Floor Statements

I also rise today to talk about the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and to echo many of the reasons for supporting that budget that were just spoken about by my colleague from Arizona.

This is the first Budget Conference Committee in a divided Congress since 1986, and compromise leaves every side with something they like and something they don't like, but it is what Americans expect us to do.

I applaud Senator Murray, our Senate budget chair, for her leadership since our very first Budget Committee meeting in January 2013. I applaud Congressman Ryan, the chair of the conference committee, for his work with his House colleagues. I was proud to be a part of the Budget Committee in this conference.

Americans want us to find a budget compromise to restore some certainty in a way that will help families, help businesses, and help our economy.

The day that I was sworn in as a Senator, before I took the oath of office, I was interviewed by a radio station in Virginia. They asked me what were the two things I wanted to do most immediately as a Senator. Only last week I was reminded what I said. I said: I want the Senate to find a budget that will be a budget for all of Congress, and I want to end sequester.

I have done a lot of budgets as a Governor and a mayor. It was challenging for me to understand how in February we were here without a Federal budget but on the verge of embracing nonstrategic across-the- board sequester cuts in a way that would hurt so many priorities Virginians care about.

I gave my first speech on the Senate floor in February to urge my colleagues to avoid sequester. In the months since, I have visited Virginia shipyards, research universities, and early childhood education centers and have seen the effect sequester has on Virginians, on Americans, and on our economy.

I am acutely aware of the budget impasse and continuing challenges that are imposed upon this economy by gimmicks such as sequester, and the absence of a budget for 4 years compounds those things. We have seen the harm sequester has done to so many of the priorities we care about.

No manager would embrace indiscriminate across-the-board cuts because not everything the Federal Government does is worth everything else. If we are going to be making cuts, they should be strategic. There are areas in which we shouldn't be making cuts at all. We should be putting more money into the budget to do what is strategic and what is necessary.

So what we have done with this budget deal is we have taken a step back to regular budgetary order to give certainty to the economy and to give certainty to our planners who work for the Federal Government. And while we are not replacing all of sequester--and how much I wish we were--we will do a lot to reverse some of its worse effects.

The budget deal is good in a number of ways.

It replaces $63 billion in sequestration cuts scheduled to go into effect in the next fiscal years--2014 and 2015--and replaces those nonstrategic cuts with a targeted mix of responsible spending reductions and new fees and revenue.

It increases the top-line discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2014 to $1.012 trillion and $1.014 trillion in 2015.

It provides budget certainty for 2 years. This is something many of us in State governments, who have State government experience, have long embraced--the virtue of 2-year budgets, which are common at the State level because they provide more certainty.

Under the agreement defense cuts of an additional $20 billion that were scheduled to take effect in January will not go into effect, and we will find ways to restore funding and avert sequester cuts to nondefense accounts as well.

The bill will let Chairwoman Mikulski and appropriators write full appropriations bills to reverse the cycle of widespread continuing resolutions. Many folks in the Federal Government tell me that as damaging as sequester is, a continuing resolution--that locks in line items at the level of last year or the year before that, instead of allowing flexibility to deal with these situations--is just as dangerous. So our appropriators can now write full-year appropriations bills for fiscal year 2014 and 2015.

With budgetary certainty, our Department of Defense will be able to plan and strategize for the future, as will our domestic agencies. We will fund critical readiness issues. We will allow the Navy in Virginia to continue to work on ship building and repair, which is so critical and, above all, we can show the American public that Congress can work together in a bipartisan way, which is what we are all trying to do and what the American public asks us to do.

We do know, as Senator McCain and all have mentioned, like any compromise this budget compromise is not perfect. I would put on the top of my list as the most grievous challenge with the budget compromise not something that is in it but something that is not in it--the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to the long-term unemployed. In this economy, all of the economic data suggests the extension of those benefits is not only good for the individuals, they are good for the economy itself. The suggestion is the expiration of these benefits could cost the country 200,000 to 300,000 jobs. That is a weakness in this proposal.

An additional weakness is the way we have dealt with the cost-of- living increase for military retirees pre-age 62 who are not disabled. I don't agree with that compromise provision. It requires a reduction in the cost-of-living increase for certain military pensions. The Senate budget that all those currently in this Chamber worked so hard on to pass in March did not contain that provision. It was not the way we felt we should be dealing with the budget. Obviously, we liked the Senate budget, and we found a way to replace sequester without making this change to military pensions. But it was added during the conference in order to find compromise with the House to move forward. Compromise is necessary because absent compromise the very folks who will be affected by this particular change will also be affected, because we have seen sequester and shutdown and furloughs affect military employees. We have seen it affect military operations, and so the alternative of brinkmanship and shutdown is no better for our retirees than this provision.

We have heard from Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey that they are supportive of the overall framework of the deal and it will help them address military readiness challenges. I am pleased Senator Levin, the chairman of Armed Services Committee--a committee on which I serve--has signaled his intention to review the COLA provisions in the Armed Services Committee next year, since it will not be scheduled to take effect until 2015.

I am also disappointed that new Federal employees will be targeted for increased pension contributions. We have now increased those contributions in a somewhat tiered level for new employees twice in the last 3 years. But again, while that compromise is challenging for those newly hired Federal employees, the alternative is more challenging, because we can't keep going through the uncertainty of shutdowns or furloughs. It wouldn't be fair to those employees for us to do that.

So again, we have replaced a portion of the nonstrategic cuts, and that is the way we should go going forward. I will continue to work to get rid of the rest of sequestration and replace it with similarly targeted strategies.

For those reasons I urge my colleagues to support this deal. While I wouldn't agree with all items in it, that is like any compromise I have ever engaged in in my life. All of us who are part of a group--from the Senate of the United States to families--know that if you are part of a group, it

is not always your way or the highway. You have to give and expect others to give as well, and that was an important aspect of this compromise.

I will say in conclusion that another aspect of this deal I like very much is that it has unified the Virginia congressional delegation. There are 13 of us, 11 in the House and 2 Senators. There are 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats. We get along well and work together well, but there aren't many issues like this--big policy issues--where all of us agree. In the House last week, all 11 Members of Congress of both parties voted for this budget compromise. Senator Warner, as a budget conferee, together with all of us in the Chamber right now, are supporting this budget compromise. I am glad my colleagues from Virginia have pulled together, and I think it is a tribute to the fact we have all seen the impacts that the budget uncertainty and sequester have caused. I am glad we seem to be on the verge of providing that sense of certainty that will be good for the public and good for the economy.

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

Mr. President, today I recognize and pay tribute to Charlie E. Williams, Jr., who will retire as director of the Defense Contract Management Agency--DCMA--on November 25, 2013, after more than 30 years of service to our Nation.

Director Williams began his public service career in 1982 through the Air Force Logistics Command at Kelly Air Force Base in Texas. Over the following years, his career included a series of appointments with ever-increasing responsibility. He was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Contracting, in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, a U.S. member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Airborne Early Warning and Control Program Board of Directors, the team lead of Program Executive Officer and Designated Acquisition Commander programs, and finally, Director of

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the NDAA which is currently on the floor. I wish to address a couple of issues. One I am passionate about is the veterans unemployment rate and how it is dealt with in the NDAA, another is shipbuilding, another is the critical issue of sexual assault and misconduct and, finally, sequester.

Before I begin, let me talk about how important this bill is. This is a bill the Senate has passed every year for over 50 years. We pass it every year, even if we can't pass a budget, even if we can't do other things, because it is so critical to show those who serve in the military that we are behind them. I have heard some indications, even within the last 24 hours, that because of so many amendments that might be possible on this bill, would that call into question whether we would be able to keep our streak going. If we have to be here Christmas Day, we need to be on the floor Christmas Day to make sure we pass this bill before the end of the year. It is that important. It is the most important bill that comes before this body, and we need to do everything we can to guarantee the certainty to those who serve.

In Virginia, we are so connected to Active-Duty service and to our veterans. My wife and I are a Blue Star Family. This is very important and we have to make sure we pass this bill.

Let me start with a personnel issue that matters a lot to me, which is the veterans unemployment rate. Right now it is unacceptable that veterans, especially enlisted, who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have an unemployment rate that is higher than the national average.

A report that was issued last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the unemployment rate for veterans who have served since 9/ 11 remains around 10 percent, which is higher than nonveterans of the same age. Ten percent represents 246,000 individual veterans of that era who want to work but don't have it.

That is why I introduced as my first legislation in April the Troop Talent Act of 2013. A companion bill in the House was introduced by Representative Tammy Duckworth. The bills have been incorporated into the NDAAs in both Armed Services Committees. They are now on the floor and virtually identical.

The bill represents a strategy to deal with our veterans unemployment rate by making sure Active-Duty military receive civilian credentials for the skills they obtain in the military at the moment they obtain them.

The bill has a number of provisions. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee were good enough to include them in the underlying bill. This bill will help us deal with the veterans unemployment rate, and that is one of the reasons I so much wanted to get to it and am so strongly supportive.

Second is shipbuilding. The Presiding Officer and I both have a real interest in this topic, as all Americans do. It is an area of great importance to the State. In Virginia we manufacture the largest items on the planet Earth, which is the nuclear aircraft carrier, at the Huntington Ingalls Shipyard in Newport News.

As the Defense Department reorients, resources its strategy toward Asia, we have to find the Navy bearing more and more of the operational burden of our military in that policy shift, and we have to continue to provide the Navy with adequate resources and funding through this provision to support that shift and to support shipbuilding.

Unfortunately, sequestration--and I will finish with sequestration in a minute--poses grave dangers. So we need to do what we can to maintain this priority for shipbuilding. Right now the sequester has reduced our normal level of three carrier strikers and three amphibious ready groups, which weakens our readiness to deal with challenges in a very challenging world. We have to maintain the priorities mandated and the NDAA does that and that is one of the reasons I support it.

Regarding the issue of sexual misconduct, 2014 is going to be remembered as a potentially historic year for

a good reason in the military. I wish to make sure history is good and is not clouded by our continued inability to grab onto and reduce the issue of sexual misconduct.

Earlier this year, I know Members of this body were very happy when Secretary Hagel and the military leadership embraced the proposition that women should be able to serve in the military without being barred by gender from any military specialty, that military specialties could have rigorous physical or training criteria, but that both men and women should be able to compete to serve in any military specialty, even combat-related specialties.

We will be remembered--2014 will be remembered--for that. But that memory will fade by comparison if what we are really remembered for is we missed an opportunity, an important opportunity, to tackle the important issue of sexual assault.

I congratulate Senators Gillibrand and McCaskill for all the great work they have done to bring this to the attention of the body and to look the military in the eye and say: This has to stop.

They have said it would stop over and over for 20 years, and it has not. This has to be the moment when it stops, and these Senators, working together with us on the Armed Services Committee, have put together a sizeable package of reforms that I am confident will help this time be different.

I also thank the brave victims who testified. I went to every hearing in the Senate on the sexual assault issue. Senator Gillibrand had a Personnel Subcommittee hearing. I was there for that entire hearing. Senator Levin had a hearing in Armed Services. I was there for nearly that entire full-day hearing. Committee markups in the Subcommittee on Personnel and the full committee--I have been to all the meetings.

I have heard these victims testify. How brave they are as survivors to come forward and testify. I also thank survivors in Virginia who have come and shared their stories with me personally so I could grapple with what is the right mix. These survivors have done a wonderful job in making sure we address this issue.

I tackled the issue of sexual assault in a way when I was Governor. We were treating victims of sexual assault in the civil justice system poorly in Virginia. We were not unique in that, but there was no excuse for it.

So I impaneled a group of advocates and survivors to look at Virginia law and tell us what we needed to change if we were going to try to deal with this scourge. One of the problems with sexual assault is-- together with domestic violence--it is often a very underreported crime.

If somebody breaks into my apartment, I do not hesitate to call the police and say: There has been a break-in. If somebody bashes my car windshield in, I do not hesitate to call in and say: Look, a crime has been committed.

But crimes of sexual assault and crimes of domestic violence--and there tends to be on overlap, not completely but there is an overlap-- are crimes where there is underreporting, in both civilian and military, and on college campuses. So one of the most important aspects in any reform is to create an environment where people feel they can come forward with a complaint, when they have one.

The statistics are well known. They have just been cited on the floor. By a statistical sampling, it has been estimated there have been 26,000 instances of unwanted sexual conduct, of sexual assaults in the military, and only 3,000 have been reported. We have to make sure these reforms we are about to embrace help us deal with this reporting issue so people feel a sense of comfort.

What we realized in tackling these issues in Virginia is that for people to feel comfortable with reporting sexual assaults, they have to have time. You cannot make them make the decision about reporting in an instant. There is often a psychological component about deciding what to do. There needs to be privacy and discretion and confidence, and there also needs to be advice and resources. People need to know: what are the avenues they have. What are the legal procedures, how do they look, and what are their rights if they decide to pursue a complaint.

I support the ongoing bill that is on the floor, and I will support some other proposals that are out. The McCaskill-Ayotte proposal I will support. I support the reform for a number of reasons. It affects the training and evaluation of military personnel. It affects the way sexual assault allegations are investigated, the way they are prosecuted, and the way they are punished. It protects witnesses.

An amendment Senator Warner and I got into the bill--and we will be adding to it on the floor--protects whistleblowers who blow the whistle on an unfortunate or sexually harassing climate.

But the most important part of this bill is what the bill does for anyone who has been victimized by a crime of sexual assault--to create a climate where they can come forward and lodge a complaint.

In the military right now there are a number of avenues whereby somebody who has been victimized by a crime of sexual assault can lodge a complaint. Unique in this form of crime, there is a restricted report, where someone can come forward and report confidentially. That is very, very important.

But this bill adds to it what I think is the core of driving up reporting, which is salutary. It adds to it, also, something that would be unique in the military. It would exist for no other crime category, no other offense category. If someone complains of a sexual assault, they will be assigned a special victims' counsel, whose job it is to have their back, to hear the painful story, to share the various reporting mechanisms, counseling resources that are available, how the crime might be prosecuted. At every step along the way, as that victim is becoming a survivor and dealing with the challenge, that special victims' counsel will be there to help them make decisions and give them the backup and support they need.

This is based on a pilot project in the Air Force, a pilot project in the Air Force that is working. What we are finding, based on this pilot project in the Air Force, is even when people file complaints in a restricted, confidential way--they come in and say: I want to file a complaint, but I don't want to go against the perpetrator because I don't want people to know; I just want help--after they get a special victims' advocate and learn about the proceedings and learn about the protections, and they build up a bond with somebody who has their back, they are very likely to say: You know what, now I have the confidence to actually file my complaint publicly and take on the perpetrator--who needs to be taken on, who needs to be drummed out of the military if they committed a sexual assault.

So I believe the core of getting this right is about giving victims an avenue where they can have the time, they can have the advice, they can have the privacy and discretion to understand what their options are and then make a decision and go forward.

I think if we pass this bill with that special victims' counsel this will be the single best thing we will be able to do to tackle the crime of sexual assault.

Let me conclude by saying a word about sequestration.

A word that none of us knew before the beginning of 2013 has been spoken so many times on the floor of this body. No one intended for sequestration to happen when the votes were cast in the summer of 2011. Everyone was told across the board: Nonstrategic cuts to health care, domestic accounts, and to defense would be harmful to us. We have seen the harm that sequestration is doing to our Nation's military at a time when our military is getting more and more dangerous.

Indiscriminate across-the-board cuts are not only hurting all kinds of military priorities, they are also sending the signal to young men and women who are thinking about military careers or who are in the military and deciding how long they want their careers to be--they are sending them a signal that Congress does not value what they do.

We need to show the men and women of the military we value what they do. We need to show them by getting an NDAA bill done this year. We need to show them by ending sequestration. Will there be savings we can find in our defense spending? Of course. We ought to be looking at every item of government to determine whether we can do

better and save money. But this across-the-board sequester that is grounding air combat wings, that is grounding carrier units, that is making us less able to confront a more challenging world, is not behavior befitting of the greatness of this Nation.

I am a budget conferee right now, working on a budget deal. We are under a Senate- and House-imposed deadline to try to find that deal by December 13 so the appropriators can work on a budget. We will work diligently on that. I have an optimistic sense about finding a budget deal that enables us to replace this foolish sequester with a more strategic approach that will not hurt our military.

Mr. President, I thank you for the time and I now yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Ken Burns, paraphrasing Wallace Stegner, called the national parks ``America's best idea.'' This is true not just for the intrinsic value of these lands, but also for the economic impact on rural communities across the country. Countless small business owners rely on outdoor recreational visitors for their livelihood.

Unfortunately, last month's government shutdown caused the visitors to stop. For 16 days this year, at the peak of the fall color season restaurants and hotels were empty. Roadside stands had no passers-by. Canoes and kayaks, hiking maps, and bait-and-tackle sat unsold on store shelves. One of my favorite places in Virginia, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, saw not one but two major events cancelled: the reopening ceremony of the historic Assateague Lighthouse and the Chincoteague wild pony roundup. These events usually draw thousands of visitors. The pony roundup, in particular, also serves as a fundraiser for the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Company. Unlike park rangers, the local businesses that rely on visitors got no backpay.

That is why I am introducing this legislation to suspend entrance fees at national parks and wildlife refuges for a period of 16 days, equal to the duration of the shutdown. The fee suspension leads up to National Park Week in April 2014. This will encourage more visitors to turn out to the parks and give area establishments time to publicize the free days and to drum up more business. The bill is deficit- neutral, and considering the breadth of the national park presence across the nation, I hope it will garner bipartisan support.

We must negotiate a workable path forward on the federal budget so that the American people are never again caught up in the middle of battles in Washington. No act of Congress can reimburse the hard- working business men and women around the nation who got hit by the shutdown, but I believe this bill will nudge a few more vacationers out of town to take in the natural beauty of our country and support the local economies while they're at it. Given the attention that national parks got during the shutdown, I also believe the American people deserve a larger conversation about the importance of maintaining our natural resources for future generations. I hope this bill will spur that discussion.

Mr. President, Ken Burns, paraphrasing Wallace Stegner, called the national parks ``America's best idea.'' This is true not just for the intrinsic value of these lands, but also for the economic impact on rural communities across the country. Countless small business owners rely on outdoor recreational visitors for their livelihood.

Unfortunately, last month's government shutdown caused the visitors to stop. For 16 days this year, at the peak of the fall color season restaurants and hotels were empty. Roadside stands had no passers-by. Canoes and kayaks, hiking maps, and bait-and-tackle sat unsold on store shelves. One of my favorite places in Virginia, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, saw not one but two major events cancelled: the reopening ceremony of the historic Assateague Lighthouse and the Chincoteague wild pony roundup. These events usually draw thousands of visitors. The pony roundup, in particular, also serves as a fundraiser for the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Company. Unlike park rangers, the local businesses that rely on visitors got no backpay.

That is why I am introducing this legislation to suspend entrance fees at national parks and wildlife refuges for a period of 16 days, equal to the duration of the shutdown. The fee suspension leads up to National Park Week in April 2014. This will encourage more visitors to turn out to the parks and give area establishments time to publicize the free days and to drum up more business. The bill is deficit- neutral, and considering the breadth of the national park presence across the nation, I hope it will garner bipartisan support.

We must negotiate a workable path forward on the federal budget so that the American people are never again caught up in the middle of battles in Washington. No act of Congress can reimburse the hard- working business men and women around the nation who got hit by the shutdown, but I believe this bill will nudge a few more vacationers out of town to take in the natural beauty of our country and support the local economies while they're at it. Given the attention that national parks got during the shutdown, I also believe the American people deserve a larger conversation about the importance of maintaining our natural resources for future generations. I hope this bill will spur that discussion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sergio Aguirre

and Erik Brine, who are two fellows detailed from the Department of Defense to my office, be granted floor privileges for the pendency of S. 1197, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Servicemember Education Reform and Vocational Act of 2013, SERVE. I am pleased Senator Chambliss joins me in introducing this bill. This bipartisan legislation will improve the quality of education for our veterans and military members.

To date, over one million veterans have taken advantage of the Post- 9/11 GI Bill and $30 billion has been invested. Yet graduation rates remain a concern and the unemployment rate among veterans, especially young veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, remains higher than the national average.

As the United States begins to draw down its forces after more than a decade at war, it is more important than ever to demonstrate our commitment to the brave men and women who have served and sacrificed to protect our Nation. An important part of this commitment is ensuring our Nation's veterans are prepared for their transition from military service to civilian life.

In Virginia, one in every nine individuals is a veteran, and we have 27 installations across the State, making Virginia as connected to the military as any State in the country.

As I have travelled throughout Virginia and have had the opportunity to meet with servicemembers, veterans, and their families, I have listened to their concerns and ideas. These conversations have reinforced my commitment to fight persistent barriers to veterans' employment, and ensure that veterans have access to quality education programs that yield results.

For these reasons, it is our responsibility to ensure that the Nation's investment in veteran education and training yields successful results and gives these men and women the tools they need to succeed in the workforce.

I am a strong believer that education is the best investment that any country can make to ensure the success of its citizens. This is why my first bill, the TROOP Talent Act, focused on assisting our servicemembers and veterans in their efforts to gain civilian credentials and transition into the workforce.

The bill I am introducing today, the SERVE Act, is companion legislation that will raise the bar on minimum standards that educational institutions

must meet to ensure servicemembers are getting a quality education.

The bill will require institutions to disclose information such as graduation rates, withdrawal policies, and program costs to students and ensure programs fully deliver what they advertise.

The bill will require institutions to provide access to academic and/ or career counseling for military and veteran students in hopes of not only improving their chances of graduating, but also helping prepare them for future careers.

The bill will facilitate the use of VA and DoD educational benefits for employment training programs by creating a 5-State pilot program. States will be charged with developing best practices needed to ensure that quality employment training, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training programs are available and accessible for beneficiaries of the post-9/11 GI Bill program.

The bill will require an annual report to relevant Senate and House Committees with disaggregated information on which schools and programs veteran and military students are putting their educational benefits toward.

Today's veterans have been referred to as ``the next Greatest Generation.'' They answered the call to serve our Nation.

They have put it all on the line and invested heavily and personally in the future of our country. Let us do everything we can to capitalize on their experience and character and prepare them for the challenges they and our Nation will face in the future.

The SERVE Act will ensure that the educational benefits our veterans and military members earned are being spent on quality education.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Servicemember Education Reform and Vocational Act of 2013, SERVE. I am pleased Senator Chambliss joins me in introducing this bill. This bipartisan legislation will improve the quality of education for our veterans and military members.

To date, over one million veterans have taken advantage of the Post- 9/11 GI Bill and $30 billion has been invested. Yet graduation rates remain a concern and the unemployment rate among veterans, especially young veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, remains higher than the national average.

As the United States begins to draw down its forces after more than a decade at war, it is more important than ever to demonstrate our commitment to the brave men and women who have served and sacrificed to protect our Nation. An important part of this commitment is ensuring our Nation's veterans are prepared for their transition from military service to civilian life.

In Virginia, one in every nine individuals is a veteran, and we have 27 installations across the State, making Virginia as connected to the military as any State in the country.

As I have travelled throughout Virginia and have had the opportunity to meet with servicemembers, veterans, and their families, I have listened to their concerns and ideas. These conversations have reinforced my commitment to fight persistent barriers to veterans' employment, and ensure that veterans have access to quality education programs that yield results.

For these reasons, it is our responsibility to ensure that the Nation's investment in veteran education and training yields successful results and gives these men and women the tools they need to succeed in the workforce.

I am a strong believer that education is the best investment that any country can make to ensure the success of its citizens. This is why my first bill, the TROOP Talent Act, focused on assisting our servicemembers and veterans in their efforts to gain civilian credentials and transition into the workforce.

The bill I am introducing today, the SERVE Act, is companion legislation that will raise the bar on minimum standards that educational institutions

must meet to ensure servicemembers are getting a quality education.

The bill will require institutions to disclose information such as graduation rates, withdrawal policies, and program costs to students and ensure programs fully deliver what they advertise.

The bill will require institutions to provide access to academic and/ or career counseling for military and veteran students in hopes of not only improving their chances of graduating, but also helping prepare them for future careers.

The bill will facilitate the use of VA and DoD educational benefits for employment training programs by creating a 5-State pilot program. States will be charged with developing best practices needed to ensure that quality employment training, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training programs are available and accessible for beneficiaries of the post-9/11 GI Bill program.

The bill will require an annual report to relevant Senate and House Committees with disaggregated information on which schools and programs veteran and military students are putting their educational benefits toward.

Today's veterans have been referred to as ``the next Greatest Generation.'' They answered the call to serve our Nation.

They have put it all on the line and invested heavily and personally in the future of our country. Let us do everything we can to capitalize on their experience and character and prepare them for the challenges they and our Nation will face in the future.

The SERVE Act will ensure that the educational benefits our veterans and military members earned are being spent on quality education.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues, the Senators from Minnesota and Hawaii, for joining me on the floor. This is a matter I feel very strongly about, and I do wish to offer a few words to basically just raise the question of whether there is a double standard for appointment of women to this particular court, the DC Circuit.

Before I tackle that question, I will say one thing knowing that I am speaking to a law professor. I am concerned more broadly about what I consider sort of a pattern of nullification. If there is a law we don't like and we can't get it overturned, there seems to be efforts to defund it or even shut down government--or, in this case, what I would call the decapitation strategy: If you don't like the National Labor Relations Board, just don't appoint people to run the business or the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or, in this case, the DC Circuit.

The DC Circuit has an allotted number of judicial positions. This isn't something the President chooses. Congress sets it on the advice of the judicial conference. The judicial conference has not suggested the number should be shrunk. There are 11 judges and 3 are currently vacant. The strategy of blocking appointments is sort of a nullification of law, which I think is troubling. But let me get to the question of what I consider to be a double standard that is blocking some wonderful candidates from going onto this court.

My legal practice for 17 years was in the civil rights area. In the civil rights area, there is a legal notion called the pretext. When something bad happens--you don't get an apartment, you don't get a job, you don't get your bank loan or your homeowners insurance policy--and if a reason is asserted for that, but the reason just falls apart, it is completely illogical, it is not borne by the facts, that is called a pretext. I worry in this instance there are a couple of pretexts going on because the instances that have been cited by my colleagues--the filibustering of Caitlin Halligan, the filibustering of Patty Millett, and now the filibustering of Nina Pillard--rely on two pretexts. Why are these candidates--Caitlin Halligan, who practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court, was the Solicitor General for the State of New York and did such a good job, why block her? Why block Patty Millett, who worked in the Solicitor General's Office under both administrations, supported by Solicitor Generals of both administrations? Why block Nina Pillard? Nina Pillard was the appellate attorney before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue for the need to admit women students to the Virginia Military Institute in my State, which they have done and it is working very well. One of Nina Pillard's supporters was the superintendent of VMI who was being sued. The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to even one among us. Josiah Bunting has come forward and said Nina Pillard would be a great circuit justice.

So what is the reason being asserted to block these three women? The reason asserted is there is not enough of a workload on this court. I think it is clear the asserted lack of workload is a pretext. It is nonexistent. It is a phantom argument which gets brought up whenever we want to but then abandoned whenever we want to. My evidence for that is pretty clear.

There are two circuit courts--the Eighth and the Tenth Circuit--which have lower caseloads per judge than the DC Circuit, but we have been approving nominees for that circuit this year without raising any question about workload. So we will put folks on the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, even though they have a lower workload and no one complains and the other side doesn't raise that. I asked Members: Why are you raising that here when you weren't raising it on other courts, and they said it is because the DC Circuit is the second highest court in the land. It is a more important court. The phrase used by someone to me: It has more juice. Members on the DC Circuit might be on the Supreme Court. So workload isn't the issue on the other courts. It is just an issue of this court apparently because the court is so important.

Let's now drill down on what has happened just this year. The Presiding Officer and I are freshmen. We came in on January 3, 2013. We came in with the pending nomination of Caitlin Halligan for the court-- supremely qualified, bipartisan support in the legal profession for her. She was filibustered, and one of the principle asserted reasons was there is not enough workload on the court. So she couldn't even get an up-or-down vote.

Within 2 months we had another nominee--a superbly qualified nominee whom I introduced before the Judiciary Committee, Sri Srinivasan, and we approved him in the Senate 97 to 0. He is a male. No one raised one question or mentioned the workload on the DC Circuit Court. We had just turned down Caitlin Halligan--because you don't get an up-or-down vote because there is not enough workload--but within 2 months, a 97-to-0 vote we confirmed. I want to make clear, Judge Srinivasan is very qualified to be on this court. But the workload rationale just disappeared.

But it didn't go away because as soon as Patty Millett is nominated-- as was indicated, not only a superb appellate attorney who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than all but a handful of women in the history of this country, who has argued cases before the DC Circuit, where we hope she will sit, and other circuits as well. As soon as Patty Millet was nominated, the workload issue pops back up: The court doesn't have enough workload. Now Nina Pillard is being told she is going to be blocked also because the court doesn't have enough workload.

I assert that this workload issue is a complete pretext. It is not raised about other courts and it is not raised about other nominees. Even this year it hasn't been raised. But it has been raised with respect to three superbly qualified women: Caitlin Halligan, Patty Millett, and Nina Pillard. I have only been here 11 months. I don't know all the previous history. But as I watch, women candidates are being treated differently on this court. This second highest court in the land, this court which has juice from which people may go to the Supreme Court, the women candidates are being treated differently. They are being blocked by concerns about workload which are not being applied in an evenhanded way.

The last thing I will say is another bit of evidence which I think is fair to put on the table in this question of whether there is a double standard for women. During the Presidency of President Obama, there has also been the nomination of two women to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. These were debates we followed. These two women--Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, enormously qualified, with bipartisan support from bar associations and others. Justice Sotomayor, when her vote was finally held here, more than 75 percent of the Senators in the minority party voted against her confirmation on the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan, when she was up for nomination, 88 percent of the members of the minority party voted against her confirmation to be on the Supreme Court.

We could look at courts that aren't the two highest in the land and see there have been more appointments of women judges--and that is a good thing and I hope there are more still. But when you get to the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court, it seems there is a double standard. It seems this phantom workload issue gets raised when it suits one side and then immediately dropped a couple months later, only to be raised again to block women candidates. I think that is a very serious concern.

Congress set the law that there are 11 judges on this court. The President is trying to comply with the mandate of Congress in putting well-qualified women before this body. We should debate their qualifications. If folks have concerns about those, let's have that debate. But we shouldn't block them from being considered and assert reasons that don't stand the light of day.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak in the midst of our budget conference about a topic that has consumed a lot of time here in this Chamber in the last number of months; that is, the effect of sequestration on the national economy and in particular the effect that sequestration is having on defense.

This was the subject of my first speech, my maiden speech as a Senator on the 27th of February, talking about the particular effect of defense sequestration, cuts on Virginia and the Nation as a whole. I return to it today not just to be repetitive but because we now finally are at the table in a budget conference, and, as the Presiding Officer knows, I think this conference gives us an excellent opportunity to find a better path forward for the Nation.

Sequestration, which went into effect in early March, has caused major damage to our economy and the capacities of our Defense Department. Our Defense Department is the most capable fighting force the world has ever seen. It is vital to our security, and Virginians and citizens of Wisconsin and every other State understand that.

Sequester was designed to be so painful that it would force Democrats and Republicans to find an alternative. We know that did not happen, so the pain that was never intended to come into effect has been in effect. We have seen the impact it has had on our economy since early March.

Fortunately, while we did not compromise in order to avert sequester, there is still time to compromise. Now when we are doing the hard work of a budget conference for the first time in 5 years, when we are doing the hard work of a budget conference in a divided Congress for the first time since 1986, it is now time to address these damaging cuts.

Let me talk for a second about the effect these cuts have first on Virginia but then on our national defense and preparedness. Our Nation's Defense Department has been strung along prior to sequestration for a number of years, 3 years, with continuing resolutions. That is jargon that we understand here. For regular folks, it is as if you are into the next year in your household and you are told: We cannot make a decision so we will spend this year exactly what we spent last year.

Well, wait a minute. We had a child in college last year who is not in college. Well, still you have got to put money into tuition.

Well, what about a new need we have this year that we did not have last year? Well, you cannot do it. You are limited to only what you did last year.

That is what continuing resolutions for 3 years in a row have done to Defense, with the exception of some anomalies that are passed. It is required for Defense to spend on the same line items and not, for example, invest more in important priorities. The one I always think of is cyber security. If you do continuing resolutions and you just spend what you spent a few years ago, we know we have a bigger need for cyber security than we had a few years ago. There are attacks every day. No one thinks the need to be diligent about cyber security is constant. No, we ought to be spending more. Instead, the continuing resolution requires our Defense and other departments to spend at yesterday's line items--or 3-year-ago line items. That does not make much sense.

In hearing after hearing in our Budget Committee, in the Armed Services Committee and others, our Nation's uniformed and civilian military leaders have emphasized the damage sequestration is having on our military. In every meeting with generals, admirals, Pentagon officials, I am struck by their calls to us as Democrats and Republicans, as Senate and House Members, to end this foolish policy. The next hearing we will have tomorrow is in the Armed Services Committee, when we will be hearing again about the effect sequestration is having on military readiness.

In Virginia, to pick one State, my home State has been hit very hard, in fact harder than any other State due to the large Federal workforce and many military bases. When you add to the sequestration and CR the effect of the shutdown we saw in September and October--the first 2 weeks of October--Virginians really feel it.

Today, a total of 177,982 Virginians are employed because of Federal funding either directly with DOD or one of the service branches or through military contracts. For example, the talented men and women at the Newport News shipyard are private contractors, but they manufacture the largest items that are manufactured on planet Earth, nuclear aircraft carriers. They do it to keep American men and women safe. This summer over 70,000 DOD civilians in Virginia were furloughed. Construction training and maintenance on military bases was delayed, which affected private contractors. If sequester continues, as some are saying--some are fatalistic about it: Well, we cannot do anything about it--if sequester continues into 2014, 34 planned ship maintenance availabilities will be canceled in the new year. Each of these maintenance projects is massive and employs so many people. As many as 19 of these are on the east coast--34 is the national figure, 19 of these are on the east coast, including Virginia. This will hurt the ship repair industry in Hampton Roads, and could lead to a loss of about 8,000 jobs nationally in the ship repair industry.

Not only have these cuts flowing from sequestration affected my State's economy, but probably more to the point for all of us in this body, we ought to be concerned because they are affecting our national security and they are degrading the capability of our military to deal with challenges.

I wish I could say that since I was sworn in as a Senator with the Presiding Officer on January 3 the world has become a lot safer and more peaceful and less complicated. But to the contrary. In the 10 months we have been here, sadly, we have seen more instances of danger, more things to be concerned about, more problems we have to deal with. We are not in a static situation. We are shrinking our budget at the same time as the degree of challenges we have around the world is growing more dangerous.

Just this year, the sequestration cuts that went into effect in March have grounded one-third of our U.S. combat aircraft. Think about our Air Force and how important it is in today's defense and planning for warfare. One-third of our combat aircraft are grounded because of sequestration, hampering our ability to respond to global crises and maintain strategic advantages. If sequester goes forward, that one- third will grow. The Air Force will be forced to cut additionally, by as much as 15 percent. That would suggest that nearly 50 percent of America's combat aircraft will be grounded in 2014 due to the sequester. We have to ask ourselves: How can we not have an Air Force ready to respond to crises at a moment's notice?

Moving to the Navy. Our naval capabilities have also been significantly curtailed, reducing our normal levels of three carrier groups and three amphibious groups ready to respond to crisis within 1 week to only one of each. So, again, a two-thirds reduction in the availability of carrier forces or amphibious vehicle forces that can meet that 1-week response time in the event of an emergency.

Again, we have got to have a Navy that is ready to respond when there are crises.

Then moving to the Army. This year, because of the first year of the sequester--and it gets worse--the Army cancelled all--all--combat training center rotations for any nondeploying unit. So if a unit is being deployed, they are

being trained, but then other units that do not have a regular assigned deployment stay trained as well to meet an emergency need. If we know we are going to be deploying a unit to Afghanistan to replace another unit that is coming back, then we will train that unit. But you do some training for the units you are not planning to deploy, just so they are ready if the need exists. But we have cancelled all of the training for nondeploying units. General Odierno has said that 85 percent of America's brigade combat teams cannot meet the current training requirements that are set in our defense strategy.

We have asked what that means. When folks come before us, we ask what does it mean, you are not getting the training? Does it mean you will not go if there is a compelling security need or national emergency?

They say: No, of course we will go. If the Commander in Chief or Congress were to say we have to go, we will go. But what training means is we will go, but we will suffer more casualties. What training does is give us the edge to succeed. The absence of training means--it is almost immoral to think about it--that we have a training standard, but if you put people in harm's way who have not been able to meet that training standard, you almost guarantee that the casualties will be more significant. That is not something any of us can comfortably look in the mirror and tolerate.

So it is not hard to see that what was promised about sequester is, in fact, true. Sequestration is not strategic. It was never designed to be strategic. It was not designed to be the careful cutting of costs that you might do, that you should do, that every organization should do. It is not only not strategic, it is not sustainable in the outyears.

The House Armed Services Committee--Republican House, Republican majority--many Republicans have admitted ``that sequestration of discretionary accounts was never intended to be policy.'' Our colleagues in the House, in a bipartisan way, have called for a lifting of sequestration, in terms of its effects on defense.

Our Armed Services Committee in the Senate, the SASC, also in the NDAA that we are about to debate on the Senate floor, reached the same conclusion. We were sitting in a markup of the NDAA bill. I noticed at the time as a SASC member there was nothing in the bill about sequestration. All of our hearings, virtually, had touched on sequestration. So I put an amendment on the table, kind of on the fly: Let's just say sequestration is bad and we should get rid of it. We debated it right there as we were marking up the bill. I recall that the vote on the amendment was 23 to 3.

Overwhelmingly in a voice vote, the Armed Services Committee, Democrats and Republicans, were willing to embrace the proposition that sequestration was bad. Actually the language was, not only is it bad for the DOD accounts, it is also bad for the other accounts as well.

That is why I am calling, in connection with our meeting as budget conferees, for a sensible bipartisan approach to limit the negative impacts of sequestration.

General Dempsey was talking to a group of Senators yesterday on the readiness subcommittee. He said: What we need to deal with in sequestration is money, time, and flexibility. The cuts are too steep; they are too frontloaded in terms of the timing; and there is too little flexibility for our military command to be able to use the dollars to do the right thing to keep us safe.

We have to find a way to get out of the sequestration dead end and restore some of the cuts and provide both the timing and flexibility to make the management of them easier. If we reverse sequestration in this budget conference, that will create, by economists' estimates, 900,000 jobs at a time when our economy needs to get stronger and our unemployment rates to be dropped. It will add a whole percentage point to our gross domestic product, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So now as the budget conference committee is meeting--our next meeting is next week--I felt our opening meeting was a positive one. It was mostly positive because as we went around the table, House Members and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, there was an absence of what I would call the ``nonnegotiable'' language. I listened carefully. Being new, I do not necessarily know all of the details. But I know when I hear lines in the sand being drawn: We will not do this; we will not do that. When you hear that, you know the negotiations are going to be very difficult.

I applaud the 29 conferees for having that opening meeting and not putting a lot of ``not negotiable'' language out on the table. When we meet next week, I hope that attitude continues because we need colleagues from both sides of the aisle, in both the House and Senate, to work toward a positive solution in this conference that will do a number of things: Help us grow the economy; help us deal with the debt in a responsible way, not an irresponsible way, but lift the effects of sequestration so that we can be confident we will be safe as a nation.

I pointed out during the budget conference that while the House budget under the leadership of Chairman Ryan and the Senate budget under the leadership of Chairwoman Murray are different in a lot of ways, in other ways you can step back from them and say: The differences are not so mammoth that they cannot be resolved. They are the kinds of differences that legislative bodies around the country, State legislators often resolve. The top line difference between the House and Senate budgets for the 2014 year is about 2.5 percent of the Federal budget. You could argue that both of the top line numbers had a little bit of wiggle room in them in negotiation. So the actual difference, I would argue, between the two budgets, top line for 2014, is probably about 1.5 percent.

Given the challenges in the world, given the challenges in our economy, given the American public's desire to see us work together to find a compromise, and the upside we can achieve, if we do, I cannot believe that 1.5-percent difference in the top line is an insuperable obstacle for us. We have hard decisions to make. We need to make them with the interests of our own constituents but the entire country in mind, in particular, in this world where every day we hear of a new potential challenge that can threaten our security if we do not deal with it in a smart way.

We need to get past the continuing resolutions and the gimmickry and the shutdowns and sequestration, return to orderly budgeting, and do the hard work of finding compromise.

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

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 November 6, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``America COMPETES: Science and the U.S. Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 6, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Insurance Exchanges: An Update from the Administration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 6, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 6, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 6, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons & Cost-Effective Strategies for Reducing Recidivism.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 6, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 6, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418, of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate, on November 6, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``One Year Later: Examining the Ongoing Recovery from Hurricane Sandy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 6, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Transportation: A Challenge to Independence for Seniors.''

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

Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Pattie Millett, of Alexandria, VA, to the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Ms. Millett is extremely well qualified for this position, in terms of her legal expertise, experience, character, and integrity. The Senate should invoke cloture on and confirm her nomination.

As one of the Nation's leading appellate lawyers, Ms. Millett possesses remarkable legal expertise in this area. She has litigated appellate cases extensively, including 32 arguments and many briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, and 35 arguments spanning 12 of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal (including the DC Circuit). Her cases have spanned the spectrum of legal issues that the DC Circuit confronts, including constitutional law, administrative law, civil and criminal procedure, commercial disputes, national security, and civil rights. Ms. Millett also has many years of experience in the public sector, having worked in the Office of the Solicitor General for over 11 years, and in the Appellate Section, Civil Division of the Department of Justice for 4 years. It's important to note that her service to the United States was bipartisan, spanning both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Ms. Millett graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, in 1988 and she clerked for the Honorable Thomas Tang of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for 2 years.

I believe Ms. Millett possesses the character and integrity necessary for a nomination of this caliber. She is an active member of Aldersgate United Methodist Church, where she teaches Sunday school and visits the hospitalized and home-bound. For many years she has also participated in the Hypothermia Homeless Shelter, which operates during the winter months on the Route 1 corridor in Alexandria, preparing meals.

As a military spouse, Ms. Millett and her family have also sacrificed for our Nation. Ms. Millett's husband was deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so she brings a unique understanding of veterans' issues and the stress of deployment on soldiers and their families.

I know there have been issues raised regarding the caseload for the DC Circuit. These issues do not concern me. With respect to the size of the DC Circuit, Congress removed a seat under the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. Today, three of the DC Circuit's eleven existing seats are vacant. And three other circuits currently have lower caseloads per active judge than the DC Circuit. Yet, just this year, the Senate confirmed nominees to two of these other circuit courts--the Eighth and Tenth Circuit.

As Governor of Virginia, I chose two members of the Supreme Court of Virginia and have thought deeply about qualities that make for a strong appellate judge. I believe Ms. Millett is superbly qualified for a position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope the Senate invokes cloture on her nomination today, and that she is confirmed for a position on the DC Circuit.

Madam President, as chairman of the Near East and South and Central Asia subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today I cosponsored S. 653, a bill that authorizes the President to appoint a Special Envoy within the Department of State to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia.

Unfortunately, there is a wide range of persecuted minorities who too often are victims of discrimination, marginalization, and violence in the region. Coptic Christians in Egypt, Baha'i in Iran, Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, and Christians in Syria are examples of communities and faiths that suffer intolerance.

I believe that all peoples deserve equal treatment, regardless of faith, and I hope the appointment of a Special Envoy within the State Department will help protect those universal rights.

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

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words to applaud the Senate bipartisan leadership for the ongoing negotiation to do what the American public wants us to do, to reopen our government, affirm the fiscal soundness of the United States, and finally begin a true dialog of a budget conference to find a path forward for 2014.

This is what America wants us to do. They want us to work together in the Senate--Democrats and Republicans. They want the Senate and the House to work together. They want us to stop the foolish shutdown that has needlessly hurt individuals, our communities, our economy, and our prestige. Now is the time to do that and then begin the repair work that is ahead.

The deal that has been worked on by Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, and others is a bipartisan deal. As the Presiding Officer knows, that is necessary. The American public has provided a divided Congress--one House with a Democratic majority and one House with a Republican majority. If we are to get over this short-term hump--and indeed, if we are to get over the next hump through a budget negotiation--it is not going to be just one side dictating the terms. Those who thought they would shut down the government and dictate terms were wrong. Those who thought they could threaten default on the debt and dictate terms were wrong. When the American public has put one party in control of each House, the only way to find an agreement and come forward is for people to listen to each other and find compromise.

Again, we are not there yet. We hope we will be voting later in the day, but I think it is appropriate to say we appreciate the leadership of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell and finding--in a very challenging time--a path forward to do what is right for the country. We encourage those efforts and look forward to being on the floor later today to have a vote and send the appropriate signal, that the U.S. Government is open and the full faith and credit of this wonderful Nation stands unblemished.

If we do that today, the real work, in some ways, now begins. This whole exercise in brinkmanship could have been avoided if Congress had, in March, done what we in the Senate have been asking them to do and started a budget conference.

I have spoken about this many times on the floor--probably with a little bit of extra passion because I serve on the Budget Committee. Being on the Budget Committee has been an education for this naive freshman Senator. After working with others to pass a budget at 5 a.m. in the morning on March 23, I sort of believed that somehow government 101 would next say we would then take the Senate budget and the House budget--that indeed were very different documents--and put them immediately into a conference where we could find a compromise and move forward. That is what was contemplated by the 1974 Budget Act under which Congress operates.

What was odd is that after we did all of that work to pass the budget again and again and again, an effort to begin a budget conference was blocked. That was surprising. We would not be in a shutdown if we had done it in March. Nevertheless, we are at a place where we are going to fix the brinkmanship and then engage in the kind of dialog between the House and Senate so we can move forward.

Again, if there is to be a deal--and budget deals have proven to be elusive in this body in recent years--make no mistake. It is going to have to be a bipartisan deal. I feel very strongly about some issues, but the deal will certainly not be to my liking in all particulars. The House may feel strongly about some issues. They can't expect a deal that will be--in all particulars--to their liking. A divided government means we have to listen to each other, negotiate, find common ground, and that is what the American public has sent us to do.

In conclusion, I am proud of the Senate budget. What a budget conference will be is essentially an opportunity for each House to put their best document on the table and say: This is a budget that will be good for America. Having worked with my colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee in January, February, and March, I am proud of the budget we have passed.

I have done a lot of budgets. I did many budgets as a city councilman and a mayor in Richmond. I worked on budgets as the Governor of Virginia. We won some awards in our State for our fiscal acumen, and I think I know something about budgets.

What I know about the Senate budget and believe very strongly is this: If that Senate budget were to be put in place today, without changing one comma, without changing one apostrophe, it would be good for the Nation. The Senate budget we passed--fully aware there would be a conference, fully aware there would be negotiation and compromise-- nevertheless, the Senate budget we passed does a lot of good. It is a budget that is focused primarily on economic growth--growing

our economy, adding jobs. The best anti-deficit strategy is a growing economy. In putting our budget together, we focused on issues such as infrastructure and educational investments that would help grow the economy.

We focused on the protection of key services, recognizing we have to deal with expense items. There are key services Americans depend on, so we reject the across-the-board, slash-and-burn of the sequester and instead find targeted ways where we can find savings that would nevertheless protect key services. The budget expresses a willingness to reform--to reform the way we spend, to reform programs such as Medicare, where cost growth has been so significant, to reform Defense spending in smart ways that will keep our Nation safe, as well as, yes, to reform tax policy, the tax expenditures, which is the polite way of saying loopholes, deductions, credits, exemptions--all of those tax expenditures that turn our revenue collection system into a kind of swiss cheese. We need to do tax reforms as well. If we are going to reform on the spending side, we need to reform tax expenditures as well.

Finally, the Senate budget offers us a path forward to credibly reduce the deficit and to replace the foolish, nonstrategic, across- the-board sequester cuts that have harmed Virginia and have harmed the Nation. That is not to say there will not be cuts. But if we are going to have cuts, they should be done with a strategic sense. Any CEO, any Governor would say that cuts should be strategic rather than across the board.

So I am very proud of our Senate budget, and I look forward to having an intense dialogue between Senate and House Members where we put the two budgets on the table, where finally a conference can begin, where the American public can see the different choices the House and Senate make, and thereby be educated about the choices. I think that if we sit in a conference and we have the two budgets on the table, folks will see the many virtues of the Senate approach. But all Senators involved in those discussions--and we don't know yet who they will be--as proud as they are, as proud as I am about the Senate budget--we will have to go into this with the full knowledge that we will not find the kind of deal going forward without being willing to listen, dialogue, and compromise.

I will conclude by saying it seems as though compromise is sort of a dirty word these days. Yet we have to reflect back that our very form of government depends upon it. The three branches, the checks and balances between the branches, assume a degree of dialogue and compromise. The legislative branch itself, with two Houses--it would have been easier with one--but with two Houses, on matters such as these, the need to get bills and legislation and budgets through both Houses requires compromise.

So I am glad we are finally entering that stage of a true budget conference--an opportunity to dialogue and compromise, which we should have done last spring. We can enter into it with pride that the Senate budget is a strong document that will help the economy, but also enter into it fully realizing that this short-term deal is not going to be solved by a House or a Senate plan that just had the support of one party. It had to get solved with a bipartisan deal that originated, thankfully, in the Senate. We will have to be willing, in order to find a long-term budget solution, to bring that same spirit to the table.

With that, Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 16, 2013, at 5:30 p.m.