[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 157 (Wednesday, November 6, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7846-S7864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRUG QUALITY AND SECURITY ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate resumes
consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3204.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. That was an extremely complicated parliamentary request.
Perhaps it would be helpful to my colleagues if I gave a little bit of
explanation of what occurred.
The good news, in my judgment, is that the Senate has adopted by
voice vote an amendment proposed by Senators Portman, Ayotte, Heller,
Hatch, and McCain. I very much appreciate their willingness to work
with the cosponsors and sponsors of this legislation.
Many of the sponsors of this amendment are tied up in hearings, but I
expect them to be coming to the floor very shortly to debate this
amendment after the fact.
I wish to explain about what the Portman, Ayotte, Heller, Hatch, and
McCain amendment does. The underlying bill, ENDA, includes a pretty
broad exemption for religious organizations based on current law in
title VII. What the Portman, et al., amendment does is it ensures that
Federal, State and local government agencies will not be able to
discriminate against these exempt organizations. For example, the
amendment would ensure that exempt religious organizations cannot be
denied grants or contracts for which they would otherwise qualify from
government agencies. It also protects them from discrimination by
government agencies from participating in government-sponsored
activities.
I believe this amendment improves the bill. It ensures these
organizations--these religious-based organizations that are exempt
under ENDA--cannot be suddenly penalized for having that exemption by
being denied grants, contracts, other licenses, fees, or whatever, that
they would otherwise be entitled to just solely based on the fact they
are exempt under ENDA.
I want to commend Senator Portman, Senator Ayotte, Senator Heller,
Senator Hatch, and Senator McCain for making sure these important
protections are in place, and that if an organization has a legitimate
exemption under this bill, the Federal Government or State government
cannot discriminate against that organization that is legitimately
claiming an exemption under ENDA.
I believe this amendment improves the bill and provides a significant
protection for exempt religious organizations, and I am very pleased it
was accepted by a voice vote.
I know Senator Portman and Senator Ayotte are on their way and want
to speak on the amendment we just adopted.
Let me explain the second part of the very complicated parliamentary
action we just took. At least I will attempt to.
What we have done is to preserve Senator Toomey's right to get a vote
on his amendment. It is my understanding that vote will require 60
votes of the Senate in order to be approved, but it essentially
guarantees he is next up. He is next in line for a vote. So his
amendment will be the pending amendment.
Again, I know this was a complicated process, and I want to thank the
Chair who was presiding over the Senate, as well as the floor staff on
both sides of the aisle, Senator Reid's staff and Senator McConnell's
staff, in making sure
[[Page S7847]]
we protected everybody's rights in this debate. I think that is very
important when we are talking about a bill as significant as ENDA.
Madam President, as I said, I know some of the sponsors are on their
way. But since they have yet to reach the floor, rather than filibuster
the successful conclusion of the Portman amendment, I will suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank my
colleagues, and I will start by thanking my colleague, the senior
Senator from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, for the important work she
has been doing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I also want to
thank my colleagues for supporting an amendment that was brought
forward recently and passed by this body, the Portman-Ayotte-Heller-
Hatch-McCain amendment, to strengthen the protections within the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act for religious institutions.
I firmly believe people should be judged based upon the quality of
their work. Discrimination has no place in the workplace. In my home
State of New Hampshire, we have a long bipartisan tradition of working
to advance commonsense policies, and New Hampshire already has in place
a State law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. I
appreciate that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is legislation
that is important in terms of who we are, our values, and making sure
people are only judged based on the quality of their work in the
workplace. I also appreciate the legislation on the floor right now
includes important protections for religious institutions.
I have long been a strong supporter of the rights of conscience, of
the rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution to religious
freedom, and so these protections are very important within this bill.
I was pleased to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to
strengthen those protections by passing an amendment that will help
ensure religious organizations cannot be retaliated against for
exercising their religious freedoms.
Specifically, the Portman-Ayotte amendment affirms the critical
importance of protecting religious freedom in the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act. It ensures that government cannot penalize a
religious employer because it qualifies as exempt from
nondiscrimination requirements of the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act. The amendment protects religious institutions from adverse actions
by the government on the basis of adhering to their religious tenets.
In practical terms, the government may not use activities protected
by the religious exemption as a basis to deny a religious employer a
government grant or tax-exempt status or any other benefit that may be
conferred by the government.
I want to thank my colleagues for passing this amendment which will
strengthen the protections for religious institutions within the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and I thank the Chair for the
opportunity to speak today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I again want to commend the Senator
from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, for her excellent work on this
amendment. As I indicated earlier, I think the Portman-Ayotte
amendment, which is cosponsored by several other colleagues as well,
provides a very important protection against retaliation for those
religious organizations that are legitimately exempted under ENDA.
I also salute them for broadening the purposes section of the bill to
recognize not only the need to address a widespread pattern of
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but also they have
added a new subsection to recognize that another purpose is to help
strengthen civil society and preserve institutional pluralism by
providing reasonable accommodations for religious freedom. I think both
of those changes strengthen the bill, and I wish to commend the Senator
for her leadership on this issue.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have come to the floor to give my
views on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--better known as ENDA--
because this is essentially a bill with a long history. It means a
great deal to me personally because of the work I did in the city and
county of San Francisco a long time ago.
Actually, nearly 40 years ago, in 1978, I was in my third term as
president of the board of supervisors when an ordinance to prohibit
discrimination in both housing and employment on the basis of sexual
orientation was actually passed by the board. I think it was a vote of
10 to 1. I introduced the legislation in my first few years as
president of the board, and it was the first such legislation
introduced in a major city anywhere in the United States. It was
difficult to pass. There was a long debate. I look back on the press
and it was a 2-hour debate, but it did pass back in 1978.
It is true that I at the time had some concerns. So I have watched
the legislation implemented over the last four decades. It has
protected people's jobs and livelihoods from unfair treatment. It has
been good for people and for business. I had some concerns. Would there
be a lot of objections?
Actually, in the time I was a supervisor and in the 9 years I was
mayor, there were no objections. All of a sudden the city really came
to see what equality meant. I knew then, and I know now, this
legislation is the right thing to do, and it is not going to result in
inappropriate behavior in the workplace or any of the other hobgoblins
that the legislation's opponents raise.
In 1996, ENDA came to this floor. An up-or-down vote on this bill was
negotiated the same day the Defense of Marriage Act--or what we call
DOMA--would have such a vote. These votes happened on September 10,
1996. The defense of marriage bill passed. I was one of 14 Senators to
oppose it, 85 of my colleagues supported it, and President Clinton
signed it into law. As we all know now, what it essentially did was say
that any gay couple that was legally married could not access more than
1,100 Federal rights that were accorded to married couples. Now some 14
States have legalized gay marriage, and just recently it looks like
Illinois is on its way to doing the same.
ENDA failed by a single vote back then. That was a vote of 49 to 50.
Today things are very different, but there is still a long way to go.
In an historic decision in June, the Supreme Court struck down the core
piece of the Defense of Marriage Act. But DOMA is not yet fully
repealed, and repealing it remains necessary. So, in my view, the
Defense of Marriage Act must and will be one day repealed once and for
all. Although such legislation as ENDA has been adopted in numerous
States, there is still no Federal end to discrimination. That means
that most gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals are without
critical protections against employment discrimination. In fact, most
people, over 56 percent of the population, live in the 29 States that
have not enacted employment protections for gays and lesbians. Over 66
percent of people live in the 34 States that have not enacted such
protections for transgender individuals.
There is no question, discrimination in the workplace against these
groups remains a big problem. Let me give just a few examples. There is
the case of Mia Macy, a case in which the Justice Department found that
Ms. Macy's transgender status played an impermissible role in the
hiring process. She had, for 12 years, been a police detective in
Phoenix, AZ. She was a veteran. She applied for an open position in an
ATF ballistics lab to do ballistics imagery work that she was certified
to do. She was told she could have the position, subject to a
background check.
[[Page S7848]]
Then Macy revealed her transgender status to the government
contractor staffing these positions. Her background check was ordered
stopped by ATF soon thereafter. She received an email stating the
position was no longer available because of funding cuts, even though
there was no evidence that was the case.
It turns out that the number of positions available had hastily been
cut from two to one, and the person hired for that one position lacked
much of the experience Macy had.
Macy was, according to DOJ's decision, ``very likely better
qualified'' than the individual actually hired for that position. So
this is wrong. Ballistics matching can be the difference between a
shooter in jail and a shooter, who might kill again, walking the
streets of our neighborhoods. The person who was actually hired should
be the person who can do the best job, period, regardless of whether
the person is gay, straight, or transgender.
Another case involves a police officer from the city of St. Cloud,
MN. According to a court opinion, the officer was an ``excellent''
officer. He was consistently awarded marks as ``excellent'' or
``competent'' on his performance reports. The officer got ``letters of
recognition and commendation for his accomplishments, including his
work on the Community Crime Impact Team, his work against drunk
driving, his performance in apprehending a sexual assault suspect, and
for his work in recovering a stolen vehicle.''
Then he came out as gay. After that, according to the officer, he
almost immediately ``was subject to increased scrutiny, increased
disciplinary measures, excessively thorough documentation and
surreptitiously recorded interventions'' as well as ``multiple internal
investigations'' and removal from assignments.
The Federal court found that ``the almost immediate shift'' in the
treatment of this officer ``supports an inference of unlawful
discrimination'' under the equal protection clause of the Constitution,
which applies to State and local agencies. But if a private employer
had discriminated like this, there likely would have been no Federal
protection.
In a case out of Oregon, an individual who ran a production line for
battery separators was subjected to harassment on the job. He was
called ``Tinker-bell'' and ``a worthless queer.'' He was described
using other phrases that I simply will not say on the Senate floor
because they are graphic and beyond the pale. I think they would shock
many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This harassment
occurred on a daily basis, sometimes in the presence of a supervisor.
Then, 2 days after reporting the harassment to human resources, the
individual was fired. In this case, the Federal court found the
evidence credible enough to warrant a trial under Oregon law.
Sometimes discrimination is not as clear as it is in these cases. I
am going to quote from a 93-year-old constituent of mine who called my
office urging full support for this bill. This is what he said:
I don't usually take the time to call my Senator but this
is important to me. I've lived in San Francisco almost my
whole life, and at 93 years old I have seen a lot. Even in a
liberal State like California, as a gay man I never felt
equal to my colleagues.
This is a quote.
I used to work at a bank, and I kept working until I was
79, to earn my retirement. I was afraid to bring my husband
to company parties, and I never wanted to seem too flamboyant
to my supervisors. It seems so ridiculous when I think back
on it, but people don't understand that this kind of
discrimination is subtle.
It broke my heart when I watched the Senate fall one vote
shy of passing ENDA back in the nineties. I hope the Senator
remembers what it used to be like, and fights to pass ENDA
today.
I do remember, and I do know that this bill will help stop
discrimination in the workplace. The bill is simple. It says a person
cannot be denied employment because of who that person is: Gay,
straight or transgender. The bill provides no special privilege--no
special privilege. It creates no quota. It creates no exemption from
the codes of conduct or anything else. It does not allow inappropriate
conduct in the workplace. In fact, the bill is narrower than title VII
protections in certain respects. In my view, the bill does provide
critical employment protections, and it is long past the time that it
be signed into law.
Three years ago we recognized that a person's merit, not sexual
orientation, is what matters for service in the military. The point is
no different in this bill. If a person wants to be a ballistics expert,
a police officer, a firefighter, a bank teller, a lawyer, a factory
worker or anything else, the question should simply be, can the person
do the job.
People have families, they have spouses, and they have children. They
need to put food on the table. They have college expenses for their
children, student loans to pay, and unforeseen medical expenses. They
may have elderly parents that they care for and who need their
assistance. All of this requires a job.
Should a person be denied that basic aspect of life, should a
person's spouse or children or parents be hurt, simply because that
person is gay or straight or transgender? For me the answer is simple;
it is no.
That person should not engage in any conduct that would be unseemly
for one of a heterosexual couple. The conduct rules are also important.
If this legislation is enacted, which I hope very much will happen,
that will be the law of the land, and it will be long overdue.
I wanted to come to the floor and indicate some of the past and go
back to 35 years ago when the first employment bill that would prohibit
discrimination of this type was enacted. I am very proud to have
introduced it, and to have been a vote for it on the board of
supervisors in San Francisco.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for
their support earlier today of an amendment that I offered
strengthening the protections for religious liberty in the ENDA
legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This amendment was
cosponsored by Senators Ayotte, Heller, Hatch, and McCain. I thank
Senator Collins for the key role she played in its passage.
I firmly believe that no one should be subject to unjust
discrimination, so I support the basic premise of ENDA, which is that
people should be judged by their experience, their qualifications, and
their job performance, not by their sexual orientation. The bottom line
is people should not be able to be fired just because they are gay.
I believe the legislation currently before this body will help create
that level playing field and ensure employment opportunities for all.
But it does not mean it is a perfect bill. It should be improved and my
amendment seeks to ensure that this legislation, designed to promote
tolerance of one kind, doesn't enshrine intolerance of another kind.
Religious liberty is an important part of the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act already. The underlying bill includes a significant
exemption for religious employers. But we have to be certain that in
pursuit of enforcing nondiscrimination, those religious employers are
not subject to a different kind of discrimination that would be
government retaliation. My amendment seeks to ensure the government
cannot penalize a religious employer because it qualifies as exempt
from the nondiscrimination requirements of ENDA. It protects a church
or religious charity or religious school from adverse action by the
government on the basis of adhering to its religious tenets, in a
manner that would otherwise be unlawful under ENDA. In practical terms,
this means the government cannot use activities protected by ENDA's
religious exemption as a basis to deny religious employers government
grants, contracts, their tax-exempt status, or other benefit.
My amendment prohibits the government from punishing a religious
institution for adhering to its deeply held beliefs and thereby seeks
to keep the State from intervening in matters of faith.
It does something else important too. The underlying bill specifies
certain broad purposes related to addressing employment discrimination.
My amendment adds to this introductory section an explicit reference to
the fundamental right of religious freedom. It establishes as a basic
purpose of ENDA that workplace fairness must be balanced against and
made consistent with religious liberty. I believe the
[[Page S7849]]
principles of religious liberty and nondiscrimination go hand-in-hand.
When we think about nondiscrimination, many of us think about the great
civil rights movements of the 20th century, but as we know the fight
for tolerance goes back further than that, really to the very
foundation of our Republic.
On my mom's side, some of my ancestors were Quakers. They came to
this country as so many before them in search of religious freedom. At
first that was something hard to find in this country. When they
arrived, members of this new sect were often persecuted. Their views
and practices were judged to be unorthodox, even strange. Sometimes
they were imprisoned. Their books were burned. Some of the colonies did
not want them inside their borders.
They knew a little bit about religious freedom, and they certainly
knew something about discrimination. It was their experience and the
experience of so many other groups of different faiths that made
freedom of conscience a cornerstone of our founding documents. The
First Amendment begins, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
Religious freedom, therefore, is our first freedom and the amendment
that protects it is really our first nondiscrimination law. Any law we
pass which seeks to prevent discrimination will not succeed if it does
not at the same time protect religious liberty.
The religious liberty protections in ENDA are not perfect. My
amendment makes them better, and that is why I appreciate my colleagues
giving this amendment the support it deserves.
I am looking forward to the passage of this legislation with this
amendment and, again, I appreciate the work of the Senator from Maine
and others.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to commend the Senator from Ohio
for bringing forth this very worthwhile initiative, which the Senate
passed without dissent just about an hour or so ago. His amendment is a
very important amendment. What it simply says is that if an
organization is exempt from ENDA for religious reasons, then government
cannot turn around and somehow retaliate against this employer based on
his claiming or her claiming a legitimate religious exemption as
provided by ENDA. That means that if the business or organization is
entitled to compete for certain grants or contracts from the Federal,
State or local government, that there cannot be this subtle
discrimination against the employer for claiming the religious
exemption, legitimately conferred, upon the business under ENDA.
I think that is really important. We do not want retaliation or
discrimination or unfair treatment on either side. I commend Senator
Portman for coming forward with this amendment. I believe that it is
consistent with the bill and that it strengthens the bill.
I congratulate him for his initiative. It has been a pleasure to work
with him, Senator Ayotte, and other Members of the Senate in support of
this initiative.
ObamaCare
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I rise to talk about the impact
ObamaCare is having on the people of my State, the State of New
Hampshire. It has been over 1 month since the health care exchanges
opened, and in that short time we have already seen so many problems
with ObamaCare. Frankly, it is a mess.
The failure of healthcare.gov is a travesty that has revealed deeply
troubling incompetence in terms of implementing a Web site that people
can use and have access to and is secure and protects their private
information. Frankly, we are in a position where the Web site is merely
the canary in the coal mine. The flaws in this law are much deeper than
the Web site.
Even former supporters of ObamaCare are telling me it is not working.
I am hearing from my constituents about this, and frankly I feel very
badly for them because so much of what is happening to them is as a
result of how the law was drafted years ago.
For example, I heard from Maryanne in Lisbon, NH. She said:
We hope this would be a solution. But instead it will be
more of a financial drain.
The American people are the ones who are paying the price right now.
They are getting cancellation notices, seeing their premiums go up, and
losing their doctors.
Workers are suffering. Many of them have seen their hours cut to 29
hours because of an arbitrary mandate defining full-time workers as
those who work 30 hours a week. Others are fearful they will lose their
employer-sponsored coverage altogether. Business owners remain
reluctant to expand--worried they will trigger the looming penalties
from ObamaCare.
Most tragically, we now know that the law was sold to the American
people under false pretenses. The President said: ``If you like your
insurance plan, you will keep it.''
In fact, yesterday we checked the Web site and that claim is still on
there. I am hearing every day from New Hampshire residents who are
telling me they are seeing their health insurance policies canceled. In
fact, in the newspaper this morning there was a headline in New
Hampshire that announced that about 22,000 individuals will see
coverage canceled at the end of the year.
Granite Staters have been writing to me. I wish to share their
concerns with the entire country because I know this is not just
happening to people in New Hampshire, but these are the real people who
are being affected by ObamaCare.
Lynn in Greenland wrote:
The President was wrong. I can't keep my coverage if I like
it and I can't keep my preferred hospital and his plans are
the ones that are subpar . . . it's bringing me to tears on a
daily basis. Please help.
Edward in Marlow is self-employed. I feel so badly when I receive
letters such as this. He has a rare disease and a high-deductible plan.
He wrote:
I received a notice from Anthem last week that they will be
canceling this policy. Is this what President Obama meant
when he said no one who currently has their own policy and
likes it will lose it. . . . I am devastated that I will now
have to go out and secure another policy somewhere which
could cost me significantly more.
Jennifer in Canaan wrote:
I received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross stating that my
current health insurance plan was being discontinued because
it did not conform to the law under the Affordable Care Act.
In other words, the plan I was promised I could keep was made
illegal by Washington politicians.
Michael in Atkinson said:
Kelly, we have been told this would expand options. The
fact is we are now being told what we can and what we cannot
do and where we can go. To say that I am upset would not
begin to describe how I feel.
Richard in Alton Bay said:
I am a small business owner in New Hampshire and have been
with my health insurance provider for over 10 years. I was
recently informed that the policy I have had for all of these
years (and I like quite a bit) will be canceled due to the
provisions in Obamacare. When I contacted the company, they
said they are planning to transition me into a plan that
costs more and offers substantially less benefits and
protection than my original plan. . . . I am outraged at
this. . . .
Jamie in Littleton wrote:
Today we received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross stating
my husband's individual health care plan, which he's had for
15 years, will be changing to conform to ACA laws and will no
longer be in effect come September 1, 2014.
Louis in Sunapee wrote:
What just happened? I received a cancellation notice from
my insurance company . . . and the coverage I am eligible for
is MORE expensive? Help me!
President Obama has made the promise that ``if you like your doctor,
you will be able to keep your doctor, period.''
For those who are seeing their plans canceled, we know that is simply
not the case. There is another issue that New Hampshire is facing, and
that is a matter of choice in keeping not only the doctor you want to
keep but also going to the hospital you want to go to. In New
Hampshire, there is only one insurer who is going to participate on the
exchanges at this point, and to keep costs down, the insurer has
decided to limit its network, so 10 of our 26 acute care hospitals are
not part of the exchange and are excluded.
For example, the capital of New Hampshire is Concord. One of the
hospitals that has been excluded is Concord Hospital. I worked in
Concord for years. Concord Hospital is going to be excluded. All the
people in that area
[[Page S7850]]
who rely on that hospital and had their children and treatments there
will now be excluded if they are on the exchanges. This is a real
impact on people's lives, and I feel very badly for my constituents.
A doctor in Peterborough said he was once a supporter of ObamaCare.
He described the consequences simply. In a letter to me he said his
patients have one of three terrible options now, and that is because
the hospital in his area has been excluded from the exchange.
First, they can switch doctors and drive a considerable distance to a
hospital that Anthem does include in the exchange; two, they can
purchase insurance outside of the exchange at considerably higher rates
than they could this year; or, three, they can stick with their current
doctor, risk having no insurance and pay the government a penalty for
being uninsured.
With the hospital he is associated with excluded from the exchange,
he said, it is the ``Less Affordable Care Act'' for his patients. This
doctor gave me a troubling practical effect of what his hospital being
left out would mean for his patients.
He used this example:
Consider the pregnant woman who has delivered all of her
current children at our hospital. She is now expecting in
February. She must now either drive our twisty New England
roads, in the dead of Winter, to a hospital 55 minutes from
her home to deliver her baby, or pay considerably higher
insurance premiums to stay where she is comfortable and safe.
He is one of numerous citizens across New Hampshire who has expressed
similar concerns about local hospitals being excluded from the
exchange. I wish to share some of the other concerns that have been
written from my constituents.
Vicki in Seabrook wrote:
The list of doctors and medical facilities that will take
my insurance is limited and my Massachusetts doctors are not
on the list. . . . The one closest to me, Portsmouth
Hospital, is not on the list.
Kathleen in New Castle wrote:
The exchange choice will not allow me to use my docs,
including primary care who is affiliated with the Portsmouth
Hospital. All oncology physicians are located in Boston, not
covered.
Margaret in Strafford currently goes to Frisbie Memorial in
Rochester, which is not part of the exchange.
She explained the impact in this way:
I would no longer be able to go to Frisbie Memorial
Hospital, which is four miles away. I could no longer see the
gynecologist whom I trust. I could no longer use the surgeon
who saved my life when emergency surgery was required. I
could no longer visit the same internist. If I were to
develop heart problems, I could no longer go to Portsmouth
Regional Hospital.
Gregory in Rochester said his primary care physician is at Frisbie.
He said that means he will have to go to another hospital, he said, ``I
do not know and does not know my health condition.''
Robert in Strafford said he has gone to Frisbie for 40 years. He
wrote:
I've had multiple different insurance companies but have
always been able to keep the same doctors. Now because of
ObamaCare, Frisbie is out of the loop. This is totally unfair
to all the people who live in the area. What gives?
Teresa in Peterborough said that none of her current physicians,
including her primary care physician and her OB/GYN, are in the
exchange. She wrote:
The nearest providers in this network are 45 minutes west,
60 minutes east or 90 minutes north. This will be very costly
to me in terms of time taken off to attend appointments at
these distant offices/hospitals. And since I am self-
employed, a day off to go to the doctor is one day without
income.
A single mother also from Peterborough wrote:
If my 17-year-old son does get sick this winter, I will be
required to take a minimum of \1/2\ day off to bring my son
to Keene or Manchester to find a primary care physician who
will accept the insurance through affordable care (not that I
can even afford that route).
I am also hearing heart-wrenching stories from New Hampshire citizens
about how their premiums are going up. As you know, when this law was
being sold, it was sold as premiums going down, but that is not what I
am hearing from my constituents.
Christopher in Rindge wrote:
My insurance is going to double on January 1, 2014. Even
the options that conform to the health act are double the
amount I am paying today. It doesn't make any sense that my
insurance would go up by double when this is called
``affordable'' health care.
Rick in Pembroke wrote:
Last year, the sum total of my family's health care cost
$2,300. . . . I have been looking at health insurance for my
family. The lowest insurance will cost $566.40 per month. The
family deductible will be $11,500. Even if I spend the same
as last year on actual health care, I will have to pay an
additional $6,800. This isn't fair and it isn't
affordable. I don't know many people who can budget for an
additional $6,800 a year.
Brendan in Sanbornton said:
I am self-employed and my wife and I pay for our health
insurance through Anthem that provides coverage for us and
our 15 month old daughter. Presently, we pay about $580 per
month for a major deductible plan with a total family
deductible of $7,500. A couple of weeks ago, we received a
letter from Anthem informing us that our ``old'' policies
don't meet the requirements of the new ACA and therefore, we
were going to be canceled. When researching new options on
Anthem's Web site, we found that our deductible was now going
to be $12,000 per year at an increased cost of about $150 per
month! We feel as though the country has been misled about
being able to `keep their current coverage.'
Holly in Charleston wrote me:
I buy an individual policy to cover myself, but my policy
went up 25 percent on October 1st and one of the reasons
stated in the letter I received from Blue Cross was to cover
the implementation of ACA. As a result, I dropped down to a
less expensive plan and guess what? I got a letter telling me
I was okay until 2014 when that plan will no longer be
available because it doesn't comply with the new rules and
regs.
I heard from Patty in New Ipswich and she said that after her
insurance company told her to find a plan, she signed up for the least
expensive bronze plan available. She says:
Still not only will my premium be $75 a month higher for a
total of just under $600 per month for me, but in addition to
that, I have a $5,400 annual deductible. Also, the
prescription plan that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi mandated
also has a $5,400 deductible, so effectively that is not a
prescription plan at all. In fact, this plan is basically a
very expensive catastrophic plan and nothing more. It is not
affordable and I am disgusted.
Barbara in Merrimack and her husband don't yet qualify for Medicare.
Their existing plan is being phased out, so she checked the exchange.
She wrote:
The product that was closest to what we currently have is
Silver and is just too expensive. The cheapest coverage we
could find is in the Bronze category and will cost $1,228.32
per month and will have a deductible of $5,950/individual and
$11,900/family. That means that all basic services and
medications will be out of pocket. Medications will be
covered at 40 percent of the copay. $1,228.32 equals
$14,739.84 per year and it is more than my mortgage!. . . .
Unlike the government, I can't raise my debt ceiling.
Anita in Sutton wrote:
What was supposed to help people like my husband and I who
are self-employed--and he has a chronic illness--only hurts
us. Our premium went up $2,287.70 per month and this is now
with a $4,000 single/$8,000 family deductible . . . nothing
like a 30 percent increase for one year . . . Having to hoist
yourself up each day and go to work and try to carry on is
hard enough with this chronic illness, now we have to pick
and choose what bills we can afford to pay . . .
Jane in Troy said she tried to enroll her son in the Federal program,
and this is what she wrote to me:
The quote was $600 a month! Do you know of any 20 year old
who can afford $600 a month?
Tim in Merrimack wrote me:
Contrary to the original intent of the Affordable Care Act,
individuals who obtain insurance on their own are paying
radically escalating costs based on individual coverage for a
healthy, non-smoking 51-year old male available for January
1, 2014, on the healthcare exchange in NH, the results are as
follows: Premium--25 percent increase from $4,200 to $5,300.
Deductible--20 percent increase from $5,000 to $6,000. 82
percent increase in less than 2 years--$2,900 in June of 2012
to $5,300 in January 2014.
Then I heard from Erik in Hancock. He said he has seen a 46-percent
premium hike. He wrote to me:
What has been done to our health care system? This is the
Unaffordable Care Act.
In some cases, the cost of insurance is rising because plans must
include coverage for services that consumers don't want based on their
individual situation or don't need based on their individual situation.
For example, Jeff in Hudson says that his premiums will go up nearly 40
percent because of ObamaCare. He said:
It seems that some of the cost drivers are for coverages
which my wife and I do not need or want, but are required to
have due to the law. For instance, we must have maternity
coverage even though we do not plan
[[Page S7851]]
on having more children. (We are in our early 50s.) We
must have pediatric dental insurance, even though we have
no children under the age of 18.
Doug in Bedford wrote me:
The maternity issue is a trap for seniors.
Carol in Newport wrote:
Can anyone please explain to me why at 60 years of age I
need an insurance plan that requires maternity provisions?
Can anyone explain to me why I would be required to pay for
pediatric standalone dental when I have no children? Since
this is mandated by the government, why would I have to pay
an insurer fee, exchange fee, and reinsurance fee?
She said the most affordable plan she has seen has been $504.15 a
month--which she can't afford--and a $6,350 out-of-pocket deductible.
Carol asks:
If I cannot afford the premium, how can I afford the
deductible?
Others I have heard from are worried that their employers will drop
their coverage, finding it cheaper to pay the fine than to provide
coverage for their workers.
Benjamin in Greenville wrote:
My portion, currently about $5,000 a year will jump to
$20,000+ per year to maintain my current coverage. I make
``too much'' money to be subsidized. Tell me senator, where
do I find $15,000 a year, $1,250 a month, $288 a week in my
already tight budget?
He wrote me:
No more vacations. No more dance lessons for my kids. No
more family date night once a month. No more Christmas
presents.
Another theme I have heard in the letters I have received from my
constituents is a feeling that those in the middle are being squeezed
the most.
Donna in Newport wrote:
My employer is now canceling the company sponsored health
plan as of January 2014, which costs me $2,288 per year. In
shopping for a new plan, I am seeing the possibility of a $22
subsidy to help me with a monthly cost of $400, an increase
in my health care costs I cannot afford. I am the middle
class, a tax paying and proud American that did not ask for
this Act and now suffering because of it.
Cheryl in Acworth wrote:
Not only do I have to pay twice the premium, but it will be
post-tax--a double hit. If I was poor, I would be okay or if
I worked for a large employer I would be okay but for those
of us trying to make a good living and be responsible
productive citizens, we end up carrying this . . . This is
not the American dream at all.
Joseph in Salem wrote to me:
On September 30th I received a letter from Anthem informing
me that my new payment to keep my current plan which I have
had for over 8 years will increase $212.47 on January 1st.
That is a $2,548.80 increase for 2014. This is what ObamaCare
is doing to the middle class.
Roberta in Nashua is like many of my constituents pleading for help.
She wrote:
Please hear my plea and see what you can do to allow people
like me and my husband to keep our care and not be forced
into purchasing exchange insurance which is so costly and
will be a financial hardship for us. IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE!
In addition to canceled policies, patients losing their doctors, and
higher premiums, I have also heard about another aspect and consequence
of ObamaCare from people who are working hard, trying to make ends
meet, and those are workers who are seeing their hours cut. Under the
law, employers must provide coverage for employees who work 30 hours or
more per week. Many of these employers, not surprisingly, have decided
to reduce hours rather than comply with this new mandate. So this is
what my constituents are writing me about--these hard-working people
trying to make a living.
I heard from an EMT from the Monadnock region who wrote to me and
said:
My employer notified the 75 of us who work there that
effective January 1st, our hours will be cut due to
ObamaCare. So our incomes will drop and make it harder for us
to buy our own insurance.
An educator from the Upper Valley wrote:
Our school district and surrounding ones are cutting back
para-professional jobs to 29 hours. Many of these people were
full time. Instead they hired several part-time people to
cover the once full-time positions . . . Now they are no
longer entitled to any benefits. Many of these individuals
have worked 15 or more years with a school district as full-
timers.
I have heard from business owners as well. They have told me that the
looming mandates in the law are causing them to think about eliminating
coverage for their employees even though they don't want to do it. They
want to do what is right for their employees.
Steven in Nashua wrote me:
I am a small employer. I would be very tempted to dump my
plan for my employees, give them a few extra dollars and just
get out of the health care business.
I have also heard time and time again about how looming penalties
under ObamaCare are causing businesses to think twice about growing and
adding new workers.
I heard from Matt on the seacoast. He wrote to me and said:
On a business level, I don't know if I will expand because
I would not be able to pay the penalties or the health
insurance for my staff members.
These are just some of the stories I am receiving from New Hampshire
about hardships ObamaCare is causing for people who are working hard,
who want to make ends meet, who want to keep the health care plans they
have now. I feel terribly bad for these people. It breaks my heart.
I have worked hard. I have sponsored many efforts and voted to repeal
this law. I have called repeatedly over the last several days for a
timeout from ObamaCare. We do need a timeout because of the concerns I
just talked about in this Chamber that I am hearing from my
constituents and that I know many Members in this Chamber are hearing.
We need the President to call a timeout.
I came to the floor several times during the government shutdown and
I said it was wrong to shut down the government to try to defund
ObamaCare because of the harmful impact of a government shutdown. I
even took the step of calling on Members of my own party: Please, do
not go forward and shut the government down.
Now it is time for the President to see the impact of this law and
understand from someone who in some instances has stood up to her own
party on the government shutdown--I am asking the President of the
United States to hear from the people of this country who are being
impacted negatively by the health care law, and I say: Call a timeout,
Mr. President. It is not working. They are having difficulties with the
Web site. They are worried that their personal information will not be
protected on the Web site.
But, as I talked about today, the problems are much deeper, with
people receiving cancellation notices, with people receiving premium
hikes they cannot afford, with hours being cut for workers who want to
work and make a living in this great country.
I would ask the President to call a timeout, to bring people
together. This law was passed out of this Chamber on party lines. I
would argue the best way to address health care in this country and to
address real concerns I know people had with the status quo as well is
to bring a bipartisan group together because what we are seeing now is
not working.
My constituents have also taken the time to point out to me--in
addition to the major problems they see with ObamaCare, they have
shared a few ideas with me as well about where they think we should go
from here instead of ObamaCare. I want to share those ideas as well.
Many of them agree that competition in New Hampshire is effectively
nonexistent. Let's face it. We have one insurer on the exchange. One
suggestion I saw--and it is one I agree with--is to allow for the
purchase of insurance across State lines. Why shouldn't insurance
companies have to compete on a national basis?
I also agreed with a constituent who said we need to place our focus
where it belongs: crafting legislation that reduces health care costs
rather than trying to create an artificial health insurance
marketplace.
Another constituent wisely pointed out that there should not be a
cookie-cutter set of policies, such as the ones that result in seniors
purchasing coverage that includes maternity care. Instead, people
should be able to shop for coverage that suits their particular needs,
and we should respect that different people have different needs in
health care.
There are many other ideas that I know we could work on together.
These are just some of the ones my constituents have written to me, and
I know they have written me other great ideas as well.
Finally, an overarching theme I have heard is that Americans are
tired of
[[Page S7852]]
being victims of partisan gamesmanship, and I agree with them. We have
had too much partisan gamesmanship on so many issues in the Congress.
They are tired of the politics. They want us to work together to solve
tough problems, and I agree with them.
On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I renew my call for a
timeout on ObamaCare. Let's have both parties come to the table and
find health care solutions that work for the American people.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sequestration
Mr. KAINE. 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
[[Page S7853]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Budget
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the budget conferees are working to reach
agreement on the fiscal 2014 budget, and I compliment Senator Murray
for the great work she has done. I want to join those who have
expressed strong support for their efforts.
We all know what the consequences will be if they do not reach
agreement on a budget. We will have draconian cuts to defense
acquisitions and readiness, to social safety net programs, to
infrastructure, to public schools, and to police. Every Federal program
is going to suffer, and every American in my State and in the other 49
States, will feel the impact.
Having been in the Senate a long time, I know that anything that gets
done around here happens as a result of compromise. Nobody gets
everything he or she wants. When it comes to a budget agreement, it
means you have to have additional savings, but you also need increased
revenues. There is no other way. You have to do both.
I think back to the time when we not only had balanced budgets, but
we also had a surplus; in the last Democratic administration, for
example. We did not have these kinds of specialized tax cuts to those
in the highest bracket. Ironically, those in the highest bracket made
more money during that time because the whole economy was better.
Those who think it can be done by only cutting spending, or by only
closing corporate tax loopholes, but not by
[[Page S7854]]
doing both together, are legislators in name only. That is simply a
recipe for continued gridlock and another year of sequestration, which
would be a disaster.
It would allow everybody to go off and give rhetoric but not face
reality. They could talk about what they want, but never have to vote
on anything. The fact is that if you want to do this, you have to cast
some tough votes.
The outcome of this budget conference will determine the extent to
which the Congress will play a meaningful role in Federal spending for
the rest of this administration, and possibly well beyond.
I would advise my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I have been
here with both Republican and Democratic administrations. If the
Congress is going to actually have a voice as an independent third
branch of government in how the government is run and what we do, then
we have to start facing up and doing real budgets and real
appropriations bills; otherwise, just assume there is a top dollar
level in there and the administration will do whatever it wants to do,
Democratic or Republican. That is not what I believe I was elected to
do. As one of 100 Senators, I should have a voice in what comes out of
it.
As I said, the outcome of this budget conference will determine the
extent to which the Congress can play a meaningful role in Federal
spending not only for the rest of this administration but possibly well
beyond, but there is no better way to illustrate what is at stake than
to use concrete examples. I want to do that by comparing the impact of
the fiscal year 2014 House and Senate versions of the bill that funds
the Department of State and foreign operations. The choices are stark,
and it puts things in perspective.
The House bill provides $40 billion to fund the Department of State,
the U.S. Agency for International Development, and our contributions to
the World Bank, U.N. peacekeeping, and countless other organizations
and programs that contribute to global security.
In contrast, the Senate bill would provide $50 billion, 25 percent
more than the House bill, for these same agencies and programs. But,
lest anyone falsely accuse think the Senate of being big spenders,
actually the Senate bill responds to the current budget climate--it is
$500 million below the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution after
sequestration and across-the-board reductions, and includes many budget
reductions and savings.
Unlike the House bill, however, we are selective in how we do it. The
Senate bill does not make draconian and reckless cuts that would weaken
U.S. influence and cede U.S. leadership to our competitors.
Given the situations in Syria, North Africa, and other areas of
conflict--areas of conflict that could evolve and engulf the United
States at a moment's notice--as well as the unpredictability of natural
disasters, funding for international crisis response and humanitarian
relief is a matter of life and death for millions of the world's most
vulnerable people who look to the wealthiest, most powerful nation on
Earth.
The current demand for these programs--and certainly my mail shows
they are strongly supported by the American people--is unprecedented
and growing. Yet the House bill cuts these programs $1.6 billion below
the Senate bill, and far below the fiscal year 2013 level.
One of the most troubling cuts in the House bill is for international
organizations in which the United States plays a major role in
addressing global threats to us and our allies--such as transnational
crime, disease epidemics, and climate change--that no country can solve
alone. Some of the most feared and most deadly diseases in the world
today are not on our shores, but can be on our shores from other parts
of the world in a matter of hours.
Aside from a total humanitarian reason, we have a good reason to do
something to help combat those diseases. The House would end our
support entirely for many of these organizations, create large arrears
of money we are obligated by treaty to pay, and erode our influence
with other major contributors and shareholders like the Europeans,
China, India, and Brazil.
They are saying: OK, we agreed to pay this, but, sorry, we are the
United States and we don't have to keep our word. I don't think most
Americans want to hear that. Ask any of our international corporations,
ask any of our organizations in this country--medical facilities or
anything else that has to work around the world--if they really want
the United States to give up its influence.
The House bill provides no funding--not one single dollar--for U.S.
voluntary contributions to the United Nations Children's Fund, the
United Nations Development Program, the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, or the Montreal Protocol, which protects
the ozone layer. The Senate bill includes $355 million for this
account, which is about the same level as five years ago. I would like
more, but I don't want to go to the House level, which is nothing.
So while the House would end our participation in UNICEF and many
other U.N. agencies, the Senate bill freezes spending for these
organizations at the 2009 level.
The House bill provides $746 million, which is nearly 50 percent less
than the Senate bill, for assessed contributions--these are
contributions we are required to pay--to international organizations
such as NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health
Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation, and many others.
What we are saying is that if some disease breaks out in the world
and comes across our borders, well, gosh, that would be terrible, but
we can't give any money to the World Health Organization to try to stop
it. What if there is a question of nuclear proliferation? Sorry, we
can't give the money we are required to give to the International
Atomic Energy Agency. The Senate bill is $72 million below the fiscal
year 2009 level, and the House bill is $783 million below the fiscal
year 2009 level.
Does anybody actually believe that the needs of NATO or the
International Atomic Energy Agency or the World Health Organization are
less today than they were five years ago? All you have to do is watch
the news. All you have to do is read some of the reports, some of the
intelligence briefs every Senator can read, and you are not going to
say: Well, the threat is less today than it was five years ago. You are
going to say, as I do, as I read these reports: The threat is a great
deal worse than it was five years ago. It defies logic, and it is
dangerous. It is dangerous not to be involved in these organizations.
In fact, the House bill provides no funding not one dollar--for most
of the international financial institutions, such as the Asian
Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Inter-American
Development Bank, or the International Fund for Agricultural
Development. This would put us hundreds of millions of dollars in
arrears, forfeiting our leadership in those institutions.
So they can say to us: OK, debtor nation--OK, United States--you
agreed to these, but you are not paying your bill. We can't trust the
United States, so we are not going to let you have any say in this. We
are not going to let you have the leadership you have had in these
institutions.
In fact, the House bill provides not even one dollar for the key
multilateral environmental funds that support clean energy technology
and protect forests and water resources, including the Global
Environment Facility, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Strategic
Climate Fund. It is bad enough that here in the Senate we have frozen
these agencies at last year's level, but at least we have some money
for them. The House has nothing. They do not provide a single dollar
for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. The Senate bill
provides $135 million for this program--the same level as last year's
continuing resolution--to help the poorest countries prevent chronic
malnutrition and famine.
Mr. President, we all ask: Why can't we have countries developed so
that they are not open to some of these terrorist organizations or
fundamentalist organizations that step in? Well, we have a stake in
helping them. It doesn't require much money; a tiny fraction--1 percent
of our budget. To just walk away from them makes no sense from our
strategic interest, but more than that, what does it say about
[[Page S7855]]
our moral interest as the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth? We
have to speak to what is the moral value of the United States.
Frankly, what they have done in the other body does not speak well to
our moral core--not the moral core of the America I know in my State
from both Republicans and Democrats alike. We all understand the need
for Federal departments and agencies to reduce costs and eliminate
waste and find efficiencies. We do this. The Senate bill is $500
million below the fiscal 2013 continuing resolution. But what we try to
do is to say that at least the United States has to keep its word. At
least the United States ought to show involvement in parts of the world
where it counts.
Unfortunately, the House bill may make great sound bites, nice
bumper-sticker politics, but it endangers the United States, endangers
our security, and it gives the image that the United States is a
country that cannot keep its word. We can't do that. It will end up
costing taxpayers more in the long run and cause lasting damage to the
country.
Let's move forward, get our budget resolution, and pass our
appropriations bills, because right now everybody gets to vote maybe.
Nobody has to vote yes or no. I have been here long enough to know that
the people of my State expect me to vote yes or no, not maybe.
Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering a motion to proceed
to H.R. 3204.
Has the time been divided in any fashion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Manufacturing Jobs
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about jobs--
about manufacturing jobs. As we all know, manufacturing jobs are high-
quality jobs. Manufacturing jobs come with higher pay and higher
benefits. Manufacturing jobs help create other local service sector
jobs, and manufacturing jobs contribute more to the local economy than
jobs in any other sector. Beyond that, manufacturers invest the most of
any industry sector in research and development, which is critical to
America's continued growth and our security as a leading innovation
economy.
Last week 21 Senate colleagues and I joined in a new initiative
called the Manufacturing Jobs for America to help create good
manufacturing jobs here at home today and tomorrow. It has grown out of
25 Senators who have all contributed different policy ideas. This is
not one big megabill with dozens of sponsors, but just one bill.
Instead, it is a constellation of 40 different proposals. Some of them
have already been introduced as bills, and half of those that have been
introduced are bipartisan. These bills illustrate some of our best
ideas about how we can work together across the aisle to provide badly
needed support for our growing manufacturing sector here in the United
States.
There are 4 different areas these 40 different proposals fall into,
and I wanted to talk about 1 of them today. Three of them are: How do
we open markets abroad? How do we strengthen America's 21st century
manufacturing workforce? How do we create a long-term environment for
growth through a manufacturing strategy? The fourth is: How do we
ensure access to capital?
Of the four I just mentioned, I want to speak about access to
capital. As any business owner knows, you cannot ensure the long-term
growth and vitality of your business unless you have capital to
invest--whether in research and development, new workers, new products,
or new equipment to expand into new markets. Access to capital is
absolutely essential to manufacturing jobs for America.
The three bills I am going to talk about today, which are part of
this constellation of 40 different proposals, would each expand access
to capital for manufacturers in different ways.
Let me start with the Startup Innovation Credit Act. This is an
existing bipartisan bill I have introduced, along with Senators Enzi,
Rubio, Blunt, and Moran, who are all Republicans, and Senators Schumer,
Stabenow, and Kaine, all, like me, Democrats. Although we represent
different parties, come from different parts of the country, and have
different backgrounds, we have all come together to strengthen our
economy and in particular to support innovation and entrepreneurship.
One way we do that now is to support private sector innovation and
manufacturing through the research and development tax credit. The R&D
tax credit generates new products and industries, benefiting other
sectors. But there is a critical gap in the existing and longstanding
R&D tax credit. It is not available to startups because they are not
yet profitable. This is a tax credit you can only take if you have a
tax liability and are profitable.
We worked together--Senator Enzi and I, and the other cosponsors--to
fix this hole with a relatively simple tweak, and that is what the
Startup Innovation Credit Act does. It allows companies to claim the
R&D tax credit against their employment tax liability rather than in
income tax liability--a corporate income tax liability. Supporting
small innovative companies in their critical early stages of research
and development could unleash further innovations and unleash greater
growth that would spur good job creation for Americans in the long run.
Between 1980 and 2005, all net new jobs created in the United States
were created by firms 5 years old or less. In total, that was about 40
million jobs over those 25 years. This credit is specifically designed
with those new young firms in mind--those early-stage firms that are
the font of the greatest source of creativity and jobs. It is limited
to those companies that are 5 years old or less, and it is limited to
being an offset against their W-2 liability so we can provide some
access for early-stage startups to this R&D credit that encourages them
to hire more folks and grow more quickly--just a part of Manufacturing
Jobs for America.
The second bill I would like to talk about today is the Master
Limited Partnership Parity Act. It levels the playing field as far as
getting access credit. Instead of giving smaller, early-stage startup
companies the same access to capital that larger, more mature firms
have, this bill levels the playing field in the energy sector. It
levels the playing field, in particular, for clean energy firms.
This is bipartisan as well. I introduced it with Democratic Senator
Debbie Stabenow as my lead cosponsor and Republican Senators Jim Moran
and Lisa Murkowski. I am grateful for their persistent and engaged
leadership on this bill. I am thrilled that in the last couple of days
Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Senator Susan Collins
signed on as cosponsors as well.
The MLP Parity Act allows us to have an ``all of the above'' energy
strategy. As I presided in my first 2 years--as I served on the Energy
Committee--there are many Senators, Republican and Democrat, who think
we should not pick winners and losers in technology and we should be
promoting an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. This bill makes that
possible in clean energy financing and in preserving a widely used tool
for existing traditional energy financing. Oil and gas will play a
significant role in our Nation's energy picture for the foreseeable
future, but right now we don't have a level playing field between
renewables and between oil and gas and pipelines.
For nearly 30 years, traditional nonrenewable sources of energy have
had access to master limited partnerships. MLPs give natural gas, oil,
and coal companies access to private capital at a lower cost. That is
something that capital-intensive projects, such as pipelines, badly
need. I would argue that alternative energy products need that as well;
in fact, in some ways more than ever.
Last night I spoke to a group of board members at the National
Academies of Science, and what we spoke about was how much technology
has
[[Page S7856]]
developed and sped up in the clean energy space, but how financial
innovation has not kept pace. This has held back renewable energy and
investments in energy efficiency even as technology has made energy
production and distribution and energy efficiency cheaper to achieve.
Expanding access through this broad bipartisan bill to low-cost,
long-term capital would be an important step to letting new energy
sources take off and letting them compete on a level playing field with
all sources of energy. That is exactly what the MLP Parity Act intends
to do.
Last but not least, I was proud to be able to join a number of other
Senators in cosponsoring the Small Brew Act. Senators Cardin and
Begich, Senators Collins and Murkowski, Democrats and Republicans, have
worked together to give small brewers a leg up by lowering the excise
tax they face on the beer they produce.
Small Brewers, such as Dogfish Head in my home State of Delaware, are
big job creators in communities across the country. As Senator Cardin
said on the floor earlier this year, ``While some people may think this
is a bill about beer, it is really about jobs.'' And I would say jobs
in manufacturing.
Small and independent brewers today employ more than 100,000
Americans and pay more than $3 billion in wages and benefits. Sam
Calagione, the owner of Dogfish Head Brewery in my home State of
Delaware, now employs 180 workers at their facility in Milton. Of
course, what they are manufacturing is not a new or innovative or
recently invented product. People have been brewing beer for thousands
of years. Sam has done a remarkable job of coming up with a very broad
range of different brews, and, in fact, of bringing back brews that are
centuries or millennia old by recovering recipes for fantastic and
tasty beers.
What I am focusing on today is about the expanse. This particular
company has invested $50 million in a state-of-the-art manufacturing
facility. When I recently visited, I was struck at how different it is
from the beer bottling plant of the past, from what some may have seen
on ``Laverne and Shirley'' or what they would imagine a traditional
manufacturing plant to look like.
Those folks who work on the manufacturing line at this particular
facility have to be able to use programmable logic controls. They have
to be able to do quality control and math, and to communicate as a
team. They have to communicate in a way that puts them at the cutting
edge of advanced manufacturing. This highlights some of the biggest
challenges in manufacturing. It takes a lot of money to invest in a
plant and machinery in order to make them capable of competing as a
modern-day plant. It takes access to capital.
We also need to change the public's perception of what manufacturing
is. It is a very different place to work--a manufacturing line--than it
was 20 or 50 years ago. They are safe, clean, and well lit. These are
decent, high-paying jobs. If we are going to win in the global
competition for manufacturing, we need to strengthen the skills and the
perceptions of manufacturing across our country.
Each of the three bills I have spoken about today will help create
good manufacturing jobs here in America, and I believe are ready for
consideration on a bipartisan basis by this Chamber. We need to take
action together on a bipartisan basis to get our economy going again.
I will remind everyone: Manufacturing jobs are not just decent jobs,
not just good jobs, they are great jobs. They are the jobs of today and
tomorrow. They are the jobs that sustain and build the backbone of the
American middle class.
We already have all the tools in this country to ensure its growth,
but if we work together and put in place stronger and better Federal
policies in partnership with the private sector, we can put jets on our
manufacturing sector, and it can take off and grow again.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, every so often in between the crises and rancor and
partisan fighting, we have an opportunity to make real progress in the
Senate. This week we are considering the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act. It is a bill that will put in place basic workplace protections
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.
It has been a big year for equality nationally and in my home State
of Delaware. The Delaware General Assembly legalized same-sex marriage
in May, giving every Delawarean access to the full rights and
responsibilities of marriage, no matter the orientation.
A month later, Delaware's General Assembly built on its 3-year-old
law by protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination, adding
protections for transgender Delawareans as well. These two laws are
about dignity, respect, and basic fairness for our neighbors.
Of course, a month later, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the
Defense of Marriage Act, giving all married couples across our country
access to the Federal benefits they are due. This has truly been a
historic year for civil rights and for our country.
For all of our progress, much remains to be done. In 29 States it is
still legal to fire someone just because they are gay, just because
they are lesbian, or just because they are bisexual. That means that
more than 4 million Americans across those States go to work day in and
day out with no protection against being fired summarily because of who
they love. In 33 States, which include 5 million people, it is legal to
fire someone because of their gender identity.
I thank my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, for his hard work and
leading this fight here on the floor, and the Senator from Iowa for his
long advocacy for this bill that should have passed years and years
ago.
More than 40 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans, and
almost 80 percent of transgender Americans, say they have been
mistreated in the workplace because of who they are or because of who
they love. Clearly there is still work for us to do.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would provide basic protections
against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. It is a bill that is built on our Nation's historic civil
rights laws, including the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With
Disabilities Act. This is about basic fairness.
The overwhelming majority of Americans--in fact, more than 80
percent--think it is already against the law to fire someone just
because they are gay. Most Fortune 500 companies already have policies
preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
identity in place.
Some of Delaware's biggest employers and companies, including DuPont,
Dow, Bank of America, TD Bank, Christiana Care, and the University of
Delaware have led the way with their own policies to protect the rights
of LGBT Delawareans and their employees.
There is real momentum behind these protections, and it is time for
Congress to pass this law. Protecting Americans from discrimination is
part of America's shared values, and it needs to be part of our laws as
well.
No one here thinks it is OK to fire someone simply because they are
African American or because they are a woman or because they are an
older American. It is not OK to fire someone because they are gay or
transgender either. Equality is a fundamental part of our shared
American values: Do unto others; treat people with the respect and
dignity with which you want them to treat you. Majorities in every
State support putting these protections in place. Majorities of
Democrats and of Republicans and of Independents support putting these
protections in place. Majorities in every Christian denomination
support putting these protections in place. The majority of small
business owners surveyed support putting these protections in place.
Freedom from discrimination is a fundamental American value that we
don't just share, we cherish. Why not put these protections in place
now, today, to ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
Americans will be able to go to work, to earn a living, to provide for
themselves and their families, without the fear of being fired just
because of who they are.
The opportunity in front of every one of us is an important one.
Leadership on civil rights in this Chamber has traditionally been
bipartisan, and this period of partisanship on civil rights is only
fairly recent and need not be permanent. In fact, this bill is
cosponsored
[[Page S7857]]
by two of our Republican colleagues, Senator Collins of Maine and
Senator Kirk of Illinois. When he came to the floor to speak on ENDA
earlier this week, Senator Kirk noted the importance of a Senator from
his home State of Illinois being in a position of leadership on this
civil rights issue. This really is a historic opportunity.
When the Senate votes on final passage on the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act tomorrow, I hope we all will take advantage of this
historic opportunity.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I so much appreciate the comments of my
colleague from Delaware, first speaking to the importance of rebuilding
our manufacturing sector, of creating living-wage jobs and how
important that is to building the middle class and providing the
foundation for families to thrive, and then speaking to the core issue
we are debating today, that of ending significant discrimination
against millions of American citizens. His words were well spoken, I
say to the Senator from Delaware, and I thank him for his advocacy that
will make this Nation work better for so many of our fellow citizens.
This issue of freedom from discrimination is a core issue of freedom.
It is a core issue of liberty. It goes right to the heart of the
founding of this country. Our Founders were often chafing under the
heavy hand from the land they came from across the ocean, and they
wanted to be able to forge their own world where they would be able to
participate fully in society. So liberty and freedom became right at
the heart of our founding documents.
Our Declaration of Independence says in its second paragraph:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That concept of liberty was echoed when we went to our U.S.
Constitution. It started out saying, as Americans are well aware:
We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
We, the people, sought in that year to establish a more perfect
union, and we continue in our pursuit of a more perfect union--one with
more complete blessings of liberty.
What, indeed, is liberty? That opportunity to participate fully in
our society. This was well captured by President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
He was speaking in 1965 to Howard University students at their
commencement, and President Johnson said:
Freedom is the right to share fully and equally in American
society; to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to
go to school.
President Johnson continued:
It is the right to be treated in every part of our national
life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.
I think President Johnson captured well what freedom and liberty are
all about, as have many of our major public citizens over time as they
sought to examine this core premise of liberty and freedom and what it
meant in this Nation, what it meant to create a more perfect union in
this regard.
Eleanor Roosevelt spent a lot of time talking about human rights. She
said:
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small
places, close to home, so close and so small that they cannot
be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of
the individual person, the neighborhood he lives in, the
school or college he attends, the factory, farm or office
where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman,
and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal
dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have
meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.
Indeed, today we are very much talking about the factory, farm, and
office Eleanor Roosevelt spoke about, where, if rights do not have
meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.
It has been long recognized that the opportunity to thrive for the
individual is so fundamental to this notion of liberty and freedom, and
it is also a powerful force for the good of our Nation as a whole. This
is well captured by Theodore Roosevelt. He said:
Practical equality of opportunity for all citizens, when we
achieve it, has two great results. First, every man will have
a fair chance to make of himself all that in him lies, to
reach the highest point to which his capacities, unassisted
by special privilege of his own, unhampered by the special
privilege of others, can carry him; to get for himself and
his family substantially what he has earned.
Theodore Roosevelt continued:
Second, equality of opportunity means that the commonwealth
will get from every citizen the highest service of which he
is capable. No man who carries the burden of the special
privileges of another can give to the commonwealth that
service to which it is fairly entitled.
Theodore Roosevelt was speaking in the masculine, but he was talking
about all citizens--men and women--equality of opportunity for the
individual and for the benefit of society.
Senator Ted Kennedy summarized this concept much more succinctly. He
did so on August 5, 2009, when the bill that is before this body was
introduced in that year, the 2009 version. He said:
The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as
justice is denied to even one among us.
So, again, the success of the individual in gaining full access to
liberty and freedom, full opportunity to participate in society, builds
a stronger community, a stronger State, and a stronger Nation.
The bill we have before us today is a simple concept: That an
individual can pursue that place on the farm or in the factory or in
the office without discrimination; that the LGBT citizen has full
opportunity to fulfill their potential in the workplace.
Religious groups from across America have weighed in to say how
important and valuable that is. Here is a sign-on letter--a letter that
is signed by approximately 60 religious groups across America. It is
addressed to each of us in this Chamber.
Dear Senator: On behalf of our organizations, representing
a diverse group of faith traditions and religious beliefs, we
urge you to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As
a nation, we cannot tolerate arbitrary discrimination against
millions of Americans just because of who they are. Lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender people should be able to earn
a living, provide for their families, and contribute to our
society without fear that who they are or who they love could
cost them a job. ENDA is a measured, commonsense solution
that will ensure workers are judged on their merits, not on
their personal characteristics like sexual orientation or
gender identity. We call on you to pass this important
legislation without delay.
This letter from these roughly 60 religious organizations continues:
Many of our religious texts speak to the important and
sacred nature of work . . . and demand in the strongest
possible terms the protection of all workers as a matter of
justice. Our faith leaders and congregations grapple with the
difficulties of lost jobs every day, particularly in these
difficult economic times. It is indefensible that, while
sharing every American's concerns about the health of our
economy, LGBT workers must also fear for their job security
for reasons completely unrelated to their job performance.
Our faith traditions, the letter continues, hold different
and sometimes evolving beliefs about the nature of human
sexuality and marriage as well as gender identity and gender
expression, but we can all agree on the fundamental premise
that every human being is entitled to be treated with dignity
and respect in the workplace. In addition, any claims that
ENDA harms religious liberty are misplaced. ENDA broadly
exempts from its scope houses of worship as well as
religiously affiliated organizations. This exemption--which
covers the same religious organizations already exempted from
the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964--should ensure that religious
freedom concerns don't hinder the passage of this critical
legislation.
Then this letter concludes:
We urge Congress to swiftly pass the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Americans have an equal opportunity to earn a
living and provide for themselves and their families.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the sign-on
list associated with this letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Sincerely,
Affirmation--Gay and Lesbian Mormons, African American
Ministers in Action, American Conference of Cantors, American
Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, The Association of
Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, Bend the Arc Jewish Action
B'nai B'rith International, Brethren Mennonite Council for
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Interests Call To
Action, Central Conference of American Rabbis,
[[Page S7858]]
DignityUSA, Disciples Home Missions, The Episcopal Church,
Equally Blessed, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The
Evangelical Network, The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries,
Friends Committee on National Legislation, Global Faith &
Justice Project, Horizons Foundation.
The Global Justice Institute, Hadassah, The Women's Zionist
Organization of America, Inc., Hindu American Foundation, The
Interfaith Alliance, Integrity USA, Islamic Society of North
America, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Labor
Committee, Jewish Women International, Keshet, Methodist
Federation for Social Action, Metropolitan Community
Churches, More Light Presbyterians, Mormons for Equality
Mormons Building Bridges, Muslims for Progressive Values,
Nehirim, New Ways Ministry, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),
Progressive National Baptist Convention.
The Rabbinical Assembly, Reconcilng Works, Lutherans for
Full Participation, The Reconstructionist Rabbinical
Association, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Religious
Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Religious Institute, Sikh
American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF),
Sojourners, Soulforce, Tru'ah Union for Reform Judaism,
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries,
United Church of Christ, Office for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgender Ministries United Church of Christ, Wider
Church Ministries, United Methodist, General Board of Church
and Society, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism,
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER),
Women of Reform Judaism.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a list that Americans
will well be familiar with, including Methodist groups, Lutheran
groups, Jewish groups, and so on and so forth, from the spectrum of
Protestant religions, Christian religions, and other religions. It is
powerful and helpful that they have written to share their
perspectives, and I thank them for doing so.
Business coalitions have also weighed in. I have here a letter from
the Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness. Their letter is much
shorter. It is signed by approximately 120 companies. I will read it
for my colleagues now. It says:
The majority of United States businesses have already
started addressing workplace fairness for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender employees. But we need a federal
standard that treats all employees the same way.
The Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness is a group of
leading U.S. employers that support the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act, a federal bill that would provide the
same basic protections that are already afforded to workers
across the country.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees are not
protected under federal law from being fired, refused work or
otherwise discriminated against. ENDA would do just that.
These are companies that include American Eagle Outfitters to Morgan
Stanley, Charles Schwab to Nike, General Mills to Xerox, and Hilton
Worldwide to Apple, and so on and so forth.
Speaking of Apple, it might be interesting to hear the perspectives
of the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook. He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal, and here is what he had to say. This was published, by the
way, on November 3, just a few days ago. He said:
Long before I started work as the CEO of Apple, I became
aware of a fundamental truth: People are much more willing to
give of themselves when they feel that their selves are being
fully recognized and embraced.
At Apple, we try to make sure people understand that they
don't have to check their identity at the door. We're
committed to creating a safe and welcoming workplace for all
employees, regardless of their race, gender, nationality or
sexual orientation.
As we see it, embracing people's individuality is a matter
of basic human dignity and civil rights.
Tim Cook continues:
It also turns out to be great for the creativity that
drives our business. We've found that when people feel valued
for who they are, they have the comfort and confidence to do
the best work of their lives.
Apple's antidiscrimination policy goes beyond the legal
protections U.S. workers currently enjoy under federal law,
most notably because we prohibit discrimination against
Apple's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.
A bill now before the U.S. Senate--
Of course, this bill we are currently debating--
would update those employment laws, at long last, to protect
workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation
and gender identity.
We urge Senators to support the Employment
Nondiscrimination Act, and we challenge the House of
Representatives to bring it to the floor for a vote.
Protections that promote equality and diversity should not
be conditional on someone's sexual orientation. For too long,
too many people have had to hide that part of their identity
in the workplace.
Those who have suffered discrimination have paid the
greatest price for this lack of legal protection. But
ultimately we all pay a price.
If our coworkers cannot be themselves in the workplace,
they certainly cannot be their best selves. When that
happens, we undermine people's potential and deny ourselves
and our society the full benefits of those individuals'
talents.
So long as the law remains silent on the workplace rights
of gay and lesbian Americans, we as a nation are effectively
consenting to discrimination against them.
Congress should seize the opportunity to strike a blow
against such intolerance by approving the Employment
Nondiscrimination Act.
Again, that is a letter from Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, published in
the Wall Street Journal.
So we see this long arch in pursuit of a vision of liberty and
freedom, from our early settlers of North America, to the Declaration
of Independence, to the opening words of our U.S. Constitution, to our
leaders through a scope of time who recognized the power of liberty in
fulfilling the potential of the individual and the potential of the
Nation, to our current religious leaders and our current business
leaders. It is time we take another bold stride in this long journey
toward freedom and liberty for all Americans. In that regard, I urge
all of my colleagues to support this legislation before us. It will
make a difference in millions of lives, and it will make a difference
in the strength and character of our Nation.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I spoke at some length on this bill, the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the other day, but as we move to end
debate on the bill itself, I want to once again express the critical
nature of the bill for ensuring equality in the workplace for all
Americans.
I was just on the floor listening to Senator Merkley's very poignant
remarks, and I want everyone to know that we would not be here at this
point in time with this bill before us ready for passage tomorrow were
it not for the leadership and the persistence of Senator Merkley from
Oregon. He has been a champion of this issue since he served in the
Oregon Legislature, and when he first came here he became a champion of
this bill. He truly picked up the mantle of Senator Ted Kennedy in
picking this bill out from sort of the ashes of 1996, the last time--
the only time--we ever had a vote.
I say through the Chair to my friend from Oregon, we thank you for
your doggedness on this issue and for working across the aisle, on both
sides of the aisle, to bring it first to our committee and then getting
it through the committee and now on the floor.
Again, I want the record to show that it was Senator Merkley who
really spearheaded this effort, along with Senator Mark Kirk on the
Republican side. The two of them fought very hard to get us to this
point and to make sure we were actually debating it. So we are greatly
indebted to the distinguished Senator from Oregon for his leadership on
this issue.
We had an incredible vote the other night that demonstrated more
clearly than anything I can say that the Members of this body believe
in the message of equality and fairness that is embodied in this bill.
The commitment and good faith with which Members have negotiated and
offered amendments has been a tribute to the Senate. What we are seeing
here is how the Senate ought to work. This is sort of the Senate at its
best. We can do business here and get important work done when we share
a commitment to fairness and when we act in a spirit of compromise and
good will.
I listened to the Senator from Oregon, who so eloquently pointed out
that too many of our citizens are being judged not by what they can
contribute to a business or an organization but by who they are or whom
they choose to love. Well, the Senate is poised to take an important
step toward changing that.
Quite frankly, I say with all candor, I think the American people
have gotten way ahead of us on this one. The American people--a great
majority--believe in the right of an individual to earn a living free
from discrimination and to be judged in the workplace
[[Page S7859]]
based on their integrity, their ability, and their qualifications. This
bill ensures that the same basic employment protections against
discrimination that already protect American workers on the basis of
race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and disability also apply to
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.
It is rare to have before us a bill with such broad and deep support.
ENDA is supported by some 60 faith-based organizations, including
congregations and organizations varying from the Presbyterian Church
and the Episcopal Church to the Progressive National Baptist
Convention, the Union of Reform Judaism, the Union Synagogue of
Conservative Judaism, and the Islamic Society of North America.
A poll showed that 76 percent of American Catholics support basic
workplace protections for gay and transgender workers, and in the same
poll almost 70 percent of evangelical Christians support employment
protections for LGBT persons.
Over 100 businesses support the bill, everything from Pfizer, Levi
Strauss, to Hershey, Capital One, Alcoa, Marriott Hotels,
InterContinental Hotels, Texas Instruments, and on and on.
Seventy-four percent of Fortune 100 companies and nearly 60 percent
of Fortune 500 companies already have sexual orientation and gender
identity nondiscrimination policies in place.
In the course of our committee hearings on this bill, we heard from
executives of Nike and General Mills, who both testified that ``ENDA is
good for business.'' A Nike representative told the committee:
Teams thrive in an open and welcoming work environment,
where individuals are bringing their full selves to work.
Since the Senate last considered a version of this bill in 1996, 17
States--and I am proud to say, including my State of Iowa--have put
legislation in place that includes these basic employment protections
for LGBT citizens. Those laws have been implemented seamlessly and have
not led to any significant increase in litigation. But certainly that
is not to say what we are doing here is not necessary. The majority of
Americans--56.6 percent--still live in States where it is perfectly
legal to fire someone or refuse to hire them because of who they are--a
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender American.
Discrimination in the workplace is real. Forty-two percent of LGBT
workers report having experienced some form of discrimination at work.
Seven percent reported having lost a job as a result of their sexual
orientation. Far too many hard-working Americans continue to be judged
not by their ability and their qualifications but by their sexual
orientation or gender identity.
I talked the other day about Sam Hall, a West Virginia miner who
faced destruction of his property and verbal harassment from his
workers because of his identity as a gay person. Sam is one of those
millions of Americans who have no legal recourse without the law. I
also talked about Kylar Broadus, who faced intense harassment at work
as he transitioned from female to male and who has never recovered
financially. I talked about Allyson Robinson, who was forced to live in
a different State, apart from her family, because she could not find a
job as an openly transgender female. This law will make a real
difference for these Americans and for millions more like them.
I remember 23 years ago I stood at this podium, at this desk, as the
sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as the chair then of
the Subcommittee on Disability Policy. Senator Kennedy was the chair at
that time. I talked about the necessity for the Americans with
Disabilities Act in terms of a courthouse door.
I pointed out that as of that time, if you were an African American
or a woman or let's say you were Jewish and you went down to get a job
for which you were fully qualified and the employer said: I'm not
hiring Black people; I don't hire Black people; I don't like you; get
out of here; I don't hire Jews; get out of here, you could leave there
and go right down the street to the courthouse, and the courthouse door
was open to you because in 1964 we passed the Civil Rights Act that
covered people that way. We said: You have recourse under law for
violations of your inherent civil rights based on sex, national origin,
religion, race.
But, as of 1990, if you were a person with a disability and you went
down to the prospective employer to get a job for which you were fully
qualified and the prospective employer said: Get out of here; I don't
hire cripples; get out of here, and you wheeled your wheelchair down
the street to the courthouse, the doors were locked. You had no
recourse under law for that violation of your civil rights because it
was not a civil right. So in 1990 we passed the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and now the courthouse door is open. If you are
discriminated against because of your disability, you can go down to
the courthouse. You have the law on your side.
I stand here today, 23 years later, saying that we have covered civil
rights laws in this country for almost everyone--except for those for
whom gender identity or sexual orientation is part of who they are.
That is true.
As I pointed out, we have reams of records here: people fired because
they were gay or lesbian--not because they could not do the job, not
because they were not doing their job, they were fired just because of
who they were. Guess what. That gay person walked down to that
courthouse door. It was locked. It was locked, just as it was for
people with disabilities before 1990, just as it was for African
Americans before 1964, and for women.
I mean these young people working here, these young women, they do
not realize in the lifetime of their parents, at least their
grandparents anyway, you could fire someone because she was a woman or
not hire someone because she was a woman. Guess what. The courthouse
door was locked. You had no recourse.
Some States passed civil rights laws. So we had some States pass
civil rights laws. As I said, we have 17 States in America that do have
laws on the books that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity. But how about the rest of the States?
As I said, over 56 percent of American workers live in States in which
there is no protection.
So in the long march of the American experiment, from the time of our
founding and the Bill of Rights, from our Declaration of Independence
which said ``all people are created equal,'' step-by-step, step-by-
step, sometimes long, painfully--sometimes too long and too painfully--
we have expanded this covenant to bring more people into the American
family to recognize that people should not be judged on the basis of
some externalities such as the color of their skin or their sex or
their religion or national origin or disability or whether they are
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
Everyone should have these civil rights, to be covered by civil
rights so they will be judged on their contribution to society, by what
they do, not by who they are. That is why this vote is so important.
That is why this is a historic step again for the Senate.
You could look back and, yes, there were people who opposed the civil
rights bill in 1964. We had people here that opposed the Americans with
Disabilities Act. But look back and see what they did for America. We
are a stronger and a better country because of those laws that were
passed, much better for everyone--for everyone, for our families, for
the elderly, for everyone.
I hope that those who may be thinking: Gee, I do not want to support
this; I am not a big fan of gay people or I may have some religious
problems on that, we have religious exceptions in here. That is not the
issue. The issue is whether that should be an allowable reason to be
discriminated against in employment. As I said, we have said before
that is not a legitimate reason for race, sex, national origin or
disability; why should it be a reason based upon your sexual
orientation or gender identity? I hope my fellow Senators will think
about what they would have done had they been here to vote on the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. What if they had been here just 23 years ago to
vote on the Americans with Disabilities Act?
This Employment Non-Discrimination Act takes its place alongside all
of those. That is why it is such a historically important vote. The
bill's sponsors, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Mark Kirk, Senator Tammy
Baldwin, Senator Susan Collins, have worked
[[Page S7860]]
long and hard. They have worked closely with us in the committee over
the last few days to continue to build support for this bill, to work
through proposals to change and improve the bill.
We are finishing the debate tomorrow. We will have the final vote on
this bill. Passing it with a resounding majority will send a clear
message to the American people and to the House of Representatives that
we have waited long enough. Think about this. This bill failed by only
one vote in 1996--one vote. So here we are 27 years later. It is time
to pass this. It is time now to end workplace discrimination against
any member of our American family based on sexual orientation or gender
identity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Health Care Reform
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I mentioned yesterday in my remarks on the
floor that the Obama administration has had 3\1/2\ years to prepare for
the rollout of the President's signature health care law. It has had
3\1/2\ years to get the Web site right and ready for its big debut. It
has had 3\1/2\ years to take all of the necessary safeguards to protect
privacy and the integrity of the Internet, particularly the Web site,
and make sure it is not ripe for identity theft and other cyber
attacks.
It has had 3\1/2\ years to get together a proper vetting system for
the so-called navigators. But despite all of that, despite all of that
time, it is quite apparent that ObamaCare is not yet ready for prime
time yet. In fact, it has been a slow-moving train wreck. The President
is in Dallas today meeting with a number of the so-called navigators to
thank them for their work.
I was able to ask Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, about the navigators this morning. She admitted there is no
background check done on the navigators, even though they will collect
some of the most sensitive personal information one can have, including
things such as your Social Security number, that can be then used to
hack into your accounts; your health information, whether it is mental
or physical, which is among the most sensitive personal information
each of us has.
She admitted that since they do not do any background check, she
could not guarantee that a convicted felon could not be a navigator.
She said that was possible. I think that is something that grabbed a
lot of people's attention because they just naturally assumed that sort
of thing has been taken care of in the 3\1/2\ years leading up to the
rollout of ObamaCare.
We know the more people find out about this law--I liken it to an
onion. With each layer of the onion you peel back, it just keeps
getting worse and worse and worse. The law is proving to be even more
unworkable and even more disruptive than its biggest critics could have
even imagined.
But I wanted to focus my remaining moments on the floor on two
issues: privacy and security. The ObamaCare Web site went live on
October 1. But according to CBS News, a deadline for final security
plans was delayed three times this summer. A final top-to-bottom
security check was never finished before the launch. That is pretty
astonishing, something as big, as widely anticipated, and as long
planned for as the rollout of ObamaCare and its Web site, a security
check was not even completed before it was rolled out on October 1.
Just think what it means. It means the administration was encouraging
Americans to enter sensitive personal information onto the ObamaCare
Web site, even though it knew the Web site was not secure. Of course,
we know the Web site is not functioning properly now. White House
officials continue to refuse to even give Congress the number of people
who successfully navigated the ObamaCare Web site and signed up under
the exchanges.
You know what that must mean. That must mean the number is
embarrassingly small. But they are also scrambling to do damage
control. The President is urging people to contact their local
ObamaCare navigators to sign up for health insurance and suggesting:
Maybe you ought to do it by paper or by telephone.
We found out that the same queue or foulup that makes it impossible
to sign up over the Internet is present with paper applications or
telephone applications as well. As I said, the President met with some
of the ObamaCare navigators in Dallas, TX, today. I trust that the
overwhelming number of these navigators are people who can be trusted
with some of the most sensitive personal information we Americans have.
But the problem is, we do not know for sure because they have not
been vetted. There is not even a criminal background check required.
Remember, the navigators are going to be collecting some of the most
sensitive personal information you have, including your Social Security
number, your protected health information such as your past, present or
future physical or mental health.
We passed a law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act, known as HIPAA, to protect this information because we recognized
how sensitive it can be. Of course, the navigators are also collecting
information about your physical or e-mail address, tax information,
because, of course, the Internal Revenue Service is going to be
instrumental in the implementation of ObamaCare.
There is no Federal requirement for background checks for individuals
serving as navigators. This has to be a glaring oversight, something I
would hope even the most ardent advocates for ObamaCare would
acknowledge is a big mistake and needs to be fixed. But in the absence
of thorough background checks and reliable oversight mechanisms, the
navigator program could easily become a magnet for fraud and abuse.
We know what a big problem identity theft is already and how much
havoc it can present for people's personal financial affairs and
information. We also know how vulnerable things such as Web sites can
be to cyber attacks, where people can collect information unbeknownst
to the consumer. We have already heard some anecdotal reports about
ObamaCare navigators, including a woman who had an outstanding arrest
warrant at the time she was hired, along with former members of an
organization known as ACORN that has had its own share of problems with
corruption and lawbreaking.
As I said a moment ago, those people will be allowed to collect some
of the most sensitive personal information that we have as Americans.
Thinking of sensitive information, the most important provisions of
ObamaCare, including the individual mandates, the employer mandates and
the premium subsidies, will be administered by, you guessed it, the
Internal Revenue Service, words that strike fear and trepidation in the
hearts of many Americans, especially given the scandals the Internal
Revenue Service has been embroiled in and the bipartisan investigations
that are ongoing into the cause and solution to these scandals.
I know I speak for many of my constituents back home in Texas and
perhaps many other Americans when I say that the last thing we ought to
be doing is giving the IRS additional responsibilities until we have
gotten to the bottom of the current scandals we are investigating on a
bipartisan basis. We do not need to be giving them vast new powers to
intrude into the lives of families and small businesses. As a matter of
fact, I have introduced legislation that would prevent the IRS from
performing this act. The last thing we want to do when they are having
problems, when they are already having problems doing what they should
be doing, is to give them more to do without solving the underlying
problem.
Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle have blocked that
legislation that would ban the IRS from its current role in
administering ObamaCare. I would like to remind them that even if we
ignore the agency's harassment of conservative organizations and
ordinary American citizens engaging in their constitutional right to
participate in the political process, we know the IRS has already shown
contempt for the law by announcing it will issue ObamaCare's premium
subsidies through the Federal exchanges, even though the law makes
clear that premium subsidies are not available in the Federal exchange
but only through the State exchange.
That is only a minor technical detail to the IRS. They are going to
paper that over even though Congress provided to the contrary.
At some point the President needs to concede that the costs of
ObamaCare
[[Page S7861]]
far outweigh its benefits. We can do better. The choice is not between
ObamaCare and nothing; the choice is between ObamaCare and consumer-
oriented alternatives that will increase competition, lower health care
costs, and enable more people to be covered, together with reforms to
Medicaid and perhaps even Medicare to make sure people have true access
to health care coverage and not only a hollow promise.
At some point even the most ardent advocates for ObamaCare have to
concede that it is broken beyond repair. I have to say that time is not
on ObamaCare's side because each day brings a new revelation of more
and more problems. Even some of our colleagues who voted in a party-
line vote for ObamaCare and who voted in a party-line vote against any
opportunity to reform ObamaCare are now saying--such as Senator Max
Baucus, one of the chief architects--hey, maybe we need to delay the
penalties. Senator Mary Landrieu has or will introduce a bill saying we
ought to enforce in law the President's promise that if you like what
you have, you can keep it, which we now know is not true. Indeed, HHS
and the administration knew in 2010 that tens of millions of Americans
who liked what they had would not be able to keep their health care
plan because of restrictive grandfathering provisions.
When the moment comes that Democrats and Republicans have come
together to try to solve this problem--not by shoring up this fatally
flawed structure known as ObamaCare which will never work--when they
are ready to work with us across the aisle to enact alternative health
care reform that reduces costs, expands coverage, and improves equal
access to care--I look forward to that debate and that opportunity. I
only hope that day arrives sooner rather than later, before ObamaCare
wreaks more havoc and causes more uncertainty and hardship on the
American consumer.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA.
For my State it has been quite a year for equality. Last November we
were the first State in the country to defeat a constitutional
amendment banning marriage equality. Up to that point those amendments
had passed. Then, just a few months later, earlier this year, Minnesota
became the 12th State to allow full marriage equality--the 12th State
in the country.
I am proud to represent our State. It has been a true civil rights
pioneer. We can go back to the days of Hubert Humphrey, who once stood
on this floor, and to his speech to the 1948 Democratic convention
where he talked about standing for the people of this country, standing
for people with disabilities, standing for the most vulnerable. That is
the history of our State.
Before striking down the amendment banning marriage equality,
Minnesota was one of the very first States to ban discrimination based
on both sexual orientation and gender identity. That happened back in
1993. I would say that 20 years later it is time for the rest of the
country to catch up.
That is not to say the country hasn't made great strides towards
fairness and equality. I am proud of our progress. Through the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act we have made it
a Federal crime to assault someone because of their sexual orientation
or gender identity. It wasn't that long ago we were debating the
Matthew Shepard bill on this floor. The Presiding Officer had not yet
arrived here in the Senate, but I remember we had that debate several
times through many years. We came close so many times and finally were
able to pass it. That bill was about hate crimes and assault. The fact
that we have now reached this level where we are talking about the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act is truly a tribute to change in this
country--the people of this country pushing for change.
Since the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, our gay and lesbian
servicemembers who serve this Nation with honor and distinction can
serve openly. That is something else that happened in this Chamber,
something else someone predicted would never happen. Just this year,
the Supreme Court took a major step towards marriage equality by
striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act.
But there is more to be done in our Nation's pursuit of equality. The
rest of DOMA needs to be eliminated, and that is why I am a cosponsor
of S. 1236, the Respect for Marriage Act. Federal benefits need to be
guaranteed for domestic partners of Federal employees in States that
haven't yet adopted marriage equality, as my State of Minnesota has,
and that is why I am a cosponsor of S. 1529, the Domestic Partnership
Benefits and Obligations Act of 2013.
As we discuss policies affecting LGBT Americans, we also need better
data. We need to better understand the disparities people experience
because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. That is why I
am working to strengthen our data collection in these areas. And, of
course, we need to pass ENDA--the topic before us today.
The bill before the Senate would be a major step forward for
equality. I urge my colleagues to support the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act because protections against discrimination in the
workplace need to be extended to all Americans, no matter their gender
identity or sexual orientation.
Americans have many different views on sexual orientation and gender
identity, but I think we can all agree every person deserves to be
treated with dignity in the workplace. In 29 States across the country
it is still legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. In
29 States it is still legal to fire someone because they are gay, and
currently there is no Federal law prohibiting this from happening. That
is why we need ENDA and why I am a proud cosponsor of this bill.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will provide basic and
necessary protections against workplace discrimination--protections
just like the ones we have had in place in Minnesota since 1993. ENDA
will allow all Americans to earn a living without fear that who they
are or whom they love will cost them their job.
The law is not intended to give anyone any special treatment. It
simply extends Federal employment discrimination protections such as
the ones currently provided based on race or religion, and applies
those now to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The American people are coming together behind this measure. More
than two-thirds of people in this country, Democrats and Republicans
alike, support a Federal law protecting LGBT individuals from
discrimination in the workplace. The bill has the support of over 200
civil rights, religious, labor, and women's organizations. It upholds
and protects religious liberty by exempting houses of worship and
religiously affiliated organizations.
Companies and businesses big and small know that discrimination in
the workplace hurts their bottom line. That is why, as the Senate chair
of the Joint Economic Committee, I released a fact sheet on the
economic consequences of workplace discrimination. It is easy to see
why businesses are on the side of equality. A majority of the top 50
Fortune 500 companies say prodiversity policies increase profitability.
We have certainly seen that in Minnesota, where General Mills, a
major company, came out this last year as a company--and their CEO--
against the constitutional amendment that would have banned marriage
equality. The CEO of St. Jude's--St. Jude, the company--did the same.
The Carlson company--Radisson Hotels--did the same. You could go
through a list of a number of large businesses in our States that say
no to discrimination and yes to equality.
Why did they do that? I think many of them felt it was the morally
right thing to do. But the other reason they did it is because it was
good for business. One poll found that 63 percent of small businesses
support greater legal
[[Page S7862]]
protections for LGBT workers. Workplace discrimination, as we know,
diminishes workforce morale, lowers productivity, and increases costs
due to employee turnover.
In our State we want to attract the best workers. If you cut off a
whole bunch of workers and tell them this isn't really a good place to
be because we won't let you get married or we are going to discriminate
against you, it ends up hurting that State.
The same is true as we look at the global economy. It is true of the
world. We want to be a country that welcomes people of all races to our
country. We want to be a country that welcomes people of all religions.
We want to be a country that welcomes people of different sexual
orientations. That cannot be a barrier to entry in our country.
That is another reason, as we look at why this bill is so important--
why it is important to business, why it is important to our economy--
that we need to get this bill passed. When you treat people fairly and
you focus on keeping and getting the best people, it is good for the
bottom line.
The diverse coalition coming together in support of this bill reminds
me of the people who came together in our State to defeat that divisive
marriage amendment and to enact marriage equality. By bringing together
civil rights organizations, religious groups, businesses, and Americans
from across the Nation--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--we
sent a clear message: Support fairness, support equality.
I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this important
legislation, just as 61 of us did on the vote on Monday evening.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to follow my friend and
colleague from Minnesota in explaining why I too support the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, known as ENDA.
As she has very well articulated, the notion that somehow or other
discrimination of any kind against anybody should be allowed in our
workplaces is something I hope we would be able to, on a bipartisan
basis, come together on from all corners of the country and recognize
this is not an acceptable direction, this is not a place or a process
we should endorse.
As we all know, current law protects against discrimination in the
workplace for many classes of individuals. Many of us have been
involved in working to refine these laws that protect against
discrimination--discrimination that affects employment practice not on
the basis of the merit of one's work or qualifications, but solely on
the basis of factors unrelated to an individual's work experience, such
as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, disability, and sex
or gender. We have made sure to put in place these protections against
discrimination in the workplace for these classes, these categories of
individuals. But we now need to do the same for those in the LGBT
community, for whom discrimination on the basis of sex does not apply.
ENDA bridges that gap, and it is time that gap was closed. In fact,
that separation that has been in place is eliminated here.
Discrimination should never be tolerated in any workplace. It just
should not be tolerated in any workplace or, really, anywhere for that
matter. It is just pretty simple--no discrimination. I am a strong
believer that individuals should be judged on the merit of their work
and not how they look or how they are perceived to be.
Folks sometimes look at Alaska through a different lens. They think
you are out of sight, out of mind up north. We have a small population
with just a little over 700,000 people, but our communities across the
State host a very significant LGBT community. In the three largest
cities--Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau--by some estimates we are told
we rank in the top half of cities around the country with 50 or more
same-sex couples. So in the population centers in Alaska, we have what
I would describe for a State with a small population a very significant
and important part of our community, because the contributions that
come to our community because of those within the LGBT community make
us, quite honestly, a better place--a better place to live and work and
raise a family. And I believe that strongly.
We have a diverse population. A lot of people don't recognize or
think about our ethnic diversity up north. We actually have the most
ethnically diverse neighborhood in the United States of America in my
hometown of Anchorage, in the neighborhood of Mountain View. In the
elementary school where my kids spent their early years, there were
over 50 home languages of the students in that neighborhood school. It
is a pretty diverse community. It is a very rich community because of
our diversity. Part of that diversity comes to us through the LGBT
community. And they are white, black, Hispanic, Native, urban, and
rural; they are the active military and our veterans' population; they
are young and they are old. They are very involved and very engaged in
our workforce.
Several weeks ago, the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce hosted their
president in Anchorage for their weekly chamber presentation. For our
community's chamber, it was an interesting enough speaker that the
local newspaper actually did an advanced story about it. There were
some who were a little anxious and concerned that perhaps this would
bring out some aspects of the community who would say: We don't want to
see discrimination end in our workplace; we don't want to be welcoming
of our LGBT community. As it turned out, it was exactly the opposite.
The reception at the chamber meeting was one of inclusion and one of a
desire to truly embrace the economic opportunities that come with a
community which embraces all people, all genders, and truly all
Americans.
When we were approaching the markup of ENDA in the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee, there was considerable outflow of
support and communications from constituents all over the State. They
shared their stories of employment discrimination for a host of
different reasons. They told that they were discriminated against
because they were too gay, they were discriminated against because they
were too feminine or too masculine for their place of employment, and
in terms of the outcry from constituents in saying: Please finally
address this, please ensure that in our workplaces there is no
discrimination; there is not only a friendly workplace, but a workplace
where we are free from any form of retaliation.
Like any proposed legislation that affects employers and employees
alike, I believe we have to find appropriate balance. We have to strike
that between protecting employees against discrimination in the
workplace and making sure that employers are not unduly burdened with
compliance costs. I think we recognize that. We have to find this
appropriate balance among legal remedies and redress.
I am pleased the Senate has adopted Senator Portman's amendment
today, which I have supported, which protects religious employers from
retaliation by the government when they adhere to their religious
convictions and then also clarifies the importance of protecting
religious freedom as part of ENDA. I think that is an improvement to
the bill, and I am pleased we have been able to advance that.
I wish to recognize Senator Merkley for his leadership on this
issue--I think from the very time he came here to the Senate, he has
approached me in discussion about advancing the ENDA legislation,
ensuring that from the perspective of our workplaces there is full
equality, there is no discrimination within the workplace--and Senator
Kirk, for his leadership in this initiative as well.
I am also pleased we are going to have an opportunity tomorrow to
hopefully advance this bill fully and finally through the floor of the
Senate. It is well past time that we, as elected representatives,
ensure that our laws protect against discrimination in the workplace
for all individuals, and we ensure those same protections for those
within the LGBT community. I look forward to the vote tomorrow, and
[[Page S7863]]
hope there is strong support for ensuring a level of fairness
throughout our workplaces in this Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from Alaska
for her powerful endorsement of this bill. She is a member of the HELP
Committee. Along with Senators Mark Kirk and Orrin Hatch, she led the
Republican support for this bill when it was being considered by the
HELP Committee.
I believe the Senator from Alaska did an extraordinary job of
outlining why this bill should pass and why it must pass. It is a
matter of fairness, and it is a matter of demonstrating that there is
simply no place in the workplace for discrimination.
It is significant that most of our large businesses and many of our
smaller ones have voluntarily adopted antidiscrimination policies. They
have done so because they want to attract and retain the best and
brightest employees they can find. They know that sexual orientation
and gender identity are irrelevant to an individual's ability to do a
good job. What counts are qualifications, skills, hard work, and job
performance. The legislation--which I am very hopeful we will pass
tomorrow--will help ensure that is the focus in workplaces throughout
America.
As the Senator from Alaska has pointed out, however, we were also
very careful to respect religious freedom and liberty in this bill. I
agree with her assessment that the amendment offered by Senator Portman
and his colleagues helps strengthen that part of the bill by
prohibiting any retaliation against religious organizations or
employers who legitimately qualify for an exemption under ENDA. We want
to make sure those employers receive and are able to compete for
Federal grants and contracts just as those employers and businesses
which are not exempt under this bill can compete for Federal contracts
and grants. So I believe the Portman language does strengthen the bill.
I hope we are on the verge of making history tomorrow by passing this
bill with a strong vote. I then hope our colleagues on the House side
will follow suit, and that we can see this bill signed into law.
But my purpose in rising once again today is to thank the Senator
from Alaska for her strong support, and for making a very powerful
argument and for sharing the experiences in her State. I am sure her
words help reinforce the support for this highly significant
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I also thank the Senators who are
gathered here today for their stalwart support. Senator Merkley, whom
Senator Murkowski mentioned, from the day he got to the Senate and
actually before when he was in Oregon, has been working on this issue;
and also Senator Collins for working with Senator Kirk and the
leadership and the courage she has shown on nearly every issue that has
come before this Chamber; and then Senator Murkowski. I love that she
can talk about Alaska's sense of independence and their belief that you
treat people well and you don't discriminate against them, and the
picture of her in her neighborhood with all the diversity. I think a
lot of people in other States don't expect that of Alaska but anyone
who has visited there sees it firsthand.
Senator Portman's amendment is a good amendment. The Presiding
Officer is the other senator from Ohio. I was going through my Twitter
feed while watching the election coverage last night and came across a
tweet from Senator Portman's son Will, who is in college. The tweet
talked about his dad's vote on ENDA, and it said: Way to go, Dad. So I
urge my colleagues or anyone who wants to get a tweet from their own
kids or nieces, nephews, or grandkids--who seem to understand a little
more quickly than some of our Members here how important it is to treat
people fairly--that they too, if they vote with us, can get a tweet
from some young person which says: Way to go, Senator.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. I want to take the opportunity to say a word or two
while our colleagues from Alaska and Maine are here. These two
colleagues, representing the far northwest and far northeast of the
United States, have brought so much wisdom and so much determination to
this topic of treating all citizens with respect, providing all
citizens with a full measure of liberty to be deeply engaged in every
aspect of American life. That certainly includes the workplace, and
that topic, discrimination in the workplace, is before us today.
Senator Collins was the chief Republican sponsor for the first 2
years I was in the Senate. She passed on the baton to Senator Kirk but
did not stop championing this bill, and late last night was working and
has been holding meetings for the many days and weeks that have led up
to this moment--and over the years that have led us to this moment. I
say thank you very much to the senior Senator from Maine for her
engagement and advocacy of fairness for all Americans.
My colleague from Alaska, it was a pleasure to exchange voice mails
as we prepared for the Monday night, knowing that she would not be able
to be here for that vote but was sending good wishes. We were uncertain
whether we would have 60 votes that night or whether we would have the
floor open until midnight or whether we would be voting the next day in
order to have her support be the support that put us over the top. But
long before that vote occurred she too was talking to her colleagues,
noting that freedom for American citizens means freedom to pursue your
mission in life, your meaning in life through your work. Discrimination
in the workplace diminishes the individual and diminishes the full
potential of our Nation as well.
We are now all hoping that we will be able to have final votes on
amendments and votes to close debate and to have a final vote sometime
tomorrow. That work is not yet done. The path before us may still have
unexpected challenges to be overcome. But as we overcome them and
approach that final vote, it will be in large measure because of the
terrific work of these two colleagues.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Delaware is
recognized.
Tribute to Charles A. ``Chazz'' Salkin
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, my wife ran into one of our old colleagues
the other day, a guy named Ted Kaufman. He was the interim Senator who
succeeded Joe Biden and held down that slot for 2 years until Senator
Chris Coons was elected on his own, not that long ago. One of the
things I loved about Ted was, every month he would come to the floor
and he would talk about a different Federal employee. Sometimes I heard
our colleagues or would hear other people talk about Federal employees
or State or local employees as nameless, faceless bureaucrats in a
derisive way, uncomplimentary and, I expect, dispiriting.
The folks who serve in the Federal Government or State and local
government do so usually not because it pays a lot of money or because
they get huge bouquets and a lot of credit but because they want to do
something constructive with their lives.
Ted used to do that every month when he would come to the floor. This
is like a shout-out to him because I heard about a fellow in Delaware
who decided to step down after a great career of public service and I
want to take a few minutes, if I could, to talk about him. The person I
have in mind today is the fellow who is stepping down as the director
of our Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation. His name is Charles
A. Salkin. We call him Chazz. He was appointed the director of the
division a couple of months before I became Governor. He was appointed
on June 1, 1992. He continued to serve
[[Page S7864]]
with distinction in that capacity, leading the Division of Parks and
Recreation for the 8 years I served as Governor, and then he went on to
serve for two more Governors after me. He served Republican Governor
Mike Castle before me, and a Democratic administration, for a total of
four Governors.
That doesn't happen everyday in every State. When you get those kinds
of opportunities it must mean you are pretty good. In his case he was
very good.
He is now retiring from the post after more than 35 years of service
to the people of our State. For over three decades he has been a
tremendous leader and real advocate for the educational, for the
mental, for the physical benefits of State parks.
He is also a devoted husband to his wife of 40 years, a woman named
Sue, who is very accomplished in her own right. She recently retired as
deputy director of the Delaware Division of the Arts. They have a
daughter Emily, who I believe is now grown.
It is kind of interesting to see where they pull up their anchors and
sail off into the sunrise. But, Chazz and Sue, we thank them for the
great service to the people of our State and wish them and Emily well.
Their hard work and creativity and dedication will be missed a whole
lot. We will remember for many years the tremendous contributions they
have made.
Since 1978, Chazz has played an active role in the expansion of
Delaware's open space areas and in the development of programs that
introduce Delawareans and visitors of all ages to the historical and
recreational benefits of our State parks. As he steps down from the
position as director of the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation,
we give him our sincere thanks and thank his staff too for their
diligent and longstanding efforts to maintain Delaware's reputation as
having one of the most dynamic and innovative park systems in the
Nation.
Throughout his career, Chazz has been a visionary whose creativity
and forward thinking has changed the very nature our State park system.
From the institution of zip lines to kayak rentals, Chazz has done a
tremendous job of inspiring the love of nature in just about all
Delawareans. He has played an important role in securing Delaware's
footprint in the national park system with the recent naming of the
First State national monument.
Delaware was the first State to ratify the Constitution. William Penn
came to America through Delaware. One of the oldest houses in all of
North America is in Lewes, DE, apparently a Dutch settlement some 275
years ago. We were the first State to ratify the Constitution. We have
done a lot of ``firsts'' for a little State.
We do not have a national park. We have been working on it for a
number of years with Chazz, and now Chris Coons and John Carney have
taken up the mantle.
We have a First State national monument. We are thankful for that.
Thank you, Vice President Biden.
We have been knocking on the door for a national park. Chazz and his
people have been great laborers with us in that effort.
Chazz's research, his professional leadership, and personal
membership in all kinds of organizations such as the National
Association of State Park Directors and the National Association of
State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers, have also supported
Delaware's natural resources and emphasized our State parks' value to
Delaware's financial success.
In places such as Oregon, Senator Merkley, the Presiding Officer from
Ohio, Senator Collins, who is still on the floor--their States have
wonderful national parks. As it turns out, the top destination, tourist
destination for people who come to the United States from other
countries is our national parks. We don't have one in Delaware. We want
one. In the meantime our State parks have sort of filled the gap. We
have some State parks of which we are real proud. One of the guys who
worked very hard to make them something we can be proud of is Chazz
Salkin.
He has undoubtedly left a legacy of achievement, persistence, and
passion with the members of the Parks and Recreation team that included
hundreds of people over the past 35 years. We in the State of Delaware
are truly grateful for everything Chazz has done to protect our State's
beauty and history.
On behalf of Senator Chris Coons, our colleague here in the Senate,
on behalf of John Carney, our lone Congressman over in the House, we
wholeheartedly thank Chazz for 35 years of service to the State of
Delaware. His model leadership and dedication have improved the quality
of life for visitors and residents who come to our State from all over
the world. We offer our sincere congratulations on a job well done and
wish him and Sue and their family many happy and successful years to
come.
We struggle at the Federal Government to pay for things. We struggle
at the State level to have the revenues to pay for the kinds of
services our citizens want. One of the things I especially admired in
the work done by Chazz Salkin is a growing reliance, over time, on
inviting people--could be young people, could be older people, could be
retired, maybe not, could be students, could be senior citizens, but
people who would like to volunteer some of their time to help in our
national parks. It will be interesting to be able to look at the number
of volunteer hours that have been amassed over the years in service to
our national parks and compare that on a per-capita-basis to the rest
of the country. I think we stack up pretty well.
One of the things we have done in our State, in no small part because
of Chazz's leadership, is to invite volunteers to come in to help out,
to make our parks better than they ever were before and to benefit from
that by feeling they helped us to accomplish something really good for
now and for a long time in the future.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. CARPER. I will be happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from
Delaware. He and I have been together for 31 years and I appreciate
him. I wanted to make sure Senator Collins was on the floor.
Mr. President, I withdraw my motion to proceed to Calendar No. 236,
H.R. 3204.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
____________________