[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16734-16753]
[From the U.S. 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 16735]]

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

[[Page 16736]]

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.
  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

[[Page 16737]]

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 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 . . .

[[Page 16738]]

     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 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:


[[Page 16739]]

       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 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

[[Page 16740]]

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 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.

[[Page 16741]]

  I wish I could say that since I was sworn in as a Senator with the 
Presiding Officer on January 3 the world has become a lot safer and 
more peaceful and less complicated. But to the contrary. In the 10 
months we have been here, sadly, we have seen more instances of danger, 
more things to be concerned about, more problems we have to deal with. 
We are not in a static situation. We are shrinking our budget at the 
same time as the degree of challenges we have around the world is 
growing more dangerous.
  Just this year, the sequestration cuts that went into effect in March 
have grounded one-third of our U.S. combat aircraft. Think about our 
Air Force and how important it is in today's defense and planning for 
warfare. One-third of our combat aircraft are grounded because of 
sequestration, hampering our ability to respond to global crises and 
maintain strategic advantages. If sequester goes forward, that one-
third will grow. The Air Force will be forced to cut additionally, by 
as much as 15 percent. That would suggest that nearly 50 percent of 
America's combat aircraft will be grounded in 2014 due to the 
sequester. We have to ask ourselves: How can we not have an Air Force 
ready to respond to crises at a moment's notice?
  Moving to the Navy. Our naval capabilities have also been 
significantly curtailed, reducing our normal levels of three carrier 
groups and three amphibious groups ready to respond to crisis within 1 
week to only one of each. So, again, a two-thirds reduction in the 
availability of carrier forces or amphibious vehicle forces that can 
meet that 1-week response time in the event of an emergency.
  Again, we have got to have a Navy that is ready to respond when there 
are crises.
  Then moving to the Army. This year, because of the first year of the 
sequester--and it gets worse--the Army cancelled all--all--combat 
training center rotations for any nondeploying unit. So if a unit is 
being deployed, they are being trained, but then other units that do 
not have a regular assigned deployment stay trained as well to meet an 
emergency need. If we know we are going to be deploying a unit to 
Afghanistan to replace another unit that is coming back, then we will 
train that unit. But you do some training for the units you are not 
planning to deploy, just so they are ready if the need exists. But we 
have cancelled all of the training for nondeploying units. General 
Odierno has said that 85 percent of America's brigade combat teams 
cannot meet the current training requirements that are set in our 
defense strategy.
  We have asked what that means. When folks come before us, we ask what 
does it mean, you are not getting the training? Does it mean you will 
not go if there is a compelling security need or national emergency?
  They say: No, of course we will go. If the Commander in Chief or 
Congress were to say we have to go, we will go. But what training means 
is we will go, but we will suffer more casualties. What training does 
is give us the edge to succeed. The absence of training means--it is 
almost immoral to think about it--that we have a training standard, but 
if you put people in harm's way who have not been able to meet that 
training standard, you almost guarantee that the casualties will be 
more significant. That is not something any of us can comfortably look 
in the mirror and tolerate.
  So it is not hard to see that what was promised about sequester is, 
in fact, true. Sequestration is not strategic. It was never designed to 
be strategic. It was not designed to be the careful cutting of costs 
that you might do, that you should do, that every organization should 
do. It is not only not strategic, it is not sustainable in the 
outyears.
  The House Armed Services Committee--Republican House, Republican 
majority--many Republicans have admitted ``that sequestration of 
discretionary accounts was never intended to be policy.'' Our 
colleagues in the House, in a bipartisan way, have called for a lifting 
of sequestration, in terms of its effects on defense.
  Our Armed Services Committee in the Senate, the SASC, also in the 
NDAA that we are about to debate on the Senate floor, reached the same 
conclusion. We were sitting in a markup of the NDAA bill. I noticed at 
the time as a SASC member there was nothing in the bill about 
sequestration. All of our hearings, virtually, had touched on 
sequestration. So I put an amendment on the table, kind of on the fly: 
Let's just say sequestration is bad and we should get rid of it. We 
debated it right there as we were marking up the bill. I recall that 
the vote on the amendment was 23 to 3.
  Overwhelmingly in a voice vote, the Armed Services Committee, 
Democrats and Republicans, were willing to embrace the proposition that 
sequestration was bad. Actually the language was, not only is it bad 
for the DOD accounts, it is also bad for the other accounts as well.
  That is why I am calling, in connection with our meeting as budget 
conferees, for a sensible bipartisan approach to limit the negative 
impacts of sequestration.
  General Dempsey was talking to a group of Senators yesterday on the 
readiness subcommittee. He said: What we need to deal with in 
sequestration is money, time, and flexibility. The cuts are too steep; 
they are too frontloaded in terms of the timing; and there is too 
little flexibility for our military command to be able to use the 
dollars to do the right thing to keep us safe.
  We have to find a way to get out of the sequestration dead end and 
restore some of the cuts and provide both the timing and flexibility to 
make the management of them easier. If we reverse sequestration in this 
budget conference, that will create, by economists' estimates, 900,000 
jobs at a time when our economy needs to get stronger and our 
unemployment rates to be dropped. It will add a whole percentage point 
to our gross domestic product, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  So now as the budget conference committee is meeting--our next 
meeting is next week--I felt our opening meeting was a positive one. It 
was mostly positive because as we went around the table, House Members 
and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, there was an absence of what I 
would call the ``nonnegotiable'' language. I listened carefully. Being 
new, I do not necessarily know all of the details. But I know when I 
hear lines in the sand being drawn: We will not do this; we will not do 
that. When you hear that, you know the negotiations are going to be 
very difficult.
  I applaud the 29 conferees for having that opening meeting and not 
putting a lot of ``not negotiable'' language out on the table. When we 
meet next week, I hope that attitude continues because we need 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle, in both the House and Senate, 
to work toward a positive solution in this conference that will do a 
number of things: Help us grow the economy; help us deal with the debt 
in a responsible way, not an irresponsible way, but lift the effects of 
sequestration so that we can be confident we will be safe as a nation.
  I pointed out during the budget conference that while the House 
budget under the leadership of Chairman Ryan and the Senate budget 
under the leadership of Chairwoman Murray are different in a lot of 
ways, in other ways you can step back from them and say: The 
differences are not so mammoth that they cannot be resolved. They are 
the kinds of differences that legislative bodies around the country, 
State legislators often resolve. The top line difference between the 
House and Senate budgets for the 2014 year is about 2.5 percent of the 
Federal budget. You could argue that both of the top line numbers had a 
little bit of wiggle room in them in negotiation. So the actual 
difference, I would argue, between the two budgets, top line for 2014, 
is probably about 1.5 percent.
  Given the challenges in the world, given the challenges in our 
economy, given the American public's desire to see us work together to 
find a compromise, and the upside we can achieve, if we do, I cannot 
believe that 1.5-percent difference in the top line is an insuperable 
obstacle for us. We have hard decisions to make. We need to

[[Page 16742]]

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 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

[[Page 16743]]

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 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

[[Page 16744]]

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 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

[[Page 16745]]

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 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

[[Page 16746]]

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, 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, Reconciling 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.

[[Page 16747]]

       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 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

[[Page 16748]]

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 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.

[[Page 16749]]

  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 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

[[Page 16750]]

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 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,

[[Page 16751]]

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 
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

[[Page 16752]]

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 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.

[[Page 16753]]

  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.

                          ____________________