues on that committee will make it clear that they are as well.

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